Training of Lessee and Contractor Employees Engaged in Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 250

RIN 1010-AC41

Training of Lessee and Contractor Employees Engaged in Oil and

Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend our regulations governing

training of lessee employees engaged in oil and gas and sulphur

operations in the OCS. We are proposing to establish a performance-

based training system that would:

Lead to safer and cleaner OCS operations;

Allow the development of new and innovative training

techniques;

Impose fewer prescriptive requirements on the oil and gas

industry; and

Provide increased training flexibility.

DATES: We will consider all comments received by July 19, 1999. We will

begin reviewing comments then and may not fully consider comments we

receive after July 19, 1999.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may mail or hand-carry comments

(three copies) to the Department of the Interior; Minerals Management

Service; Mail Stop 4024; 381 Elden Street; Herndon, Virginia 20170-

4817; Attention: Rules Processing Team.

Our practice is to make comments, including names and home

addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular

business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold

their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to

the extent allowable by law. There may be circumstances in which we

would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as

allowable by the law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or

address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your

comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make

all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals

identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations

or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilbon Rhome, Industrial Specialist,

or Joseph Levine, Chief, Operations Analysis Branch, at (703) 787-1600

or FAX (703) 787-1093.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 5, 1997, we published a final

rule in the Federal Register (62 FR 5320) concerning the training of

lessee and contractor employees engaged in drilling, well completion,

well workover, well servicing, or production safety system operations

in the OCS. The final rule streamlined the regulations by 80 percent,

provided the flexibility to use alternative training methods, and

simplified the training options at 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart O--

Training.

The February 5, 1997, final rule did not sufficiently address

developing a performance-based training system. This proposed rule

retains some elements of our existing training program related to

identifying minimum required training elements and affords lessees the

flexibility to design a performance-based training plan and to ensure

that their contractors are in compliance with such a plan.

On June 10, 1997, we conducted a public workshop in Houston, Texas,

to get information pertinent to a revision of the February 5, 1997,

Subpart O--Training regulation. The purpose of this workshop was to

discuss the development of a performance-based training system for OCS

oil and gas activities. In the April 4, 1997, Federal Register notice

(62 FR 18070) announcing the workshop, we stated that the goal of the

meeting was to develop a procedure which ensures that lessee and

contractor employees are trained in well control or production safety

system operations by creating a less prescriptive training program

focusing on results and not on processes.

To improve the regulations at 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart O--Training,

the

[[Page 19319]]

workshop notice asked attendees to be prepared to present and discuss

comments on the following four performance measures and indicators

which could be used as part of a performance-based program:

MMS Written Test: We may test lessee or contractor

employees. We may give announced or unannounced written tests at a

training site, office, or work location.

MMS Simulator and Hands-On Testing: We may conduct

production safety system equipment hands-on testing or well-control

simulator testing of lessee or contractor employees. We may give

announced or unannounced tests at a training site, office, or work

location.

Audits, Interviews or Cooperative Reviews: We may meet

with lessee or contractor employees periodically to determine the

effectiveness of their training program. These announced or unannounced

meetings may include an evaluation of training documents, procedures,

or interviews of key personnel.

Incident of Noncompliance (INC), Civil Penalty, and Event

Data: We may analyze the performance of a lessee by evaluation of INC,

civil penalty, and event data. Event data includes information dealing

with spills, fires, explosions, blowouts, fatalities, collisions, and

injuries. As part of this evaluation, we may analyze the data in

relation to the following:

--Number of facilities (platform/rig) operated by a company;

--Production volumes of an operator;

--Location of activity; or

--Frequency of events.

The notice also encouraged the public to suggest other viable

performance measures or indicators for us to consider for a

performance-based training program. Workshop participants suggested no

new measures or indicators.

Approximately 150 people attended the workshop, representing a

diverse cross section of the oil and gas industry. Most of the

attendees were associated with major and independent oil and gas

producing companies. There was no significant participation from

contractors. Representatives from 12 of the 55 MMS-accredited training

schools attended the workshop.

We discussed industry views concerning a performance-based training

program and gathered comments. Some commenters favored the development

of a performance-based training system while others suggested that the

current system be modified to provide added flexibility. Another group

of commenters favored the development of a dual training system

incorporating elements from both a performance-based program and MMS's

current system. This proposal would allow individual companies to

collect performance measures data, and to petition us for alternative

compliance to Subpart O. The petition would include a company's

individual performance measures versus industry averages and ranges,

and information on a company's individual training program. If we

approved a company's petition, then it would implement its own program

instead of complying with existing Subpart O requirements. Companies

that do not petition us to use alternative compliance methods, or have

their petition denied, would continue implementing current Subpart O

regulations.

