2001/041 OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY REPORT Proceedings at the Occupational Health Offshore Conference

HSE
Health & Safety
Executive
Proceedings at the Occupational
Health Offshore Conference
Aberdeen 27-29 March 2001
Prepared by AEA Technology Environment
for the Health and Safety Executive
OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY REPORT
2001/041
HSE
Health & Safety
Executive
Proceedings at the Occupational
Health Offshore Conference
Aberdeen 27-29 March 2001
Angela Crosbie & Fiona Davies
AEA Technology Environment
Harwell
Didcot
Oxfordshire
OX11 0QJ
United Kingdom
HSE BOOKS
© Crown copyright 2002
Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:
Copyright Unit, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office,
St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ
First published 2002
ISBN 0 7176 2260 6
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior
written permission of the copyright owner.
This report is made available by the Health and Safety
Executive as part of a series of reports of work which has
been supported by funds provided by the Executive.
Neither the Executive, nor the contractors concerned
assume any liability for the reports nor do they
necessarily reflect the views or policy of the Executive.
ii
SUMMARY
The papers and presentations in this volume constitute the proceedings of an HSE sponsored conference
on Occupational Health Offshore. The conference was held at the Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference
Centre from 27 to 29 March 2001 and was supported by UKOOA, TUC, IADC, OCA, IMCA, BROA
and WSCA. This event followed the successful Occupational Health Offshore conference held in 1996.
Twenty-nine papers were presented and over 160 delegates attended. The range of papers reflects
diverse areas of interest:
•
•
•
•
•
•
scene setting - policy, strategy and leadership
the management and implementation of occupational health (including use of data, performance
measures, cost effectiveness, health promotion etc)
occupational health in the offshore design process
practical control of health risks (e.g. noise, radiation, chemicals)
the occupational health and human factors interface (e.g. how attention to human factors can
address health issues such as those related to stress and shift work)
well being and fitness for duty
The range of speakers was also wide, including representation from offshore operators and contractors,
occupational health practitioners, trades unions, academics, consultants and regulators from Britain and
Norway.
The aim of the conference was to raise the profile of all aspects of occupational health offshore. It
provided an opportunity for everyone - including managers, supervisors, occupational health managers
and practitioners and workforce representatives - to share views, challenges, successes, case studies and
research findings.
The conference was not designed to develop solutions to specific problems or find ways forward on
contentious topics. However, some of the presentations and audience comments do offer such
opportunities. These will be addressed by the HSE and carried forward by various routes (e.g. OIAC
and Step Change).
The proceedings are a mixture of formal papers and presentations; the decision on which format was
used for the individual papers was the author’s. The papers published here have not been subject to
peer review - although some have the support of various committees. They have been subjected to
some editorial work, mainly to ensure consistency of textual presentation. The question and answer
sessions, which were transcribed from audio tapes, have been edited to convert, so far as is possible, the
spoken word into a readable text.
Ron Gardner
iii
iv
CONTENTS
SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………………………….. iii
DAY 1 – TUESDAY 27 MARCH 2001
Session Theme – Scene Setting – Policy, Strategy and Leadership
Opening Address …………………………………………………………………………………………3
Mr Bill Callaghan, Chair of The Health and Safety Commission
Securing Health Together – An Occupational Health Strategy For Great Britain...............................9
Mrs Sandra Caldwell, Director of Health, HSE
Keynote Speech - Delivering on Health ................................................................................................15
Mr Malcolm Brinded, Managing Director, Shell U.K. Exploration and Production
Offshore Industry Advisory Committee Perspective .............................................................................31
Mr Roger Spiller, MSF Offshore Team Leader
The Medical Manager’s Perspective .....................................................................................................35
Dr Jim Keech, BP, Manager Health BP Upstream UK, Chairman UKOOA HAC
The Challenge Of Setting Occupational Health Targets......................................................................41
Mr Stephen Williams, Step Change Support Team
Offshore Safety Division National Inspection Projects: Findings And Lessons On Occupational
Health Management In The Offshore Sector .......................................................................................47
Dr Ron Gardner, Offshore Safety Division, HSE
Health Planning Tool For Occupational Health Assurance................................................................61
Mr Lindsay Ross, Occupational Hygiene Co-Ordinator, BP Exploration
Feedback And Discussion “Determining And Using Occupational Health Performance Indicators”
................................................................................................................................................................65
DAY 2 – WEDNESDAY 28 MARCH 2001 (Morning Session)
Session Theme – Occupational Health in the Offshore Design Process
Occupational Health in the Engineering Phase of Offshore Development Projects – Legislative
Basis and Experience from Project Auditing in Norway……………………………………………73
Mr Sigvart Zachariassen and Mrs Anne Myhrvold, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Stavanger,
Norway
Systematic Follow-up of Working Environment Activities During Design of Offshore
Installations…………………………………………………………………………………….………77
Mrs Claudia C. González Hague and Wenche Solberg, Scandpower AS, Norway
Design of Offshore Installations – Don’t Forget Occupational Health…………………………..…..83
Mr Kevin O’Donnell, OSD, HSE
Designed-in Occupational Health Risk Management…………………………………………...……89
Geoff Simpson, Amey Vectra, Melanie Clark, Amey Vectra and Mr Kevin O’Donnell, HSE
The Development of a Human Factors Engineering Strategy in Petrochemical Engineering and
Projects - Part 1……………………………………………………………………………………….105
Mr Harrie J T Rensink, Group Advisor Human Factors Engineering, Shell International Health
Services, The Hague, The Netherlands and Martin E J van Uden, Co-ordinating Process Engineer, Shell
International Chemicals, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
v
The Development of a Human Factors Engineering Strategy in Petrochemical Engineering and
Projects - Part 2…………………………………………………………………………….…………115
Martin E J van Uden, Co-ordinating Process Engineer, Shell International Chemicals, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands and Mr Harrie J T Rensink, Group Advisor Human Factors Engineering, Shell
International Health Services, The Hague, The Netherlands
Health and Safety by Design - Integrating Human Factors into the Offshore Design Process…....131
Dr Ian Randle, Hu-Tech Associates Ltd, 81 Addison Road, Guildford, Surrey, GU1 3QE and Mr Ed
Terry, Sauf Consulting Ltd, 30 Observatory Road, London, SW14 7QD
DAY 2 – WEDNESDAY 28 MARCH 2001 (Afternoon Session)
Session Theme – Physical, Chemical and Biological Agents – Case Studies
Experience from Supervision of Operator Companies' Assessment of Chemical Risk…….………147
Mrs Anne Myhrvold, Mr Sigvart Zachariassen and Mr J A Ask, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate,
Stavanger, Norway
Measuring Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in the Offshore Industry……….…..151
Mr Lindsay Ross, BP, Dr Ahsan Saleem, Offshore Safety Division, HSE and Mr Stuart Whiteley, Shell
UK Exploration and Production
Legionella and Other Issues within Potable Water Maintenance. A Consultant’s Perspective…..153
Dr Mark Brown, Commercial Microbiology Ltd, Aberdeen
Implementation of the Noise at Work Regulations, Offshore………………………………….……157
Mr Curt Robinson, Acoustic Technology Ltd
The LSA Focused Results Delivery Project on NORM………………………………………………163
Mr Brian McKendrick, Shell Expro
Tackling Bad Vibes in the Oil and Gas Industry – A Case Study on Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome
(HAVS)………………………………………………………………………………………………...169
Mr Stuart McIlroy, Senior HSE Advisor, Halliburton Brown and Root
Report on Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome…………………………………………………………...173
Ian Campbell, BP, HSE Advisor Health
DAY 3 – THURSDAY 29 MARCH 2001 (Morning Session)
Session Theme – Human Factors and Psychological Health
Circadian Adaptation to Shift Change in Offshore Shift Workers………………………………….187
Michelle Gibbs, S. Hampton, L. Morgan and Professor Josephine Arendt, Centre for Chronobiology,
University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH
Managing Stress in the Offshore Working Environment…………………………………………....195
Dr Valerie J Sutherland, Chartered Psychologist, Sutherland-Bradley Associates, 5 Minorca Avenue,
Deepcut, Camberley, Surrey GU16 6TT
What’s New in Stress Management?………………………………………………………………....205
Ronny Lardner, Chartered Occupational Psychologist, The Keil Centre Ltd and Bob Miles, Human
Factors Team Leader, HSE
The Role of Employee Assistance Programmes in Organisational Stress Management……...……209
Dr Stephen Galliano, ICAS Group
Feedback and Discussion – Human Factors and Psychological Health – Where Next?……….….215
vi
DAY 3 – THURSDAY 29 MARCH 2001 (Afternoon Session)
Session Theme – Wellbeing and Fitness for Duty
Health Care and First Aid on Offshore Installations - The Revised ACOP……………………..….225
Alan Morley, Safety Policy Directorate, HSE
Wellbeing at Work……………………………………………………………………………….……227
Fiona Farmer, Regional Officer, MSF
The Medical and Physical Fitness of Offshore Emergency Response Rescue Team Members…....229
Dr Allan C Prentice, Aon Occupational Health
Ageing of the Offshore Workforce in the Norwegian Offshore Industry: Implications for Safety and
Health…………………………………………………………………………………………….……255
Dr Eirik Bjerkeboek, Dr Helge Wiig and Dr Hilde Heber, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Pb 600,
Ullandhaug, N-4003 Stavanger, Norway
Impact of Health Surveillance and Promotion on Offshore Accident Rates……………………..…263
Dr Kathryn Mearns, Industrial Psychology Group, William Guild Building, University of Aberdeen,
Aberdeen, AB24 2UB
vii
viii
DAY 1
SESSION 1
SESSION THEME – SCENE SETTING – POLICY, STRATEGY AND
LEADERSHIP
1
2
OPENING ADDRESS
Mr Bill Callaghan, Chair of the Health and Safety Commission
I would like to add my welcome to that of Paul
Davies and say how pleased I am to be here
today. I endorse his view that this is an ideal
opportunity to reflect on what has happened in
the last five years and to refocus your attention
on the important issues today.
Revitalising and Securing Health Together
The Commission and the Government strongly
support work to address ill-health in the
workplace. Last year the Deputy Prime
Minister and I launched the Revitalising Heath
and Safety initiative.
I was in Edinburgh two weeks ago hearing
from a range of Scottish organisations about
how they are putting into action Securing
Health Together, the occupational health
strategy for Great Britain.
It injects new impetus into the health and safety
agenda and identifies new approaches to
reduce further rates of accidents and ill-health
caused by work. Especially approaches
relevant to small firms - although there are
relatively few of these offshore.
I was impressed by the partnership activity in
Scotland, for example, through organisations
such as Scotland’s Health at Work. Partnership
is central to our strategy. So far as Securing
Health Together is concerned, to borrow the
phrase from the (Ronseal) advert, ‘it does what
it says on the tin’. Securing Health Together.
The watchword is together.
Revitalising aims to ensure that our approach
to health and safety regulation remains relevant
for the changing world of work over the next
25 years. It also aims to gain maximum benefit
from links between occupational health and
safety and other Government programmes.
You may be interested that one of the delegates
in Edinburgh, from Strathclyde Fire Brigade,
said they had trialed providing injured firemen
with physiotherapy. They found a payback of
two pounds for every pound spent. We will be
following up for more details. But it is an
interesting indication of how investment in
occupational health can pay.
Securing Health Together is an essential part of
Revitalising. Work that contributes to it will
ensure that we meet targets to reduce the cases
of work-related ill-health and absence. You
will hear more about Securing Health Together
from Sandra Caldwell later today.
This conference gives you the opportunity to
consider how we can Secure Health Together
on the UK sector of the Continental Shelf.
Let me ask you to consider why occupational
health is important. Around two million people
in Great Britain suffer from some form of
work-related ill-health. These two million
people are not on their own. At home their illhealth will affect their families. At work it
means their skills and experience are likely to
be wasted. Can your company afford this loss?
Can we as a nation afford it?
Occupational health in Great Britain
I’m going to consider:
- Revitalising and Securing Health Together
- occupational health in Great Britain and
offshore
- how the industry has moved on in the last
five years
- how legislation relating to health has changed
- ill-health issues offshore
- baseline data and targets
- the way forward and the key challenges
Occupational health Offshore
Occupational health is vitally important for the
offshore industry. Unless you see it as such,
progress will be limited.
If this conference is the success that it
deserves, and which I’m sure you all want, it
will raise the profile of ill-health offshore. If
this increased awareness prompts everyone
involved with occupational health to do
3
As a result some platforms belonging to BP,
Conoco, Marathon and Shell have progressed,
through bronze and silver, to reach the gold
award. This is exactly what Securing Health
Together is all about.
something, there will be fewer cases of
occupational ill-health among the offshore
workforce. The offshore industry, industry
associations, trade unions and HSE, over the
last five years, have all done an excellent job of
raising awareness and developing action plans.
But there is no room for complacency. There is
much more to be done. Later I will challenge
you to move occupational health offshore
forward. If the number of cases of ill-health is
to be reduced, everyone’s recent efforts need to
be maintained or increased.
Also, Step Change has been working on the
Vantage card system - the Offshore Passport.
The information this will carry means it has the
potential to become a very valuable tool. All
these developments indicate that companies
recognise that a healthy workforce is good for
business.
Ill-health is as likely to occur from work
offshore as it is onshore. The reasons for
tackling it are no different. It is in everyone’s
interest to do this for sound moral, legal and
economic reasons.
Step Change provides valuable support. It is an
industry initiative, funded and voluntarily
staffed by the trade unions and the industry to
improve
offshore
health
and
safety
performance. It has taken on responsibility for
catalysing and monitoring progress with the
industry’s contribution to Revitalising, and for
keeping HSC’s Offshore Industry Advisory
Committee (OIAC) abreast of developments. It
has also worked jointly with OIAC to develop
and run a workshop to set offshore Revitalising
targets, which are an important part of
developing a way forward for occupational
health offshore. I hope Malcolm Brinded will
say more about Step Change.
Improvements can only be achieved if the
offshore industry and everyone involved in it
takes occupational health seriously. People’s
health at work must be properly managed. This
does not mean it is the sole responsibility of
offshore managers and the medical profession.
Everyone has a role to play, by which I mean
everyone in the industry, industry associations,
trade unions as well as HSE. Partnership is at
the heart of Revitalising and Securing Health
Together. You must look for opportunities to
improve existing partnerships or forge new
ones and decide what you are going to do to
help reduce the incidence of ill-health offshore.
How the industry has moved on in the last
five years
The offshore industry has changed in the last
five years. Much more use is made of new and
developing technology. Oil and gas are also
now being sought in new locations - for
example west of Shetland where the weather
conditions are more extreme and travel times
can be lengthy. Today much greater use is
made of contractors. The number of people
working offshore has come down from around
27,000 in 1996 to 19,000 today. The demands
on these people have for the most part
increased, for example by multi-skilling, team
working and through more campaign based
maintenance. The effect of one person’s
inability to perform their duties is likely to be
more noticeable today, than five years ago. As
there are fewer people offshore, absences
create extra pressure and increased stress
levels, and the length of tours may increase.
The last conference, in 1996, raised the profile
of occupational health offshore. It gave all
those with an interest a chance to be heard.
At that time, many delegates felt that
occupational health was a "Cinderella" subject
offshore. But this was not surprising in view of
the industry’s need to focus on controlling
major hazards. The conference was a good
starting point for the offshore industry. It
encouraged discussion of occupational health
offshore. But progress has been slow. It is
essential that this conference stimulates action
by those who can influence occupational health
offshore. There is no quick fix for occupational
health - securing improvement takes much time
and effort.
But there have been some significant
developments. Today health certainly has a
higher profile offshore. The industry has done
much good work in raising awareness of
health. Some offshore companies have taken
up the challenge of Scotland’s Health at Work
scheme, which focuses on health promotion.
How legislation relating to health has
changed
On the legislative side there have been changes
too. New and revised legislation applying both
on and offshore has come into force, such as
4
the revised Control of Substances Hazardous to
Health Regulations and the regulations aimed
at controlling the health risks of asbestos and
lead. The Noise at Work Regulations now
apply offshore and the Approved Code of
Practice on offshore health care and first aid
has been revised. All these require people to
focus on health.
as a result, fatigue and stress. Difficulties with
manual handling arise for catering staff
because of the lack of space. This is a
significant list of problems for a group of
people who do one of the jobs that is
traditionally seen as less demanding!
The results from HSE’s inspections indicate
that there are still areas where improvements
are needed - especially in terms of assessing
and controlling risk. This is true of even well
known hazards such as noise, vibration and
hazardous substances. Last year about 25% of
the improvement notices issued by HSE’s
offshore inspectors were related to health or
welfare. Effort needs to be concentrated on all
health and welfare issues and not just those
covered by specific legislation.
Currently our main source of information on
ill-health and injury is the reports legally
required under the RIDDOR. Each year HSE
publishes a summary of these as offshore
statistics on reported injuries, ill-health and
incidents. The latest report indicates that last
year the main reported cause of ill-health was
chicken pox. Whilst the cause is beyond our
control, it highlights the problem of
transmission of diseases in the unique offshore
environment.
HSE is playing its part in other ways too. Not
just through Revitalising, Step Change and the
other initiatives I have already mentioned. But
also through routine work on inspections and
seminars to launch case study guidance - for
example, “Sound solutions offshore” (noise
control case studies) and “Well Handled”
(manual handling control case studies).
HSE was surprised at the low level of the
number of cases of work related dermatitis
being reported. Dermatitis is a disease that
occurs at a significant level in other related
industries and other countries’ offshore
industries. From the reports that are being
made, or rather not being made, it seems very
likely that some work-related illness is not
being reported. Some of this may be partly
related to legal requirements. For example, for
a disease to be reported the regulations say that
it must have been diagnosed by a doctor. As
you know there are no doctors offshore, and in
many cases people will have recovered before
they go onshore.
Ill-health issues offshore
HSE is working in partnership with the
industry on a number of joint research projects
to examine aspects of health. A number of
these will be covered later in the conference,
for example, on the health effects of exposure
to toxic substances in drilling muds, and on
adaptation to shift work. HSE and some
individual companies are also developing
partnerships, as part of the philosophy of
Securing Health Together. For instance, the
guidance on health in design will be piloted by
two companies. You will hear more about this
tomorrow.
Companies tell us they see stress and
musculoskeletal diseases as important. Work
related stress is not reportable, but we are
aware of individuals with stress being
medivaced from offshore. We know that
musculoskeletal disorders and stress cause the
greatest number of cases of work-related illhealth across all industries.
Let’s now look at one area of occupational
health in the offshore industry. I’ve been
offshore several times, and know something of
the realities of working offshore. I’ve seen how
in many ways offshore working conditions
have no onshore parallels. Consider catering
staff, a perhaps less obvious group of people,
who perform a key role offshore. Many of the
risks they face will be found onshore, for
example, slips, trips, cuts and burns.
We know too that noise and vibration are
important offshore hazards. They can lead to
hearing loss and hand-arm vibration syndrome.
Reports of injuries indicate that manual
handling is a major source of accidents and
consequently ill-health.
Manual handling represented 28% of all
injuries reported last year and in many cases
will lead to long term absence from continuing
back pain. HSE is dedicating a seminar to the
very important topic of offshore manual
But offshore catering staff also face additional
stressors like vulnerability to complaints of
their colleagues, absence from their families
for weeks at a time, low manning levels, and,
5
handling later this year, where it can be
explored further.
ideas and approaches aimed at improving
offshore health and safety. Our experience is
that all involved in Step Change are committed
to making real improvements.
Baseline data and targets
Targets are powerful tools. If they are palpable
they can bring people into partnership,
allowing them to consider radical changes,
helping to avoid the temptation to blame others
and enabling people to share and be involved
in meeting those targets. Once set, targets are
an incentive and allow people to measure their
progress. Later this afternoon you will hear
about the “Challenge of setting Occupational
Health Targets”.
To achieve these improvements requires the
commitment of the most senior people in the
industry. I therefore welcome the attendance
today of Malcolm Brinded and Roger Spiller. I
find when people at the top are involved and
prepared to commit resources in order to
change attitudes and culture, then things begin
to happen.
I’m sure everyone here is committed to
reducing ill-health amongst the offshore
workforce. We all need to spread this message,
not just to our immediate colleagues, but
throughout the industry. I hope what you hear
in the next three days will help you do this.
The Revitalising workshop identified the lack
of baseline data on work-related ill-health as a
major hindrance to setting offshore targets. It
concluded that a cross-industry database would
enable the industry to establish a baseline
against which it could measure its progress.
Key challenges
Such a database would capture all the data at
present recorded by offshore medics in their
logbooks or other ways, and data arising from
sickness absence. The workshop agreed it
would be a good idea to develop a scheme for
classifying, coding and collating reports. It also
agreed that the proposed database should be
managed by an independent academic body, to
ensure both confidentiality and quality.
To summarise:
In the next three days I would ask you to
consider occupational health in the context of
working offshore on the UK sector of the
Continental Shelf, in order to identify ways to
reduce occupational ill-health there.
This work will be taken forward by a working
group under the auspices of Step Change. A
pilot study will be carried out and evaluated in
the next year. Then the database will be
launched in spring 2002.
To measure your success in dealing with
occupational health offshore, you will first
need to establish a baseline and I support your
plans to do this. Once you have determined the
baseline, I challenge you to improve on it.
Industry is of course also free, if it wishes, to
develop other more stretching targets than
those under Revitalising. What is vital is not to
lose the momentum.
Improvements can only be achieved if
everyone involved in the offshore industry
takes occupational health seriously. People’s
health at work must be properly managed. I
challenge you to decide what are you going to
do to help manage ill-health offshore and then
do it.
I challenge you to move the topic of
occupational health offshore forward.
The way forward
So how can we deal with the significant issues
offshore? I believe it comes down to
management of the issues. There are three main
groups of people who can provide leadership
to achieve this: employers, trade unions and the
regulator - HSC and HSE. Providing effective
management and leadership not only requires
the three groups to work independently, but
also to do so in co-operation with one another,
for example through OIAC and Step Change.
Finally, I challenge everyone involved in
occupational health offshore, to make sure that
the next five years are marked by a significant
reduction in the number of people who become
ill as a result of working offshore.
Thank you for your attention.
I believe it is right that the offshore industry
and trade unions should be driving forward
6
Answer – Mr Bill Callaghan, HSC
Some people say there are too many
conferences. I think the important point is not
the frequency of conferences, but the point I
was trying to emphasise in my talk about what
action happens in between. I think we do need
conferences every now and again to raise the
profile and raise the awareness. But I hope you
will have taken from my talk that it's not just
enough to have conferences. The important
thing is what action flows from conferences.
Today and the next couple of days need to
establish a sense of common purpose. What
I'm looking for is not more conferences
necessarily, I'm looking for more action.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
Question - Chris Hopson, Upstream
Newspaper
Bill, you've talked about these five-year targets
just now. Could you elaborate a bit more on
the kind of measures that the Commission and
Government are looking at, to enforce those
targets in the longer term.
Answer – Mr Bill Callaghan, HSC
Well the Commission has recently discussed its
strategic plan and we discussed this at an open
meeting with our stakeholders – Paul (Davies),
you were part of the panel on that day. In
terms of the commitment of HSE resources, we
are clear that we need to prioritise our
activities in three key sectors and on five major
hazards. I can perhaps go through what those
are at a later stage. I think the important point
to stress to this conference is that achieving our
outcome targets is not just a matter for HSE
and its enforcement effort. This is why I'm
delighted to accept invitations to speak to
audiences such as this.
Question - Mark Gibb, Blowout Magazine
So what can be done about keeping informed
about what is actually happening?
Answer – Mr Bill Callaghan, HSC
Later this afternoon you'll hear from Roger
(Spiller) and some others about the Step
Change initiative and the monitoring and
arrangements that are going to be put in place
to provide feedback and to keep information
coming, so we can track performance against
our aspirations.
Achieving the targets is going to be brought
about by our stakeholders, industry, employers
and trade unions representative of employees,
improving their health and safety. I strongly
believe that's the main way we are going to
meet those targets. It is not for us from the
Commission to come and say your target for
the next five years is 'n' percent. What we want
to happen is our stakeholders to be working
together to develop and own their own targets
for their particular sector. Then drive through
those management and culture changes which
are needed to achieve the targets. So yes, we're
going to prioritise our efforts, but we see a key
role for our stakeholders.
Question - Mr Graham Cowling, Acoustic
Technology Ltd
On your last slide you specifically referred to a
managed approach to reducing health risks
offshore. Is your request to see that approach,
based on any concern about the way things are
being handled at the moment?
Answer – Mr Bill Callaghan, HSC
The key point here is that occupational health
is not just a medical issue. The danger is that
people see occupational health as a question of
doctors and nurses and of course yes, that's
important. The key point I want to emphasise
is that if occupational health is going to be
improved it needs a concerted management
effort. That means finding out where you are
at the moment. That's the importance of base
line data, setting what I hope are stretching
targets to then improve from. It's having a
proper approach to do this, so that's the
importance of managing this process. A
fundamental part of health and safety
management is continuous improvement. So I
do hope that we can engender that spirit
through this conference and encourage all
those offshore to see occupational health and
safety as a key performance indicator for
managers offshore.
Comment – Dr Paul Davies, HSE
If I could just add, I think also the government
is committed to making a major contribution
itself. The government is a big employer both
directly and through contracts. It will seek to
ensure that it is an exemplary employer by
exceeding the target that is set for the country
as a whole and ensuring that its contractors do
as well.
Question - Mark Gibb, Blowout Magazine
Five years between conferences doesn't seem
to impart a sense of urgency to finding
solutions?
7
8
SECURING HEALTH TOGETHER – AN OCCUPATIONAL
HEALTH STRATEGY FOR GREAT BRITAIN
Mrs Sandra Caldwell, Director of Health, HSE
I am going to give a brief overview of the
Securing Health Together Strategy – as, though
I know many of you will already be familiar
with it, there are some of you who may not be.
I will outline some of the key aspects of HSE’s
contribution. Work has already begun to
implement the Strategy and so I can share with
you some of the early actions and finally I
would like you to be considering how this
applies to your work as I will conclude by
asking you what you can contribute.
Costs of occupational ill health
Unfortunately we can be certain that the trend
in the rate of deaths from mesothelioma
continues to rise steeply (as it has since 1968).
In 1998, 1527 people died from mesothelioma
– a legacy from their exposure to asbestos in
the period from the 1930s to the early 1980s.
Though we are hopeful that the falling number
of under-50s affected may reflect better control
of more recent exposure to asbestos this is an
area in which we will continue to be vigilant.
Nationally, if we are going to make a
difference to the overall levels of work-related
ill health we must tackle the causes of the big
two – Musculoskeletal disorders and ill health
arising from stress at work. I will tell you
more about HSE’s plans – but you will also
want to consider if the national picture is
reflected in the offshore industry and whether
you are currently looking at the right priorities.
We know that despite good progress in
reducing the numbers of accidents at work, we
still need to strive to achieve a similar success
in tackling the high level of work-related ill
health we face today.
From the self reported work related illness
survey of 1995 we estimate that over two
million people in Great Britain suffer from an
illness they believe is caused by or made worse
by the work they do. A study carried out by
the water industry found that on average a case
of work-related ill health cost a company at
least two and a half times that caused by an
industrial injury. Behind these figures is a
great deal of personal suffering and family
hardship, and cost to the individuals
themselves, their employers and society at
large.
You may be interested to know about a major
chemical company that improved their own
system of using the data they collected on
sickness absence to identify the causes of ill
health in their workforce. Though they found
that the work they had done to control
exposure to sensitisers very effectively kept the
numbers of asthma and dermatitis cases low they actually had large numbers of people with
musculoskeletal disorders. This information
prompted a change of approach and they
introduced an early intervention programme
that helped prevent ill health and got people
back to work faster. The better targeting of
their resources meant they found they got
return for the money they spent.
Musculoskeletal disorders were by far the most
common self-reported illness, affecting an
estimated 1.2 million individuals. The second
most commonly reported condition affecting
just over ½ a million was stress, depression and
anxiety and those who reported that stress
arising from work made existing conditions
worse, such as hypertension, heart disease or
stroke.
We have not yet solved the problems of
occupational diseases that arise from exposure
to hazardous substances. We can estimate with
some certainty that we have upwards of a
thousand new cases a year of work-related
asthma and some 3000 cases of occupational
contact dermatitis are seen by dermatologists
or occupational physicians each year. This is
likely for both these diseases to be an
underestimate.
This type of approach is welcomed and we
hope will be taken up by more organisations in
order to contribute to Securing Health
Together.
I have heard a little about OIAC’s plans to
introduce a new system of recording the health
issues that cause workers to visit medics whilst
offshore – this should lead to better data –
making it easier to make decisions about what
your priorities must be. I look forward to
9
hearing more about how the OIAC project
develops.
Of course these targets will only be achieved at
the national level if action is taken at the
workplace level.
Securing Health Together
Securing Health Together was developed
through an open public discussion process to
which I know some of you contributed. We
heard and understood that what we needed to
do to make a difference to this heavy toll of ill
health was to think innovatively, be flexible
and respond to both the complexity of
occupational health problems and changes that
arise from modern work patterns and working
conditions.
I would like to clarify that the second target
concerning ill health to the public caused by
work relates mainly to illness arising from
hospital-acquired infection and therefore is
unlikely to be a priority for the offshore
industry.
I hope that you will sign up to meeting the
other targets.
Targets are important because:
• they act as motivators for action,
• they make us focus on what we know about
the current situation and whether we can
affect the causes of the big problems; and
• we must evaluate what we do against
outcomes: we ask “does what I am doing
really stop people being made ill, or help
them to return to or take up work?”
In light of this, Securing Health Together takes
a broad understanding of occupational health
embracing both the effects of work on health
and health on work. Its overall aims are:
• A reduction in work-related ill health to
workers and to the public
• A reduction in sickness absence
• A culture where people are:
o rehabilitated back to work following
illness, or
o provided with opportunities to work
despite health conditions or disability.
Partnership
Securing Health Together is based on a
partnership approach and will only succeed if
the existing successful partnerships flourish
and we take up the opportunities that new
partnerships have to offer.
At the national level there have been some
events at which we have seen Partnership
beginning to take the Strategy forward. I won’t
dwell on these, but in brief:
The offshore sector has of course always had a
rather broader view of occupational health than
many sectors onshore.
As the offshore
installation is the workers’ home as well as
their workplace the employer has to partly
replace the usual health support functions of
the NHS on a day-to-day basis. Also the
captive audience has already led to a tradition
of good health promotion initiatives. That
said, the setting of targets should stimulate you
to review your approach to ensure you do have
the right priorities.
The Partnership Board, of which I am a
member, has the role of producing strategic
ideas; championing the cause; providing
oversight on the progress that is being made
and having a challenge function. We meet
again next week and I look forward to having
some feed back from today that I can add to the
other conferences I have attended recently –
we are keen to hear feedback on Securing
Health Together and what you can do or are
already doing to play your part.
Targets
We are clear about what needs to be achieved.
Challenging national targets have been set and
are supported by nine Government Ministers.
By 2010 we want to
• cut by 20% work-related ill health for
workers;
• and the public;
• cut the number of working days lost due to
work-related ill health by 30%; and
• create a culture of rehabilitation, by
ensuring
that
opportunities
for
rehabilitation or access to work are
extended to everyone who has been ill or
who has a disability – where it is necessary
and appropriate.
In December we held a workshop at which a
wide range of stakeholders met who have an
interest in how we can measure progress
against Securing Health Together’s targets.
We’ve not solved all the difficulties yet, but we
learnt a lot and will soon be publishing a
technical note that will set out what HSE in cooperation with other organisations and
government departments will be doing. But
10
method will suit everyone, it will require
flexibility and a multidisciplinary approach.
Meeting the needs of small firms will be
central.
after all the best source of data is often the
industry itself.
Conferences to discuss Securing Health
Together in action have been held
• in Cardiff in October, hosted by HSE in
partnership with the National Assembly for
Wales;
• and at Murrayfield just a fortnight ago,
hosted by HSE with the Scottish Executive.
Both events were well attended. At the latter I
was pleased to hear from a selection of Scottish
organisations about the actions they have
already been taking to really reduce the number
of people made ill by work or help them get
back to work when they have been ill. I’ll say
a little more about this later.
HSE’s contribution
I think it’s helpful to understand how the five
programmes are going to be followed through
to give you some examples of what HSE is
planning to contribute to reducing the
incidence of ill health arising from workrelated stress.
• For Compliance we are working to develop
standards of good management practice for
a range of stressors.
• For Continuous Improvement we will pilot
local benchmarking groups to share good
practice and knowledge about work-related
stress in small and medium enterprises and
between trade union safety representatives.
The five programmes of work
To explain how each of these bits of the puzzle
fit together to contribute to Securing Health
Together’s overall targets. We have set out
five programmes of work. Over the next few
weeks the Programme Action Groups will each
meet for the first time. The membership of
each is made up from leading players in the
respective fields and they will oversee and
facilitate the delivery of the Strategy's five
programmes of work by identifying and
outlining what actions must be taken. The five
programmes of work each deal with aspects of
what we need to do.
• For Knowledge we are starting a
programme of research to pin down some
of the remaining questions about stress and
its relationship to ill health.
• For Skills we are developing training
materials for managers and safety
representatives on how to carry out a stress
risk assessment.
• For Support we will publish guidance to
assist employers to manage stress that will
keep up to date with the developments that
arise from our other work. This approach
is important because it helps to demystify
health issues. We will concentrate on
practical solutions where we have them as
this helps managers and others to see how
they can contribute.
First we must improve the law on occupational
health and the level of compliance with it. We
are considering here not just the Health and
Safety at Work Act and related Regulations,
but also provisions under the Disability
Discrimination Act.
Second we want to move to a culture of
continuous improvement where people
collaborate, form partnerships and share best
practice – often taking action above the legal
minimum.
We have already begun to plan our other key
work along these lines, for example our
strategies
for
tackling
musculoskeletal
disorders and asthma.
Third we must share our knowledge and collect
the data and other information that will help us
reach the targets and evaluate how we are
doing. The examples I’ve referred to on costbenefit analysis would contribute here.
Examples of others’ contributions
But I have focussed on what HSE has been
doing. As I have already stressed the targets
are only going to be achieved if others work in
partnership to deliver them.
Fourth we need to achieve a better spread of
competence and skills – we want to have the
right person for the right task.
I said I’d heard some interesting examples of
effective work to improve occupational health
at the recent Scottish conference and I’d like to
Finally we want to improve the delivery and
targeting of advice and support. No single
11
tell you a little about those and some others of
which I’m aware.
What the offshore industry can do
So there are many contributions at many levels.
I would like you to consider how you, your
organisation or the offshore industry as a whole
can contribute. I know that over the next few
days you are going to hear more about work
that has already begun.
The Scotland Back in Work campaign, run by
the Health Education Boards on the basis of
research by the Faculty of Occupational
Medicine, was able to show that their simple
message – that the best action to take if you
have back pain is to get mobile and take
normal pain killers – delivered through the
right campaign – using local radio – had raised
awareness and that resulted in changed
behaviours.
I recognise the achievements that many of you
have made by taking part in Scotland’s Health
at Work awards scheme and progressed
through from bronze to gold. I am sure that
you already value the benefits to the general
health and fitness of your workforce. I think
the message we can take from this is that
efforts to manage risks can make a real
difference – even in areas where the manager
does not have direct control of the cause of the
risk. If the same approach is applied to risks
arising from the work processes the returns
could potentially be even greater.
Lothian Occupational Health Forum, a joint
trade union and local health authority initiative,
explained how their advisors had approached
the issue by contacting the worker at their GPs’
and helping them explore the causes of their ill
health and the ways of overcoming it. This did
help individuals to return to work and in some
cases the advisors were invited into the
workplace to help advise on changes that could
be made there to prevent further ill health.
For example, you can look for ways of
improving your compliance with existing
health and safety law:
• A major current programme of work for my
colleagues in the Offshore Inspectorate
includes investigation of manual handling
accidents and their prevention. You can
take up this and the existing case studies
guidance and apply it to your own
workplace – don’t wait to be inspected!
You may need to consider if you have set up
the arrangements you need to comply with the
Disability Discrimination Act.
I was particularly interested that speakers from
the floor took up the need to look at costbenefit analyses for occupational health
interventions. We heard the concerns about
the costs of interventions. What we need to
hear about are the costs of ill health – and the
savings to be made if we prevent that. One
consultant occupational physician referred to
some work he’d done to establish a
physiotherapy service that was so successful
he’d lost the contract to in-house providers!
It may not be possible to do cost-benefit
analysis alone – a group of major UK
companies are in the process of establishing a
common set of data on their staff’s ill health
and absence. They are intending to use this as
the basis of research into the effectiveness of
occupational health and health promotion
interventions.
So far they are in the
development stage, but we will be keeping in
touch with them and they have agreed to share
their results with us all.
You may be able to participate in initiatives
that contribute to continuous improvement in
the standards of occupational health practice
• I know the industry and HSE’s Offshore
Shore Directorate has already run some
seminars for companies that manufacture
equipment that is associated with hand-arm
vibration on the best ways to assess and
control exposure.
• I also know that Offshore Directorate has
projects with various offshore companies
and industry associations developing
standards and guidance on a range of
topics, including stress management,
manual handling aspects of scaffolding
work, assessment and control of exposure
to mud chemicals and design. Indeed you
will hear more about some of these later in
the conference.
On a bigger scale again the companies in the
water industry have signed up to Clearwater
2010 – a campaign to reduce the ill health
caused by work in workers in the water
industry and allied construction workers. They
have set targets and are concentrating on
tackling priority ill health issues by setting
specific goals across the industry.
I am sure you can think of more examples.
12
you can overcome any difficulties. Often
occupational health problems need solutions
from multi-disciplinary teams.
Do you
understand the services that your partners
provide and how to access them? Are you one
part of the solution and can you improve how
you work with others?
As I mentioned earlier I am very pleased to
hear about OIAC’s cross-industry initiative to
improve our knowledge about the sorts of ill
health that occur offshore, by recording the
reasons for visits to medics. Data collection is
not straightforward. We need it to measure
trends so we can show what we do is working –
or learn if it is not. We also use it to choose
our priorities and you’re probably already in a
position to do this – if you reflect the national
situation those will be stress related ill health
and musculoskeletal disorders.
I suspect the answer will often come in the
form of partnership. In particular, partnership
is likely to be the answer to how we get the
message across to all parts of the offshore
industry – the smaller enterprises as well as the
big players. This is one of our biggest
challenges to which I know we do not yet have
the right solutions.
On the last two programmes of work I am
going to suggest areas that I would like you to
consider:
Concluding remarks
There are a wide range of skills that are
required if we are going to have the right
people to do the work that is needed to reduce
the toll of work-related ill health and get
people back to work who have been ill.
However, at the centre of any action is the
manager at the workplace and all our efforts
hinge on his or her understanding of the causes
of ill health absence (whether that is work or
home related) and whether the right techniques
are being used to encourage people to return to
work when they have been sick without
increasing risks to themselves or others. Do
you have access to the sorts of management of
attendance courses that you or your managers
need? Do you support managers to attend
such courses? Can you provide this sort of
training?
I have run briefly through the key aspects of
the Strategy at a national level, some of the
first actions taken in partnership and what HSE
is planning to contribute.
The five programmes of work are the key to
the way that we will begin to make progress.
When I began I asked you to consider how this
applies to your work and what you could
contribute … I would be delighted to hear
from you as individuals if you can catch me in
the margins here. Or our Securing Health
Together Team at HSE, London are collecting
examples of work that people are contributing
– you can find out more and submit an example
by visiting our website at www.ohstrategy.net.
I would like you to consider whether or not you
have the support that you need to improve your
occupational health record. By support I mean
access to information, advice, skills or
resources. I would like you to consider how
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
Delegates were asked to save their questions
for later.
13
14
KEYNOTE SPEECH
Mr Malcolm Brinded, Managing Director, Shell U.K. Exploration
and Production
15
16
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Thank you Paul (Davies)
I am very pleased to be speaking at a crucial conference on a topic which is so very
personally important to us all
In the coming thirty minutes, I hope to present how Shell Expro
is tackling the challenges of occupational health onshore and offshore,
how managing health plays a key role in our companies values,
and especially the key role of leadership in helping progress the agenda on
occupational health.
This last issue is of crucial importance since it is so easy for company managers to
assume that because they are not themselves experts in the field of health, that
therefore Health Management is not something they need to be involved in. This is
quite simply wrong.
27 M arch 2001
Occupational Health Offshore
Shell U.K . Exploration and
Production
M anaging Director
M alcolm Brinded
D eliver ing on H ealth
•
•
•
•
•
•
I would like to start by reminding ourselves why it is that we believe occupational
health is so important - indeed why the conference here these three days is so
important to us as an industry
compliance with legislation is the beginning and a key driver for us - but we will not
limit our ambition to compliance. Later I will discuss the needs for a more rigorous
system to ensure improvement in our health management
we must control our losses through direct and indirect absence cost and lost
business opportunities - several millions of pounds per annum
We are committed to protecting all the people involved with our operations - a
moral imperative of leadership at the core of Shell’s Business Principles
Health management is not just about being reactive - it is a key factor in unlocking
potential - helping our people in giving their best
So where does health management fit in our agenda?...
