Smith Steve Interview, Part 2 of 2

DT: Steve, you were talking about the explosion at the Phillip's plant. Can you talk about the difference among the companies that your union works with and some of those the union's not involved with and how the culture and operations of those plants might differ?

0:01:44 - 2065

SS: They're, the best I can tell all over the board on this Channel, you've got the cesspool of the refineries which is Crown down there at-they're probably one of the worst. They have a bad reputation. Had their employees locked out for a long time. They've had the community get after them. They're just a nasty, despicable little plant. And then you have some other companies that seem to take health, safety and the environment more serious. So it just kind of depends on what you're dealing with. What kind of management scheme you're dealing with. And in this particular Local, we're all over the board. We have some of the plants that do a real good job in that respect and some of them, I think, are-are doing better but they're not up-they're not up with some of the others. So I think they're all moving in the direction of doing better. And I don't know what's driving that. There's a-there's a lot of opinions on what drives that, whether it-whether it be compliance with the law, whether it be lower insurance rates or whether all of a sudden they've got real moral. I don't know. But I think the trend is getting better. Some of them are a lot further along than others. That's the way I'll describe it.

DT: Any ideas about why some companies lag behind and others are quite far ahead of the curve?

0:03:44 - 2065

SS: Probably couldn't answer that. I would say there's all kind of reasons for that. Just depends on, philosophically, how important health and safety and the environment is to the company. And, of course, that comes from their corporate headquarters.

So it, I guess, it's just how much emphasis you want to put-how much emphasis and how much money you want to put in that direction. Back in the '70's, early '70's, there was very little. There was really nothing. We-we polluted, we took chances, we did whatever we had to do to keep the product moving. Today it appears that there is a-a direction to take the health and safety and the environment more serious.

There's been events that happened along the way. Phillip's was one of them. They had one at Arco in Channelview. They had an explosion that killed some people there.

DT: What happened there?

0:05:06 - 2065 SS: I'm not sure but there was a number of people killed. There-I think bringing a unit up and it went, best I can remember. And it wasn't a lot of time between that and Phillips. So that heightened the awareness that, you know, we need to look.

The Process Safety Management piece of legislation, it-to comply with that takes a lot of energy. If you comply with it properly, it takes a lot of energy.

DT: What do you think has gotten the attention of the companies and the regulators? Is it mostly these really dramatic incidents, the explosions and fires, or are people looking at these long-term exposure problems?

0:05:55 - 2065

SS: Well I think these immediate events are, I think, they-they generate the news media. Okay. The long-term exposure problems are more of a case-by-case basis and there's always an argument about what costs what, you know, when you're dealing with that. We do live in a society of litigation and so as far as those long-term struggles, having the same impact as these emotional events, I'd say they probably don't. I'd say they most-the-the event that maybe produces fatalities is really what gets the attention in the paper and the news media and drives some of the other stuff in the-in this country.

DT: Could you talk about some of the things outside of the companies and the unions that press for better health and safety and you mentioned that there's a lot of litigation out there. Have there been any toxic tort cases that have gotten the company's attention?

0:07:26 - 2065

SS: I'm probably not in the position to really know that. I'm sure there has. Over the years, if you look at mortality and morbidity studies of the people, there's probably a good case that, you know, if you take leukemia, for example, and you've been around benzene, I'm sure they've had some cases where people have took them to task. That stuff's not widely publicized and most cases lot of-lot of times they're resolved through a mediation and the families feel like they got their point across if they stung them pretty good. And the only place that they really understand which is the pocketbook. But that's kind of hard to monitor. I, you know, so I-I couldn't say. I'm sure a lot of that goes on though.

I know Shell, at one time, put a lot of effort into tracking that, trying to make a case that the population that has worked out there and the-they did a morbidity/mortality study on people and, of course, they were trying to make the point that it was no different than the general pop-population of Harris County. Comparing eggs to eggs. So they made that argument, you know, how legitimate it was, I don't know. I listened to it and sounded okay.

I, you know, I-I-I feel like today due to the-the work that the industrial hygienists do, due to the work that the-the priority that people have put on using the proper PPE, [Personal] Protective Equipment, whatnot, that a lot of that will go away. Now back when I first went to work there, we were literally bathing in this

0:10:02 - 2065 stuff. Chemicals that those folks were telling us won't hurt you. Well they ended up being serious carcinogenics and people came up with diseases. Then you get in the argument, was it a result of that or not. If you-you...

