we are understaffed
in the area of
emergency response.”
(Zeb Nash, ExxonMobil Site Manager, Baytown,
June 6, 2006)
Why is ExxonMobil reducing the number of qualified
process technicians available to respond to an emergency?
As the result of an ExxonMobil in house developed
emergency response analysis process, on February 9, 2006, in the Northwest
Chemicals Section (NWC) outside process technician staffing numbers were
reduced. Hourly employees
working within the NWC area felt that the reduction in shift team staffing
numbers placed themselves and the surrounding community in harms way when
it came to being able to safely and effectively respond to unplanned operating
unit upset conditions. One
hundred percent of the hourly work force employed at NWC supported this
contention by signing a circulated petition which was later presented to
members of the Baytown management
leadership by the United Steelworkers Union.
Copies of the petition have as well been provided to officials of the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ).
“We the undersigned (hourly employees trained and
qualified to work the Northwest Chemicals operating units and loading rack
facilities in the Baytown Chemical Plant) disagree with the company’s implementation
of reduced staffing levels as a result of a February 9, 2006, DERR analysis.
We believe that by the reduction of two full time emergency response positions,
our safety is being compromised by ExxonMobil at the expense of putting
the continuing escalation of profits over people.
The sheer amount of equipment, the nature of safely handling toxic as well
as hazardous materials associated with these operating units and the coordinated
activities that are essential to responding to unit emergencies are but
a few of the reasons that make these reduced staffing efforts by ExxonMobil
irresponsible. Due to what
will result in substantially lengthened response times to unit emergencies,
not only does this staffing reduction effort affect our personal safety,
but the safety of our neighbors in the surrounding community and the integrity
of the environment. ExxonMobil
management views the risks associated with reduced staffing levels as “acceptable.”
In response to NWC unit employees’ safety concerns regarding the reduced
staffing levels, the NWC business unit manager stated, “If you do not like
the company interpretation of the DERR analysis you might want to consider
seeking employment elsewhere.”
Statements of this nature to employees voicing legitimate safety concerns
clearly demonstrate a conscious indifference by NWC line management in
this important safety related matter.
We the undersigned do not feel that the risks associated with this reduced
staffing are acceptable for our own personal safety nor for the safety
of our surrounding community and environment.”
Why has ExxonMobil not learned anything from
BP’s poor safety record?
At a December 22, 2005, town hall meeting held
in Texas City, TX, involving an Independent Safety Review Panel chaired
by former Secretary of State, James A. Baker, III, a number of BP employees
were in attendance to address the panel.
Lloyd Jewel, a BP worker with 22 years of experience, commented to the
inquiry panel that “BP management refuses to utilize us as hourly employees
as an asset. We tell management
that things are broken and they refuse to fix it.”
Mr. Jewell also conveyed the fact that BP hourly employees had specifically
voiced safety concerns to their site management around equipment which
ultimately was involved in the March 23, 2005, explosion which led to 15
workers at the facility needlessly losing their lives.
Had BP management listened to their hourly workers with all of their years
of valuable hands on experience could the March 22, 2005, tragedy possibly
have been prevented? Will
BP management in the future take a more active approach in listening to
their most valuable asset….their hourly workers?
Why is ExxonMobil willing to risk a BP type incident in this case by not
hearing the voices of the NWC process technicians?
Why were ExxonMobil’s profits for the 3rd
quarter of 2006 $10.5 billion, and yet they cannot adequately staff operating
units for proper emergency response?
Four NWC hourly employees were asked by management
to participate in the emergency response analysis process.
These same four workers were repeatedly characterized by management personnel
during the course of the analysis as the “unit experts.”
Ultimately management participants involved in
the analysis formulated one viewpoint on appropriate staffing levels with
the hourly participants viewing those levels as insufficient in nature
for adequate emergency response purposes.
Despite the “expert” hourly input, management decisions were arbitrarily
made to implement reduced staffing levels at NWC.
Following are employee comments extracted from
a Texas City BP safety and environmental site independent survey dated
January 21, 2005. This survey
was conducted subsequent to three substantial safety incidents and PRIOR
to the March 23, 2005, explosion and resulting loss of life.
The telling portion of this is that one of the three noted incidents involved
worker fatalities.
“As operators we are concerned with the continued reductions in staffing
and our ability to run the units safely.
None of the operator concerns have been addressed since the
BP take over; constant reductions of every kind everywhere; constant reductions
in benefits, what gets recognized is reductions of any kind.”