• unlocking potential
• protecting people
• loss control
• compliance
Tackling the need… seizing the opportunity
W hy manage health?
17
•
•
•
•
Respect for People
Fair L eadership
Honesty and Openness
Integrity
Pride
Clarity of Purpose
Sustainable Development
Teamwork and Prof essionalism
Trust
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
EXPRO VALUES
DRIVE LOCAL
BEHA V I OURS
Shown here are what the people who make up Shell Expro determined to be our
key values.
Thousands were involved - evaluating behaviours of staff against these values is
part of their annual appraisal
One of the absolute values we hold is our respect for people
This means that in all our operations, we must ensure the safety, and the health,
of all our staff, and all those who are affected by our business, including our
contractors and our communities close to our plants and facilities
Outstanding Business Performance
•
T eam E xpr o V alues
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Improved Staf f
Commitment, M otivation
&
Performance
Recognition
&
Rew ard
M ore
Stimulating W ork
Environment
The key values and behaviours I have shown are an integral part of that we call
our Employee Value proposition - what is the deal between our company and
the people who work for us:
Attitudes and behaviours has particular relevance for personal health and levels
of psychological illness in the workplace.
We cannot be serious about this strategy unless we protect and enhance our
people’s health.
What is the purpose of our focus on our Employees - it is the abilility to unlock
potential and achieve an improved Staff commitment, motivation and
performance
This has been instrumental in Shell Expro’s successful transformation over the
last decade, and will be vital in meeting the challenges ahead of us
Other elements of the Jigsaw are also relevant to health:
A stimulating work environment, with a healthy work-life balance, thoughtful
ergonomics, encouragement for health and personal fitness
improving health is a natural fit to this whole agenda and we see it as a
prerequisite for the success of our other key strategies, such as Step Change in
Safety
In short, not only will we comply with the law but will seek all opportunities to
add value to our business through our people.
Improved
Personal
D evelopment
“ T eam Expro”
V alues
&
Behaviours
Improved Business Per formance
Employee V alue Pr oposition (E V P)
18
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
H,S, and E is often managed as a combined unit
Safety has typically been been receiving top billing
The Health element, on the other hand, is often held in the background as a
supporting cast
Managing Occupational Health has some particular challenges, however
It is the most personal of the three - this can be seen on the one hand in a
reluctance to speak up, but also in a resistance to intervention
The impact of poor management is not immediately seen, but can be wide
ranging and damaging to the individual and the business performance.
Earlier this year our Shell Tankers and Trading lost a court case concerning
mesothelioma - more than 45 years after the period of employment. The
crux of the case concerned whether the company should have known the
link between exposure to asbestos and mesothelioma in the mid 50’s. This
is not a complaint, but a comment on the need to recognise the tong term
implications of getting health management wrong
We see Managing Occupational Health as an absolute necessity, and
increasingly prominent on our agenda.
So what do we in Shell Expro believe falls under the management of
Occupational Health...
• Renewed focus on health
– impact of poor management is not immediately visible
– health is very personal
• K ey Challenges
• Health is in “ supporting cast”
• Safety gets “ top billing”
• Integrated Health and Saf ety management
O ccupational H ealth
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reducing the
impact of illness
or injury
Promoting health
and healthy
behaviours
First of all our vision: "people giving their best" through improved health and
performance.
An ambitious target not restricted to loss control.
adopt an inclusive, accessible and far reaching agenda, we must include
contractors and business partners in our ideas, including them in our key activity
programmes - we are extending the role of our off shore medics to include health
promotion and safety at work. Our philosophy is to take the message to the
workplace.
Work on health in three key areas
preventing work related illness
limiting impact of illness though early intervention
promoting health and healthy behaviours
First I shall describe Shell Expro’s approach to these three areas
I shall then go into the role of leadership, and some of the five key areas
highlighted in the HSE’s strategy as outlined in the Securing Health Together
document
C o m p liance
C o n tinuous improvement
Knowledge
Skills
Support
Leadership
Preventing work
related ill health
People giving their best through improved
health and performance
A strategic approach to health
19
Inc
g
sin
r ea
So
p
tic
his
ati
on
preventing work related illness
•
We are continuously progressing the boundaries and becoming more
sophisiticated in our understanding and approach to work related illness
•
noise, vibration, COSHH have been managed for a longer period
•
especially we recognise we must still tackle musculo-skeletal illness
•
A Manual handling initiative in being progressed in the Northern Sector
•
Programmes are in place for Display Screen Equipment Risk Assessment and
training
•
a key role in this is ergonomics - getting it right from the outset in the design
stage - for example on Shearwater, we invested heavily in an ergonomics study.
Key outcomes were a maintenance philosophy of ship-to-shore for equipment
repair, minimising manual work in sub-optimal confined spaces, and
consideration for the location of valve handles. A great help in defining the
ergonomics was the significant involvement of offhore operators in the design
•
Our latest work is also focussing on Mental health issues - and I will return to
this later
•
An important step in all these programmes is full involvement and participation
in the offshore environment.
•
We are utilising our offshore medics as an invaluable resource in this respect
with their role being enhanced and developed to include health promotion and
training skills
Noise
COSHH
V i bration
M usculo-skeletal
Ergonomics
M ental health
Pr eventing wor k r elated ill health
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
40
60
80
1998
2000
fa v o u r a b le r e s p o n s e s (% )
20
100
These are some results from our 2000 Shell People Survey, which is vital in showing
the experience and feelings of our staff and contractors vs two years ago
Shown here the relative movement on key questions from the survey relating to our
commitment to the safety, and to the health, of our staff, two key measures on
whether we are meeting our objectives of demonstrating our respect for people
There are two points I would like to highlight:
firstly, we can be quite proud of the significant improvement in Staff belief in our
commitment to safety, relative to early 1998 - with our attention moving to leading
vs lagging indicators
secondly, there is clearly a lot of work to be done before we are at the same level
with health
1998: 47% feel excessive pressure, in 2000: 53%
G o o d W o r k / life b a la n ce
N o t Ex c e ssive W o r k Pr e ssu r e
N e v e r i g n o r e sa fety r u l e s
Sa f ety T a k e s Pr i o r i t y
Shell Survey R esults - Expr o
20
limiting impact of illness though early intervention
•
excellence in first aid and emergency response
Expro welcomes the new approved code of practice in offshore first aid •
effective April 2001, in particular risk based approach. This supports our
view and practice that effective casualty management starts with the
immediate aid of a colleague, and progresses through to the offshore medical
support and evacuation from the installation as necessary. UKOOA are also
working on medic training and competencies and we welcome this
•
expertise in offshore emergency medicine
•
Key to offshore medicine is communication and effective links with
secondary and tertiary care centers on the beach. We like the look of BP's
"Way 2 Go" project looking at the increased use of telemedicine in the
offshore environment and we look forward to seeing and understanding the
opportunities this will give us.
•
early and active rehabilitation of the ill/injured
•
We have very few injuries /absences through ill health - about 1% of the
workforce at any one time. However the costs of an absence in the offshore
industry are very high - about £700 per day. So early and active
rehabilitation is vital. We utilise flexible working practice (part time, work
from home ) for our on shore staff and offshore are using detailed case risk
assessment to decide when we can safely return employees to the offshore
environment. We are challenging previously held beliefs that some illnesses
prevent offshore working - e.g. on diabetes. Of prime importance is what the
individual wants. We should remember that it is the "safe functional capacity
that counts and not the illness label"
– “ safe functional capacity” counts, not “ illness label”
• early and active rehabilitation of the ill/injured
– communication and secondary/tertiary care centres
• expertise in offshore emergency medicine
– new approved code of practice
• Excellence in first aid and emergency response
L imiting impact of illness
thr ough ear ly intervention
promoting health and healthy behaviours
•
challenging health behaviours
•
obesity, inactivity, smoking, alcohol and substance abuse
•
Awareness programmes
•
Health promotion programmes - in the current year we are running programmes
on healthy eating, exercise, travel health, infectious diseases and drug and alcohol
awareness
•
A key area to focus is on our work/life balance - and there is a key role here for
leadership by example - I know how I struggle
•
The provision of sports facilities on and offshore, and the encouragement for
Sports is key, in Aberdeen through the Pecten Club and the Woodbank facilities
•
I know that I should do more here myself!
•
you may find it hard to believe that I used to run marathon’s - 15 years and 3
stone ago!
•
that may not easily return, but personally I am committed to my step change
personal contract - including regular exercise, and I am very lucky to have
received the commitment of my colleagues to help support me achieve those goals
• Sports facilities
• W ork/life balance
• A w areness programmes
– substance abuse
– alcohol
– smoking
– inactivity
– obesity
• Challenging health behaviours
Pr omoting health and healthy behaviour s
21
•
ng
asi
cre
e
D
inf
nce
lue
It is vital to recognise that the three areas of focus I have just described apply to all
people involved in our operations offshore
– we have traditionally focussed on our Shell staff, but have recognised that we
have life of field alliances with our integrated service contractors, and we are
well advanced in ensuring like-for like treatment, encouraging our core
contractors to adopt policies and practice to at least our standard
– our influence on itinerant offshore contractors is smaller
• as a minimum, we provide identical offshore medical facilities and
care - but we are increasingly checking on the wider health
management practices of such employers
– the hardest group to influence are the contractors on the ships, rigs and barges
involved in our operations
• we will encourage our regular contractors to develop health
management systems comparable with our own to ensure the
protection of their staff
Shell staff
offshore
Itinerant
offshore
contractors
Core offshore
contractors
Contractors
on their
installations
H ealth management thr ough the supply chain
•
•
•
•
Common to managing the three areas:
– preventing work related health
– reducing the impact of illness
– promoting health and healthy behaviours
first of all leadership, and the five key programme topics from the HSE strategy
I shall first of all focus on the role of leadership,
then I shall discuss managing continuous improvement and competence and skills
development, presenting some key data from Expro
• Support
• Skills
• K nowledge
• Continuous improvement
• Compliance
• L eadership
M anaging Occupational H ealth
22
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Vital that all companies have clear leadership on HSE and especially health,
which can be neglected part.
Line management - visible commitment & knowledge, and creating an
environment where supervisors are committed to key role in taking
accountability for their staff’s health, engaging a network of staff, including
offshore safety reps and onshore HSE focal points
Leadership on Health is an industry, not a company issue
key roles here are with the industry leadership team, with representation not
only from the operators but also from suppliers, contractors, SME’s and
Trade Unions
the regulator plays a key role - and we welcome the focus given in the HSE
strategy on Revitalising Health and Safety
Support also from the trade associations, include UKOOA, OCA, IADC,
IMCA, BROA etc.
Key role for OIAC, working with Step Change
– Step Change in Safety
– U K OOA
– HSE - revitalising Health and Safety
– Industry L eadership Team
• Industry-wide Support
• safety representatives and HSE focal points
• supervisors
• line management
V i sible and clear leadership
L eader ship
•
•
•
One of the key commitments we are making as an industry is to manage
continuous improvement
Although we have developed formal management systems for HSE, health
management has somehow not been treated as rigorously as our safety or
environment performance
I would like to remind ourselves of the key elements required to manage
continuous improvement
– first the role of management systems
– secondly the key need to measure our performance - with some
interesting examples
– and thirdly, how to accelerate the improvements across our industry by
sharing learning and best practice
• Sharing learning and best practice
– A nxiety
– TROIF
– GHQ
• M easuring performance
• M anagement systems
M anaging continuous impr ovement
23
•
•
Corrective
action
D ocumentation
A udi t
This diagram is taken from our work on ISO 14001 for our Environmental
Management Systems - it looks incredibly dull but I commend it to you for
examining your Health Management System
it is really valid for any management system, containing the three key elements of
plan, do, review:
– plan - the five items shown in green, including key inputs such as our
company policy, legal and other requirements, a mechanism to identify and
assess the key risks or aspects to manage, setting clear objectives and targets
for these aspects (and these must be measurable - I will come back to this in
a moment), and developing a management programme to deliver the targets
– do - shown in yellow are the operational elements of actually delivering the
plan - with key assigned roles and resource (and related to this the
competences and skills which I shall cover more specifically), the
operational level controls such as manual handling procedures or procedures
for noise mapping, and the basic document centre processes
– and in blue the review and audit process - often lacking, but vital for
ensuring we monitor legal compliance, identify corrective action, and
provide key learning for the next plan cycle
L egal
M onitoring
legal
compliance
M anagement
Programme
Operational
control
Objectives
& Targets
Identify &
A ssess
Risks
Records
Roles &
resources
Policy
Review
G ener ic M anagement System
•
•
•
•
•
Corrective
action
Documentation
A udit
Many parts of the management system are firmly in place - shown in green, e.g.
our policy, understanding of legal requirements
Those in amber are O.K., but we could still do better
We have identified key issues, and are measuring our performance
A key area to improve is in the setting of targets and objectives
– cross-industry database for baseline data
– common measurement methods
I shall show some of the key measures that we have been measuring in Expro,
which we expect to provide a good basis for the discussion on setting objectives
going well
satisfactory
need to improve
L egal
M onitoring
legal
compliance
M anagement
Programme
Operational
control
Objectives
& Targets
Identify &
A ssess
Risks
Records
Roles &
resources
Policy
Review
G ener ic M anagement System
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Our main measure of health performance is our TROIF data
total recordable occupational illness frequency rate, expressed as the number of lost
worktime cases per million hours worked
It has shown a steady improvement over the past five years with particular
improvement in a reduced number of stress related cases and dermatitis due to
significant improvements in the management of hazardous chemicals in our offshore
environments
2000 Shell Global average is 1.5 - we perform better
In 2000 there were 17 cases of occupational illness resulting in a loss of 570 working
days.
TROIF data is a very useful measure but we have to be vigilant to ensure we capture
all new cases as they occur. As with all such monitoring schemes there is a danger
of underreporting, with subsequent distortion of the true picture - so more
consitement measurement is needed
case rate
Total recordable occupational illness frequency
(Shell and contractors)
•
•
•
•
Q
H
G
M easur ing and impr oving in health
e
s
a
C
e
t
a
r
24
E xpro 95
E xpro 98
E xpro 99
E xpro 2000
Cival Servants
Medical Students
NHS 95
Homeless mothers
0
10
20
30
40
M ental Health - Distress Benchmarks
50
M easur ing and impr oving in health
60
General Health Quotient is a widely recognised measure of underlying overall
psychological health.
This is a measure of psychological health and shows a stable trend over five
years with the Expro population comparing well to the general population.
There are however significant numbers of people in the company who are
operating with significant levels of distress and this is wasteful.
Not only is there a human cost but a lost business opportunity as 15% of our
human resource will be performing at less than optimal levels. We consider
that Expro is a leader in this area. Very few other organisations have a
database of knowledge, which allows interpretation and tracking of the stress
issue in this way.
%
25
•
•
•
•
•
Percentage of
0
2
4
6
8
10
1995
Ons h o r e
1998
O ff s h o r e
1999
2000
H A D S Anxiety case rates (>10) Shell Staff
M easur ing and impr oving in health
(Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale) HADS anxiety is a marker for levels of
psychological distress in the organisation.
Is a useful real time measure of the levels of anxiety within the company and has
demonstrated that whilst there is no epidemic of stress we do see pockets and
variation between directorates and with time
the overall trend over the past three years is constant onshore, but especially
downwards offshore
using this technique we are able to focus activity to assist our employees and
monitor their progress
interventions in stress have utilised both individual training and organisational
approaches
– organisational approaches are based on directives understanding
workplace issues contributing to high levels of stress in the workplace especially departments with high levels of change
– Managers spotting the symptoms of stress and improving their ability
to manage
– Individual programmes have included Inner Quality Management
which aims to teach staff personal skills to assist with stress
management
– the company EVP and values and behaviours programmes are key next
steps in this respect and we will closely monitor the impact of these
initiatives on the health of our workforce.
su rvey
•
•
•
•
•
we welcome the focus given to HSE by “Revitalising Health and Safety”
we will participate actively in the Occupational Health Working Group - with Robin
Donelly, our new senior medical advisor
leading and contributing to the debate in offshore health care in all its forms
we hope to build on the excellent relationships we have built up through the step
change in safety work
there will be key lessons we can adopt from the step change programme
– focus on leadership
– Supervisor skills and awareness
– focus on attitudes and behaviours - looking after your colleagues
– vital role of workforce involvement
– workforce involvement
– attitudes and behaviours
– supervisor skills and awareness
– leadership commitment
• L earning from Step Change
• Occupational Health working group reporting
through the Step Change Steering Committee
• U K OOA H ealth A dvisory Committee
Shar ing of learning and best practice
26
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Key to an improved performance in occupational health is developing skills and
awareness at all levels - health is not a purely functional activity of the occupational
health department.
IN Expro - a number of programmes will come together to achieve the desired
outcome of better health..
Work place examples include Display Screen Equipment programme utilising a
computer based training package which is simple, effective and highly accessible to
all of the workforce via our intranet page.
A review of manual handing in the offshore environment is underway to attempt to
reduce injuries and absence from this activity. It will look at both organisational
issues - the workplace, the way we do the job but also personal skills including risk
assessment and safe lifting.
Managers have received specific training on stress during change management, for
example for the move of our staff from London to Abderdeen following the sale of
our London Head Office in 1999
competence is more than knowledge - it involves behaviour modification
to achieve this we need buy in and active participation. Easy to switch people off particularly for aspects of their health which they may regard as personal and
nothing to do with work
• Competence is more than knowledge
• Development of skills and understanding at all
levels in the organisation
• Occupational health is not just for medical
advisors
C ompetence and skills development
•
•
•
•
In conclusion:
Shell Expro will remain committed to health issues
We have identified key areas for improvement, and we look forward to working with
industry to meet the challenges facing us
Occupational Health is a very rewarding area:
– it’s a win for our people, and a win for our business
– a challenge to our industry to raise our game
• it’s a win for our people, it’s a win for Shell Expro
• newer challenges in society, as well as the workplace,
demand that we lead and deliver on health
• traditional hazards are controlled, but we must not be
complacent
• Shell Expro has a strong track record of commitment to
health issues with considerable success
C onclusions
27
•
•
There is still a major challenge ahead for industry
Integrate focus on Health Improvement in our industry in Step Change in Safety
– Setting baseline Targets and objectives
– Sharing of best practise
– Leadership
– Widespread Involvement - operators, all contractors, supervisors, workforce
– W i despread Involvement
– L eadership
– Sharing of best practise
– Targets and objectives
• Integrate focus on Health Improvement in our
industry in Step Change in Saf ety
• M ajor challenge still ahead
N ext Steps for I ndustr y
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
Answer – Mr Malcolm Brinded, Shell
We've done quite well on sickness absence
onshore but I'm not sure whether it's wholly as
good as the TROIF (Total Recordable
Occupational Illness Frequency) data that I've
shown there. I don't know whether there's
anyone who can give me a supplementary
comment on that? Una?
Question - Gareth Powell, BP
One of the things you mentioned was making
greater use of your offshore medics and
increasing their skill base. I just wondered if
you would like to comment on two aspects of
that. One is when multi-tasking of medics is
required and whether being asked to do nonmedical functions might detract from their
medic functions. There is also the question of
outsourcing as against direct employment of
medics.
Comment - Una Corpe, Senior Occupational
Health Nurse, Shell Expro
The sickness absence rate for Shell Expro in
2000 was just about 1%, which has dropped
from previous years. The sickness absence rate
is very low by comparison to national figures.
As regards occupational health reporting, we've
got a system in place where all cases that are
reported through the offshore medics and
through the onshore occupational health focal
points
are
screened
thoroughly
and
investigated to identify the causation for the
reported cases. All cases that are reported
through the occupational health system are
actually then recorded. There isn’t under
reporting unless they haven't been brought to
our attention.
Answer – Mr Malcolm Brinded, Shell
Yes I think they are both important. I'll take
the second one first. I think in the end, the key
is getting the right skills. Wherever you obtain
that from, you want to have the right skills, the
right levels of performance and the right
commitment. If you outsource because you
regard it as more likely that you'll get long term
the quality of people that you want, it's no good
saying it's no longer my problem. It may
actually give you more issues to focus on than
if you had traditional in-house capability.
I think multi-tasking is an important issue. It is
a reality that we have reduced numbers
offshore. On some installations, where 10 or
20 years ago there were 200 on the installation
and a high degree of activity - and
unfortunately of safety incidents and injuries,
the medic was 100% occupied as a medic.
Comment - Malcolm Brinded, Shell
I suppose my only comment would be I suspect
there still is under reporting. I don't think it's
any worse, so I think that trend is fair. But I
suspect all of us have an intrinsic under
reporting in some ways, particularly because of
this lag effect that I referred to earlier in terms
of time delay. I feel good that the trend is right
but I'm sure that there are more cases than
those statistics pick up in one way or another.
Where I think we have gone wrong, is to miss
where the workload on those individuals
becomes unmanageable and their core role as a
medic is in some way diluted by the other tasks
they're asked to take on. That can happen
particularly during periods of upmanning to,
say, do a summer shutdown. We've got the
same medic that we've always had, then comes
the summer shutdown, two or three times the
manning on the installation, and you've not
actually changed and supported the medic to
take on that additional burden. That's the way I
see it.
Question - Jake Molloy - OILC Offshore
Union
Malcolm, I was wondering if there is any
significant difference between the statistics for
Shell staff and those of contractor staff on
sickness absence etc. If so, would you hold
with the view that perhaps this is as a direct
result of the significantly less hours exposure
for Shell staff compared with their contractor
compatriots.
Question - Dr Eirik Bjerkeboek, The
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
You showed us that you have quite a clear-cut
decrease in the case rate of work-related illness
during recent years. You also touched on the
issue of under reporting, and that you don't
reckon that has increased, but do you see a
comparable drop in sickness absence?
Answer - Malcolm Brinded, Shell
My understanding is that where we've got good
data, which is around offshore staff of our core
contractors, then we don't see such a
difference. To go on to your second part, I
don't think there is a factor there in terms of
difference in the hours worked. I think it is a
28
on our installations. We've got good data for
those, with no obvious difference in statistics
but we haven't got data that extends properly
into further up the staircase that I referred to
earlier. It took us a long time to get there on
safety, but I think we have to get there on
health as an industry.
concern that we've not done as well in really
capturing what is happening on the contractor
managed installations and perhaps to a certain
extent the itinerant work force that comes and
goes around the patch. So in terms of 80% of
staff offshore, typically 20-25% are Shell staff
and of the remaining 75–80%, the majority,
80%, of those are core staff who are long term
29
30
OFFSHORE INDUSTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PERSPECTIVE
Mr Roger Spiller, MSF Offshore Team Leader
insurance
premiums;
reduced
productivity/efficiency; higher safety risks.
The role of OIAC
The Offshore IAC is part of an extensive
network of Advisory Committees which the
Health and Safety Commission, the
Executive’s governing body, set up to provide
advice to the Commission, issue industry
guidance and to promulgate best practice not
good practice. An important point – As low as
is reasonably practicable.
Health not occupational health – cause is
irrelevant if the worker is unable to work or is
ineffective – cost/inconvenience to employer
are the same.
Integral to success is rehabilitation which is not
good due in large part to perhaps to the historic
organisation of the industry where operators
gave responsibility but often little authority to
Contractors who simply recruited a
replacement. Not any more.
All ACs are tripartite bodies with employers,
government and the trade unions represented.
Additional members representing the wider
public interest are now being introduced along
with greater transparency.
Last year change in name from “Oil” to
“Offshore” to focus more clearly.
Post Piper Alpha the emphasis was on new
regulations and guidance promoting safety
resource shortage inevitably meant too little
regard for Health.
Unique series of problems for OIAC – workers
spend half their life offshore including leisure
time.
Revitalising Health and Safety and Securing
Health Together – Cross departmental
commitment from Government. Ministers are
involved and remarkably well briefed - not
leaving it to others and they expect action.
Keeping an eye on what we do.
Health (physiological and psychological) of
families also relevant
Review of IACs. Are we effective; are
relationships too cosy; is our work relevant to
the needs of the industry? If not, then they will
either act without us, in spite of us or find a
more effective mechanism for action. Gone are
the days when if we couldn’t agree or reach
consensus nothing happened. Government now
want the range of options not the conventional
wisdom a la MAFF.
Revolution in working methods – maintenance,
vendor, campaign and less planned; floating
systems, sub sea; reliability.
Globally mobile workforce – increasing
proportion due to more overseas work with
Aberdeen and elsewhere as source of expertise.
But we have older platforms and smaller
numbers with ageing plant tied in to a Changed workforce – higher proportion of
contractors; ageing workforce; long service
workforce.
OIAC therefore has to prove itself dealing with
Health
Reduced numbers (35,000
reduced transport; greater
reduced flexibility
First is Problem identification – what problem?
RIDDOR; cause and effect; short working life
offshore; often long development time for
disease; presentation of disease when the
worker is out of the industry or retired.
to <20,000);
responsibility;
Perception of Stress; insecurity; uncertainty;
unreliability
Costs to industry – skill shortage; training and
assimilation; loss of knowledge; higher
31
The aim of this Conference is to raise profile
and create an awareness of health as an
issue as well as looking at the problems and
some solutions
Vantage Card both for storage of information
and access to it
Conclusion
Problem solving – OIAC unique ability –
Operators-various varieties of Contractorunions and various regulators (policy and
operations). (HSE; CAA; MCA; DTI) All adds
credibility to the total package thus better
received by the workforce, not just further
exhortation from employer.
Industry is beginning to recognise the costs of
ill health
A partnership beginning to develop born out of
OIAC and nurtured by Step Change
Only way of tackling the problems brought
about by – declining fields; reduced numbers;
multi-tasking; additional pressures- stress;
remote fields; incorporation of Working Time
Regulations.
OIAC in conjunction with Step Change – SC
needs to focus on the practical avenues for
improvement uniting the whole industry and all
stakeholders about the issues and solutions.
OIAC to take the political and more
contentious issues forward.
Big challenges will be how to deal with
producing an integrated rehabilitation policy
and programme and preventing psycho-social
problems, some of which seem inherent in the
industry, as required under “Securing Health
Together”, securing the Offshore Industry’s
contribution to Revitalising Health and Safety
Workforce and management networks – best
practice and informality
Target setting criteria in hand – realistic yet
stretching
A great asset is the existing high standards of
Occupational Health provision by some
operators. Even greater is the availability of
medics on each installation for recording;
health promotion; consistent interpretation and
a humanitarian approach to health issues.
Conference will have succeeded if we are able
to identify issues and develop ways of working
together without fear of the consequences, but
confidence in the outcome.
32
DAY 1
SESSION 2
SESSION THEME – OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH MANAGEMENT AND
IMPLEMENTATION
33
34
THE MEDICAL MANAGER’S PERSPECTIVE
Dr Jim Keech, BP, Manager Health BP Upstream UK, Chairman of
UKOOA HAC
cost' and 'bad cost' are often lost. We need to
improve our financial management. As health
managers, we need to understand about
financial management, we need to talk to the
accountants. They have, after all, been
managing to convince the industry over the
years to move forward, to invest in projects.
Project Way to Go was mentioned earlier. For
that project to move forward I have to
complete financial memorandums, I have to
learn the techniques, I have to find the
'switches and buttons' that make my
management move. Unless I can learn that
language, and unless I can find those switches
and buttons I am not going to succeed. And
health will not succeed - for us in BP at least.
We had to get to materiality and to explain that
we often work with very small budgets
compared with the enormous prizes that there
are in our industry - the millions and billions
that we hear quoted. Very often our health
budgets - and I control a budget of about £1
million - are small beer. Because it's small
beer, and because it doesn't add in the extended
health team, the medics offshore, the health
spending (where the total health spend is
somewhere in the region of £5-6 million), it
doesn't reach materiality. It's too small
therefore we can ignore it, therefore we can
outsource it, therefore we don't need to worry.
In business, if you cost a lot, somebody takes
some notice. Maybe I don't cost enough!
The management of occupational health is an
aspect of my task which I take most seriously.
We hear - and it has become somewhat cliched
- that 'good health is good business'.
Unfortunately at times that seems to have been
the business of cost accounting rather than
what I think the authors of the statement really
meant.
Proactive versus reactive
The value of a medical has often been simply
paraphrased to its price. That clearly isn't right.
We have to change, to be proactive and not
reactive. 'Medical' has been long associated
with the oil industry but not necessarily 'health'
and this is where we need to change. 'Health' is
no longer something indistinct from safety. To
perform, we need to ensure that health is seen
as distinct from safety, no longer that silent 'h'
in HSE. But health should not be separated
from safety - it should learn and move forward
together with safety.
Managing risk - understanding the
complexities
Health is a complex issue but it's not helped by
being seen as only the preserve of doctors and
nurses. Many doctors and nurses are poor at
explaining the complexities to their partners
and to other managers. We can use the same
business principles in health as are used
elsewhere in our industry. But it is necessary
for us as health managers to learn those
business principles and apply them. Health and
safety is very much about caring for people.
'Caring' is an awkward word for many. People
feel uncomfortable and think it means
'motherhood and apple pie'. But it is about
caring for people getting sick, it's about caring
for people getting injured. Do you care enough
to prevent them getting sick and injured? I
think, as you'll see later, that there is a link into
some processes which I hope you will take
forward in your respective companies.
Meaningful metrics
How excited are you by the term 'occupational
illness frequency rate'? It doesn't excite me
much. This isn't the end of the truce between
BP and Shell by the way. It's simply that, as a
metric, this doesn't excite. It may be
meaningful because this is what we have to be
absolutely intolerant of. We cannot have
occupational illness. Occupational hazards are
not acceptable. They show that we are not
caring enough. Occupational illness is what we
caused, it's what we did, it was the work that
made them ill. People shouldn't come to work
to get ill, to get sick, to get injured. After all
there is a healthy worker effect. Those in
employment are healthier than those who are
not, so let's build on that. Why not have those
Value demonstration
We have had difficulty in health with
demonstrating value. When the oil price is up,
we can talk about 'value'. When it's down, we
only hear about 'cost'. The concepts of 'good
35
Occupational Health. His faculty is shared with
the Faculty of Family Medicine and
Community Medicine. So, within the same
faculty, general practice and public health are
all included. That is the place we are at in an
offshore setting, where non-holistic is not an
option. You do have to cover health - as health
defined by the World Health Organisation, as a
state of total physical, psychological and social
well being. There is nothing wrong with that as
a definition of health. Those of you who work
in health offshore know you cannot get away
with just focussing on one aspect of that
definition.
people who come to work going home
healthier? What is wrong with that? Maybe we
can make those kinds of differences.
I think meaningful metrics will be a key.
Sometimes we are very good at presenting
metrics which we like and which we know we
can manage. Sometimes we are going to have
to get into the meaning. 'Sickness absence' is a
preferred metric of mine, simply because it
means a lot. If somebody is not at work a lot of
money and a lot of pain are involved. We need
to use that sort of meaningful metric - which is
simple to understand and use and doesn't
involve deciding what's an occupational illness
and what isn't. After all, unless you can have
clear definitions of occupational illness then
your occupational illness frequency rate is not
going to change and may be subject to
manipulation.
We need to provide a breadth of service. We
are there 24 hours a day for a couple of weeks
a month. There isn’t access to the general
practitioner, to the counsellor, to all the
services that are commonplace in an onshore
setting. It's the whole person who comes to
work, it's the whole person who gets sick, it's
the whole person that needs to be dealt with.
So 'holistic' could have a 'w' at the front of it we need to look at that totality of care. This
brings us to the fact that we hear a lot about
psychological health. It is said that
psychological health is important. Many of our
companies lack psychological health plans,
because we have been dominated by physical
health in the past. We need to work on this. I'm
glad to say the HSE is stimulating us. They
tried to stimulate us with an ACOP but
fortunately other methods are now to the fore. I
have worked hard with psychological health
plans myself. I don't know if it's been making a
difference yet but certainly we are tracking the
data in the same way as Shell and others are, to
see whether the plans are working.
Managing to perform
We have to manage to perform. We have to
learn to start setting targets in health. Previous
speakers have mentioned this. We are
encouraged to do this by government. I'm not
particularly happy with 'wet finger' estimates
and Labour Force Surveys being used as the
drivers but we have to start somewhere. We've
heard the excuses and we can work with it. We
are trying to do better in the industry. The work
we are trying to do with Step Change and
formation of a Step Change Occupational
Health Steering Group is a way forward. I hope
that we will be setting targets. But, each of us
in our individual companies, and certainly in
my own case in BP, needs to think about
setting targets for ourselves. In BP, we have
been working to a performance contract. It
hasn't been easy. Three years ago when the first
performance contract was demanded by my
then line manager I thought 'Oh dear, now
what'. It had to go on one side of A4.
Everything goes on one side of A4 these days and no more than 4 bullets on a slide. My
performance contract in Year 1 was no
different. But over the years I have become
used to it, and those on my team will know
how much value we have got out of the
performance contract. We have linked
performance contract to terms, and to our own
pay at times - and that focusses the mind
somewhat!
Inclusion of all stakeholders
So, the services need to be holistic, broad and
to include all the stakeholders. In the past the
term 'medical' was used. What was 'medical'? It
was some medics and the UKOOA MAC as it
was called then. Health clearly has to include a
lot more than that. Everyone is a stakeholder in
their own health. There are many groups professional groups, employment groups - who
have something very positive to add. I am
pleased to say that the Step Change Initiative
and the work group we are trying to pull
together is going to be a broad church. It will
include stakeholders who have traditionally not
been included. This encompasses the NHS - a
body that has picked up our problems year on
year and dealt with them, with very little
support from ourselves. We need to recognise
their input in terms of a stakeholder.
Non-holistic is not an option
Along with previous speakers, I do not see that
the classification 'occupational' is particularly
useful in our environment. In fact, there is a
professor in Singapore who runs the Faculty of
36
areas that we are moving into. Evidence-based
practice and evidence-based medicine are the
'in terms', the buzz words in the learned
journals. The offshore industry needs evidencebased practice, and we have heard about our
lack of baselines. We are getting together the
cross-industry health database and I appeal for
volunteers. Those who want to work in a
working group who are in this audience, please
let me know because I need people to help us
in that endeavour.
Demographic challenges
We have some interesting demographic
challenges. The ageing workforce is mentioned
frequently. In BP the average age of an
offshore worker is about 46 now. We have
small specialist teams formed from the more
experienced older men. The so-called SWAT
teams, that go fixing problems, tend to be older
people. Thus right sizing and specialist teams
bring with them their own health problems.
Contractorisation has been mentioned at length
and does give us issues around control. But I'd
like to mention another challenge - the war for
talent - getting the right people to come into
the industry. Many of us, and BP is certainly
no exception, are after increased production.
We can't grow production as a global company
unless we maintain the base of production we
presently get out of the North Sea. We have to
maintain that base and grow from it. To do so,
we need people, and there is a war for talent.
That is an area where health can positively
contribute. It can be seen as a benefit. The
health benefits you can provide for your
employees can help win that war for talent.
Sharing best practice
This conference is going to be about sharing
best practice. There is much that you are going
to hear over the next two days which is all
about sharing best practice. Hand arm
vibration, Noise, Health planning - all of these
things we share. As an industry the last five
years has seen big changes. It has certainly
seen some changes on OIAC (the Offshore
Industry Advisory Committee). Echoing the
words of previous speakers, we have moved
much better together, we have had the public
agreement of Shell and BP, we have had the
public agreement of Roger (Spiller) and myself
on matters during consultation on the ACOP. I
think we all agree that the Regulations still got
the wrong name being called 'First Aid', but the
ACOP actually says 'health care', which is a
very big move forward.
Performance beyond compliance
Looking at performance, we have heard that
the industry under-reports. I would challenge
that. But part of the problem has to be our
regulatory systems. If we only use a regulatory
system to manage performance perhaps that is
not the right tool. Perhaps we need to look at
other tools. We need to set up to manage
beyond the compliance. Health is somewhat
different in that, unlike safety, it goes beyond
'No (ill health)', it goes beyond zero. You can
enhance health, which can be difficult in the
safety arena and certainly in environment. One
person's environmental enhancement is
another's environmental destruction. We need
to be more imaginative in our goal setting for
continuous improvement. There are some signs
that we are willing to do so. I recently took part
in a workshop within BP where safety and
health professionals worked together and, to
my surprise, decided that we would work on
'wellness'. These were some serious hard-edged
safety guys who I didn't think knew what
wellness meant. But we are looking at a new
paradigm to try to improve performance
beyond the regulation, beyond compliance.
Some of the work that was done during the
consultation on medic training will be taken
forward by the UKOOA Health Advisory
Committee. We hope that will bring in a new
era in medic training - more appropriate, more
embracing, more about multi-skilling rather
than multi-tasking, and recognising the
importance of health promotion and matters
such as hygiene. In my own company, we use
our medic staff a great deal to deliver hygiene
performance on our offshore installations.
Managing challenges
We have some real challenges to manage.
Managing the fitness to work - especially at
present, firefighter fitness - raises issues, e.g. if
putting people into firefighting training
exposes them to the risk of having a heart
attack as a result of the exertion of the training.
The date of knowledge has passed, we are not
arguing whether it is bad for you or not. This
isn't the same as mesothelioma and asbestos
exposure - we know that if you push someone
to climb up and down a ladder while carrying a
hose etc they may well have a heart attack.
This may not occur while they are doing the
training but afterwards. If we know that this is
I titled the final slide 'Plan, Do, Measure,
Learn, Improve' - a simple mantra that we often
quote as the way to fix things. Hopefully, I
have included in my list some of the positive
37
a possibility, we have a duty of care to protect
the individuals from it. That means needing to
find a way of determining the underlying level
of fitness. This is not easy, it can mean having
to discriminate, but we have to do that against
the
background
of
the
Disability
Discrimination Act. We have been done no
favours as an industry by not having the
Disability Discrimination Act enacted offshore.
Many of us in health management in the
offshore industry have taken it on in broad
principle. We are moving now to a position
where, for example, we will look at stable
diabetics being able to work offshore, we will
look at not excluding epileptics who have been
fit-free for many years, we will look at taking
people who are on anti-depressant medication
and where is no safety contra-indication for
them being offshore. An SAS-type selection
should not be applied before you are able to go
offshore. There is an ageing workforce so be
sensible. We have to deal with rehabilitation.
Many of the companies are doing so as part of
their case management.
Sustainable development
For those of you who follow things like
sustainable development, I have included this
as I think it may be one of the keys to the
future. Triple bottom line economics Economic prosperity, Environmental quality
and Social justice - are known to our industry.
We have a Sustainable Development Group in
BP who talk about this topic all the time,
maintain websites, and run conferences.
Despite the taxation, and despite the oil price's
cyclical nature, I think we have been pretty
good at economic prosperity. In relation to
environmental quality, we have learnt how to
play the green card. But what about social
justice? I see social justice as the key. It's about
what I said earlier, about being intolerant to
occupational hazards, being intolerant of
hurting people and of making them sick. It's
about giving them justice.
38
T he Business of H ealth
♥ Good H ealth is Good Business
♥ Proactive versus Reactive
♥ Prof i l e putting the H i n HSE
♥ M anaging risk, understanding the complexities, clarity of
processes
♥ V alue demonstration
♥ Good cost bad cost: getting to materiality
♥ M eaningful metrics
♥ M anaging to perform
♥ Setting targets
♥ The Performance Contract
O ffshor e O ccupational H ealth
♥ Non holistic not an option
♥ Definition of Health
♥ Breadth of service provision
♥ All Stakeholders
♥ Demographic challenges
♥ A geing workforce
♥ Right sizing
♥ Contractorization
♥ War for Talent
♥ Performance beyond regulation, beyond compliance,
setting the right goals f or continuous improvement
Plan, D o, M easur e, L earn, Improve
♥ Evidence based practice
♥ Cross industry health database: Step Change
♥ Sharing best practice
♥ H A V S, Noise (NEM S), Health Planning
♥ M anaging challenges
♥ Fitness to Work, Disability, Rehabilitation
♥ New ACoP: Health care and first aid …
♥ Sustainable development
♥ Triple bottom line
♥Economic Prosperity, Environmental Quality and
Social Justice
39
40
THE CHALLENGE OF SETTING OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
TARGETS
Mr Stephen Williams, Step Change Support Team
[Paper given on behalf of Paul Blakeley, Talisman (UK) Ltd.]
The subject I have been asked to talk about is
the challenge of setting occupational health
targets. I think that I should first dispel some
expectations that you may have. My paper is
about the challenge of setting the targets - I
don't have the answer. I'm not going to be able
to tell you what the targets are. Also, in the
light of the comments from previous speakers,
it is perhaps also appropriate for me to dispel
some other expectations you might have about
Step Change; about who or what Step Change
is.
ð How are you going to measure it?
ð Where is the data going to come from?
ð What baseline should you be using?
