Allen's Casing Crews, Inc.

Plain-English summary

OSHA inspected Allen's Casing Crews after an employee fell from an oil-drilling rig and died. One citation item concerned a lanyard used later by a replacement crew member whose snap-hook spring was missing, while a separate item concerned the longer lanyard used by the employee who fell. The judge vacated the first item after discussing damage to the second lanyard and did not address the evidence about the defective snap hook. The Commission set aside that disposition and remanded the first item so the judge could evaluate the evidence tied to the correct equipment and clearly explain the result.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132(a); 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132(c)
• Outcome: The vacation of the defective-lanyard item was set aside and remanded for reconsideration.
• Key point: A citation item must be decided from evidence concerning the equipment identified in that item, not different equipment involved in another allegation.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 89-3423

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

ALLEN'S CASING CREWS, INC.,

Respondent.

OSHRC Docket No. 89-3423

ORDER

This case was directed for review on the issue of whether
Administrative Law Judge Louis G. LaVecchia erred in vacating citation 1, item 1, which
alleged that Allen's Casing Crews, Inc. ("Allen's") committed a serious
violation of 29 C.F.R. � 1910.132(a) by failing to maintain a safety belt lanyard in
reliable condition because the latch on the lanyard would not properly lock. The Secretary
of Labor argues that the judge relied on the wrong evidence in deciding to vacate the
item. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the judge apparently did err in his
consideration of the evidence concerning this item. We remand this case to him to resolve
this matter.

A representative of the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational
Safety and Health Administration conducted an inspection of an oil drilling rig that was
the site of a fatal accident near Crane, Texas, resulting in the issuance of a citation to
Allen's alleging two serious violations. Item 1 of the citation alleged that the
inoperable safety catch on a lanyard was in violation of section 1910.132 (a), which
provides that "[p]rotective equipment... shall be provided, used, and maintained in
a... reliable condition . . . ." As the judge acknowledged at one point in his
statement of the facts, "[t]his [lanyard] was not the same equipment that had been
used by the deceased employee." Rather, it was used by a member of the replacement
crew following the accident.

Item 2 of the citation alleged a serious violation of 29 C.F.R.
� 1910.132(c), based on the excessive length of another lanyard, the one worn by the
deceased employee at the time of his accident. Section 1910.132(c) requires that "[a]
11 personal protective equipment shall be of safe design and construction for the work to
be performed."

In the portion of his decision entitled "Relevant
Facts," the judge included the following evidence concerning item 1:

The witness [Barney Marquez] identified exhibits C-7 and C-8 as
photographs of the lanyard and belt that he used when he finished the stabbing job. . . .
He further testified that the lanyard he used ([exhibits] C-7 and C-8) had a defective
snap-hook (missing spring).

During his cross-examination of this witness, the owner of
Allen's, appearing pro se, explained that there was no spring in the lanyard latch because
"with the spring in it, it would not go over the rope."

The evidence noted immediately above was not mentioned by the
judge in the "Discussion" portion of his decision, where he set forth his reason
for vacating item 1. Instead, he discussed evidence as to how the lanyard of the deceased
employee had broken. Then, he stated that "[i]n its damaged condition no
conclusion can be reached to support a finding that the equipment was not properly
provided, used, and maintained." (emphasis added). Because the only damaged lanyard
was the one involved in item 2, it appears that, the judge relied on evidence that was
introduced for that item in vacating item 1, while not considering the evidence in the
record addressing item 1, some of which he had previously noted in his statement of the
facts.

In light of the discussion above, we set aside the judge's
disposition of item 1 and remand this case to the judge to review the record and to
consider the evidence presented by both parties concerning item 1. Any amended decision
entered by the judge should clearly state what evidence he is relying upon for his
disposition of item 1.

Edwin G.Foulke, Jr.

Chairman

Donald G. Wiseman

Commissioner

Velma Montoya

Commissioner

Dated: October 8, 1991

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

ALLEN'S CASING CREWS, INC.,

Respondent.

OSHRC

Docket No. 89-3423

APPEARANCES:

For the Complainant:     Sara D. Smith , Esq.,

For the Respondent:     Larry Allen, Pro Se

DECISION AND ORDER

L. LaVecchia, Judge

This proceeding arises under Section 10 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 U.S.C. � 651 et seq.), referred to as the "Act."

The respondent was cited by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, also known
as "OSHA," for alleged violations of the safety and health standards promulgated
under the Act.

