“Docket No. 84-0065 SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v.FOUR FLAGS DRILLING COMPANY, Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 84-0065ORDER The Commission approves the parties’ stipulation and settlement agreement.FOR THE COMMISSION Ray H. Darling, Jr.Executive Secretary Date: MAY 16 1985FORD B. FORD, UNDER SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.FOUR FLAGS DRILLING COMPANY, Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 84-0065STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT I.The parties have reached agreement on a full and complete settlement of theinstant matter which is presently pending before the Commission.II. The parties stipulate as follows:(a) The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (hereinafter \”theCommission\”) has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to section 10(c) of theOccupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (85 Stat. 1590; 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.(hereinafter \” the Act\”).(b) Respondent, Four Flags Drilling Co. is a corporation with its principal place ofbusiness located at 6849 Leopard, Corpus Christi, Texas 78409. It is engaged in thebusiness of oil and gas well drilling and during the course of its business its employeesperform various tasks in the nature of oil and gas well drilling. During the course of itsbusiness, respondent, at all times material to this matter, used materials and equipmentwhich it received from places located outside the state of Texas. Respondent, as a resultof the aforesaid activities, is an employer engaged in a business affecting commerce asdefined by section 3(3) and 3(5) of the Act and has employees as defined by section 3(6)of the Act and is subject to the requirements of the Act.(c) As a result of an inspection conducted December 13, 1983, at respondent’s facility atShell Beaurline #7, near Linn, Texas, a citation for one serious violation was issued torespondent on December 29, 1983, along with a proposed related penalty of $300. Thecitation alleged a violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1) in that machineguarding was not provided to protect operator(s) and other employees from hazard(s)created by a \”smooth\” type kelly bushing.[[1\/]](d) Respondent elected to contest the citation and the Secretary filed his complaint onFebruary 9, 1984. On February 15, 1984, respondent filed its answer and on April 30, 1984,a hearing was held in Corpus Christi, Texas before Administrative Law Judge Dee C. Blythe.(e) On July 9, 1984, Judge Blythe issued his decision and Order affirming the citation andassessing the recommend $300 penalty.(f) Respondent filed a timely petition for review and on September 5, 1984 review wasordered of the judge’s decision on the affirmance of the 29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1) violation.On February 5, 1985, a notice was issued by the Commission requesting briefs from theparties.Now, in order to avoid further review and litigation, the parties agree to the following:I.Respondent hereby agrees to abate the cited conditions as follows:(a) Respondent agrees that when using a \”smooth\” type Varco kelly bushing on anyof its worksites it will provide and use a guard that will prevent employee contact withthe kelly bushing and the rotary table when the equipment is in operation; or(b) In lieu of a guard, respondent will will institute the following alternative methodsof abatement:1. All employees shall be trained in safe operating procedures when around the rotarytable and kelly bushing. 2. The employer shall designate the equipment operator and shall ensure that thedesignated person is trained and competent in the operation of the rotary drillingequipment.3. The designated equipment operator shall control the access and activity of allpersonnel on the drilling floor while equipment is rotating and shall stop such equipmentfrom rotating whenever there is danger to personnel from that equipment.4. The equipment operator shall never engage the rotary clutch without first ensuring thatno employees are on or in proximity to the rotary table in such a manner that they couldbe endangered.5. At any time an employee’s work activities require the handling of materials which canbecome entangled in the rotary table, the kelly bushing or the kelly while such equipmentis in motion, the designated equipment operator, who is capable of stopping the rotatingequipment, shall be at the controls.6. No materials which may become entangled in the rotary table, kelly bushing and\/or kellyshall be allowed within 6 inchesof this equipment when it is to be operated.7. Wash downhoses shall be of such length or located in such manner that no part of suchhoses can ho brought to within 6 inches of the kelly bushing.8.Spinning chain shall not be wrapped around the joint of the pipe in the mousehold norhandled on the drilling floor so that any part of the chain is within 2 feet of theexposed rotating portions of the rotary table, kelly bushing or kelly.II.Complainant recognizes that the alternative methods of abatement as set out in ParagraphI(b) is according to the variance granted by OSHA Instruction STD 1-12.28 dated February14, 1983, to which the Respondent is bound by this Stipulation and Settlement Agreementbut not by this variance until it becomes a standard by due operation of law.III.Complainant hereby agrees to withdraw its complaint and citation for violation of 29 CFR1910.212(a)(1) and the related proposed penalty.IV.Respondent hereby submits that the conditions noted in the above- mentioned citation hasbeen abated according to the terms of this agreement and shall remain abated.V. The parties agree that this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement is not to be consideredprecedential or binding in situations involving conditions or machinery of any otheremployer and that it does not apply to any type of kelly bushing other than a\”smooth\” Varco Kelly Bushing.VI.The parties agree to bear their own attorney’s fees, expenses and costs incurred as aresult of the instant litigation.VII.Respondent agrees to post this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in accordance withCommission Rule 7.Wherefore, the parties request that this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement be approvedby the Commission.FOOTNOTES: [[1\/]] Another citation for non-serious violation of 29 CFR 1910.307(b) was issued andaffirmed by the Judge. That violation, however, is not on review and not the subject ofthe instant agreement.”