We believe that the proposed rule retains critical safety elements

from the current system and provides added flexibility by allowing

lessees to develop training programs in a performance-based

environment. Under the proposal, lessees, not MMS, will be responsible

for ensuring that personnel employed at their facilities are trained

and competent. We intend to focus our resources on evaluating lessee

performance, not on accrediting schools. Lessees wishing to continue

using an existing school program or develop a new school program to

train their employees may do so as long as the program meets the

minimum requirements included in the proposed rule.

Another issue raised by segments of the oil and gas industry in

attendance at the workshop was the potential for certain companies to

neglect training under a performance-based regime. As part of the

proposed rule, lessees will be required to develop a training plan

defining their program. Minimum information to be included in the plan

is listed in this proposed rule. We will monitor company training

programs to determine their effectiveness. Those lessees performing

satisfactorily will receive less oversight by the agency, allowing us

to concentrate on those companies achieving less than satisfactory

results. Under such a system, companies will not be able to neglect

training.

Another issue highlighted at the workshop dealt with a

recommendation for MMS to use caution when changing from the current

prescriptive training system to a performance-based system. Workshop

participants questioned why we were willing to abandon the current

system, which has been successful, and implement a new program. We

believe that this proposed training regulation provides companies the

opportunity to develop their own individual program, tailored to the

needs of their employees. This flexibility will contribute to the

development of new and innovative training techniques. We encourage

such diversity because we feel that its ultimate result is safer and

cleaner OCS operations.

Workshop participants also commented on the type of performance

measures and indicators that we are considering. The participants felt

that an unannounced written test could cause employees stress that

would lead to poor performance on the exams. We do not feel that this

is a valid concern. Although a testing situation may be stressful, the

employee should be able to answer fundamental questions about

production safety systems or well control operations. This same

employee would be expected to respond positively in an actual situation

where the risks to personnel health, safety, and environmental damage

are great. We realize that the results of written tests are not always

indicative of an individual's performance. For that reason, we propose

to use a variety of performance measures to assess employees' skill and

safety knowledge relative to their job.

Certain commenters stated that hands-on simulator testing was an

excellent and realistic means of gauging performance, while others felt

that we do not have the necessary expertise or equipment to conduct

simulator tests. We agree that hands-on testing, using either well-

control simulator technology, interactive computer systems, live well

testing, or hands-on production safety system testing is an excellent

means of evaluating an individual's performance. We also agree that we

do not have the equipment or the expertise to conduct simulator

testing. For that reason, the proposed rule includes a provision that

either we or our authorized representative would administer or witness

the testing if we find it necessary.

Other commenters stressed the point that all hands-on testing

should be conducted at onshore facilities and not in an offshore

environment so it does not interfere with offshore operations. Whenever

possible, we will try to accommodate this concern. However, under

certain circumstances it may be appropriate to conduct hands-on testing

in an offshore environment. Therefore, either onshore or offshore

testing are viable options for MMS to use in evaluating the performance

of OCS employees.

[[Page 19320]]

Other commenters at the workshop stated that many offshore workers

have difficulty reading regulations or company operating manuals. We

believe this is a significant issue that should be addressed by

individual lessees. We also feel that lessees are responsible for

hiring well qualified and competent workers who should possess the

ability to read appropriate and necessary information.

A commenter asked how we would react to a company that does not

train its employees but has a good safety record as measured by

appropriate performance measures. The proposed rule requires a company

to develop a training plan and provide its employees with the necessary

skills to perform their job. We will periodically evaluate the

performance of companies relative to their plan to see how well

employees are being trained. Regardless a of company's safety record,

if we determine that the company is not training its employees, we will

initiate appropriate enforcement actions as discussed in the rule.

Another commenter said that although there is an increase in OCS

activity, there appears to be a shortage of trained and experienced

workers. The commenter thought that this is not the right time to move

towards a performance-based training system. We agree that we are

seeing a significant upturn in OCS activity and an associated increase

in the use of inexperienced personnel. However, the proposed changes

are expected to improve company training programs by holding lessees

accountable for the competency of their employees. We believe that a

performance-based system that focuses on results and the ability of

employees to demonstrate their job skills is preferable to the current

school certification system.

To implement this rule, we will periodically assess company

performance to determine how well its employees are trained. This

assessment will include implementation of one or more of the following

techniques: training system audits, employee interviews, written

testing, and equipment-based hands-on testing. We are seeking input on

what situations and threshold levels we should use as part of our

assessment of your training program to trigger the different

enforcement actions included in this rule. Some specific issues to

address in your comments should include the following:

--Is there a specific written test score (re: threshold level) we

should use to signify the competency of an individual?

