[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE BP TEXAS CITY DISASTER
AND WORKER SAFETY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 22, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-12
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
33-902 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Bob Inglis, South Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Kenny Marchant, Texas
Linda T. Sanchez, California Tom Price, Georgia
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
David Loebsack, Iowa Louisiana
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky York
Phil Hare, Illinois Rob Bishop, Utah
Yvette D. Clarke, New York David Davis, Tennessee
Joe Courtney, Connecticut Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 22, 2007................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Marchant, Hon. Kenny, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement of...................... 53
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' Senior Republican Member,
Committee on Education and Labor........................... 3
Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and
Labor...................................................... 1
Statement of Witnesses:
Bowman, ADM Frank ``Skip'' (Retired), president, Nuclear
Safety Institute, Member, Baker Panel...................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Cavaney, Red, president and CEO, American Petroleum Institute 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Responses to questions submitted......................... 50
Merritt, Hon. Carolyn W., Chair, U.S. Chemical Safety and
Hazard Investigation Board................................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Nibarger, Kim, health and safety specialist, health, safety
and environment department, United Steelworkers
International Union........................................ 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Rowe, Eva, relative of BP Texas City disaster victims........ 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
THE BP TEXAS CITY DISASTER
AND WORKER SAFETY
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Kildee, Kucinich, Wu,
Holt, Davis of California, Bishop of New York, Sanchez,
Sarbanes, Sestak, Loebsack, Hare, Shea-Porter, McKeon, Petri,
Ehlers, Platt, Wilson, Boustany, Foxx, Bishop of Utah, and
Walberg.
Staff Present: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease
Alli, Hearing Clerk; Jordan Barab, Health/Safety Professional;
Michael Gaffin, Staff Assistant, Labor; Peter Galvin, Senior
Labor Policy Advisor; Jeffrey Hancuff, Staff Assistant, Labor;
Brian Kennedy, General Counsel; Thomas Kiley, Communications
Director; Danielle Lee, Press/Outreach Assistant; Joe Novotny,
Chief Clerk; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Megan O'Reilly,
Labor Policy Advisor; Rachel Racusen, Deputy Communications
Director; Michele Varnhagen, Labor Policy Director; Daniel
Weiss, Special Assistant to the Chairman; Mark Zuckerman, Staff
Director; Steve Forde, Minority Communications Director; Ed
Gilroy, Minority Director of Workforce Policy; Rob Gregg,
Minority Legislative Assistant; Victor Klatt, Minority Staff
Director; Jim Paretti, Minority Workforce Policy Counsel; Molly
McLaughlin Salmi, Minority Deputy Director of Workforce Policy;
Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General
Counsel; and Loren Sweatt, Minority Professional Staff Member.
Chairman Miller. Good morning. The Committee on Education
and Labor will come to order for the purposes of conducting a
hearing on the British Petroleum Texas City Disaster and Worker
Safety. Today's hearing is the first in a series of hearings to
examine the safety of America's workplaces and to determine
whether or not agencies assigned to oversee workplace safety,
in this case the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
are doing the job that Congress gave it when it was created 35
years ago. Over the next several months, we will be taking a
look at OSHA's failure to issue important standards to protect
American workers, the Bush administration's transformation of
OSHA from a law enforcement organization into a so-called
``voluntary compliance organization,'' the agency's inadequate
efforts to protect immigrant workers who suffer from a high
rate of workplace injuries and fatalities, the Nation's failure
to protect public employees, the chronic underreporting of
workplace injuries and illnesses and the agency's respective
penalty structure. Of course, we will also continue to keep a
close eye on the safety of this Nation's miners, including
hearings on that topic next week.
Today's hearing focuses on the cause of the disaster that
unfolded when the explosion ripped through British Petroleum's
Texas City refinery 2 years ago tomorrow, killing 15 workers
and injuring 180. The British Petroleum explosion was the
biggest workplace disaster in 18 years, yet it has received
very little Congressional scrutiny until today. Even more
upsetting is that 2 years after this catastrophe we are seeing
a disturbing pattern of major fires and explosions in U.S.
refineries.
Responding to the 1984 Bhopal, India disaster as well as
several catastrophic refinery and chemical plant explosions in
the United States, in 1990, Congress required OSHA and the
Environmental Protection Agency to publish new regulations to
prevent such accidents. In 1992, OSHA issued its process safety
management standard requirements for refineries and chemical
facilities to implement management systems and identify and
control hazards to prevent disasters like the one in Texas
City.
Today, we will explore why, 15 years after OSHA issued its
standards, we are still seeing disasters in this Nation's
refineries and chemical facilities that threaten workers' lives
and safety of the surrounding communities. The questions
arising from these reports are:
What can be done to prevent such catastrophes in the
future? Why are this Nation's refineries neglecting well-
recognized safety practices? Has the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration been fulfilling its mission to ensure the
safety of this Nation's refineries and chemical plants?
Protecting the safety of refinery/chemical workers is
reason enough to get this right, but the safety of our
refineries and chemical facilities also has broader
implications in the communities surrounding these plants.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, there are
3,400 high priority chemical facilities in this country where a
worst case release of toxic chemicals could sicken or kill more
than 1,000 people in 272 sites and that could affect more than
50,000 people. This hearing has added resonance considering all
of the attention that has been placed since 9/11 on the
scrutiny of this Nation's chemical plants.
Despite the attention and the focus on the terrorist threat
of our Nation's plants, the fact is that the British Petroleum
Texas City explosion and other fires and explosions since then
show that preventable accidents can also kill, injure and
sicken people in large numbers, and we all pay the cost; for
example, the higher gas prices of these explosions and
resulting disruptions in our energy supplies.
Let me say also that this is not a new issue for me, and in
fact, for me this issue is personal. I remember well a fire at
the Tosco Avon refinery in my district in 1999 that killed four
men and seriously injured another. That followed an incident at
the same refinery 2 years before that killed one worker.
Recently again, California has suffered a major fire at the
Chevron refinery, which has closed part of the plant and has
caused gas prices to rise in California. Contra Costa County,
my home county where the refinery is located, has issued its
own industrial safety ordinance that requires an inspection
every 3 years in accident prevention programs. In addition to
annual inspections, one thing Contra Costa County does that
OSHA does not do is collect information on near misses and the
small incidents that can be used to predict the possibility of
a major event. For example, from the information on the Contra
Costa County's Web site, it shows that the Tesoro Golden Eagle
refinery, formerly the Tosco refinery, where four were killed
in 1999, has had 10 incidents--fires, explosions, chemical
releases--in the past 3 years.
What we are doing at this hearing today is sadly an old
story, but it is a story that must change. It is the story of a
company that, despite a brilliant public relations effort,
appears to have put profit before safety and has first sought
to blame its workers for the systemic failures of its corporate
safety system. It is a story of the failure of the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration to ensure that these
facilities are safe for the workers who work within them, but
most of all, it is a story of loss, a story of children who
have lost their parents, parents who have lost their sons and
daughters, and men and women who have lost their husbands and
wives.
The main reason that we have scheduled this hearing this
week was due to the release of the Chemical Safety Board's
report on the British Petroleum Texas City disaster 2 days ago.
I want to commend the board for its excellent work and for its
independence and for the work that it has done over the past
several years and for the contributions this small agency has
made to chemical plant safety. The lessons we have learned from
the Chemical Safety Board's investigations are contributing to
the savings of lives of workers and ensuring the safety of our
communities.
While we have seen OSHA, the Mine Safety and Health
Administration, and the EPA increasingly controlled by
industries that they are supposed to be regulating, the
Chemical Safety Board has been refreshingly unafraid to
criticize and make recommendations to OSHA and to EPA. It is
unfortunate, especially in the case of OSHA, that so many of
these recommendations have gone unheeded.
With that, I would like to recognize the senior Republican
of the committee, Mr. McKeon of California.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With the Chemical Safety Board's having made public its
report earlier this week on BP's Texas City tragedy, I thank
you for convening today's hearing. Likewise, I appreciate each
of the witnesses for joining us today and, in particular Ms.
Rowe, for providing us what I expect will be a moving and
important personal testimony.
Refining is an inherently dangerous process, and industry
has the responsibility to ensure that appropriate steps are
taken to safeguard the men and women working in a refinery as
in other workplaces around the country. For example, during the
preparation for refinery maintenance or for a refinery restart,
management of the facility has the obligation to follow the
requirements of the process safety management standards.
In March of 2005 and, frankly, in the months and years
leading up to it, independent reports, including that of the
Chemical Safety Board, have found that BP fell short in this
regard, and far too many families have paid dearly as a result.
The repeated accidents and the number of citations at the Texas
City facility should have alerted management to the potential
for imminent danger, but that clearly was not the case. In the
wake of this tragedy, BP cannot be and, indeed, has not been
given a pass for its failings. It has agreed to pay the largest
fines in OSHA's history, and it has taken independent
recommendations to heart. Now the company must commit the time,
the energy and, yes, the resources necessary to fulfilling
those recommendations.
Mr. Cavaney, I was pleased to read in your prepared
testimony that in the petroleum industry workplace safety is
not just a matter of lip service. Rather, the industry is
taking proactive and unprecedented steps to strengthen safety
standards and recommended practices. I applaud your
organization for taking the lead in keeping safety concerns at
the forefront, and I am hopeful that, in the years to come, we
will continue to see this type of forward thinking so we can
prevent disasters instead of simply reacting to them.
As we move through today's hearing, I will be interested to
hear the witnesses' perspectives on additional steps that can
be taken within the industry to bolster workplace safety even
more so that we can ensure that a disaster like the one that
took place 2 years ago in Texas City will never happen again.
For example, many of my colleagues and I have long proposed the
concept of engaging third party consultants who specialize in
specific industrial processes and who can provide enhanced
safety inspections. Had such a third party audit been
undertaken, it is not out of the realm of possibility that BP
would have done more to rectify ongoing problems of which it
had been made aware. Even so, the responsibility lies squarely
at the feet of BP. As I noted earlier, that is why the company
has been held to account under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act by agreeing to pay the single largest fine in the
law's history.
I know some have called for criminal investigation into
this matter, and I believe OSHA's referral of this matter to
the Department of Justice for a full criminal investigation is
warranted. No corporation is above the law, and I believe the
multi-pronged response to this tragedy has demonstrated just
that.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I thank you for bringing this
committee together today to review the findings of the Chemical
Safety Board's report and to gather the testimony from our
other witnesses. The subject of today's hearing could not be
more unfortunate, but I believe the work we have seen at the
Federal level and in the industry demonstrates our collective
commitment to ensuring that the tragedy of this magnitude never
occurs again.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
We are joined this morning by a distinguished panel of
witnesses who I think will help us to better understand not
only what tragically took place in Texas City, but also what we
might do about it with respect to policy changes that I think
are necessary and that I think would be very helpful.
We will begin with the Chair of the Chemical Safety Board,
Carolyn Merritt, who joined the board and became the Chair in
August 2002. Chair Merritt's work on the Chemical Safety Board
is involved in investigating process engineering and operations
and management of environment and safety compliance systems in
a wide range of manufacturing. Chairwoman Merritt was educated
at Radford University with a degree in Analytical Chemistry.
Retired Admiral Frank L. ``Skip'' Bowman is a longtime
naval officer and former Director of the Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Program. He is currently President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute. He is a
graduate of Duke University in 1966, and in 1973, he completed
a dual master's program in nuclear engineering, naval
architecture and marine engineering at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Eva Rowe is the daughter of James and Linda Rowe, contract
workers who were killed in an explosion on March 23rd, 2005 at
this British Petroleum refinery in Texas City, Texas. Ms. Rowe
is working in Texas to spearhead the passage of the ``Remember
the 15'' bill, which will improve worker health and safety
standards in the petrochemical industry nationwide.
Ms. Rowe, I want to again thank you very much for being a
witness, and I cannot tell you how sorry we are about the loss
of your parents but how proud they must be of you in continuing
this fight to make sure that those workers who are placed in
the same circumstance have greater margins of safety and
conscious awareness of the threats to them than your parents
were afforded at that time, and thank you so very, very much
for being here.
Red Cavaney is the President and Chief Executive Officer of
the American Petroleum Institute. He served on the staff of
U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon.
He is a 1964 NROTC graduate of economics and history at the
University of Southern California and has served three tours of
combat duty in Vietnam and was honorably discharged with the
rank of U.S. Navy Lieutenant in 1969.
Kim Nibarger is the Health and Safety Specialist for the
United Steelworkers Health, Safety and the Environment
Department. Mr. Nibarger is currently conducting an
investigation of the BP Texas City accident for the United
Steelworkers. He also serves as an accident investigator for
the Steelworkers' Emergency Response Team. Mr. Nibarger has had
17 years in refinery operations and has served as a member of
the joint chair of the Steelworkers Joint Health and Safety
Committee for 8 years. Mr. Nibarger is a graduate of Anacortes
High School and attended the Lutheran Bible Institute and
Western Washington University and Sky Valley College.
Welcome to all of you. We look forward to your testimony.
Your written statements will be placed in the record in their
entirety, and you may proceed for 5 minutes. There will be a
green light when you start your testimony. About 4 or 5 minutes
later, there will be an orange light, which suggests that you
might want to begin wrapping up, and then a red light when your
time has expired, but be assured that we will allow you to
complete sentences and complete thoughts before we cut you off,
but as you can see from the attendance, there is an interest,
and we want to make sure that there is time for questions.
Chairwoman Merritt, welcome.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CAROLYN W. MERRITT, CHAIR, U.S. CHEMICAL
SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD
Ms. Merritt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, and
thank you to the members of the committee.
Thank you for calling this important hearing. I am Carolyn
Merritt, Chairman and CEO of the U.S. Chemical Safety and
Hazard Investigation Board, an independent Federal agency that
investigates major chemical accidents. My statements this
morning are being made as an individual board member.
On Tuesday, the CSB completed its investigation of the BP
Texas City accident and issued a number of significant safety
recommendations. On the afternoon of March 23rd, 2005, during
the start-up of the refinery's ISOM unit, which is used to
boost the octane in gasoline, a tower was overfilled with
flammable liquid, flooding an antiquated blow-down drum and
stack that vented directly into the atmosphere. In the space of
a few minutes, the equivalent of a nearly full tanker truck of
gasoline erupted and fell to the ground, vaporized, and
exploded. Fifteen workers were killed, including James and
Linda Rowe, whose tireless and courageous daughter, Eva, is
here today. I know they would be very proud of the work that
she is now embarking on.
Mr. Chairman, the accident at BP was avoidable. In my view,
it was the inevitable result of a series of actions by the
company. Among other things, they cut budgets that affected
training, staffing, maintenance, equipment modernization, and
safety. They ignored the implications of previous incidents
that were red warning flags. There was a broken safety culture
at BP. Between 2002 and March 2005, an ominous series of
internal reports, safety audits and surveys warned BP managers
and executives about the deteriorating safety conditions at
Texas City. However, their response was simply too little, too
late.
Our findings about BP's culture were similar to those of
the independent Baker panel, which the CSB recommended and BP
created and funded, and I thank Admiral Bowman and all of the
other panel members for their outstanding efforts. The CSB
found that the operators at Texas City were likely fatigued,
having worked at least 29 straight days of 12-hour shifts. We
recommended that the American Petroleum Institute and the
United Steelworkers work together to develop consensus
guidelines on preventing operator fatigue. All of the deaths
and many of the injuries at Texas City occurred in or near
trailers that were placed too close to the unsafe blow-down
drum.
In October of 2005, the CSB issued an urgent safety
recommendation to the American Petroleum Institute to develop
new trailer safety siting guidelines. Trailers, which are sited
for convenience and can shatter during an explosion, simply
have no place in harm's way within refineries and chemical
facilities. We also issued recommendations to both API and
OSHA, aimed at eliminating unsafe blow-down drums from U.S.
refineries and chemical plants in favor of safer alternatives,
such as flare systems. We urge API and OSHA to move quickly and
aggressively on these issues and to take concrete steps right
away to improve refinery safety.
Finally, the CSB found that regulatory oversight of this
refinery was ineffective. In recent years, OSHA has focused its
inspection on workplaces with high injury rates, but these
rates do not predict the likelihood of a catastrophic process
accident at a facility. Better measures than injury rates are
necessary, and thus, we recommended that API collaborate with
the steelworkers to develop new safety indicators.
Like thousands of other petrochemical plants, this refinery
is regulated under OSHA's Process Safety Management standard
issued in 1992. Rigorous implementation and enforcement of this
rule, including its preventative maintenance and incident
investigation requirements, would almost certainly have
prevented this tragedy. However, despite 23 workers being
killed at the Texas City refinery over the 30 years prior to
this accident, OSHA did not conduct any comprehensive planned
process safety inspections at this troubled facility. In fact,
between 1985 and March of 2005, OSHA collected only $77,000 in
fines from this refinery. Clearly, such penalties have little
impact on huge corporations like Amoco and BP. Furthermore, our
investigation found that in the 10 years from 1995 to 2005,
Federal OSHA only conducted nine comprehensive safety
inspections nationwide and none at all in the refinery sector.
OSHA simply lacked enough trained inspectors to conduct these
audits.
The CSB report called on OSHA to identify those facilities
and the greatest risk of a catastrophic accident and then to
conduct comprehensive inspections of those facilities. We also
recommended that OSHA hire, develop and train specialized
inspectors for the oil and chemical sectors.
Mr. Chairman, our vision is imminently achievable,
particularly if OSHA receives appropriate support, resources
and encouragement from Congress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
the opportunity to testify this morning and for your
longstanding support of our agency.
[The statement of Ms. Merritt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Carolyn W. Merritt, Chair, U.S. Chemical
Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: thank you for convening
this important hearing on the tragic explosion at BP Texas City in
2005. I am Carolyn Merritt, Chairman of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board,
an independent, non-regulatory federal agency patterned on the National
Transportation Safety Board. We investigate the root causes of chemical
accidents and develop new safety recommendations based on our findings.
On Tuesday, we completed our investigation of the BP Texas City
accident and issued a number of new national safety recommendations. To
conduct this investigation, we interviewed 370 witnesses, reviewed more
than 30,000 documents, and did extensive equipment testing and computer
modeling. BP cooperated with the investigation, furnished documents and
interviews on a voluntary basis, and committed to widespread safety
improvements and investments following the accident.
