BP Texas City, Texas Refinery - 2005

An agreement earlier this month between OSHA and the executives of BP has ensured that the oil giant will pay for the safety violations that led to the 2005 Texas City explosion and continued thereafter. BP will pay the full fine of $50.6 million, after OSHA adjusted the figure to erase duplicate fines.

The most promising parts of the new deal are the regulatory measures that BP must now live under, which include an investment of $500 million into the safety infrastructure of the facility.

More details of the new safety measures from the OSHA press release:

Under the agreement, BP immediately will begin performing safety reviews of the refinery equipment according to set schedules and make permanent corrections. The agreement also identifies many items in need of immediate attention; the company has agreed to address those concerns quickly and to hire independent experts to monitor its efforts. Additionally, the agreement provides an unprecedented level of oversight of BP’s safety program including regular meetings with OSHA, frequent site inspections and the submission of quarterly reports for the agency’s review.  Finally, in a step toward workplace safety corporate-wide, BP agrees to establish a liaison between its North American and London boards of directors and OSHA, which will allow the agency to raise compliance problems at the highest level.

Workers must never be subject to a timeline like this again:

Timeline of Events Related to the BPTCR Monitoring Inspection (from OSHA)

• March 23, 2005 – Isomerization Unit explosion; 15 workers killed, at least 170 injured.
• June 2005 – Residual Hydrotreater Unit explosion and fire.
• September 22, 2005 – Settlement Agreement with OSHA signed.
• June 2006 – Settlement Agreement’s independent auditor study and recommendations. Included in the study are recommendations to BP-TCR to implement the ISA S84.00.01 Standard for safety-instrumented-systems.
• July 22, 2006 – an employee of a contractor was fatally injured when he was crushed between a scissor lift and a pipe rack at BP-TCR.
• January 2007 - Baker Report issued which identified numerous systemic process safety issues at BP U.S. refineries, including BP-TCR
• March 2007 – CSB BP-TCR investigation report issued
• June 5, 2007 – BP-TCR experienced a fatality when an employee of a contractor was electrocuted while working on a light circuit in a process area.
• June 7, 2007 – OSHA launches its National Emphasis Program on Refineries, CPL 03-00-004 Petroleum Refinery Process Safety Management NEP.
• Jan. 14, 2008 – The top head blew off a pressure vessel resulting in the death of a BP employee. BP was issued four serious citations related to PSM.
• October 9, 2008 – A contract employee was fatally injured at BPTCR when, after being struck by a front end loader, the employee was pinned on the ground between a guard rail and the bucket of the loader.
• December 2008 – 3rd Party PSM Consultant report on audit of relief valve study methodology.
• September 22, 2009 – The deadline for BP to complete abatement outlined in the 2005 Settlement Agreement.
• October 30, 2009 – OSHA issues Notification of Failure to Abate and willful citations with proposed penalties of $87,430,000.
• August 12, 2010 – OSHA reaches agreement with BP for it to pay the entire $50.6 million penalty for Failure to Abate violations 

Submitted by Patrick McQueen.

A moratorium on deep-sea oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico will put 9,000 people out of a job and affect an additional 14,000 jobs, according to federal findings published in July. A six-month ban issued in June was struck down in court, but in July a new ban was put in place by the Obama administration that is currently being debated by the courts.

Meanwhile, energy activists and environmental lobbyists are debating the merits of such a ban, with many arguing that it will have more negative impact on Gulf communities than positive impact on drilling standards. The debate comes in the wake of the $100 million misplaced worker relief fund  set up by the government and BP.

The Obama administration continues to assert that a ban is necessary, while they believe the economic impact already sits lower than initially feared.

“In light of the current risks of deepwater drilling as illustrated by the BP Deepwater Horizon Spill and the potential impacts of another spill, the moratorium is necessary and appropriate. With that said, the worst-case economic impact estimates from three months ago have not been realized. The reality on the ground suggests that the impacts are less than we initially projected as a potential worst-case scenario,” Interior Department spokesman Matt Lee-Ashley said.  from the Boston Globe .

What do you think? Do we need a ban on drilling in the Gulf to ensure new regulations are put in place, or is it more important to restore the health of the Gulf communities? Let us know in the comments.

Submitted by Patrick McQueen.

We’re linking to work done by Steve Joynt of the Press-Register (Mobile, AL) that was brought to our attention by commenter Les Rausch, who correctly reminded us that:

We can never lose sight of the human cost of BP’s and others’ malfeasance. Most important: 11 men lost their lives when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded on April 20.    -  from our earlier blog, ‘Are the Gulf Spill Cleanup Workers Being Adequately Protected?’ comments.