Step Change is not an organisation that is set
up to solve the industry’s problems. Step
Change was a commitment by the whole
industry to improve safety so it basically
includes all of you and all other people in the
industry. It's all of us who are going to have to
work the issues and develop the solutions. The
small support team that I am part of will help
to facilitate that process. Some of the things I
will talk about this afternoon will be about the
ways in which the support team can try to
facilitate the process of setting of the targets
and then the delivery against them. But,
unfortunately, we are not going to be able to do
it for you.
The current reporting requirements are
inadequate. We have heard how, according to
the RIDDOR statistics, chickenpox is the issue
for the offshore industry. Fortunately, I think
none of us believe that is the real challenge.
But then, what is the challenge? There are lots
of data within companies but there is a lack of
consolidated data for the industry. The figures
that were mentioned by speakers earlier this
afternoon - on musculoskeletal issues and
others - are based on estimates of what we
think are the main problems. But we lack the
data.
The same issues now apply for occupational
health. The targets may have been set for us
but what else do we need to do? The
experience we had with Step Change suggests
that the simple target is not sufficient. The
challenge is to interpret the target and make it
meaningful and something that we can work
with.
There is another problem with the targets
which are set in 'RHS', and that is that they are
measuring outcomes. These are occasions
when things have gone wrong and we have
observed a consequence. Yet we know that for
many occupational illnesses there can be many
years between the observable effects and the
exposure that gave rise to them. If we wait until
we have observable outcomes, we may build
up another 10 or 15 years of unavoidable
consequences that we don't want. Relying on
the outcomes, therefore, is not sufficient. We
need a mixture of both proactive and reactive
measures. By proactive measures, I mean the
type of measures that are sometimes referred to
as leading indicators. These are things that we
can monitor now to give advanced warning of
future potential problems and allow corrective
What's the challenge?
Why is there a challenge for setting
occupational health targets? They have been
set for us, haven't they? 'Revitalising Health
and Safety' (RHS) and 'Securing Health
Together' (SHT) contain the targets - what else
is there left to do apart from deliver against
them?
Well, I'd like to share with you a little of the
experience of the Step Change in Safety
initiative. This was started in 1997 with the
target of improving safety by 50% over 3
years. Clear enough? It sounds clear enough
until you get down to the detail of thinking
through:
ð What does it actually mean?
ð 50% of what?
41
actions to be taken before the unwanted
outcomes occur.
group would need to understand the issues and
find ways of sharing data. It would need very
broad participation, not only from the
partnering groups that are active within the
industry, but also other ones, such as the
National Health Service, that are outside the
industry but who have a very real role to play.
The Step Change support team has been asked
to help co-ordinate the process. As I mentioned
earlier, the support team can’t solve the
challenges for the industry but it can help
facilitate the process through the mechanisms
that have been developed for engaging
different participants and through the networks
that enable greater workforce participation in
the debate.
Partnership
The need for partnerships has been referred to
several times this afternoon. Building effective
partnerships will be a major part of the
challenge.
There have been major changes in the industry
over the past five years or so. The demarcation
lines between different parts of the industry are
now very different from what they were. The
sources of expertise and the people who can
contribute to the debate and the solutions are
now very varied. We need to engage all parties
to participate in the discussion, to share their
information, share their learning and insights to
develop an effective way forward.
What is the scope of work that the
Occupational Health working group has set
itself to do?
The first activity is to develop common
classification codes for occupational health.
Many companies are already gathering
occupational health data but do it in different
ways. We need to agree a common way in
which we can classify the information so that it
can be shared and we can try to understand the
causation as well as the outcomes.
The need to work together and share
information brings up the point of
confidentiality, particularly with the medical
issues, where there are obligations of
confidentiality to the individuals. It's difficult
to share the information and yet, if we are to
understand what are the proactive things we
should look for, we need to understand not
only the outcomes to be avoided but also the
causation that leads to them. This will need
analysis of information about the circumstance
that may have contributed to the outcome, not
just the outcome itself. So there are
confidentiality issues to be overcome to enable
information to be shared whilst still protecting
the confidentiality of personal information.
There is also a debate on what kind of
indicators can be used. What is the right mix of
reactive and proactive indicators that can both
inform our actions and engage people's
interests? Which indicators will help to make
the issues real and motivate effort to deliver the
targets? How are we actually going to measure
the data? What baselines are we going to use? I
don't have the answers to these questions but
they are part of the scope of work that the
working group will be addressing over the
forthcoming months.
First steps
What has the industry done to tackle these
issues? There was a workshop on 11 January
2001. Fifty people from across the industry
came together to talk about the challenges
facing the industry and the processes for
delivering on the targets that are contained in
the RHS and SHT documents and the other
targets from the HSE's Offshore Division.
A database will probably be required to collect
and handle the data. The issue of
confidentiality of personal information will
need to be considered. It is likely that the
database will need to be held by a respected
and trusted third party that can be independent
and can address the confidentiality issues.
There were three groups at the workshop:
ð One considering the major hazards and
what needs to be done to improve integrity;
ð Another dealing with occupational safety;
ð And, the third one on occupational health.
I've got no answers to the OH challenges that
have been identified, but I do have a timeline
for how we are going to move forward.
It is this last one that we are really addressing
today and in the subsequent days of this
conference. One of the main outcomes from
that workgroup was the recognition that we
need to have a broad-based working group to
address the occupational health challenge. This
The first part of the work will be a pilot study.
A pilot is needed because we are not going to
get it right first time. We are not going to get it
right in all the details of the information that
needs to be gathered. As we collect data we are
42
much measurable progress by 2004. Indeed, it
is likely that, during the first couple of years of
gathering data, there will be an increase in the
amount of reported occupational health data.
This is the final challenge that I want to
highlight for setting the occupational health
targets; the challenge of communicating what
is being done.
also going to develop additional insights into
what the data means for the offshore industry
and the actions that will be necessary to
improve occupational health in the industry.
The proposal is to gather data for 6 to 9 months
through to the early part of 2002. Following
analysis of the pilot study, the industry will
then be in a position to:
§ evaluate the information,
§ finalise what the indicators should be,
§ confirm the way data will be collected,
§ confirm the ways of interpreting the data,
§ initiate full implementation during Q2 of
2002.
It will be a challenge to communicate the
actions being planned by the industry in a way
that makes it clear that real progress is being
achieved despite numbers that may appear to
say the opposite. It may be difficult to explain
that an increase in the reported occupational
health data is actually a positive sign of the
increased reporting rather than an indication of
an increasing problem in occupational health.
We have undertaken to develop this plan
further and to report on progress to the
Offshore Industry Advisory Committee
(OIAC) in time for their July meeting. This
milestone will help to maintain a sense of
urgency and ensure that, although it's a 10-year
programme for RHS, we start to take actions
now.
I think the plans being developed by the
offshore industry provide a sound way forward
to address the RHS challenges but - because of
the time required to compensate for the initial
lack of data and to get a good understanding of
what are the real issues and challenges - we are
going to have to take care to communicate very
clearly: what it is that we are doing; why we
are doing it; and why, initially, there may be an
increase in the incidence of occupational health
issues which are reported.
Communication of progress.
There is a recognised lack of reliable
occupational health data. Without data it is
difficult to know what the problem is and what
can be done to improve performance. This
leads to the ‘chicken and egg’ situation
referred to earlier by Sandra (Caldwell); What
do you do first, gather the information to
establish a baseline or set the targets?
Thank you for your attention.
The way the UK offshore industry proposes to
move forward is to accept the national
improvement target and then collect data to
establish the baseline and identify actions to
deliver the required improvement. Once the
database and data collection process have been
put in place, further time will be required to
build up the level and quality of the reporting.
As a consequence, it will probably be 2003
before a reliable baseline will be established.
It is not suggested that the industry waits until
the baseline is available before developing an
improvement programme. Preliminary actions
to improve occupational health can be initiated
in parallel with the pilot phase of the data
collection activities. However, the delay in
knowing what the baseline will be does have an
important consequence for the industry.
One of the RHS targets is for 50% of the
improvement to be achieved halfway through
the period, that is by 2004. With no existing
baseline, it will be difficult to demonstrate
43
The Challenge
What Challenge?
• Current reporting requirements inadequate
• Lack of data
• What indicators to use?
Targets are set in ‘Revitalising Health and
Safety’ and ‘Securing Health Together’
e.g. by 2010:
– Observable effects may be years after exposure
– Proactive and reactive
• 30% reduction in the number of working days lost
• Partnerships to agree and achieve targets
• Confidentiality
• 20% reduction in incidence of work related ill-health
The Challenge
Industry Response
• Current reporting requirements inadequate
• Lack of data
• What indicators to use?
• OIAC- Step Change workshop 11th
January
• OH working group
– Observable effects may be years after exposure
– Proactive and reactive
– broad participation
– include NHS and academia
• Partnerships to agree and achieve targets
• Confidentiality
• Step Change to help co-ordinate
The Challenge
Next Steps
• OH working Group
• Chicken Pox?
–
–
–
–
–
classification codes
what to use as indicators
how to measure
what baseline to use
what targets to set: proactive and reactive
• Third party administration (?)
44
Timeline
• 5/01 -4/02 Pilot study
– classification code
– indicators
– database and hosting arrangements
– communication
• Q1 2002 Evaluate pilot
• Q2 2002 Full implementation
– data collection and improvement activities
• 2003 Baseline data
Likely consequences:
• Expect to see increasing numbers
during first year or two
– indication of improving data collection
• Unlikely to be able to demonstrate
50% of improvement by 2004
Performance Indicators
Characteristics of required indicators:
• Simplicity and clarity
• Relevance
• Amenable to intervention
• Ownership
• Rigour but engage interest
• Proactive as well as reactive
45
46
OFFSHORE SAFETY DIVISION NATIONAL INSPECTION
PROJECTS: FINDINGS AND LESSONS ON OCCUPATIONAL
HEALTH MANAGEMENT IN THE OFFSHORE SECTOR
Dr Ron Gardner, Offshore Safety Division, HSE
account for the low level of failure at return
medicals (HSE, 1998).
Abstract
This paper describes the general reasons for,
and aims of the “National Inspection Projects”
(NIPs) run by OSD over the past few years.
The findings and conclusions are summarised
from NIPs on the management and control of:
noise,
hazardous
substances,
asbestos,
dermatitis, vibration and food hygiene. The
findings were useful for considering best
practices and in providing lessons for feedback
to duty holders. The latter can include both
strengths and weaknesses, so that the former
can be built on and the latter corrected. The
NIPs reveal where the Regulator may need to
put more effort, whether by inspection,
enforcement, or guidance.
As well as ensuring compliance with health
related legislation, the key aims of the HSE in
the North Sea have therefore been to raise the
profile of occupational health in the sector and
to improve the assessment and control of health
risks by line management. NIPs have been one
element in achieving these aims.
The nature of NIPs
NIPs are focused inspections designed to
examine a specific risk area in some depth.
Various types of NIP can be devised, but those
that have provided the information for this
paper were targeted inspections examining the
management and control of specific health
risks using a structured questionnaire. Some of
these NIPs had two parts: part for application
at the duty holder’s onshore offices and part
for application on one of their offshore
installations. This allowed the application of
company wide policies to be tested on selected
installations. The questionnaires, while
focusing inspection effort, were not intended to
constrain the inspector, but provided a probe to
open up the topic as necessary. Because no
duty holder preparation was required, special
visits were not necessary. Hence the NIPs were
applied during normal preventive inspections
over a period of one work-planning year.
Introduction
HSE’s early experience (Gardner, 1997) of the
way occupational health was handled by
offshore duty holders suggested that the sector
were good at the person orientated aspects of
occupational health such as fitness for work,
provision of first-aid and medic support, and
emergency response. However, the assessment
and control of recognised and potential health
risks in the workplace was less well developed
and managed. There are various reasons for
this. For instance, there was a view among
many managers that “health” was a difficult
topic that should be left to the health
professionals. Line managers are also less
likely to be involved in the investigation of
cases of work-related ill health than they are in
workplace accidents. The fact that work-related
ill health may only appear years after the
individual’s exposure to the causative agent(s),
also means that managers are less likely to be
faced with the results and costs of ill health
arising from causes in the workplaces they
currently manage. This latter effect may be
exacerbated in the offshore sector by the selfselecting nature of the work and the potential
“healthy worker” effect generated by the
fitness for offshore work medical requirements
(UKOOA, 2000). This latter effect may
Since raising the profile of the topic was an
important aim NIPs have rarely been standalone initiatives. For instance seminars, or
other meetings, on the topic of interest were
held during the periods over which NIPS on
dermatitis, noise and HAV were run, and
initiatives were supported by publications such
as “Sound Solutions Offshore” (HSE, 1998a).
Aims of the NIPs
The principal aims of inspection are to
influence duty holders to comply with legal
provisions for the health safety and welfare of
47
though a limited number of upstream workers
have been included in some epidemiological
studies of refinery workers (Divine and Barron
1987; Schnatter et al. 1992; Divine and
Hartman 2000 and references therein). A
Norwegian prospective study of cancer among
offshore workers has begun, and data from the
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD)
(Wiige 1996; NPD 2000) does include some
information
on
chronic
work-related
conditions. The findings from the latter are
broadly in-line with onshore findings in the UK
(HSC, 2000); thus the main concerns relate to
musculoskeletal diseases and stress.
the workforce, and to encourage them to
improve performance. The aims of individual
NIPs varied within this envelope, but the basic
aims of all of them were to raise the profile of
the topic considered and to test compliance
with the appropriate Regulations. In some
cases (e.g. the asbestos NIP) an additional aim
was to assist in assessing the potential impact
of possible changes to Regulations.
Testing compliance was mainly done by
examining the adequacy of duty holders risk
assessments and the controls put in place as a
result of these. In most cases the NIP was
constructed around the elements of a health
and safety management system using the model
of policy, organising, planning, measuring
performance, and auditing and reviewing
performance as described in HSE’s
“Successful Health and Safety Management”
(HSE, 1997) and the Oil Industry Advisory
Committee publication “Management of
occupational health risks in the offshore oil and
gas industry” (OIAC, 1996).
Most of the available published offshore data
(HSE 2000; NPD 2000) relates to acute
accident events collected through statutory
reporting
schemes.
Some
of
these
accidents/incidents may be the result of, or
result in, chronic conditions, but it is not
usually possible to judge this from the
available reports. Studies of medical
evacuation from offshore installations (Norman
et al, 1988; HSE 1999) include diseases as
well as accidents, but it is not necessarily clear
whether or not they are work-related.
Topics included in NIPS
The topics covered by the 6 NIPS considered
here were: noise (1994 - 1995 and again in
1999 - 2000), dermatitis (1996 - 1997)
asbestos (1996 - 1997), COSHH (1997 1998), Hand Arm Vibration (HAV) risks (1998
- 1999) and food hygiene (1998 - 1999).
In the absence of good risk data the HSE has
approached the management of health risks
offshore by “reading across” from known
onshore risks (such as those from noise,
vibrating tools, asbestos, etc.) and monitoring
the assessment and management of these by
offshore duty holders. This approach ties in
well with the aim of improving occupational
health management, but means that the NIPs
discussed here have been designed to examine
quite well established hazards. However, these
could be regarded as a good test of how well
health issues are managed at installation level
on the basis that if well-known hazards are not
well managed then newly emerging issues
(such as stress) may be even further behind.
Prioritising target topics for NIPs
Various factors were taken into account when
deciding on the target topic for individual
NIPs. These included: the nature and extent of
the hazard; HSE wide campaigns; the need to
follow up compliance with new, or newly
applied legislation; and general offshore
intelligence from other sources. For a NIP to
be worthwhile several of these factors usually
needed to be significant.
Campaign basis for NIPs
Hazard basis for NIPs
Over the past few years the HSE has run a
major campaign to improve health risk
management in the workplace under the banner
“Good Health is Good Business” (GHGB).
While the general aim of the campaign was to
raise the profile of occupational health and
improve its management, specific health risks
were targeted each year. Many of the risks
targeted were important offshore (e.g. noise,
HAV, dermatitis, asbestos). The campaign
generated publicity and guidance that was
generally applicable to the offshore situation.
There has been a range of reports on the
general health of offshore workers (see for
instance HSE 1994; Hahn 1987; HSE 1998;
Wiige 1996; Horsley and MacKenzie 1997)
and psychological and psychosocial aspects of
offshore work (Lauridsen et al, 1991; Parkes
1998). However, published data on chronic
work-related ill health in offshore workers is
scarce. Thus we are not aware of any
epidemiologicaI
studies
of
the
mortality/morbidity of offshore workers,
48
Hence it made sense to take the campaign
plans into account when planning NIPs.
Dermatitis
Relatively few companies had specific policies
on dermatitis, but over 70% of respondents
carried out assessments that included dermatitis
risk. However, these were often hazard
assessments using the Material Safety Data
Sheets (MSDSs) as a prompt for the use of
PPE. In fact all the companies questioned used
PPE as the main, or only method of controlling
skin exposures. There were few examples of
other methods such as substitution and better
housekeeping.
Compliance basis for NIPs
Although no new health related legislation has
been applied offshore for some years, certain
existing onshore Regulations have been
extended to the sector; notably The Control of
Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations
and The Noise at Work Regulations (NAWR).
The need to check how well these were
understood and being complied with was a
factor in deciding to have NIPs on COSHH
and noise. Also, HSE is committed to checking
the impact of new, or newly applied,
legislation, including post-implementation
assessment of the costs and benefits. COSHH
NIP was thus also designed to collect some
information on implementation costs.
Risks to the skin from hazardous substances
were generally included in COSHH
assessments, however, this meant that the issue
was rarely addressed in detail.
Barrier creams were in widespread use and
around 50% of the companies had unwritten
objectives concerning them. No other
objectives or targets relating to dermatitis were
noted. In some cases barrier creams appeared
to be regarded as PPE.
Intelligence needs
A secondary, but sometimes important, reason
for choosing a topic for a NIP was the need to
gather intelligence in that area. An example
was the NIP on noise where the information
obtained was useful as part of the HSE
regulatory impact study before extending the
legislation offshore.
About half the companies said that they used
solvents or abrasives for hand cleaning. This
appears to have been a misunderstanding, but
some
companies
were
using
these
inappropriate methods
Other intelligence as a basis for NIPs
Employees were comfortable to go to medics
for advice and treatment of skin problems, but
the level of formal reporting to the regulator
did not reflect the number of visits to the
medics. (Note: this was before the application
of RIDDOR offshore).
Intelligence from a range of sources also
suggested that some topics justified closer
inspection. An example was feedback from
inspections which suggested that the risk
assessment and control of vibration from hand
tools needed improving Another example was
our understanding of the views of offshore
occupational health professionals in relation to
noise on offshore installations.
Training and awareness of employees to skin
disorders was on an ad-hoc basis.
Conclusions
a) Companies that had carried out specific
skin related risk assessments had benefited
by developing more effective methods to
prevent and control the risk.
b) Duty holders needed to consider risk
reduction methods other than PPE such as
substitution, closed systems, mechanical
aids and better housekeeping).
c) The use of barrier creams required careful
monitoring since, in some cases, they were
regarded as a form of PPE hence giving a
false sense of security.
d) Work-related dermatitis seems to occur
more often than it is reported to the
Regulator.
Findings
Tables 1 (Annex 1) summarises the findings
from the dermatitis, asbestos, COSHH and
food hygiene NIPs, while Table 2 (Annex1)
summarises those from the noise and HAV
NIPs.
Findings and conclusions from individual
NIPs
The findings from the NIPs were very detailed,
so only selected points and the main
conclusions are given below.
49
was a belief that the installation had been
stripped some years before Management of
asbestos seemed to be largely a reactive
process.
c) Few companies (24%) had ongoing
programmes to survey and maintain
asbestos on their installations. It is vital
when surveys are done that the condition of
any asbestos found is noted and acted on.
d) The number of companies saying that they
have made use of their Own expertise
(71%) for information on measures to
control asbestos was high compared with
the number saying that say they had made
asbestos assessments (47%). It is likely that
this reflected expertise being used only on
an ad hoc basis (e.g. when asbestos is
found or suspected during ongoing work).
Asbestos
Findings
82% of companies questioned said that they
still have asbestos on one or more of their
installations. This was most commonly
Chrysotile (white asbestos) but Amosite
(brown asbestos) and Crocidolite (blue
asbestos) were also widespread. Uses current at
the time of the NIP included lagging (35%),
ceiling tiles (35%), insulation boards ( 41%)
and in items such as compressed asbestos fibre
(CAF) gaskets, acoustic hoods, and brake and
clutch linings.
All but one of the companies had some sort of
policy on asbestos and 82% had policies on
asbestos substitution or were in the process of
producing them. Only 18% of the companies
had set specific objectives in relation to
asbestos, but this lack of objectives had to be
set against the fact that all the companies
having asbestos on an their installations
reported some action. 41% had programmes
for removal of all asbestos on their
Installations or selective removal where this
was considered necessary.
Control of Hazardous substances
Findings
All companies had a system in place to
implement COSHH requirements, including
some form of audit and review, or (in one case)
were in the process of planning a system of
audit and review. The majority (52%) of
companies used COSHH re-assessments, or
general HS&E audits, to trigger the review
procedure All the companies had also carried
out COSHH assessments, but, the quality of
assessments was patchy with some being
hazard assessments based on information in the
MSDSs rather than risk assessment of the
process using or producing the hazardous
substance.
External consultants had been, or were being,
used to carry out full or part surveys on 71% of
the Installations. In only 36% of the reports
was the condition of the asbestos noted and
most of the reports lacked recommendations.
Most survey work seems to be triggered by
finding suspect areas or word of mouth reports
about asbestos.
It was common for companies to appoint
someone to “be responsible for” COSHH.
However, they often had a range of other
responsibilities to handle as well.
Just over half (55%) of the installations had
labeled asbestos containing materials.
Most installations had no one trained in what to
do if asbestos was damaged. However,
awareness of asbestos hazards among
employees offshore was quite high and concern
low. But they were often not aware of its
presence except when planned work on
asbestos was going on.
The most common activities assessed were
related to drilling (e.g. mixing mud chemicals
and related activities, work on the drill floor or
in shaker houses and cleaning mud pits) and
general workplace maintenance processes (e.g.
painting; welding and cleaning.
Conclusions
A range of controls were reported as having
been introduced post COSHH, suggesting that
the Regulations had considerable impact.
Outside consultants were widely used and
generally thought to provide value for money.
However, the information provided on costs
was surprisingly sparse and were obviously
loose estimates. For instance, the provision of
LEV was generally considered to be expensive,
a) It was likely that even if they are not aware
of it most offshore companies will have
asbestos on some of their installations,
albeit in low hazard forms (e.g. brake and
clutch linings).
b) Asbestos was still present in structural
features (e.g. ceiling tiles and wall boards)
on some mobile installations were there
50
based company which was the subject of
enforcement.
but quoted costs ranged from £50,000 per rig
to £500,000 on one installation, though the
latter included some improvements to the
general ventilation.
The
problems
noted
were
at
the
contractor/client interface. Examples included:
a lack of clarity over who had what
responsibilities in emergencies such as an
outbreak of food poisoning; maintenance of
galley equipment not being seen as a priority
by clients; and lack of client facilitation in
getting catering company managers offshore to
carry out audits, even when the clients required
these.
Economic pressures could also lead to a
reduction in manning levels in hotel/catering
staff on some installations. This was a cause of
potential stress and a reduction in food
hygiene. Another effect of this was a growing
use of stewards as food handlers. While their
training was good, this was not ideal because it
potentially introduced a new risk of cross
contamination.
Eight companies had introduced new
maintenance records as a result of the COSHH
assessments, but some others had not added
new LEV to their maintenance regimes.
Some reported benefits of introducing COSHH
included more efficient use of chemicals and
reduction in stocks (up to 30% in one case).
Also, 19% of the companies reported a reduced
number of chemical incidents.
Some companies had introduced new health
surveillance, because of COSHH This ranged
from simply monitoring the medic's log to
periodic skin checks and 6 monthly lung
function tests. However, there was much
confusion in this area with many companies
interpreting periodic offshore medicals as
being appropriate health surveillance.
Since temperature control regimens are vitally
important to good food hygiene this was
specifically targeted in the NIP as a “marker”.
In general temperature controls were good
though, though a range of relatively minor
faults were noted on different installations.
Examples included questions in individual
cases on: the effectiveness of the methods used
to clean thermometer probes between uses; the
calibration of temperature probes and the
provision of a back-up; and the effectiveness of
checking the acceptability of incoming food.
Conclusions
a) There have been significant improvements
as a result of COSHH being applied
offshore but this is patchy. Overall the
picture presented by the survey may be best
summarised by inspectors’ opinions. No
company
presented
an
'exemplary'
assessment,
six
were
considered
'satisfactory' and all the others required
some rectification.
b) The responsibility for implementing
COSHH onshore and offshore is one of a
number of responsibilities within staff
portfolios, and this dilutes the effort given
to COSHH.
c) There were areas where improvement was
required, particularly related to the standard
of assessments (which were occasionally
only hazard based) and the quality and
understanding of health surveillance.
Conclusions
a) The FSMSs and HACCPs put in place by
the catering companies were, with a single
non-UK exception, very good.
b) There were some problems of understaffing (often cost based) that could
potentially result in stress among catering
staff and a reduction in food hygiene.
c) Most problems arose at the interface
between contractor and client Safety
Management Systems (e.g. difficulties in
maintaining galley equipment and in getting
Senior managers from catering offshore to
carry out necessary audits).
d) Temperature control (a critical element of
food hygiene) was generally well addressed
with only relatively minor and scattered
faults being found.
Food Hygiene
Findings
All but one of the catering companies had well
developed food safety management systems
(FSMSs) covering policy, aims and objectives,
risk assessment - in this case HACCP (hazard
and critical control point) assessments,
organisation, performance measures and audit
systems. The only exception was a non-UK
51
on the periodic UKOOA medicals for fitness to
work offshore to provide audiometry. This
could be building problems for the future since
hearing damage by noise is usually most at an
early age i.e. at the time when the periodic
medicals are furthest apart.
Noise
Findings
Perhaps the most interesting findings relate to
the two noise NIPs.
The first NIP (1994 – 1995) was carried out
before the NAWR were applied offshore and
most of the organisation on noise matters
related to the requirements of the then
Certifying Authorities (CAs). So at that time
only about a third of the installations covered
by the NIP had a policy specifically
mentioning noise, but virtually all of them had
regular surveys of area noise levels by the CAs.
Also, half of them had other area surveys
beyond the CAs requirements. The CAs
generally used the area noise level standards
given in Den/HSE guidance on design,
construction and certification of offshore
installations (DEN/HSE, 1990), but CA
recommendations often seem to have been
repeated over several years with little apparent
action. Most companies were also using the
action levels of the then onshore NAWR with
the area noise surveys to identify areas where
hearing protection had to be worn.
Conclusions
The general conclusion to the 1994- 1995
Noise NIP was that: “Three quarters of the
reports indicated a need for the operator to take
further action. A wide range of topics was
noted, of which dose assessment and control of
noise at source were prominent.”
The overall conclusions from the 1999 – 20001
NIP on noise were:
a) Compliance with the Noise at Work
Regulations can be improved
b) Duty holders should improve
management of noise risks
their
c) Better ALARP demonstrations should be
demanded by inspectors
As might have been predicted, there were some
marked differences between these pre- NAWR
findings and the post-application of the NAWR
offshore.
d) Duty holder s should have better systems
for providing education and information to
their employees
HAV
Given that the NIP was carried out only 2 year
after the NAWR was applied offshore there
were some very positive findings. These
included: the percentage of duty holders with
policies and procedures on noise had doubled
and others were developing; all but one had
completed noise assessments and included
exposure assessments; around 20% had
identified further potential noise control
measures; and some had targets for assessment
and training. It was also evident that workforce
awareness was higher than before.
Findings and conclusions
Early in the NIP it became apparent that
although c 30% of the companies had some
policy/assessment on HAV, little exposure
assessment had been done, few controls put in
place and little training given. Interestingly,
c25% of the companies had some health
surveillance in place, suggesting that health
professionals were aware of the problem but
that it had not become a matter for line
management.
Some 65 % had appointed a “Responsible
person” for noise matters, but this person was
not necessarily a “Competent person” and
often had limited authority.
Only 15% of respondents said they had seen at
least one of HSE’s publications.
The situation was such that of the 19
companies investigated inspectors judged that
15 had made little or no attempt to comply with
the applicable legislation. Over the course of
the NIP a meeting was held with industry
representatives and the situation improved
markedly. By the end of the year systems to
Rather disappointing was the fact that the basic
control measure was still delineation of hazard
areas based on the action levels in the NAWR
and the provision of PPE and a lack of
recognition of the need under NAWR to reduce
noise exposure as low as reasonably
practicable. There was also much dependence
52
with - they are simply stand-alone results.
The findings do, however, provide a
benchmark for future follow up.
assess the risks (including measuring or
otherwise assessing the vibration levels of
equipment), purchasing new lower vibration
tools and controls (e.g. limiting and recording
the time spent using vibrating tools) were
becoming widespread. The effects of these
initiatives are the subjects of other papers for
this conference.
Even with these provisos some general trends
can be discerned.
1 A number of the findings would suggest
that the more specific (if not prescriptive)
the legislation the better the assessment and
control. This is best illustrated by
comparing the extreme cases of food
hygiene and HAV. In the former the
detailed onshore legislation does not apply
offshore, but is used as the standard for
enforcing offshore provisions; in the case
of HAV only the general provisions of the
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and
the Management of Health and Safety at
Work Regulations 1999 apply and
assessment and control regimes were not
well developed. Comparison of the
situation before and after the application of
the Noise at Work Regulations offshore
highlights the same point.
A somewhat unexpected conclusion was that
the use of hand held vibrating tools was much
more widespread than had been thought before
the survey. Among the companies surveyed,
which included contractors, about 1800
workers were reported as using hand held
vibrating equipment. Scaling this up across the
sector would suggest 2000-3000 workers are
regularly exposed to the risk of HAV. The
most frequently used equipment known to have
high vibration levels were grinders, needle
guns, impact wrenches, air drills and chipping
hammers. Also reported in use less were,
nibblers, scrabblers, air drills, jigsaws, a floor
polishing machine and an engraving pen.
Discussion
2 There were few targets or objectives set on
health matters at the installation level and
few specific performance measures in
relation to the topics covered.
In considering the findings from NIPs we need
to bear in mind the nature of the exercise.
1 The NIPs described were not statistically
based surveys designed to provide scientific
data. The cover achieved was, however,
reasonable, with returns in the range of c 28
- 40% of duty holders and c 10 - 19% of
manned installations. (In the case of the
food hygiene NIP all the then extant
catering companies were included and the
number of occasions when the NIP was
applied to each of them was proportionate
to the scale of their presence in the North
Sea.)
3 There was considerable confusion about
health surveillance with many duty holders
quoting the annual offshore medicals as
their health surveillance. This is unlikely to
be satisfactory for conditions such as
dermatitis that can develop rapidly or for
the early detection of hearing loss in
younger workers.
4 It was evident that there was still some
confusion between hazard and risk as a
basis for COSHH assessments. Examples
were the existence of some substance based
COSHH assessments (essentially using the
MSDS without reference to the way the
material was used) and the fact that most
inspectors thought that one of the strongest
elements of the way duty holders handled
COSHH was in the computerisation of data.
2 The NIPs are a snapshot of an ongoing
process - stills from a moving picture.
Hence some of the findings were already
becoming out of date by the end of the year
the individual NIPs were applied in - this
was particularly the case with HAV. Indeed
the NIPs, with other activities, contributed
to the process of change, for example they
often led to companies re-examining the
way they approached the topic being
examined and on several occasions to
formal enforcement activity on the part of
inspectors.
5 The NIPs suggest a quite heavy reliance on
PPE for control - particularly with respect
to hazardous substances (including skin
protection) and noise. General inspection
experience supports this. Many exposures
offshore are of short duration and PPE may
be a quite satisfactory method of control.
However, PPE use can lead to a false sense
3 Except in the case of the two NIPs on noise
there was nothing to compare the findings
53
Horsley, H., and MacKenzie, I. G., 1997
“Lifestyle Survey Amongst North Sea Oil
Workers”, Proceedings of the Occupational
Health Offshore Conference: Aberdeen 26 - 28
March 1996, HSE Offshore Technology
Report, HSE Books, p161 (ISBN 0 - 7176 1423 - 9).
of security - after all the cause of the risk is
still there. An extreme example, noted
during the NIP on dermatitis, was the use of
barrier creams as if they were PPE.
6 Some of HSE guidance had not really
penetrated – for instance there seemed to be
little awareness of HSE guidance on HAV.
HSC 2000 “Health and Safety Statistics
1999/2000” HSE Books (ISBN 0 – 7176 –
1867 – 6).
Conclusion
The NIPs have provided good intelligence for
inspection
purposes
in
highlighting
deficiencies in the management of various
health issues and provide a benchmark for
future comparisons.
HSC 2000a “Securing Health Together. A
long-term occupational health strategy for
England, Scotland and Wales. HSE Books
MISC 225.
HSE 1994 “Diet, Health and the Offshore
Worker”, HSE Offshore Technology Report
OTH 93 399.
At the 1996 Offshore Occupational Health
Conference a number of speakers commented
on the “Cinderella status” of the topic
compared with safety (HSE 1997a). With other
information (e.g. from general inspection) the
findings from the NIPs suggest that this is
changing and that the management of
occupational health matters at installation level
has improved in the last five years. The targets
given in the recently published long-term
occupational health strategy for England,
Scotland and Wales (HSC 2000a) should
provide further impetus for improvement.
HSE 1997 “Successful Health and Safety
Management” HSG65, HSE Books (ISBN 0 7176 - 1276 - 7).
HSE 1997a “Proceedings of the Occupational
Health Offshore Conference: Aberdeen 26 - 28
March 1996”, HSE Offshore Technology
Report OTH 531 (ISBN 0 - 7 176 - 1423 - 9).
HSE 1998 “Medical Status of the Offshore
Population” Offshore Technology Report OTO
97 057.
References
Den/HSE 1990 “Offshore Installations:
Guidance on design, construction and
certification” Fourth Edition, HMSO.
HSE 1998a “Sound Solutions Offshore:
practical examples of noise reduction”,
HSG182, HSE Books, (1998) (ISBN 0 - 7176 1581 - 2).
Divine, B.J., and Barron, V. 1987 "Texaco
mortality study III. A cohort study of
producing
and
pipeline
workers",
Am.J.Ind.Med. 10, 371-381.
HSE 1999 “Study of medical evacuations from
offshore installations Five year report 1987 1992” HSE Offshore Technology Report OTO
098 171.
Divine, B.J., and Hartman, C. M. 2000
"”Update of a study of crude oil
Workers 1946 - 1994", Occup. Environ. Med.
57, 411- 417.
HSE 2000 “Offshore Injury, Ill health and
Incident Statistics Report 1999/2000” HSE
Offshore Technology Report OTO 2000 111.
Gardner, R. J., 1997 “ Occupational Health:
OSD’s Inspection Experience”, Proceedings of
the Occupational Health Offshore Conference:
Aberdeen 26 - 28 March 1996, HSE Offshore
Technology Report OTH 531 pp 35 – 40 HSE
Books, 35 (ISBN 0-7176-1423-9).
HSC 2000 “Health and Safety Statistics
1999/2000” HSE Books (ISBN 0 - 7176 1867 - 6).
Lauridsen, O., et al, 1991 “Shift-work and
health: Shift-work, sleeping difficulties,
psychosocial
work
environment
and
psychosomatic complaints”, Report RF 127/91,
Phillips Petroleum Company, Norway and the
Rogaland Research Institute, Norway (1991).
Hahn, M., J., 1987 The dental status of
workers on offshore installations in the UK oil
and gas industry”, Br. Dental. J., 163 262.
54
Schnatter, A.R., Thériault, G., Katz, A.M.,
Thompson, F.S., Donaleski, D and Murray,
(1992) "A Retrospective Mortality Study
within Operating Segments of a Petroleum
Company". Amer.Jnl. Ind.Med., 22, 209-229.
Norman, J. N., et al, 1988 “Medical
evacuations from offshore structures”, Br. J.
Ind. Med., 45, 619-623.
NPD 2000 “Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
Annual Report”, NPD.
Wiige, H., 1996 “Frequency of work-related
diseases - an indictor of working environment
standard”,
Proceedings
of
the
third
international conference on Health, Safety and
the Environment in oil and gas Production,
New Orleans, 303.
OIAC, 1996 “Management of occupational
health risks in the offshore oil and gas
industry”, Oil Industry Advisory Committee,
HSE Books (ISBN 0 - 7176 - 0886 -7).
Parkes, K.R., 1998 “Psychosocial aspects of
stress, health and safety in North Sea
installations”, Scand. J Work Environ Health,
24(5) 321.
UKOOA 2000 “Guidelines for Medical
Aspects of Fitness for Offshore Work” Issue
No. 4, January 2000, United Kingdom
Offshore
Operators
Association.
55
56
57
general
Monitoring, audit and review
(installation basis)
Assessors used
(installation basis)
Controls
(installation basis)
Assessment of exposure
(installation basis)
Risk assessment (installation basis)
Policy and organisation
(onshore)
Number of reports received.
Item
In house or consultants for
COSHH
All relied on PPE as the only or
major control method for skin
exposure with barrier creams
and pre-post work creams as
adjuncts. Some substitution and
use of mechanical systems was
noted
Not examined
Generally included in COSHH
assessment - to a greater or
lesser level of effectiveness
If at all it was in the COSHH
assessment.
Dermatitis
(1996 - 1997)
33 (22 drilling rigs;
11 production platforms)
Only 1 had a specific written
policy.
15% believed skin issues were
covered by their general policy
86% had a COSHH policy All
had an implementation system
in place.
All had some form of
assessment; the quality varied
and some were hazard based
75% had performed some
atmospheric monitoring
(benzene, oil mists, welding,
drilling chemicals (dust))
In house or consultants
Mentioned as a result of
COSHH were Substitution (13),
elimination (11), modified
procedures (11), LEV (10),
improved general ventilation
(8) improved PPE (10) other
PPE (8)
Virtually all had audit and
review systems of some sort.
18% had a policy of some sort
57% had surveyed for asbestos
but only 36% reported on the
condition
A few atmospheric
monitoring surveys had
been done.
50% had programmes for
asbestos removal;
53% had policies on
substitution
50% had labeled known sites of
asbestos.
54% had sealed some asbestos
Not examined
Mainly consultants
53% had policies on
substitution.
COSHH
(1997 – 1998)
19 (17 different duty holders)
Asbestos
(1996 – 1997)
21 (17 different duty holders)
Table 1: Summary of findings from chemical and food related NIPS
All had periodic auditing by
shore-based management and
most had periodic OIM medic
walk-through inspections. Some
also had client or consultant
audits.
Temperature control regimes
were specifically explored.
These were well developed and
monitored by all the caterers.
In house
Food Hygiene
(1998 - 1999)
31 (7 catering companies and
24 clients)
Only one non-UK based
company didn’t have a welldeveloped food safety
management system covering
policy, aims, objectives etc. and
systems to implement it.
All except the non-UK
company had performed
HACCPs as required.
Not applicable
58
objectives
Health Surveillance (HS)
Workforce awareness and areas
of concern
Performance
measures
(installation basis)
Training and familiarisation
(installation basis except food
hygiene)
Targets
and
(installation basis)
Item
High level of awareness of the
potential skin problems
The main concerns of the
Work force related to drilling
Muds and completion fluids.
None had any specific HS for
dermatitis
Skin hazards noted in toolbox
talks
No specific training noted
None noted
Dermatitis
(1996 - 1997)
Some had unwritten objectives
relating to the use of barrier and
other skin creams.
Not relevant
High level of awareness of the
risk but low awareness of the
presence of asbestos on
individual installations
Some specific training given to
individuals in a few cases.
None noted
Asbestos
hazards
were
generally covered in toolbox
talks and permit systems.
Asbestos
(1996 – 1997)
Objectives included removal
asbestos, purchasing of non
asbestos containing materials
and ensuring that any asbestos
on
board
was
properly
controlled.
33% had HS to meet COSHH,
but there was confusion
between this requirement and
periodic fitness to work
offshore medicals
High level of awareness of risk.
Some use of exposure limits
and maintenance regimes.
Training, both for specific
“COSHH assessors” and for
general workforce
COSHH
(1997 – 1998)
A few targets for assessments
and reviews.
All staff had food handler’s
medical certificates, staff were
aware of the need to report
medical conditions; most Chefs
questioned staff as a matter of
routine if they had been on sick
leave, on holiday or appeared ill
A range of measurable
performance indicators was in
use.
All gave basic food hygiene
training to all staff; most
provided intermediate level
training for Chef Managers, and
some other staff. All had
individuals with advanced
certificates or diplomas. Inhouse and consultant based.
Catering crews’ awareness (e.g.
of the need for good personal
hygiene) was high.