Mr. Chairman, two years ago tomorrow, the BP Texas City Refinery,
the third largest in the United States, was the site of the worst
workplace accident in this country since 1990. Fifteen people died,
including James and Linda Rowe, whose courageous daughter is sitting
here this morning at the witness table. One hundred and eighty others
were hurt, many with severe and disabling injuries.
The explosion occurred during unit startup, one of the most
hazardous periods in a refinery. A distillation tower was overfilled
with liquid, flooding an antiquated blowdown drum and stack that vented
directly to the atmosphere. Flammable liquid--nearly the equivalent of
a full tanker truck of gasoline--erupted onto the plant grounds,
vaporized, and exploded.
In our final report, we concluded that organizational and safety
deficiencies at all levels of the BP Corporation caused this terrible
accident. We found widespread safety culture deficiencies both at the
Texas City Refinery and at higher levels of BP.
Over many years, a combination of corporate cost-cutting,
production pressures, and a failure to invest had eroded process safety
at this refinery. Between 2002 and March 2005, an ominous series of
internal reports, surveys, and safety audits warned BP managers and
executives about the deteriorating conditions in Texas City. However,
their response was simply too little, too late. Some additional
investments were made, but they did not address the core process safety
and maintenance problems at the refinery. And further budget cuts were
enacted, even as late as early 2005.
Budget considerations forced reductions in training, personnel, and
the maintenance and modernization of critical equipment. These
reductions had adverse effects on safety and set the stage for the
March 2005 disaster.
Our investigation also revealed a variety of technical factors that
were among the causes of the accident. Specifically, we examined the
unsafe placement of trailers in the refinery, and the absence of a
modern flare system for controlling flammable releases.
All the deaths and many injuries occurred in or near trailers that
were as close as 121 feet from the unsafe blowdown drum. The
investigation revealed that trailers are more vulnerable than predicted
by available industry guidance. People inside trailers were injured as
far as 479 feet away from the blowdown drum, and trailers nearly 1000
feet away sustained damage. A human being is more likely to be injured
or killed inside a trailer--which can shatter during an explosion--than
if he is standing in the open air. For that reason, occupied trailers
have no place near hazardous process areas of refineries and chemical
plants.
In October 2005, we issued an urgent safety recommendation to the
American Petroleum Institute, whose president is here today, to develop
new safety guidance preventing trailers from being placed in harm's way
in oil and chemical plants. Trailers are portable by definition and can
easily be moved to safer locations.
We also issued recommendations in October 2006 to both API and OSHA
aimed at eliminating unsafe blowdown drums from U.S. refineries and
chemical plants in favor of safer alternatives, such as flare systems.
A flare system could have prevented or greatly minimized the effects of
the accident in Texas City.
We urge API and OSHA to move quickly and aggressively on these
issues and to take steps that will improve process safety in concrete
and measurable ways.
In addition, our investigation found that errors and procedural
deviations occurred during the startup on March 23. We performed a
human factors analysis to understand the causes for these mistakes and
deviations. That analysis showed that unit operators in Texas City were
likely fatigued, having worked at least 29 straight days of 12-hour
shifts.
Fatigue prevention regulations have been developed for aviation and
other transportation sectors, but there are no fatigue prevention
guidelines that are widely used and accepted in the oil and chemical
sector. Our report recommends that API and the United Steelworkers work
together to develop such consensus guidelines.
We also found shortcomings with control panel design, staffing,
supervision, training, and communication. Surprisingly, we found that
abnormal startups were common in this particular unit, with 18 out of
19 exhibiting abnormal levels and pressures. BP did not investigate
these previous near-misses and did not install modern instrumentation
on the distillation tower. Furthermore, much of the instrumentation
that was present was not working due to flaws in preventative
maintenance.
The BP Texas City Refinery is regulated under OSHA's Process Safety
Management (PSM) standard, which was issued in 1992 as a result of
chemical accident provisions included in the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments. The PSM standard requires covered facilities to implement
14 specific management elements to prevent catastrophic releases of
hazardous substances.
Our investigation found numerous requirements of the standard were
not being effectively performed in Texas City--such as incident
investigation, preventative maintenance, management of change, and
hazard analysis. Required safety studies were overlooked for years. For
example, a required relief valve study that, if done, could have helped
prevent the accident was 13 years overdue on the day of the explosion.
If the Process Safety Management standard had been thoroughly
implemented at the refinery, as required by federal regulations, this
accident likely would not have occurred.
BP, industry, and OSHA are now focused on measuring and controlling
lost-time injuries, which are a fundamentally backward-looking
indicator. Injury rates do not predict the likelihood of a catastrophic
process accident at a facility.
I know from personal experience as an industry safety executive in
the 1990's that when the PSM regulation was established, it received
great attention and investment throughout much of industry. But today,
CSB investigations as well as my discussions with industry managers
indicate that many companies have reduced their focus on these critical
safety requirements. Without strong OSHA enforcement, PSM will devolve
into essentially a voluntary program. Almost invariably, when we
conduct an investigation of a major chemical catastrophe, we find that
both PSM implementation and PSM enforcement were lacking.
Federal regulators did not conduct any comprehensive, planned
process safety inspections at the Texas City Refinery. In fact, our
investigation found that in the ten years from 1995 to 2005, federal
OSHA only conducted nine such inspections anywhere in the country, and
none in the refining sector. And the Texas City Refinery was an
extremely dangerous workplace by any objective standard. In the 30
years prior to March 23, 2005, twenty-three workers had died there in
workplace accidents. Counting the 15 workers who died on March 23 and
another one who died there more recently, there have been a total of 39
deaths in that one facility.
OSHA did conduct unplanned inspections of the Texas City Refinery
in response to accidents, complaints, or referrals. But these unplanned
inspections are typically narrower in scope and shorter than planned
inspections. Proposed OSHA fines during the twenty years preceding the
March 2005 disaster--a period when ten fatalities occurred at the
refinery--totaled $270,255; net fines collected after negotiations
totaled $77,860. Following the March 2005 explosion, OSHA issued the
largest penalty in its history to BP, over $21 million for more than
300 egregious and willful violations.
Our report concluded OSHA has focused its inspections for a number
of years on facilities that have injury rates. While OSHA is to be
commended for trying to reduce these rates, the Chemical Safety Board
believes that OSHA should also pay increased attention to preventing
less frequent, but catastrophic, process safety incidents such as the
one at Texas City.
When the PSM standard was created, OSHA had envisioned a highly
technical, complex, and lengthy inspection process for regulated
facilities, called a Program Quality Verification or PQV inspection.
The inspections would take weeks or months at each facility and would
be conducted by a select, well-trained, and experienced team. Indeed,
thoroughly inspecting a 1,200-acre chemical complex with 30 major
process units--like the Texas City Refinery--is no small undertaking
and requires at least that level of effort.
On Tuesday, our report called on OSHA to identify those facilities
at the greatest risk of a catastrophic accident and then to conduct
comprehensive inspections of those facilities. We also recommended that
OSHA hire or develop new, specialized inspectors and expand the PSM
training curriculum at its National Training Institute.
Mr. Chairman, our vision is eminently achievable, particularly if
OSHA receives appropriate support, resources, and encouragement from
Congress. Other safety authorities have managed to do what we are
proposing. For example, the U.K. Health and Safety Executive, which
oversees a much smaller oil and chemical industry than exists in the
U.S., has 105 inspectors for high-hazard facilities; each covered
facility in the U.K. is thoroughly inspected every five years.
In your own district of Contra Costa, Mr. Chairman, the county has
its own industrial safety ordinance and inspects each covered oil and
chemical facility every three years. A county staff of five engineers
performs an average of 16 inspections each year. So this one county,
which is particularly enlightened, seems to be outpacing the rest of
the nation.
Mr. Chairman, rules already on the books would likely have
prevented the tragedy in Texas City. But if a company is not following
those rules, year-in and year-out, it is the ultimate responsibility of
the federal government to enforce good safety practices before more
lives are lost.
Congress showed tremendous vision in 1990 when it reauthorized the
Clean Air Act and made major accident prevention one of its
cornerstones. However, I am concerned that since 1990, there has not
been sufficient attention and investment in these programs to fully
realize that vision. The tragedy in Texas City should cause us all to
reflect and to resolve to do better in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify this
morning and thank you also for your longstanding support of our agency
and its mission.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Admiral Bowman.
STATEMENT OF ADM FRANK ``SKIP'' BOWMAN (RET.), PRESIDENT,
NUCLEAR SAFETY INSTITUTE, MEMBER, BAKER PANEL
Admiral Bowman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members of the panel, for allowing me the
opportunity to testify today.
Mr. Chairman, as you noted, I was one of eleven members of
the BP's U.S. refineries' independent safety review panel,
which was chaired by former Secretary of State Jim Baker.
First, let me say I regret the circumstances that spawned our
panel, and that is the catastrophic accident that the chairman
just discussed that occurred at the BP Texas City refinery on
March 23rd, 2005. I wish to extend my personal sympathy to all
of the families, colleagues and friends of those who perished
in that accident, including Ms. Eva Rowe, who is here with us
today. I also wish to extend my best wishes for continued
recovery to those who were injured in that accident.
As you just heard, in August 2005, the Chemical Safety
Board urgently recommended that BP establish and form an
independent panel to, quote/unquote, ``assess and report on the
effectiveness of BP North America's corporate oversight of
safety management systems at its refineries and its corporate
safety culture.'' That same urgent recommendation called for a
panel with a diverse makeup, including experts in corporate
culture organizational behavior and experts from other high-
risk sectors such as nuclear energy and the undersea Navy.
I served on this panel, and I suspect I was selected to
serve because of my career in the United States Navy and my
current position associated with the commercial nuclear energy
industry, and I suspect that Chairman Merritt included those
two requests at least partly because of the significantly good
and exemplary process safety record of those two organizations.
I served on this panel with 10 very distinguished,
dedicated and hardworking members. Each member brought to the
panel a unique set of skills and expertise, and together, we
fulfilled the stated objective of the Chemical Safety Board.
I am hear today in my capacity as a member of that panel.
In both my written statement and my oral testimony, I will rely
very heavily on the executive summary from the panel's report,
and I do not intend to interpret or add to that, to what the
panel said in its report, which I think stands on its own.
Instead, sir, I would highlight selected portions of it that
may be of interest to you and to your committee.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for your approval to include in the
record the panel's entire report along with my written
statement.
Chairman Miller. Without objection. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of ADM Frank ``Skip'' Bowman (Retired), President,
Nuclear Safety Institute, Member, Baker Panel
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, I am
Admiral Frank L. ``Skip'' Bowman, U.S. Navy (retired). I serve as
president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute.
In addition, and of particular relevance to the hearings by the
Committee, I also served as one of the 11 members on the BP U.S.
Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel, which was chaired by former
Secretary of State James A. Baker, III. In the remainder of this
statement, I will refer to that panel as ``the Panel.''
First, let me say that I regret the circumstances that bring us
here today--the catastrophic accident that occurred at the BP Texas
City refinery on March 23, 2005. Tomorrow will be the second
anniversary of that tragic event. I want to extend my sympathy to all
the families, colleagues and friends of those who perished in that
accident, including Eva Rowe, who is here today and who lost both of
her parents in the accident. I also want to extend my best wishes for
continued recovery to those who were injured in the accident.
In August 2005, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board, which I will refer to as the ``CSB,'' issued to the BP Global
Executive Board of Directors an urgent recommendation to form an
independent panel to ``assess and report on the effectiveness of BP
North America's corporate oversight of safety management systems at its
refineries and its corporate safety culture.'' That same urgent
recommendation called for a panel with a diverse makeup, including
experts in corporate culture, organizational behavior, and human
factors; and experts from other high risk sectors such as nuclear
energy and the undersea navy.
I was selected to serve on the Panel because of my background and
experience with the nuclear navy. After graduating from Duke University
in 1966, I immediately began my naval career, which spanned almost 39
years. In 1973, I completed a dual masters program in nuclear
engineering and naval architecture/marine engineering at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. During the course of my naval career, I served
aboard six ships, five of which were nuclear submarines, and I
commanded the submarine USS City of Corpus Christi and the tender USS
Holland. A flag officer since 1991, I also served as Deputy Director of
Operations, Joint Staff; Director for Political-Military Affairs, Joint
Staff; and Chief of Naval Personnel. I served as Director, Naval
Nuclear Propulsion from 1996 to 2004, during which time I held a joint
appointment as Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors in the National
Nuclear Security Administration of the Department of Energy. In that
position I was responsible for the operation of more than 100 nuclear
reactors aboard Navy aircraft carriers and submarines and in its
training and research facilities. Throughout its history--including
during my tenure--the nuclear navy's safety record has been exemplary.
Since 1953, U.S. nuclear warships have logged over 128 million miles in
defense of our country.
In my role as Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion, I testified
before the House Science Committee investigating the Columbia Space
Shuttle accident on the organizational culture of safety that has made
Naval Reactors a safety success.
I served on the Panel with ten distinguished, dedicated, and hard-
working members. Each member brought to the Panel a unique set of
skills and expertise, and together I believe we fulfilled the stated
objective of the CSB in having a diverse group with expertise in the
different areas called for by the CSB's urgent recommendation. As
called for by our charter, the Panel's review was thorough and
independent. The Panel announced its final report in Houston on January
16, 2007, approximately two months ago.
I am here today in my capacity as a former member of the Panel. In
that capacity, I will highlight for the benefit of the Committee
certain aspects of the Panel's report. In particular, I will rely
heavily on the executive summary from the Panel report. In making my
comments today, I do not intend to interpret or add to what the Panel
said in its report, which stands on its own. Instead, I intend to
highlight selected portions of the report that may be of interest to
this Committee. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will submit a
copy of the Panel's entire report for the record. The Panel's report
can also be accessed at the Panel's website, which may be found at
http://www.safetyreviewpanel.com.
Before highlighting certain aspects of the Panel's report, let me
quote two portions from the Panel's statement that preceded its report:
First, the very first sentence: ``Process safety accidents can be
prevented.''
Second, the following paragraph:
Preventing process accidents requires vigilance. The passing of
time without a process accident is not necessarily an indication that
all is well and may contribute to a dangerous and growing sense of
complacency. When people lose an appreciation of how their safety
systems were intended to work, safety systems and controls can
deteriorate, lessons can be forgotten, and hazards and deviations from
safe operating procedures can be accepted. Workers and supervisors can
increasingly rely on how things were done before, rather than rely on
sound engineering principles and other controls. People can forget to
be afraid.
Let me move now to highlight selected aspects of the Panel's review
and report.
Background of the Panel's Review
On March 23, 2005, the BP Texas City refinery experienced one of
the most serious U.S. workplace disasters of the past two decades,
resulting in 15 deaths, more than 170 injuries, and significant
economic losses. The CSB, an independent federal agency charged with
investigating industrial chemical accidents, promptly began an accident
investigation.
On August 17, 2005, the CSB issued an urgent safety recommendation
to the BP Global Executive Board of Directors that it commission an
independent panel to assess and report on the effectiveness of BP North
America's corporate oversight of safety management systems at its
refineries and its corporate safety culture. In making its urgent
recommendation, the CSB noted that the BP Texas City refinery had
experienced two other fatal safety incidents in 2004, a major process-
related hydrogen fire on July 28, 2005, and another serious incident on
August 10, 2005. Based on these incidents and the results of the first
few months of its preliminary investigation, the CSB cited serious
concerns about:
the effectiveness of the safety management system at the
BP Texas City refinery,
the effectiveness of BP North America's corporate safety
oversight of its refining facilities, and
a corporate safety culture that may have tolerated serious
and longstanding deviations from good safety practice.
BP embraced the urgent recommendation of the CSB to form an
independent panel. In a press release issued on August 17, 2005, the
company noted that the Texas City explosion was the worst tragedy in
BP's recent history and that it would ``do everything possible to
ensure nothing like it happens again.''
On October 24, 2005, BP announced the formation of the BP U.S.
Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel. Former Secretary of State
James A. Baker, III chaired the Panel. In addition to Secretary Baker
and myself, the Panel included the following members:
Glenn Erwin, who monitors refinery safety nationwide for
the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union;
Slade Gorton, former U.S. Senator from Washington State
and member of the 9/11 Commission;
Dennis C. Hendershot, Principal Process Safety Specialist
at Chilworth Technologies, Inc., and a Staff Consultant to the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers' Center for Chemical Process Safety;
Nancy G. Leveson, Professor of Aeronautics and
Astronautics and Professor of Engineering Systems at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology;
Sharon Priest, former Arkansas Secretary of State and
currently the Executive Director of the Downtown Partnership, a non-
profit organization devoted to developing downtown Little Rock,
Arkansas;
Isadore `Irv' Rosenthal, former board member of the CSB
and current Senior Research Fellow at the Wharton Risk Management and
Decision Processes Center;
Paul V. Tebo, former Vice President for Safety, Health,
and the Environment of DuPont;
Douglas A. Wiegmann, Director of the Human Factors and
Patient Safety Research Program within the Division of Cardiovascular
Surgery at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota; and
L. Duane Wilson, former Vice President, Refining,
Marketing, Supply & Transportation--Fuels Technology of ConocoPhillips.
The Panel's Review
Purposes and Limitations
It is important that the Committee understand the primary
purposes--and also some of the primary limitations--of the Panel's
work.
The Panel's charter directed it to make a thorough, independent,
and credible assessment of the effectiveness of BP's corporate
oversight of safety management systems at its five U.S. refineries and
its corporate safety culture. The charter further directed the Panel to
produce a report examining and recommending needed improvements to BP's
corporate safety oversight, corporate safety culture, and corporate and
site safety management systems. The charter did not contemplate that
the Panel review environmental issues or general site security issues.
Significantly, the charter also provided that the Panel should not
``seek to affix blame or apportion responsibility for any past event''
and ``should avoid duplicating the efforts of the CSB to determine the
specific root causes of the incident at Texas City on March 23, 2005.''
Both the CSB and BP have investigated the March 23, 2005 accident at
Texas City. BP issued its own investigation report on the Texas City
accident in December 2005. The CSB issued the final report on its
investigation on March 20, 2007, just two days ago.
Since the Panel was not charged to conduct an investigation into
the causes of the Texas City accident and did not seek to affix blame
or apportion responsibility for that accident, the Panel's focus and
the scope of its review differed from that of the CSB and from the
civil litigation relating to that accident. The Panel's review related
to all five of BP's U.S. refineries, not just the Texas City refinery.
