Text For Citation: 01 Item/Group: 001 Hazard: STRUCK BY

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to: On the site, the hose connections were not chained down to prevent movement thereby exposing employees to a struck-by hazard. DISCUSSION OF 5(a)(1) ELEMENTS M.K.E. PRODUCING P.O. BOX 497 MINERAL CITY, OHIO 44656 330-859-2013 INSPECTION NUMBER 121913974 1. EMPLOYEE EXPOSURE: Due to paraffin buildup in pipes during the pumping of oil, it is routinely necessary to pump hot oil into the pipeline to purge the paraffin and promote the flow of oil. To facilitate this process, rubber hoses with metal wiring reinforcement are connected between hammer unions thus connecting the well head to a waste tank for dispensing of the paraffin. On 3-28-97 Daniel Schubert, employee, and Chad Schubert, employee, under the supervision of Michael Sherman, owner, connected the piping and the hot oil process was commenced. On 3-29-97 the procedure of pumping hot oil continued. The hot oil truck pumped at approximately 1500 to 1600 psi. The deceased was standing to the backside of the well head when the pressure from the well head caused the coupling to separate from the hammer union connected to the hard 2" pipe to the waste tank which struck the employee resulting in his death. The hammer union between the waste tank and the well head was not chained down. 2. KNOWLEDGE: This type of work is referenced in the American Petroleum Institute standards RP-54, Section 11, 4.3 which recommends when using an open-ended flow line to bleed off a well that the line is to be secured at the well head, at the end of the flow line, and at intermediate intervals along the line to secure each joint. The flow line is to be so anchored prior to opening the control head control valve. The foreman Robert Vaughn, and the owner, Michael Sherman were present when the connections were made and when the hard "T" pipe was chained at the well head. The foreman, Robert Vaughn is an active member of the Ohio Gas and Oil Association and stated he knows the American Petroleum Institute standards. The employer, Michael Sherman, was cited previously as the Sherman Drilling Company for a 5(a)(1) violation for the same condition which resulted in the amputation of an employees leg. The owner of M.K.E. Producing, Michael Sherman is also the owner of Sherman Drilling. 3. HAZARD: The company's practice of not securing down all the connections resulted in the death of one employee. The procedure of pumping hot oil into the well head without chaining the connections down is routinely performed by the employer. Among the feasible means of abatement that could be used to correct this are: 1. All coupling connections shall be chained to prevent movement. ELEMENTS: I. The employer knew that the violative conditions were present in the workplace prior to the date of the inspection. A.Briefly state violative condition. Employees were purging paraffin from a oil well when a section of pipe separated and the coupling struck an employee in the head resulting in his death. B.1.State facts showing employer knowledge of condition. The owner Michael Sherman was on site when the operation was in progress. Michael Sherman was the supervisor in charge and responsible for the onsite operations. Michael Sherman actually was struck with part of the pipe which killed the employee but was not injured. The owner, Michael Sherman was working as part of the crew to purge the paraffin out of the well. The owner, Michael Sherman, was a three year member of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association and during that time served as a trustee for two years. The Ohio Oil and Gas Association distributes information on oil drilling, and American Petroleum Institute standards for oil operations. Mr Sherman said he knows what the standards are and what they say. On 10-15-1991 the Sherman Drilling Company which is owned by Michael Sherman was issued a willful citation for failing to chain down the hoses which resulted in the amputation of an employees leg. 2.If knowledge is being imputed to employer through supervisor, state name and position of supervisor. 3.Type of evidence in file and location in file showing employer knowledge of condition. a.Report of interview-On March 31, 1997 a video interview was conducted of the employees and the owner, Michael Sherman. The owner stated what happened during the work being performed and explained why he thought the accident happened. On 5-13-97 a telephone interview was conducted with the owner, Michael Sherman to ask additional questions about the setup of the purging operation. Michael Sherman stated the hose was chained at the hammer union and at the waste tank. Further, he said that the hose connection was not chained at the connection between the hammer union and waste tank. This connection broke loose and the pipe hit the employee in the head resulting in his death. b. On May 13, 1997, the owner, Michael Sherman sent by fax a diagram of the set up on the day the purging operation was in operation and also the day the employee was killed. The hammer union which was not chained was the pipe which struck the employee resulting in his death. See Fax in Section 6 of the file. II.The employer's demonstrated awareness of the OSHA safety requirements being breached at the time of the violation. Check factor(s) relied upon and briefly describe: indicate type of evidence in file and location in file (see I-B3 above): 1.