--If an individual or group of individuals receives a written test

score below a level determined to signify competency, should we issue

an INC, conduct a retest, or initiate some other type of enforcement

action?

--What issues should we focus on when conducting employee interviews?

How often should these interviews be conducted? What situation(s)

should trigger MMS to conduct an interview?

--What type of enforcement action should we initiate if during an

employee interview an employee exhibits only a minimal understanding of

the employer's training program?

--Are there any situations where we should not allow an employee to

continue working on the OCS?

--Under what circumstances should we initiate hands-on testing of

employees?

We intend to conduct at least one workshop on this proposed

training rule during the comment period. We will notify you in a

separate document.

Procedural Matters

Federalism (Executive Order (E.O.) 12612

In accordance with E.O. 12612, the rule does not have significant

Federalism implications. A Federalism assessment is not required.

Takings Implications Assessment (E.O. 12630)

In accordance with E.O. 12630, the rule does not have significant

Takings Implications. A Takings Implication Assessment is not required.

Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)

This document is a significant rule and is subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866.

(1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on

the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities. The estimated yearly gross cost to the oil and gas

industry to train its employees at MMS accredited schools is

$5,955,000. We feel that the cost of complying with the proposed rule

would be somewhat less than this amount. Under the proposed rule, the

oil and gas industry would have flexibility to tailor its training

program to the specific needs of each company, resulting in lower

training costs. The rule does not add any new cost to the oil and gas

industry and it will not reduce the level of safety to personnel or the

environment.

(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.

(3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects or entitlements,

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of

their recipients.

(4) This rule does raise novel legal or policy issues. This is a

performance-based rule.

Clarity of This Regulation

E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy

to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this proposed

rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the

following:

(1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?

(2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that

interfere with its clarity?

(3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections,

use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?

(4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into

more (but shorter) sections?

(5) Is the description of the rule in the ``Supplementary

Information'' section of this preamble helpful in understanding the

rule? What else can we do to make the rule easier to understand?

Send a copy of any comments on how we could make this rule easier

to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the

Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240. You may

also e-mail the comments to this address: E[email protected].

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has

determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system

and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly

affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement

under the NEPA of 1969 is not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995

The proposed rule contains a collection of information which has

[[Page 19321]]

been submitted to OMB for review and approval under section 3507(d) of

the PRA. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and

respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to

comment on any aspect of the reporting and recordkeeping burden. Submit

your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; OMB;

Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB control

number 1010-NEW); 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503. Send a

copy of your comments to the Rules Processing Team, Attn: Comments;

Mail Stop 4024; Minerals Management Service; 381 Elden Street; Herndon,

Virginia 20170-4817. You may obtain a copy of the supporting statement

for the new collection of information by contacting the Bureau's

Information Collection Clearance Officer at (202) 208-7744.

The PRA provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a

person is not required to respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB is

required to make a decision concerning the collection of information

contained in these proposed regulations between 30 to 60 days after

publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a

comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB

receives it by May 20, 1999. This does not affect the deadline for the

public to comment to MMS on the proposed regulations.

The title of the collection of information for this proposed rule

is ``Proposed Rulemaking, 30 CFR 250, Subpart O--Training'' (OMB

control number 1010-NEW). Respondents are approximately 130 Federal OCS

oil and gas or sulphur lessees. The frequency of response is primarily

``on occasion.'' Responses to this collection of information are

mandatory. We will protect proprietary information in accordance with

the Freedom of Information Act and 30 CFR 250.118, ``Data and

information to be made available to the public.''

The proposed rule contains the following information collection

requirements and estimated burdens:

1. Develop and maintain training plans (average 2.2 hours per

plan). The burden will be greater during the first year when some

companies will need to develop plans, but will decrease in subsequent

years when companies will only have to maintain plans. The burden per

plan is annualized over a three-year period.

2. Maintain documentation of employee training activities (average

5 minutes per training record).

3. Employee responses to oral interviews conducted by MMS to

evaluate the effectiveness of the company's training program (10

minutes per interview).

4. Revise and submit training plans to correct deficiencies

identified by MMS (4 hours per revised plan).

We estimate the total annual reporting and recordkeeping ``hour''

burden for the proposed rule to be 2,044 hours. This will reflect a

decrease of 917 hours when it replaces the collection of information

approved for the current requirements in 30 CFR 250, Subpart O (1010-

0078).