The Panel examined BP's corporate safety oversight, corporate safety
culture, and its process safety management systems and not the Texas
City accident or any particular incident. The Panel's examination also
was not limited to the period preceding the Texas City accident.
Rather than attempting to determine the root cause of, or
culpability for, any particular incident, the Panel wanted to
understand BP's values, beliefs, and underlying assumptions about
process safety, corporate safety oversight, and safety management
systems in relation to all of BP's U.S. refineries. The Panel focused
on how these values, beliefs, and underlying assumptions interacted
with the company's corporate structure, management philosophy, and
other systems that operated within that structure to affect the control
or management of process hazards in these refineries. The Panel sought
to understand why observed deficiencies in process safety performance
existed at BP's U.S. refineries so that the Panel could make
recommendations that can enable BP to improve performance at all its
refineries. In effect, the Panel's review looked back primarily as a
basis for looking forward to improve future process safety performance
and to reduce the likelihood of accidents such as the Texas City
tragedy.
While the Panel necessarily directed to BP the Panel's
recommendations contained in its report, the Panel believed that a
broader audience including companies in refining, chemicals, and other
process industries should carefully consider the Panel's
recommendations.
The Panel's Activities
The Panel developed and followed a multifaceted plan to accomplish
the mandate of its charter and the CSB's urgent recommendation. The
plan included visits by the Panel and its staff to BP's U.S.
refineries; public meetings that the Panel conducted in the local
communities where the refineries are located; interviews of refinery-
level personnel and corporate-level managers; process safety reviews
that technical consultants conducted at BP's U.S. refineries; a process
safety culture survey conducted among the workforce at BP's U.S.
refineries; frequent interaction with BP representatives, including
periodic briefings by representatives of BP; a targeted document
review; and meetings with other companies relating to their management
of process safety.
Focus on Process Safety
The Panel's report focused on process safety. Not all refining
hazards are caused by the same factors or involve the same degree of
potential damage. Personal or occupational safety hazards give rise to
incidents--such as slips, falls, and vehicle accidents--that primarily
affect one individual worker for each occurrence. Process safety
hazards can give rise to major accidents involving the release of
potentially dangerous materials, the release of energy (such as fires
and explosions), or both. Process safety incidents can have
catastrophic effects and can result in multiple injuries and
fatalities, as well as substantial economic, property, and
environmental damage. Process safety refinery incidents can affect
workers inside the refinery and members of the public who reside
nearby. Process safety in a refinery involves the prevention of leaks,
spills, equipment malfunctions, over-pressures, excessive temperatures,
corrosion, metal fatigue, and other similar conditions. Process safety
programs focus on the design and engineering of facilities, hazard
assessments, management of change, inspection, testing, and maintenance
of equipment, effective alarms, effective process control, procedures,
training of personnel, and human factors. The Texas City tragedy in
March 2005 was a process safety accident.
The Panel believed that its charter and the CSB's August 2005
urgent recommendation required this focus on process safety.
The Panel's Findings
The Panel focused on deficiencies relating to corporate safety
culture, process safety management systems, and performance evaluation,
corrective action, and corporate oversight.
Qualifications Relating to the Panel's Findings
The Panel's charter called for assessments of effectiveness and
recommendations for improvement, not for findings related to legal
compliance. In making its findings and recommendations, the Panel's
objective was excellence in process safety performance, not legal
compliance. As a result, the Panel's report and specifically the
Panel's findings were not intended for use in legal proceedings to
which BP is or may become a party. Rather, the Panel's findings
provided a basis for recommendations to BP for making improvements in
BP's corporate safety culture, process safety management systems, and
corporate safety oversight. The Panel's report focused primarily on
identified deficiencies that might be corrected through the
implementation of its recommendations.
The Panel often based its findings and recommendations on general
principles of industry best practices or other standards for reducing
process risks. The Panel believed that observance of these standards
should result in improved safety performance even though many of these
standards do not necessarily have legal effect. The Panel's findings
were based not only on the information developed during the course of
the Panel's review, but also on the collective experience and expertise
of the Panel members.
Finally, the Panel's findings were based on its assessment that
occurred primarily during 2006. The Panel's report acknowledged that
since the Texas City accident in March 2005, BP has undertaken or
announced a number of measures, including dedicating significant
resources and personnel, that are intended to improve the process
safety performance at BP's five U.S. refineries. Taken at face value,
these measures represent a major commitment to an improved process
safety regime.
Summary of the Panel's Findings
The findings of the Panel are summarized below under three
headings: Corporate Safety Culture; Process Safety Management Systems;
and Performance Evaluation, Corrective Action, and Corporate Oversight.
Corporate Safety Culture
A positive safety culture is important for good process safety
performance. In its report, the Panel made findings about BP's process
safety leadership, employee empowerment, resources and positioning of
process safety capabilities, incorporation of process safety into
management decision-making, and the process safety cultures at BP's
five U.S. refineries.
Process safety leadership. The Panel believed that leadership from
the top of the company, starting with the Board and going down, is
essential. In the Panel's opinion, it is imperative that BP's
leadership set the process safety ``tone at the top'' of the
organization and establish appropriate expectations regarding process
safety performance. Based on its review, the Panel believed that BP had
not provided effective process safety leadership and had not adequately
established process safety as a core value across all its five U.S.
refineries. While BP had an aspirational goal of ``no accidents, no
harm to people,'' BP had not provided effective leadership in making
certain its management and U.S. refining workforce understood what was
expected of them regarding process safety performance. BP has
emphasized personal safety in recent years and has achieved significant
improvement in personal safety performance, but BP did not emphasize
process safety. BP mistakenly interpreted improving personal injury
rates as an indication of acceptable process safety performance at its
U.S. refineries. BP's reliance on this data, combined with an
inadequate process safety understanding, created a false sense of
confidence that BP was properly addressing process safety risks. The
Panel further found that process safety leadership appeared to have
suffered as a result of high turnover of refinery plant managers.
During the course of its review, the Panel observed a shift in BP's
understanding of process safety. As discussed in the Panel report, BP
has undertaken a number of measures intended to improve process safety
performance. The Panel also recognized that BP executive management and
corporate-level management have more visibly demonstrated their
commitment to process safety in recent months.
Employee empowerment. A good process safety culture requires a
positive, trusting, and open environment with effective lines of
communication between management and the workforce, including employee
representatives. The Panel found that BP's Cherry Point, Washington
refinery has a very positive, open, and trusting environment. BP's
Carson, California refinery appears to have a generally positive,
trusting, and open environment with effective lines of communication
between management and the workforce, including employee
representatives. The Panel found that at BP's Texas City, Texas,
Toledo, Ohio, and Whiting, Indiana refineries, BP had not established a
positive, trusting, and open environment with effective lines of
communication between management and the workforce, although the safety
culture appeared to be improving at Texas City and Whiting.
Resources and positioning of process safety capabilities. BP has
not always ensured that it identified and provided the resources
required for strong process safety performance at its U.S. refineries.
Despite having numerous staff at different levels of the organization
that support process safety, the Panel found that BP did not have a
designated, high-ranking leader for process safety dedicated to its
refining business. During the course of its review, the Panel did not
develop or identify sufficient information to conclude whether BP ever
intentionally withheld resources on any safety-related assets or
projects for budgetary or cost reasons. The Panel believed, however,
that the company did not always ensure that adequate resources were
effectively allocated to support or sustain a high level of process
safety performance. In addition, BP's corporate management mandated
numerous initiatives that applied to the U.S. refineries and that,
while well-intentioned, overloaded personnel at BP's U.S. refineries.
This ``initiative overload'' may have undermined process safety
performance at the U.S. refineries. In addition, the Panel found that
operations and maintenance personnel in BP's five U.S. refineries
sometimes worked high rates of overtime, and this could impact their
ability to perform their jobs safely and increases process safety risk.
BP has announced plans to increase both funding and hiring at its U.S.
refineries.
Incorporation of process safety into management decision-making.
The Panel also found that BP did not effectively incorporate process
safety into management decision-making. BP tended to have a short-term
focus, and its decentralized management system and entrepreneurial
culture have delegated substantial discretion to U.S. refinery plant
managers without clearly defining process safety expectations,
responsibilities, or accountabilities. In addition, while
accountability is a core concept within BP for driving desired conduct,
the Panel found that BP had not demonstrated that it had effectively
held executive management and refining line managers and supervisors,
both at the corporate level and at the refinery level, accountable for
process safety performance at its five U.S. refineries. The Panel
observed in its report that it appeared to the Panel that BP now
recognizes the need to provide clearer process safety expectations.
Process safety cultures at BP's U.S. refineries. The Panel's report
found that BP had not instilled a common, unifying process safety
culture among its U.S. refineries. Each refinery had its own separate
and distinct process safety culture. While some refineries were far
more effective than others in promoting process safety, significant
process safety culture issues existed at all five U.S. refineries, not
just Texas City. Although the five refineries did not share a unified
process safety culture, each exhibited some similar weaknesses. The
Panel found instances of a lack of operating discipline, toleration of
serious deviations from safe operating practices, and apparent
complacency toward serious process safety risks at each refinery.
Process Safety Management Systems
The Panel's report also discussed findings relating to the
effectiveness of process safety management systems that BP utilized for
its five U.S. refineries. These findings related to BP's process risk
assessment and analysis, compliance with internal process safety
standards, implementation of external good engineering practices,
process safety knowledge and competence, and general effectiveness of
BP's corporate process safety management system.
Process risk assessment and analysis. While the Panel found that
all of BP's U.S. refineries had active programs to analyze process
hazards, the system as a whole did not ensure adequate identification
and rigorous analysis of those hazards. The Panel's examination also
indicated that the extent and recurring nature of this deficiency was
not isolated, but systemic.
Compliance with internal process safety standards. The Panel's
technical consultants and the Panel observed that BP does have internal
standards and programs for managing process risks. However, the Panel's
examination found that BP's corporate safety management system did not
ensure timely compliance with internal process safety standards and
programs at BP's five U.S. refineries. This finding related to several
areas that were addressed by BP internal standards: rupture disks under
relief valves; equipment inspections; critical alarms and emergency
shut-down devices; area electrical classification; and near miss
investigations.
Implementation of external good engineering practices. The Panel
also found that BP's corporate safety management system did not ensure
timely implementation of external good engineering practices that
support and could improve process safety performance at BP's five U.S.
refineries. The Panel believed that such practices play an important
role in the management of process safety in refineries operating in the
United States.
Process safety knowledge and competence. Although many members of
BP's technical and process safety staff have the capabilities and
expertise needed to support a sophisticated process safety effort, the
Panel believed that BP's system for ensuring an appropriate level of
process safety awareness, knowledge, and competence in the organization
relating to its five U.S. refineries had not been effective in a number
of respects. First, BP had not effectively defined the level of process
safety knowledge or competency required of executive management, line
management above the refinery level, and refinery managers. Second, BP
had not adequately ensured that its U.S. refinery personnel and
contractors have sufficient process safety knowledge and competence.
The information that the Panel reviewed indicated that process safety
education and training needed to be more rigorous, comprehensive, and
integrated. Third, the Panel found that at most of BP's U.S.
refineries, the implementation of and over-reliance on BP's computer-
based training contributed to inadequate process safety training of
refinery employees.
Effectiveness of BP's corporate process safety management system.
BP has an aspirational goal and expectation of ``no accidents, no harm
to people, and no damage to the environment,'' and is developing
programs and practices aimed at addressing process risks. These
programs and practices include the development of new standards,
engineering technical practices, and other internal guidance, as well
as the dedication of substantial resources. Despite these positive
changes, the Panel's examination indicated that BP's corporate process
safety management system did not effectively translate corporate
expectations into measurable criteria for management of process risk or
define the appropriate role of qualitative and quantitative risk
management criteria.
The findings above, together with other information that the Panel
obtained during its examination, lead the Panel to conclude that
material deficiencies in process safety performance existed at BP's
five U.S. refineries. Some of these deficiencies are common among
multiple refineries, and some of the deficiencies appeared to relate to
legacy systems in effect prior to BP's acquisition of the refineries.
(BP acquired four of its five U.S. refineries through mergers with
Amoco in 1998 and ARCO in 2000.)
BP appears to have established a relatively effective personal
safety management system by embedding personal safety aspirations and
expectations within the U.S. refining workforce. However, the Panel's
report concluded that BP had not effectively implemented its corporate-
level aspirational guidelines and expectations relating to process
risk. Therefore, the Panel found that BP had not implemented an
integrated, comprehensive, and effective process safety management
system for its five U.S. refineries.
Panel observations relating to process safety management practices.
The Panel observed several positive notable practices or, in the case
of BP's process safety minimum expectation program, an excellent
process safety management practice. The notable practices relate to
creation of an engineering authority at each refinery and several other
refinery-specific programs that are described in more detail in the
Panel's report.
Performance Evaluation, Corrective Action, and Corporate
Oversight
Maintaining and improving a process safety management system
requires the periodic evaluation of performance and the correction of
identified deficiencies. As discussed in the Panel's report,
significant deficiencies existed in BP's site and corporate systems for
measuring process safety performance, investigating incidents and near
misses, auditing system performance, addressing previously identified
process safety-related action items, and ensuring sufficient management
and board oversight. Many of the process safety deficiencies were not
new but were identifiable to BP based upon lessons from previous
process safety incidents, including process incidents that occurred at
BP's facility in Grangemouth, Scotland in 2000.
Measuring process safety performance. BP primarily used injury
rates to measure process safety performance at its U.S. refineries
before the Texas City accident. Although BP was not alone in this
practice, BP's reliance on injury rates significantly hindered its
perception of process risk. BP tracked some metrics relevant to process
safety at its U.S. refineries. Apparently, however, BP did not
understand or accept what this data indicated about the risk of a major
accident or the overall performance of its process safety management
systems. As a result, BP's corporate safety management system for its
U.S. refineries did not effectively measure and monitor process safety
performance.
The Panel observed that the process safety performance metrics that
BP was using were evolving. BP was monitoring at the corporate level
several leading and lagging process safety metrics. BP also was working
with external experts to review process safety performance indicators
across the company and the industry.
Incident and near miss investigations. BP acknowledged the
importance of incident and near miss investigations, and it employed
multiple methods at different levels of the organization to distribute
information regarding incidents and lessons learned. Although BP was
improving aspects of its incident and near miss investigation process,
BP had not instituted effective root cause analysis procedures to
identify systemic causal factors that may contribute to future
accidents. When true root or system causes are not identified,
corrective actions may address immediate or superficial causes, but not
likely the true root causes. The Panel also believed that BP had an
incomplete picture of process safety performance at its U.S. refineries
because BP's process safety management system likely resulted in
underreporting of incidents and near misses.
Process safety audits. The Panel found that BP has not implemented
an effective process safety audit system for its U.S. refineries based
on the Panel's concerns about auditor qualifications, audit scope,
reliance on internal auditors, and the limited review of audit
findings.
The Panel also was concerned that the principal focus of the audits
was on compliance and verifying that required management systems were
in place to satisfy legal requirements. It did not appear, however,
that BP used the audits to ensure that the management systems were
delivering the desired safety performance or to assess a site's
performance against industry best practices. BP is in the process of
changing how it conducts audits of safety and operations management
systems, including process safety audits.
Timely correction of identified process safety deficiencies. The
Panel observed that BP expends significant efforts to identify
deficiencies and to correct many identified deficiencies, which BP
often does promptly. The Panel also found, however, that BP had
sometimes failed to address promptly and track to completion process
safety deficiencies identified during hazard assessments, audits,
inspections, and incident investigations. The Panel's review, for
example, found repeat audit findings at BP's U.S. refineries,
suggesting that true root causes were not being identified and
corrected. This problem was especially apparent with overdue mechanical
integrity inspection and testing. Although BP regularly conducted
various assessments, reviews, and audits within the company, the follow
through after these reviews had fallen short repeatedly. This failure
to follow through compromises the effectiveness of even the best audit
program or incident investigation.
In addition, BP did not take full advantage of opportunities to
improve process operations at its U.S. refineries and its process
safety management systems. BP did not effectively use the results of
its operating experiences, process hazard analyses, audits, near
misses, or accident investigations to improve process operations and
process safety management systems.
Corporate oversight. BP acknowledged the importance of ensuring
that the company-wide safety management system functions as intended.
The company's system for assuring process safety performance used a
bottom-up reporting system that originates with each business unit,
such as a refinery. As information was reported up, however, data was
aggregated. By the time information was formally reported at higher
levels of the organization, refinery-specific performance data was no
longer presented separately.
The Panel's examination indicated that BP's executive management
either did not receive refinery-specific information that suggested
process safety deficiencies at some of the U.S. refineries or did not
effectively respond to the information that it did receive. According
to annual reports on health, safety, security, and environmental
assurance that BP management provided to the Environment and Ethics
Assurance Committee of BP's Board of Directors for 1999 through 2005,
management was monitoring process safety matters, including plant and
operational integrity issues. The reports identify safety and integrity
management risks that various levels of the organization confronted and
describe management actions proposed to address and mitigate those
risks. From 2001 to 2003, for example, BP developed and implemented
standards for process safety and major accident risk assessments and
increased monitoring and reporting of action item closure, sharing of
lessons learned, overdue planned inspections, and losses of
containment. The reports and other documents that the Panel examined
indicated, however, that issues persisted relating to assurance of
effective implementation of BP's policies and expectations relating to
safety and integrity management.
For these reasons, the Panel believed that BP's process safety
management system was not effective in evaluating whether the steps
that BP took were actually improving the company's process safety
performance. The Panel found that neither BP's executive management nor
its refining line management had ensured the implementation of an
integrated, comprehensive, and effective process safety management
system.
BP's Board of Directors had been monitoring process safety
performance of BP's operations based on information that BP's corporate
management presented to it. A substantial gulf appears to have existed,
however, between the actual performance of BP's process safety
management systems and the company's perception of that performance.
Although BP's executive and refining line management was responsible
for ensuring the implementation of an integrated, comprehensive, and
effective process safety management system, BP's Board had not ensured,
as a best practice, that management did so. In reviewing the conduct of
the Board, the Panel was guided by its chartered purpose to examine and
recommend any needed improvements. In the Panel's judgment, this
purpose did not call for an examination of legal compliance, but called
for excellence. It was in this context and in the context of best
practices that the Panel believed that BP's Board can and should do
more to improve its oversight of process safety at BP's five U.S.
refineries.