Food Hygiene
(1998 - 1999)
FSMSs with clear objectives
and targets.
Table 1: Summary of findings from chemical and food related NIPS – continued
59
Nearly all had CA area surveys ; c50%
had other area surveys
c33% considered noise dose
CAs and other consultants
The action levels in the (onshore) Noise
at Work Regulations and the area limits
recommended in the Den/HSE 4th
edition
Hazard area identification (based on
action levels) and PPE
Enclosure of some equipment (e.g. water
pumps) was common but similar
controls were not commonly used
elsewhere
Risk assessment – general
Assessment of exposure
Assessors
Criteria for applying controls
Control measures
Noise (1994-1995)
16
c33% had policy specifically mentioning
noise
Some had allocated PPE responsibilities.
Item
Number of reports
Policy and Organisation
Controls were still set in terms of the
action levels with hazard areas and use
of PPE rather than reducing noise
ALARP.
c20% identified potential noise control
measures.
Consultants
Action levels from the Noise at Work
Regulations.
Noise (1999-2000)
20
c65% had a policy
c65% had appointed someone to “deal
with noise” (the training and experience
of this individual was often not
sufficient)
All but one had completed a noise
assessment as required by the Noise at
work Regulations
All but one had included exposure
assessments;
15% had some dosimetry
Essentially none had addressed control
to meet the recommended levels.
Virtually no assessment at the time the
NIP began (see text)
1 respondent had carried out vibration
measurements
EEC Directive and HSE guidance.
c30% had a formal policy or procedure
for assessing risk.
HAV (1998-1999)
19 (25 companies)
c30% had a formal policy or procedure
for assessing risk.
c66% had allocated responsibility for
HAV risk to someone
Table 2 : Summary of findings from NIPs on Noise and HAV
60
75% had some systems in place but
these mainly related to CA review and
PPE
c75% had training of some sort
There was a reasonable level of
awareness of noise hazards and the need
for PPE
c40%of the reports suggested some
workforce concern about noise (PPE,
heli-deck noise and nuisance)
c33% offered audiometry beyond that in
the fitness for work offshore medicals.
Monitoring audit and review
Workforce awareness and involvement
Health Surveillance
Training
Noise (1994-1995)
1 had risk-related targets and objectives
Item
Objectives and targets
Situation remained much the same; some
risk based view, so if a medical showed
evidence of any significant or unusual
hearing loss the monitoring frequency
was increased.
c50% complied with the requirements of
the Noise at work regulations; others had
programmes in development.
Awareness was high, but
most concerns related to nuisance noise
(e.g. noise in cabins galley, sickbay)
Not covered in the NIP
Noise (1999-2000)
Some had targets for assessment and
training
25% had some surveillance for HAV
symptoms
Others were putting systems in place.
Very little specific training - at the time
of the survey only one company had any
sort of campaign (poster and video).
Not examined
HAV (1998-1999)
Many (especially contractors) had plans
to assess vibration outputs by
measurement or comparative techniques.
None
Table 2 (Continued) : Summary of findings from NIPs on Noise and HAV
HEALTH PLANNING TOOL FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
ASSURANCE
Mr Lindsay Ross, Occupational Hygiene Co-ordinator, BP
Exploration
table designed to capture the main elements of
an
occupational
health
management
programme, to set out clear expectations and
outcomes to improve health auditing and assist
in identifying key performance measures. The
generic table is modified to reflect the needs of
each business unit and it then becomes the BU
Specific Planning Matrix, which is used by the
site health planning team to develop their
needs on a three year rolling timeline.
Abstract
BP commitment to Health, Safety and
Environment (HSE) performance is simply
stated:
No accidents;
No harm to people;
No damage to the environment.
Everyone who works for BP anywhere is
responsible for getting HSE right and BP’s
business plans include measurable HSE targets.
Therefore where ever BP operates or whenever
it enters into new and different ventures and
countries;
management
systems
for
implementing the relevant HSE programmes,
procedures and legislative requirements should
be either already in place or being initiated.
In addition, seven specialist appendices
ranging from Occupational Hygiene to Stress
Management have also been prepared as
further guidance. The pack also contains an
introductory brochure, several health planning
graphics, an outline of a health planning
seminar or workshop and reference materials.
Introduction
Normally, of the three HSE elements, ‘Health’
is the least well understood and resourced, and
is therefore given the least attention. To help
ensure that health aspects in BP Exploration
(BPX) are initially identified, easily
understood and then addressed in an ongoing
and suitable, sufficient and timely manner, a
Health Planning process has been developed.
Safe and efficient operations depend on people
and BP attempts to operate its facilities in a
way that minimises health risks to employees,
contractors and the community, and
encourages people to adopt a healthy lifestyle.
Thus enhancing operations integrity, BP’s
reputation and productivity, and establishing a
firm foundation for growth.
Health
encompasses a spectrum of states ranging from
extremes of premature death to optimum
health. Preventing work related ill health is a
recognised management responsibility and is
specifically stated in the Company HSE
Commitment of “No Harm to People....”.
There is also potential to achieve distinctive
performance by addressing positive prevention
and health enhancement. Good health benefits
the individual and plays an integral part in
delivering successful business performance by
minimising loss and maximising gain.
The concept of health planning is important for
three reasons:
• It is based on examined practice;
• It is an effective way of managing the
business issues of health;
• It shares a common language with that of
safety.
The Health Planning Resource Pack (BP) was
developed as a practical tool for implementing
health planning. It also works well as a
marketing vehicle or device to raise the profile
of health as a business performance issue.
Each pack contains an overview of the health
planning process and offers a number of tools
to assist Business Units (BU’s) in constructing
their own specific health plan. The principal
planning tool is a Generic Planning Matrix or
The full BP management HSE expectations are
given in the internal guidelines ‘getting HSE
right’ (BP, 1999a) and the management health
strategy in ‘getting Health right’ (BP, 1999b).
The three elements of health management
being designated as:
61
•
Prevention;
•
Management;
•
Promotion.
4. Audit & Monitoring - Regular review, audit
and surveillance programmes to verify and
provide assurance of performance against
expectations.
5. Data Management - Methods adopted
should be simple but provide for accurate
and efficient recording and speedy retrieval
of information.
The ‘Health Planning Resource Pack’, if
utilised fully and correctly, will ensure that all
three are carried out correctly and effectively.
Health Planning Resource Pack
6. Accident Investigation - Health input as
part of an interdisciplinary team approach
to accident awareness and prevention.
The Resource Pack contains planning sections
set out as generic templates, which consist of
tables with columns, entitled;
7. Compliance - Familiarisation with all new
and current health and safety legislation.
8. External Communication & Networking Liaison with regulatory bodies, industry
associations, health professionals etc.
Expectations - Set objectives.
Activities
objective
- Task(s) required to achieve the
The pack also contains specialist appendices
prepared to assist in planning key health risk
areas:
Outcome - Goal or deliverable.
Responsible Persons - Who is accountable for
delivery.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Both the core elements and the specialist
Appendices use the same format.
Prevention of Injury and Ill Health
This forms the first core element of the health
planning process. It utilises an established risk
management approach; risk assessment,
planned intervention and evaluation by audit.
The plan includes contingencies for the
following:
Occupational Hygiene
Ergonomics
Environmental Health
Stress
Projects
Normally Unmanned Installations (NUI’s)
Indoor Working Environments
Developments for further specialist planning
appendices are dealt with on request.
Management of Injury and Illness
The second core element ensures that sick or
injured personnel are managed to ensure costeffective utilisation of health services and a
prompt and safe return to work. First aid and
emergency care are included in this element,
which is sub-divided into:
1. Evaluation & Control - The identification,
measurement and appraisal of risk. An
ability to control the physical, chemical and
biological factors arising in or from the
workplace which may effect the health or
well -being of those at work, or those in the
community.
1. Primary Care - Provision of treatment
facilities for immediate care and
arrangements for first aid and resuscitation
where medical facilities are remote.
2. Assessment of Fitness to Work Recognition and diagnosis of occupational
medical conditions and the early stages of
occupational disease.
2. Oil Industry Specific - Development of
specialist expertise to cope with
emergencies unique to the industry.
Participation in developing contingency
plans for major disasters in collaboration
with external emergency services.
3. Projects - Minimise health risks by the
application of sound standard, procedures
and management systems for the design,
procurement, construction and start up of
BPX facilities.
3. Management & Administration of Ill Health
- Provision of information, advice or
62
counselling and referrals of illness.
Assessment of employees’ health following
absence from work and re-settlement of
sick or injured worker in collaboration with
other health professionals and management.
Health Planning Workshops
Health planning is a process by which the BPX
Health Team along with key HSE and
management BU personnel can work together
to achieve the timely production of a business
specific health plan. The objective being to
deliver a draft plan with clear deliverables and
performance measures. Resource management,
budget and time can be included if required.
Plans should then be reviewed regularly i.e. on
a quarterly basis.
4. Rehabilitation - Manage return to work.
Medical pension and medical early
retirement,
and
consultation
with
specialists.
Health Promotion
Health Management
Health promotion focuses on significant
modifiable health factors and aims to help
employees help themselves. Quality assured
health promotion is one of the few tools for
managing the health of the ageing workforce
where the diseases of lifestyle are increasingly
important.
Management of health risk is a continuous
process, and it is hoped that line managers and
HSE personnel will use the BPX Health
Planning Resource Pack to identify relevant
health protection operating procedures,
assessment forms and BP best practice
documents. In addition, occupational medicine
and hygiene expertise will be harnessed as
necessary to help ensure not only legislative
compliance and with the full requirements of
BP “getting HSE right” (BP, 1999a) and
‘getting Health right’ expectations (BP,
1999b), but most importantly, active protection
of the health of the workforce and local
community will be achieved.
1. Marketing Health - Promote a healthy
lifestyle at work and at home. Deliver a
strategic quality assured risk based
programme with the emphasis on a holistic
approach to wellness including physical,
psychological and social well-being.
2. Health Screening - Programmes include a
variety of screening interventions ranging
from questionnaires to consultations with
health professionals. Focus is on the major
health risks: coronary heart disease, stroke,
stress and cancers. These risks are
associated with modifiable lifestyle factors:
smoking, alcohol, diet and exercise.
Health Performance Improvement
In the BP HSE expectations (BP, 1999a) it
states that the Company will periodically assess
the implementation of and compliance with the
expectations to assure employees and
stakeholders that management processes are in
place and working effectively. It will then use
such information to improve its performance
and processes.
Furthermore, in the first
element of the HSE Management System
Framework it specifically states that leaders
should continuously strive to improve HSE
performance.
3. Needs Based Campaigns - Reinforcing the
maxim that ‘Good Health is Good
Business’ through the use of health
promotion campaigns based on identifiable
needs. Links maintained with occupational
health hazards where relevant, such as
noise, stress and musculoskeletal disorders.
Cost effective campaigns to be delivered
through the range of resources available via
the ‘Alive and Kicking’ project (additional
material is contained within the pack).
Businesses are therefore recommended to
prepare a one-page summary of their health
plan these to focus on the key health risks,
opportunities and resulting performance
measures can then form part of their HSE
performance contracts.
4. Raising Local Health Profile - Engaging in
health award campaigns e.g. Health at
Work Award Schemes. Utilising campaigns
to maintain a longer term focus on health
awareness. Participation in local charitable
events.
BP now requires all business units to develop
and have a Health Plan in place. The next
stage, already in progress, is to develop an
electronic version of the process.
63
Conclusion
References
The Health and Safety Executive in the United
Kingdom use the slogan “Good Health is Good
Business”. BP states that “Health is an Integral
Part of Business Activity” and we hope that
with the correct use of the planning tool
described within, that this will be true for all
BP Exploration activities.
BP; ‘Health Planning Resource Pack’
produced by the BP Health Team, Dyce.
Acknowledgments
BP 1999b; BP Amoco “getting Health
right...the basics for health management”.
Global Health assurance Team, April 1999.
BP 1999a; BP Amoco “getting HSE
right....”the HSE Expectation assessment tool”,
a guide for BP Amoco Managers. Global
Health Assurance Team, April 1999.
Dr Jim Keech and Martin Delaney of the BP
Exploration Health Team.
64
FEEDBACK AND DISCUSSION “DETERMINING AND USING
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PERFORMANCE INDICATORS”
arm vibration - the progress with decreasing
exposure. Again, people and time above
certain vibration levels. To me those are the
sorts of ways we need to be thinking for
performance standards.
They are some
examples of the way we can think of
performance standards that we could measure
and hopefully see an improvement as time goes
by, making due allowances for decreases in
numbers of people. Is there anything in the
work that either of you two have come across
that involves something like that?
Question - Chris Hopson, Upstream
Newspaper
I wonder if I could ask Steve Williams just to
comment a little bit about worker involvement
in offshore safety, in particular where the
Changing Minds initiative has got to. I thought
that leaflet was due to be produced before
Christmas. Perhaps you could just comment a
bit on that?
Answer – Mr Stephen Williams, Step Change
Support Team
The Changing Minds document has been
released. Copies are available for people who
want them and it's publicised via the flyer and
the website, so if you want a copy let me know
and you can have a copy. It was published at
the end of last year, about November I think.
Answer - Lindsay Ross, BP
Yes, well certainly in the area of noise Kevin.
We have developed systems that have helped
produce those performance standards now.
There's the Noise Exposure Management
system which can deliver quite a lot of data on
people’s exposure levels above first and
second action levels etc, the amount of training
that's on the go and all the rest of it. We have
built them into some of our business plans
already. On the hand arm vibration side we're
just on the verge of launching a management
system for that, so as a follow on to that we
would obviously look at putting in some
performance levels there as well. The hygiene
lends itself to developing these key
performance indicators and we have got a
number of them spread through our business
plans.
About workforce involvement in it. Sticking
with the occupational health side because that's
what we're debating today, there is definitely a
need to get workforce involvement in agreeing
the targets that we should be setting. The way
that we're proposing to do this is through three
work groups that are being established. There
is one for each of the three major target areas
for the industry; one being occupational health,
another occupational safety and the third the
major hazards.
Those work groups will
involve a broad spread of stakeholders to put
together a proposal for both the indicators and
the targets. That will be consolidated into a
consultation document which will then be sent
out to trade associations, the various networks
and other stakeholders to get feedback. This
will allow consolidation into an overall
position which we hope will reflect all parts of
the industry and which can be taken to OIAC
in July.
Answer – Mr Stephen Williams, Step Change
Support Team
I can't really add to that in that the performance
standards will tend to be issues for individual
companies and, whereas within the networking
and the working together as an industry we're
sharing that information, ultimately the
decisions of what individual companies
implement will be a decision for those
companies.
Question - Kevin O'Donnell, Offshore Safety
Division HSE
A question possibly for Stephen but certainly
for Lindsay. There's obviously quite a lot of
detail behind the occupational health plan that
you explained, but is there anything in it that
might work towards performance standards?
Some things I've got in my mind are noise and
vibration. Noise - for example, the number of
people, or the decrease in exposure in people
offshore to first and second action levels or
specific noise levels. Or, for example, hand
Answer - Dr Jim Keech, BP, Chairman of
UKOOA HAC
As one of the architects I suppose of the idea
of a coherent cross industry database - as it was
myself that facilitated the workshop that
decided that that was a way forward - we are
very clear that, with a lack of baseline and a
lack of clear sharing of the data that is out
there already, it is very difficult to set realistic
targets. I think we were surprised at the way
65
material to their own benefit and
development of trust is absolutely essential.
that that particular working group at the
workshop on 11 January actually came
together.
Despite being from across the
industry and with many different stakeholder
groups represented, there was good agreement
as to what the way forward was.
a
Answer - Dr Jim Keech, BP, Chairman of
UKOOA HAC
Yes I'd like to respond on the confidentiality
issue. Although I appreciate the sentiment and
certainly it is the intent to use the database in a
proper and appropriate manner, it is a sensitive
issue. If we are to use that database in a way
that is going to allow us to track back - maybe
if in years to come we find that there was some
particular exposure, some particular event that
may not even come under the general hygienelike exposure classification - then we have got
to solve the problem around names, around
being able to link back. As a country we've got
some good stuff to go on. There are some
cross-industry databases already out there in
terms of reporting occupational disease.
Occupational physicians reporting activity
(OPERA) has just produced a report that's been
published and there's some interesting stuff in
there. We hope, with the guidance of the very
people that have produced those databases, to
try and do something equivalent for the
offshore industry.
The specifics of the performance indicators
will have to wait until we have actually got
some baseline data to work with. Meanwhile,
certainly individual companies I know are
already working these issues. If I take our own
example we have focused, for instance on
dealing with a particular problem - low back
pain. By having a classification system in
place, we were able to see what our low back
pain figures actually were. In that performance
contract I mentioned, we looked to how could
we contribute, what could we do, and the target
we set was to reduce the severity index, to
reduce the days lost per case of low back pain.
Last year we paid out on the gain share on the
basis that we had managed our stretch target of
reducing that not just by the 25% that we set
out in the beginning of the year, but by 30%.
My team benefited around this time of the year
when our bonus gets paid. I'm sure mine is not
the only company that is able to set specific
targets and I think when we get the database
together, then we as an industry can start to
look at what those targets might be.
To take the point about contractors, I would
hope - well I can hand on heart say as far as
BP’s concerned - you don't sit for 12 months
without any contact. However, I appreciate
that for many of the contractor organisations
they frankly don't have that level of follow-up.
I think as we move together and as we share
with our contractor colleagues then standards,
new standards in case management, are being
introduced into many of the contractor
organisations.
It's not going to happen
overnight and I'm sure you can give me
evidence and examples of horror stories. But I
think it is moving and there is a great deal
more social justice being introduced into the
industry than clearly ever was before.
Comment - Jake Molloy - OILC Offshore
Union
Firstly I'd just like to say I support everything
that you're saying here today - commendable,
very laudable sentiments. However I think you
will continue to struggle significantly in certain
areas, unless something tangible, demonstrable
is done for the offshore workforce as a whole.
You talked about under reporting. I have
absolutely no doubt in my own mind that there
is significant under reporting, wholly and
simply because of the financial penalties which
individuals incur simply by going sick. They
will harbour and hide illnesses and conditions
in order to avoid loss of income. That's a
simple plain fact. Care is significantly lacking,
significantly lacking. People, members of this
organisation and others in this room, have been
sitting effectively disabled for year upon year
with no contact from their employers, no
support, no backup, no rehabilitation. That
brings me to my final point, Jim. If you want
evidence-based practice put my name on your
list. I will provide you with more evidence
than you could ever imagine because we don't
have a problem with confidentiality, simply
because the membership trust us to use that
Comment - Jake Molloy, OILC Offshore
Union
Could I just say one thing there. We are
moving in actual fact. Sick pay has gone up
from £50 to £60 per week, so thank you.
Comments – Dr Ron Gardner, HSE
Could I make a couple of comments there.
First of all, on confidentiality in this context.
The sort of database that's being developed.
Confidentiality is important to individual
companies, but what I would hope to see,
whether the data is confidential or not, is that
it’s accurate, that it's presented and that in
66
have any performance indicators in there and
yet some are very obvious. Have we actually
reduced exposure? Many companies have put
LEV in (Local Exhaust Ventilation) and yet
they didn't check how effective it was and that's
necessary under the regulations. Is it every 14
months? In fact they've not put any system in
place to do that, yet it was a very obvious
measure of performance. So perhaps I start
from a slightly lower baseline than you are
thinking of. Does that answer your question?
particular it gives trends once we get over
some period of time. It's not just for seeing
how well you do against your baseline but it
can give you early warning of problems that
may be developing. I think that's absolutely
key to that sort of database.
The other point is on the reporting or under
reporting. Jim and I had various discussions
about this. We have some disagreement about
this. In some areas I think there is under
reporting and I'm pretty certain RIDDOR is
under reported, but that's not just offshore but
onshore as well. There are all sorts of reasons
for that. In some cases it's misunderstanding,
in some cases it may be purposeful, I don't
know. In other cases it's the regulation itself,
it’s not particularly useful for the offshore
world.
I think that's something that as
regulators we need to look at and think about,
just whether RIDDOR is really fit for purpose.
I think that comes very squarely under the
Compliance programme of Securing Health
Together.
Question - Dr Ron Gardner, HSE
A question for Lindsay and Jim really.
When/how long's this programme been in
place? What I didn't pick up (maybe trying to
read at an angle doesn't help), is how do you
audit it? How do you check with the business
units how well they're doing or do they do that
themselves? Is there any central view of this?
Answer – Dr Jim Keech, BP, Chairman of
UKOOA HAC
The Health summary sheet went into all the
exploration business units globally, who were
required to submit a summary of their health
plan. We managed to get all the business units
in our area to submit. It was remarkable when
we examined the health risk matrices that were
behind those, how right across the globe we
had the same issues; psychological health,
stress, musculoskeletal injury and disease were
top right hand issues. That was common
whether it was Venezuela, Angola or Bruce,
Brae or Miller. It was that summary that was
in there. Different business units have chosen
different routes to get to the summary. We
have taken exception when we have found that
all they've got is a summary because frankly
that's not good enough.
Question – Mr Graham Cowling, Acoustic
Technology Ltd
A question for Dr. Gardner. Your presentation
indicated that if we're talking about a target,
that the real target actually is the condition of
ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable).
How does that sit with the fact that perhaps the
ALARP situation may mean that different
companies set different targets? How would
you resolve them having different targets?
Answer – Dr Ron Gardner, HSE
I have no great difficulty with different targets.
I'd be happy if there were the targets! I'm
starting from that sort of baseline. Gradually
over a period of time with sharing of practice,
with sharing of best practice, with sharing of
such targets, I think those targets would
equalise. It's getting those targets and the
indicators there in the first place and sharing
them. To be fair a lot of companies do have all
sorts of targets on health and some have
performance measures, but often they're not
shared and I think that's something that this
conference could be very useful for and
something certainly the Step Change initiative
would be very useful for.
Comment – Lindsay Ross, BP
We do actually internally audit as well. We
have an audit group within BP in HSE, getting
HSE right. The group go round and obviously
they look for the detail behind the summary
health plans, making sure that they're meeting
the company expectations.
Question – Dr Ron Gardner, HSE
Are lessons from those passed back generally
across the other units as well? Again coming
back to best practice.
People sometimes lack a bit of imagination I
think in setting targets or indeed performance
measures. I was very startled at a different
example to noise, but with COSHH. A large
number of companies have done some good
work since COSHH was applied. Very few
Answer – Lindsay Ross, BP
I think we'll be able to facilitate that much
better once we get it onto a shared electronic
basis. At the moment it's hard copy and each
keep their own systems so that limits the
67
works very well, we just take the one we have,
interface it with the one that the client has, and
let them both perhaps exhibit their best points
or work together effectively. So thank you for
answering the question.
amount of sharing that goes on. As an
Occupational Health team we can obviously
help facilitate that sharing as well. Where we
see a good performance measure somewhere
we can maybe suggest that to another business
unit that has similar risk scenarios, so there is a
degree of sharing that goes on.
Comment - Dr Ron Gardner, HSE
Dennis, it is interesting that you mentioned
interface documents. I had experience of
looking at safety management systems, when I
first joined OSD, before getting into the health
bit. It was very interesting that the health
topics were often the ones that didn't get
covered particularly well in the interface
document. If there is going to be a hole
anywhere it's often related to something to do
with health. The sort of message you're giving
me now is quite encouraging. If either side can
provide the management system to cover some
of these topics, that’s excellent. But it was an
area, certainly historically, where there was
often a hole in the interface.
Question - Dennis Krahn, International
Association of Drilling Contractors
A question for Jim Keech. I'm sorry I didn't
think of the question after Malcolm Brinded's
presentation, but it was during the coffee break
that I was having a discussion with some of my
members.
There was the implication in
Malcolm's presentation that their systems were
superior to those that hadn't heard the gospel
yet. So those that had installations that weren't
company installations were perhaps inferior,
implied maybe but you could draw that
conclusion. Now some of my members tell me
that they have very good systems and so my
question is this. Do you think that you are
concentrating on your own systems and may
not be able to recognise those of the
contractors who have very good systems? And
if they have very good systems, could you
leave them functioning like they are or maybe
even in an ideal world learn from them by
sharing best practice?
Comment – Mr Taf Powell, HSE
I've been away from Offshore Division for a
while. I came back last summer and have just
a couple of observations that I'll share with
you. First of all I've not seen Step Change. It
was invented, or discovered while I was away,
but it certainly has impressed me in a sense that
it has joined up a lot of people under a
common enterprise. It started with senior
leadership and that was very good. However,
one thing I thought about Step Change was that
perhaps some of the leading indicators tended
to be on a softer side, things that we were
doing well as a good leading indicator perhaps
rather than measuring some of the precursor
failures, where you get a lot of data about
trends and where that might be taking you. If
there was one extrapolation into the health area
where you need to develop leading indicators
clearly to make a difference in the future, is
that some of those leading indicators probably
do need to be the harder side, where things are
going wrong, of no consequence maybe, but
nevertheless not just where we're showing
signs of doing things well like training, worker
involvement and so on.
Answer - Dr Jim Keech, BP, Chairman of
UKOOA HAC
I assure you we do, and I would take the
example of the drilling contractor on the
Faeroes operation, who demonstrated an
excellent health surveillance scheme. This is a
great model and a model that certainly I will be
adopting in BP where it makes sense. I think it
has been alluded to already, the confusion that
there has been in an industry that has had a
fitness-to-work medical which has nothing to
do with health surveillance. What we saw with
that particular drilling contractor was an
excellent attempt at managing the whole issue
of health surveillance. I don't think that
necessarily we are superior because we've got
better resources, because we're big operators.
We're learning all the time and I'm sure
Malcolm was not suggesting that we have
nothing to learn from your members. That's
certainly not the case.
Comment – Mr Stephen Williams, Step
Change Support Team
Leading indicators are something which have
incredible power and benefit to help us move
forward, providing they're used correctly.
There are a lot of ways, a lot of pitfalls in their
use, one of which is measuring something
which we're already doing well in that the main
value for leading performance indicators to me
Comment - Dennis Krahn, International
Association of Drilling Contractors
Thank you for that. It just came to my mind
that for safety management systems we have an
interfacing document. That was what was at
the back of my mind. If we find something that
68
stinging papers to people who then don't
publish them so I'll have to take my
opportunity. First off yes, we are very good as
an industry at measuring what we didn't want
to have happened and this gives us a very
negative view of safety which is very often
unhelpful when it comes to improving
performance. The same can be said of health
as well.
is to actually drive the improvement process
and therefore they need to be measuring
something which you feel is relevant for
improving performance and something which
you could do better.
Additional guidance is being developed on
leading performance indicators, both for safety
and for health.
The draft consultation
document for that is being prepared at the
moment. If there are people who would like to
obtain copies of that, during April we're
basically trying to seek input on the guidance
we're giving for the more effective use of
Leading Performance Indicators, to try and
counter the shortcomings and potential pitfalls
and get more effective use. I think they are
potentially very powerful vehicles for both
engagement and workforce participation in
identifying what the important issues are and
then having identified them, are giving
recognition for where there is improvement in
performance on those.
Two things - one is that many of us, as health
professionals, safety professionals etc., seem to
have forgotten all that statistics and
epidemiology as too difficult. It was in a book
that we probably didn't read and how often do
we actually use the techniques of the analysis
of variance, of determining whether a
significant change has actually happened? It is
in all the scientific literature, it's there but do I
ever see it in health and safety data in the
industry? No, so a lot of the time we chase our
tails on things that have happened by chance.
We've ignored those techniques in our pursuit
of the Holy Grail. We could learn something
from the marketers. We could learn something
from the social scientists. We could learn from
those people that sell us things we never knew
we wanted by analysing their questionnaires in
a very clever way. I mean, I would love to
know how they keep selling new boxes of soap
powder with no real significant difference and
it still just cleans your kit, but they do. So why
can't we learn from those folks as to how to
produce leading indicators, how to interpret
data to make some meaningful change?
Comment - Dennis Krahn, International
Association of Drilling Contractors
IADC was pretty instrumental in leading
indicators. Charlie Mearns was the one that led
intellectually on that. The inspiration was that
in the beginning of a contract process we
would often be asked by the clients about our
lost time injury frequency and of course they
have a right to know that and you gather
statistics and do an excellent job. But it was
not what they were doing offshore with their
workforce to inspire better performance, so it
didn't feel right. It was backward looking and
measured failure etc so we wanted to get away
from that. Now you're quite right in that they
are imprecise and that they tend to measure
what you're already doing well. However, I
think Stephen is right in the inspirational bit
that they have for your company and for your
workforce - you know the positive feeling and
the desire to excel and perform well instead of
the kind of negative feeling that comes with
things that happen so that's how we use and
how we think of those.
Comment – Dr Kathryn Mearns, University of
Aberdeen
Can I say something as a social scientist who
has been working with the industry. We've just
completed a benchmarking study where we've
looked at a number of different leading
indicators and we've been using some of the
statistical techniques you've just mentioned in
terms of regressions and analysis of variance.
There is a lot of value in that, in understanding
actual relationships between variables and
what has the impact, which variables have an
impact on another. So I would very much
support your comments.
For lots of Leading Performance Indicators we
don’t have the right metrics yet. We know
what we want to talk about but we don’t yet
know how to measure progress quite so well.
Comment - Dennis Krahn, International
Association of Drilling Contractors
It's visible when I go round to my members'
offices. Now I see fruit out. It brightens up
the place and is an indication of healthy eating.
I see people having competitions at lunchtime,
riding stationary bicycles for charity. In terms
of leading indicators for health performance,
Comment – Dr Jim Keech, BP, Chairman of
UKOOA HAC
I would just like to share some thoughts on the
leading indicator argument because it's
something that I've been contributing some
69
statistical association on its own means
nothing, unless you've actually got some
mechanism that makes the association sensible.
But to be honest I see far too much scientific
work that doesn't have that. It just has the
statistics. This is just a health warning. If you
are going to use it, make sure you understand.
Have your hypothesis first and test it. Don't
come up with lots of associations. It just
confuses everybody.
hopefully that will feed into our ideas about
how to do what Jim said, market safety. Safety
for some people I've heard say, offshore at
least for the workers, it's kind of a burden now.
We need to take some of these ideas which
health seems to have and capture those for how
to make safety fun and interesting and get
people to contribute with the same kind of
enthusiasm.
Comment - Dr Ron Gardner, HSE
Can I slightly play devil's advocate with a word
of caution here. I agree with Jim in the sense
that you need a very scientific approach to this.
But I spent a fair part of my life using things
like regression, analysis of variance and I see a
lot of work now which worries me. There is
lots of data. The world is awash with data and
people mine that data rather unthinkingly and
they come up with associations like ‘the
analysis of variance supports an association
between X and Y’ and you look at it and you
think how on earth can they be associated? A
Comment – Dr Jim Keech, BP, Chairman of
UKOOA HAC
My appeal was not for associations necessarily,
but understanding the difference between
association, correlation and causation. As
some of my poor health and safety colleagues
know I am likely to send out, I think it’s the
Bradford Hill Postulates (I see Nerys nodding).
I send those around the globe every now and
again just to keep them on the right tracks.
70
DAY 2
MORNING SESSION
SESSION THEME – OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH IN THE OFFSHORE
DESIGN PROCESS
71
72
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH IN THE ENGINEERING PHASE OF
OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS – LEGISLATIVE BASIS
AND EXPERIENCE FROM PROJECT AUDITING IN NORWAY
Mr Sigvart Zachariassen, Mrs Anne Myhrvold, Norwegian
Petroleum Directorate, Stavanger, Norway
Why focusing the engineering
phase?
Abstract
Many employees on offshore oil and gas
installations have to rely on personal protective
equipment to avoid work related diseases. This
is not recognised as a proper prevention
strategy. High noise levels and bad ergonomic
solutions are often deeply grounded in the
design of the installation and type and
arrangement
of
machinery.
Technical
modifications in order to achieve significant
reduction of exposure and risk levels are
difficult to achieve and expensive to perform.
Occupational health achievements seem not to
fit well into traditional cost benefit based
decision-making.
Based on audits and follow up activity mainly
directed at occupational health conditions in
the operating phase of offshore installations
through the eighties and beginning of the
nineties, we realised several characteristics of
the existing occupational health conditions:
•
•
The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD)
has since 1995 enforced an occupational health
legislation that focus in particular on a
systematic approach to the design and
engineering phase in offshore development
projects. The NPD has followed most of the
recent offshore projects closely by audits and
verifications.
•
•
The industry has followed up the legislative
initiative by developing a specific standard for
how to deal with occupational health aspects in
the engineering phase.
Occupational overexposure and work
related illnesses/injuries due to poor
arrangements in areas and poor design of
machines and equipment
Occupational health requirements not
regarded
as
hardcore
technical
requirement and consequently not
identified and followed up through
formalised management systems
Modification work to rectify bad
occupational health conditions in the
operating phase is expensive and
troublesome
Weaknesses
are
copied
to
new
installations
These observations gradually led to a change in
focus from the operating phase to the
engineering phase. The last years the NPD
have closely followed most of the main
offshore development projects from an
occupational health point of view. Lack of
legislative framework and requirements was
one of the problems we faced in the first phase
of applying the new strategic approach.
Over the last few years there has been observed
substantial improvements of the engineering
practice. A common understanding and
structured co-operation between project
management, experienced workers, design
engineers and occupational health experts seem
to be important pre-requisites for success.
Legislative framework
Regulation relating to systematic follow-up of
the working environment in the petroleum
activity (SAM-regulation) was issued by the
NPD and entered into force August 1st 1995.
This paper will describe and discuss key
elements of the Norwegian legislative basis and
discuss the Norwegian approach for
implementation of occupational health
requirements in the planning phase of offshore
installations and modifications.
One important aspect of the regulation was to
apply the quality assurance and internal control
principles and terminology on the occupational
health area. Specifically the regulation
addresses requirements on occupational health
73
in connection with planning of
installations and main modifications:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
new
Systematically transfer of experience
Occupational
health
programme
describing
goals,
requirements,
responsibility and list of planned activities
Requirement
to
define
specific
requirements
Occupational health related analysis and
assessments applied as decision support
Active involvement of personnel with
operational experience and workers
representatives
Illumination
Indoor climate and outdoor operations
Radiation
The Norsok S-002 is the main design standard
with regard to occupational health, but there
are several other standards that give relevant
support:
•
•
•
The climate in the industry was at this point of
time positive; - several of the main oil
companies had competent and experienced
professionals with quite a good influence on
decision makers. They contributed very
actively to the implementation of the new
regulation, but the most important thing they
did was probably to develop occupational
health design standards and requirements.
Norsok S-005 Machinery – working
environment analyses and documentation
Norsok C-002 Architectural components
and equipment
Norsok C-001 Living quarters area
The Norsok standards are available in English
on http://www.nts.no/norsok
The NPD was involved in the development of
the standards and the SAM-regulation now
refers to the relevant Norsok standards as
recognised practise. This means that the
Norsok standards reflect the level of
occupational health conditions. If the level is
reached by other means, it is accepted, but
should be documented. On the other hand, if
the level is not achieved, the oil company has
to apply for deviation from the relevant section
in the regulation.
Standards – recognised practice
It is not possible to discuss design standards
without mentioning NORSOK – the parallel to
the UK Crane initiative. The NORSOK process
had several elements, some of them with a
contradictory relationship. One part of it was
the new cheaper/faster/simpler – philosophy
that indeed had implications for design; mostly negative. Another part was the
development of industry standards (NORSOKstandards), which in many cases resulted in
improvements. The Norsok Standard S-002 –
Working Environment was issued in 1996 and
represented a specification of the functional
requirements in the new regulation (above).
The standard is split into two parts:
Resources
One important criteria for success is a proper
combination of and co-operation between
different kinds of personnel that have
knowledge and common understanding of the
relevant legal and contractual requirements
• The discipline design engineers
• The
experienced
operator/workers
representative
• The safety/occupational health specialist
1) Requirements related to management of
occupational health in the engineering and
construction phase
• Procedures and work instructions for
studies and analyses including scope,
timing, resources etc.
• List of studies and analyses to be
performed
• Verification activities, design reviews etc.
• Working environment area charts for
documentation and follow up
Most commonly an HSE/occupational health
co-ordinator in the oil company and a similar
position with the main contractor organises the
different activities and order resources. One
challenge is to secure that operational staff are
available on short notice to take part in design
reviews etc far from where they normally work.
Availability of personnel at the right time is
critical for proper timing and quality of the
design input.
It is our experience that a clean-cut consultant
based approach is not the best way to achieve
good results. Consultants are often working
with a too long geographically and mental
distance to the project and are not in a position
2) Specific requirements on factor level
• Arrangement, layout, ergonomics
• Noise and vibration
• Chemical hazards
74
which allows him to follow up on a continual
basis and actively influence the decisions. Full
or part-wise integration of occupational health
specialists and operating personnel within the
project team is a key aspect, but it is
challenging and requires well defined rules for
co-operation.
•
•
•
Cultural differences between countries and
continents and between industry traditions
Different approaches and methodology
Lack of occupational health expertise
The NPD has experienced that contractors and
suppliers have been claimed for contractual
violations in a way that obviously is unfair. It
has been necessary to focus the role of the oil
company as facilitator in order to improve the
work processes and the purpose of the proactive approach necessary to achieve the best
occupational health solutions. The oil company
should together with the main contractor
communicate
the
requirements
and
expectations and give relevant and specific
advice to sub-contractors.
Management tools
Systematic follow up of observations and
recommendations from studies, analyses,
reviews etc are essential in order to prioritise,
decide and implement the best solutions. In
most project organisations there are established
computer based follow up systems that make it
simple to follow status, responsibility,
deadlines etc. If this system is actively used as
a management tool, it can be an effective
driving force for solving outstanding issues and
hit the imaginary point between too early and
too late.
Although significant improvements have been
achieved by implementing new regulations,
new standards and systematic methodology in
offshore development and modification
projects, this strategy is still challenged by a
narrow-minded cost-benefit attitude. It is
important to remind us on the probably best
arguments to resist the everlasting doubt
whether or not occupational health conditions
contribute to increased economical values:
It is a general experience that existing and
common project management systems should
be utilised for occupational health matters.
Specialised systems will very often lose
attention from the engineers and the line
management.
Contractual power and professional
deficiency?
•
The Norsok standards are laid down as
contractual requirements in most offshore
development and modification projects.
Depending on specific needs, the operator also
defines addendums to the Norsok standards. In
principle violations of the standard are treated
as violation on the contractual requirements.
This is a very strong enforcement tool, in some
cases we have experienced that it is misused.
•
Good occupational health conditions are a
pre-requisite for productivity and safe
operation
Due to best technical/economical practise
the proper way of achieving best solutions
is to implement sound requirements in the
design basis
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
Question – Dr Ron Gardner, HSE
That was a very interesting presentation. I
don’t want to pre-empt Kevin but you’ll find a
lot of parallels with our experience. I have a
question for you. Have you any thoughts on
how experience from one design situation can
be passed onto the next, because what we come
across is that teams come together, do a design
job then break up so there’s no memory of
what they did carried forward into other jobs.
So in effect you have to repeat the whole
process or they take things off the shelf.
In an offshore project the contractual structure
is very complex, normally with an EPCIcontract between the oil company and the main
contractor as the top level. The main contractor
places contracts with a lot of sub-contractors
and suppliers. The “back to back” contractual
principle is most often applied. This means that
every small sub-contractor and supplier has the
responsibility to fulfil the full scope of
requirements in the original contract.
Answer – Mr Sigvart Zachariassen, NPD
We experience that bad solution, transferred to
new projects over and over again. That’s why
we have focused in our regulations, and also
the Norsok standard has focused, on a
systematical experience transfer.
If the understanding of requirements is not the
same through the contractual hierarchy, the
results might well become insufficient. There
are several barriers for a mutual understanding
and implementation of requirements:
75
some formal analyses into the design basis. I
was wondering how much success you’ve seen
of that being adopted within the design
process?
Comment - Dr Ron Gardner, HSE
Could I just say, that transfers the standards
and knowledge. It doesn’t transfer experience.
Answer - Mr Sigvart Zachariassen, NPD
Well maybe I did not get your question right,
but from our point of view it is important to
collect experience data from a former project
actively and document it and take it on board
in new projects.
Answer – Mr Sigvart Zachariassen, NPD
I think it differs a lot. With regard to noise, we
have a very well established methodology for
estimating noise levels and also for estimating
noise dose, but with regard to other factors this
is not simple. We are not satisfied with the
situation for chemical exposure for instance.
We think that there are tools available for
modelling exposure that are not as fully
utilised.
Question – Mr Ed Terry, Sauf Consulting Ltd
You mentioned one phrase about many
occupational health issues weren’t recognised
as formal analyses. I think we’ve seen that
maybe the Norsok standard is trying to drive
76
SYSTEMATIC FOLLOW-UP OF WORKING ENVIRONMENT
ACTIVITIES DURING DESIGN OF OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS
Mrs Claudia C. González Hague and Wenche Solberg, Scandpower
AS, Norway
Introduction
specialist is integrated in the project team
during the entire project.