We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them

in the final rule preamble. All comments will become a matter of public

record.

1. We specifically solicit comments on the following questions:

(a) Is the proposed collection of information necessary for MMS to

properly perform its functions, and will it be useful?

(b) Are the estimates of the burden hours of the proposed

collection reasonable?

(c) Do you have any suggestions that would enhance the quality,

clarity, or usefulness of the information to be collected?

(d) Is there a way to minimize the information collection burden on

those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated

electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology?

2. In addition, the PRA requires agencies to estimate the total

annual reporting and recordkeeping ``cost'' burden resulting from the

collection of information. We have not identified any and solicit your

comments on this item. For reporting and recordkeeping only, your

response should split the cost estimate into two components: (a) total

capital and startup cost component, and (b) annual operation,

maintenance, and purchase of services component. Your estimates should

consider the costs to generate, maintain, and disclose or provide the

information. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major

cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected

useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over

which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other

items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting

information; monitoring, sampling, drilling, and testing equipment; and

record storage facilities. Generally, your estimates should not include

equipment or services purchased: before October 1, 1995; to comply with

requirements not associated with the information collection; for

reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the

Government; or as part of customary and usual business or private

practices.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department certifies that this document will not have a

significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Currently

there are 55 MMS accredited training schools: we have approved 24

schools to teach production safety courses, 26 schools to teach well

control courses, and 5 schools to teach both well control and

production courses. The training companies best fit under the SIC 8249

and the criteria for small businesses is $5 million in revenue. Based

on that criteria, 25 training companies will fall into the small

business category.

Although we would no longer be accrediting schools, lessee

personnel and those hired by the lessee will have to be trained and

competent in the duties associated with their particular job.

The training schools that teach a broad range of vocational courses

in addition to MMS accreditation courses will not be significantly

affected. Also, schools that teach only MMS accreditation courses and

provide quality training at a competitive price will continue to

compete effectively for customers. Based on our experience, the failure

rate of the schools in the offshore training industry should not change

significantly under a performance-based program. Under the current

regulations we maintain a database that tracks training schools

approved by the agency. Based on information from this database less

than 2 percent of the training schools approved by MMS go out of

business each year; under the new rule we expect this to remain the

same. MMS experience has shown that because of lower overhead and

competitive pricing, small training schools are just as capable as the

larger schools at adapting to change. Under this proposal schools will

have the flexibility to tailor their training programs to accommodate

the needs of the oil and gas industry. The training industry has been

requesting this flexibility for years, and this performance-based

training rule will make that possible.

We believe these changes will make it easier for small schools to

market their program at a competitive rate to small contractors who may

have special needs working in the oil and gas industry. We

[[Page 19322]]

view this is as a positive impact for the training industry.

Under the proposed rule we will monitor the lessees and hold them

responsible for ensuring that their employees are trained in a timely

manner. We believe this will encourage lessees to provide their

employees training in a more consistent and timely manner, thus

increasing student enrollment resulting in financial benefits to both

large and small training schools.

The oil and gas companies that operate on the OCS are predominately

in SIC 1311, crude petroleum and natural gas. Under the SIC 1311,

companies with less than 500 employees are considered small businesses

and we estimate that 70 percent of the 130 OCS operating companies fall

into the small business category. Although, these companies may be

technically ``small,'' they have to be financially strong to operate in

the marine environment.

A positive effect for both small and large companies is that they

will have increased options concerning where to get their training.

This will change how a company does business. Small businesses

operating on the OCS will continue to have the option of using a third-

party training organization to train their employees, the same as under

the current system. These businesses will not be subject to any

additional training costs or economic burdens as a result of the

proposed rule.

Under the proposed rule, the oil and gas industry would have the

flexibility to tailor its training program to the specific needs of

each company. Small businesses that operate on the OCS will be

positively impacted by this proposal. They will be given the added

flexibility to determine the type of training, methodology (classroom,

computer, team, on-the-job), length of training, frequency and subject

matter content for their training program. Since this rule will not

have a significant effect on small training schools, or small lessees

working on the OCS, the Department has certified that this rule will

not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small

entities.

Your comments are important. The Small Business and Agriculture

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were

established to receive comments from small business about Federal

agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the

enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small

business. If you wish to comment on any enforcement actions, call toll-

free at (888) 734-3247.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

This rule is not a major rule under (5 U.S.C. 804(2)), SBREFA. This

rule:

(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million

or more,

(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for

consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government

agencies, or geographic regions.