The Panel's Recommendations
The Panel was charged with making recommendations to improve BP's
corporate safety culture; process safety management systems; and
corporate oversight of process safety. For each recommendation below,
the Panel developed commentary that is an integral part of the
recommendation and that provides more specific guidance relating to
implementation of the recommendation. Reference should be made to
Section VII of the Panel's report for a discussion of the
recommendations and the related commentary. Each recommendation below
should be read in conjunction with the related commentary.
recommendation # 1--process safety leadership
The Board of Directors of BP p.l.c, BP's executive management
(including its Group Chief Executive), and other members of BP's
corporate management must provide effective leadership on and establish
appropriate goals for process safety. Those individuals must
demonstrate their commitment to process safety by articulating a clear
message on the importance of process safety and matching that message
both with the policies they adopt and the actions they take.
recommendation #2--integrated and comprehensive process safety
management system
BP should establish and implement an integrated and comprehensive
process safety management system that systematically and continuously
identifies, reduces, and manages process safety risks at its U.S.
refineries.
recommendation #3--process safety knowledge and expertise
BP should develop and implement a system to ensure that its
executive management, its refining line management above the refinery
level, and all U.S. refining personnel, including managers,
supervisors, workers, and contractors, possess an appropriate level of
process safety knowledge and expertise.
recommendation #4--process safety culture
BP should involve the relevant stakeholders to develop a positive,
trusting, and open process safety culture within each U.S. refinery.
recommendation #5--clearly defined expectations and accountability for
process safety
BP should clearly define expectations and strengthen accountability
for process safety performance at all levels in executive management
and in the refining managerial and supervisory reporting line.
recommendation #6--support for line management
BP should provide more effective and better coordinated process
safety support for the U.S. refining line organization.
recommendation #7--leading and lagging performance indicators for
process safety
BP should develop, implement, maintain, and periodically update an
integrated set of leading and lagging performance indicators for more
effectively monitoring the process safety performance of the U.S.
refineries by BP's refining line management, executive management
(including the Group Chief Executive), and Board of Directors. In
addition, BP should work with the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board and with industry, labor organizations, other
governmental agencies, and other organizations to develop a consensus
set of leading and lagging indicators for process safety performance
for use in the refining and chemical processing industries.
recommendation #8--process safety auditing
BP should establish and implement an effective system to audit
process safety performance at its U.S. refineries.
recommendation #9--board monitoring
BP's Board should monitor the implementation of the recommendations
of the Panel (including the related commentary) and the ongoing process
safety performance of BP's U.S. refineries. The Board should, for a
period of at least five calendar years, engage an independent monitor
to report annually to the Board on BP's progress in implementing the
Panel's recommendations (including the related commentary). The Board
should also report publicly on the progress of such implementation and
on BP's ongoing process safety performance.
recommendation #10--industry leader
BP should use the lessons learned from the Texas City tragedy and
from the Panel's report to transform the company into a recognized
industry leader in process safety management.
The Panel believes that these recommendations, together with the
related commentary, can help bring about sustainable improvements in
process safety performance at all BP U.S. refineries.
The Panel's recommendations were based on findings developed during
2006. Since March 2005, BP has expressed a major commitment to a far
better process safety regime, has committed significant resources and
personnel to that end, and has undertaken or announced many measures
that could impact process safety performance at BP's five U.S.
refineries. In making its findings and recommendations, the Panel was
not attempting to deny the beneficial effect on process safety that
these measures may have. BP is a large corporation, and the Panel
recognized that it is especially challenging to make dramatic and
systemic changes in short time frames. However, whether measures
already undertaken or announced will be effective remains to be seen.
The ultimate effectiveness and sustainability of BP's intended
improvements to its process safety performance can be determined only
over time. The Panel believed that BP has much work remaining to
improve the process safety performance at its U.S. refineries. The
Panel's report also stated that BP should assess its future steps,
including actions already planned as of the date of the Panel's report,
against the Panel's findings and recommendations (and related
commentary).
The Panel's recommendations and related commentary contain elements
designed to ensure that measures taken will sustain improvement in
process safety performance. The Panel believed this emphasis on
sustainability was particularly important given BP's failure to fully
and comprehensively implement across BP's U.S. refineries the lessons
from previous serious accidents, including the process incidents that
occurred at BP's facility in Grangemouth, Scotland in 2000. The Panel's
recommendations, and the process safety excellence that those
recommendations contemplate, should not be abandoned or neglected. They
should not become lesser priorities as changes occur in the economic,
business, or regulatory climate for the U.S. refining industry; as
refinery margins decline from their current high levels; as changes
occur at BP, including changes in management; or as mergers and
acquisitions take place.
The Panel believed that the investments in BP's refining business
and its refining workforce that its report suggested can benefit the
company in many ways over time. Such investments should help reduce the
economic or opportunity costs associated with a refinery operating at
less than full capacity or not operating at all. Other potential
benefits of investments in operations and process safety, such as
improved workforce morale and increased productivity, may be difficult
to measure but are no less important. The Panel believed that as
process safety is embedded in all aspects of corporate culture,
management systems, and operations relating to BP's U.S. refineries,
BP's U.S. refining business will benefit.
The Panel recognized that the task ahead of BP is significant and
will take a concerted and lasting effort. It will not be easy,
especially as time passes and the collective recognition of the
importance of the task begins to fade. The Panel believed, however,
that the BP refining workforce was ready, willing, and able to
participate in a sustained, corporate-wide effort to move BP towards
excellence in process safety performance as called for in the Panel's
report. During its review, the Panel interacted with a large number of
BP employees, contractors, managers, and executives. The Panel
generally came away with favorable impressions of these people. As a
group, they appeared hardworking and conscientious. Most importantly,
they appeared sincerely interested in improving BP's management of
process safety to prevent future incidents like the Texas City tragedy.
This was the case at the Carson, Cherry Point, Texas City, Toledo, and
Whiting refineries and in BP's corporate offices in Chicago and London.
I note that on January 16, 2007, the same day that the Panel
announced its report, BP stated that it would implement the Panel's
recommendations.
Finally, the Panel believed that all companies in the refining,
chemical, and other process industries should give serious
consideration to its recommendations and related commentary. While the
Panel made no findings about companies other than BP, the Panel was
under no illusion that the deficiencies in process safety culture,
management, or corporate oversight identified in the Panel's report
were limited to BP. If other refining and chemical companies understand
the Panel's recommendations and related commentary and apply them to
their own safety cultures, process safety management systems, and
corporate oversight mechanisms, the Panel sincerely believed that the
safety of the world's refineries, chemical plants, and other process
facilities will be improved and lives will be saved.
Thank you for allowing me to testify before you today.
______
Admiral Bowman. It is significant to note that the panel
was not charged with conducting an investigation into the
causes of this tragic accident at Texas City. We did not seek
to affix blame or apportion responsibility for that accident.
Instead, the panel sought to understand if deficiencies in
process safety performance existed at BP's U.S. refineries so
that we could make recommendations that would enable the
company to improve.
The panel did not develop sufficient information to
conclude that BP intentionally withheld resources on any
safety-related projects for any budgetary reasons. However, the
panel did believe that BP did not always ensure that adequate
resources were effectively allocated to sustain a high level of
process safety performance. The panel found that BP did not
implement an integrated, comprehensive and effective process
safety management system. The panel found that neither BP's
executive management nor its refining line management had
ensured the implementation of such a management system, and the
panel found that BP's board in the U.K. had not ensured as a
best practice that management implement such a system. These
findings relating to BP's board were based on U.K.'s guidance
on the role of the board as to health and safety practices and
not on the failure to comply with any legal duties.
Among other findings, the panel found material deficiencies
in process safety performance at each of BP's five U.S.
refineries and that BP had not instilled a common process
safety culture among those refineries.
Prior to the Texas City accident, BP had emphasized
personal safety in recent years and had achieved significant
improvement in personal safety performance, but the company had
not emphasized process safety. BP mistakenly interpreted
improving personal injury rates as an indication of acceptable
performance and process safety at its U.S. refineries. BP's
reliance on this data combined with an inadequate process
safety understanding created a false sense of confidence that
it was properly addressing process safety risk. BP had not
adequately established process safety as a core value across
its five U.S. refineries. BP had not made certain that its line
management and its U.S. refining workforce even understood what
was expected of them in terms of process safety. The panel made
specific and extensive recommendations organized under 10
topics, which I would refer to the committee in the full
report.
One recommendation calls for BP to engage an independent
monitor to observe the implementation of the panel's
recommendations for the next 5 years.
I would note that, on the same day that we issued our
report, BP stated that it would implement the panel's
recommendations. Our report notes that, since the Texas City
refinery explosion, BP's executive management has expressed a
major commitment to a far better process safety regime, has
committed significant resources and personnel to that end and
has undertaken or announced many measures that would
beneficially impact process safety. However, the ultimate
effectiveness and sustainability of the company's intended
improvements can be determined only over time.
Let me finish with a very short paragraph that precedes our
report, the main report.
``Preventing process safety accidents requires vigilance.
The passing of time without a process accident is not
necessarily an indication that all is well and may well, in
fact, contribute to a dangerous and growing sense of
complacency. When people lose an appreciation of how their
safety systems were intended to work, safety systems and
controls can deteriorate. Lessons can be forgotten, and hazards
and deviations from safe operating procedures can be accepted.
Workers and supervisors can increasingly rely on how things
were done before rather than rely on sound engineering
principles and other controls. People can forget to be
afraid.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Rowe.
STATEMENT OF EVA ROWE, RELATIVE OF BP TEXAS CITY DISASTER
VICTIMS
Ms. Rowe. Good morning. First, I would like to thank
Chairman Miller and the entire committee for inviting me to
speak today on the tragedy at the BP Texas City Oil refinery.
For me and many others, tomorrow will be a solemn day in Texas
City, Texas as it marks the second anniversary of the horrible
blast that ripped apart my life and the lives of so many
others. The explosion at BP's Oil refinery murdered 15 people,
including my parents, James and Linda Rowe, and injured
hundreds more. The true tragedy is that it was needless and
completely avoidable.
At approximately 1:20 p.m. that day, BP initiated a
dangerous procedure at the refinery, using outdated and faulty
equipment that sent 7,600 gallons of highly flammable liquid
hydrocarbons, the equivalent of a tanker truck full of
gasoline, into the air. Dozens of workers were in trailers as
close as 100 feet away. They were not warned of the imminent
danger when an idling truck ignited the devastating chain-
reaction explosion.
I, personally, believe that BP, with its corporate culture
of greed over profits, murdered my parents, denying my brother
Jeremy and me, along with the families of 13 others, the joy of
the love of our fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters and the
warmth of their smiles and embraces forever. It is of little
comfort to us, but we hope through this legislation to ensure
more stringent worker health and safety standards that their
deaths will not be in vain.
Today, I ask Congress to carefully review the report issued
this week by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board and act with great
speed on its recommendations. I ask that you create an
environment of safety for all workers who risk their lives each
day in already dangerous jobs that contribute so much to our
great country and its economy.
Today, I come to Congress, asking that you mandate by law a
change in corporate culture by requiring that all corporations
place workers' safety before profits.
Today, I come to Congress and ask that you require OSHA,
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, to increase
safety and inspections of all oil refineries as the Chemical
Safety Board has recommended.
In Austin tomorrow, we will gather on the steps of the
state capital to announce the ``Remember the 15'' bill in the
Texas State legislature. It is the first step in seeking to
mandate that those running the petrochemical industry create a
safe working environment for its workers.
Today, I come to Congress asking that you join with the
great State of Texas and change the laws of our land so that no
other family will have to feel the pain and sadness I have felt
hearing of my parents' deaths.
Thank you all so very much for your time and for this
opportunity.
[The statement of Ms. Rowe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eva Rowe, Relative of BP Texas City Disaster
Victims
Good morning.
First I want to thank Representative Miller and the entire
Committee for inviting me to speak today on the tragedy at the BP Texas
City oil refinery.
For me and many others, tomorrow will be a solemn day in Texas
City, Texas, as it marks the second anniversary of that horrible blast
that ripped apart my life and the lives of so many others. The
explosion at BP's oil refinery killed 15 people--including my parents,
James and Linda Rowe--and injured hundreds more. The true tragedy is
that it was a needless and completely avoidable explosion.
At approximately 1:20 p.m. that day, BP initiated a dangerous
procedure at the refinery, using outdated and faulty equipment that
sent 7,600 gallons of highly flammable liquid hydrocarbons--the
equivalent of a tanker truck full of gasoline--into the air. Dozens of
workers were in trailers as close as 100 feet away and were not warned
of the imminent danger, when an idling truck ignited the devastating
chain-reaction explosion.
I personally believe that BP, with its corporate culture of greed
over profits, murdered my parents, denying my brother Jeremy and me,
along with the families of the 13 others, the joy of the love of our
fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters, and the warmth of their smiles
and embraces forever. It is of little comfort to us, but we hope that,
through legislation to ensure more stringent worker health and safety
standards, that their deaths won't be in vain.
Today, I ask Congress to carefully review the report issued this
week by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board and act with great speed on its
recommendations. I ask that you create an environment of safety for all
workers who risk their lives each day, in already dangerous jobs that
contribute so much to our great country and its economy.
Today I come to Congress asking that you mandate by law a change in
corporate culture, by requiring that all corporations place worker
safety before profits.
Today, I come to Congress to ask that you require OSHA, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, to increase safety and
inspections of all U.S. oil refineries, as the Chemical Safety Board
has recommended.
In Austin tomorrow, we will gather on the steps of the state
capital to announce the ``Remember the 15'' bill in the Texas State
Legislature. It is a first step in seeking to mandate that those
running the petrochemical industry create a safe working environment
for its workers.
Today I come to Congress asking that you join with the great state
of Texas and change the laws of our land so that no other family will
have to feel the pain and sadness I felt hearing of my parents death.
Thank you all so very much for your time and for this opportunity.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Rowe.
Mr. Cavaney.
STATEMENT OF RED CAVANEY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE
Mr. Cavaney. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
McKeon and members of the committee.
I also want to express my personal sympathies toward Ms.
Rowe and all of the other people who have suffered as a result
of this accident. I am Red Cavaney, President and CEO of the
American Petroleum Institute. API's 400 member companies
represent all sectors of America's oil and natural gas
industry. I am testifying today on behalf of API and the
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. NPRA has 450
members, including virtually all U.S. refineries and
petrochemical manufacturers.
Texas City has been a devastating tragedy to the facility's
workers, their families, the community, and the company
involved. It has also had a profound impact on the refining and
petrochemical industry. Words are incapable of fully describing
the deep sadness and sympathy that we have for all of those who
have borne such a heavy burden.
Safety in the industry is a moral imperative with a top
priority. Keeping employees, contractors and neighbors safe is
and has been a goal we continually strive to achieve. It is the
right thing to do, but it also happens to make good business
sense. No accident is acceptable, and preventing the
possibility of a fatal accident like what happened at Texas
City is a goal toward which we all work day in and day out.
In light of the tragic accident and concerns raised by the
Baker report, individual companies have been examining their
safety procedures in search for improvements. In fact, a number
of companies are using the Baker report in an audit in going
through all of their refineries. Collectively, the industry is
also taking action. At API, we are reviewing our standards on
process equipment and operational safety. We are developing a
new recommended practice on the siting of temporary structures
that will become final later this spring. We will also be
reviewing the Chemical Safety Board's more recent
recommendation on safety standards in considering possible new
guidance.
API is the industry standard-setting leader and an ANSI-
accredited standards development organization. API standards
reflect broad input from experts in and outside the industry
and are regularly reviewed and revised. Among the 500
standards, we now maintain some 110 process safety-related. In
reinforcing OSHA process safety management rules, these
standards cover worker and contractor safety, mechanical
integrity of pressure vessels and tanks, fire prevention,
protection, and suppression and the certification of refinery
equipment safety inspectors. There are thousands of API-
certified inspectors examining pressure vessels and other
process equipment throughout the world.
In addition to the response from our standards program, API
and NPRA members share best practices and evaluate what can be
learned from incidents and potential incidents. We are working
with OSHA and other groups on these issues. We are also
encouraging higher levels of performance through process safety
training and industry awards to encourage best in practice
behavior, and we have formed a broad coalition of organizations
and industry experts to evaluate ways that we can improve
process safety. The Center for Chemical Process Safety, an
organization supported by API and NPRA members, expects to
publish a study this year, setting forth the lessons learned
through process unit accidents, including the Texas City
accident. We will closely review that information, seeking
additional input into our standards process.
The devastation caused by the Texas City accident demands
of us as an industry that we look anew at what we are doing and
strive even further towards additional improvements. That is
happening, and it will continue to happen. Texas City and its
loss of colleagues and the pain and grief suffered by loved
ones will not be forgotten. The lessons will remain with us for
many, many years.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the
opportunity to answer questions that the committee may have.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Cavaney follows:]
Prepared Statement of Red Cavaney, President and CEO,
American Petroleum Institute
Good morning Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and members of
the committee.
I am Red Cavaney, President and CEO of the American Petroleum
Institute (API). API's 400 member companies represent all sectors of
America's oil and natural gas industry. I am testifying today on behalf
of API and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA).
NPRA has 450 members, including virtually all U.S. refiners and
petrochemical manufacturers.
Texas City has been a devastating tragedy to the facility's
workers, their families, the community, and the company involved. It
has also had a profound impact on the refining and petrochemical
industry. No words can fully describe the deep sadness and sympathy we
all feel.
Safety in the industry is a moral imperative and a top priority.
Keeping employees, contractors and neighbors safe is, and was, and is a
goal we continually strive to achieve. It's the right thing to do. It
also happens to be good business practice. No accident is acceptable.
And, preventing the possibility of a fatal accident like what happened
at Texas City is a goal we work towards day in and day out.
Industry action: standards
Within API, we have a formal, comprehensive and rigorous approach
to the development of industry standards and recommended practices,
which we routinely update as new information and data become available.
Following the Texas City incident, we did just that, and, as is our
practice, we will continue to do so.
We have reviewed the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) recommendation on
temporary facility siting and published a draft recommended practice in
2006. API expects to publish a final version of this recommended
practice later this spring. We are also working to identify areas where
new guidance related to process safety is needed and will certainly
consider developing additional standards as appropriate. We are
reviewing all of CSB's recently issued recommendations on additional
safety standards.