“I would allow the operators to get the proper amount of operators on each
shift; they are clear that they do not staff for emergencies, but since
they are not keeping up the repairs and such we really live from emergency
to emergency – the difference is the nature and impact of the emergency.”
As ExxonMobil employees and citizens of the surrounding
community, are we setting ourselves up with the NWC revised staffing levels
to suffer through a tragic event similar to BP?
Why is ExxonMobil making a daily profit of
$117 million, and still saying it can’t afford two qualified unit personnel
for emergency response?
BP employee, Lloyd Jewel, commented to the eleven
member James A. Baker III, Independent Panel in December of 2005, that
at the BP Texas City facility “Safety is for sale.”
While it is felt that a statement of this nature would not be totally applicable
at the ExxonMobil Baytown site, in this instance of staffing reduction
at NWC hourly employees obviously feel that company implemented decisions
have crossed the line in the areas of safety and environment.
The company impetus to reduce the staffing level is obviously nothing more
than a cost cutting measure.
All ExxonMobil employees support the need for the company to remain competitive
and make a healthy profit.
Nevertheless, we as Union represented employees do not understand nor support
cutting staffing levels at the expense of health, safety and the environment.
Why doesn’t ExxonMobil care about the safety
of Baytown residents?
The time is at hand for the residents of Baytown
and the surrounding communities to send a resounding message to ExxonMobil
Corporation that their right to manage their facilities where health, safety
or the environment is being breached is not absolute.
Hourly and management employees jointly participated in an analysis to
determine emergency response staffing needs at the NWC operating units.
In the end, ExxonMobil Baytown site management chose to ignore the perspective
of the very people they themselves recognized as experts; NWC unit process
technicians with decades of experience.
Prior to initiating this current communication effort for the benefit of
the public sector, every conceivable effort was made to resolve this reduced
staffing issue through well established in house safety systems… to no
avail. Current existing federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations do not address
staffing levels in petrochemical facilities.
As well, federal nor state environmental regulations address staffing levels.
When ExxonMobil initiated decisions have the potential to impact the health,
safety and environment of employees and citizens residing in surrounding
communities it is time to start asking the tough questions.
Why has ExxonMobil not lived up to its legal
obligations to the city of Baytown?
In the state of Texas, petrochemical facilities
are granted air permits by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as a condition of
operation. In instances where
unplanned operational unit upsets occur and it becomes necessary to utilize
a flare stack, a facility has an allotted amount of time to burn a flare
prior to reaching a point which is deemed as a Reportable Quantity (RQ.)
Once an RQ is reached or exceeded, it is mandatory for a facility to file
a written report with the TCEQ on specified chemicals and their volumes
which was released into the flare system.
Depending on circumstances surrounding any given flaring excursion, the
environmental agencies may determine that citations are in order.
Even though flares may appear to be harmless in nature to those not familiar
with petrochemical operations, in reality during times that flares are
burning at high volumes toxic materials are being emitted into the workplace
and surrounding communities.
This condition is especially heightened in instances where heavy visible
smoking is present. Naturally
the primary goal of ExxonMobil should be to avoid operational conditions
where use of a flare stack becomes necessary.
But when operational unit conditions do generate the need for flaring,
every effort should be utilized to terminate the flaring event in as an
expedient manner as possible.
In many instances getting a situation back into
normal operational patterns can greatly depend on availability and response
times of trained and qualified outside unit personnel.
During the NWC emergency response analysis, hourly and management participants
equally shared the position that in instances where flaring becomes necessary
it should be an elevated priority to extinguish the flare.
Hourly participants became somewhat stunned when at a point during the
analysis process management representatives took a position that once any
given flaring event reaches or exceeds the RQ, the sense of urgency to
terminate the flaring event becomes diminished.
In other words, once reportable to the environmental agencies, it is ExxonMobil’s
attitude that it is acceptable to continue to pollute.
NWC hourly employees clearly voiced, as outlined
in the signed petition, that future unplanned flaring events associated
with their operating units under current reduced staffing levels carries
a heightened possibility of being unnecessarily prolonged.
ExxonMobil’s demonstrated attitude as is related to this manner of operational
strategy serves as a blatant legal as well as moral disregard to families
residing and earning a living in the city of Baytown and surrounding communities.
Once again it is clearly time for the citizenship and elected officials
to begin asking the tough questions of ExxonMobil Corporation.
01/10/07