(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition,

employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or ability of U.S.-

based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

DOI has determined and certifies according to the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rule will not impose a

cost of $100 million or more in any given year on State, local, and

tribal governments, or the private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250

Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Sulphur development and

production, Sulphur exploration, Surety bonds.

Dated: December 23, 1998.

Sylvia V. Baca,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Minerals Management Service

(MMS) proposes to amend 30 CFR part 250 as follows:

PART 250--OIL AND GAS AND SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER

CONTINENTAL SHELF

1. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.

2. Subpart O is revised to read as follows:

Subpart O--Training

Sec.

250.1500 Definitions.

250.1501 What is the goal of my training program?

250.1502 What are my general responsibilities for training?

250.1503 What job skills and safety knowledge elements must my

training cover for well control, production safety systems, and

other types of training?

250.1504 What well control training must my employees receive?

250.1505 What training must my production safety system employees

receive?

250.1506 What other types of training must my employees receive?

250.1507 May I use alternative training methods?

250.1508 Where may I get training for my employees?

250.1509 How often must I train my employees?

250.1510 How will MMS measure training results?

250.1511 What must I do when MMS administers written tests?

250.1512 What must I do when MMS administers hands-on, simulator,

or other types of testing?

250.1513 What will MMS do if my employees are not properly trained?

Sec. 250.1500 Definitions.

Terms used in this subpart have the following meaning:

Employee means lessee or contractor employees.

Floorhand means rotary helpers, derrick-men, or their equivalent.

I or you means the lessee engaged in oil, gas, or sulphur

operations in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

Lessee means a person who has entered into a lease with the United

States to explore for, develop, and produce the leased minerals. The

term lessee also includes an owner of operating rights for that lease

and the MMS-approved assignee of that lease.

Production safety system employee means employees who install,

repair, test, maintain, or operate surface or subsurface safety

devices, as well as the platform employee who oversees production

operations.

Supervisor means the driller, tool-pusher, operator's

representative, or their equivalent.

Training school means a party who has developed a course to teach

well-control for drilling, well completion and well workover, well

servicing, or production safety systems.

Well completion/well workover means those operations following the

drilling of a well that are intended to establish production or to

restore production to a well. For the purpose of this subpart, well

completion/well workover includes small tubing operations but does not

include those operations defined as well servicing.

Well servicing means snubbing and coil tubing operations.

Sec. 250.1501 What is the goal of my training program?

The goal of your training program is safe and clean OCS operations.

To accomplish this goal, you must ensure that your employees are

experienced and competent in their respective work assignments.

Sec. 250.1502 What are my general responsibilities for training?

(a) You must ensure that your employees are properly trained in the

[[Page 19323]]

job skills and safety knowledge elements for their positions. We regard

the job skills and safety knowledge elements in this subpart as the

minimum qualifications OCS workers must have to complete their assigned

duties safely and in a manner which protects the environment. You may

expand the knowledge elements as appropriate for particular operations.

Because you are accountable for the performance of your employees, you

must focus on training results, regardless of the method or process

used to train them.

(b) You must have a training plan which specifies the type, method,

length, frequency, and content of the training. This plan must include

at least the following information:

(1) Training in operating procedures, welding, burning, hot tapping

practices, safe work practices, emergency response and control

measures.

(2) Training and job qualification requirements for each employee's

position.

(3) Procedures for maintaining and enhancing job skill

requirements, including the latest technological advancements.

(4) Procedures for evaluating contractor personnel.

(5) Procedures for verifying the skills of employees on a periodic

basis.

(6) Recordkeeping and documentation procedures.

(7) Audit procedures for your training plan.

(c) You must keep copies of your training plan and documentation

for each employee for 5 years at the lessee's or contractor's field

office, Headquarters office, or at another location conveniently

available to the MMS Regional Supervisor, Field Operations.

Sec. 250.1503 What job skills and safety knowledge elements must my

training cover for well control, production safety systems, and other

types of training?

(a) Employees must receive enough training to ensure competency in

their assigned duties.

(b) Employees must receive training in basic safety and

environmental issues and procedures.

(c) Employees must receive training in the use of each safety

device that they will encounter in their normal duties.

(d) Employees must receive additional training as required by

Secs. 250.1504 through 250.1506.

Sec. 250.1504 What well control training must my employees receive?

Employees must receive training in well control knowledge and

skills as indicated in the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drilling WC/WO \3\

Safety knowledge and skill elements ------------------------------------------------ WS \4\

Super \1\ Floor \2\ Super Floor

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Hands-on training in:

(1) Choke manifold operation....................

(2) Stand pipe operation........................

(3) Mud room valves operation...................

(b) Care, handling & characteristics of drilling and

well completion/well workover fluids...............