API is the industry standards setting leader and, as an American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited standards development
organization, operates with approved standards development procedures
and undergoes regular audits of its processes. API standards affect
both industry equipment and operations. Standards serve both safety and
business objectives. In developing our industry standards, API is in
conformance with ANSI guidelines and employs a consensus process that
often includes regulators and experts who are not API members.
Among the 500 standards we now maintain and regularly review and
revise, many are focused on process safety and are consistent with OSHA
process safety management rules. In fact, API Recommended Practice 750,
Management of Process Hazards, was one of the primary resources used by
OSHA in its development of process safety management regulations.
API's approximately 110 process safety-related standards cover
worker and contractor safety; mechanical integrity of pressure vessels
and tanks; fire prevention, protection and suppression; and
certification of refinery equipment safety inspectors. These standards
are consistent with and reinforce OSHA's process safety management
rule. An addendum with specifics is attached.
As a specific example of the interrelationship between the API
Standards and Certification Programs and the OSHA Process Safety
Management Regulations, one only need refer to Section J of the
regulations on Mechanical Integrity. This section applies to a broad
range of process equipment including pressure vessels and storage
tanks, controls, piping, valves, pumps and other key equipment used in
refineries and chemical processing facilities. Each piece of equipment
specified in Section J is also subject of an API standard or
recommended practice. Further, the equipment inspection requirements of
Section J are also backed by a series of API standards for inspection,
which are also the basis of the API Individual Certification Program
(ICP).
The ICP programs are designed to promote safety and health,
improved inspection capabilities, and improved management control and
environmental performance. Certified inspectors are recognized as
working professionals who are fully knowledgeable on industry
inspection codes, and who are performing their jobs in accordance with
those requirements. ICP provides an essential springboard for
inspectors to make even more valuable contributions to the safety and
quality of industry operations. API's certification programs also
reflect API's Environmental, Health and Safety Mission and Guiding
Principles, which are part of API's bylaws.
API's inspector certifications are based on industry-developed
standards that are recognized and used with confidence worldwide. These
standards have also provided a uniform platform that serves as a model
for many state and government regulations. These API programs emphasize
professional credibility and process integrity. Certified inspectors
are required to complete an eight-hour comprehensive, proctored exam
and are recertified every three years.
Industry action: sharing lessons learned and best practices
In addition to the comprehensive industry standards program, our
industry has developed mechanisms to share valuable lessons-learned
from incidents, potential incidents and best practices to improve
safety at processing facilities. API holds an annual process safety
management best practices workshop. NPRA holds an annual safety
conference. API is working with OSHA, the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA), and the Steel Tank Institute (STI) to improve tank
safety. There are also industry safety awards to heighten awareness and
competition for best-in-class practices; process safety training; and
industry conferences on incident root causes, learnings and mitigation
measures. The Baker panel report and the CSB report provide additional
opportunities to improve process safety.
Refiners and chemical plant operators have also formed a broad
coalition of organizations and industry experts as part of our
continuous improvement program, which includes all aspects of industry
safety, including process safety. This coalition is evaluating ways to
continue to improve process safety and to leverage the lessons learned
among the coalition member organizations.
Also, the Center for Chemical Process Safety, an organization
supported by API and NPRA members, expects to publish a study this year
setting forth the lessons learned from process unit accidents,
including the Texas City accident.
In addition, API has an educational program, API University, which
includes more than 35 classroom and e-Learning courses and workshops on
safety and safety-related issues. Through this collection of courses,
API brings together and trains hundreds and hundreds of people annually
in diverse safety subject matters. Examples of API University courses
include Process Safety Management (PSM) for Refineries and Exploration
and Production Operations, Performing Facility Siting Studies, and
Improving Process Safety Management and Effectiveness. In the Process
Management for Refineries and Exploration and Production Operations
course, trainees study specific guidelines for developing written
programs to meet PSM regulations, integrating PSM element requirements
into other corporate programs, and evaluating program compliance
throughout the implementation phase. Trainees in this course also get
insight into the latest regulatory developments and receive summary
documentation of key clarifications by OSHA and EPA.
Conclusion
The devastation caused by the Texas City accident demands of us in
industry to look anew at what we are doing and to strive toward
continual improvement. That is happening, and it will continue. Texas
City and its loss of colleagues, as well as the pain and grief suffered
by loved ones, will not be forgotten. These lessons will remain with us
for many years.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the
opportunity to answer any questions the committee might pose.
OSHA Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals,
29CFR1910.119 and the API Standards Program
The purpose of the OSHA process safety management (PSM) regulations
is as follows:
This section contains requirements for preventing or minimizing the
consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or
explosive chemicals. These releases may result in toxic, fire or
explosion hazards.
The PSM Standard is also the required prevention program for the
Environmental Protection Agency's ``Risk Management Program Rule'' for
Program 2 (modified) or Program 3 processes.
Overview
The PSM regulations are organized by the following subsections and
lay out a prescribed set of rules for compliance. These rules require
significant documentation to ensure safe work practices for employees
and contractors, operational safety, equipment integrity, management of
change and incident investigation. The regulatory language is simple
and brief, but requires detailed documentation, and a thorough working
knowledge of each of the subsections' applications.
(a) Application
(b) Blank
(c) Employee Participation
(d) Process Safety Information
(e) Process Hazard Analysis
(f) Operating Procedures
(g) Training
(h) Contractors
(i) Pre-Startup Safety Review
(j) Mechanical Integrity
(k) Hot-Work Permit
(l) Management of Change
(m) Incident Investigation
(n) Emergency Planning and Response
(o) Compliance Audits
(p) Trade Secrets
The purpose of this summary is to link the subsection areas with
the API specifications, standards, recommended practices and codes
(``standards'') that are relevant and applicable in documenting PSM
compliance.
Role of National Consensus Standards in PSM Compliance
In an interpretation provided to ISA in 2000, (http://www.osha-
slc.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show--document?p--table=INTERPRETATIONS&p--
id=23722) OSHA stated, in response to a query regarding the
applicability of ANSI/ISA S84.01, that as a national consensus
document, OSHA considers it to be a recognized and generally accepted
good engineering practice. Further it states, ``Based on input from
stakeholders, OSHA stated in the PSM final rule (see F.R., Volume 57,
No. 36, pg 6390) that it did not intend to incorporate by reference
into PSM all the codes and standards published by consensus groups.''
Further, in Appendix C to 1910.119, with regard to process safety
information, OSHA states:
The information pertaining to process equipment design must be
documented. In other words, what were the codes and standards relied on
to establish good engineering practice. These codes and standards are
published by such organizations as the * * * American Petroleum
Institute. * * *
In the context of mechanical integrity and inspection, OSHA notes:
Meantime to failure of various instrumentation and equipment parts
would be known from the manufacturers data or the employer's experience
with the parts, which would then influence the inspection and testing
frequency and associated procedures. Also, applicable codes and
standards such as * * * those from the American Petroleum Institute * *
* and other groups, provide information to help establish an effective
testing and inspection frequency, as well as appropriate methodologies.
In these two citations, OSHA has asserted that compliance with OSHA
PSM requirements, therefore, may be demonstrated and supported through
the reliance on these national consensus documents developed under ANSI
accredited procedures including numerous standards produced by API.
Relationship Between API Standards and Certification Programs to OSHA
PSM Requirements
The relevant API standards and programs can be generally grouped
into five categories:
a) Personnel and Contractor Safety
b) Fire Prevention, Protection and Suppression
c) Inspection of Equipment and Methodologies for In-Service
Assessment
d) Equipment Design and Reliability
e) Technical Data on Petroleum Product Properties
f) Certification for Training Providers and Individuals
The following list by PSM Subsection shows the relevant API
standards and programs that related to each section's subject area.
a) Application
b) Blank
c) Employee Participation----
2220, Improving Owner and Contractor Safety Performance
2221, Contractor and Owner Safety Program mplementation
d) Process Safety Information
Safe Limits/Process Chemistry
Technical Data Book--Petroleum Refining
Materials of Construction----
600, Bolted Bonnet Steel Gate Valves for Petroleum and Natural Gas
Industries
602, Steel Gate, Globe and Check Valves for Sizes DN 100 and
Smaller for the Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries
603, Corrosion-Resistant, Bolted Bonnet Gate Valves--Flanged and
Butt-Welding Ends
608, Metal Ball Valves--Flanged, Threaded and Butt-Welding Ends
609, Butterfly Valves: Double Flanged, Lug- and Water-Type
620, Design and Construction of Large, Welded, Low-pressure Storage
Tanks
650, Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage
520, Sizing, Selection, and Installation of Pressure-relieving
Devices in Refineries, Part I--Sizing and Selection
6D, Specification for Pipeline Valves
Electrical Classification----
500, Recommended Practice for Classification of Locations for
Electrical Installations at Petroleum Facilities Classified as Class I,
Division 1 and Division 2
505, Recommended Practice for Classification of Locations for
Electrical Installations at Petroleum Facilities Classified as Class l,
Zone 0, Zone 1 and Zone 2
Relief System Design----
520 Pt.1, Sizing, Selection, and Installation of Pressure-relieving
Devices in Refineries, Part I--Sizing and Selection 521, Guide for
Pressure-relieving and Depressuring Systems
Ventilation System Design----
2015, Requirements for Safe Entry and Cleaning of Petroleum Storage
Tanks
2016, Guidelines and Procedures for Entering and Cleaning Petroleum
Storage Tanks
2217A, Guidelines for Work in Inert Confined Spaces in the
Petroleum Industry
Safety Systems----
2001, Fire Protection in Refineries
2003, Protection Against Ignitions Arising Out of Static,
Lightning, and Stray Currents
2009, Safe Welding, Cutting and Hot Work Practices in the Petroleum
and Petrochemical Industries
2027, Ignition Hazards Involved in Abrasive Blasting of Atmospheric
Storage Tanks in Hydrocarbon Service
2028, Flame Arresters in Piping Systems
2030, Application of Fixed Water Spray Systems for Fire
Protection in the Petroleum and Petrochemical Industries
2201, Safe Hot Tapping Practices in the Petroleum &
Petrochemical Industries
2210, Flame Arresters for Vents of Tanks Storing Petroleum
Products
2214, Spark Ignition Properties of Hand Tools
2216, Ignition Risk of Hydrocarbon Vapors by Hot Surfaces
in the Open Air
2217A, Guidelines for Work in Inert Confined Spaces in the
Petroleum Industry
2218, Fireproofing Practices in Petroleum and Petrochemical
Processing Plants
2220, Improving Owner and Contractor Safety Performance
2221, Contractor and Owner Safety Program Implementation
2015, Requirements for Safe Entry and Cleaning of Petroleum Storage
Tanks
2016, Guidelines and Procedures for Entering and Cleaning Petroleum
Storage Tanks
2021, Management of Atmospheric Storage Tank Fires
2026, Safe Access/Egress Involving Floating Roofs of Storage Tanks
in Petroleum Service
2350 Overfill Protection for Storage Tanks in Petroleum Facilities
Inspection----
510, Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: In-Service Inspection,
Rating, Repair, and Alteration
570, Piping Inspection Code: Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and
Rerating of In-service Piping Systems
653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction
579, Fitness-For-Service
572, Inspection of Pressure Vessels
573, Inspection of Fired Boilers and Heaters
574, Inspection Practices for Piping System Components
575, Inspection of Atmospheric & Low Pressure Storage Tanks
576, Inspection of Pressure Relieving Devices
577, Welding Inspection and Metallurgy
578, Material Verification Program for New and Existing Alloy
Piping Systems
e) Process Hazard Analysis
Incident Data----
2384, 2005 Survey on Petroleum Industry Occupational Injuries,
Illnesses, and Fatalities Summary Report: Aggregate Data Only
2383, 2004 Survey on Petroleum Industry Occupational Injuries,
Illnesses, and Fatalities Summary Report: Aggregate Data Only
2382, 2003 Survey on Petroleum Industry Occupational Injuries,
Illnesses, and Fatalities Summary Report: Aggregate Data Only
2381, 2002 Survey on Petroleum Industry Occupational Injuries,
Illnesses and Fatalities Summary Report: Aggregate Data Only
Controls for Process Monitoring and Instrumentation----
551, Process Measurement Instrumentation
552, Transmission Systems
553, Refinery Control Valves
554, Process Instrumentation and Control
555, Process Analyzers
556, Fired Heaters & Steam Generators
557, Guide to Advanced Control Systems
Consequences of Failure----
580, Risk-Based Inspection
581, Base Resource Document--Risk Based Inspection
f) Operating Procedures
g) Training
Initial and refresher training programs are supported by several
API programs including the ``Training Provider Certification Program''
(TPCP) which accredits trainers, the ``Individual Certification
Program'' (ICP) which accredits individuals who have demonstrated
competency in various inspection subject areas, and ``API University''
which provides specific training on safety, maintenance, operations,
and standards.
h) Contractors
2220, Improving Owner and Contractor Safety Performance
2221, Contractor and Owner Safety Program Implementation
i) Pre-Startup Safety Review
j) Mechanical Integrity
Application----
579, Fitness-For-Service
Pressure Vessels and Storage Tanks----
510, Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: In-Service Inspection,
Rating, Repair, and Alteration
653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction
572, Inspection of Pressure Vessels
575, Inspection of Atmospheric & Low Pressure Storage Tanks
Piping Systems and Valves----
570, Piping Inspection Code: Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and
Rerating of In-service Piping Systems
574, Inspection Practices for Piping System Components
578, Material Verification Program for New and Existing Alloy
Piping Systems
598, Valve Inspection and Testing
607, Testing of Valves--Fire Type-testing Requirements
622, Type Testing of Process Valve Packing for Fugitive Emissions
Relief and Vent Systems and Devices----
576, Inspection of Pressure Relieving Devices
510, Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: In-Service Inspection,
Rating, Repair, and Alteration
537, Flare Details for General Refinery and Petrochemical Service
2000, Venting Atmospheric and Low-pressure Storage Tanks:
Nonrefrigerated and Refrigerated
Emergency Shutdown Systems----
2350, Overfill Protection for Storage Tanks in Petroleum Facilities
Controls----
551, Process Measurement Instrumentation
552, Transmission Systems
553, Refinery Control Valves
554, Process Instrumentation and Control
555, Process Analyzers
556, Fired Heaters & Steam Generators
557, Guide to Advanced Control Systems
Pumps----
610, Centrifugal Pumps for Petroleum, Petrochemical and Natural Gas
Industries
614, Lubrication, Shaft-sealing, and Control-oil Systems and
Auxiliaries for Petroleum, Chemical and Gas Industry Services
674, Positive Displacement Pumps--Reciprocating
675, Positive Displacement Pumps--Controlled Volume
676, Positive Displacement Pumps--Rotary
681, Liquid Ring Vacuum Pumps and Compressors
682, Pumps--Shaft Sealing Systems for Centrifugal and Rotary Pumps
685, Sealless Centrifugal Pumps for Petroleum, Heavy Duty Chemical,
and Gas Industry Services
686, Machinery Installation and Installation Design
687, Rotor Repair
k) Hot-Work Permit----
2201, Safe Hot Tapping Practices in the Petroleum & Petrochemical
Industries
l) Management of Change
Inspections and Tests----
510, Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: In-Service Inspection,
Rating, Repair, and Alteration
570, Piping Inspection Code: Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and
Rerating of In-service Piping Systems
653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction
579, Fitness-For-Service
572, Inspection of Pressure Vessels
573, Inspection of Fired Boilers and Heaters
574, Inspection Practices for Piping System Components
575, Inspection of Atmospheric & Low Pressure Storage Tanks
576, Inspection of Pressure Relieving Devices
577, Welding Inspection and Metallurgy
578, Material Verification Program for New and Existing Alloy
Piping Systems
581, Base Resource Document--Risk Based Inspection
Suitability for Service----
(All Previously Standards Listed Above)
m) Incident Investigation
n) Emergency Planning and Response
o) Compliance Audits
p) Trade Secrets
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Nibarger.
STATEMENT OF KIM NIBARGER, HEALTH AND SAFETY SPECIALIST, UNITED
STEELWORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, SAFETY
AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Nibarger. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this
morning. My name is Kim Nibarger. I am a member of the United
Steelworkers, and I am also a Health and Safety Specialist for
the union's Health, Safety and Environment Department. The USW
has approximately 850,000 members in the United States and
Canada. Notwithstanding our name, we represent workers in
virtually every segment of the workforce--steel, of course, but
also paper, mining, aluminum, and other nonferrous metals,
chemicals, plastics, tires and rubber, glass, health care, and
petrochemicals, which is the subject of today's hearing.
Our members work in very dangerous environments where
worker safety is key. The Process Safety Management standard
was developed to help ensure safe and helpful workplaces
processing toxic, reactive, flammable gases and liquids or
other highly hazardous chemicals. The implementation of PSM
began in 1992, and all requirements of the program were to be
in place by May 26, 1997.
There were a number of devastating accidents in the
petrochemical industry that precipitated this legislation.
Unfortunately, these accidents continue to take place.
The explosion at the BP facility in Texas City resulted in
15 fatalities and in more than 170 injuries. This was but one
of a handful of incidents that take the lives of workers in the
petrochemical industry every month. The reason these go
unnoticed is that they usually happen one or two fatalities at
a time or the affected workers are contract employees who do
not get connected with the proprietary employers.
Unfortunately, it takes a major event like the one we saw in
Texas City for these incidents to get any real notice. In fact,
prior to the BP explosion, there was one worker fatality every
16 months for 30 years at the Texas City facility.
The number of releases of highly hazardous chemicals, in
particular hydrocarbons, that do not find an ignition source is
estimated to be 98 percent. Again, you do not hear about these
releases unless there is an explosion or a fire associated with
the release. Any number of these releases, had they found an
ignition source, could have resulted in consequences as tragic
as Texas City.
The refinery that I worked for in Anacortes, Washington
released approximately 27,000 pounds of propane and propylene
as light hydrocarbons in April of 2006. They did not find an
ignition source, and the release was contained. Had the ensuing
vapor cloud ignited, the damage would have been extensive. The
underlying cause was a pipe corrosion issue brought on by a
seemingly small change in the process which was not considered
significant enough to trigger a Management of Change review, or
MOC.
The day before Thanksgiving in 1998 at this same facility,
we experienced a situation with slightly different
circumstances. Again, a Management of Change was not performed,
and a decision was made to handle this abnormal event using
normal procedures. The result was six fatalities. I was one
member of a team tasked with the retrieval of the bodies of my
six coworkers.