In Norway, working environment has had
special focus during design and construction of
offshore installations during the last five years.
Poor design solutions with respect to working
environment represents a risk for occupational
accidents and diseases. In the engineering
phase, decisions are made that affect the
occupational health standard on the
installation, both during operation and
construction.
Implementing
a
high
occupational health standard during the
engineering
phase
avoids
expensive
modifications in the operation phase and
reduces the risk for occupational accidents and
diseases, which are economically beneficial for
the operating company.
We have also experienced that it is good
practise for the occupational health specialist
to give training courses to the discipline
engineers in the beginning of the project to
make sure that all members of the project team
have necessary basic understanding of the
working environment requirements in the
project.
Roles and Responsibilities in the
Design Process
The Operator has the overall responsibility for
implementing authority requirements with
respect to occupational health. The Operator
specifies working environment requirements to
the new installation in the contract with the
contractor. During the engineering and
construction periods, inspections and audits are
performed to verify that requirements are
implemented in the design. The operator shall
also provide experience data from installations
in operation to the project.
Occupational Health Requirements
Authority regulations together with the Norsok
standard for working environment, S-002,
apply to design of new offshore installations
and modifications of existing installations. This
standard is referred to as recognised practise in
the NPD regulations.
The engineering company shall identify all
occupational health requirements to the
installation and perform the required activities
to make sure that the requirements are
implemented in the design. During the design
phase, the engineering company shall also
make sure that working environment
requirements are understood and implemented
by their vendors. The engineering company
shall also conduct audits and inspections in
their own organisation and towards their
vendors to verify the level of implementation
of working environment requirements.
The standard addresses design principles
related to occupational health and working
environment.
The standard also covers
requirements to the procedures for control and
verification of design in order to ensure that the
principles are implemented. The purpose of
the standard is to ensure the quality of the
working environment during the operational
phase and that this complies with the
applicable regulations.
Occupational Competence in the
Engineering Phases
Working Environment Activities
during the Engineering Phases
Working environment analyses in the
engineering phases may be performed by an
occupational health specialist as an integrated
part of the project organisation or performed
on consultancy basis.
When designing new offshore installations, a
series of analyses and studies are to be
performed and documented in order to control
and verify that the design principles are met.
Responsibility and schedule for analyses,
control and verification activities shall be
Our experience as consultants is that the best
result is achieved when the occupational health
77
defined
in
Programme.
a
Working
functions, needs of stairs and access
platforms, lifting and transportation aids.
Environment
Systematic
activities
within
working
environment to be performed include:
-
Human-machine interface analysis for
control rooms – to ensure that the working
environment in the control room(s) are in
accordance with requirements from the
authorities, and to evaluate the control
rooms’ ability to handle abnormal
situations.
-
Analysis
of
handling
hazardous
substances/chemicals – to ensure that the
risk of exposure from use, storage,
handling and disposal of chemicals and
other hazardous substances are eliminated
or reduced to a minimum.
-
Outdoor operations analysis – to evaluate
weather exposure at outdoor workplaces in
order to identify and remedy potential
problem areas related to wind chill and
hypothermia.
-
Noise and vibration control – to identify
potential sources of noise and vibration
and recommend remedial measures.
The work includes:
«
preparation
of
preliminary
predictions of personnel noise exposure;
«
specification of requirements to
sound insulation, sound absorption and
vibration isolation;
«
follow-up of procurement and
design of equipment packages to ensure
that noise and vibration limits are
adhered to as closely as possible by
suppliers;
«
using all available data, calculate
predicted area noise levels for all main
areas/rooms on the platform; advise the
project on noise and vibration control
related matters and
«
witnessing equipment noise tests as
part of the projects QS activities.
-
Material handling study - detailed
evaluation of transport routes, transport
methods
and
equipment
for
handling/transport of heavy items above
25 kg during operation and maintenance
work onboard the installation in order to
ensure safe and efficient operation as well
as obtaining an acceptable working
environment.
-
Updating of working environment area
limits with predicted values and results
from performed audits.
Concept Phase:
-
Concept working environment analysis –
to identify and evaluate potential problem
areas as input to concept selection and
verification of design. Main focus in this
phase should be: location of noisy
equipment, living quarter and Central
Control Room; distribution within LQ;
transport
and
transportation
ways;
permanent work places in respect to wind
and weather.
Basic Engineering Phase:
-
Specify working environment area limits –
to establish specific limits for working
environment factors such as illumination,
temperature, concentration of chemical
substances in the working atmosphere,
ventilation, noise and vibration for each
room/area on the installation as input to
engineering.
-
Noise and Vibration control – coarse noise
prediction including identify noise and
vibration sources and evaluate principal
acoustic, vibration and noise control
solutions; prepare specific package
requirements for noise emitting items for
inclusion in inquiry documentation (Noise
Data Sheet).
−
Coarse working environment evaluation –
systematic evaluation of the selected
concept design with respect to working
environment factors in order to identify
possible problem areas for further analyses
or report recommendations to the design.
Detailed Engineering Phase:
-
Detailed job safety analysis – systematic
analysis of selected areas or equipment
packages to ensure that risks for
occupational injuries are eliminated or
reduced to a minimum.
-
Ergonomic analysis – to identify potential
problem areas in design of workplaces
with respect to ergonomic factors,
including evaluation of layout, clearances
for performance of tasks, location of work
78
Scandpower has developed and documented
methods and guidance (internal) within
working environment activities in design. This
documentation includes: working environment
programs, checklists, specific working
environment requirements (for rooms/areas on
the installation(s)), working environment
analyses and evaluations, working environment
audits, working environment courses and
electronic follow-up systems. These methods
and guidance have been used in a series of
projects and have proved efficient.
Experience from previous projects
Experience from previous projects show:
-
Fewer changes needed to be made during
fabrication if follow up for access and
ergonomics is conducted during detail
engineering.
-
Experience and input from operators and
maintenance
personnel
during
the
engineering period is important.
-
Difficult to follow-up space requirements
of the single components/equipment
packages due to total space allowed by the
project.
-
Requirements to vendors should be
followed up closely even if the vendors
actually have the responsibility to comply
with the EU Safety of Machinery Directive.
-
Material handling and transportation of all
heavy equipment needs to be considered
throughout the engineering phases.
-
Competitive
requirements
between
technical requirements and working
environment requirements, e.g. location of
safety relief valves.
-
Useful to have an electronic follow-up
system for actions.
Performing Working Environment
Analyses
A high level of co-operation between persons
from different disciplines in the engineering
team,
operation
representatives
and
occupational health specialist is an important
criterion for success in performing working
environment evaluations.
Therefore most evaluations are conducted in
form of review meetings with participants from
the different disciplines in the project team and
from operations representatives. A working
environment specialist will plan, conduct and
report the meeting. HSE is a line responsibility
in projects so implementation of actions from
reviews is the responsibility of the engineering
disciplines.
Special checklists are prepared and used to be
able to carryout the evaluations in a systematic
way. In most projects, an electronic follow-up
system is required to have an overview the
status of implementation of the actions from
reviews.
Conclusion
Working environment analyses/evaluations aid
in improving working environment and help
improve the quality of design. By improving
working environment during the design phase,
occupational
health
problems
during
installation’s operation are prevented.
Follow-up activities
Working environment follow up activities:
-
Working environment status reporting, e.g.
on implementation of actions.
Inspections at the construction site(s) and
at vendors to ensure, that working
environment requirements are implemented
in design.
Working
also:
-
Verifications and audits towards the
engineering team and towards vendors
-
-
Design reviews, e.g. 3D-model reviews to
verify implementation of actions from
performed analyses and other working
environment requirements.
-
79
environment
analyses/evaluations
Allow experience transfer through:
«
participation from operation
«
survey (mapping) reports from
existing installations
«
HSE data from operations
Stimulates multi-discipline co-operation
with
occupational
health/working
environment in focus
-
Is a systematic approach to occupational
health in the design process
Answer - Mrs Claudia C. Gonzalez Hague,
Scandpower AS, Norway
Norsok came in in ‘96 and I think it’s taken a
period of time to ensure that you have the right
methodology, that you have the right
competence in the project. I think from
experience, the more active the different
disciplines are, the more education and training
they get in the early phase, the more effective
the design reviews can be.
From my
experience I think they’re quite effective but
you don’t get everything. There are always
issues that you need to follow up in the
fabrication phase and during the operational
phase.
Performing these working environment
analyses during engineering phases is cost
beneficial due to reduced need for changes
during fabrication, installation and operation.
It ensures improved compliance with
applicable standards and regulations and also
ensures that client’s requirements are also
included as part of design.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
Question - Dave Freeman, Norwich HSE
Can you comment on the Norwegian state on
the company losses for occupational health
figures? Do you get data banks of why you
have the different accidents? Can you say you
prioritise them? Then can you comment on the
project costs, the percentage that’s put forward
for occupational health compared to the rest of
the project costs please?
Also can you
comment finally on wind chill? Why is this so
critical in the Norwegian waters?
Question – Michelle Gibbs, University of
Surrey
In the design of an offshore installation, what
consideration is given to the illumination in
different areas – are the levels of lighting based
on research of appropriate light levels for
different work?
Answer - Mrs Claudia C. Gonzalez Hague,
Scandpower AS, Norway
Norsok has highlighted for the various rooms
and areas in the installation, there’s a different
requirement with respect to lux values. For
offices, let’s say, you have much higher
requirements in respect to illumination than
you have in access ways for example. But in
terms of how they’re based on scientific
research, I’m sure they’re based partly on
scientific research and on experience I would
assume.
Answer - Mr Sigvart Zachariassen, NPD
Well that was about the data collected from
occupational diseases and injuries. Did I get
you right? What is the basis? (Dave Freeman That’s correct). Well we have for many years
collected information about both occupational
diseases and injuries and we analysed the
results and in both the databases we find that
the design aspect is a main cause for a lot of
the injuries and diseases and that is our basis. I
don’t think that we have any specific figures
related to cost for those.
Question - Tony Garner, Conoco
Do you have any input into the psychosocial
well-being of the people before the engineering
standards are made, such as gymnasiums or
living quarters accommodation, space - bed
space, personal space. Does this matter to
you?
Question - David Freeman, HSE:
The fourth question was wind chill. Why is it
so critical on the Norwegian shelf?
Answer - Mrs Claudia C. Gonzalez Hague,
Scandpower AS, Norway
Well it’s very important because of the
temperature. We are located quite far north
and the wind is very strong. We have very
high levels of high velocity winds in the North
Sea. It is important to ensure that you protect
the workers when they are performing their
maintenance activities and their operations.
Answer - Mrs Claudia C. Gonzalez Hague,
Scandpower AS, Norway
There are requirements in the living quarter
Norsok standard. There are requirements
related to square metres per person and also
requirements for size of cabins. There’s
description of activity rooms, what kinds of
activity rooms are on the installations? With
respect also to psychosocial, the operating
company has responsibility for carrying out a
psychosocial evaluation to look at manning on
the installation and the type of work that they
carry out.
Question - Kevin O’Donnell, HSE
The systems you have described - could I ask
how long have they been in existence and what
is the general experience with running them so
far? Are they reasonably successful or is it too
early to tell?
80
report and go through the systems, the
methodology, the competence etc.
Comment -: Dr Eirik Bjerkeboek, NPD
Maybe I could comment on the psychosocial
aspect. The Norsok S002 standard requires as
Claudia mentioned that kind of analysis to be
carried out. This is of course referring to
several of the speakers yesterday. The focus
on mental health should have a large focus also
on the side effects. But it is extremely difficult
to forecast what kind of stress level or what
kind of health output you will have from the
psychosocial working environment. One of the
companies that has at least tried to develop a
methodology here is Norsk Hydro, where they
use a kind of comparing analysis with working
and psychosocial environment on existing
installations, and try to adapt stress levels and
work load levels there into the new design.
Answer - Mrs Claudia C. Gonzalez Hague,
Scandpower AS, Norway
I’d like to answer that. During the engineering
phase, for me sitting in the project, what is
required from the engineering company is to
submit non-conformance requests.
So
throughout the design the different disciplines,
when they cannot comply with the regulations,
they submit a non-conformance request to the
operating company for approval. It’s a system
that is going throughout the entire project
during the design and fabrication phase so
you’re always aware of where you are actually
not complying with the regulations.
Question – unknown speaker
Obviously the Norsok standard is in Norway.
There are also other standards around in the
North Sea. Can you tell us a little bit about
how your efforts are to harmonise all these
regulations instead of changing rules every
time you cross the border.
Question - Mr Curt Robinson, Acoustic
Technology Ltd
Does the NPD have any input during the
design stage, or is it similar to the HSE where I
guess the first time they get to see whether the
design’s been successful is when the platform
is first operating?
Answer - Mr Sigvart Zachariassen, NPD
I don’t think I’m the right person to explain
that, but that is a matter that is discussed
almost continuously and we are being told that
it’s very expensive to come from UK waters
into Norwegian waters. A study has been
performed, I think about one year ago and it
shows that the difference is not as big as it’s
claimed, so I don’t think it’s a very great
problem at all.
Answer - Mr Sigvart Zachariassen, NPD
Well it’s when the installation is operating that
it is finally possible to verify. However, in our
follow up activity we look very closely at how
the work is being performed and if there are set
requirements, for instance, for equipment
depending on the layout and several things. So
we pick up things in the engineering and
construction phase but at the end of the day it
is the level that is verified at the end when the
installation comes into operation that is final.
If there is some exceedance from the limit
values, the operator has to apply for nonconformance and normally we do not give that
in the case of a new installation.
Question – unknown speaker
But you have a lot of rules up in Norway with
Norsok but the results in health and safety are
not different. I mean the rules that you
implement are not proving that it makes better
health and safety.
Question - Mr Curt Robinson, Acoustic
Technology Ltd
That strikes me as almost too late, especially I
guess for some instances, mainly noise. It is
very difficult to then actually apply litigation
measures after the platform has been
commissioned. So the designers don’t have to
submit anything to you during the actual initial
design stage and say this is how we’d like to
set out our platform, so that they can perhaps
use the experience from the NPD?
Answer - Mr Sigvart Zachariassen, NPD
Well the Norsok standard which we have
talked about today is a design standard and it
doesn’t apply for existing mobile units for
instance so maybe that is sorting out some of
the problems.
The requirements in the
Norwegian regulations are not very much
stricter than the UK regulations but maybe
there’s a difference in the practice of the
regulations, the enforcement of the regulations.
Answer - Mr Sigvart Zachariassen, NPD
No they do not have to submit as a normal
routine. But when we have an audit at that
specific project, we normally ask for a noise
Comment - Kevin O’Donnell, HSE
I just want to make a comment in relation to
the point the gentleman has just raised. I don’t
want to pre-empt what I am going to say but
81
having heard the last two speakers, there’s a lot
of common elements in what they’ve said and
what we’re looking at. In seeking to follow
consistency we will look very closely at what
has been done in the Norwegian sector to see
where we can learn and what things we can do
in conjunction with the industry to try and
maximise the consistency between the regimes.
We’ll have to look at it very carefully.
Comment – unknown speaker
It’s a comment actually on the documentation
of the effect of the Norwegian regulations and
whether we have actually improved our health
outcome from these regulations. I think you’re
right in that this has not been documented on a
broad basis. However, we’ve had one study on
automatic pipe handling systems which
demonstrates very clearly that there has been a
reduced rate of injuries and accidents when this
type of equipment was introduced. The results
of this study are very well agreed upon by all
parties.
82
DESIGN OF OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS – DON’T FORGET
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Mr Kevin O’Donnell, OSD, HSE
Abstract
health risks during design. A number of
Occupational Health specialists, engineers and
project staff from offshore design contractors
and operators were interviewed and they
explained their experiences concerning
Occupational Health requirements and the
offshore design process.
This paper outlines the background to the
consideration of Occupational Health issues in
the design of Offshore Installations, and raises
some of the problems and difficulties with this
process. The provision of Occupational Health
design guidance for Offshore Installations is
outlined. HSE’s Offshore Safety Division’s
Key Programme of work includes this
objective and offshore design safety cases will
be reviewed using these guidelines.
Occupational Health risks associated with, for
example, noise, manual handling, hazardous
substances, food contamination, radiation,
general welfare should all be addressed during
the design stage, well before any metal cutting
begins. Basic guidance on some Occupational
Health issues is provided in the 4th Edition
Guidance on design, construction and
certification (HMSO, 1990) but the design
guidance given for Occupational Health issues
is not comprehensive, and in some cases is
outdated. In some areas it has been superseded
by Regulatory changes or more modern ways
of thinking. The application of the Design and
Construction Regulations (1996) offshore
offered a new opportunity to raise
Occupational Health on the agenda, but the
Regulations and Guidance only address some
of these issues in limited detail.
Introduction
Since the review of the safety regime of the UK
offshore industry about ten years ago, a
tremendous amount of work has been done to
address the numerous hazards to safety that
exist. Most safety hazards are well recognised
and the industry has done a great deal in recent
years to reduce the risks from these hazards.
During this time Occupational Health has
tended to be overlooked, particularly in the
early 1990’s, largely because of the drive to
address safety issues. Within Offshore Safety
Division a small team has worked to raise the
profile of offshore Occupational Health issues,
so that they receive proper consideration both
as part of routine operational work, and during
the offshore installation design process. We
have initiated a project to bring together good
design
procedures
and
practice
for
Occupational Health issues as well as
addressing regulatory requirements.
This
paper describes the reasons for this work and
introduces the next stage, the production of
Occupational Health guidelines for offshore
installation designers.
The review concludes that the biggest single
factor influencing the overall risk of
occupational illness is the original design of an
installation, rather than the procedures and
health management systems implemented
during its life. Assessment, removal and
control of Occupational Health risks on the job
are important, but by then installation
operational staff are usually presented with a
‘fait accompli’ and must make the best they
can out of the situation they face. Fundamental
changes to a task may not be feasible or
reasonably practicable at this stage of the
operational phase.
Review of Oil Industry Guidance and
Approach to OH and Design
Factors affecting occupational health
considerations in design:
There are a number of factors that can affect
how well Occupational Health is considered in
the design of offshore installations. These
include:
Recently OSD conducted a detailed review
(HMSO, 1998) of how Occupational Health is
considered during the design of offshore
installations. The aim of the review was to
identify opportunities and problems with
current design methods and to recommend
ways to improve consideration of occupational
83
•
Occupational Health is not seen as a core
design topic and there is a general lack of
awareness of a problem by designers;
Occupational Health requirements can be
poorly specified by the operator;
There can be insufficient feedback from
previous
installations
regarding
occupational health problems and their
causes on existing installations;
Communication and co-operation within
operating companies can be poor,
contributing to lack of feedback;
Budgetary constraints and conflicts (eg
CAPEX vs OPEX conflicts) may
compromise
Occupational
Health
consideration during design;
Poor communication between the operator,
design contractor and other parties
involved in the design;
Design reviews may not be conducted in a
way which focuses on Occupational
Health risks;
Delaying action on Occupational Health
design problems can leave them
unresolved until too late in the design
process;
Conflict between design requirements can
compromise consideration of Occupational
Health;
Contractors, subcontractors and suppliers
may not provide adequate Occupational
Health consideration;
Design
conservatism
may
hinder
development of innovative solutions;
Occupational Health specialists may not
be consulted, or not consulted early
enough in the design process;
Occupational Health controls may not be
installed correctly during the fabrication
and construction stage.
This has been illustrated by cases where
Occupational Health provisions, particularly in
accommodation areas, do not seem to have
progressed much in some cases since early
designs.
One recent example of an
accommodation re-design was almost a perfect
carbon copy of earlier sister installations. This
can lead to mistakes being repeated, and takes
little or no account of previous problems and
experience.
There are other issues that will influence these
points, one of the most important being the
contractual agreement between the operator
and design contractor, and the working
relationship that develops during the contract.
These issues are directly dependent on the
financial and resource constraints imposed by
the contract and project.
Exploration and development offshore is
hugely expensive. The costs involved in
exploration, production development and
associated infrastructure can be enormous. But
the potential rewards are enormous and returns
can be expected for a considerable period from
most developments. Initial financial capital
required for a development is often huge, and
all attempts are usually made to minimise this.
When production is underway money may be
available to spend to address issues that were
not properly considered at the design stage.
This background encourages the tendency to
delay the consideration of perceived nonessential items during initial planning and
design until production has started and there
may be more time and money available to
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Many equipment suppliers have ‘off the shelf’
design of equipment such as valves, pumps and
compressors and these may cost considerably
less than, for example, a ‘noise reduced’
bespoke version, and have a much quicker
availability. The review indicated that this
would more often be the automatic way ahead,
rather than considering an alternative that
might cost more in the short term, and initially
take longer and more effort to procure, but
would be likely to bring long term benefits in
terms of reduced health risks.
Fast-tracking and CRINE
These concepts for projects have among their
objectives those of achieving fixed, often tight
timescales, and of removing any unnecessary
expenditure. This may mean that tasks of
perceived lesser importance may be put back,
or worst still, left to look after themselves, and
will tend to drive designers in the ‘off-theshelf’ direction. This can easily result in
Occupational Health topics getting pushed to
the back of the queue. Design contractors will
be constrained by what is in their contract, and
they will not get paid for what isn’t included.
The financing of development
projects
‘Off the shelf’ solutions
When new projects or redevelopment work are
being considered in some situations there is
understandably is a tendency to go for ‘off the
shelf’ solutions whether for complete
installations (drilling rigs) or for specific
equipment such as pumps or compressors.
84
through collaboration, partnerships and
innovation. Promoting good physical and
mental health at work is central to this
programme. There is a lot being done in the
industry
through
collaboration
and
partnerships, not necessarily on Occupational
Health though, but the basis is there to work
on.
address them. Occupational Health issues
often fall into this cul-de-sac, in that they are
parked until it is more convenient to deal with
them. This can be false economy because
subsequently much time and effort can be
consumed dealing retrospectively with
problems at the operational stage that have not
been properly addressed at the design stage. A
lot of these issues clearly fall into the
Regulatory framework and enforcement action
by HSE inspectors can occur.
Programme 3 of SHT aims to increase
knowledge of Occupational Health by
improving data processing methods, but this
assumes the data is there in the first place.
This is an area we have been working on in
OSD.
Another relevant factor is the way the industry
has been influenced by dramatic fluctuations in
the oil price, and has had to address ways of
working to ensure that oil and gas can continue
to be delivered to markets from marginal
fields. This has not surprisingly led to cost
controls and manning reductions, which must
be acknowledged. But the old proverb ‘a stitch
in time saves nine’ is relevant here, and
spending time and effort at the design stage
will pay dividends in the long term. So it
should be recognised that making economies in
the design phase will create problems in the
future, and time and effort spent at the design
stage will produce benefits in the longer term.
Short term views over a 3-4 year period, reflect
short-term economics and will often lead to
greater costs in the long term.
Purchase and supply of equipment that is
potentially harmful to health is controlled by
the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations
1992. These Regulations require that relevant
machinery meets essential health and safety
requirements. For example the supplier of
noisy machinery must be able to show that it is
designed and constructed so that risks from
noise are reduced to the lowest level taking
account of technical progress and the available
means of reducing noise.
Health related civil compensation claims for
Occupational Health issues such as Noise,
HAVs, back injuries and stress are rising all
the time. All of these are real issues and their
causes can be found on most offshore
installations.
Why bother about Occupational
Health at the design stage?
Legal requirements
In the UK there is a legal framework that
requires the risks to workers’ health and safety
to be reduced to as low as reasonably
practicable. A company must have a written
Health and Safety Policy outlining the
company aims and objectives with respect to
the health and safety at work of employees and
the organisation and arrangements in place for
implementing that policy. It is essential that
Health and Safety issues be addressed at the
design stage of a project if they are to be
properly controlled during the life of the
installation, and it is important to look at the
Health and Safety Policy to see how it
addresses design activities.
Taking proper account of Occupational Health
issues at the design stage is the most effective
way of dealing with them. The problem is that
time and resources are often limited. But it is
much more cost effective to plan and integrate
measures at this stage than later in the life of an
installation.
But perhaps the most important reason for
properly addressing Occupational Health issues
is the well being of the workforce. Who are
the key people that any organisation depends
on to get things done, keep production going,
to deliver the goods? Investment in them,
keeping them healthy (and happy) and in place,
doing their job has got to be worth a lot to any
company. In the short-term corner cutting may
apparently pay, but in the long term it is a false
economy. By reducing exposure to health
risks, wear and tear on workers is reduced,
their well-being is raised, and the likelihood of
an employee feeling valued will rise.
The Securing Health Together (SHT) initiative
is very important here. The Compliance
Programme (number 1) is important but in the
context of issues we are discussing here the
other Programmes are more directly relevant.
Programme 2 of SHT aims to promote a
culture of continuous improvement achieved
85
•
It may be a cliché to state that the workforce is
the most important asset of any company.
However, an office or item of equipment can
be replaced relatively quickly, but if an
employee is lost either due to ill-health effects,
or due to a move (particularly to a competitor),
then finding a replacement and then bringing
them up to speed in the job is an expensive and
time consuming process. Investment in human
resources will bring benefits in these areas.
To address these recommendations HSE have
commissioned production of design guidance
for Occupational Health issues and the first
stage of this work has produced guidance for
noise, manual handling, and hazardous
materials. This guidance will be tested on at
least one development in the UK sector of the
North Sea, and will be reviewed using the
feedback. Next other Occupational Health
issues will be dealt with, and the guidelines
will then be published.
Recommendations to improve
Occupational Health control during
design
The Occupational Health design review made a
series of recommendations to improve the
consideration of Occupational Health during
offshore installation design, and if these are put
into practice they will help to address the main
problem areas that have been identified, which
are:
•
•
•
•
SUMMARY
This paper outlines the background to the
consideration of Occupational Health issues in
the design of Offshore Installations, and raises
some of the problems and difficulties with this
process. The methodology being used by
Offshore Safety Division to approach these
issues is outlined. The detail will be given in
the following presentation.
Lack of awareness by designers and
project managers of Occupational Health
issues and lack of effective control
systems;
Addressing Occupational Health too late
in the design process;
Lack of feedback on Occupational Health
aspects of previous installations;
Poor communication between operational
and project teams.
On a wider front HSE and HSC are leading the
Securing Health Together initiatives and in
Scotland this is being jointly promoted with the
Scottish Executive. This is a government
initiative to reduce costs to the nation of people
having time off work, or being unable to work
due to health problems.
To ensure adequate attention to Occupational
Health an offshore installation design
programme should include the following key
features:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Active efforts to gather feedback from
previous and similar installation design
projects.
Programme 1 of Securing Health Together
aims to improve laws concerning occupational
health compliance, including developing best
practice, legislation support and law
enforcement.
Priorities include revising
existing or introducing new health related
legislation or guidance.
Commitment of design contractor and
operator senior management to improved
Occupational Health;
Awareness of Occupational Health issues
within the design team, and education of
engineers at the start of the project;
Easy
access
to
information
on
Occupational Health specifications, design
guidelines and examples of successful
application;
Use of structured design review
procedures and tools to capture potential
Occupational Health related design
defects;
Early and active involvement of
operational personnel in the design
process;
An expert in Occupational Health as a core
member of the design team;
Offshore Safety Divisions intervention strategy
for the next three years includes activities to
support these aims.
References
HMSO
1998
“Occupational
Health
considerations in the design and construction
of
Offshore
Installations”,
Offshore
Technology Report – OTO 98 157,.
HMSO 1990 Offshore installations: Guidance
on Design, Construction and Certification. (4th
Edition Guidance.) Dept of Energy.
86
The offshore installations and Wells (Design
and Construction, etc) Regulations 1996. SI
913.
87
88
DESIGNED-IN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH RISK
MANAGEMENT
Geoff Simpson, Amey Vectra, Melanie Clark, Amey Vectra and Mr
Kevin O’Donnell, HSE
Introduction
OPEX. Relatively small sums spent during
design and build (for example a slightly higher
cost for lower noise plant) are known to
significantly reduce or even remove the longer
term
costs
arising
from
inadequate
occupational health risk management. However
the position often arises where there the
organisation liable to the long-term costs has
no link with the organisation benefiting from
the short-term savings or indeed may not even
be involved at the point where the decision is
made to go for short-term savings even though
they are likely to predispose long-term cost.
The process of design, build and operate for
offshore operations is extremely complex,
extremely costly (with considerable financial
penalties for failure to meet contractual
obligations) and involves a considerable timeframe.
In addition, given the enormous capital
investment required in what is always, to a
degree at least, a potentially risky exercise, it is
not surprising that major capital investment
and major builds are becoming more
commonly based on consortia than individual
companies acting within their own resource.
Introducing a systematic structured and rational
approach to improving occupational health risk
management in this context is, therefore, not
merely about the provision of information but
also about the inclusion of the consideration of
occupational health risk management as an
integral part of the design to operate life cycle.
The
extremely
complex
engineering
considerations involved have also created a
situation where much of the design and build
operations are contracted out to specialist
organisations. Moreover it is not uncommon
for the operation to be manned (wholly, or in
part) by contract staff.
Unless this is achieved, the risk remains that
even ideal guidance incorporated at one point
will be “lost” in the transition from phase to
phase or will be “sacrificed” for (apparently
legitimate) budgetary reasons at one phase
without due consideration of the longer-term
cost.
The net result is an extremely complex project
management operation involving numerous
organisations many of which are involved for
only a limited period and, often, only within a
single phase of the Concept Design – FEED –
Fabrication – Commissioning – Operation life
cycle.
It is essential therefore that any occupational
health risk management guidance provided
must come “ready packed” in a process which
will allow/encourage its incorporation within
the overall project management process to
ensure that the provision made at one stage will
be carried through to implementation at the
next.
Keeping track of the engineering and the cost
is, in itself a major task and it is hardly
surprising if “peripheral” issues such as
occupational health risk management are
“sidelined” either within the whole process or
at one or other of the various interfaces
between the stages.
Even if such a process/procedure is provided,
improvements in occupational health provision
cannot be guaranteed unless the contract brief
for each stage specifically includes the need to
deliver best practice standards in occupational
health.
Although there can be considerable cost
implications (arising from lost time,
compensation
etc.)
from
inadequate
consideration of occupational health risk
management even these, hard, business
considerations can become “lost” in the clear
demarcation maintained between CAPEX and
No matter how good the information, how
useful and practical the process, there is a need
89
•
for overt corporate commitment to improved
occupational health. An acceptance and shared
ownership of the fact that detailed
consideration of and expenditure on
occupational health assurance in the early,
design stages, is essential to deliver not only a
healthy workforce but also the significant
operating cost reductions that arise therefrom.
•
The problems in providing occupational health
assurance
•
•
This project was developed to provide both
guidance on three occupational health issues
(i.e. manual handling, noise and COSHH) and
a framework by which the guidance could be
systematically considered as an integral part of
the overall project management process.
•
•
•
•
•
The brief given was to develop a new approach
to the provision of occupational health
guidance to the off-shore oil and gas industry
which would take cognisance of the differing
needs at the various stages in the life-cycle
from Concept Design to Operation.
•
Manual handling
Noise
COSHH
•
The study consisted of a series of discussions
with representatives of major oil and gas
companies, the Regulators and a number of oil
and gas industry support companies to identify:
•
•
•
•
Current
practice
in
integrating
occupational health risk management into
the Design-Operate life-cycle
Perceived limitations on the introduction
of improved occupational health risk
management
Perceived motivators for the improvement
of occupational health provision
Examples of successful risk control
measures and procedures in relation to the
three case-study topics
•
•
•
The results of the discussions can be
summarized under three headings as follows:
•
The cost of inadequate occupational health
assurance
•
•
generic action-based approach
based on existing good practice
compatible with familiar processes and
procedures
capable of integrating into standard
project management techniques
This information was collated and used to
develop a Framework for the incorporation of
occupational health risk management into the
design-operation life cycle. A number of
conditions were established for the Framework
as follows:
Three topics were to act as case studies for the
development of the approach:
•
latency period for occupational ill-health
increasing frequency of consortia based
projects / contracting out
sidelining of occupational health
clear demarcation between CAPEX and
OPEX
Needs in moving toward a solution
Project Approach
•
•
•
increasing
frequency
of
ill-health
retirement
extended periods of sickness absence
It must be a process rather than a
procedure. It must be a generic approach
which can be tailored to any design
programme (e.g. platform, rig, FPSU etc.)
and any occupational health issue.
It must be sufficiently structured to allow
specific
activities
and
specific
decisions/actions at each of the stages in
the life cycle (e.g. Concept Design –
FEED – Fabrication – Commissioning –
Operation).
It should be linked into an accepted model
of occupational health and safety
management (e.g. HS(G)65).
It should be built around standard health
and safety practice compliant with current
regulations
(e.g.
risk
assessment
techniques).
It should, ideally, not use processes and
procedures unfamiliar to the industry.
It should be compatible with standard
project management techniques.
An example of the generic framework (in its
noise application) is shown in Figure 1.
increasing willingness for civil litigation
increasing value of compensation claims
90
O u tput requirem e n t s f o r e a c h p a r t o f t h e D e s i g n t o O p e r a t i o n L ife-C y c le
Concept Design
FEED
Fabrication
C o m m issioning
Operation
Specify where equipment is to
be positioned on installation
Agreement of Noise Policy &
CAPEX / procurment
constraints
Conduct zone-based risk assessments noise mapping
Create noise zones /
maps
Specify zones at 1st and 2nd
action level
(dBA dependent on
Identify potential noise
source(s) & integrate past
experience
M o n itor
implementation of
Identify all
no
i snee s zo
m acr kl e a r l
y
Identify
training
needs d e sci g
on
urse
s
area)
Au
d it /
Identify
c oPr E
rect
P
a c ctoo r d i n g
zo
no
e s /u r
e
xp
e
Design / procure reduced
noise emission equipment
(remove / reduce)
Design/procure acoustic
screening, hoods,barriers,
PPE etc. (reduce/protect)
*
*
Noise Policy
- consider auditory / nonauditory effects of noise
- Regulatory
- allocation of responsibilities
Review inventory of
known/potential noise
sources
*
Specify all noise sources
> 1st Action Level
*
Optimise location to
m inim i s e e x p o s u r e o f
personnel
*
Develop noise zone maps
*
Assess practicality of
previously successful
control measures in
current context
*
CAPEX/procurement policy
*
Initiate the development of an
inventory of known/potential
noise sources
*
Inventory of previously
successful noise control
measures
*
*
Source information on noise
e m ission levels for identified
equipment from different
suppliers
Actions above to be formally
signed-off, documented as
transferred to FEED
*
Collate comprehensive
specification of noise
control measures
Actions above to be formally
signed-off, documented as
transferred to Fabrication
*
*
Monitor and review (using
R isk Action Checklist from
FEED output) purchase of
equipment against
specification on noise
levels etc.
Monitor and review (using
R isk Action Checklist from
FEED output) location of
noise sources re zone
mapping/emission paths
etc.
Monitor and review (using
R isk Action Checklist from
FEED output) all additional
noise control measures
Actions above to be formally
signed-off, documented as
transferred to Commissioning
*
*
Review Risk Action
Checklist
Complete all noise risk
assessments
*
Establish responsibilities
*
Im p lem e n t training
*
Issue PPE as required
* Confirm compliance with
Regulations
*
Review/Audit operational
effectiveness of controls
*
*
Establish and implement
Action Plan
Establish detailed Training
Needs Analysis
*
Select appropriate PPE
*
Ensure demarcation of
noise zones/hazard
warnings
Actions to be formally signed-off,
documented and transferred to
Operations
Figure 1: An example of the generic framework (in this case applied to Noise Risk Management)
91
defenders/inserts etc.) to protect against
potential hearing loss can exacerbate
communications difficulties.
The basic principles of risk management were
applied, i.e. remove, reduce, protect with the
assumption that the earlier in the DesignOperate life-cycle that risk management is
applied the more likely that opportunities to
remove or reduce risks will be viable. The
examples below indicate the type of question
asked in relation to remove, reduce, protect:
Remove
• Is the operation / process essential?
• Will other aspects of the process train, for
example, need to be adapted if selected
item is removed?
• Does the benefit of reduced exposure
merit the potential costs?
Reduce
•
•
Can the exposure level be reduced?
Are
identified
control
measures
appropriate / effective?
• Are there any risk management lessons
arising from past experience?
• Are there any costs implications?
Protect
•
Nuisance Noise – high noise levels
impinging
on,
for
example,
accommodation areas can interrupt sleep
patterns, disrupt leisure activities etc. and
thereby increase fatigue and stress. The
long-term implications of such problems
are known to include increased accident
potential and reduced general well being
(potentially increasing sickness absence).
•
Environmental
Noise
–
offshore
operations by their nature can be subject
to very high levels of wind noise which
will exacerbate each of the above,
although little can be done to remove such
problems they need consideration in
design, layout etc. to do whatever is
possible to reduce the effect.
This is followed by a section dealing with the
costs, the problem and the approach to
solution. This section is largely generic to all
three sets of guidelines as the problems and, in
deed, the solutions to occupational health
problems are, generally, common (almost)
regardless of the particular hazard.
PPE, for example, should only be
considered after all other alternatives have
been exhausted and higher level protection
is in place
Following these orientation sections, the actual
guidelines begin with the emphasis placed on
the description of a design based risk
management process which can be tailored to
any particular facility.
The Guidelines
Each of the three sets of model guidelines
produced (noise, manual handling and
COSHH) begins with a listing of the relevant
Regulations and an outline of the general steps
necessary to achieve compliance with the
Regulations. This is then followed by a section
covering the general issues to be considered.
For example, in relation to noise there are more
considerations than the potential for hearing
loss and, ideally, the influence of high noise
level on communications, nuisance noise and
environmental noise, should also be
considered. Each of these is dealt with briefly,
at a level which, hopefully, will ensure that
they are considered, as shown below:
•
•
The Guidance begins with a diagram which
summaries the process as a whole. An example
of this diagram, taken from the Manual
Handling Guidelines is shown in Figure 2.
Each major element in the design-to-operate
life cycle is then presented as individual
sections covering:
Concept Design
FEED
Fabrication
Commissioning
Operation
Communications – high noise levels can
detrimentally affect both verbal and nonverbal
(e.g.
warning
signals)
communication. Such disruption can have
safety implications or, potentially, increase
stress levels through frustration and
increased error probability. Allowance
should also be made for the fact that the
use of personal protection (e.g. hearing
Each section is divided into three sub-sections.
The first deals with the Risk Management
Objectives for that stage in the design-tooperate life cycle.
92
The second deals with the Risk Management
Process (the issues to be addressed to meet the
above objectives) for that stage in the designto-operate life cycle.
The outcomes from each stage become the
inputs to the next. In this way it is possible to
incorporate the noise risk management into
standard project management techniques.
The third deals with the required Risk
Management Outcomes for that stage in the
design-to-operate life cycle.
93
Concept Design
Agreement of Manual Handling
Policy & CAPEX / procurment
constraints
Examine total supplies &
equipment movement requirements
- create inventory
Specify those items which on first
principles (e.g. size, shape, weight)
need mechanical handling
FEED
Specify non-mechanical
handling operations
Specify mechanical handling needs
Design / procure mechanical handling
and/or transport equipment / systems
Monitor implementation of action from
ouptut of FEED
Fabrication
Conduct task based risk assessments
Commissioning
Identify retrofit
improvements to design,
workplace or
environment
Operation
Idenitfy
mechanical
handling
Identify training
needs - design
courses
Audit / Review
Figure 2. Example of the Risk Management Process (in this case, Manual Handling)
94
The guidelines are deliberately designed to be
concise, providing a top-level route map which
can be used to check-off what needs to be done
when, and to confirm completion. Clearly, on
some designs, the work required at any one
stage may be considerably greater than on
other configurations however if each of the
issues raised in the process is completed, and
followed throughout the design process then it
is likely that all the necessary steps to minimise
noise risk will have been accommodated within
a few weeks of the start of operations thus
ensuring a high level of compliance.
The main questions that should be addressed at
this stage are:
Additional information to expand on the points
provided in the guidance and some examples of
successful noise risk management control
initiatives are provided in the Appendices to
the Guidance.
The COSHH guidelines have been used below
to provide an example of an Objectives section.
The COSHH objectives at Concept Design are
divided into two steps:
COSHH Objectives (Concept Design) STEP 1:
The four primary considerations for STEP 1
are shown in the box below:
•
Agreement on initial COSHH policy
•
Creation of an initial inventory of
hazardous substances across all aspects of
work on the facility covering operation,
maintenance and services
•
Collation of existing and potentially
relevant COSHH assessments from all
participating organisations
•
Agreement on purchasing policy (e.g.
agreement not to enter any supply
contracts without receipt of relevant
Hazard or COSHH data sheets)
•
Is the proposed installation likely to
present any potential risk to health from
the use / storage / transportation and/or
disposal of controlled substances?
•
Is any health problem in the industry
traceable to the use / storage /
transportation
and/or
disposal
of
controlled substances likely to be used?