(c) Care, handling & characteristics of well

completion/well workover fluids & packer fluids....

(d) Major causes of uncontrolled fluids from a well

including:

(1) Failure to keep the hole full...............

(2) Swabbing effect.............................

(3) Loss of circulation.........................

(4) Insufficient drilling fluid density.........

(5) Abnormally pressured formations.............

(6) Effect of too rapidly lowering the pipe in

the hole.......................................

(e) Importance of & instructions on measuring the

volume of fluid to fill the hole during trips......

(f) The importance of filling the hole as it relates

to shallow gas conditions..........................

(g) Filling the tubing & casing with fluid to

control bottomhole pressure........................

(h) Warning signals that indicate a kick &

conditions that can lead to a kick.................

(i) Controlling shallow gas kicks and using

diverters..........................................

(j) At least one bottomhole pressure well control

method including conditions unique to a surface or

subsea BOP stack...................................

(k) Installing, operating, maintaining & testing BOP

& diverter systems.................................

(l) Installing, operating, maintaining & testing BOP

systems............................................

(m) Government regulations on:

(1) Emergency shutdown systems..................

(2) Production safety systems...................

(3) Drilling procedures.........................

(4) Wellbore plugging & abandonment.............

(5) Pollution prevention & waste management.....

(6) Well completion & well workover requirements

(Subparts E & F of 30 CFR part 250)............

(n) Procedures & sequential steps used on the

following pieces of equipment when shutting in a

well:

(1) BOP system..................................

(2) Surface/subsurface safety system............

(3) Choke manifold..............................

(o) Well control exercises with a simulator,

interactive computer system or live well suitable

for modeling well completion/well workover

operations.........................................

(p) Well control exercises with a simulator,

interactive computer system or live well suitable

for modeling drilling operations...................

(q) Instructions & simulator or live well experience

on organizing & directing a well killing operation.

[[Page 19324]]

(r) At least two simulator practice problems

rotating trainees using teams of three or less

members............................................

(s) Care, operation, purpose, and installation of

well control equipment.............................

(t) Limitations of the equipment that may wear or be

subjected to pressure..............................

(u) Instructions in well control equipment,

including:

(1) Surface equipment...........................

(2) Well completion/well workover, BOP & tree

equipment......................................

(3) Downhole tools & tubulars...................

(4) Tubing hanger, back pressure valve (threaded/

profile), landing nipples, lock mandrels for

corresponding nipples & operational procedures

for each, gas lift equipment & running &

pulling tools operation........................

(5) Packers.....................................

(v) Instructions in special tools & systems, such

as:

(1) Automatic shutdown systems (control points,

activator pilots, monitor pilots, control

manifolds & subsurface systems)................

(2) Flow string systems (tubing, mandrels &

nipples, flow couplings, blast joints, &

sliding sleeves)...............................

(3) Pumpdown equipment (purpose, applications,

requirements, surface circulating systems,

entry loops and tree connection/flange)........

(w) Instructions for detecting entry into abnormally

pressured formations & warning signals.............

(x) Instructions on well completion/ well control

problems...........................................

(y) Well control problems during well completion/

well workover operations including:

(1) Killing a flow..............................

(2) Simultaneous drilling & well completion &

well workover operations on the same platform..

(3) Killing a producing well....................

(4) Removing the tree...........................

(z) Calculations on the following:

(1) Fluid density increases that controls fluid

flow into the wellbore.........................

(2) Fluid density to pressure conversion & the

danger of formation breakdown under the

pressure caused by a fluid column, especially

when setting casing in shallow formations......

(3) Fluid density to pressure conversion & the

danger of formation breakdown under the

pressure caused by a fluid column..............

(4) Equivalent pressures at the casing seat

depth..........................................

(5) Drop in pump pressure as fluid density

increases & the relationship between pump

pressure, pump rate, & fluid density...........

(6) Pressure limitations on casings.............

(7) Hydrostatic pressure & pressure gradients...

(aa) Unusual well control situations, including the

following:

(1) Drill pipe is off bottom or out of the hole.

Work string is off bottom or out of the hole...

(2) Lost circulation occurs.....................

(3) Drill pipe is plugged. Work string is

plugged........................................

(4) Excessive casing pressure...................

(5) There is a hole in drill pipe. Hole in the

work string. Hole in the casing string.........

(6) Multiple well completion....................

(bb) Special well control problems while drilling

with a subsea stack including:

(1) Choke line friction pressure determinations.

(2) Use of marine risers........................

(3) Riser collapse..............................

(4) Removing trapped gas from the BOP stack

after controlling a well kick..................