As a result of a fatality investigation made by an OSHA compliance officer on October
18-19, 1989, two citations were issued against the respondent. The first citation,
characterized as "serious," alleges that the respondent violated the safety
standard set forth at 29 CFR 1910-132(a) for not maintaining protective equipment in a
sanitary and reliable condition. Specifically, it is charged that:

The Casing Crew for Unit #7 was operating south of Crane, Texas
on Hondo Drilling Rig #9 on or about October 18, 1989. The Rose safety belt Model 502503
and lanyard used by an employee was not maintained in reliable condition. The buckles on
the lanyard would not stay closed and the belt's grommets were damaged by storing tools on
top of safety equipment. Equipment must be clean, inspected and stored in a safe place.
The Casing Stabber (employee) was exposed to a fall from elevation hazard of approximately
40 feet.

It is further charged in the first citation that the respondent
violated the safety standard set forth at 29 CFR 1910.132(c) because all personal
protective equipment was not of safe design and construction for the work to be performed.

Specifically, it is charged that:

The Casing Stabber was exposed to a fall from elevation hazard
of approximately 40 feet while running 5 1/2 inch casing. The lanyard did not limit the
fall to less than 6 feet when employee mover, above stabbing board. Protective equipment
must be safe while in use from all work positions.

A second citation, issued at the same time, alleged a violation
characterized as "other," but this charge was withdrawn by the complainant after
the hearing. Citation No. 2 will therefore be vacated.

A hearing was held in this matter on July 20, 1990 in Midland, Texas at which time both
parties presented evidence in support of their respective positions. Post-hearing briefs
were not filed.

RELEVANT FACTS

The respondent employs about 20 employees and is engaged in
performing oil and gas well servicing for the producers of those products (Tr. 14-15). Its
annual gross income approximates 1.2 million dollars (Tr. 13).

On or about October 18, 1989 the respondent was engaged in well
servicing operations on Hondo Drilling Rig #9 near Crane, Texas when a fatal accident
occurred, resulting in the death of one of its employees. The deceased man had been
working at the 41-foot level of the oil well rig being serviced on the above date (Exs.
C-1, 2, 3). While so engaged he fell to his death. (Ex. C-5)

Don Mills, formerly employed by the respondent, worked for a
short time during the period leading up to the fatal accident. He had worked on oil rigs
most of his working career, but had never performed any "stabbing" operations
which require working at higher levels of the rigs for the installation of casing in
wells. However, on the date of the accident he had been scheduled to mount the derrick
toward the end of the operations in order to try his hand at "stabbing." This
work was being performed by the deceased at the time of his fatal fall from the derrick
(Tr. 24-25). The witness recalled having been provided with a safety belt and lanyard, but
stated that he had not been given any instructions on how to use them; nor was he given
any instructions on how and where to tie off the lanyard (Tr. 28-29). He previously had
worked for ten or eleven drilling contractors before the respondent. Since he was a floor
hand he was not required to mount the derricks and was given no safety belt training. He
mounted a derrick on one occasion only, but other than being told that it had to be worn
he received no other training or instructions. (Tr. 30-31).

Larry Steel testified that he was presently employed by a
drilling company as a "derrick man." He has had more than 10 years' experience
in the field of gas and oil drilling, and was employed in the past by the respondent. He
was part of the work force at the time of the fatal accident, working as a
"caser." This involves rigging up and running pipe. He had earlier that day
worked as a "stabber," which entails mounting the derrick and guiding the pipe
down into the well. He "stabbed" about 20 such joints into the well. (Tr.
34-35). He identified in exhibit C-2 a lanyard which had been broken (pulled in two), and
from which the safety belt had fallen. (Tr. 37). He identified the traveling blocks shown
in exhibit C-3 (red in appearance) and described their function in picking up casing and
moving it into position for installation in the well. (Tr. 39). The crew, including the
deceased workman (Barnett) took turns using the same lanyard when they alternated working
on the derrick in the "stabbing" operation. The lanyard was about 8 or 9 feet
long. (Tr. 40-41). It was made of cable, perhaps 1/4 inch size and was sheathed in
plastic. (Tr. 41-42). He expressed the opinion that a 6- foot lanyard would be too short
to permit the required work when working on a derrick in the described type of operations.
(Tr. 42). He felt that it would be unsafe because it would require disconnecting it in
order to move about on the derrick from beam to beam, etc. He normally ties off the
lanyard to the side of the rig. On the date of the accident, because the derrick was not
level (out of plumb) the blocks were hanging "way to one corner" of the rig. The
wind was blowing pretty hard that day in the same direction as the blocks, but he did not
feel that the wind would have much effect on the blocks. (Tr. 42-44). The blocks usually
sway as they are elevated upwards in the derrick. The casing joints being installed were
about 32 to 42 feet long. (Tr. 47). The witness identified the broken lanyard in exhibit
C-4 as the one he had been speaking of in his testimony. (Tr. 49).