The piece is a compilation of the biographies of the 11 men who lost their lives when the blowout occurred on the Deepwater Horizon. The men ranged from age 22 to 56. Many were fathers. Some were to be married and start families for the first time. They were floor hands, drillers, and engineers. All of them leave a void.

Please, take a minute to view Oil Spill Day 100: The 11 Men Who Died on the Deepwater Horizon (link: http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/oil_spill_day_100_the_11_men_w.html). With these men in our hearts and minds, let’s work to make sure their deaths were not in vain, and disasters like this never take place again in the American workplace.

Submitted by Patrick McQueen

One of the most troubling consequences of BP’s Deepwater Horizon fiasco is the toll it has taken on displaced workers. After the disaster, a moratorium was placed on all deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, meaning those who rely on rig work for their livelihood are now without a source of income.

At the urging of President Obama – though BP claims the move was entirely voluntary – BP has put forward $100 million to support those displaced workers. The fund will be managed by the Baton Rouge Area Foundation (BRAF) and will be accessed by individual workers who may submit an application beginning on Sept. 1. Grants will pay as much as $30,000 to a qualifying worker.

The official word comes from the Gulf Coast Restoration and Protection Foundation, a branch of BRAF:

Deepwater-rig workers laid off as a result of the recent federal moratorium have a right to be concerned. We understand the financial hardship they face from a decision outside their control. To soften the hardship, BP has donated $100 million to Gulf Coast Restoration and Protection Foundation – a support organization for the Baton Rouge Area Foundation, or BRAF.

BP claims they will make this right and foot the bill – let’s make sure they do. If you’re a misplaced worker or know someone who is, make sure the proper preparations are made so all workers get what they deserve. Below is a list of FAQs provided by BRAF. Visit www.rigreliefgrants.org for more info.

Who qualifies? Under the agreement with BP which established the Rig Worker Assistance Fund, the grant program is limited to people who worked on deepwater rigs on May 6. Based on available information, it’s estimated that up to 9,000 people worked on the 33 deepwater rigs on May 6. If there is money available after the first round of grants, the agreement stipulates a second round of grants may be made to direct support workers.

What are the grant amounts? BP has established a range of $3,000 to $30,000 for the grants. Amounts will be based on financial hardship, which will be determined by several factors, including lost wages and expenses.

What are the key dates? The program will open for applications on Sept. 1. The application period will close Sept. 30. We expect to mail all award checks to approved applicants by Oct. 30.

What’s the phone number to the grant application hotline: The application hotline is (866) 577-8141, and information will be available online at RigReliefGrants.org. Until Sept. 1, the line has a recorded message. On Sept. 1, the line will go live to accept applications. We are hopeful the hotline will begin taking information from applicants before Sept. 1. If the line does go active before then, we will post the information at RigReliefGrants.org.

What can potential applicants do until the application process opens? Rig workers affected by the moratorium should begin gathering documents for the application process. At this time, we expect needed documents will include most recent pay stubs listing year-to-date income, verification of employment on one of the 33 deepwater rigs affected by the moratorium, W-2, 1099 and/or income tax returns for most recent calendar year, information related to spousal income, insurance proceeds, unemployment payments, payments from other relief funds and information about average monthly expenses for at least three months prior to May 6.

How will the grant process work: The Foundation is contracting with a third-party administrator to accept and complete grant applications. The administrator will open a call center at the hotline on Sept. 1 to begin accepting applications. We understand many applicants face financial difficulties so we have made every attempt to keep the grant process as simple as possible while offering extra help to those who may need it. Applications can be initiated online, or applicants can receive a package to be filled and returned by mail or by fax.

What happens after the application? The Foundation will review all applications to determine whether there is financial hardship and, if so, the amount of the grant. Beginning Oct. 4, the Foundation will write and mail grant checks weekly, and expects to mail all award checks to approved applicants by Oct. 30.

Submitted by Patrick McQueen

Nearly 1500 workers are involved in the cleanup after an oil pipeline that ruptured beneath Michigan’s Kalamazoo River created the largest oil spill in Midwest history. Canadian energy company Enbridge – a relative unknown compared to giants like BP – operates the pipeline in question. Enbridge hasn’t dominated the news of late, thanks to the maelstrom directed at their British counterparts, but this is far from their first instance of trouble.