(5) ``U'' tube effect as gas hits the choke line

(cc) Mechanics of various well controlled

situations, including:

(1) Gas bubble migration & expansion............

(2) Bleeding volume from a shut-in well during

gas migration..................................

(3) Excessive annular surface pressure..........

(4) Differences between a gas kick, a salt water

and/or oil kick................................

(5) Special well control techniques (such as,

but not limited to, barite plugs & cement

plugs).........................................

(6) Procedures & problems involved when

experiencing lost circulation..................

(7) Procedures & problems involved when

experiencing a kick while working over or

completing a well including conducting small

tubing operations in a hydrogen sulfide (H2S)

environment....................................

(8) Procedures & problems involved when

experiencing a kick while drilling in a H2S

environment....................................

(9) Procedures & problems involved when

experiencing a kick while servicing a well

including snubbing, coil-tubing, and stripping

& snubbing operations with work string.........

[[Page 19325]]

(dd) Reasons for well completion/well workover,

including:

(1) Reworking a reservoir to control production.

(2) Water coning................................

(3) Completing a new reservoir..................

(4) Completing multiple reservoirs..............

(5) Stimulating a reservoir to increase

production.....................................

(6) Repairing mechanical failure................

(ee) Methods of preparing a well for entry:

(1) Using back pressure valves..................

(2) Using surface & subsurface safety systems...

(3) Removing the tree & tubing hanger...........

(4) Installing & testing BOP & wellhead prior to

removing back pressure valves & tubing plugs...

(ff) Instructions in small tubing units:

(1) Applications (stimulation operations,

cleaning out tubing obstructions, plugback, and

squeeze cementing).............................

(2) Equipment description (derrick & drawworks,

small tubing, pumps, weighted fluid facilities,

and weighted fluids)...........................

(3) BOP equipment (rams, wellhead connection, &

check valve)...................................

(gg) Methods for killing a producing well,

including:

(1) Bullheading.................................

(2) Lubricating & bleeding......................

(3) Coil tubing.................................

(4) Equipment description (coil tubing, reel,

injection head, control assembly & injector

hoist).........................................

(5) BOP equipment (tree connection or flange,

rams, injector assembly & circulating system)..

(6) Snubbing....................................

(7) Types (rig assist & stand alone)............

(8) Applications (running & pulling production

or kill strings, resetting weight on packers,

fishing for lost wireline tools or parted kill

strings, circulating cement or fluid

initiating, flow and cleaning out sand in

tubing.).......................................

(9) Equipment (operating mechanism, power

supply, control assembly & basket, slip

assembly, mast & counterbalance winch & access

window)........................................

(10) BOP equipment (tree connection or flange,

rams, spool, traveling slips, manifolds,

auxiliary--full opening safety valve inside

BOP, maintenance & testing)....................

(hh) The purpose & use of BOP closing units,

including the following:

(1) Charging procedures include precharge &

operating pressure.............................

(2) Fluid volumes (usable & required)...........

(3) Fluid pumps.................................

(4) Maintenance that includes charging fluid &

inspection procedures..........................

(ii) Instructions on stripping & snubbing operations

& using the BOP system for working pipe in or out

of a wellbore under pressure.......................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:

\1\ Super = Supervisor.

\2\ Floor = Floorhand.

\3\ WC/WO = Well Completion and Well Workover.

\4\ WS = Well Servicing.

Sec. 250.1505 What training must my production safety system employees

receive?

You must ensure that your employees receive all of the training

specified in this section.

(a) You must ensure that your employees understand Government

regulations related to:

(1) Pollution prevention and waste management; and

(2) Requirements for well completion and well workover operations.

(b) You must give your employees instruction in the following

(contained in, but not limited to, API RP 14C):

(1) Failures or malfunctions in systems that cause abnormal

conditions and the detection of abnormal conditions;

(2) Primary and secondary protection devices and procedures;

(3) Safety devices that control undesirable events;

(4) Safety analysis concepts;

(5) Safety analysis of each basic production process component; and

(6) Protection concepts.

(c) You must give your employees hands-on training on covering,

installing, operating, repairing, or maintaining the following

equipment:

(1) High-low pressure sensors;

(2) High-low level sensors;

(3) Combustible gas detectors;

(4) Pressure relief devices;

(5) Flowline check valves;

(6) Surface safety valves;

(7) Shutdown valves;

(8) Fire (flame, heat, or smoke) detectors;

(9) Auxiliary devices (3-way block and bleed valves, time relays,

3-way snap acting valves, etc.);

(10) Surface-controlled subsurface safety valves and surface-

control equipment; and

(11) Subsurface-controlled subsurface safety valves.