On cross-examination by the respondent's president ( pro se )
he witness once again described the difficulties involved in moving about the derrick
while the lanyard had to be disconnected in order to make the required movements. In the
realm of real evidence, the respondent presented the lanyard and safety belt in question
for the purpose of showing that there was orange paint on them, indicating that the
orange-painted blocks had apparently struck the belt and lanyard, knocking the deceased
off the derrick. (Tr. 61-64). (Ex. R-1).

Curtis Lemons has had 10 years' experience in oil field work,
and although he was presently employed by another company, he had worked in the past for
the respondent. He was a foreman, or crew leader during the 3 or 4 years that he worked
for the respondent. The safety belt and lanyard involved in this accident were the
personal property of the witness, although the respondent would have provided that
equipment upon request. (Tr. 68). He permitted other employees, including the deceased, to
use his equipment, but he gave them no instructions with respect to tying off the lanyard,
and stated that "I don't think you would find anybody in the oil field that has had
any kind of training like that." On the other hand he stated that Mr. Allen conducted
safety meetings about once a week.  he used the lanyard every day, but did not use a
safety belt because he had seen two men fall from derricks while wearing safety belts.
  One was fatally injured.  (Tr. 69). he estimated that his lanyard was 7 or 8
feet in length, but that if it were tied off at some point in the derrick it would be
shorter.  In further testimony he contradicted himself by stating that he never uses
either a lanyard or a safety belt, but that he braced himself against "belly"
ropes or "back ropes" in order to keep from falling off the derrick.  (Tr.
70) He felt that this accident was caused by the employee's use of the safety belt.  
(Tr. 72). He further stated that the compliance officer had told him in the past that the
belly ropes could be used as safeguards against falling instead of the safety belt. (Tr.
73).

This witness also stated that on the day of the accident the
derrick was not as level as it should have been since the blocks did not hang straight
down and struck the sides of the derrick when moving in the lifting and positioning of the
casing joints.  The problem was discussed with the job superintendent or his
assistant, but not with Mr. Allen because the latter was not on the jobsite at that time.
(Tr. 74-75).  The superintendent acknowledged that the derrick was not plumb. (Tr.
75). However, the witness stated that although the stabbing operation was made more
difficult by the leaning derrick, he did not feel that it made matters unsafe. The
leveling of the rig would be very expensive. (Tr. 76).

The witness had worked on many rigs and stated that something
could be found wrong with almost all of them if they were subjected to careful inspection.
(Tr.79).

Barney Marquez, recalled by the complainant, stated that he had
worked for the respondent about five and a half years, primarily as a stabber. He
testified that he had been provided with a safety belt and lanyard by the crew hauler, and
that he always used them. He never had received any instructions on how to use that
equipment when working for the respondent, but stated that he already knew how to safely
use the equipment. (Tr. 83-82). He was not working on the day of the accident, but was
called onto the job to finish the stabbing operations later in the day. He worked on the
beam, not on the stabbing board, at the 41 or 42-foot level. (Tr. 82-83).

The witness identified exhibits C-7 and C-8 as photographs of
the lanyard and belt that he used when he finished the stabbing job. He figured the
lanyard to be 7 or 8 feet long. (Tr. 83- 84). This was not the same equipment that had
been used by the deceased employee. (Tr. 85- 86). He further testified that the lanyard he
used (Exs. C-7 and C-8) had a defective snap-hook (missing spring). He expressed some
reservations about using the spring-hook for tying the lanyard off because he felt that it
would be difficult to get out of if necessary. He stated that he would rather tie a
half-hitch in the lanyard in tying off at some point on the derrick. (Tr. 87-91).

On cross-examination this witness stated that the latch on the
lanyard hook was not bent; that the spring in the latch had been removed in order to
permit the hook on the latch to fit over the rope. He said the rope was bigger than the
latch opening when the spring was not removed. (Tr. 91).

