USW Withdraw from Talks with American Petroleum Institute, Oil Industry

Union blasts industry group for failing to get serious on refinery safety

Contact: Lynne Baker, USW Communications, (o) 412-562-2446 (c) 615-828-6169 or Gary Beevers, USW International Vice President, (o) 409-838-1972

Pittsburgh—The United Steelworkers (USW) withdrew from talks today with the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the oil industry over the development of two new American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for process safety performance indicators and fatigue.  Discussions regarding the consensus standard were initiated at the suggestion of the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) in the aftermath of the catastrophic explosion and fire at BP’s Texas City refinery in 2005.

The API excluded environmental and public interest organizations from the committees developing the standards and severely weighted the process against workers by giving one vote to each of the 22 oil companies and one vote to each of the three oil workers’ union representatives.  “After months of very little progress, we found the API and the industry did not understand the meaning of consensus,” said USW International Vice President Gary Beevers, who is in charge of the union’s National Oil Bargaining program. “This industry will simply not get serious about developing standards that have real meat in them and reflect a true consensus,” he added.

Beevers added that the process was too severely weighted toward the oil companies to build a consensus around standards that would keep workers and refinery communities safe.  “These oil companies try to get by with as few regulations and mandates as possible; we want a fair playing field.”

One contentious issue at play in the talks involved public reporting of safety indicators.  Union officials and refinery safety advocates are demanding that all safety failures be reported publicly so refinery communities can be aware of problems and refiners are able to learn from each other’s mistakes.

“The API and the industry fought us on the level of transparency and public reporting of incidents,” Beevers said. “They said they would report major events, but after a trial period, they would do blind reports of safety system failures. That does not cut it. There must be reporting of all events, major and minor, to hold these companies accountable for their approach to safety and to enable them to learn from each other’s mistakes.”

Another major contentious issue is open positions.  The API and the industry have refused to commit to reducing the number of open positions filled by overtime hours and the amount of overtime worked by individuals. In addition, they refused to set reasonable limits to the number of consecutive days worked and to establish the amount of rest time after consecutive days and hours worked. They say it is a management rights issue, and their solution is to force overtime on those who are not working a lot of it now.

“Haven’t the API and industry learned anything from the 2005 BP Texas City fire and explosion?” Beevers asked. “Fatigue was a major contributor in that catastrophic event. How many more Texas City-like disasters have to occur before the industry learns it has to get serious about worker fatigue?”

The API recently issued a statement that the injury rate for refinery workers is lower than in comparison to workers in other manufacturing sectors and that refiners are effectively engaged in process safety.

“The Bureau of Labor Statistics data is misleading because it doesn’t account for the injuries, illnesses and deaths of contractors on the job—only refinery employees,” Beevers said. “A low injury rate is not indicative of a safe workplace. Take BP’s Texas City refinery, for example.  It had a low injury rate at the time of the 2005 explosion and fire. Yet, investigations afterwards revealed that their safety was lacking, the PSM standard wasn’t followed, and the company didn’t regard or learn from its previous safety investigations.

“If refiners were actually adhering to the PSM standard we wouldn’t see leaks, equipment failures, releases, fires, explosions and other process upsets on a regular basis,” Beevers said. “The last survey of our members and OSHA’s National Emphasis Program on refineries confirm this. OSHA said its inspectors repeatedly saw similar problems at the refineries it inspected and recently sent letters to managers at more than 100 refineries urging them to comply with the PSM standard.”

The USW plans a comprehensive campaign to get the fatigue and PSM standards recommended by the CSB.

“We have to take such action to protect workers’ lives because the industry repeatedly shows it isn’t willing to take serious measures to ensure the safety of our people and of the community,” Beevers said.

The USW is the largest industrial union in North America and has 850,000 members in the U.S., Canada, and the Caribbean. It represents workers employed in metals, rubber, chemicals, paper, oil refining, atomic energy and the service sector. To access the 2007 USW survey on process safety go to www.oilbargaining.org.

 

By clicking Sign Up you're confirming that you agree with our Terms and Conditions.

Want to Learn More?

See how the USW is making a real difference in our communities and our workplaces.