The fire at the Valero refinery in Sunray, Texas on
February 16th of this year was also a release of light
hydrocarbons, propane, but this release found an ignition
source almost immediately that resulted in a serious fire but
did minimal damage compared to the potential damage from a
vapor cloud forming and then igniting. There could have easily
been as many fatalities in any of these instances as there were
in Texas City where the circumstances were slightly different.
Since the beginning of 2007, Valero has had a total of
eight incidents, ranging from loss of utilities that resulted
in production cutbacks and flaring to four incidents that
caused fires. This is a pattern repeated all too often. In the
U.S. from January 1st through February 16th of this year, there
have been 43 incidents of pipeline leaks, chemical releases,
plant upsets, and fires. This list is not inclusive, but I seek
to focus on refinery and chemical plants as well as
distribution facilities. In some instances, facilities or
neighborhoods were evacuated without incident. Sadly, in others
there were lives lost.
The United Steelworkers represents approximately half of
the workers in the petrochemical industry in this country. We
have an intimate concern with the well-being of the workers we
represent as well as the industry.
One of the union's major goals is to work with the
petrochemical industry to make it safer for our members and for
the communities in which these facilities exist. In the case of
BP, we are currently in negotiations with the company to
institute a 10-point program to address several items brought
forward through the Baker panel report.
Specifically, we are working to establish a pilot program
in Texas City of the unions, a trial prevention program for a
joint accident/near miss investigation. We are working on
collectively developing safety and job training programs as
well as procedure writing and a review process for all of BP's
U.S. represented sites. The issue of adequate staffing and
reasonable work hours is also being addressed.
This is the first step in our union's goal of realizing
this type of involvement at all of the facilities we represent.
Who knows better about the day-to-day activities and the best
way to deal with them than the workers who perform these jobs
on a daily basis?
For me, safety in the petrochemical industry is personal.
My USW responsibilities involve me in the prevention and
investigation of industrial fatalities on a daily basis. The
focus of everything we do is to eliminate deaths in the
workplace. When I no longer have to investigate workplace
fatalities, I will be the happiest person alive.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify this
morning.
[The statement of Mr. Nibarger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kim Nibarger, Health and Safety Specialist,
Health, Safety and Environment Department, United Steelworkers
International Union
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you this morning. My name is Kim Nibarger.
I am a member of the United Steelworkers (USW), and I am also a Health
and Safety Specialist for our Union's Health, Safety and Environment
Department. The USW has approximately 850,000 members in the United
States and Canada. Notwithstanding our name, we represent workers in
virtually every segment of the workforce--steel of course, but also,
paper, mining, aluminum and other nonferrous metals, chemicals,
plastics, tires and rubber, glass, health care, and petrochemicals,
which is the subject of today's hearing.
Our members work in very dangerous environments where worker safety
is key. The Process Safety Management (PSM) standard was developed to
help insure safe and healthful workplaces processing toxic, reactive,
flammable gasses and liquids or other highly hazardous chemicals.
Implementation of PSM began in 1992 and all requirements of the program
were to be in place by May 26, 1997.
There were a number of devastating accidents in the petrochemical
industry that precipitated this legislation. Unfortunately, these
accidents continue to take place.
The explosion at the BP facility in Texas City resulted in 15
fatalities and more than 170 injuries. This was but one of a handful of
incidents that take the lives of workers in the petrochemical industry
every month. The reason these go unnoticed is that they usually happen
one or two fatalities at a time, or the affected workers are contract
employees who do not get connected with the proprietary employers.
Unfortunately it takes a major event like the one we saw in Texas City
for these incidents to get any real notice. In fact, prior to the BP
explosion, there was one worker fatality every 16 months for 30 years
at the Texas City facility.
The number of releases of highly hazardous chemicals, in particular
hydrocarbons, that do not find an ignition source is estimated to be
98%. Again, you do not hear about these releases unless there is an
explosion or fire associated with the release. Any number of these
releases--had they found an ignition source--could have resulted in
consequences as tragic as Texas City.
The refinery I worked for in Anacortes, Washington, released
approximately 27,000 pounds of propane and propylene as light
hydrocarbons in April 2006. They did not find an ignition source, and
the release was contained. Had the ensuing vapor cloud ignited, the
damage would have been extensive. The underlying cause was a pipe
corrosion issue, brought on by a seemingly small change in the process
which was not significant enough to trigger a Management of Change
review, or MOC.
The day before Thanksgiving in 1998 at this same facility, we
experienced a situation with slightly different circumstances. Again, a
Management of Change was not performed, and the decision was made to
handle this abnormal event using normal procedures. The result was six
fatalities. I was one member of a team tasked with the retrieval of the
bodies of my six co-workers.
The fire at the Valero refinery in Sunray, Texas on February 16th
of this year was also a release of light hydrocarbons, propane, but
this release found an ignition source almost immediately that resulted
in a serious fire, but did minimal damage compared to the potential
damage from a vapor cloud forming and then igniting.
There could have easily been as many fatalities in any of these
instances as there were in Texas City, but the circumstances were
slightly different.
Since the beginning of 2007, Valero has had a total of eight
incidents--ranging from loss of utilities that resulted in production
cutbacks and flaring--to four incidents that caused fires.
This is a pattern repeated all too often. In the US, from January
1st through February 16th of this year, there have been 43 incidents of
pipeline leaks, chemical releases, plant upsets and fires. This list is
not inclusive, but I seek to focus on refinery and chemical plants, as
well as distribution facilities.
In some instances, facilities or neighborhoods were evacuated
without incident, sadly in others, there were lives lost.
The United Steelworkers represents approximately half of the
workers in the petrochemical industry in this country. We have an
intimate concern with the well-being of the workers we represent as
well as the industry.
One of Union's major goals is to work with the petrochemical
industry to make it safer for our members and the communities in which
these facilities exist. In the case of BP, we are currently in
negotiations with the company to institute a ten point program to
address several items brought forward through the Baker panel report.
Specifically we are working to establish a pilot program at Texas
City of the Union's ``Triangle of Prevention'' program for joint
accident/near miss investigation. We are working on collectively
developing safety and job training programs as well as procedure
writing and a review process for all of BP's U.S. represented sites.
The issue of adequate staffing and reasonable work hours is also being
addressed.
This is a first step in our Union's goal of realizing this type of
involvement at all the facilities we represent. Who knows better about
the day-to-day activities and the best way to deal with them then the
workers who perform these job duties on a daily basis?
For me, safety in the petrochemical industry is personal. My USW
responsibilities involve me in prevention and investigation of
industrial fatalities on a daily basis. The focus of everything we do
is to eliminate deaths in the workplace. When I no longer have to
investigate workplace fatalities, I will be the happiest person alive.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify this morning.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much. Thank you to all of
the witnesses.
Let me just, at the outset, say that it is hard to grow up
where I grew up and not be familiar with the oil and chemistry
industry with the number of refineries that are in and around
my home, and I worked as a student in high school and college
for Chevron and Shell and what at that time was Phillips and
Tosco and others, and I think I appreciate the nature of this
industry and the hazards that are inherent when you are dealing
around flammable chemicals and high temperatures and complex
processes, but I am a little worried about the language in the
hearing this morning.
Mr. Cavaney, you say that API is the industry standard
setting leader, and the American National Standards Institute's
accredited Standards Development Organization operates with
approved standards, development procedures and undergoes
regular audits process.
Having said all of that, this refinery was able to operate
for more than 15 years essentially in violation of, I assume,
all of those standards that were set in terms of looking at
process safety standards, and so I assume that they are not
mandatory. They are what the standards for the industry should
be and would like to be, and you revise them all the time, but
somehow they can also apparently be completely ignored without
any repercussions to the company.
Admiral Bowman, you said that BP had mistakenly chosen to
look at worker accidents and injury and illness rates as
opposed to process. I would think that the report of the
Chemical Safety Board said that they chose not to look at the
process safety procedures and what indicators those might have,
in fact, served in terms of raising cautionary flags, red
flags, and process changes.
In fact, the Chair of the board, Ms. Merritt, says, quote,
``In our final report, we concluded that organizational safety
deficiencies at all levels of the British Petroleum Corporation
caused this terrible accident. We found widespread safety/
cultural deficiencies both at the Texas City refinery and at
the higher levels of BP.''
In fact, Chairman Merritt, those reached all the way into
the board of directors, if I understand your report correctly,
in terms of the failures that you attribute to leading to this
accident. Is that not so?
Ms. Merritt. Yes. We know that at least one member of the
board of directors on the executive committee had information
from internal reports that identified serious safety problems
and operational deficiencies at the facility and culture gaps
that were not addressed. As a matter of fact, following a
presentation of those facts, they required another 25 percent
cutback in cost.
Chairman Miller. So there were the cutbacks in terms of
cost, in terms of safety and training and that, but also, let
me ask you. It is my understanding again that this particular
piece of equipment that was central to this accident had been
identified back in the 1970s as equipment that was out of date
and that there were more modern alternatives to this equipment
and, in fact, that OSHA had warned British Petroleum about this
some 13 years before the explosion; is that correct?
Ms. Merritt. Yes, that is correct, and we know that other
companies in the refining industry have replaced this piece of
equipment called a ``blow-down drum'' with flares and with
remote knockout drums and flares that are outside the battery
limits of operations, which is what is recommended. However,
BP, even though it had a policy that when this equipment was
replaced or significantly modified that they would replace it
with flares--and we know that they had a number of
opportunities to do that--that they did not, and we have
evidence, at least in one case, where they did that due to
budgetary reasons.
Chairman Miller. So they made a conscious choice not to
follow those recommendations and not to replace that equipment
with the procedure that had been identified as being safer?
Ms. Merritt. Yes, we know that is true.
Chairman Miller. The process safety procedures, I assume--
well, correct me if I am wrong. As I look at them, they are
really a way of giving you early indicators of the operations
of a refinery or of a chemical facility that when taken
together--and that may be taken together as three incidents or
seven incidents or 10 incidents depending on the type of
incident--that might tell you something about either the skills
or the training or the operations of this facility that you
might want to pay attention to because collectively they could
lead to a catastrophe.
Is that a fair statement of the intent of these?
Ms. Merritt. Yes. The Process Safety Management rule
requires that companies that are covered by this rule keep a
record, a log of incidents, that are called ``near misses,''
where a release could have caused a problem, a release of toxic
or hazardous materials, and that that investigation is supposed
to be kept in a record, and if OSHA were doing their program
quality comprehensive audits of facilities prior to incidents
they would have these records then to review.
However, what we have found at BP is that they were not
doing incident investigations of even very, very serious
incidents that I would not even call ``near misses.'' I would
call them a catastrophe except for a spark, and they did not
investigate those. We know that they were----
Chairman Miller. OSHA and BP?
Ms. Merritt. BP did not investigate those and did not use
even that evidence of a hazard when they did their hazard and
operability reviews every couple of years. They were not even
reviewing incidents that were occurring in their own facility.
So we know that that part of the standard--those incident
investigations are not required to be submitted to OSHA. They
are only required to be kept on property, but if no audits are
being done that just is not happening in a lot of cases, and we
find that in other investigations, too, not just this one, that
incidents that were prewarning events that management could
have used to have prevented a catastrophe were not investigated
and OSHA was doing no preventative audits whatsoever, so this
evidence was never used to prevent an accident.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Cavaney, how does the company, an
international company, you know, a very successful company, how
do they sink to this level given your standards and your
constant review and the communications, I assume, that take
place across all of your members? How do you sink to this level
where for 15 years you ignore these recommendations, these
signs, these incidents and still believe somehow you are in
compliance with API standards?
Mr. Cavaney. Mr. Chairman, I cannot speak specifically to
each of the refineries. I have not been involved in the
investigations, nor am I aware of the details.
Chairman Miller. Would you disagree with the
characterization that this has led to a culture, a widespread
safety culture of deficiencies?
Mr. Cavaney. As I said, again, Mr. Chairman, I have not
visited any of those facilities. I am not familiar with them.
Chairman Miller. How would you characterize what took place
here?
Mr. Cavaney. A tragedy.
Chairman Miller. Have you read the report?
Mr. Cavaney. We have not received the report yet. It is
supposed to be out within the next week to us. Mr. Chairman, I
am aware of the public discussion about it, and obviously it is
a tragedy, and as I mentioned in my remarks, we operate
refineries in high temperature, high pressure environments with
hazardous materials, and we are consistently looking to try and
find an edge on how we can improve safety because at the end of
the day protecting your employees----
Chairman Miller. Yes, but with all due respect, the API is
not blowing up. The refineries are.
Mr. Cavaney. I understand.
Chairman Miller. Your constituent members are blowing up.
You know, in my community you can get a telephone call at 3:00
o'clock in the morning telling you you have to shelter in
place. You know it can happen to you time and again in a number
of my communities, and it in fact happens that way. So
something is very wrong. I mean maybe this is what the
administration believes is somehow voluntary compliance, the
fact that you set these standards, but something is very wrong
between these standards and what is happening on the ground.
Mr. Cavaney. Well, obviously, if you have an accident, it
needs to be investigated, and----
Chairman Miller. But it is not.
Mr. Cavaney [continuing]. Steps need to be taken, but if
you look at the industry's record over time in terms of
nonfatal injuries and nonfatal accidents, we have continued to
make improvement, and we are trying to----
Chairman Miller. I hope so.
Mr. Cavaney [continuing]. Prevent all accidents, is what we
are trying to do here through this standards process and
through our recommended practices. It is something you are
vigilant with and you work on consistently.
Chairman Miller. But I think there are two problems here,
with all due respect. One is the word ``voluntary,'' and the
other is ``recommended'' because obviously this is a huge gap.
This is a huge gap that the people of Texas City, you know,
suffered, and BP for year after year after year drove their
processes through that gap.
And I have been more than generous with myself on the time,
and I will yield to my colleague, Mr. McKeon.
Mr. Cavaney. Mr. Chairman, may I just answer your last
question? We are regulated by OSHA and a number of other
Federal Government bodies as well as at the State level who
conduct inspections to see whether or not compliance is going
on. All we can do is certify what the best practices are.
Chairman Miller. With all due respect, Mr. Cavaney, that
did not happen. That did not happen until this place blew up.
Mr. Cavaney. I understand.
Chairman Miller. Mr. McKeon.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, going back, looking at the report and how there
were--of course the tragedy of the 15 deaths, but every 16
months a death for many, many years before should have, I
think, sent a much more serious warning signal and should have
had a much more serious response.
There have been comments made about that the company had
warnings. They knew about it. A board member knew about it, and
because of financial reasons, budgetary reasons, it did not
make the necessary corrections or follow the recommendations
that were given. I guess most board members or maybe all board
members--I guess their job is to see that the company runs and
runs well and makes a profit. It seems like there was some
shortsightedness, and in the terms of trying to turn a profit--
and I am not against profit. I think that is what--you know,
that is important. Nobody would have jobs. Nothing would move
forward if a profit were not made, but by being shortsighted
and saving on the short run, they ended up paying the largest
fine ever. Maybe there are some things--I am hopeful that what
comes out of this hearing and any prospective legislation or
anything that comes from it for those 15 and all of the others
who have died in serious accidents such as this is we,
together, come together to try to resolve that this does not
happen in the future, and we should come out of this hearing
with some positive recommendations. If OSHA is not doing proper
oversight, if your organization is not doing proper oversight,
if the companies are not doing proper oversight, we should find
those and find ways to make a correction.
I know that in the report one of the things, Admiral, that
you recommended was that we have third party audits. That is
something that Charlie Norwood, I know--our late friend--pushed
for four years, and I am pleased to see that in your
recommendation.
Can you explain how that would be beneficial in going
forward?
Admiral Bowman. Yes, sir.
If I may, the entire system--in my personal view, the
charter of our panel did not extend to looking at this
regulatory aspect of this. We were specifically, by the urgent
recommendation of the Chemical Safety Board, asked to look at
the process safety management and the corporate culture of
process safety at BP, but if I can offer my personal
observation, to me it is incredible that what seems, to me, to
be happening with the OSHA oversight of these refineries and of
their responsibilities in this regard is that we are constantly
shooting behind the duck; that is, after the accident occurs
OSHA then comes in. There seems to be no or little preemptive
investigation, third party evaluation of those preemptive
investigations and evaluations.
I would point to the mere fact that our panel filled this
book with what we consider to be very serious and material
deficiencies on the part of these refineries in BP, and yet it
was only after the accident that OSHA came, investigated, found
300 very serious or over 300 very serious violations of their
own standards. To me and in the culture that I have grown up in
the nuclear Navy and in the commercial nuclear industry in this
country, that is not the way you run the railroad. If they can
find 300 serious violations after the explosion, it would seem
to me that preemptively finding those violations may have
prevented this tragedy, and I think that that is one of the
main root causes of why we are here today.
Ms. Merritt. May I add to that?
Mr. McKeon. Yes.
Ms. Merritt. Under the process safety rule as it was
implemented in 1992, there is a provision for OSHA to do
comprehensive preemptive audits of facilities. That is part of
the regulation already, and that part of the regulation was
never implemented by OSHA. When they do an inspection--and we
know that they have very few trained inspectors to be able to
do process safety audits or preemptive audits, which are really
quite complicated and very technical. They have done
inspections of facilities, but they are usually after an event,
and they are looking for things that are shop floor incidents
and personal safety incidents such as slips, trips and falls or
electrical connections. Whereas, if they had come in before
this accident--I mean there were 10 fatalities in the period of
a year preceding this one where, if they had come in and looked
at the process for verification of implementation of process
safety, they would have seen easily that this very important
and very well done rule was not being implemented at the BP
facility.
Mr. McKeon. So it sounds like we have a cultural problem
within OSHA, because I come from a business background before I
came to Congress, and there used to be all kinds of complaints
about OSHA of all of the nitpicky things that they do, and
maybe they should be looking at these very serious, more--where
there are much more hazardous occupations, that they should be
really focusing on those instead of some of the little nitpicky
things that they do get involved with. You know, I am even
wondering if this goes back to the boardroom. Maybe in the
selection of the board there should be one person that is
brought on the board just to oversee these kinds of things, and
that should be a responsibility so that when everybody else is
sitting around talking about ways we can save money that it
would have to go through a member of the board who has that
personal responsibility to oversee safety.