Mr. Bill Goolsby testified that he was employed by Tyler Pipe
Industries, in Tyler, Texas, and that he had set up a safety training program for that
company. He had had many years of experience in safety matters pertaining to drilling
rigs, etc., and had had some of his work published in the oil and gas drilling field. He
had worked with the American Petroleum Institute in the evolvement of safety standards
used in the drilling industry. (Tr. 95-98). He qualified as an expert witness with respect
to oil and gas well drilling matters. (Tr. 98).

The witness had been contacted by OSHA for purposes of
testifying in this case and had been made familiar with the incident involved. (Tr. 99).
He stated that the industry considers the type of work that was being performed in this
case to be hazardous, requiring the use of personal protective equipment. (Tr. 101).

He indicated that the industry practice or custom is to provide
equipment to the employees, allowing the employees to choose the point to which the
lanyard will be attached. An important factor in the decision as to where to tie off is to
consider the length of the fall before the lanyard takes hold--a lanyard of excessive
length might fail to halt the fall of an individual. The belly ropes used by men working
in the derrick serve to protect the employees from falling from the derrick. The witness
stated that it is customary for the employee to use a belt with loops through which
attachment to the belly rope can be made for protection. He testified that some employees
working on the derricks are reluctant to tie off to anything on the derrick for fear that
they might be dragged off the stabbing board by the blocks. (Tr. 103-104).

The American Petroleum Institute recommends that lanyards be at
least one-half inch in diameter, of nylon material or equivalent, and be adjusted to
permit a maximum fall of 5 feet. (Tr. 108).

The witness expressed the opinion that the deceased employee
had tied off the lanyard in the wrong location. He also felt that the personal protective
equipment provided by the respondent was not of safe design and construction suitable for
the work being performed. He also felt that the missing spring in the lanyard hook was
indicative that the equipment was not kept in reliable condition. (Tr. 122-23).

There are some workers who prefer using belly ropes for safety
purposes, and there are some who don't like the idea of using safety belts or lanyards or
any such equipment -- they want to feel free to move about without restriction. (Tr. 125).

On cross-examination the witness admitted that he had never run
any casing. (Tr. 134).

DISCUSSION

The safety standard at 29 CFR 1910.132(a) provides:

Protective equipment, including personal protective equipment *

• • shall be provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition * * *

The safety standard at 29 CFR 1910.132(c) provides:

All personal protective equipment shall be of safe design and
construction for the work to be performed.

In the absence of the compliance officer's testimony it is
difficult to reach any conclusions with respect to whether the safety belt and lanyard
worn by the deceased were defectively maintained. From the mish-mash of evidence presented
by the parties it appears that the accident resulted from the traveling blocks striking
the belt or lanyard or both which were being worn by the deceased as he worked at the
41-foot level of the derrick. The reddish-orange paint on the belt and lanyard produced by
the respondent at the hearing substantiate the respondent's theory that the blocks,
traveling upward, struck the deceased's equipment, pulling him off the derrick, breaking
the lanyard, and causing him to fall to his death. In its damaged condition no conclusion
can be reached to support a finding that the equipment was not properly provided, used,
and maintained. Accordingly, Item 1 of Citation No. 1 (Serious) must be vacated.

Item 2 of Citation No. 1 (Serious) grew out of a charge that
the lanyard on another belt and lanyard combination (owned by the employee using it) had a
lanyard which was long enough to permit a fall of more than 6 feet. But the employee
stated that he preferred not to clip the lanyard to the derrick structure for fear of
being unable to untie himself in the event of an emergency. He would rather wrap the
lanyard around an object in a half-hitch tie-off, on the theory that it would be easier to
free himself from the derrick in the event of a collapse of the structure or other
emergency. The evidence indicates that there is a natural fear among those employees
engaged in working at heights such as those in this case that they might not be able to
extricate themselves from safety belts and lanyards if necessary. Some employees prefer to
work without any safety belts or lanyards on the theory that they are then free to move
without restriction in the event of an emergency. It is also apparent that when a lanyard
is wrapped around a point in the derrick structure it loses much of its length and the
actual drop of an employee's body in an emergency would probably be less than 6 feet. In
the circumstances, this item must also be vacated.

Citation No. 2 having been withdrawn by the complainant, is therefore vacated.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Review Commission has jurisdiction of this matter and
   the parties.

2. The respondent did not violate the standard at 29 CFR
   1910.132(a).

3. The respondent did not violate the standard at 29 CFR
   1910.132(c).

ORDER

Citations 1 and 2 are vacated.

Louis G. LaVecchia Judge,

OSHRC

DATED: AUG 15, 1991