From the Detroit Free Press :

• Enbridge’s American subsidiaries have been the target of 31 enforcement actions by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA, the U.S. agency that oversees pipelines.
• This year, PHMSA sent two letters to Enbridge raising safety concerns about the Lakehead System, including one expressing concern about corrosion monitoring along Line 6B — the line that failed along the Kalamazoo River.
• Enbridge pipelines in Canada have ruptured eight times since 1994, according to Canada’s National Energy Board.

Furthermore, the EPA recently disapproved of Enbridge’s long-term cleanup plan, demanding updates and revisions. This comes on top of an evacuation order still in effect for local residents because of the toxic levels of Benzene in the air.

Some scenes from the spill are below. View Enbridge’s initial response plan here (link: http://response.enbridgeus.com/response/).

Submitted by Patrick McQueen

Since Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis took office in 2009, OSHA has issued citations for 17 egregious violations, a number that more than doubles citations issued by the previous administration. The latest citations include BP Products North America, Kleen Energy, and Cooperative Plus and have often been accompanied by record-setting fines. OSHA is proud of its recent increase in citations, saying that they are ever-more vigilant in holding those companies who choose to put their employees in danger accountable. These egregious violations refer to companies who put their employees in harm in a deliberate way, ignoring previous citations and safety standards, and flagrantly continuing to lets hazardous situations persists. The citations are therefore all the more important, targeting companies who have already expressed that they are unwilling to protect their employees without a measure of government-enforced motivation. And so, OSHA continues to hold these companies accountable.

“We will not tolerate this type of blatant and egregious disregard for the health and safety of workers,” said OSHA Assistant Secretary David Michaels. “Employers need to know there will be consequences.”

Do you feel reassured by OSHA’s citations? Is there more they can do? Let us know what you think in the comments below.

Submitted by Andrew Fatato.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the first half of 2010 has seen an average of 187 people, per month, die in industrial accidents in China. It is a distressing trend as many industrial complexes there sit in the middle of large urban centers. As a result, when something goes wrong at the plant, the causalities in the surrounding communities become unnecessarily high.

China has already seen a host of serious industrial disasters this year. In one incident, 1,000 containers of 160,000 kilograms of trimethylchlorosilicane (a dangerous chemical that, when mixed with water produces hydrochloric acid) was washed into the Songhua River. Additionally, this month, in the Fujian province, a mining company inadvertently allowed the collapse of their wastewater basin, killing a significant amount of the fish in the Songhua river.

In another incident, a propylene-gas line in a plastics factory in Nanjing exploded killing at least 12, and injuring hundreds. The blast destroyed several hundred feet around the plant, sending so many to the local hospital that they begin to run out of blood. 

Unfortunately, this trend of industrial accidents is not unexpected. With a Chinese government in thick collusion with the corporations, there is little accountability for safety standards. And, further, most of these complexes have been placed within large, urban areas, making the consequences for accidents far worse. The minute incentive to run a safe plant is further deteriorated by the population‘s desperation for jobs. The people will work in these dangerous environments because they simply need the money.

China is a harsh reminder of what can happen when safety standards are allowed to become lax. What do you think about the way workers are treated in China? What do you think about the standards we’ve set up in the US? How can we insure we don’t slide into more dangerous workplace trends? Let us know in the comments below.

Submitted by Andrew Fatato.

OSHA, through a recent directive, has expanded their National Emphasis Program to include facilities with highly toxic or flammable materials and chemicals. The hope is that with this new expansion, inspections will be able to curb the sorts of devastating accidents these materials can cause when improperly handled. OSHA cites the 1991 explosion at the Agnus Chemical Company/IMC Fertilizer Group plant in Louisiana. 8 workers were killed and 120 were injured at an explosion at the plant, and OSHA fined the company $11.5 million, one of their highest penalties.

The new directive will make sure that companies have process safety management programs in place to prevent these sorts of accidents. OSHA provides resources for the establishment of process safety management programs at a designated site. The site offers a catalogue of regulations governing the control of hazardous materials in the workplace as well as training programs for workers and managers. They also provide very specific instructions on how to recognize and contain hazardous materials as well as important evaluation rubrics for safety standards in the workplace.

Do you think this new directive will affect you or your plant? Do you think your plant may be violating any of these regulations? Do you find it useful that OSHA provides such easy access to their materials? Let us know in the comments below.

Submitted by Andrew Fatato.

Eyes on path.  Those words just make my blood boil. They are the dumbest words to use in any incident investigation. As if just keeping your eye on a hazard makes it go away. If a Hazard is in your pathway, no amount of attention or consciousness about the hazard is going to diminish the danger.