DT: Were they unusual diseases that would have given you pause about why they would have gotten sick?

0:10:34 - 2065

SS: No, just, you know, whether it be some kind of lung cancer, for example, and you breathed a lot of stuff, you ate a lot of fumes. You were nose-hitting this stuff pretty consistently and you come up with lung cancer, but you were a smoker. What caused what? You see, it-it gets-you get off into those kinds of arguments as to was it your personal lifestyle or was it the fact that you were in an environment that was not regulated? And there were serious carcinogenics present.

DT: Where do you come in?

0:11:17 - 2065

SS: I think in the early days there's a very good possibility that a great deal of that was caused by people's work environment. I think as time's went on a lot of that's been eliminated. We'll have to see on the big scheme how that shakes out.

Also I first came to work at Shell, everybody smoked, most people. There's a little different attitude about smoking now than there used to be. There's-smokers are in a big minority out there now. In fact, they feel like they get beat up, you know. You know, years ago, we smoked in the offices and, I mean, it was smoke, smoke, smoke out there. You can't smoke in-indoors at Shell now. Car, plane, train or automobile, if Shell owns you're not going to smoke in it. So the attitude's changed on that too. In fact, like I say, the smokers feel like they've been discriminated against, they've got little smoking pens they go to now. Oddly enough that's where some of the best rap is. That's a-that's a weird deal. I've found that some of the best conversation goes on in the smoking pens and I don't know why that is.

DT: What sort of thing?

0:12:40 - 2065 SS: Anything. Some of the best rap is in the smoking pens. I frequent them all the time because I want to hear. I don't smoke but I'm always in the smoking pens. Go figure. I don't know.

DT: Have you found that people in the companies and in the unions are pretty open about their concerns? Do they talk to you?

0:13:02 - 2065

SS: Yes, they are. I do think your-your folks that are non-represented people that work out in the field like-a good example is maybe a pipe inspector and he's out in the unit just as much as anybody else. I mean, he's climbing around in that stuff. He would be less likely to step forward for fear he'd lose his job than a represented person and I think that's-whether or not that fear is founded or not, I'm not sure is the case. But great deal of the individuals in that position would be, I think, probably unwilling to step forward because of that fear. Represented person's not.

DT: Are the unrepresented people getting to be a large part of the workforce at Shell and at other companies down here?

0:14:08 - 2065

SS: Always have been, yeah.

DT: These are contract or...

0:14:11 - 2065 SS: No, no, these are our folks. You have a lot of people that work in what we call staff positions and they're not represented by the Local. They work for Shell Oil Company but they do the work. They inspect pipes. Some of them are what we call unit specialists. They're out there in the unit just like the operators making the thing run. So they're out there and they're as vulnerable as anybody else. But those are the types of people I'm talking about. I don't think of those people as management. I think of those people as working people that are in positions that the company felt like should be staff positions but a lot of them are just pipe inspectors, for example, a lot of them used to be pipe fitters. They used to fit the pipe and they-we-we represented them. And they elected to take a staff position and be a pipe inspector. They're still out in the unit and they're still just as vulnerable as anybody else.

DT: What about some of the people who are outsourcing? I understand that some of the work now is done on a contract basis, and not by regular, hourly, salaried employees.

0:15:41 - 2065 SS: Those people are very vulnerable. Those people don't open their mouth or they'll be fired. Period. A lot of those folks are a victim. It's the only way they can get a job and go to work in a plant is to be a contractor. It's kind of a weird deal. When I was Chairman of the Health & Safety Committee, we struggled with the contractor. When-when something happened to a contractor out there, I felt real bad about it but I didn't feel responsible because I really didn't have any control. When something happened to a Shell person, staff or hourly, I felt both bad and I felt like I had done-not done enough. But contractor, we're really not in control-they have their own Health & Safety people. They have their own Health & Safety programs. Some of them have not been trained, in my opinion, well enough to be out there. That's just the nature of the beast.

DT: Do you think they're getting some of the more risky jobs in the plants?