•
Can past experiences from participating
companies / organisations / industry be
utilised to eliminate / substitute or control
the identified risk?
•
Does the proposed installation present any
new
risks
arising
from
the
use / storage / transportation and/or
disposal of controlled substances?
•
How can the workforce be ‘best
protected’ from potential exposure
(eliminate / substitute/control)?
An example of the Process description, in the
form of a flowchart, which links in with Step 2
above (from the COSHH guidelines dealing
with Concept Design), is shown in Figure 3.
The final section within each of the DesignOperate phases is that detailing the expected
outcomes from that phase. It is important to
note that, although presented in a general form,
these outcomes are crucial in that they provide
the input to the next phase. As such they
become the critical information in the transition
from design phase to design phase, which is, as
described in the Introduction, the most likely
failure point in developing a seamless
programme of effective occupational health
assurance which capitalises on all the
opportunities available.
COSHH Objectives (Concept Design) STEP 2:
On this basis the importance of building the
occupational
health
risk
assessment/management assurance into the
project design process becomes critical,
without such inclusion (and the associated
discipline of signing-off and transferring-on),
the probability of control action failing to find
its way through into operation increases
considerably.
The principle aim of STEP 2 is to start the
process of converting the initial policy into
practice and aims to address the question of
whether to:
• Eliminate
•
Substitute
•
Engineering Control
95
Outcome from STEP
1
Yes
Can
task / operation
be eliminated?
No
Yes
Can
task / operation be
substituted by
lessless
Less
hazardous
substance?
No
Yes
If TLV's*
available is likely exposure
acceptable?
Can
hazardous
be substance
substituted?
No
Are control
measures
required?
No
Yes
Source new
alternatives
Are
alternate
engineering controls
available?
No
No
Are
available engineering
controls adequate/
effective?
Yes
Yes
Monitoring / training
/ PPE essential
Outcome of STEP 2 - Action for
FEED
Figure 3: An example of a Process description
(taken from the Concept Design section of the COSHH guidelines)
An example of the expected outcomes from the
FEED section of the Manual Handling
guidelines is presented below.
practice but simply as an indication that, good
risk management action is feasible, phase by
phase, during the design process.
Having worked through Concept Design,
FEED, Fabrication, Commissioning and
Operation, detailing the Objectives, Process
and Outcomes of risk assessment/management
for the particular topic, the guidelines then
provide a series examples of how the process
could operate based on a series of
HAZOP/HAZID style exercises, again working
through each phase in the Design – Operate life
cycle. At the end of each of these sections a
series of examples, taken from the industry, of
good occupational health design practice are
provided, not as a definitive listing of good
An example of the material presented in the
approach to implementation section of the
Manual Handling guidelines, dealing with the
Concept Design phase is presented below.
HAZID 1
The first essential step is to establish links
within all collaborating parties in order to
freely share past experience on manual
handling hazards and risk control measures
used. It is also useful at this point to establish
similar links with both cross-industry bodies
96
reduce-control hierarchy of best practice in risk
management.
(such as the Step Change Programme) and the
Regulators to seek information on their
experience of best practice standards.
•
Assess practicality of selected mechanical
handling equipment in current context –
initiate further examination where
problems arise (where possible resolve
before completion of FEED or document
for future action)
•
Review all operations / tasks for which
manual handling is unavoidable with
regard to the possible provision of
mechanical handling aids
•
Specify and review risk control measures
•
Optimise internal layout of storage areas /
loading bays etc. to reduce manual
handling requirements and/or to minimise
restricted
movement
and
constrained/awkward postures
•
Specify operational and maintenance
activities
that
may
present
musculoskeletal risks beyond load
lifting/carriage
•
The Policy should include, as well as standard
requirements such as high level corporate
commitment to reducing manual handling
injury etc., the establishment of a Manual
Handling
process/programme
and
the
mechanisms for signing-off actions and
transferring actions from one stage to the next.
This is essential to ensure that the development
of a comprehensive risk management
programme is maintained regardless of the
principals involved at each stage.
Identification of Potentially at-risk
operations/tasks
The past experience of collaborating parties in
terms of previous manual handling risks on
similar operations should be collated as a start
point to identify an initial suite of potential risk
management requirements. For example,
information can be obtained from:
•
•
•
Actions above to be formally signed-off,
documented
and
transferred
to
Fabrication
Where possible similar information should be
sought from cross-industry bodies and from
HSE. The latter should not only include crossindustry accident data but also information
from specific projects commissioned by them
(for example HSE research project:
‘Ergonomic Issues in the Design and
Operation of FPSOs’ includes consideration of
potential manual handling problems on
FPSOs).
Below are the four principal issues to be
addressed in HAZID 1:
•
•
•
•
Previous risk assessments conducted for
similar operations/tasks
Past sickness absence information relating
to musculoskeletal problems
Past injury/accident data involving manual
handling activities
Agreement on manual handling policy to
be used across the project up to and
including operation
Identification of potential manual handling
at-risk tasks/operations based on previous
experience
Creation of an inventory of potential risk
items to be moved (supplies, replacement
parts heavy/awkward manual operations
etc.)
Agreement on the extent to which
purchasing policy can be used to
remove/reduce manual handling risk and
top-level specification of such policies.
Creation of an inventory of
potentially risky items to be moved
HAZID 1 should initiate the process of creating
a complete schedule of items of equipment,
supplies etc. (for both operational and
maintenance requirements) which will need to
be moved on the facility.
Each of these issues is expanded briefly below:
The list should, initially, make no distinction
between items which could be moved manually
(if necessary) and those which will clearly
require mechanical handling (e.g. major items
of replacement plant). The reason that all
should be included at this stage is to ensure that
Establishing Project Policy
It is essential that a Manual Handling Risk
Management Policy is established at the onset
of the project to fully capitalise on the remove-
97
mechanical handling requirements are also
considered systematically through the process.
It is not uncommon for oversights to lead to the
use of sub-optimal mechanical handling aids
which can often introduce additional,
unforeseen, manual handling risks.
These outputs from HAZID 1 become the
inputs to HAZID 2.
HAZID 2
The purpose of HAZID 2 is to start
establishing the detailed suite of issues to be
examined fully during the remaining stages.
The output from HAZID 1 should be used to
further examine the following primary issues:
It is highly unlikely that any list will be
complete at this stage, it will be refined as the
process develops, however it is essential to
start as early as possible so as many potential
problems can be considered during the design
process.
•
Purchasing Policy
The potential value of a purchasing policy
aimed at reducing the manual handling risk of
an operation is often under-estimated. A policy
which requires the supplier to conform (where
possible) to maximum packaged weights can
significantly reduce risk. Similar benefits can
be obtained from maximum packaged size and
the nature of the outer packaging (in terms of
allowing a good grip etc.).
•
•
•
Clearly there will be items (particularly
replacement plant) where little can be done to
reduce the size or weight etc. However even in
some of these apparently “impossible”
circumstances improvements can be made with
some imaginative forethought – for example
fitters occasionally need to partially strip
components to get them in situ. Therefore
there are potential operational benefits as well
as manual handling benefits to having them
delivered appropriately “semi-stripped”.
•
•
Each of the above are expanded below:
Detailed listing of potentially at-risk
loads/operations/tasks
Although it will not be possible to address such
specific issues at this stage the establishment of
a
purchasing
policy
(where
appropriate/feasible) will help to reduce the
manual handling risk.
HAZID 1 will have identified candidate
tasks/operations
from
accident/sickness
absence data, from previous risk assessments
etc. This base needs to be developed and put
into the new context. This should include the
specification of areas which will involve major
manual handling (including, for example,
loading/unloading areas on deck and helipad,
stores etc.) and the definition of start and end
points of major manual handling transhipment
routes. Early identification of both of these
issues will enable initial specifications to be
developed for use during FEED. For example:
The minimum output from HAZID 1 (once all
the actions have been signed-off) should be as
follows:
•
•
•
•
Collation of detailed listing of potentially
at-risk
loads/operations/tasks
–
identification of major manual handling
sites and major manual transhipment
routes.
Assessment of utility and practicality of
previously used control measures in the
new context.
Comparison of the above against Manual
Handling Regulatory requirements to
identify risk reduction priorities.
Detailed listing of equipment, plant,
supplies requiring mechanical handling
facilities for design specification and
purchase during FEED/Fabrication.
Identify requirements for additional risk
assessment in relation to “new” plant,
equipment, systems where there is no past
experience within participating companies.
Develop outline risk control specifications
for development during FEED.
A
draft
Manual
Handling
Risk
Management Policy for the Operation
(and, thereby, for the Project) agreed, as a
working draft, by all parties to the project.
An initial listing of potentially at-risk
operations/tasks (from past experience).
An initial listing of potentially risky items
to be moved.
A decision on the use of purchasing
policies as an aid to the removal or
reduction of risk.
•
•
98
consideration should be given to overall
storage requirements in relation to the
limits on the height of racking,
major manual handling routes may need
additional consideration in relation to
Identify risk reduction priorities
•
•
•
•
Clearly, given the nature of off-shore
operations involving everything from the
operation and maintenance of often heavy,
bulky and awkward equipment through to the
“everyday” chores of housing and feeding the
crew, a large number of potential manual
handling risks are likely to emerge. It may
make operational sense to prioritise risk
mitigation action to ensure that the initial focus
is on the higher risk areas and that potential
risks do not get overlooked during the
extremely complex process of moving through
the design to operation process.
floor surface, protection from the worst of
the external environment,
load/unload areas may need to include
space
for
turning
loads
and/or
consideration of the access to the route
from the loading area to point of
use/storage etc.,
consideration will also need to be given to
non-normal operations such as patient
evac and the need to manhandle a stretcher
from almost any point on the facility to the
helipad.
consideration will need to be given to
space
requirements
in
manual
transhipment areas where the size of the
load (in particular the length) may require
extra provision in relation to turning etc.
where possible consideration should be
given to the minimal use of stairs on major
manual handling transhipment routes
(negotiating stairs while carrying a load,
especially if exposed to the weather can
add a significant further risk) – although
avoiding stairs completely will be
impossible unless the issue is raised little
thought will be given to alternatives.
The secret in adopting a practical approach to
manual handling risk assessment/prioritisation
is to start with, as is emphasised in the
Regulations, a systems based approach. The
importance of this is that it ensures that the risk
factors are dealt with at an appropriate level.
For example, if it has not been possible at the
early stages to reduce the weight or size of the
material to be handled (e.g. by purchasing
policy or by agreement with suppliers on
packaged weight of material) then there is little
which can be done at the task level – such risk
factors may have to be taken as a given fact
and other aspects of the risk equation
addressed to find practical means of risk
mitigation. If nothing can be done about the
weight of the load early in the risk management
programme, it must be considered during task
based risk assessment. Some possibilities may
emerge – for example, in dealing with bulk
material only handling the amount that is
required for the job in hand. In other
circumstances there may be nothing that can be
done as will be likely in relation to component
weights during maintenance activities In this
case it is necessary to consider other aspects of
the task-load-environment-personal factors for
possible avenues for mitigation.
Utility and practicality of previously
used control measures
Previous operations will have used a wide
range of manual handling risk control
measures, some of which may be equally
applicable in the new context. Care should be
taken however to avoid the assumption that
they will be as effective without considering
their use in the new context.
Where previous control measures do appear
valid then there may be requirements which
need to be fed forward into the detailed design.
For example, stair climbing stack trolleys may
need more lateral space than is normally
allowed on walkways, stairs etc. They will
certainly need more turning space than would
be needed by an operator.
Manipulation at the task level should however
only be considered when all other avenues to
deal with the issue have been shown to be
impractical.
Other mechanical aids, e.g. a scissor lift used
for unloading from helicopters, may need
considerable for and aft space for positioning
etc. Other mechanical handling aids may
require minimal clearances or may need
temporary anchoring – all such considerations
are best dealt with during design rather than as
retrofits.
To establish an initial risk prioritisation it will
be necessary to undertake some early manual
handling risk assessments covering classic risk
assessment issues such as the risk factors, the
frequency of exposure and the potential
severity of injury. This may seem daunting at
such an early stage however simple but
effective approaches are possible.
An initial assessment need not cover all of the
task-load-environment-personal factors but
99
rather focus on a smaller suite of well
established influential factors judged against a
simple subjective scale as shown below:
1
low
Primary Risk Factors
2
3
4
5
high
Keeping the object close to the body
Bending
Twisting
Lifting above shoulders
Co-ordination
Environment
Carrying, moving
each (e.g. on a 1 – 6 scale) and then take the
product of the two. This is potentially
misleading, as the subjective numbers used to
describe the scale points have no mathematical
meaning. The result is that if 1 = low
likelihood/severity and 6 = high then 1 x 6
gives the same risk “score” as 6 x 1. On this
basis then a low likelihood of a major severity
has the same risk “value” as the high likelihood
of a minor severity.
One or more risk factors scoring 4 or 5 in the
above table will merit a detailed risk
assessment of that task. This will involve
estimation of the frequency of the operation
and the severity of the likely injuries. To
calculate where the priority focus should be, it
is necessary to consider both the severity of
risk severity (obtained, for example, from
accident/sickness absence data) and the likely
frequency of occurrence (using for example
with information obtained during HAZID 1).
There are a number of techniques for achieving
this, however when combining severity and
frequency (likelihood) into a subject risk
“score” many approaches assign a value to
One of the best ways to avoid this is to use a
matrix as shown below:
Likelihood
Severity
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
4
7
11
16
2
3
5
8
12
17
22
3
6
9
13
18
23
27
4
10
14
19
24
28
31
5
15
20
25
29
32
34
6
21
26
30
33
35
36
rational and practical system which can be used
easily with available or, at least, accessible
data.
In this way each combination of likelihood and
severity has a unique “score” and the potential
confusion described above is avoided. To make
the situation easier and provide an initial
prioritisation the matrix can be blocked off in
priority bands ( see below).
The number of scale points or actual
boundaries used to describe the priority bands
is a matter of preference – there is no right or
wrong, the important point is the creation of a
100
Likelihood
Severity
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
4
7
11
16
2
3
5
8
12
17
22
3
6
9
13
18
23
27
4
10
14
19
24
28
31
5
15
20
25
29
32
34
6
21
26
30
33
35
36
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
Detailed listing of equipment, plant,
supplies requiring mechanical
handling facilities
used to develop the detailed design during
FEED.
Further Development.
This action is self-explanatory however the
importance in identifying the needs early in the
process should not be under-estimated.
Without such early intervention it is likely that
the adequacy of provision will decrease and the
cost of installation and/or the need for
expensive modification will increase.
It is the intention of HSE to trail the three
modules during a major design process to
assess the potential of the approach in practice.
Should these trails suggest benefits will arise
then the likelihood is that further modules,
dealing with other occupational health issues
will be developed along similar lines.
Identify requirements for new risk
assessment in relation to plant,
equipment, systems
Acknowledgements.
The authors would like to express their thanks
to the many people in the industry, from a wide
range of companies, who through their
willingness to discuss their actions and
concerns in relation to occupational health
assurance, helped considerably in framing the
approach presented here
If “new” plant, equipment, systems or indeed
operations or layouts are envisaged where there
is no operational experience held by any of the
participating companies it will be necessary to
charge someone (as part of the HAZID 2
actions) to undertake an initial desk-top risk
assessment which can be checked, refined and
developed as the design hardens during the
remaining stages of the process.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
Comment - Geoff Simpson, Amey Vectra
As third author of this paper I feel obliged to
say something, it’s not a question, just a
comment. In Mel’s section in particular it was
extremely difficult for us to get a real picture of
the guidance on slides especially as someone in
our parent organisation decided to use a style
guide which doesn’t allow us to use portrait
slides and made it a lot more difficult.
Develop outline risk control
specifications for development
during FEED
This step is essentially a collation of the
outputs from HAZIDs 1 and 2 and forms the
outline (or initial) risk control specification
101
There is not a specific element as such
Graham. But the way regulations are now, we
can say something equivalent to that. The
guidance is based on the regulations as they are
now. Having said that, the Securing Health
Together compliance programme does say
‘examine existing legislation to see that it’s
satisfactory’ and I’m sure that will be a byproduct of this process and other processes.
The messages and lessons that we may be able
to learn from other areas we’ll look at.
We have got hard copies of the draft guidance
with us, so if anybody would like to see what it
really looks like, as opposed to how we had to
shoehorn it on the slides, then please just give
either Mel or me a shout and we’ll show you
what it looks like.
Question – Fiona Davies, AEA Technology
Environment
When you are actually at the stage of having
the guidance agreed and to be made available,
what form are you thinking of having it
available in. Conventional reporting format or
potentially the software tool? We were talking
about the problem of trying to capture it on
screen, but it does actually look like something
I could imagine being web-based and working
through the stages and that would actually
enforce the carrying through from each stage to
the next.
Question - Chris Freeman, Phillips
Petroleum
You were talking about the transfer of
experience and knowledge from one project to
another. You mention the idea of using
operational personnel who’ve worked on one
project to review new designs but implied that
you didn’t feel that was a particularly
satisfactory method. Are you thinking of any
other methods?
Answer – Mr Kevin O’Donnell, HSE
I think it would have to be available in all
commonly used media. Personally I would like
to see it available on a CD-ROM so that you
are not carrying round a considerable amount
of paper work at any one time. It would fit
with modern working practices and be very
flexible to use. It is also interesting to hear that
the Norwegian standards are available on the
internet as well, so I think we’ve got to
consider all ways of using it. I wouldn’t say
we’d set a hard and fast way, saying that
people must use it this way. They can use the
principles and adapt them to their own systems.
I don’t want to impose changes on the existing
company systems just for the sake of it.
Answer - Mr Kevin O’Donnell, HSE
I hope I didn’t give you the wrong impression.
I think it’s a very valid method but only as part
of the overall process, part of looking at health
incidence data as well as using operational
experience. I think it is a very valid method
using operator experience, but not the only
method. It should be supplemented by others.
Comment - Dr Ron Gardner, HSE
Can I just add a comment to that since I raised
a question earlier. Trevor Kletz on the major
hazards side always used to say industry
doesn’t have a corporate memory and that’s a
thing that always concerned me about the
design side. Bringing in operational people as
Kevin says is only part of it, because they only
have a partial experience of their particular
area. I think wherever feasible what I want to
somehow see is the experience of the whole
design team being captured. We need to retain
corporate memory between design jobs and
design teams.
Question – Mr Graham Cowling, Acoustic
Technology Ltd
We’ve worked on designs both on the
Norwegian method using the work area
environments chart and on the UK systems
where basically we do a lot of the engineered
post build stage. One of the elements of the
Norwegian system is the systematic following
up of the gradual meeting of various noise
limits which actually have a legal significance
in the Norwegian sector. Those limits are there
to be met. The requirement effectively is to
apply for a deviation if you can’t meet those
limits. In the UK system though, which is
proposed to be based on a design process
which has documentation at various stages, is
there an element where the HSE are likely to
say no, we don’t like what’s going on with this
design?
Comment – Geoff Simpson, Amey Vectra
What we’ve tried to do in the guidelines that
we’ve produced is that as part of the process,
part of the definition of the objectives and the
processes of each stage, there is capture of
successful control measures that have been
used before, and control measures that have
been used before which haven’t proved
successful. So, what we’ve created is a process
that will allow that collective memory to be
captured. Whether of course it is captured
depends upon the people that are actually
Answer – Mr Kevin O’Donnell, HSE
102
operating the system and there’s no way we can
go much further than that. But the ‘aide
memoire’ is now built into the process if you
like.
103
104
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING
STRATEGY IN PETROCHEMICAL ENGINEERING AND
PROJECTS
PART 1
Mr Harrie J T Rensink, Group Advisor Human Factors Engineering,
Shell International Health Services, The Hague and Martin E J van
Uden, Co-ordinating Process Engineer, Shell International
Chemicals, Amsterdam
human factors engineering in smaller and
larger petrochemical projects.
Summary
Introduction
Although the human-machine interface in
petrochemical manufacturing projects has
always been considered to be an integral part
of a sound engineering design, many misfits in
operability and maintainability have been
experienced after implementation.
Although the human-machine interface in new
petrochemical manufacturing projects was
considered to be an integral part of sound
engineering design, many misfits in operability
and maintainability have been experienced
after implementation.
Based on that experience a vision and policy
was developed by Technical and Occupational
Health management at Shell Nederland
Refinery Pernis and Shell Nederland
Chemicals Moerdijk resulting in a human
factors engineering strategy integrated in the
early development phases of the business
process project preparation and execution.
Engineers and constructors have to deal with
many (technical, legal HSE, etc.) constraints
during their work, one of the constraints being
the human-machine interface.
Technical designers however:
• are by nature more interested in the
technical performance of their products,
• do not have to operate or maintain the
facility/installation after implementation
and are therefore unconsciously less
motivated to take care of the humanmachine interface,
• have insufficient knowledge of people’s
physical and mental behaviour.
The benefits of this strategy are identified both
in business terms (economics) and in working
conditions; e.g. improvement of Health, Safety
and Environmental (HSE) aspects. Based on
historical data it is now identified that for a
typical $ 400 million petrochemical project the
strategy can result in a reduction of :
•
•
•
0.25 - 5 % of capital expenditure
(CAPEX),
1 - 10 % of engineering hours and
3 - 6 % of life-cycle costs of facilities
(OPEX).
For these reasons, application of human factors
and ergonomic principles is 'easily forgotten'
when decisions are made during design.
In 1992 the Technical management and
Occupational Health management at Shell
Nederland Refinery and Chemical complex at
Pernis and Moerdijk set up an Ergonomics
Steering Committee (STER) based on a
defined policy. Further a multi-disciplinary
working group, reporting to STER, was
installed to improve the implementation of
ergonomics in projects as well as to train and
give information about ergonomics to project
staff and engineering contractors. At Pernis and
This paper consists of two parts. Part 1
describes the main drivers of the development
of a human factors strategy within Shell Pernis
and Moerdijk organisations.
Part 2 will give a detailed view on the actual
management of human factors in petrochemical
projects and will evaluate the costs and benefits
based on the experience of implementation
105
Moerdijk, the goal is to integrate human
capabilities in the design of work systems, like
production facilities, workshops, laboratories
and offices. Systematically integrated in all
project and design phases, human factors
engineering principles results in an effective,
safe and healthy functioning of people. The
benefits are identified both in business terms
(economics) and in working conditions (HSE
aspects), resulting in a reduction of life cycle
costs of facilities.
the current definition at Shell Pernis based on
the ISO-6385 standard: ‘Ergonomic principles
in the design of worksystems’ [ISO, 1983].
This ISO-standard describes the starting points
and applications of human factors engineering
principles in the design of worksystems. Before
defining the scope of human factors
engineering it is necessary to discuss
terminology. Human factors engineering and
ergonomics were originally two fields of study,
which have evolved into one.
Why Human Factors Engineering
Human factors engineers and ergonomists use
the same techniques but the origin of the two
fields differ:
• Human factors traditionally emerged from
a military background and concentrates on
human performance- i.e. the effect humans
have on their working environment.
• Ergonomics focuses on the safety and
comfort of workers- i.e. the effect the
working environment has on humans.
In practice these two disciplines are
inseparable and they have therefore evolved
into one single discipline. For this reason the
terms ‘human factors’ and ‘ergonomics’ tend to
be used synonymously in this paper.
At Pernis and Moerdijk sites the ergonomics
working group (WEER) listed a number of
maintenance misfits, the so-called Ergonomics
"Top Ten". Inefficiencies in the field of
material handling, vertical pump lay-out,
hoisting equipment and valve operations were
identified. Results of task analysis studies
revealed problems in control room buildings
with regard to the lay-out of the panel room,
noise, lighting and console lay-out. In the field
of
'human/computer
interaction',
inconsistencies were found in the coding of
information, as well as a lack of standardisation
in the design of the graphical displays.
In other businesses, for instance Information
Technology, Human factors engineering is also
called ‘Usability engineering’ or ‘User centred
design’.
Also pre-start-up and post implementation
reviews indicated efficiency problems as the
result of sub optimal human machine interface
design. E.g. in the Pernis HYCON plant (Shell
1986)
many
pre-start-up
audit
recommendations focused on improvement of
operability, accessibility and maintainability. It
was concluded that during engineering phases
opportunities could have been taken to
optimise the design without increased capital
expenditure in many cases. Even in recent post
implementation reviews of some international
projects the same conclusions were drawn.
After start-up of a brand new refinery in the
Far East in 1996 the following statement is
illustrative: “Basic concept is not an
operationally friendly machine”.
Human factors engineering is above all aimed
at optimising the part of a work system called
Human machine Interface (HMI). In particular,
it is concerned with cognitive (information and
knowledge transfer) and physical interactions
that occur at the interface of the human with
technical systems. Also environmental factors
such as noise, light, climate, vibrations and
organisational aspects may play an important
role designing an optimal human machine
interface.
In the design of work systems and work places,
know-how of various sources is being used,
such as psychology, physiology, anatomy,
labour-organisations, information-transfer and
knowledge about environmental factors (see
figure 1). To effectively apply ergonomics,
know-how is also necessary of design
techniques, project management and businesseconomics (investment decisions).
Definition of Human Factors
Engineering
Human factors engineering is an applied
science aiming at the integration of knowledge
of human capabilities and restraints with
product design, workplaces and installations in
order to improve the efficient, comfortable,
safe and healthy functioning of people. This is
106
Figure 1: Knowledge areas of Human factors engineering
•
Causes of Resistance Against Human
Factors Engineering
Lack of competence of design
technicians
Probably one of the most important reasons for
this is that designers of machines and tools
often have received only technical education.
By nature, technicians are more interested in
the technology involved in their design than the
user-friendliness. As the designer usually will
not work with or maintain the machines and
tools designed, he will not be confronted with
the shortcomings. Therefore, a designer often
hardly realises the consequences of certain
design decisions have for the users. This is
amplified by having insufficient knowledge of
people’s physical and mental behaviour.
There is a wealth of literature describing
ergonomic research dedicated to the correction
of existing problems. These problems arose as
a result of lack of attention for the user in the
design. Few literature references can be found
describing human factors engineering as an
integral part of the total engineering process.
By paying attention to the capabilities and
constraints of the user during the conceptual
design phase, problems during life cycle of a
facility have been be prevented. As will be
shown later, the efforts and costs by following
this philosophy are much smaller than in the
corrective mode.
•
Lack of focus of the Human factors
engineering discipline
Not only technicians, but also human factors
engineers and ergonomists are to blame with
respect to the low human factors input in
design and engineering. Too much effort is put
in research identifying and solving existing
problems. Ergonomists should strive to
convince ‘champions’ in the organisation of the
We may ask ourselves why preventive human
factors engineering is not always selected over
curative human factors engineering. A number
of arguments for this will be given in the
following sections.
107
factors implementation being costly and having
a negative effect on project schedule.
added value of an ergonomically designed
work systems or products. This may be done
by transferring knowledge about human factors
principles and ‘best practices’ to project
managers, construction managers and line
managers of organisations.
•
An overestimate of the designers own
competence
Research shows [Slappendel, 1994] that a
majority of the designers think that the intuitive
application of ergonomics is possible (the
common sense approach). Results of pre-startup reviews of petrochemical facilities
demonstrate that this is a misconception. Often,
a multi-disciplinary task force performs such a
review prior to the start up of a petrochemical
facility as a final check on safety, operability
and maintainability. In particular the lack of
structural application of ergonomics in the
design may be regarded as the cause of poor
operability of some new facilities [Shell,
1986].
•
Lack of ‘fit for purpose’ standards and
guidelines
Technicians hardly have knowledge of the
physical and mental behaviour of people,
necessary for designing a proper human
machine interface. The existing ISO-standards
[ISO, 1983] and technical approaches - aimed
at assisting the technicians - are poor. The
reason is that the level of these ISO-standards
is rather abstract. Therefore the guidelines do
not have sufficient added value to be
incorporated in a list of technical design
specifications. This situation does not promote
the integration of human factors in design.
Ergonomists working in the field should
undertake action to ‘translate’ the ergonomic
standards so that they can be used by
technicians. This “translation” should be
focused at frequently occurring operational and
maintenance problems. To this extent, an
analysis of frequently occurring problems may
be useful, however existing rules and
regulations of governing bodies may help to set
priorities, too.
Success Factors for the
Development of a Human Factors
Engineering Strategy
After many years of experience with
implementing human factors in design and
engineering of petro chemical facilities it has
been identified that a number of key factors
enabling the successful and effective
implementation of human factors in an
engineering project need to be fulfilled.
• Image problem
Another reason for human factors engineering
not being fully exploited in new designs of
production facilities is due to the fact that line
management, and people in general, do not
well understand the art of ergonomic
engineering and still relating it to the design of
tables and chairs. People underestimate the
power of application of human factors
principles in the design of production-facilities.
There is a clear image-problem!
• Realising management commitment
One of the most important conditions is the
(active) support and involvement of line and
project management. Without this support most
initiatives are doomed to fail. Involvement
should not only come from top management,
but also from middle management and project
leaders. Management support can be obtained
or increased by reports about demonstration
projects. These demonstration projects should
clearly show the benefits of the human factors
design strategy. The key-figures in an
organisation (managers of design-, production
and maintenance departments, occupational
health service) should be fully informed about
the of ergonomic integrated design and
engineering. It is important that they know
were to obtain knowledge about human factors
in order to be able to identify problems and to
deal with them in an adequate manner.
• Awareness problem
Another serious problem related to a successful
implementation is that line management often
considers of human factors as a kind of luxury
with little added value. It is sometimes
addressed in terms like “the ribbon on a gift
parcel’ or ‘we do this only to satisfy the plant
personnel’s wishes’. In projects which do not
have ergonomic principles integrated during
the front end loading we often see that end
users criteria are being developed during
detailed engineering, thereby frustrating project
managers and as a result unwanted scope
changes and extra investments. These
experiences do enforce the idea of human
•
Providing a clear vision statement;
priority to new plants
An organisation should give priority to the
integrated implementation of human factors in
new construction projects over the solution of
existing problems [Rensink, van Eijsden,
108
ergonomics platform was founded in which
workfloor employees from operations,
maintenance
and
various
engineering
disciplines work together in order to define
norms, standards and tools to help designers to
apply plant user’s experience.
1991). This is supported by economic analyses.
A number of so-called post-implementation
investigations showed that in the first few years
after starting up a factory often problems occur
with the lay-out and operation of equipment
having a negative effect on the efficiency of the
company as well as on the health and safety of
the
employees.
These
problems
are
subsequently cured at high cost or remain to
exist throughout the entire life cycle of the
plant, with all negative consequences.
Experience so far shows that the participative
ergonomics approach has led to the necessary
support within the Shell Pernis and Moerdijk
organisation. The understanding by both
middle-management as well as the end users of
the importance of ergonomics in business has
increased significantly.
The plea to give priority to new constructions
is also based on the vision that specifications
for new plants will result in simple and
applicable guidelines and tools for assessment
of existing plants.
•
Management of ergonomics in the
design process
To manage the integration of human factors in
the design process efficiently, a number of
specific conditions have to be met:
•
Making available practical tools and
techniques
Human factors engineering offers a number of
design methods taking user demands into
account in a structural way. An example of this
is shown in literature as the Doering approach.
However, this method is rather complex and
theoretical and not designed to function in
petrochemical design and engineering.
Therefore, at Shell Pernis and Moerdijk, a
number of ‘fit for purpose’ engineering and
management tools were developed that are
specifically aimed at the design of
petrochemical plants.
•
•
Ensuring structural input of end users
in projects
Recent publications report positively about
projects applying the principle of so-called ‘
“participative ergonomics”. This approach
values the structural participation of (end)users
during all phases of improvement or
construction projects. This multi-disciplinary
approach
uses
knowledge
from
all
organisational layers to realise an innovation.
•
In the international literature the participative
approach is sometimes called ‘sharing
ergonomics’. Some ergonomic scientists reject
this approach as it is considered to be ‘giving
away the art of ergonomics’. This defensive
attitude is counteracted by the statement:
‘ergonomics is nothing unless it is applied’
[Wilson, 1994]. This contradicting vision of
Wilson supports participative ergonomics as an
effective strategy for implementation.
•
In the conceptual phase of a design it is
necessary to conduct an analysis of all
tasks that have to be performed (operation,
maintenance,
inspection,
transport,
cleaning etc.) in the future plant. HMI's
identified as ‘critical’ should be analysed
and translated in ‘user demands’. These
specifications should be part of the ‘basis
of design’ document of a project. The user
demands should meet equal treatment and
impact
as
technical
and
other
specifications during the design and
project phases. This is a difficult task
since designers and builders already meet
a wide variety of conditions, such as
economical, technical, legal, safety, health
and environmental demands. Adding end
user demands will however balance these
conditions and lead to a more effective
design.
The technical disciplines, vendors and
subcontractors should all work together
and concurrently to guarantee the
incorporation of human factors in the
design.
Experiences of the group of end-users
should be taken into account.
A design and project approach in which the
above conditions are taken into account and
anchored in the procedures of the Quality
Management System will result in a design
guaranteeing an efficient task-performance.
This will be visible in improvements in all
related areas.
Shell Pernis and Moerdijk vision also means
that participative ergonomics is applied. To
explicitly use the practical experience of the
workforce during design and engineering an
109
Management of Human Factors
Engineering in Projects
Interfaces forms part of the Basis of Design
(BOD).
It was learned that it is important to address
human factors engineering right from the
conceptual phase of the project. In Pernis this
experience resulted in the development of a
standard procedure, the Front End Ergonomic
Evaluation Matrix (FEEEM ) design
analysis. This design analysis identifies
operational and maintenance tasks at an early
stage of a project, that is during the feasibility
and/or definition phase, and is the 'motor' for a
sound ergonomic design. The FEEEM is
executed by a multi-disciplinary team and the
results, i.e. potential bottlenecks and
recommendations
on
human-machine
At this moment, based on further experience
with several smaller and larger projects, the
development of, the so-called Ergonomics
Management and Information System SNR/C
(EMIS), is ongoing. The procedures, design
tools, standards and guidelines within the
system are considered to be necessary for
assuring a proper human factors design. The
EMIS  scheme is shown schematically in
table 1.
Table 1: Ergonomic Management & Information System (EMIS )
Guideline on the implementation of ergonomics in engineering and
projects
Information
and training
tools
Project
management
& Quality
tools
Engineering
tools
Necessity of the Quantification of
the Benefits of Human Factors
Engineering: The Development of a
Cost Benefit Model
Procurement
management
tools
Construction
management
tools
economical facts, we will now focus on this
question.
At Shell Netherlands Refinery and Chemical
complex in Pernis and Moerdijk the benefits of
efficient design as a result of the application of
human factors have been demonstrated in a
number of projects [Rensink 1992, Rensink
1994, WEER 1995]. Based on many case
studies it was obvious that application of
ergonomics may realise considerable savings
on the cost of production and maintenance in
combination with increased safety and
reduction of physical strain to workers. The
advantages for the employees are fewer health
complaints and workplaces which are more
safe and comfortable. For the company the
benefits will be expressed in terms of increased
efficiency and reliability leading to reduction in
life-cycle costs. [Rensink, 1996].
Moerdijk, in co-operation with the NAM has
recently developed a cost-benefit model
(Rensink, van Uden, Aartsma, van Eijsden,
Dekker 1996). One of the initial starting points
of developing a cost benefit model was for
awareness purposes. However it is now
experienced that the model is of value not only
In many cases, ergonomics is incorrectly
regarded as an additional cost to the design.
The benefits offered by ergonomics are not
always clear to all. A complication in this
respect is that not all benefits can be directly
expressed as tangible financial savings. Many
benefits are intangible and not easy to use to
justify an ergonomic approach.
In the above we have seen that it is imperative
to convince ‘champions’ within the
organisation of the benefits of ergonomically
design. The better the arguments, the more
effective one can carry this message. Since
many decisions in business are based on
These case studies have led to the opinion that
the application of ergonomics may reduce lifecycle costs of petrochemical installations as
shown in figure 2.
To support this opinion Shell Netherlands
Refinery and Chemical complex Pernis and
110
during project preparation, but also during the
execution of projects. The goal of the method
is to visualise the potential benefits of
ergonomically design and to serve as an aid to
process technicians, human factors engineers
and project managers who have to take
decisions about the design in new construction
or improvement projects.
Figure 2 Cash flow during the life cycle of a petrochemical installation comparing an
ergonomically and a non-ergonomically design. Note : for trend indications only [Shell, 1995].
Similar to the description of the case studies a
distinction is made in the cost-benefit model
between tangible and intangible economical
benefits of ergonomics. A number of main
areas are acknowledged in the model with
potential exploitation benefits by application of
ergonomics. These main areas have been listed
together with examples of these benefits as
shown in table 2.
With regard to the economically intangible
benefits - to be found mostly in the main areas
of health, safety and environment - the risk
must be determined with respect to the
frequency, the number of people involved and
the consequences for individuals, environment
or hardware. In the case of non-feasibility of
the investment, the risk should be avoided
some other way. This may be done by nontechnical means such as instructions,
requirements or procedures.
In most case studies, the economically tangible
exploitation benefits can be calculated easily
from reduction in time or material that was
spent and loss reduction. These benefits should
fit the return-on-investment policy of the
company. If not, the criteria may be relaxed
depending on the impact of the economically
intangible risk or danger.
In part 2 of this paper the use of the cost
benefit model and the evaluation of human
factors implementation in projects will be
discussed in more detail.
111
Table 2. Benefits resulting from the application of human factors engineering by main area
Main area
Example of possible savings
1. Operations
less waste
decrease in number of failures
increased productivity
2. Maintenance
less labour
less waiting
less material necessary
less administration
improved quality of maintenance
3. Reliability
less mistakes
less machine failures
4. Health
Reduced risk of accidents
Increased motivation
less sick leave
less physical load
5. Safety
better visibility
Improved safety
Reduced risk of accidents
Reduced risk of stumbling
6. Environment
less waste
7. Legislation
Comply to the legal rules
Comply to the legal rules
8. Labour
Reduction of labour expenses
Improved functioning of personnel
Reduced sick leave fees
Conclusions and Recommendations
It is essential to define and analyse the critical
human machine interface in the conceptual
phase of the design. To assure these procedures
properly, a quality system is needed.
The profit of a production system is largely
determined by the people working in it. To
optimise the performance of these people,
human capabilities and technical equipment
should be fully compatible. It is therefore
imperative that in addition to financial and
technical aspects, human factors are also taken
into account in the design of a production
system.
The challenge for human factor engineers and
ergonomists within large organisations would
be to motivate ‘key people’ in project
management to implement human factors in the
business process preparation and execution of
projects. A human factors policy and quality
assurance program is needed to support this.
This means that fit for purpose engineering
tools and techniques have to be developed and
training of the various target groups plays an
essential role. Self management of human
factors issues should be one of the drivers.
Many work situations currently considered to
be problematic were caused by insufficient
attention for the design of Human machine
interfaces. Such problems can be prevented by
structurally applying ergonomics in the design.
112
EMIS.MG1, Technical Projects Department
(TAP) Shell Nederland Refinery, Pernis, 1996.
Vendors and equipment suppliers should be
informed about the significance of taking userdemand structurally into consideration during
the development of a product. A simple (3 D
CAD) prototype or mock-up to be used in the
test phase by future users may offer an
inexpensive and effective method to alleviate
the reduction of user-unfriendly designs. In
prioritising solutions to potential problems it is
recommended to focus on deleting future tasks
thereby reducing capital expenditure as well as
life cycle costs. Whenever a decision on
investment in ergonomics is to be taken, these
aspects should be considered explicitly.
Rensink,
H.J.T.,
C.
van
Eijsden,
Implementation
of
ergonomics,
Shell
Nederland Refinery, Pernis, 1991.
Rensink, H.J.T., Ergonomics at Shell Pernis,
part 2, Costs and benefits of ergonomic
activities, Shell, Pernis, 1992.
Rensink, H.J.T., M.E.J. van Uden, R. Aartsma,
C. van Eijsden, G.F. Dekker, Benefits of
ergonomic design, part 1 Quantification model,
part 2 Case studies, Shell SNR/C, Pernis, 1996.
Acknowledgement
Shell, Pre-start-up review HYCON plant
Pernis, MFE 95/88, SIPM, The Hague, 1986.
Shell, Ergonomics, a human factors
engineering strategy for Shell, SIOP, The
Hague, 1995.
The authors are indebted to the management of
Shell Nederland Refinery and Chemicals
Pernis B.V. to be given the opportunity to write
this paper.
References
Slappendel, C., Ergonomics capability in
product design and development; an
organisational analysis, Applied Ergonomics,
Vol. 25, nr. 5, 1994.
International
Standard
Organisation,
Ergonomic principles in the design of work
systems, ISO standard 6385, 1983.
WEER (WORKING GROUP ERGONOMICS), Use of
a mobile platforms reduces maintenance costs,
Intercom, Shell SNR/C, Pernis, 1995.
Rensink, H.J.T., Cost/benefit study VALLA
crane, Shell Nederland Refinery, Pernis, 1994.