Don’t accept these kinds of words on an incident report. And don’t use the words yourself. It just encourages the company puppets to believe that knowing about a hazard is enough.

A friend of mine recently told me of an incident in the plant where I used to work. The company wanted to move some lockers next to a heavily traveled walkway at the bottom of a set of stairs. The workers in the area said it was not a good idea, not only because of the lack of room, but because the piece of junk they call lockers had doors that would swing open at the slightest bump. If a door doesn’t have a lock on it, it will be hanging open.

Well, sure enough, after a couple of days, a worker came down the stairs, made the hard 180 degree turn and ran right into one of the locker doors. .The company safety manager’s first response was the worker should have had his eyes on his path.

He did have his eyes on the path and he watched that door smack him right in the face. I really don’t know what has become of the report blaming the worker’s eyesight for the stupidity of whoever wanted to move the lockers to a crowded area and walkway. But I hope my brothers and sisters aren’t going to stand for it and will file a grievance to get that report out of the worker’s file. Or at least get the report corrected to show what really happened and why it happened. And get the lockers moved out of the pathway.

Another one that fries me is blaming someone for not following a procedure when there isn’t a procedure to follow. A perfect example is a story Nancy Lessin (TMC Staffer) told me.  A worker was stung by a bee and held partially at fault because he did not follow the proper bee removal procedure. What?!?!? What the hell is a bee removal procedure?

I don’t know about all of you, but where I come from the procedure always went something like this. A bee is spotted on your person, you then jump around wildly, flailing your arms about and screaming “Get it off me, get it off me” until one of three things happens.  One of your friends falls on the ground laughing (certainly not helpful), you bang into something and hurt yourself, or you get stung anyway.  I’m sure all of you have many other procedures for bee removal, all of them probably ending the same way. But as for an official procedure, there isn’t one and there never will be one.

I think the best thing to do is occasionally look around by the eaves of the building and if you see a bee’s nest, get rid of it. Don’t just warn people the bees are nesting. I’m not a real fan of pesticides, but if you’re talking bees, wasps and hornets, bring on the poison.

Again, don’t allow these types of phrases or blame to remain on an incident report. Fight it with everything you have before a worker gets fired for getting caught up in a hazard that is known to the company and unavoidable to the worker. It may seem petty to fight these kinds of battles over words when we have so much to fight everyday, but we can not let this type of thing go on anymore.

A hazard is a hazard no matter if you are aware of it or not. Eliminate the hazard and eliminate the nonsense at the same time.

Submitted by Mary Krutz, TMC staff.

Every day for 30 years I drove past the memorial where the unidentified remains of the victims of the 1947 Texas City explosion are buried. 600 people were killed and thousands were injured. It served as a reminder to me as I headed for work each day how hazardous a job I had.

My memory of the first day of training was very frightening. The instructors gave us handouts and talked about past incidents explaining what went wrong and what has been done to prevent reoccurrences. I went home that afternoon overwhelmed and to tell you the truth I did not share the day’s experience with my wife who would soon give birth to our first child. First I did not want to frighten her about the hazards and secondly I really needed the job especially with the insurance we so desperately needed.

During the classroom training the instructors kept sharing personal experiences and lessons learned around each topic. The training on such subjects as physics, chemical reactions, and even the boiling of water were laced with what has or could go wrong.

Finally when the classroom was finished and I was assigned to a process unit. The stories of failures and near fatalities continued. All of the “old timers” I worked with could recount where they were or what they were doing the day of the 1947 explosion. Some were at work, others were still in school or they lost loved ones but it seemed like everyone had a story to tell. I must say the “Fear Factor” was vivid in their minds and they wanted it in ours too.

Sadly to say things changed. Before long the intuitional memory retired and the stories seemed to disappear. The lessons learned were soon replaced with computer based training that is so very impersonal and professionally done with actors. No longer did the new guys hear the stories told with a tear in the eye from survivors as they remembered their buddies who were killed or injured. No longer were the past failures remembered and the precautions discussed.

I find today we know of incidents that have occurred in our various industries but most people still in these industries do not know what caused or allowed the incident to occur. Too often the reports are so slow in coming and sanitized for legal reasons they are delegated to history and the valuable lessons are not used as teaching material for the future.

I recently came across this account of the 1947 Texas City explosion:

While it is a good read and has a lot of information I still miss the personal touch of someone sharing the account of the incident. I also miss the group discussion of the failures and the reality of the ultimate question that causes us to understand what went wrong …“Could it happen again in my workplace?”

Submitted by Glenn Erwin, TMC Staff.