0:17:09 - 2065 SS: Absolutely. A job that's going to be very risky a lot of times it's, I think, management makes a decision to put them people on. For one reason, they won't go to the Health & Safety Committee if something don't look right.

DT: What's an example of a risky job, maybe another example of a real safe job at a big plant?

0:17:36 - 2065

SS: Well a fresh air job for a pipe fitter donning a fresh air mask and changing a blind on something that is in a service of a bad actor like hydrogen sulfide. Okay. It's a dangerous job. An example of a fairly safe job is a-the same pipe fitter going out on a flange where there have been blocked valves and you have decommissioned the product. The operators have-have de-inventoried it.

DT: So there's nothing flammable...

0:18:30 - 2065 SS: There's nothing there. The job's the same as far as you're changing the same flange. One setting's very dangerous and one setting's not very dangerous. There's always a chance. You always approach things like-you approach the pipe like it's got something in it but you know 99% of the time it don't. So...

DT: Are there some chemicals that you are more anxious about than others?

0:19:03 - 2065 SS: Oh absolutely, we got some out there that'll take care of you right now. And others-others are not that big of a deal. Some of the chemicals-and-and what you have in a plant is material safety data sheets and-and that's a result of a right-to-know law that actually some of that language was written by a past president of this Local, guy named Ed Watson, wrote some of that verbiage in there. But it-it is a summary of what the chemical is so there's no more of that, it won't hurt you stuff. You-you-you have the right to look and the operator has the responsibility based on what chemicals he has to regulate what protective equipment is worn on that job before he assigns a permit to you. See there was a time there wasn't permits, we didn't have work permits, they just pointed, go do that.

See all that's changed now. The operator is in complete control of a situation to have a permit procedure that they follow and they dictate what the maintenance people wears out there, as far as, do you need goggles, is it something that is abrasive, is there a potential for a respiratory problem, do you wear a respirator, do you wear a fresh air. They-they determine that because they know those chemicals in that unit. So yeah, it's all over the board. Some chemicals are not a big deal. They won't-they're-they're known not to be harmful. And then some others will kill you in a few

0:20:51 - 2065

instants.

(misc.)

DW: In a broader issue of the community and so forth, someone had said to us in a previous interview that there were instances, they thought companies would flare things like out of spec products just to get rid of it or stuff like that and I'm wondering where in this triangle that has the union, the management, the owners, the corporations and then the environmental activists, where do the allies team up there? 'Cause you see, you'd like to see the owners, the corporations, would love to pit the the environmentalists and the union against one another: jobs and the environment, jobs vs. the environment. Or have you circumvented them, and said, no we're as much for them, we're as likely to turn these people in to the EPA as you are, or is it not that way? How does that alliance kind of work? (misc.)

0:22:09 - 2065

SS: You know, in the past, you have union, I guess for a better term, leadership and you had the environmental activists and you had management. And I think, in the past, labor would never-would never get on the same place with environmental activists because of jobs. The threat of losing the jobs. I think as time has rolled on, the laborer has-has been more willing to I think be a-a, I guess, for a better term, a watcher of the environment. It's kind of been a strange alliance. We're strange bedfellows, laborer and environmentalist. But I've noticed that's happened more and more. I've dealt with a lot of environmentalists over the past few years where that would have been taboo a decade or two ago. So I-I think we're-we're starting to realize, to a certain extent, we have the same objective. And I think, in the past, management was very active in trying to make sure that we didn't realize we had the same objective. But if you're trashing the environment to the point to where your kids and grandkids are not going to be able to live in it, big picture is you've failed. And I think labor realizes that. So I think-I think we've got beyond the-the adversarial relationship that we used to have with environmentalists. I think now it's-it's-it's more of a accommodating relationship.

DT: What do you think labor and environmentalists have in common and where do you think they separate and go different ways?

0:25:06 - 2065 SS: Well I believe both groups are very interested in keeping the water or the air sound. Not polluting it. Making sure that communities are not threatened in any way. That we live-that's where we live. We live in these suburbs. So I think we're all pretty much in common there. I think, a lot of times, we feel like that going into the millennium that now we can make product safely due to a lot of things, due to government regulations, due to, I think, the people are better trained. I think the management has a different attitude. So we believe we can make the product and not pollute the environment. I'm not so sure the environmentalists believe that. I think I've known a lot of environmentalists from the pretty objective type of person to the wild-eyed ones. But I-I believe they question whether or not these plants can operate in an environmentally safe mode. And I think labor in approaching the next century believes they can. I think that's where they differ.