Ms. Merritt. And if I might speak to that. We did make that
recommendation that the board see what a good idea it was. We
did make that recommendation. And indeed, you know, I have
reported to such boards in companies that have environment,
health and safety committees and was asked very hard questions
when there was downsizing or when we were in financial trouble
whether or not things were being done correctly, and it was my
responsibility to report to them on leading indicators such as
audits, corrective findings, and what were the results of
audits and whether funding was being spent on training and
other things. So the indicators are there for boards to ask the
questions if they are asking questions at all about this.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, and the chairman was very gracious
in letting me use extra time, too, so I appreciate that.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. I would also be interested in
the qualifications of the board in the decision making process
that when you double your profits from 2003 of $10.4 billion to
$22.3 billion, this must have been the most expensive flaring
system in the world if you decided
that you couldn't afford to make this change. I mean, I
really want to know that process of thinking that you would use
to make that decision given the history, again, and that
somehow that would be a deferred expenditure of cost concerns.
Mr. Hare.
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I can't
tell you how very sorry I am for you and for all of the
families involved in that loss. I can't imagine the pain you
are going through and how much courage it took for you to come
here today and to talk to us.
I have to tell you I worked in a clothing factory for 13
years, and there was, as I have said many times, there were 60
of us and two of us got out with all 10 of our fingers. We had
one OSHA inspection in the 13\1/2\ years we worked in that
plant. I find it inexcusable that OSHA--if I heard correctly,
10 years between inspections. And I would just like to know
from maybe somebody on the panel--and I will have a couple of
questions for another witness--what is the problem here? Is
this because they don't have the inspectors? Is this because
they don't have the money to do the enforcement? Is this
because they just don't feel like coming out and investigating
these possible complaints? I mean, what is the holdup here? I
cannot fathom technically in this industry a 10-year law
between inspections. I am wondering if anybody has an opinion
on that.
Ms. Merritt. I would be glad to offer an opinion on it. The
rule is there for these inspections to be done and it was
envisioned by OSHA that they would inspect--plants would have
comprehensive PSM inspections that could last weeks or months
and that they would require highly trained and dedicated staff
to do this. Unfortunately, and I can't tell you why that was
never carried out. They have very few inspectors who are
qualified to do process safety. Actually some of the States
have done better. As a matter of fact, in Contra Costa County
they have a PSM oversight group of five people that goes in and
inspects each of their PSM covered operations every 3 years. So
it is not a matter of difficulty. It is a matter of how are you
going to resource it and then having the commitment to do it.
Mr. Hare. Mr. Cavaney, in your testimony you said that
safety in the industry is a moral imperative and a top
priority. And the CEO, BP former CEO said we never focused on
profits above safety. Team safety has always come first. If you
found that one of your members was putting profits above safety
and not complying with the API standards, what would you do?
Can you expel them from API, report them to OSHA or EPA, or
where is the enforcement mechanism within API if there are
companies that----
Mr. Cavaney. API is not a regulatory body nor do we have
any regulatory authority. We are the experts and that is why we
put out recommended practices and all, and then we provide them
to the government who regulates us, and it is up to the
government to develop either plans off of ours or develop their
own on what needs to be done. And in the case of process
safety, as Chairman Miller mentioned, we provided what is
called Publication 750. We created the whole thing, put
together the blueprint and handed it over to OSHA in order for
them to bid on, to create their regulatory scheme.
But it is up to the government, the various agencies in our
refineries to do the regulation and we will comply, and I will
certainly agree that more frequent investigations, looking at
these things, that is how you get your improvements and
continue to move forward because things do change over time.
Mr. Hare. As you are aware, OSHA only requires companies to
log the illnesses and injuries on the workers on the sites. But
what about the contractors? I mean, if people who are not the
employees, per se, of the refinery, how do you log those
illnesses and injuries and are those people, if they are not
included in the safety reports, isn't that--that is really an
inconclusive report, it would seem to me, if the contractors
aren't reported in safety inspections or included in illnesses
or accidents.
Mr. Cavaney. If I could explain the process. The employees
and contractors that are going to work on the refinery facility
all go through the same training and briefings on safety.
The contractors who have an operational role in running the
refinery, as an employee does, they are reported together. But
the government regulations for reporting incidents says
contractors who are not on operational mode; in other words,
those who are looking at a turn-around and going through
construction and all, they are reported in a different category
and we have no control over that. That is what the government
requires us to do. But they are all trained and exposed to the
same sort of briefings and awareness regardless of whether they
are an employee or a contractor.
Mr. Hare. The ranking member said, you know, what can we do
here. And there are a number of questions. It would really
appear to me that we are going to have to take a long look at
OSHA and its effectiveness and the kinds of funds that we are
willing to put into it to get the inspector out there
periodically because, again, I go back to this and you know I
see the pain on your face. I can't for the life of me
understand why a governmental agency tasked with trying to keep
people safe and making sure their workplace is safe has a 10-
year break between the time they go out and investigate and
that is really shameful, and I am hoping this committee will be
able to take that up. And I will promise you this. I will do
everything I can as a permanent member of this committee to
kick some OSHA people in the kneecaps.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. Mr. Platts.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for, and the committee, for holding this important hearing and
hearing from the tragic events that occurred 2 years ago
tomorrow and that we work to ensure these events are never
repeated and that we do better to ensure worker safety.
I also want to convey my sympathies to Ms. Rowe and her
brothers and all of the family members who lost loved ones on
that tragic day. I regret I am supposed to be in an oversight
hearing on Iraq across the hall, and I am going to yield the
balance of my time for purposes of questions to Mr. Boustany,
please. Thank you.
Mr. Boustany. I thank my colleague.
Thank you for holding this hearing. It is a very important
hearing. And I also convey my sympathies to you and the others
who have lost loved ones in this.
Mr. Cavaney, how long has API been developing industry
standards?
Mr. Cavaney. We developed the first one starting in 1924,
and we have currently an inventory of about 500, and of those
500, 110 of them relate specifically to the process of safety
issue.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you. And are the API standards process
an open process? How do you convey these industrywide?
Mr. Cavaney. Our standards process is ANSI, accredited
American National Standard Institute. And under that process,
you must conduct a fully transparent and open development of
standards. So anybody who is a stakeholder in the industry; in
other words, somebody that has the material interest in the
industry is invited to participate in the development of those
standards and recommended practices.
Every year at the beginning of the year through NIST, we
issue all the recommended practices and standards that are
going to be reviewed in the upcoming year so that people with
an interest will have knowledge that they are going on and they
are welcome. And as a matter of fact, that is the strength of
the standard process, is you want experts and people outside
the industry so we don't end up creating blind spots because we
are not aware of something that is going on.
It does take a bit of time and it is a collaborative
process, and the agreement that ultimately comes up is we end
up turning out documents so that people can see how it is going
forward, and as I mentioned here, a little later this spring we
are going to produce the first standard recommended practice
that comes out on trailers, which is a very specific finding
that the Chemical Safety Board recommended that we review.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you. My understanding is that the CSB
report recommends that API work with the United Steelworkers on
some new standards. Is API willing to work with the
Steelworkers?
Mr. Cavaney. Yes, we are. In order to develop standards, we
have to be open and welcome anybody who is a stakeholder, and
certainly our workforce is a stakeholder.
The points that they have raised, we have not had direct
discussion but we have seen some of the press statements that
they have made and those are exactly the kinds of things we
factor in even though they are not at the table. So their
feedback has been considered as they go forward, and I think
talking earlier with Mr. Nibarger to have an opportunity now to
directly engage I think will actually speed the process of
assimilating some of this input into the process.
Mr. Boustany. Mr. Nibarger, are the Steelworkers willing to
work with API on the development of future standards?
Mr. Nibarger. Yes, sir.
Mr. Boustany. Have you worked with them before?
Mr. Nibarger. No, sir. We have not.
Mr. Boustany. Why?
Mr. Nibarger. As far as I know, we have never been asked.
Mr. Boustany. Mr. Cavaney, it sounds like the process is
open and you have tried to bring in all stakeholders. Can you
respond to that?
Mr. Cavaney. It is an open process. We try to look forward.
We can't change what happened in the past. I think this is an
opportunity that we should all take advantage of.
Mr. Boustany. You share that sentiment, Mr. Nibarger?
Mr. Nibarger. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you. CSB and Baker both made statements
extending their findings to the U.S. refining industry as a
whole. On what ground do you base those judgments? I mean, is
there anything official or scientific to extend those
judgments?
Mr. Bowman. For our part, we base those judgments not on
direct inspections of other companies but rather through the
massive year-long process that we went through interviewing
union workers, union officials, required officials from the
refinery business, contract workers who go from plant to plant,
company to company. And if the red light hadn't come on when it
did, I was going to say that the panel reports that we are
under no illusion that the deficiencies we found at BP are
limited just to BP based on those observations.
Mr. Boustany. Mr. Merritt, would you like to respond to
that?
Ms. Merritt. Our investigation was at the BP facility,
Texas City, and it is a corporate link to this event.
We have had many conversations with others that indicate
that this is not a unique situation. As a matter of fact, in
the past several years, I have been doing numerous
presentations to groups and invariably every time people come
up to me and say this situation exists at our facility as well.
So we felt that extending these two industries, not just the
petroleum industry but the chemical industry and chemical use
industry as well is well-founded, that these situations exist
everywhere.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I see the time has expired here.
Can I claim my 5 minutes now to continue a few questions?
Chairman Miller. No. We are going to rotate to Mrs. Shea-
Porter.
Ms. Shea-Porter. First, Ms. Rowe, let me express my deep
pain on hearing what happened to you. I worked in a factory
that dealt with some chemicals through the summers, and I know
they did not adhere to safety standards then, and I am so
deeply disappointed to hear that even now we have this struggle
and I deeply apologize. And I don't understand either. I share
the rage of this committee trying to figure out why we have
OSHA and why we have oversight when we don't do it.
And I am wondering how many times we will have hearings
like this on the next accident and the next until we tell the
truth to the American people, which is that we need oversight
for every industry, and heaven knows I believe in profit also,
but for every single industry in this country that has a risky
part of its business, we must have the oversight, the
protection so that we don't sit here again and again. And so I
apologize for the failure of OSHA and the failure of so many
others that have left you in such pain.
I will say that I have been looking at your parents'
picture the whole time. As you know, your mother is smiling and
I am sure she is smiling because of the great courage that you
are showing. So she obviously raised a very good daughter.
Having said that, I would like to address some comments,
please, first of all to Mr. Cavaney.
Are you asking members to report near misses to you, to
API? Apparently, they didn't feel the need to report to OSHA.
Do you collect any data?
Mr. Cavaney. We don't collect the data. To say that our
role in this is to set the standards and set out the framework.
Ms. Shea-Porter. I understand that, but do you have any
kind of feedback. You have these people who are actually
members of API, and I am sure you want it to look like you are
really doing a good job setting the standards. Were you ever
aware that data was not being collected for near misses?
Mr. Cavaney. One of the things that we tried to do is
obviously look at the latest information, and I personally have
not been aware of that kind of thing, but I will ask among the
people in our organization who work the standards and get back
to you.
Ms. Shea-Porter. If you don't collect the data, there is
nothing to look at. It is easy to say that everything is going
well if you don't ever open a book and have any indication at
all that things aren't going well.
Let me ask you, did you ever complain as a group about OSHA
standards being too tough or indeed maybe too easy? Was there
ever any conversation about OSHA not showing up at plants or
that you thought OSHA was, quote, breathing down the neck of
the industry?
Mr. Cavaney. I am not aware of any complaints about them
being too stringent or the frequency of their visits.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay. Also, could you tell me are there
any improvements in current OSHA standards or new standards
that you think would help that you would be endorsing right
now?
Mr. Cavaney. Well, there is a group called the OSHA
Alliance, which is they brought together many of the
associations and organizations who have been involved broadly
in the petrochemical and in the oil and gas industry. And what
they are doing is looking at process safety and seeing how we
can move it to the next level and what is the best practices
efforts that are going on right now, and one of the key
findings of that group is going to be when all of the reports
are actually made available and reviewed is they will come out
with a report and a finding about what we should do and which
gets priority rankings so we can move forward from there.
Ms. Shea-Porter. And then what happens? I guess my concern
here is that we collect reports after every accident, and they
sit some place on a shelf, and then once again, we have an
accident. What happens and what do you think your role could be
to make sure that what you actually hear is disseminated to the
groups that you represent and also that there is some kind of
measurement that people cannot belong to your organization
unless they are adhering to a certain standard. I mean, do you
hold their feet to the fire or can you just automatically have
membership because you are in the business?
Mr. Cavaney. Two points. The first answer is when we get
new findings or we hear of something, we institute a review of
the standards. We go back and look at it because it doesn't--
there is actually--if you go back to our documents that we
produced for OSHA in the early 1990s, it says that if you don't
have contemporaneous and current regulations in place and
guidance, that employees go on their own and come up with other
systems and some of those systems may not be any more safer and
could actually be worse. So we are very vigilant about getting
the latest technical information and going through that
process.
On the second point you made, we are a voluntary trade
association, and if we prohibit people from participating we
then run into antitrust problems and so we can only provide
guidance. We are not a regulatory body. So people come to us
and we give the government the guidance that we have.
Chairman Miller. Correct me if I am wrong on this. But as I
understand, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operation audits the
nuclear safety, and essentially, I guess, they ask companies to
leave that don't comply.
Mr. Bowman. Yes, sir. That is correct.
Chairman Miller. They are paid for by the industry; is that
correct?
Mr. Bowman. Yes, sir. That organization arose after the
situation at Three Mile Island. It is a peer sponsored and peer
paid for organization. They have that license. They have that
license to ask people to leave who don't comply.
Chairman Miller. My assumption was what was at stake here
in the future of the industry and all of those ramifications if
these power plants were not operated to the state of the art
and knowledge of the industry.
Mr. Bowman. Yes, sir.
Chairman Miller. So there is at least one example there
where this is more than a voluntary or induced paying
organization where you don't throw out anybody who pays you
dues. You comply with what is supposedly the best
recommendations from within the industry. You either do or you
are out. It is very interesting to have all of this commotion
going on. We have all of this commotion. We have got all of
these experts, all of these outside people reviewing this, and
they can simply lay on the table. Nobody has any obligation to
pick up anything. There is no downside to not taking the best
recommendations that the industry can demonstrate internally.
Mr. Bowman. Our panel report, sir, does recommend that the
refinery industry consider modeling an organization after the
Institute for Nuclear Power Operations because it has been so
successful in helping the nuclear industry along with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission that performs a minimum of 2,500
man-hours of preemptive inspection per year at each plant.
Chairman Miller. This is all doable. Thank you for
yielding.
Ms. Shea-Porter. That is exactly my concern here is that by
not holding your members to standards you are allowing them to
get the credit of belonging to your organization without having
any responsibility to it. And I just want to read the statement
that you had on your Web site saying--you are talking about the
gas and oil industry being increasingly a safer place to work.
This is reflected by a declining rate of illnesses and
injuries, a rate much lower than that for the private sector as
a whole.
Well, obviously, this company did not deserve to have that
kind of praise put upon them. Very clearly they didn't deserve
this. And so I am deeply disturbed that they can be a member
and that you actually don't have any teeth, and so therefore,
the rest of us looking at this assumed that they are reaching a
certain level of professionalism and a certain level of
certification and, boy, were we all wrong.
So I just would like to say that I think that, you know, we
need to hold them to some kind of a standard in order to be
able to belong to your organization. And I hope, I deeply hope
and pray that we are not going to be sitting here again in a
few years because once again you did great research, and I
thank all of you for what you did, but I think it will go
nowhere until we have another accident.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am still not clear
on the last question that I had asked about extrapolating your
findings from BP to industrywide. Would you describe that
information as anecdotal information or----
Ms. Merritt. More or less, but remember, we do audits. I
mean, we do investigations at a lot of facilities throughout
the industries that have had explosions, fires and releases,
many of them that have impacted communities extensively.
And so we recognize that the patterns of behavior we saw in
this investigation were not askew from what we find at almost
every other investigation.
So with that connection, I think if the evidence--I mean we
track evidence, our recommendations go where the evidence leads
us. And in this particular case, although we didn't investigate
all of those other facilities, we have done 40 or 45
investigations in our short history and, unfortunately, we see
the same pattern of behavior at facilities that blow up. So you
begin to say maybe there needs to be something done to correct
this behavior. And so that is why we have included other
industries, not just BP's facilities, but the entire refining
industry that should wake up to this and other industries that
should----
Mr. Boustany. Have you addressed reports to Congress based
on the information prior to the BP explosion?
Ms. Merritt. No, we haven't.
Mr. Boustany. Why?
Ms. Merritt. I don't know.
Mr. Boustany. Okay. Fair enough.
Another question. One finding in the Baker Panel was the
Baker Panel found that, but didn't report, the fact that Cherry
Point, a nonunion refinery, had the best safety culture of all
of the BP refineries. Is that what you did find in fact?
Mr. Bowman. The report is accurate. We would draw no
conclusions from that other than it is a fact.
Mr. Boustany. Okay. Thank you.
And again, Ms. Merritt, CSB has asked for a sizable budget
increase next year. In the board's 2008 budget request, you
specifically requested funds for addressing leading and lagging
indicators. What are those indicators?
Ms. Merritt. There are a number of them that actually are
well known in industry. The Health Safety Executive of England
a number of years ago put out a book with lagging and leading
indicators for industry to use. There was a very serious
incident at a BP facility there in Grangemouth, and one of the
things that was identified was that there were not prominent
leading-lagging indicators for industry. So they did quite a
bit of research. Unfortunately, although many people in
industry are aware of those, they are not being used.
And so we think that a study here, including industry here
in the United States, and experts that could come up with
leading and lagging--or leading indicators, they have lots of
lagging indicators--that they would be able then to accept them
and use them in their own industry in identifying when risk is
growing in their operations and their companies.
Mr. Boustany. What do you see your role to be with the
recommendation that you gave to API that API and USW
collaborate on the worker fatigue issue?
Ms. Merritt. I think that is a very important issue. There
has been a lot of research done through the National
Transportation Safety Board and others with regard to the role
fatigue plays. And what we would do is that--because it is a
recommendation, they would be submitting to us their results of
their work together, and we would then have a board vote which
would either accept it as acceptable results of that work or
unacceptable results of that work. And that would be our work.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you. And I want thank you, all of our
witnesses, for your testimony here today.
