Chemicals

Recognition of Tank Gauging Hazards Leads to Increased Liability

As late as 2014, workers who died during tank gauging and other activities that involved opening the thieves’ hatch on oilfield tanks were recorded as resulting from “natural causes.” As a result, surviving family members were not eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. A recent court case out of Colorado could change that.

Jim Freemyer, a 59-year-old oilfield worker, died in July 2014, shortly after he had begun driving a truck and performing tank gauging duties for his employer, Now or Never Trucking. Initially, his death was ruled to have occurred due to “natural causes:” Freemyer’s existing health conditions included type II diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease.

But shortly before Freemyer’s death, NIOSH had published its initial report on worker fatalities during flowback operations, including tank gauging. The agency had linked a number of deaths that were initially attributed to “natural causes” to a previously undocumented hazard: the hazard of exposure to volatile hydrocarbon plumes released from the thieves’ hatches of oilfield tanks.

Flowback Operations, Workers’ Compensation Liability, and OSHA fines

When it ruled in favor of Freemyer’s widow – granting her $7000 to help pay for her husband’s funeral costs, and a death benefit of about $530 per week for the rest of her life – the court determined that Freemyer’s death was, in fact, work-related. Going forward, this opens the door for the families of other workers to claim workers’ compensation benefits for oilfield injuries.


Your one-stop safety management resource, available 24/7. Go here to take a no-cost site tour or here to try it in your own office!


More, an OSHA investigation resulted in $19,600 in proposed fines against the employer, for violations of the respiratory protection and PPE standards. This is significant, in part because the oil and gas industry is specifically exempted from a number of OSHA standards, including:

  • The process safety management (PSM) standard, 29 CFR 1910.119
  • The permissible exposure limit for benzene (1 ppm); at well sites, the limit is 10 ppm
  • The hearing conservation standard, 29 CFR 1910.95
  • The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout) standard, 29 CFR 1910.147

OSHA can only cite oil and gas employers under the general duty clause for hazards covered by those standards. But there is no such exemption from respiratory protection and PPE standards, and OSHA is making use of what it can.


Great news! BLR’s renowned Safety.BLR.com® website now has even more time-saving features. Take our no-cost site tour! Or better yet, try it at no cost or obligation for a full 2 weeks.


Freemyer’s employer was found to have:

  • Failed to evaluate the respiratory hazards Freemyer was exposed to, which included exposure to an oxygen deficient atmosphere.
  • Failed to provide appropriate PPE. Freemyer had complained to his employer about a month before his death of feeling disoriented after opening the tanks. He was given a respirator to wear, but it turned out to be the wrong type.
  • Failed to implement engineering controls that could have reduced or eliminated Freemyer’s exposure.
  • Failed to provide training that could have helped Freemyer protect himself from the hazard.

So, as a result of NIOSH’s determination that oilfield workers’ deaths during flowback operations are a result of work-related exposures, not natural causes, employers in that industry now face increased liability under both workers’ compensation and OSHA.

For the latest developments in EHS management, check out safety.BLR.com.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.