(d) You must give your employees instructions on inspecting,

testing and maintaining surface and subsurface devices and surface

control systems for subsurface safety valves.

(e) You must give your employees instructions in at least one

safety device

[[Page 19326]]

that illustrates the primary operation principle in each class for

safety devices:

(1) Basic operational principles;

(2) Limits affecting application;

(3) Problems causing equipment malfunction and how to correct these

problems;

(4) A test for proper actuation point and operations;

(5) Adjustments or calibrations;

(6) Recording inspection results and malfunctions; and

(7) Special techniques for installing safety devices.

(f) You must give your employees instructions on the following

basic principles and on the logic of the emergency support system:

(1) Combustible and toxic gas detection system;

(2) Liquid containment system;

(3) Fire loop system;

(4) Other fire detection systems;

(5) Emergency shutdown system; and

(6) Subsurface safety valves.

Sec. 250.1506 What other types of training must my employees receive?

Your employees must receive other training as shown in the

following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Training elements Where can you find information on these training elements?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operational Hazards................. MMS approved plans or permits.

Hydrogen Sulfide.................... 30 CFR 250.417(g)(1) through (5) Subpart D.

Crane Operation..................... 30 CFR 250.101 (API RP 2D).

Environmental....................... Lease stipulations and NTLs.

Pollution........................... 30 CFR 254.29(b) and 254.41(c).

Cultural............................ Lease stipulations and NTLs.

Electrical.......................... 30 CFR 250.403(d).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 250.1507 May I use alternative training methods?

You may use alternative training methods. These methods may include

team, self-paced, hands-on, on-the-job, or computer-based learning.

Sec. 250.1508 Where may I get training for my employees?

You may get training from any source that meets your employee's job

qualification requirements. These may include your own training

programs, private vendors, universities, or government institutions.

Sec. 250.1509 How often must I train my employees?

You determine the frequency of the training you provide your

skilled employees. You must train them as often and as much as

necessary to maintain their job and knowledge qualifications, and to

keep them current in the latest technological advances and regulatory

changes.

Sec. 250.1510 How will MMS measure training results?

(a) MMS may periodically assess your training program to see how

well your employees are trained.

(b) To assess your program, MMS may use one of the following

evaluation methods:

(1) Training system audit.

A training system audit may be conducted by MMS personnel and/or

its authorized representative at your office. You will be asked to

explain your overall training program. This review may include an

evaluation of your training plans and/or records.

(2) Employee interviews.

MMS may conduct interviews at either onshore or offshore locations

to determine what type of training your employees have had, when and

where this training was conducted, and an employee's evaluation of the

training in relation to his/her specific job.

(3) Written test.

MMS personnel and/or its authorized representative may conduct

testing at either onshore or offshore locations for the purpose of

evaluating an individual's knowledge of the training elements specified

in this subpart. Your performance will be evaluated on how your

employees perform relative to past written tests or compared to the

written test scores of other companies.

(4) Hands-on production safety, simulator, or live well testing.

MMS personnel and/or its authorized representative may conduct

tests at either onshore or offshore locations. Tests will be designed

to evaluate the performance of employees in the job skills and safety

knowledge elements identified in this subpart. You are responsible for

the costs associated with this testing.

Sec. 250.1511 What must I do when MMS administers written tests?

If MMS tests your employees at either your worksite or an onshore

location, you must:

(a) Allow MMS and/or its authorized representative to administer

written tests to your employees.

(b) Identify your employees by current position, years of

experience in present position, years of total oil field experience,

and employer's name (e.g., operator, contractor, or sub-contractor

company name).

Sec. 250.1512 What must I do when MMS requires hands-on, simulator, or

other types of testing?

If MMS conducts or requires you to conduct hands-on, simulator, or

other types of testing, you must:

(a) Allow MMS and/or its authorized representative to administer or

witness the testing.

(b) Identify your employees by current position, years of

experience in present position, years of total oil field experience,

and employer's name (e.g., operator, contractor, or sub-contractor

company name).

(c) Pay for all costs associated with the testing.

Sec. 250.1513 What will MMS do if my employees are not properly

trained?

If MMS determines that you are not training your employees to

perform their jobs effectively, we may initiate one or more of the

following enforcement actions:

(a) Issue an Incident of Noncompliance;

(b) Require you to revise and submit to MMS your training plan to

address identified deficiencies;

(c) Assess civil/criminal penalties; or

(d) Initiate disqualification procedures.

[FR Doc. 99-9683 Filed 4-19-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P