Wilson, J.R., Devolving ergonomics; the key to
ergonomics
management
programmes,
Ergonomics, Vol. 37, nr. 4, 1994.
Rensink, H.J.T. and Van Uden, M.E.J.,
Management
information
on
the
implementation of ergonomics in SNR/C
engineering
and
projects,
document
113
114
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING
STRATEGY IN PETROCHEMICAL ENGINEERING AND
PROJECTS
PART 2
Martin E J van Uden, Co-ordinating Process Engineer, Shell
International Chemicals, Amsterdam and Mr Harrie J T Rensink,
Group Advisor Human Factors Engineering, Shell International
Health Services, The Hague
Content of the Article
The above explained statements that human
factors and ergonomic principles are not
sufficiently anchored in the design process is
not world shocking. However, especially for
projects in the petrochemical industry, a clear
recipe cannot been found in literature. Much
wise words have been written but an
incorporated control system is not found.
Although the man-machine interface in
petrochemical manufacturing projects has
always been considered to be an integral part
of a sound engineering design, many
ergonomic misfits in operability and
maintainability has been experienced after
implementation.
Based on that experience a vision and policy
was formulated, which resulted in a human
factors engineering strategy integrated in the
front end loading (the early development
phases) of the business process of “project
preparation and execution”.
In chapter 2 the project business process is
analysed. It will be discussed where and how
ergonomic principles should be integrated in
the process. Chapter 3 will further give the
total framework in terms of a warranted quality
system, including management monitoring
tools and system auditing.
The benefits of this strategy are identified both
in business terms (economics) and in working
conditions; like improvement in Health, Safety
and Environmental (HSE) aspects. Based on
historical data it is now identified that for a
typical $ 400 million petrochemical project the
strategy can result in a reduction of :
• 0.25 - 5 % of
capital expenditure
(CAPEX),
• 1 – 10 % of the total engineering hours
and
• 3 - 6 % of operational and maintenance
life-cycle costs of facilities (OPEX).
In chapter 4 the main driver for integrating
human factors in the technical design process is
discussed, being the benefits of integrating
ergonomic principles in the business process.
One could discuss to deal with costs and
benefits in the first place as well, but in this
article we have chosen not too, as the
cost/benefits are probably better understood
after reading about the management system and
underlying tools.
In chapter 5 an example of integration of
Human Factors Engineering into new
engineering developments will be given.
This paper consists of two parts. Part 1
describes the development of the strategy
starting with creating awareness within an
organisation up to the general approach based
on a developed vision and policy.
Introduction
The traditional ‘design process‘
After the birth of an idea to invest in a
petrochemical plant, either for economic or
other reasons, a conceptual design is made, on
basis of existing, improved or new technology
(ies). The conceptual design is normally
followed by a study into the feasibility of the
project and an early (economic) evaluation will
indicate whether to proceed with the basic
Part 2 will give the reader insight in the actual
Project Management and Quality Assurance of
Human Factors Engineering in petrochemical
projects.
115
engineering study during which the project is
further defined in terms of scope,
implementation and financing. The so-called
basic engineering and design package (BDEP)
or project specification (PS) contains enough
information to make an accurate cost estimate
(accuracy normally ± 10%). At this point
business premises and forecasts are frozen and
an economic evaluation, including technical
Typical high level business process description
"PROJECT PREPARATION AND EXECUTION”
NSTRUCTION"
Scouting phase
scouting report
typically a ± 30% estimate
economic evaluation
Feasibility phase
Feasibility report
typically a ± 20% estimate
project execution plan
economic evaluation
ITB for basic engineering
contracting out
Definition phase
Basic engineering
contracting out
Detailed
engineering
BDEP package
typically a ± 10% estimate
project implementation plan
economic evaluation
ITB for implementation
a.o.
Project deliverables
(data/documents)
Construction safety reports
Life-cycle ERP system
Trained staff
Commissioning & SU plan
Procure
ment
Civil work
Auditing
Expediting
Construction
Commisioning and
start-up
Hand-over to life-cycle organisation
Post implementation review
(during early exploitation)
Operation,
maintenance
and improvement
(change)
Figure 1
116
Budget constraints (foreseen or unexpected)
are a danger for good integration between the
disciplines as this is often thought or at least it
is easy to think that this is in conflict with
proper
engineering,
procurement
and
construction.
and financial risks and sensitivities, is
performed. In most petrochemical companies
this evaluation is the basis for approval of the
project. During this front end engineering
phase typically some 5% of the capital is spent.
After approval of the project the
implementation phase is started including the
detail engineering, during which the equipment
and material specifications are completely
described in requisitions, being the starting
point for the procurement.
It should be noticed that many petrochemical
companies have slimmed down their
engineering strength, relying more and more on
the aid of engineering contractors. Although
this is attractive from a staffing point of view
some "punishment" for this policy is received
as well.
During detailed engineering drawings (or nowa-days drawings based on data) are produced to
enable the constructors to build the
petrochemical facility. During the last decades
(two dimensional) computer techniques have
been increasingly used and during the last
decade graphic oriented 3D computer imaging
has been used, while today 2D and 3D design
is integrated on basis of object oriented design
and engineering. Today virtual reality is
commonly used on the construction side as
well after construction the new facility is tested
and started-up.
Engineering contractors "unfortunately" do not
operate the plant and are therefore not
obtaining enough feedback (as a company
engineer will) to improve the level of his
engineering skills with respect to anticipating
life-cycle operations, maintenance and other
risks. Therefore and further greatly depending
on the type of the contract, EC's are not always
too interested in the plant life after construction
has finished.
The process as described above can be shown
in relation with time schematically, showing
the deliverables of each process step on the
right hand, as shown in figure 1.
The above constraints definitely influence the
quality of the projects.
The input of engineering disciplines
in the design process
Those who have read the previous paragraphs
seriously may have noticed that some
important participants in the project have not
been mentioned yet. This important group of,
let us say "potential" contributors to the design,
are often NOT, TOO LATE or in only a
COMMENTING WAY involved during the
design process. They are those who have to
operate and maintain the plant for many years
to come.
Lack of user participation in design
During the process of design, engineering,
procurement
and
construction
many
engineering disciplines are involved, e.g.
process technologists/engineers, mechanical,
electrical, civil and instrumentation engineers.
Cultural, strategic, and logistic considerations
give a continuous input during the design
process, resulting in decision mostly influenced
by conflicting arguments or constraints. Often
the capital investment must be incorporated
into existing infrastructure and especially in
recent years much capital investment is spent in
retrofitting and de-bottlenecking existing units.
Of course these ‘end users’ were always
recognised as participants in a project, but
more in the sense of giving comments to a
design or a document. Seldom have they been
recognised as really contributing to the design
as a demand defining participant.
Good engineering is considered when all
disciplines mentioned are working integrally
and where mutual empathetic behaviour is
shown. Although it is sometimes said that this
is the project managers role, we have noticed
and are of the opinion that the system
(organisation and availability of the correct
procedures and behaving culture) in which the
responsible project manager has to work is of
determining influence to the success.
From interviews with designers, engineers,
constructors and project managers as well as
operators and maintenance workers it can be
concluded that there is a difference in attitude
between the two groups, in that the first group
is motivated to deliver a product that full fills
the "basis of design" and concentrate
themselves on those issues but that the endusers are motivated to operate and maintain the
plant in an efficient and effective way and are
117
even after already making use of graphic but
static oriented 3D computer programs. This is
due to the fact that project and design
organisations and their engineering contractors
have not the appropriate business controls in
place to make sure the defect is addressed
properly. Furthermore those who might
contribute to avoid ergonomic misfits, the endusers of a work system, are not often consulted.
more concentrated towards the life-cycle.
Although engineers told and apparently
thought that they had sufficient empathy for the
life-cycle, more detailed questioning brought
them into the situation in which they concluded
and confessed they were not enough taking the
life-cycle of the plant under design into
consideration. The attitude of the engineer can
be generally explained as an attitude in the
sense of : “......as long as it’s working I did a
fine job.....” Operators and maintenance
workers on the other hand complain that they
need more effort to do their job during the
exploitation as a result of user unfriendly
designs. They also claimed that this increases
exploitation costs.
This can only be best achieved by an
ergonomic awareness program for all those
involved in projects, through organisation and
management procedures and last but not least
by showing the economical and noneconomical benefits of human factors
engineering in projects. Furthermore the
application of new simulation tools based on
data centric and object oriented, and thus
2D/3D integrated (dynamic) engineering
systems, with a proven history in the
automobile, aircraft and shipbuilding sectors of
the industry, will lead to extremely simple and
early 3D simulation of the plant under design.
This leads to better understanding an early
“design out” of ergonomic misfits as well as
optimised life cycle oriented designs.
The fact is that if end-users, as being the
representatives of the operator/owner, are
insufficiently involved during the design and
construction phases, this results in a negative
influencing factor what is generally identified
as limited ‘client commitment level’ (CCL).
However a new dilemma exists in view of
availability of operational and maintenance
staff during the design and methods should
therefore be developed to overcome this
dilemma efficient.
Management of Human Factors
Engineering in Projects; The
Procedure to Follow
Problem definition
Introduction
Ergonomics or human factors engineering is
"easily forgotten" during all phases of a project
(Refer to Part 1 of this article for the arguments
leading to this statement).
This leads to many disadvantages, amongst
others extra costs during the further life cycle
of the plant for operations and maintenance,
and additional health and safety risks.
Conclusion of the above analysis
In this procedure, the human factors
engineering activities, as experienced in a
number of recent projects, are described in
relation to the project phases. On the left-hand
side the status of the project is given, ranging
from the feasibility phase, through the
definition (basic engineering) phase into the
detailed design, procurement and construction
phase. It can be noticed that already early in
the design ergonomic demands have to be
specified; the main reasons being :
• that it is in this phase that inside battery
limit (IBL) operational and maintenance
philosophies are being defined
• that the design is still flexible in its scope
definition, so that ergonomic demands,
especially on IBL philosophy level can be
easily and at no cost be integrated in the
design
• demands
and
scope
ergonomic
categorisation can be set for use in the
basic and detailed engineering phases
Too many ergonomic misfits exist in
petrochemical plants, even those recently built
The business process flow diagram as given in
the centre part of figure 2 can be followed to
Furthermore those who might contribute to
avoid ergonomic misfits are not often
consulted.
Not enough emphasis is paid to the many tasks
which have to be done when the plant is in
operation and has to be maintained. It can be
concluded that the design process should have
incorporated more means to assure the
knowledge of ergonomics, human factors
engineering, task analysis of which the results
have influence on the design and user
participation.
118
understand the scope, purpose, organisation
and management of human factors engineering
in projects. Keywords in this procedure are :
Plant lay-out, Human Machine Interface
design, Control room and Human Computer
Interface
design,
Ergonomics,
User
participation, Client commitment level,
Operability, Maintainability and System
Reliability. The purpose of this procedure is to
integrate the user’s requirements into the
design of a system at the right time, well in
balance with the technical and economical
constraints, with respect to project investment
as well as life cycle cost savings and
occupational health and safety benefits. In
doing so, the design will also reflect the way
the future operators and maintenance people of
the system want to utilise their system
effectively while at the same time they
understand and accept that impossible demands
in view of additional investment versus low
benefits, are not implemented. The procedure
in general leads to lower Capital expenditure
(CAPEX) as well as lower life cycle costs of
installations and costs of plant change (Shell,
a).
Below the activities found back in the
procedure are discussed; a good quality control
is guaranteed when there is proof in the form of
deliverables, sometimes integrated in general
reports, like BDEP packages or Project
Specifications. The type of deliverables is
indicated on the right hand side of figure 2.
Identify
necessary
human
factors
engineering input with respect to the project
scope
The person responsible for putting together the
Basic Process Design Package (BDP or often
called BOD) and/or the Basic Design and
Engineering Package (BDEP), often the
process engineer or the project coordinator/manager, should discuss and evaluate
with the human factors engineer, the necessary
effort for the project. Within our Company
protocols and checklists for facilitating this
discussion are available.
Inform project
meeting
team/manager/Kick
off
The process engineer informs the project team
leader or manager about the proposed strategy,
including the initial costs (it is assumed that the
project team leader or manager is an
experienced professional and relates the initial
costs to the benefits to be captured later,
although many times the challenge from the
project team leader indicated differently. The
agreed Human Factors Engineering plan of
action is then part of the agenda of the project
kick-off meeting. Within larger projects (> $
50 million) the human factors engineer often
plays a co-ordinating role.
Executing a Human Factors task analysis in
basic design and/or definition phase is crucial
for
catching
the
technical/usability
requirements of the human machine interfaces
early. After these requirements are identified
and recorded, there is a standard approach to
follow during the proceeding phases.
This procedure is applicable for new grass
roots projects as well as for brown fielders and
de-bottlenecking or major retrofitting. The
procedure demands the co-operation between
operations/maintenance, process engineering,
project management, construction management
and the engineering contractor. Discipline
engineers normally do not participate during
the analysis or audits, but are consulted along
the road.
Nominate the Project Ergonomics Team
(PET)
The person responsible for drafting the BDP
and/or BDEP should nominate (in consultancy
with the appropriate discipline managers) the
participants of the PET. The Project
Ergonomic Team normally consists of a (lead)
process engineer, participants experienced in
operations and maintenance, sometimes
specialists
(mechanical,
instrumentation)
depending on the type of project and the
human factors engineer.
The policy with respect to human factors
engineering is geared towards achieving an
optimal Human Machine Interface for
installations, control rooms, work places,
laboratories, and offices. It is essential that the
persons who are ultimately responsible for
ensuring a user friendly design are the
designers, engineers and project managers
executing the project; they need the input of
life-cycle users in time to avoid later changes
during detailed engineering or even worse
during construction, not to speak about changes
during the life cycle as such.
Decide the necessary training for the project
It is necessary to decide what kind of training
is appropriate for the project, based on the
project scope and the competence of project
participants. For example, before the execution
119
delivery items and (critical) Skid packaged
units should be part of the report (Shell, f). In
case of control room or re-instrumentation
projects the management of information
needed for graphical display design is of
utmost importance to achieve an effective
human computer interface along with the more
traditional design tools like e.g. link analysis
methods aiming at an efficient control room
building lay-out for human efficiency
improvement during normal and emergency
operations.
of the FEEEM ® design analysis, it is
necessary that the nominated participants of the
PET meet several criteria:
Operations/maintenance personnel should have
followed a training module focussing on their
function within the PET team (Shell, b; Shell,
c)
Process engineer/discipline engineer and
project manager should have participated in a
full scope human factors competence
improvement
training,
focussing
on
costs/benefits and implementation procedures
with respect to management of Human Factors
engineering during all phases of a project. It
should be considered to have engineering
contractor and/or vendor representatives
participating during ergonomics workshops, if
thought relevant. The human factors engineer
will co-ordinate the execution of the training
requirements as specified in this step of the
procedure. Normal training is ranging from 4
to 8 hours.
Include the FEEEM report in the BDP or
BDEP/PS document
The person responsible for co-ordinating the
BDP or BDEP/PS document incorporates the
FEEEM® report into the BDEP document. At
the end of the BDEP phase the FEEEM report
will be up-dated and the resultant actions
derived by the FEEEM® report should be
verified in relation to the scope of the
BDEP/PS and integrated into the initial plot
plan. Assure FEEEM® analysis results, for
instance identified ‘soft boxes’ of critical
maintenance or logistic routing are integrated
in the layout of plant.
Execute FEEEM ® design analysis
This analysis should be implemented by the
PET according to the procedure. The Frond
End Ergonomic Evaluation Matrix design
analysis describes a multi-disciplinary task
analysis method to be apply during feasibility
or definition phase to evaluate potential
ergonomic bottlenecks in the design. This
procedure is part of the Pernis Projects Quality
system (Shell, d). A standard part of the
FEEEM® design analysis is implementation of
the Identification of Valves Analysis (IVA®)
(Shell, e). The results of the FEEEM® design
analysis along with the IVA® are documented
in the FEEEM report. Also the strategy with
respect to implementing ergonomics in long
Determine Ergonomics Implementation Plan
End of BDEP/PS phase the Ergonomics
Implementation Plan is set up to secure the
ergonomic requirements and demands,
resulting from the FEEEM analysis, during
detail engineering, procurement and the
construction phase. For projects less than $ 5
million CAPEX, it is in general sufficient to
include the FEEEM® report into the Project
Execution Plan/Project Implementation Plan.
The project manager should be committed to
and is responsible for the execution of the
Ergonomic Implementation Plan.
120
Project
preparation
START
Determine
HF input
Inform
project team
1
2
Nominate PET
3
Determine
training program
Execute
training PET
Feasibility phase
depending
on
decision
Basic
engineering
phase
EPC
phase
post
implementation
phase
4
5
execute FEEEM
6
Include FEEEM
report in BDEP
7
Update FEEEM report
8
Ergonomics implementation plan
9
Quality doc. FEEEM
report
BDP or BDEP
BDEP/PS
Execute model
reviews/audits
10
Execute ergonomics
construction plan
11
Evaluation
12
STOP
Figure 2
121
Q doc. Ergonomics
Implementation
Plan
Requisitions:
Vendors and
Construction
Contractors
Q doc. Ergonomics
Construction Plan
PIR report
RR1464-a.af3
Cost and Benefits
Execute model reviews/audits
To ensure that the ergonomic requirements are
met within the project, a 3D CAD model
review is used during 30%, 60% and 90% of
the detailed engineering phase (see chapter 5
for special integration of ergonomic analysis
with state of the art 2D/3D integrated CAE
systems).
Critical
operations
and/or
maintenance activities should be simulated
(preferably dynamically) during detailed
engineering making use of new technologies in
order to check the operational and maintenance
procedures as indicated in the FEEEM®
report. Often the life-time proves that
impressive constructed procedures do not work
in the life-cycle and have to be violated
through safety and health risks and costs;
dynamic functional simulation, now-a-days
becoming available, will be more and more
used. Special attention should be given to Skid
packaged units.
Showing costs and benefits of programs
normally motivate professionals to apply or not
apply programs. To demonstrate the benefits of
the implementation with respect to costs an
extensive study was done into the cost and
benefits items by Shell Nederland Raffinaderij
and Shell Nederland Chemie in Pernis and
Moerdijk, in cooperation with Nederlandse
Aardolie Maatschappy Assen some three to
four years ago (Shell, g).
Generally it was found that benefit/cost ratio
for new (grass roots or brown field projects)
are high, but that also in de-bottlenecking or
retrofitting projects the balance between costs
of analysis and their benefits for CAPEX and
life-cycle exploitation costs are still very
favourable. More critical were small projects
or so-called plant changes, normally directly
paid out of the exploitation budget, which were
meant to abandon ergonomic misfits existing in
plants in operation. Justification of such
investments was often done on rather soft
grounds, based on a kind of common sense and
understanding rather than backed by economic
or other calculations. It was there were the
study team concentrated themselves. It was
believed that a model able to discriminate
between the justification of these type of
exploitation costs or not, could certainly also
be used for the larger grass roots or brown field
projects.
Execute the Ergonomic Construction Plan
This plan’s purpose is to guide the construction
contractor about installing “field run”
equipment which is not always shown in the
physical computer models, but only in the
functional models. This concerns mainly “field
run” installed items like small bore piping,
lighting fixtures, secondary cable trays etc. The
plan normally includes :
• inserting ergonomic requirements into
standard paragraphs of contracts with
installation
contractors,
including
procedures how to handle diagnosed
misfits
• awareness sessions with on site
contractors.
• use physical (3D) model on site for
reference
• execution of “ergonomic verification
rounds”.
Benefit Areas
As costs can normally be estimated up front on
basis of scope and hours, the team first
concentrated on the benefit areas; three levels
of benefit areas were established. The high
level of benefit areas were defined at
stakeholder level, where a rough definition of a
stakeholder is that this is anyone or any group
sharing the costs and other disadvantages
and/or the benefits and other advantages of the
business.
Evaluate the application of human factors
engineering
The human factors engineer, the project
manager and/or client’s maintenance manager
normally will decide to evaluate the successes
or failures of the ergonomics program during
the post-implementation period.
In figure 3 below a graphic representation is
given of the high level benefit area’s in relation
to the main stakeholders.
122
Relation to stakeholders
Safety
Operability
shareholders
&
clients
personnel
Health
society
Maintenance Environment
Legislation
government
Reliability
Labour turnover
Quantify or rank
Figure 3
This cross-reference benefit table, given below
in figure 4, is an example how benefits are
ranked. A third level of benefits are long
checklist, belonging to each of the second level
benefits on the left hand side of figure 4. This
third level of benefits are of great help to
identify benefits, which are then classified in
the matrix shown below.
The next level was determined by investigating
the benefits, tangible or intangible, within the
main (high level) benefit areas. It appeared that
many second level benefits were found to
benefit more than one of the main benefit
areas. A cross reference graph was constructed,
which became the foundation on which the
benefit identification process was built.
123
Figure 4
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
operationsmaintenancereliability safety
Saving time/human resources
Saving product
Waste reduction
Reducing/preventing errors
Reducing/eliminating physical/mental stress
Reducing training costs (requirements/time)
Improving the quality of the end-product
Preventing damage/risk to plant
Making operators’ inspection rounds more effective
Improving maintenance quality/life-cycle extension
Parts savings
Saving on hoisting/transport costs
Saving on tools
Saving on dirty work/cleaning/PPE costs
Saving on workshop costs
Saving on scaffolding costs
Reducing the risk of trips
Preventing/shortening plant shut-downs
Preventing temporary capacity reductions
Savings on monitoring on job-related risks
Reducing unauthorised overrides of protective systems
Increasing process safety
Increasing operational safety
Fewer control measures required
Reducing the risk of accidents
Preventing health-related absenteeism
Reducing occupational diseases
Preventing compensation claims and related internal discussions
Reducing the number of employees who become unfit for work
Reducing the number of days of adapted work
Preventing impaired performance
Improved occupational hygiene (toxicity, noise, etc.)
Reduced pollution of the soil/water/atmosphere
Reducing the probability of environmental incidents
Reducing the number of environmental complaints
Improving the company’s image/reputation
Preventing/reducing notices/sanctions from the HSE authorities
Improving the staff motivation
Reducing the number of vacancies which are hard to fill
Improving the performance of older/sick personnel
Reducing demurrage
no. Description of benefit
health environmentlegislation labour
turnover
operations and maintenance organisation, own
project management and the engineering
contractor involved in basic engineering,
detailed engineering, procurement and
construction. Although in such an exercise
costs and benefits are sometimes partly
intangible, many tangible costs and benefits
have been identified. Although the contents of
the complete report can not be disclosed in this
article, it can be mentioned that during
engineering approximately 150 man days were
used for analysis and engineering follow-up
and approximately one man year for follow-up
during construction. Minor costs, e.g. for
making CD-ROM with animated training
material for construction firms, are not
included.
After the identification of the benefits, the
benefits need to be quantified. If the identified
benefits are to a great extent feasible to be
estimated, the benefits are outweighed against
the estimated costs. In many cases however the
benefits are rather intangible, e.g. “What is the
$ value of safety ? “.
In cases where no tangible figures can be
derived from the benefits, the benefits are
simply ranked according according to a system
valuating :
• the exposure class, showing the risk of
exposure. This exposure class is
determined taking the frequency of the
task to be judged and the number of
exposed people into account.
• the effect level, showing the effect on
people, environment, etc. should the task
fail.
• the total risk factor, being a ranking on
basis of the exposure class and effect
level.
The “LOOK BACK” exercise/analysis showed
(ABB LUMMUS):
•
Costs and ranked or quantified
benefits
•
As mentioned above benefits with a tangible
content may already simply justify the cost of
ergonomic improvement in existing plant or in
design. When a ranking exercise is needed only
the highest risk factor is used to determine the
payout criteria, which have been agreed before
with management. So for intangible benefits,
only the benefit with the highest classification
counts, while for tangible benefits benefits ($)
can be added. The payout criteria just
mentioned are also dependent of the height of
the costs. If payout criteria are reduced to zero
a full intangible benefit has justified the costs
to be made. In most cases there is a
combination of intangible and tangible
benefits, which justify or not justify necessary
costs. The total procedure takes approximately
5 to 10 minutes.
•
•
•
Identified CAPEX saving were in the
order of $ 2 million or 0,25 % of capital
(it is believed that this figure is higher due
to material wastes resulting from
construction REDO.
Additional CAPEX was estimated to be $
60,000.- to improve operations and
maintenance
Identified savings during the first ten years
of operation amounted to $ 0.9 million
Identified cost savings during two four
annual major shutdowns were estimated to
be $ 460.000,A large list of intangible benefits, related
to safety, health and environment.
Integration of Human Factors
Engineering into New Enginering
Developments
In figure 5 the procedure is shown in more
detail how ergonomics has been integrated in a
single object oriented database driven CAE
system with integrated and thus consistent
functional and physical design and engineering
capabilities. The CAE system, CC Plant based
on the CATIA kernel of object oriented design
and engineering, has the availability to capture
design intent and apply Knowledge Based
Engineering (KBE). During a recent project
using these advanced, fully Product Data
Model based, techniques a plant was designed
and engineered and the Human Factors
Engineering Discipline was participating in a
true concurrent mode with other disciplines as
explained below.
The tables and matrixes as discussed in 4.2 and
4.3 have not been further shown as the
application and threshold levels are fully
dependent on Company policy.
Identified benefits for a large grass
root project, implemented in an
existing site.
After having completed an ergonomics
program as mentioned above on an $ 400
billion investment, the costs and benefits have
been analysed together with the future
125
The participation of ergonomics all started with
the given area for the plant to be built, because
this will put the spatial constraints on the table.
It can be mentioned at this stage that given
typical areas for known plants and technologies
normally used are not at stake, because
experience with the ergonomic analysis shows
that this will certainly not lead to the need for
more area.
126
Figure 5
127
(workspace, firefighting, utility systems)
Build 3D
equipment catalog
Make
intelligent
PEFD
FEEEM
Make intelligent PFD
Process optimalisation
Transpositions
Lay-out constraint analysis
optimalisation of
piping and
connectivity, incl OBL
trenches, piperacks, ducting.
safety showers, firefighting
equipment, main E/I trenches/trays
drain channels, utilities,
standard safety distances, etc
Other lay-out considerations
Place equipment = final block model to start routing
Define structures for piping and equipment
area softboxes:
lay-down, operational rounds,
emergency routes, hoisting,
transport logistics
Operating & maintenance
philosophy (work to man)
(incl. lay-out safety considerations)
Process
preliminary
block model
Overall plotplan, including relationships between units, substations, FAR’s, utilities, etc
,
In the case of the particular project to be built
at an existing plot after demolishment of a
former plant, the existing residual existing
buildings, etc had to be taken into account and
to be used if needed and attractive (e.g.
substations, field auxiliary rooms, analyser
houses, etc.). In figure 5 it can be seen that on
basis of the PFD an initial 3D block model was
made very early during the feasibility phase as
discussed before. With fully integrated
intelligent 2D/3D engineering (one single
database) this effort is negligible.
the “final constraint analysis” necessary to
define the plant’s civil “building”, including
the often COMBINED soft boxes necessary for
optimal piping, ergonomics or statutory
demands. Only when the “building” with all its
soft boxes is defined it is time to place the
equipment finalised in the equipment
catalogue. It is obvious of course that this
exercise, as simply explained above, is not a
straight or “from start to finish” exercise, but
that a number of recycles, as a result of work in
progress, exist to make further optimalisations.
The procedure shows how this preliminary
block model, after it had served to save some 2
to 3 % on capital investment during the process
optimalisation, is used to define further
refinements. On basis of the analysis based on
the FEEEM matrix, demands are being defined
to equipment on the one hand and detailed
operating and maintenance (life-cycle)
philosophies on the other hand. It can be
noticed from the figure that the FEEEM ®
design analysis is done in a concurrent mode
with the development of the PEFD’s and that
some constraint handling between ergonomic,
operational, maintenance and engineering
demands is already taking place at that
moment. In fact at the right moment, thereby
excluding a number of engineering recycles or
even worse.ending with a less optimal design.
Although the suspicious reader may doubt the
efficiency of the procedure it can be said that,
due to the fact that the approach is very
structural and professional, considerable time
is saved, not only during the procedure itself,
by avoiding many conventional and ‘out of
sync’ recycles, but especially by avoiding a lot
of recycles during the later detailed
engineering. It should be mentioned that apart
from the defined ergonomic demands on
equipment and general lay-out as used in the
above procedure, the FEEEM analysis also
generated many detailed demands for the
detailed engineering phase on piping,
instrumentation and so-called ‘ field run’ (e.g.
small bore, secondary cable tray, lighting
fixtures, etc.) items.
Ergonomic analysis (as well as other types of
analysis) and the use of a data centric object
oriented single database can be considered
synergetic.
References
SHELLa
“Managing
human
factors
engineering in projects procedure”, doc ID
EMIS.PMQ.01, Shell International, Human
Factors Engineering, The Hague.
With respect to spatial equipment design,
which at the same time (concurrently) is
developed as well, the ergonomic analysis
leads to demands on free areas needed around
equipment and these design intents are defined
as part of the equipment in the equipment
catalogue. With respect to the operating and
maintenance philosophies the ergonomic
analysis yield spatial demands in terms of soft
boxes (a technique also used in conventional
3D systems, however at a much later stage in
this project), based on identified needs for lay
down areas for inspection and maintenance,
operator rounds, emergency routes, logical
safety shower positions, hoisting and transport
needs.
SHELLb “Workshop ergonomics in process
installations”, doc.ID EMIS.IT.03, Shell
International, Human Factors Engineering,
The Hague.
SHELLc “Ergonomic Training module for
operators and maintenance worker”, doc ID
EMIS.IT.05, Shell International, Human
Factors engineering, The Hague.
Looking at the initial preliminary and very
simple block model, one can see that this at
least served the design team a second time by
using it for piping transpositions and lay-out
optimalisation studies.
SHELLd “FEEEM ® design analysis”, doc ID
EMIS.PMQ.02, Shell International, Human
Factors Engineering, The Hague.
The operating and maintenance demands, the
optimal piping lay-out and other mostly
common engineering or statutory lay-out
demands are all combined and used to arrive at
SHELLe “Identification of valve analysis
(IVA® )”, doc ID EMISPMQ2A, Shell
International Human Factors Engineering, The
Hague
128
ID EMIS.PMQ.07, Shell International Human
Factors engineering, The Hague.
SHELLf “Best practice ergonomic guidelines
for skid package units design”, doc ID
EMIS.VM.01, Shell International, Human
Factors Engineering, The Hague.
FEEEM analysis report MSPO/2 project, doc
ID. LGVSFOR 02-7000-02.021, ABB
LUMMUS, Voorburg, The Netherlands
SHELLg “Benefits of ergonomic design, Part 1
Quantification model, part 2 Case studies”, doc
129
130
HEALTH AND SAFETY BY DESIGN - INTEGRATING HUMAN
FACTORS INTO THE OFFSHORE DESIGN PROCESS.
Dr Ian Randle, Hu-Tech Associates Ltd and Mr Ed Terry, Sauf
Consulting Ltd
Introduction
The regulators have an interest in this area as a
means to foster improved safety and
environmental performance, this approach
brings 2 current strands of thinking together;
Human Factors (HF) input is now realised to
be the common factor, in its broadest sense, of
the remaining barriers to excellent safety and
environmental performance.
Many issues arise from an individual’s
performance in certain contexts, but there
remains the opportunity to include HF in the
design of systems, what is sometimes termed
the Man-Machine Interface (MMI). These
issues have been dealt with in engineering of
new plant and equipment but much of the focus
has been on direct interfaces, notably control
systems.
F
W
e
e s i g n
a
s i b
h a t
c o
w o r k
i l i t y
u l d
P r o
è
C
•
Facilitating the incorporation of HF into
all project system characteristics.
n
W
c e
p
t u
h a t w
w o r k
a
l
D
the
The method will allow the HF consultant to
consolidate the inputs and inclusions, confirm
that they are appropriate and to deal with novel
and innovative issues.
This process therefore reflects a “bottom-up”
approach for incorporating Human Factor’s
considerations into the design.
Fitting into the design process
The HF considerations must meet the needs of
the stage in the design lifecycle, so it is
pertinent to reiterate what the demands of each
design are, these are described below.
c e s s
o
of
The method will look to define categories of
design deliverables and will also look at the
importance of CAD deliverables. The method
intends to outline some basic requirements that
discipline engineers can then incorporate
without recourse to specialist HF advice.
Using this approach, whereby the discipline
specialists implement HF themselves into their
traditional discipline deliverables, allows the
technical and management teams to identify
where HF will benefit their particular areas of
responsibility
and
also
allows
HF
considerations to benefit from their expertise
and their specialist activities. Implementing
this process will, in addition, spread the
awareness and understanding to other technical
and management disciplines.
D
Raising the understanding
importance of design, and
This paper presents the outline of the method
currently under development and which is the
subject of an industry proposal. The paper
describes the steps to be taken to facilitate or
support individual engineering discipline
contribution to include Human Factors in the
traditional deliverables of the design process
for oil and gas installations.
There remains an alternative approach; typical
design deliverables and activities prepared or
undertaken during the design of an offshore oil
and gas platform are the mechanisms by which
design decisions are generated, reviewed and
implemented. Individual technical and
managerial
discipline
specialists
can
themselves consider and incorporate (or not)
solutions for areas where HF issues should be
key. The project team considering these issues
can then note the solution of the issue and the
manner in which the solution can be
incorporated.
4
•
e
s i g n
i l l
è
F
H
131
o
E
w
w
E
D
w
i l l
r k
o
è
i t
D
e
t a i l
M
D
e
s i g n
a k e
i t
w o r k !
It is a base assumption of this method that the
CAD model can function as the main vehicle
for collating and consolidating HF inputs. The
relationship to the information held in the CAD
model to each of the above design stages must
also be understood carefully. The information
required and available at each stage contains
varying detail and is based on varying
uncertainty. The HF issues must recognise this
evolution of data.
Understanding the key objectives of each
design stage is paramount. The inclusion of HF
must be targeted precisely to meet the overall
objective of the design stage being undertaken.
This paper has proceeded on the basis that the
above objectives hold true.
The potential HF inclusions are detailed further
in the tables later in this paper.
The key to the successful implementation of
this approach is to have a clear definition of the
design phases, the related deliverables and
their dependence upon the CAD model.
Further detail on the objectives of each of the
design stages is contained in the figure
overleaf.
132
133
• Schedule
• W eight
• Cost
• Coarse risk ranking
of options
• Demonst rate
selected concept is
ALARP
• Select concept
(using inherent
safety principles)
• Identify design
options
D evelop and justify
selected concept
D evelop a range
of studies
• D evelopment
options ident ified
è C o n c e p t u a l D e sign
F e a sibilit y
FEED
• ALARP process
• Set Performance
Standards
• Eliminate and
prevent hazards
• Identify / assess
hazards
Confirm design of
chosen concept
è
4 What is the design pr o cess?
• Confirm risks a re
ALARP
• Confirmation of
Performance
Standards
• Reduce and
mitiga t e hazards
• Confirm hazards
assessment
Specify & purcha se
è D e tail D e sign
The issues defined in the figure above also
serve to reiterate that much more influence is
available early in the design phase.
It should be noted at this time that this paper
does not address project stages beyond design.
4How is safety incorporated into the
design process?
D esign activities
T he design process
Safety activit ies
T he safety process
Iterates towards
design goals
Iterates towards
safety goals
aspects of safety can be successfully integrated
into the design process but some aspects
actually benefit from remaining independent.
As education and awareness of safety has
improved, the ownership of aspects of the
process has and should be taken over by others
with a direct impact on the outcome. The skill
is to balance which tasks fall into which
category.
A distinctive attribute of the method proposed
is the manner in which the inclusion of HF
issues is undertaken. To illustrate this
approach, a traditional view of implementing
safety has been set out above. It can be seen
that traditionally, the safety process tends to
run in parallel with the design process where
the activities within the design and safety
processes inform each other. Each parallel
process encompasses iterations that progress
towards the defined goals being achieved.
The figure above reinforces the concept that
design and safety are rolling iterations. It must
be realised that not all information will be
available early in a project or will be available
with acceptable levels of certainty. It is our
contention that the engineers responsible for
that information may be the best ones to make
the judgement of what they can demand and
use by way of HF information.
It is our suggestion that there is an opportunity
for HF studies to develop an integrated process
at this point in the evolution of HF in design.
The potential for merging HF directly into the
activities of other disciplines within the design
process is in our view even greater and may
even precede the incorporation of the safety
process. This approach could then build on the
experience of the safety teams where some
134
4 T h e D esign Pr o cess is St aged
3 In t h e ear ly st ages, Feasibilit y and C o ncept u al, it is
open to influence and change
3 T h i s is w her e H F input w ill be m o st c o st -effect ive, but
w here least effort is undertaken
The figure above summarises and emphasises the points discussed in the previous section.
A review of past practice
4 G aps in Int e gr at ing H F int o D esign
3 Past p r act ices:
– Less e m p h asis o n “ m ino r ” hazar d s
– Less e m p h asis o n U sabilit y / w o r k p lace t ask s
– Insufficient feed b ack fr o m past successes and
failur es
– Insufficient input fr o m End U ser s
The incorporation of HF has had a particular
focus in its past application. The incorporation
of HF has often been through the safety
discipline and has focussed on major hazards
(as required by the Safety Case). There has
been more emphasis on high profile HF
usability issues such as control room layout,
access to large valves and handling access for
equipment replacement.
reporting requirements. Thus it should be noted
that the key customers for reporting only are
the regulators.
Linking HF to deliverables
In order to execute their projects effectively,
engineering contractors have planning systems
that have been built from lists of typical project
deliverables and activities, these listings form
the basis of a planning network that governs
the smooth running of the project. A typical
network will show the activities listed by
discipline and it will identify the inputs and
outputs for these activities. This information
will be compiled into a detailed planning
network.
The remaining 2 points in the figure above are
self evident and reflects the often inadequate
feedback mechanisms between operations and
design. The paper discussed earlier the reasons
for deliverables. For many years the industry
has produced deliverables for reporting,
contractual fulfilment and passing on
information, with fabrication, construction,
installation, hook-up & commissioning and
operations being the real customers. It has been
a trend of recent designs to reduce unnecessary
work and a success has been to simplify
The planning networks have changed in
character over the last few years and now tend
to deal in a more focussed fashion with
135
It is therefore key to;
activities rather than individual project
deliverables. For example the main deliverable
is the 3 dimensional model produced by the
CAD system. In many design contractors the
piping and layout discipline holds ownership
over this model with other specialists
contributing as their skills and knowledge
demand. So in this case, the planning network
defines the contributing activities but would
register only one deliverable.
The proposed method will need to ensure that
project personnel work to the guidance or
protocol developed. This means that the
method must be demonstrably easy for them to
implement.
The method must therefore identify the benefits
arising from the inclusion of HF during each
activity and where in the project lifecycle that
benefit will be felt. This will entail identifying
the differences that HF will make in content
and form to the outputs of each activity and
then assessing the benefit that has accrued. It
may be that the benefit is not felt in the
immediate output of each activity but needs to
be consolidated with other activities and
outputs before some benefit can be identified,
this “roll-up” effect will also be reviewed as
part of the exercise.
•
Collect existing and typical planning
schedules
and
other
supporting
information
•
Identify the areas where HF should and
could be considered in the activities on
those schedules
•
Identify the benefits that may accrue, using
a wider and critical forum to review those
benefits
•
A more tentative step will be to
benchmark the value added from HF so
that the worth of the activity can be
demonstrated
This information will enable appropriate areas
to be listed where HF analysis can contribute
(given the quality of information on the project
at that time) and will facilitate the generation of
a checklist in matrix form to show where HF
contributions can take place and what they
would contribute.
In addition, the activities will need to be
classified by their position in the project
lifecycle, the figures below and the tables
overleaf identify some considerations.
4 Feasibility D esign and H F input
F e a sibilit y
Gener ic H F T asks
•
•
•
•
•
System Requir ement s A n alysis
Funct ional Analysis
U ser Requirements A n alysis
Ident ify all U ser s and St akeho lder s
Ident ify T asks and H uman Interventions
136
4 Conceptual Design and HF input
C o n c e p t u a l D e sign
Gener ic H F Tasks
• A llocat ion of Funct ion
• Manpo w er Planning
• Task D escr ipt ion and Synthesis
• Human Fact o r s Specificat ion
4 FEED a n d D e t ail D esign a n d H F in p u t
G e n e r i c H F T ask s FEED &
D e t a il D e sig n
• W o r k st at io n d esign
• E q u i p m e n t d esign
• H u m an Er r o r A nalysis
(fo r Q R A )
• U ser M anuals & T r ain i n g
137
Engineering
Design Stage
Feasibility
Key Tasks
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Conceptual Design
•
•
•
•
•
•
Detailed Design
•
•
•
•
Human Factors Tasks
Define basic process from reservoir
fluids
Confirm location & orientation
Estimate basic size (footprint)
Estimate basic weight and organise
lift vessels
Determine suitable structure for
support (or mooring if a vessel)
Identify coarse import & export
requirements
Use benchmark accommodation
sizing (i.e. comparative platform
types)
•
•
•
•
•
System Requirements Analysis
Function analysis
User Requirements Analysis
Identify Users and Stakeholders
Identify
tasks
and
human
interventions
Confirm process requirements and
specification
Fix orientation, footprint and
location
Reduce uncertainty on weight &
therefore on structural requirements
Confirm
accommodation
and
survival craft sizes
Identify long lead purchase time
equipment
and
determine
preliminary specifications for them
Confirm capacity and type of
import/export arrangements
•
•
•
Human Factors specification
Allocation of function
Manpower planning – numbers,
job functions
Task description / synthesis
Translate process requirements into
detailed specifications and purchase
orders for equipment
Confirm and freeze weight if
necessary, buy steel and confirm
fabrication arrangements
Place
sub-contract
for
accommodation unit and place
purchase orders for any related
safety equipment
Set in motion, complete purchase
and QA programmes and arrange
systems for material delivery to site
for building.
