By: Kenny Jordan/AESC Executive Director
Nov/Dec 2011

I usually have my topics more or less decided on in advance for my article each issue, but something came across my desk yesterday that has made me switch gears. I was recently contacted by one of our members in California who brought an issue to our attention. California is possibly going to mandate the use of automatic shutdown devices on engines at a wellsite that are within a certain distance of the wellbore. This mandate originated from a meeting that the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board held in California on February 8, 2011, to discuss the proposal by a petitioner.

Kenny Jordan, AESC Executive Director

This issue came up at the end of last year when a letter written by a Senator on the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety and a Representative on the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections was sent to API essentially requesting API to change the language of API RP 54 from a “should” to a “shall require” in terms of company use of automatic shutdown devices for engines in the oil and gas environment.

API’s reply was, “API believes that operations in hazardous environments are best managed through a combination of implementing company safety management systems, complying with government regulations and conforming with industry standards. We, therefore, believe that a specific requirement to use diesel engine air intake shut-off valves is not necessary.” That was from a letter dated back to the Congressional members on December 15, 2010.

Skip forward to October 2011. Through the petition that was submitted to California OSHA asking for the mandating of automatic shutdown devices on engines, it looks like this is going to become a requirement in California in the near future. What is even more perplexing is that the petition to California OSHA came from a company that manufacturers and sells these devices. Fair enough, however regulators need to weigh the merits of this petition with industry and then make the appropriate decision from input. The red flag here is that a company is going through regulatory channels to create a market for their product instead of engaging industry and selling their products on the merit of that product. It’s not called “selling” when you are mandated by a regulatory agency to buy it.

There has been a letter written by the Western States Petroleum Association to the members of the OSHA committee reviewing this petition, which does not agree with the findings of the board. It states, “WSPA members appreciate the Board’s invitation to participate in the Advisory Committee process but disagree that there was a “consensus” outcome of the February 8, 2011 committee meeting. Arguments against the necessity of the proposed changes were not seriously considered by a committee that was, in our view, heavily unbalanced in favor of the petitioner and against industry concerns. This is especially apparent when comments to the committee on Federal OSHA’s rejection of similar changes and this Board’s own rejection of similar changes recently proposed by the same Petitioner for what some would consider higher-risk refinery operations are summarily dismissed.”

Now some may say that California is removed from the mainstream of the oil and gas world. I believe that is a false sense of security. We’ve seen more often than not that regulatory agencies adopt changes that have initiated in California. So the caution is, be on the lookout for any new proposals in your state for mandating use of automatic shutdown devices on engines.

This is another example of over regulation and unnecessary burdens placed on energy companies, when we should be looking to job creation.