OSHA Inspection: HELMERICH & PAYNE INTERNATIONAL DRILLING CO.

Issued

Aug 14, 2008

Abate by

Sep 4, 2008

Penalty

Initial $2,125 · Current $2,125

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The
employer did not
furnish a place of employment which was free from recognized hazards that
were causing or
likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that
employees were exposed
to struck by hazards:
(a)Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. at Rig 273 Well #RWF 324-9,
Rifle, CO 81650:  On or before 04/25/08, the employer did not ensure that
employees were protected from the following "struck by" hazards:
1)The rotary drilling line slip-and-cut practices exceeded the
manufacturer's
recommendations.  The manufacturer of the drilling line, Wire Rope
Industries
Inc., provided that the Variable Ton Mile Target Goal for the Cushion 6
Drill
Line was 17, meaning one foot of wire rope cut for every 17 ton miles.  The
ton mile log shows:
a)On 2-12-08, an 80 foot cut was made for a reported 1831 accumulated
ton miles, resulting in 22.9 ton miles per foot of wire rope cut.  It is
also noted that the accumulated ton miles of 1831 exceeded the wire
rope manufacturer's stated limit of 1800 ton miles between cuts;
b)On 3-5-08, a 64 foot cut was made for a reported 1591 accumulated ton
miles, resulting in 24.9 ton miles per foot of wire rope cut;
2)The calculation of ton miles did not include the weight of the
travelling block
in accordance with API Recommended Practice 9B, "Recommended Practice
on Application, Care, and Use of Wire Rope for Oilfield Services," dated
August, 2002, Section 5, Evaluation of the Rotary Drilling Line.  In this
case,
the top drive travelling block weighed 28,000 pounds;
3)The slip-and-cut program did not include other load factors, such as
drilling,
stuck pipe when tripping out, and setting casing, in accordance with API RP
9B Sections 5 and 6.  The employer did not slip-and cut the drilling line
before and after setting casing on 2-25-08, in accordance with the wire
rope
manufacturer's directions for use;
4)The employer did not train employees to supersede visual inspections of
the
wire rope over predetermined calculations, in accordance with API RP 9B
Section 6.4; and
5)The employer did not establish adequate accountability for wire rope
inspections by requiring that a record be made of the monthly inspection,
designating any noted defects, in accordance with API RP 54 dated August,
1999, Section 9.6.
Among other methods, some feasible and acceptable abatement methods are
stated in
the API Recommended Practices 9B and 54, referenced above.  Conditions
exposedemployees to struck by hazards.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed
"Sample Abatement-Certification Letter").