DT: And how do you think, in the past, management would try and drive a wedge between the labor, on the one hand, and the environmental community, on the other?

0:27:02 - 2065 SS: Well they were threatened with jobs. That's what they always did. You know, gosh if we do this, we're going to go out of business, which was not the case. You know, way back when I first came in the industry, frankly these-these oil companies didn't give a damn about the environment, in the '60's and in the '70's. They didn't give a damn about the environment. Now whatever has changed that over the years, I'm not sure, but the attitude has changed a great deal. They want do a lot of partnership in the areas of health and safety, in the areas of environment. They seem to have seen the light. What's caused that's anybody's guess. I'd-I'd be afraid to even make the assumption.

DT: How are relationships these days between these big plants and some of the local communities in Deer Park and Pasadena and Channelview, the neighbors that surround those plants?

0:28:28 - 2065

SS: Well I-I think and-and let me use Shell for an example because I work there. Shell in Deer Park, they've got a love fest going on for years. They have pumped a lot of money in the community. The mayor worked for Shell for years. Is that a bad thing? I don't know. It seems that they had a working relationship the past fifteen years, I'd say it was a very healthy situation. Before that, I'm not sure. I think if you look at these-they have these emergency response groups within cities, I forget what they're called but, most of those have officials from the plants on them. And a lot of those meetings are hold-held in the daytime where your representative person is out at work, strangely enough. Now but I-I think they do play a big part in the communities nowadays. I think they feel like they have to. But yeah, I think-I think they-they're a very big participant.

DT: What about the citizens in those communities that live adjacent to the plants? Do they have a different attitude from the Chamber of Commerce or the city leaders?

0:30:30 - 2065 SS: Mixed bag. Got a few out there that are pretty vocal. You know. You know, they will be screaming every time there's a little release and there's some that I believe feel like Shell - Deer Park does a good job of keeping stuff in the plant. So it's a mixed bag. And-and Shell's, let me point out, they're one of the better ones. I'd say they don't feel that way about Crown.

DT: What's the problem there, what do people object to?

0:31:06 - 2065

SS: I think they're still living back three or four decades ago at Crown. I don't think they give a damn about the environment. I don't think they give a damn about the health and safety of their own people, just from what I've heard from some of their own employees. So it depends on what company you're talking about a lot. So I think it's-on this Ship Channel, I'd say it's all over the board. I think the community feels pretty good about some companies, maybe not so good about the others. Depending who-who lives next to them, you know.

DT: What about some of the other players like the regulators, OSHA, TNRCC, and EPA? What's their role and attitude towards the companies and towards the union?

0:32:03 - 2065

SS: Repeat the question.

DT: Well maybe we can just start with OSHA seems to have been very active in trying to make these plants a safer place to work. What's the relationship nowadays? Do you feel like OSHA has got a good presence, can make a good contribution at these plants?

0:32:23 - 2065

SS: Despite the fact that they're very understaffed, their presence is felt. Some of the companies has went as far as to try and to partnership with them. Some of them just deal with them but I believe that they have done a lot in the last twenty years is getting us to where we're at. We have a very active area director, Ray Skinner, works with this Local. I've-I could call Ray Skinner at any time and talk to him. He's been very available. We have a, what we call a Local partnership here where we deal with some issues across the board and Ray is a membership of-member of that partnership so, I think the communities feel real good that OSHA's around. Now I will point out that they are understaffed due to budgeting. That's just the political water that we're in. There's probably more game wardens in Galveston Bay than there are OSHA compliance officers in the State of Louisiana and Texas. And that's what we're dealing with but I think they do a good job with what they've got in this area.

DT: What kind of issues have gotten OSHA's attention exercised the most? What sort of things have they been concerned about?