My first question is for Mr. Cavaney. We now know that BP
cut the Texas City refinery's budget by 25 percent in 1999 even
though previously Amoco had made deep budget cuts. Maintenance
supervisors, control room operators, central training staff and
training programs all went under the budget knife. Now in your
testimony, you state that safety in the industry is a moral
imperative and a top priority.
I think most people would agree, and there may be room for
argument, that corporate executives in your industry, not just
your industry but others as well, continually get rewarded for
reducing costs and increasing stock prices. So my question to
you is, is cooperation really enough? I mean, or do you think
that it is imperative that your industry be closely watched by
independent and strict regulators because my feeling is if you
don't have nonvolunteer programs, strict auditors, strict
inspections, how can you be sure that the profit motive isn't
going to bind decision makers who are seeking short-term
benefits to pump up stock prices, for example?
Mr. Cavaney. We do have one of the most complex regulatory
oversights. There are six different Federal agencies who have
oversight responsibility for regulating us. That is why we have
such an extensive series of recommended practices in place and
all.
But I want to underscore again, if you go to any refinery,
almost the first thing you are going to see when you come in is
a large sign that talks about the incident rate where they take
great pride in trying to reduce those. It is a difficult
operating environment, but we do all that we can. And our
nonfatal incident rate is about--at only about 25 percent of
all manufacturing industry average. So we have made some gains
and we can do better.
And that is what we are trying to learn from these CSB
reports, the Baker Commission, looking forward to the
opportunity of working with the Steelworkers.
It is a continuous improvement process, and you keep
working at it and the regulatory oversight, they should come in
and be a participant. We provide these things to them and then
it is in--it is their responsibility to set their regulatory
framework and what they are going to do or tell us this is not
correct and we look at it again.
Ms. Sanchez. I appreciate your answer. I think what I am
trying to get at is the fact that OSHA inspections sort of
moved in this area of voluntary compliance instead of the
ongoing oversight that it--active oversight that it should have
had.
So my next question is for Ms. Merritt. Considering that
OSHA has only a limited amount of funding, would you recommend
that they put more towards enforcement or towards these
voluntary partnership programs?
Ms. Merritt. Well, the problem with voluntary programs is
not everybody volunteers.
Ms. Sanchez. Very well said.
Ms. Merritt. I think OSHA does have a very prominent role
in educating industry about hazards that exist when they are
identified, and so for that I think they do have a very large
role in that program.
But, you know, enforcement is necessary. Otherwise, if you
have a voluntary compliance, then, you know, it sort of sets
its own standards and you will have some companies, and I see
this all the time, who go above and beyond what is required and
they know it is good business. But you have a lot of companies
who will only do what is required. And remember, regulation is
a kind of an agreement that is settled at the lowest
denominator that is acceptable. And then you have companies
that won't do anything unless they are caught. And those
companies are at risk. And their employees and their
communities are at risk.
Voluntary standards work if there is good enforcement that
is required for the rules that are required. PSM is required.
It is not a voluntary standard. And to have voluntary alliances
on implementing PSM is kind of an oxymoron because it is
required. OSHA needs to be spending resources on making sure
for the American public that PSM is implemented. I have said it
before. It is a good rule when it first came out. I read it,
and I went to my CEO and I said if we are not doing this
already, shame on us. It is a good rule. And it will prevent
these catastrophic accidents from happening if it is
implemented. The problem is it is not being implemented
everywhere.
Ms. Sanchez. I have no further questions.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the panel for testimony, Ms. Rowe in particular. It
is clear you are still in a lot of pain from this accident, and
you showed tremendous courage being here today to testify.
Mr. Cavaney, I am curious as to the reaction of API to this
tragedy. Was it one of saying--because you talked about how the
audit has now stimulated the industry and API to develop new,
more heightened standards. Are there--can you give me three
examples of a standard that has been newly fashioned or
articulated as a result of this? That if it had been in place
it might have made a difference in that case? If it had been
followed in that case?
Mr. Cavaney. I can give you, Congressman, some specific
examples of things that we are doing, and if the intent of
doing the new recommended practices is they will improve the
safety of the environment, then theoretically you could argue
that you would have fewer incidents from that. That is what the
whole process is about.
The first of these I mentioned in my opening testimony
could be--we heard earlier from the Chemical Safety Board about
concerns with regard to trailers in refineries. And so we have
been through a process and will this spring issue a final new
recommended practice on trailers. So that is one aspect.
The second one, as was mentioned by the chairman, are
concerns about these sort of ``blow down'' circumstances where
they are dealing--their recommendation was where we look at a
situation where they convert over to a closed system with
flaring process. We also have that particular standard and
recommended practice in review, being now out for circulation,
comment and going through the regulating process and it will be
coming out.
We have also got a task force working on what we call
process safety performance metrics, and this goes to the point
several of the people have mentioned, which is creating a
methodology where you can capture specifically those possible
early indicators that you ought to pay attention to those. So
as soon as that task force work is done, we will then formally
go into the ANSI process and anticipate that.
We are also anticipating the other recommendation that we
haven't yet received, but we know it is going to be coming, is
this situation about worker fatigue and what we can do in that
regard. From my experience, though, I have looked and talked to
a number of people, and usually the hours and things like this
are agreed upon by the owner/operator and the workforce at the
time the contracts are signed and so we will have to look at
that from a number of ways, but it is going to go into that
process.
So we do take this stuff seriously. It is an open process.
Anybody who is a stakeholder can come and offer their inputs,
their suggestions and see whether or not we are doing what we
are asked to do.
Mr. Sarbanes. So the implication of now stepping into those
higher standards or taking the three that you described is that
they weren't there before, right?
Mr. Cavaney. No. That is not necessarily true.
In some cases the Chairman from CSB said some companies
operate at a very high level, well beyond standards. Others
have them in place. We had--a lot of this stuff is actually
down but there were new things that were brought to light that
we were not aware of as a result of the CSB investigation and
those things now cause us to factor in a new review and take
those under consideration.
That is the the thing I mentioned earlier, this is a
continuous process. As technology changes, as new demands are
put on industry, other necessary things come to light and you
want to factor those in. We mentioned also if you don't operate
your recommended practices and standards, the workforce knows
they are not relevant to the circumstances and they create
their own rules and do their own things, and that is not good
for safety.
Mr. Sarbanes. I guess it raises a question of how much the
standards that matter depend on an incident occurring in order
to trigger them versus ahead of time preemptively doing the
kind of review and study and enforcement that would put those
standards in place so that these things wouldn't happen to
begin with. So that was the nature of my question.
I am running out of time, but I wanted to say, Mr.
Chairman, that we are talking about a combustible mix here that
produced this tragedy in terms of the physics of it. But I am
brought to a different kind of combustible mix, and that is
that you hope that an individual company will enforce the kinds
of standards that would avoid this kind of a tragedy but that
doesn't always happen. You then hope that the industry will
enforce standards in the absence of an individual company doing
it. But where an industry doesn't do it, then you have the kind
of regular oversight that OSHA represents and that is when you
need the resources in place to make sure the inspections are
there. So I think a terrific case has been made this morning
for why we need some mandatory oversight with respect to OSHA
and the resources to back that up.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. Thanks to the witnesses and Ms. Rowe. We
appreciate your coming knowing how difficult it is.
We are here not to just express sympathy though. We are
supposed to take actions that make people's lives better. A
historic example of that was when, under the leadership of the
late Senator from New Jersey, Pete Williams, we created OSHA.
It was so that workers could go to work without fear, perhaps
with caution but without fear, and expect to come home at the
end of the day and expect to come home with their fingers and
their eyesight and their lungs intact.
Chairwoman Merritt, you spoke of your commission being
absolutely terrified that such a culture could exist.
Now, I don't mean to demonize the industry, but the
industries in many cases have demonized OSHA. Get the
government out of our way, they say. Free us of the cost of
compliance. Let us police ourselves. And in effect, over the
years they have managed to turn OSHA into a starved lap dog.
In New Jersey here, we have from the New Jersey Work
Environment Council a report with regard to process safety
management, of the 21 facilities in New Jersey that could each
potentially harm 15,000 or more people, only eight have been
inspected by OSHA in the last 5\1/2\ years. Six have never had
even one OSHA inspection.
It seems that we need catastrophic deaths to get an action.
Well, Mr. Cavaney, you and I have had really interesting
and informed and rational discussions about a variety of
matters, including alternatives to fossil fuels and other
things. And, you know, but I have a question for you. It seems
to me these findings would lead you and your organization to
say things have to change at OSHA.
Would you support that OSHA increase staff, training and
general resources, that OSHA require sites to report close
calls and warning events, that injury reports be kept for each
site, including contractors, everyone involved and the risky
activities, that there be process review audits and that OSHA
resources go for increased enforcement rather than voluntary
programs and partnerships? And if not, why not?
Mr. Cavaney. Well, I think that OSHA, any regulatory
oversight, has a proper role and it ought to do its function,
whatever is deemed to be possible to fulfill its mission.
Mr. Holt. Would you support a requirement of process review
audits?
Mr. Cavaney. I am sorry, I am not an expert on that. We
would have to look at that--
Mr. Holt. Would you support that there be required reports
of close calls and warning events at every OSHA covered site?
Mr. Cavaney. I would like to respond to the list that you
gave of items after the hearing if I could and give you the
exact answer.
Mr. Holt. And an injury report for each site, total site.
Mr. Cavaney. If that is appropriate. I just don't know. I
will get it to you. And we do support----
[The information follows:]
American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, DC, April 12, 2007.
Hon. George Miller,
Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Miller: In response to your April 5, 2007 letter to
me following up on my March 22 testimony at the House Education and
Labor Committee hearing on ``The BP Texas City Disaster and Worker
Safety,'' API offers the following responses to your questions:
Would you support a budget increase for OSHA that would increase
staff, training, and general resources dedicated to enforcing the
process safety management standards in our nation's refineries and
chemical plants?
API Reply: As a matter of policy, API does not offer comments on
government agency appropriations or the adequacy of agency budgets.
However, it is important that OSHA be adequately resourced to
accomplish its mission.
Would you support a requirement for refineries to report close
calls and warning events to OSHA?
API Reply: The current OSHA regulations on ``Process Safety
Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals'' (29 CFR 1910.119) already
requires that ``The employer shall investigate each incident which
resulted in or could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release
of a highly hazardous chemical in the workplace'', and requires
employers to maintain these records for inspection by OSHA for five
years. I would also note that Ms. Carolyn Merritt, Chairman of the U.S.
Chemical Safety Board, remarked during the March 22nd hearing that this
regulation, as currently written, is a ``very important and well done
rule.''
Would you support that OSHA injury and illness reports be kept for
all workers at the site, including contractors, rather than just the
main employer?
API Reply: The PSM regulation already requires companies to
maintain employee and contractor employee injury and illness logs on-
site related to work in the process areas (29 CFR 1910.119 Section
h(2)(vi)).
Do you believe that API should require regular third party process
review audits as a condition for membership?
API Reply: API has a long and distinguished history of developing
industry consensus standards. Due to antitrust concerns, API does not
make its standards mandatory for membership, which is consistent with
current practice. Therefore, API does not conduct audits or require
third-party audits of its members' compliance with API standards.
Do you think that OSHA's resources should go for increased
enforcement rather than voluntary programs and partnerships?
API Reply: Again, API's response is similar to that of the first
question above. API believes it is the agency's role and responsibility
to manage its resources with Congressional oversight; thus, it would
not be appropriate for API to comment.
If there are any further questions, or if you would like any
further briefings to any of the questions above, please contact me. API
would be happy to arrange a meeting for you with the appropriate,
qualified individuals.
Sincerely,
Red Cavaney,
President and Chief Executive Officer.
______
Mr. Holt. This should be a wakeup call and OSHA--this is
not what was intended when nearly 4 decades ago we passed OSHA.
It made a huge difference. There are people who have their
fingers, their eyesight, even their lives because of OSHA. But
it is becoming less and less effective. And we have a
responsibility, I think, to restore that effectiveness to OSHA.
Chairman Miller. Will, the gentleman yield?
I would hope that you, Mr. Cavaney, you and API would take
the questions that Mr. Holt just asked you and give them very,
very serious consideration because I think we are reaching a
point here where API can become an enabler for very bad
behavior and provide cover for very bad operators, and I don't
think that is the intent of the organization, and I have had a
long relationship with the organization and I have a great
relationship with the refineries in my district. But I am
worried here that you can say whatever OSHA does, OSHA does,
and whatever is sufficient is sufficient and whatever happens,
happens. At some point, you are enabling really bad behavior
because they are hiding behind that they belong to an
organization that is on the cutting edge. But if the cutting
edge never cuts, I suspect that we have got a problem here. And
we have lived with this notion for a long time, but I think you
can hear from the members of this committee on both sides of
the aisle that perhaps this voluntary compliance, on whatever
level, happens, happens is not suitable. I don't know the
answer yet, and I will work with my colleagues to determine
that. But I would take those questions very seriously as an
organization because someone is going to have to come out from
behind this and start to recommend what should be done to
protect and to save the lives like the parents of Ms. Rowe
here. I think it is critical to that, and I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
We are running out of time, and I want to give Mr. Sestak a
moment here.
But before that, Ms. Rowe, I would like to ask you if you
could tell us about the Remember the 15 bill that you will be
talking to the State legislature tomorrow.
Ms. Rowe. Well, can I have my attorney? Brent can tell you.
Chairman Miller. Whatever is comfortable.
Mr. Coontz. Thank you. I paid----
Chairman Miller. Just identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Coontz. Brent Coontz from Texas. I am Eva's personal
counsel. I have also had the pleasure of serving as liaison
counsel for all of the plaintiffs in the litigation pending as
a result of this tragedy. I am also general counsel----
Chairman Miller. Tell us about the bill.
Mr. Coontz. The bill is Remember the 15 bill, and basically
what we have done from the investigation and the civil
litigation is address many of the things that we thought all
along were the root causes; that is, the trailer citing issues,
ban the utilization of temporary trailers inside of facilities;
the mandatory warning and evacuation of personnel, nonessential
personnel; and the startup and shutdown of units which are well
known to be the times of gravest risk in the industry;
mandating proper training, proper tracking of near incidents,
of near misses. It is those types of common sense issues.
Removal of open ventilation systems. Obviously, the blow-down
drums here are antiquated technology and those types of things
should all be removed.
Most all of those are common sense protocols. We go before
the Texas legislature tomorrow. We have sponsors of this bill
in both the House and the Senate, and we are using tomorrow,
the anniversary, as the platform to publicize that legislation.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Rowe, did you want the say something else?
Ms. Rowe. I think maybe you guys should consider making an
OSHA for every State, not just one worldwide one, that every
State has itself----
Chairman Miller. That was one of the plans.
Mr. Sestak.
Mr. Sestak. Thank you again, Ms. Rowe. Just 30 seconds.
The question I was going to ask was the same one Mr. Holt
asked almost, although he always speaks better than I can.
But that is what I am interested in since in Marcus Hook we
have Conoco and Sunoco, and I wasn't here for Admiral Bowman's
comments, but I am sure that I have seen a system in the U.S.
Navy that truly understood that no accident can be done. You
have done it. And there is a system, and that type of attention
to detail, you know, sometimes you get--you can expect what you
inspect. And I am very interested in it because I have gone to
both refineries.
And again, Admiral, I wasn't here for your portion of it.
It was a great mentor to me. But that type of system I truly
believe has to be done to walk and crawl through those spaces
there and to watch what could be prevented. So I would just--
and I need to conclude. I would be very interested in the
answer that the chairman really looks forward to.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Sestak. Let me
thank you all for your testimony.
Mr. Nibarger, we didn't really get to you. I am going to
ask if you can come back because I have a whole set of
questions that I wanted to ask you about trying to put together
what Mr. Cavaney has talked about in terms of finally getting
these workers and employers together not in an adversarial--not
related to contracts. And I was just visited by Kaiser, which I
believe is the largest HMO in the country, and SEIU, and since
they joined forces here over the last several years, we have
seen accident rates go down, litigation rates go down, quality
go up, death rates go down. And the fact of the matter is we
can develop workplaces, as Admiral Sestak pointed out, we do it
all of the time in the military where these are just
unacceptable losses and to be avoided. But so my apologies that
we didn't get a chance to ask you a question.
I have a whole series of additional questions, but we are
going to be about 45 minutes on this vote. You have been very
generous with your time, with your expertise. So I am going to
adjourn the committee, but I would hope, you know, that we plan
to follow up with each of you as we progress through this. I
think you can tell this is a very, very serious matter for the
members of this committee on both sides of the aisle.
But clearly the status quo is unacceptable and again my
thanks to the Chemical Safety Board. I can't tell you the value
of your independence and what it has meant to workers, and I
hope to employers, across this country as you have led these
investigations and to you and your staff and your persistence.
Thank you so very, very much.
With that, the committee will stand adjourned.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marchant follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kenny Marchant, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas
Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing.
There is no doubt that BP's Texas City incident was tragic and
inexcusable. I support the work of the Chairman and the CSB in
examining this matter. However, I find it interesting that two of the
subjects of this hearing--BP and OSHA--are not here to speak for
themselves. I want to be very clear, I don't defend or condone the
actions of either of these entities, but in the spirit of equal time,
I'd like to submit for the record a copy of the statement that BP
issued last evening stating:
``BP accepted responsibility for the March 23, 2005 explosion and
fire at the Texas City refinery. We have apologized to those harmed.
While we cannot change the past or repair all the damage this incident
caused, we have worked diligently to provide fair compensation, without
the need for lengthy court proceedings, to those who were injured and
to the families of those who died. On the recommendation of the U.S.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), we created an
Independent Panel, led by Former U.S. Secretary of State James A.
Baker, III to assess process safety management and safety culture at
our US refineries. The Independent Panel undertook extensive
investigations, and issued their report in January of this year. BP is
implementing the recommendations in full. We have completed and made
public the results of our own investigation of the incident and, as CSB
Chairman Merritt has publicly recognized, BP cooperated in an
unprecedented way with the CSB investigation. BP voluntarily produced
to CSB over 6,300,000 pages of documents, made over 300 witnesses
available for CSB interviews, including some of its most senior
executives and, importantly, agreed to form the Independent Panel.
Notwithstanding the Company's strong disagreement with some of the
content of the CSB report, particularly many of the findings and
conclusions, BP will give full and careful consideration to CSB's
recommendations, in conjunction with the many activities already
underway to improve process safety management.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]