__XXX___Previous citations and / or warnings by OSHA: The Sherman Drilling Company, owned by Michael Sherman who also owns M.K.E. Producing has been inspected by OSHA a total of 17 times and received serious, willful, repeat, and other than serious citations. The employer has received citations in 11 of 17 OSHA inspections. Type/Location: a. See Tab 7, for the nation scan which documents inspection activity since 1973. b. See Tab 7 for two prior willful citations for employees being injured from a whipping hose that had not been chained down and from a whipping hose from a mud pump with too much pressure. c. The owner, Michael Sherman, was a member of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association for 3 years and served as a trustee of the association for 2 years. During meetings OSHA standards and the possibility of standards has been discussed and also the applicability of standards from the American Petroleum Institute. On 5-13-97 a telephone interview was conducted with the owner of Sherman Drilling, who stated "I know what the standards are and what they say". III.Employer consciously and voluntarily persisted in violative practices. A.Intentional disregard of the Act. 1.Employer ordered or directed violative activity: The owner, Michael Sherman, supervised the operation for two days and was aware the connection was not chained down. The company had been cited for this same violation in 1991 which resulted in an employees loss of leg. The employer failed again to chain down the connection thereby causing the death of an employee. Type/Location: See Tab 5 which has notes from a phone interview in which the owner, Michael Sherman explains the set-up of the pipes and work process. The owner, Michael Sherman, faxed a diagram which shows the set up on the day of the accident. See TAB 6 for diagram. 2.Length and extent of violative activity: The process was in the second day of purging the well head and lines of the paraffin when the accident occurred. The process was set up and began on the 28 March 97 and continued on the 29 March 97 without changes made. Type/Location: See video tape interviews of employees and owner, Michael Sherman which document the length of time the process was conducted. B.Plain indifference to requirements of the Act. 1.Failure to acquaint relevant supervisory personnel with OSHA standard involved: The employer has a extensive history of OSHA violations and failed to inform or train the foreman in the American Petroleum Institute standards. The owner, Michael Sherman, made the statement the employees have been doing this type of work for years so they should already know the rules and standards. Type/Location: See video interview of owner, and written notes of phone interview under Tab 5. 2.Failure to train or instruct employees to perform work in a manner which complies to the Act: The owner, Michael Sherman, has been in business for over 10 years and stated "It doesn't do any good to train employees because ¿he! is not going to be a babysitter" The employer had an accident in 1992 at which time an employee lost his leg. Michael Sherman made the statement the employee "was told how to do the job and when the accident happened the employer is held responsible for employees stupidity." The employer stated "you can't bitch enough to get employees to do the job the right way." Type/Location: See hand written notes under Tab 5 which relate to the phone interview with owner, Michael Sherman. 3.Failure to adequately supervise or monitor employees so that actions are in compliance with the Act: The owner, Michael Sherman, worked with the crew on the day before and the day after the accident. The owner was asked why he didn't chain the connections down and the owner, made the statement " It wouldn't make any difference if the connection would have been chained down because the pipe still would have separated." The employer stated he isn't a babysitter and they could be told how to do the work safely and the employees will still do the work the way they want to. Type/Location: See hand written notes of phone interview under Tab 5. MITIGATING FACTORS: IV.The employer's lack of malicious motive does not negate a willful violation. Similarly, a good faith belief that the work area of the employer was safe despite a violation of a standard or requirements of which the employer had knowledge does not negate willfulness. However, if the employer establishes that it had a reasonable good faith belief that it was in compliance with the standard, willfulness may be negated. Also, an employer's inadequate efforts at compliance may indicate negligence and may negate willfulness. State the employer's position, if any, on the above points and the nature of the evidence in the file supporting it, i.e. ROI, statement at informal conference, etc.