0:34:13 - 2065

SS: It's always the-the event that'll get them right-right out there. When the olefins unit blew up, they were there within the day. We immediately had an OSHA investigation and-which I was part of. So they get out there on an event. Now most of the other stuff is generated through employee complaint. If words like 'imminent danger' are used, it raises their eyebrow. They'll come quicker.

DT: Are these anonymous complaints?

0:34:52 - 2065 SS: Yeah, can be. Most of the time they are. If a contractor makes one, you can bet they are. Sometimes our people feel comfortable enough, if they're represented people, they'll-they'll put their name on there.

DT: What's the sort of thing that rises to the level of imminent danger?

0:35:20 - 2065

SS: It's in the eye of the beholder. Give you an example, one time a situation and I won't go into the situation but it looked pretty bad and an operator at Shell got a holt of me on the weekend and got to talking about something they were going to do. And I told him if you feel that strongly, this was an experienced operator, in fact, the guy was on the Health & Safety Committee, call OSHA and use the term imminent danger, if you feel like it's that big of a deal. As it turns out, there had been a lot of prep work and a lot of stuff that the company had done to make sure that was safe but they didn't tell that operator. They didn't communicate that. And a lot of times that's what happens. There's a-there's no communication or a miscommunication. A lot of times the company has done the steps necessary to make sure this very odd situation is contained and then they don't tell the operator. Well the operator don't know what they've done. All he sees is this-this stuff. So he calls OSHA with imminent danger. So a lot of that can be a miscommunication but anything that's going to have a severe impact, possibly cause one of these events is, in my mind, what's imminent danger. Something that could create a-a very serious health hazard. That's imminent danger. Something that maybe even could cause a fatality.

(misc.)

DT: Could you talk a little about what you see coming down the line about important challenges that remain for health and safety, and for the environment in general?

0:37:48 - 2065 SS: I think the number one thing is downsizing. There's a notion out there that if you have enough technology, you can do with a lot fewer people. There may be some merit to that thought but there's going to be a lot of issues around what is the optimum level. This notion that you can run a plant with a man and a dog on the weekend is insane. And that is the extreme case.

So I think the challenge that we're going to have is technology versus employees, how safe is it? How safe is it? Once you-once you have an uh-oh and you put a big vapor cloud on one of these communities, you have screwed up and if you miscalculated that, you're going to have to deal with it. So I see that as a-a big challenge in-your engineer types, they like this technology. They think it's neat. And it is-it is cool, you know. I mean, they've got-my kids have got toys that are far out. I mean, it-it's neat. But engineers just really love the stuff and they're spending a lot of capital putting it in. And the payback that they're justifying it with to management is it's going to replace X amount of people. Well you better be careful about that. You better be careful about that. And I think that's a situation that's going to be one of those hard ones we got to deal with.

DT: You said you've got kids, do you think it's a safe enough place to work that you'd recommend them working at the plant or along the Ship Channel?

0:40:03 - 2065

SS: Depends on the company. I-I really wouldn't have a problem with my kids working at Shell where I work. That's the one I could assess best because I'm in there everyday. I damn sure wouldn't have wanted them to work there thirty years ago. I was a young guy, didn't know what I was dealing with. But I'm-looking back in retrospect, it wasn't no place to be. Nowadays, with all the work that's been done, I think that some companies, oil companies, chemical plants, are probably good places to work. I wouldn't want my son or daughter working at Crown. I mean, I just would not.

DT: One last thing. We often ask people, what their favorite place outdoors is? You mentioned that you used to go speckled trout fishing. Have you continued to fish and are there places you like to go?

0:41:16 - 2065 SS: Galveston Bay. I love it.

DT: What do you enjoy out there?

0:41:22 - 2065

SS: I like the serenity of the-of the bay. I enjoy-there's a certain kind of wildlife out there that you don't see anywhere else. And maybe it's because I did it with my dad when I was very young but from the jetties all the way into-all the way into lower and upper bay, it's just a real neat place. And that's my favorite spot.

DT: Well good. Let's keep it that way.

0:42:00 - 2065

SS: Well that's-that's the deal. I-I-I really think we-we need to pass that onto future generations. The thought of the bay going away is just something that I couldn't handle, I'm afraid.

DT: Well thanks for spending time with us today. I appreciate it.

0:42:17 - 2065 SS: I-I've enjoyed it.

DT: I appreciate it.