•
•
•
•
138
•
•
•
Equipment / Interface design
Task design
Workplace / workspace design
Human error and reliability
analysis
Manpower planning - job
definitions, teams, organisational
structure, skills and training needs
Design of user manuals / training
programme
Construction
Fabrication
/
•
•
•
Testing
Commissioning
&
•
•
•
Operation
Maintenance
/
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Allocate contract & set in place
progress monitoring arrangements
Build main steelwork in-situ, add
larger modules and equipment
packages (having arranged delivery).
This is the area where the largest
numbers of personnel are employed.
Develop
integrity
testing
requirements e.g. steel, piping,
welds, material checks.
•
•
Mock-up / prototyping
User trials / fitting trials
Arrange testing & commissioning
programmes
Organise all sub-contractors arriving
on site with test equipment while
finishing touches to construction are
being carried out
Arrange all appropriate testing /
commissioning agreements so that
they either interface or are
completely separated as required.
•
•
Ergonomic design evaluation
Risk assessment / compliance
certification
User training
Run steady state operations
Train for emergency situations and
process upsets
Run regular training for maintenance
teams as well as safety teams
Organise
interfaces
for
subcontractors to come on board for
their regular input to platform wellbeing
Plan shutdowns
Organise updates for personnel on
board
Monitoring & supervision of key
items on board
•
•
•
Post-design evaluation
Feedback to designers (These
generally do not happen)
Linkage to the CAD model
The models can be viewed by discipline
responsibility, so that all safety equipment and
areas under control of the safety discipline can
be coded to be a particular colour.
The CAD model is the most powerful vehicle
for illustrating the final product. It provides a
(relatively) realistic facsimile of the plant.
Other information can be attached to items on
the model, so that other engineers can retrieve
information based on layout and equipment
location.
It is our proposal that added into these
demarcations, each individual discipline attach
the HF information relating to issues under its
control.
The model can be constructed in stages or
layers to illustrate the construction, models
have been used to track material on its way to
the fabrication site, e.g. structure that was in
place and built showed as one colour, material
that was ordered and on its way was another
colour, and material yet to be bought (i.e.
where most flexibility still existed) would be a
third colour.
139
Reference information
example standards from the military, nuclear
and aerospace industries.
The inclusion of HF has some precedents from
other industries. The references below show
4 H F D esign Specificat ions, St andards & Guidance
4 Milit ar y - eg D EF STAN 0025
4 N uclear - eg N U REG
4 A er o space - C A A & FAA HF design guides
Goals for the guidance
This approach would have the added benefit of
demonstrating the benefits of early inclusion of
HF into design. The discipline engineers will
have the advantage of seeing benefits deriving
from their own actions in a specialist area with
which they were not initially familiar. This in
turn will build their understanding and
awareness of HF issues.
The guidance should provide a toolkit for
discipline engineers to use. The toolkit should
be designed to be readily used by many
discipline engineers with a low starting
awareness of HF.
4 W h a t i s t h e g u i d a n c e p r o p o sin g t o d o ?
3 Pr o v i d e a t o o l k i t f o r d e sign e r s t o a p p l y H F
c o n si d e r at io n s t o t h e ir o w n d e l i v e r ables & act ivit i e s
3 Illu st r at e t h e b e n e fit s ar ising fr o m an ear l y c o n sid e r at io n
of H F
3 Im p r o v e e d u c at io n and aw ar e n e ss o f H F am o ngst o t h e r
d isc i p l i n e specialist s
Benefits of the guidance
significant and will follow the points in the
figure below.
It is our contention that the benefits of the
proposed bottom-up approach will be
4 B e n e fit s
3
3
3
3
3
Im p r o v e s safe t y
p e r fo r m a n c e
( m in o r
&
m a jo r
h azar d s)
R e d u c e s o p e r a t io n a l u p s e t s
Im p r o v e s p r o d u c t iv it y
an d
In c r e a s e s c o m fo r t
m o r a le
Im p r o v e s e ffic ie n c y
an d
u s a b ilit y
am o n g w o r k
fo r c e
o f o p e r a t io n s t e a m s
Conclusions
engineering
disciplines
themselves
incorporating HF issues under guidance.
We have identified a bottom-up approach to
Human Factors that will involve the
140
The method should make maximum use of
existing deliverables and most notably the
CAD model.
By adopting the bottom-up approach we
consider that the disciplines will deal with
many lower hazard issues as well as those
associated with major accident hazards.
The model should be integrated into the project
life cycle, and the HF issues contained in the
guidance should be appropriate to the stage in
the life cycle.
Our conclusions are summarised in the figure
below.
4 C o nclusions
3 M o del addr esses gaps in H F input int o d esign
3 Individual engineer ing disciplines can t ake co n t r o l o f
H F in their o w n pat ch
3 The form of deliverables facilit ates the inclusion of H F
as never b e f o r e
3 The focus is o n m aking it easier for discipline engineer s
t o integr ate H F int o t he pr o ject
3 There ar e benefit s fo r t he user , the operat o r , the
const r uct o r and the r egulat o r
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
Question - Ian Loughran, Phillips Petroleum
In a previous life I had experience of the use of
3D CAD modelling on a project that I worked
on as a project engineer. However, my
recollection when we used the CAD model,
from the point of view of human factors I
think, is that we didn't really know what we
were looking for when we were going through
it, because we're all engineers basically.
What's your experience in trying to educate,
and perhaps providing check sheets etc., so that
people can make the most of the tools
available?
Question – Dr Ron Gardner, HSE
A question probably to both speakers really,
but especially Ian working a sort of bottom-up
approach. I just wonder about the language
you use when you talk about human factors or
health to engineers because I've found that on
occasion a problem. I come in to this as an
occupational hygienist and I find we talk
different languages, sometimes even using the
same word to mean entirely different things. I
just wondered if you've come across that, what
sort of views you have and how you might
tackle it.
Answer - Ed Terry, Sauf Consulting Ltd
Perhaps I can answer that. I think one of the
things we don't use with the CAD model is the
visual aspect and I was interested you
immediately said ‘should we use some sort of
checklist’? An example I'd seen my old team
use was on aligning gas detectors. As you are
probably aware, you fit gas detectors over
offshore platforms and they don't always look
at the piece of kit that you are supposed to be
protecting. What they ended up doing was
publishing a pamphlet of views that the gas
detectors should see, straight out of the 3D
model. So, when it went to the fabrication
yard, the guy who was fitting the detectors just
had to line up his eye along the axis and if he
saw exactly the same picture that he had in his
pamphlet, it was looking at exactly the right
Answer - Dr Ian Randle, Hu Tech Associates
Ltd
It's a point very well made. It's got to be
framed in terms that are understandable. I
think that's very much the focus of the project using terminology, their terminology and not
our terminology, making it user friendly for the
discipline engineers. It’s kind of practising
what we preach as human factors professionals.
It’s about the user-centred design for the
information we're providing for that set of
users. The secret, the solution? Well you've
got to get in amongst them. You’ve got to learn
their terminology and you've got to get
integrated and trusted and get critical feedback
from what you are presenting to them and
ensure that it does meet their needs.
141
chap operating the valve manually. There is
that level of capability and so that will help to
guide us. We wouldn't have to wait until he's
actually doing it, to see the posture and the
hazards. We could do that at the CAD stage.
piece of equipment. Now that's an obvious
example. I'm sure there are many more where
we could actually make use of the visual aspect
of the model. As you know models are
extraordinary these days, the detail is
phenomenal.
Comment – Mr Harrie Rensink, Shell
International
There is also the economic rule - don’t think
that with the pace that we are having to do
today in project management that during a
review you can change valve layouts. So,
before detailed design starts you must have
made clear to the layout designers which of
your valve layouts should be a hundred percent
according to the rules and which of them we
can more or less forget. In the old days we
were told we will design all valves according to
the rules. That is an unrealistic statement
because then our plants would be from
Aberdeen to Edinburgh. A typical ergonomic
activity would be to identify real critical human
machine interfaces and one of them should lead
to identification of what we call category 1
valve layout. That information should be
passed over to the layout guy so that he can
really work with it before the layout is frozen.
The layout is frozen at the end of project
specification. Keep in mind that everything
changed after freezing of your project spec will
result in extra rework and we can't afford it.
So, everything you think is relevant for the
design should be brought up before that’s
finished.
I think the trick is to try and pick something
that's visual to help the guy who is actually
fitting it together and then help the guy who is
doing the job. That's why we think that's going
to be such a good vehicle. It has been used and
the move is there but I think with recent turn
down in activity it might just need an extra
little push back again to get back on track.
Comments - Mr Harrie Rensink, Shell
International
May I add some remarks. First, the model is as
bad as its input. In the old days we had a
plastic model, now we have a 3D model. Fine.
Something more flexible but it's as bad as its
inputs. Now I'll ask the second question to you
and that is, you didn't know where to check
against. Now I'll ask you if you are a process
engineer or instrument engineer?
(Ian
Loughran - process engineer) That's good. So
where do you check your design against then?
Against your process engineering spec’s I
assume. So the answer to what would you be
using during model reviews is the spec’s that
should have been developed/implemented in an
earlier phase. That's the way to do a proper
design.
It's interesting that, now we are talking about
ergonomics or health or whatever, you think
you can do this with a check list instead of
following your own discipline engineering
process? Being at least one of the steps produce specs. And in another remark because
I like process engineers very much, you will
see that one is one of the co authors of my
paper. I even think that's its very important to
have these types of activities integrated in the
process engineering process because it's the
same type of analysis and it should have been
the same type of deliverables. It also makes
use of the same type of input being a process
flow scheme, at least in our approach. So
please address this type of activity the same as
you would do with any other engineering
discipline would be my final statement.
Question - Mr Colin Burgess, Shell Expro
One for Harrie really. How do you sell the
benefits of human factors engineering to a main
contractor who's responsible for engineering,
procurement, installation, commissioning and
fit for purpose?
Answer - Mr Harrie Rensink, Shell
International
That's indeed a problem. If you really want to
have the proper answer you should have been
able to identify all the goals of the various
stakeholders. I touched on the fact that
sometimes an engineering contractor’s goal is
quite different from an operator’s goal. It may
look a little bit basic too. I'm not asking
engineering contractors to do more than they
should do, but there are differences in goals.
What we have learnt is that, if there is a
contract type that enhances ‘right first time’,
then a contractor will be willing to get
operators, maintenance and human factors
engineering activity up in the process (80% of
misfits during detailed engineering are related
Comment – Dr Ian Randall, Hu Tech
Associates Ltd
Just one tiny bit to add to that building on what
Ed has said. The complexity of the CAD
models now could mimic the posture of the
142
to operability and maintainability). In other
words, look into the contract - the type of
contract - and that will guide you at least to
check the willingness of the contractor. At the
end of the day if you look at our figures related
to Capex and related to total cost of ownership
reduction, the plant owner should be the driver
of all this type of activity. But, the type of
contract is important for how the contractor
will act and react on proposals. Does that help
you a little bit?
Answer – Mr Colin Burgess, Shell Expro
Yes, thanks.
Comment – Dr Ian Randall, Hu Tech
Associates Ltd
Can I just add something very quickly to that.
I've been involved over the years in producing
responses to human factor specifications from
operators on behalf of design houses. Quite
often those specifications can require a lot of
detail but are not very specific in what they
require and obviously one does one's best.
What strikes me is that there is then a gap in
terms of the enforcement of that, the
verification of that, later on. I don't know if it
is just that I've not won that sort of work. But
I've not really been involved in verifying that
what was asked for was actually being
delivered from the human factors perspective.
143
144
DAY 2
AFTERNOON SESSION
SESSION THEME – PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL AGENTS –
CASE STUDIES
145
146
EXPERIENCE FROM SUPERVISION OF OPERATOR
COMPANIES' ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL RISK.
Mrs Anne Myhrvold, Mr Sigvart Zachariassen And Mr J A Ask,
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Stavanger
sampling data,
assessments.
Abstract
but
very
few
qualified
Additional motivation for starting this
supervisory activity was the data on accidents,
incidents and work related diseases NPD get
from the oil companies. These data showed a
significant number and a variety of different
diseases related to chemical exposure.
Norwegian regulations relevant for petroleum
activities do not have specific requirements to
risk assessments of chemical agents, like the
COSHH-regulations in the UK. The EU
council directive, ”Chemical agents at work”,
includes requirements to risk assessments and
this will be implemented in Norwegian
legislation later this year.
The requirements for chemical risk
assessments are found in the “Regulation
relating to systematic follow-up of the working
environment in the petroleum activities”. The
EU council directive, ”Chemical agents at
work”, includes requirements for risk
assessments and this directive will be
implemented in Norwegian legislation later
this year.
In 1999 the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
(NPD) performed a supervisory activity of
chemical risk assessment towards the main oil
companies operating on the Norwegian
continental shelf.
The joint approach for the activity was to let
the companies perform specific risk
assessments, while NPD followed the process
from the identification of assessment objects
until final reporting, communicating and
implementing of measures. Each company was
evaluated towards their ability to perform
chemical risk assessment, within a holistic
chemical management strategy.
The goals and the approach
The goals for the supervisory activity were to
contribute to improve the companies’ ability to
perform and follow up chemical risk
assessment for the working environment and to
generate knowledge related to chemical
exposure relevant for the petroleum activity.
NPD also wanted to contribute to experience
and knowledge exchange between parties in
the petroleum sector.
NPD’s supervisory activity showed variation
between the oil companies in all of the aspects
that were evaluated. We observed weaknesses
in identification and ability to give priority
between critical items, insufficient specialist
competence, weakness in methodology and
strategy, and lack of management commitment
and employee involvement. This paper
presents NPD’s experience from the
supervisory activity and discusses generic
requirements to chemical risk assessment
methodology.
Each company performed one or a few risk
assessments relevant for their installations and
ongoing activity. The supervisory activity
started with a process in the companies to find
out for what area and activity they needed to
perform a risk assessment. NPD followed the
assessment process starting with the
identification of areas and tasks, the planning
phase, and continued with the performing and
reporting phase. At the end of 1999 the
companies presented the results from the
performed risk assessments to NDP. We gave
feedback to each company.
Introduction
In 1999 the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
performed a supervisory activity on chemical
risk assessment towards the main oil
companies operating on the Norwegian
continental shelf. The background for the NPD
activity was experience from performed audits
and verifications within working environment
where we observed several activities just on
147
Areas and operations covered by
the oil companies’ risk assessments
Another connected aspect to the problems with
performing risk assessments was related to
insufficient
resources
and
specialist
competence. The specialists needed in
chemical risk assessments are occupational
hygiene professionals and occupational
medicine specialists together with personnel
with relevant technical and operational
background.
Norsk Hydro:
•
Re-injection and other treatment of
cuttings (Oseberg)
•
Hydrocarbons relevant for operation
of offshore process plant
•
Chemical treatment in offshore
process plant (Saga)
BP-Amoco:
•
Oil based mud in shaker and mud-pit
areas (Valhall)
•
Relevant NDT-activities
Norske Shell:
•
Various cleaning operations
Statoil:
•
Mud mixing and mud treatment
(Statfjord C)
•
Operation and maintenance of amineplant for CO2 removal
•
Thermal breakdown of polyurethanecoatings
Exxon:
•
Mud and cement mixing (Jotun B)
Phillips Petroleum Company Norway:
•
Use of biocides in drilling and
production
•
Thermal breakdown of polyurethanecoatings
We noticed lack of management commitment
and employee involvement during these
processes in most of the companies. This
aspect we specifically looked for in this
supervisory activity, since both involvement
and commitment are success factors for
achieving improvements.
Positive experience was also observed, for
instance the good processes in and between the
companies, where monitored data was shared,
similar problems were discussed etc. This is
appropriate to one of the goals of this
supervisory activity: to contribute exchange of
experience and knowledge between the
companies.
Generic requirements for
performing risk assessments
The experience from this supervisory activity
indicated a need for practical guidelines on
how to perform chemical risk assessments.
NPD is about to finish a report summarising
our requirements and expectations to risk
assessment and risk management relating to
chemical agents. The report will cover
principles and practises of the complete quality
loop (control-loop) for each step in the
assessment process, from identification of
potential hazard, monitoring and modelling of
exposure, risk assessment and evaluation and
decisions of preventive measures.
NPD’s experiences with the
supervisory activity
The experiences from the supervisory activity
showed variation in ability and quality
between the oil companies’ in all of the aspects
that were evaluated. Many of the companies
had problems with performing a chemical risk
assessment.
The supervisory activity started with a process
in each company where they identified tasks
and operations suitable for performing a risk
assessment. We found that there was not a
systematic approach to identify and prioritise
between the critical items. This, together with
the fact that many of the companies did not
have a methodology established for performing
risk assessments of chemical exposure,
resulted in serious starting problems for some
of the companies. Some companies used risk
matrixes alone as the “method” for risk
assessments, while others had good developed
methods in use. The uncritical use of risk
matrixes demonstrated the need for some
companies to gain knowledge of risk
assessment methodology.
The coming report can be used as a guideline
for the different companies to ensure a good
way of performing risk assessments. The
report tries to give a holistic view of the
requirements, the needs for resources and
competence and the criteria for management
commitment and employee involvement.
A successful risk assessment and risk
management does also depend on co-operation
between competent participants. To make this
co-operation possible it is important to know
each other’s competence. Further on it is
substantial to know one’s own limitation and
to have competence to order additional
resources.
148
like a specialist does. I don’t think it is
possible to transfer this kind of competency
throughout the company. It is important to
stress the need for specialist competence. But
the worker involvement plays an important
role to ensure a “realistic” risk assessment.
We saw that some of the companies had good
worker involvement in the risk assessment.
The activity was used to visualise the risks and
need for preventive measures, and in this way
“educating the company” and I think this will
raise awareness of risk assessments. It is
important to have both specialists and worker
involvement in the risk assessment activity.
Another aspect that is essential for performing
good risk assessments is to pay attention to the
quality control in the assessment process, for
instance to verify the data and to qualify the
laboratory used.
Of other generic requirements we mention the
need for transparent methodology and the
necessity for documentation of the risk
assessment and the whole process. The coming
report also states the hierarchy of preventive
measures to reduce the chemical risk.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
Question - Dr Ron Gardner, HSE
Anne, we’ve spoken before about our parallel
experiences with hazardous substances. In
much of what you say I can see parallels with
what we’ve found offshore. Right at the end
though you mentioned preventive measures,
something close to every occupational
hygienist’s heart. Just what did you find in
practice because one of the things we noticed
very much was there was a great tendency to
look at something, say yes there’s a risk, here’s
your personal protective equipment. What’s
your experience?
Question – Tony Parkinson Noble Drilling,
for Texaco
I’m surprised that you say they’re using oilbased muds again. We thought we’d reduced
that and cut it down. Is that correct?
Answer - Mrs Anne Myhrvold, NPD
Yes. There was reduction in use of oil-based
muds because of both working environment or
occupational health and the environment
outside. But with this new technology, reinjection, we have seen oil-based mud is
coming back again.
Answer - Mrs Anne Myhrvold, NPD
Very much the same unfortunately but still
they are paying more attention to it. I think we
are moving upwards to try other things to
avoid personal equipment.
Question - Mr Graham Cowling, Acoustic
Technology Ltd
You mentioned that the risk assessments
seemed to require a specialist to carry out the
assessments. Was there any evidence of any
attempt to transfer competency in doing those
assessments to the offshore workforce and do
you think there would be any benefit in raising
the awareness of risk assessment issues if that
happened?
Question – Edmund Brookes, BROA
I noticed in your presentation you indicated
you were going about the process in an
unusual way and following on from that you
were having your own conference or seminar,
presumably in Stavanger fairly soon. Open to
all? Does that include people from this side of
the Norwegian/ UK divide?
Answer - Mrs Anne Myhrvold, NPD
Well I think it’s important to have different
people in the process but of course the
specialist has to have a central role in this risk
assessment. Dealing with the aspects of
worker involvement, employees do not have
the competence to perform risk assessments
Answer - Mrs Anne Myhrvold, NPD
If you speak Norwegian - just come. You will
have to understand Norwegian.
149
150
MEASURING OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO HAZARDOUS
CHEMICALS IN THE OFFSHORE INDUSTRY
Mr Lindsay Ross, BP, Dr Ahsan Saleem, Offshore Safety Division,
HSE and Mr Stuart Whiteley, Shell UK Exploration and Production
necessitated the need for further investigation.
As a result, an exposure survey was carried out
jointly by HSE and UKOOA to assess the
impact that the lowering of the MEL for
benzene would have on the offshore industry
(HSE, 1999a).
Occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals
is a daily occurrence for many workers in the
offshore industry. To manage this risk, it is
important to have a good understanding of the
nature of chemical usage offshore in terms of
the substances used, the potential for exposure
and the resulting health risks. Following the
extension of COSHH to apply offshore in
1995, UKOOA’s Occupational Hygiene
Working Group commissioned a review of
chemical exposure data collected by its
members. The objectives of the review were to
identify deficiencies in the available database,
provide information to support industry-wide
standards and help to prioritise further
exposure monitoring work. The review
identified a number of deficiencies in the
available exposure data and recommended
further work to develop the offshore
occupational exposure database. As a result a
working group was set up between HSE and
Industry to develop and carry out exposure
surveys on an industry-wide basis. The first
two areas identified by the working group for
further work were the measurement of
occupational exposure to Benzene and Drilling
fluids.
Over 90% of chemicals supplied offshore are
used in drilling operations. Drilling fluids are
complex chemical mixtures designed to have
specific properties under very specific drilling
conditions (HSE, 1999b). Aerosols and
vapours generated from the use of drilling
fluids are associated with a number of illhealth effects including eye and respiratory
tract irritation. Also, skin contact with whole
muds and some individual components has
been associated with dermatitis. Previous
exposure assessments have used a variety of
sampling methodologies and various exposure
standards. There was a lack of personal
exposure data but the range of available static
sampling results indicated the potential for
significant personal exposure. In view of the
potential for exposure and the limitations in the
available exposure data, it was decided to
standardise the sampling methods and to carry
out a survey of occupational exposure to
drilling fluid vapours and mist.
Benzene is a natural component of crude oil
and unrefined natural gas (0.1-3%).
Epidemiological studies have demonstrated an
association between benzene exposure and the
development of leukaemia and benzene is a
regarded as a human carcinogen. However, no
threshold for carcinogenicity has been
demonstrated and it is not possible to establish
a level below which risks to health cease to
exist. This led to the introduction of a
Maximum Exposure Limit (MEL, 8-hour
TWA) in the UK of 5 ppm in 1991. The first
amendment to the Carcinogens Directive,
which was adopted by the European
Commission in June 1997, called for revision
of the MEL for benzene over a 3 year period.
The UK implemented the directive, in
December 1998, with a phased reduction of
the MEL for benzene from 5 ppm to 3 ppm in
June 2000, and from 3 ppm to 1 ppm in June
2003. Although, the available exposure data
did not indicate a significant problem offshore
the proposed reduction in the occupational
exposure limit for benzene and some
limitations in the existing exposure data
References
HSE 1999a
“Occupational exposure to
benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene
during routine offshore oil and gas production
operations”, HSE Offshore Technology Report
- OTO 1999 088
HSE 1999b “Drilling fluids composition and
use within the UK Offshore drilling industry”,
HSE Offshore Technology Report - OTO 1999
089
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
Question - Andy Curran, HSE
You referred to a lot of environmental
sampling. Has any thought been given to
biological sampling because obviously for
contamination of the skin, your environmental
sampling is not going to reveal that. Nor will
environmental sampling say what they were
exposed to.
151
welly boots to be filled with mud, things like
that and a general awareness. In terms of
biological sampling, perhaps Dr John Cocker
at the back there can bring us up to date with
biological sampling for these sorts of issues?
Answer – Stuart Whiteley, Shell Expro
In terms of the dermatitis hazard, I think that’s
well understood and the control methods are
actually in place for that. Simple things like
people having good personal hygiene,
changing their overalls, not allowing their
152
LEGIONELLA AND OTHER ISSUES WITHIN POTABLE WATER
MAINTENANCE. A CONSULTANT’S PERSPECTIVE
Dr Mark Brown, Commercial Microbiology Ltd, Aberdeen
®
Introduction
Legionella and Potable Water
in the Offshore Industry A Consultants Perspective
iHistory of Legionella
iBacterial cell growth
iBiofilm formation
iInspection
iCurrent legislation (L8)
Dr Mark Brown
Microbiologist
®
®
Microbiology at work™
Microbiology at work™
History of Legionella
Essentials Required For Bacterial Growth
• Outbreak of pneumonia at US Legion Convention in 1976
For growth bacteria require:
• Isolated organism from lung tissue - Legionella pneumophilia
• Carbon source
• Nitrogen Source
• Trace metals (Mg, Ca, Fe etc)
• 90% of cases in UK caused by Legionella pneumophila
• Typical number in potable water may be < 1cell per litre
• Carried in aerosolised droplets (cooling towers, showers, etc.)
Legionella has a specific requirement for:
• Risk Groups include middle aged smokers (offshore workforce)
• Iron
• Sulphur (cysteine)
• Current Legislation L8 Approved Code of Practice
and Guidance (January 2001)
®
®
Microbiology at work™
Microbiology at work™
Bacterial growth
Doubling time - 20 minutes
Single cell
• Growth kinetics - binary fission
01
12
24
38
416
532
664
7 - 128
8 - 256
9 - 512
10 - 1,024
3.5 hr
• Lag phase
• Exponential growth phase
• Stationary phase
• Death phase
Two cells
®
Microbiology at work™
Microbiology at work™
153
®
Doubling time - 20 minutes
01
12
24
38
416
532
664
7 - 128
8 - 256
9 - 512
10 - 1,024
3.5 hr
11 2,048
12 4,096
13 8,192
14 - 16,384
15 - 32,768
16 - 65,536
17 - 131,072
18 - 262,144
19 - 524,288
20 - 1,048,576
7 hr
Doubling time - 20 minutes
01
12
24
38
416
532
664
7 - 128
8 - 256
9 - 512
10 - 1,024
3.5 hr
®
11 2,048
12 4,096
13 8,192
14 - 16,384
15 - 32,768
16 - 65,536
17 - 131,072
18 - 262,144
19 - 524,288
20 - 1,048,576
7 hr
21 2,097,152
22 4,194,304
23 8,388,608
24 16,777,216
25 33,554,432
26 67,108,864
27 - 134,217,728
28 - 268,435,456
29 - 536,870,912
30 - 1,073,741,824
10.5 hr
®
Microbiology at work™
Microbiology at work™
Populations: bulk phase or surfaces
Biofouling events
Planktonic (free swimming bacteria)
• Cell density limited (105 per ml)
• Limited nutrient available
• ‘Easy’ to kill
Sessile (attached to surfaces / growth in biofilm)
• High cell density possible (109 per cm2)
• Constant supply of nutrient (flow)
• Difficult to kill with chemicals
Unfortunately bacteria prefer to grow
in a biofilm!
®
®
Microbiology at work™
Microbiology at work™
Biofilm Formation
Sidestream®
®
®
Microbiology at work™
Microbiology at work™
154
Areas of interest
Factors affecting bacterial attachment
Areas prone to biofilm formation:
• Dead Legs
• Unused cabins
• Unused tanks
• Drinking fountains
Materials
• Metals: Iron, Steel, Copper, etc.
• Non-metal: Plastic, Rubber, Ceramic, etc.
• Temperature abuse
• Calorifier
• Humidifiers
System Conditions
• Temperature (avoid > 20°C - < 50°C)
• Flow Rate (avoid stagnation/dead legs)
• Scale
• Corroding pipe
• Calorifier
®
®
Microbiology at work™
Microbiology at work™
Offshore Monitoring (chemical parameters)
Offshore Monitoring (Bacterial Parameters)
• Total Viable Counts @ 22ºC and 37ºC
Indicators of bacterial loading & trend analysis
• pH
• Residual Chlorine, Chlorine Dioxide or other
• Legionella spp.
• Alkalinity
• Hot and cold systems
• Hardness
• ‘Complex’ equipment (e.g. TMV’s)
• Metal Content
• UKAS accredited laboratory
• Inorganic anions
According to L8 monthly monitoring should be considered
®
®
Microbiology at work™
Microbiology at work™
System Inspection
Summary
Inspection of Physical Parameters
•
• Water temperature (weekly)
Legionella spp. Have been detected offshore
• The workforce can meet the criteria for ‘at risk’
• Tank conditions (annual Risk Assessment (RA))
• L8 allows a best practice approach
• Water appearance (weekly)
• Applying L8 will allow demonstration of due diligence
• Chemical dosing (weekly/evaluate in RA)
• Pipework condition (annual RA)
®
®
Microbiology at work™
Microbiology at work™
155
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
Comment – Bill Morgan, Shell Expro
I accept what you’re saying, but I think we
really need to try and keep the problem in
perspective.
Question - Tony Parkinson, Noble Drilling,
for Texaco
Is legionella caused by inhalation or by
drinking contaminated water?
Comment – Dr Ron Gardner, HSE
I can add to that. I think a better phrase would
be ‘people at higher risk’ rather than ‘at-risk
grouping’ but that’s a semantic point maybe. I
want to emphasise something though. Mark
has talked very specifically about legionella.
Offshore you take on the water supplier’s
responsibility so don’t take the comment in L8
(Legionnaires’ disease. The control of
legionella bacteria in water systems.
Approved Code of Practice and Guidance) to
mean that you can’t stop sampling for other
bacteria including coliforms or that you can’t
stop doing chemical analysis. You have that
responsibility under the Management and
Administration Regulations.
Answer - Mark Brown, Commercial
Microbiology Ltd
Inhalation primarily, leading to colonisation in
lung tissue.
Question - Tony Parkinson, Noble Drilling,
for Texaco
Why does it affect smokers?
Answer - Mark Brown, Commercial
Microbiology Ltd
Primarily I presume because of the state of
their lungs; a weakened immune response I’d
imagine.
Question - Bill Morgan, Shell Expro
You mentioned this at-risk. Usually in an atrisk group there’s usually some prevalence
within an at-risk group. I’ve worked for Shell
Expro for 22 years. We’ve not had a case of
legionella in 22 years. The Public Health
Laboratory system has no data whatsoever on
any offshore oil worker suffering from
legionella. Would you like to respond?
Could I also add that if you take those samples,
(it’s a plea really), often people look at the
sample results and say ‘we’re within spec’ and
they get put in a file. Look at the trends. Iron
in particular Mark has mentioned – don’t look
at a one-off value. Look at the trend, because
that will tell you a great deal, that one
measurement, about the condition of your
system and the chances of you developing
bacterial growth, not just legionella but other
things as well. It’s a plea on my part really.
Answer - Mark Brown, Commercial
Microbiology Ltd
I think you’re right. There have been rumours
and speculation that it does occur offshore, but
as you say there have been no documented
cases of Legionnaires disease offshore. But, I
think we should just be aware that it’s got
potential to occur and cause disease if we don’t
control it. Think of the recent BBC case with
cooling towers. I think with cooling towers
some of the main problems are due to the fact
that we’re dispensing perhaps a large number
of organisms into the atmosphere. With the
BBC case it was found that for individuals that
were actually walking past the BBC, perhaps a
thousand of those individuals wouldn’t be
affected but one would. They traced all the
cases of Legionnaires disease back to people
that had walked past the BBC, purely because
they were being exposed to aerosolation from
cooling towers.
Question - Mark Gibb, Blowout Magazine
Is the necessary equipment available and are
the necessarily qualified personnel available to
carry out the tests that are required on all
installations?
Answer – Mark Brown, Commercial
Microbiology Ltd
I think it’s a difficult one but the operator has a
responsibility to be performing these risk
assessments but not necessarily a responsibility
to actually be doing the sampling itself. This
could be given out to third party individuals.
Qualified legionella risk assessors can come in
and do audits for you. So it’s not necessarily
personnel on board that need to be doing the
sampling.
156
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NOISE AT WORK REGULATIONS,
OFFSHORE
Mr Curt Robinson, Acoustic Technology Ltd
Introduction
implemented; this requires an authority and
access to a budget that the medic/safety officer
often does not have. If the responsible person
is not identified within the management
procedures then it will default to the OIM as
opposed to the competent person. If the
exposure assessment identifies a particular area
that gives rise to a significant proportion of the
risk to the asset, then it is the responsible
person who is required to ensure that that risk
is minimised to as low as reasonably
practicable. This is not an impediment to
assigning the responsible task to the competent
person, however, they must be authorised with
the necessary authority, support and funds to
initiate improvements/actions where necessary.
After the implementation of the Noise at Work
Regulations (NWR) offshore through SI
1997/1993 “The Electricity and Noise at Work
Regulations” in January 1998, the initial
emphasis was to ensure that assets had carried
out a noise exposure assessment and had begun
a hearing conservation programme. In the past
18 months most of these assets have reached
the limit of the bi-annual assessment period
and a further survey has been completed.
During this latest survey more emphasis was
placed on an audit of the management
procedures in place and the general “health” of
the hearing conservation programme. This
paper summarises the findings found during
these latest assessments and highlights the
general strength and weaknesses of most
hearing conservation programmes.
Assessment (Regulation 4)
ATL’s noise exposure management system
assessment programme (NEMS) has been
installed on the majority of assets within the
UK sector. The programme, which is intended
for risk assessment, assesses the long term
exposure of personnel (work patterns are
assessed typically over a two week shift – with
the sanction of the HSE) whereas the
regulations set their criteria based on daily
exposure, for highly variable tasks the
exposure may also be averaged over a week.
Policy
The cornerstone for ensuring that a hearing
conservation programme is likely to be
successful is a management policy and
procedures that outlines lines of responsibility
and actions to be undertaken by identified
personnel. Most assets, in the main, have an
acceptable policy and procedures in place.
Two common weaknesses are that it is not
always to hand and that it does not identify
persons within the lines of responsibility.
Most notably, the “competent” person is also
considered to be the “responsible” person for
the implementation of the regulations.
For example:
A Mechanical Technician is required to run the
fire water pumps (2 off) once a week. Each
pump is run for 15 minutes, only 5 minutes of
that time is spent within the pump enclosure
with the engine running (room noise level –
108 dB(A)):
Competency vs. Responsibility
It is common to find that the medic or safety
officer has been assigned the task of managing
hearing the conservation programme. These
persons have often completed an approved
training course to demonstrate their
“competency” and, therefore, they largely have
sufficient knowledge to carry out an
assessment, advise on hearing protection and
zones, provide training and information on the
effects of noise and keep an up-to-date record
of the programme.
• The fractional exposure for this activity is
91 LEP,d.
• The weekly fractional exposure for the
technician will be 83 dB(A);
• If there are 4 mechanical technicians within
the team and each is equally likely to carry
out the task then the group fractional
exposure reduces to 77 dB(A).
Over the long term, therefore, ensuring an
equal rotation through the task, reduces the
risk to a minimum level. It is still important to
remember that for the day the task is carried
Competency, however, does not infer
responsibility. A “responsible person” has the
responsibility to ensure that the programme is
157
Noise Exposure Reduction (Regulations 6
and 7)
Most modern assets (built within the previous
10 years) still have healthy reservoirs and,
therefore, have larger budgets to work with
and are open to implement noise control
measures. Often these assets are looking at debottlenecking or other projects to improve the
efficiency/output of the asset and it is possible
to incorporate noise control improvements into
these
projects,
thereby
demonstrating
continuous improvement.
out, the technician will have a second action
level exposure.
The benefit of the NEMS system is that it
provides an overall risk assessment of the
asset, it identifies personnel most at risk from
noise exposure and areas within the asset that
give rise to that risk. This is useful when
considering the practicability of noise control.
In addition, NEMS normally does not include
contributions from hand tools unless they are
part of the job function (e.g. needle guns for
the paint crew). Therefore, personnel that use
“high noise” tools such as impact wrenches
will significantly increase their daily exposure
level.
For older assets where the production rate
might not be so healthy, budgets are much
tighter, equipment older and noise control
improvements do not appear as desirable.
We believe that there are still some measures
that can be implemented that can reduce the
noise exposure risk and effective noise control
measures need not always be expensive. For
example, high noise levels within a water
injection module were traced to a control valve
on the discharge line of a non operating water
injection pump that had not properly seated;
water was flowing back through the valve.
Repairs to that valve would improved the
water injection system and reduce the noise
levels within the module by 3 dB(A) (or in
terms of fractional exposure, by 50 %).
For an asset using NEMS, ATL recommends a
dosimetry programme (also an HSE
recommendation). The purpose of this is to
verify and trend the noise exposure of specific
trades, using a meter worn throughout a
number of shifts. The benefits of dosimetry
studies include:
• Verification – particularly appropriate to
borderline first and second action level
cases, individuals with high second action
level exposures and trades with highly
variable work patterns.
Another method is to implement a noise
control register of all measures implemented
on-board. The register can then be audited
annually and used to demonstrate that the
measures already incorporated are maintained
and kept in good condition.
• Information from dosimetry can be used to
adjust and fine tune the NEMS model.
• Undertaking dosimetry allows contact time
to discuss noise issues with persons most at
risk and maintain awareness of noise.
Two case studies given below illustrate that
noise control measures can be cost effective
although they may not always achieve the
desired goal!
• Providing data on peak levels and whether
the action level has been exceeded.
CASE STUDY 1 An acoustic enclosure was
fitted over a water injection pump. Measured
noise levels increased by 4 dB(A) after the
enclosure
was
fitted.
Preliminary
investigations suggest that the enclosure has
been rigidly fixed to the skid, thereby allowing
the large enclosure panels to become an
effective radiating surface for energy
transmitted through the package structure.
Noise levels were not improved be leaving
large apertures open on the enclosure.
Isolating the enclosure from the skid with a
resilient strip and sealing the apertures should
improve the effectiveness of the enclosure.
Surprisingly the dosimetry data does show that
the 200 Pa level can apparently be exceeded
regularly.
Analysis has shown that this
commonly occurs around traditional “break”
periods. Possibly due to a heavy karaoke
session in the ‘coffee’ areas, more likely
though to be due to an impact on the
microphone as the overalls are removed and
stored in lockers. Another likely cause is the
interference from radios located in the same
area as the dosimeter microphone.
158
CASE STUDY 2 A JT gas exchanger located
within the process module generated surface
noise levels to 118 dB(A) from pipework
leading from the dry gas scrubber to the
exchanger. Applying acoustic insulation to
this pipework, less than 30 m in length would
decrease deck noise levels by upwards of 5
dB(A) and the overall asset risk by
approximately 40 %.
Hearing Protection/Zones (Regulations 8
and 9)
• The issue of ear muffs or moulded plugs
should be recorded to illustrate that the
devices are replaced at the correct intervals;
• It is important to ensure that hearing
protection devices provided to contractors
by their employers are in good condition
and are acceptable for use on the asset.
This is considered to be the facet of the
regulations that is most closely followed, most
assets maintain a minimum number of
protection devices and these normally provide
adequate coverage. Areas for improvement
that have been noted are:
One major inconsistency found across assets is
the policy of mandatory use of hearing
protection outside accommodation modules.
The major arguments for this policy presented
by the assets are:
• It is considered good practice to have
marked up plot plans in the coffee areas
and at exit points from accommodation
module, highlighting areas of risk;
159
• Hearing protectors should become accepted
as part of PPE similar to the use of eye
protection;
• The policy is easier to enforce;
• It minimises the risk of hearing decay.
Health Surveillance
Although health surveillance is not mentioned
within the regulations it is covered within the
Management of Health and Safety at Work
Regulations and is specifically mentioned
within the HSE guidance notes of the NWR
“Reducing Noise at Work”.
We believe that the arguments against are:
• Compulsory use of hearing protection is
not enforced by the HSE in areas below 85
dB(A);
• Wearing of personal hearing protection in
lower
noise
areas
could
impede
communication including the hearing of
PA announcements that may contain safety
messages;
• Wearing of hearing protection can be
uncomfortable over a long period of time
(especially ear muffs worn in conjunction
with spectacles);
• Complacency
in
removing
hearing
protection in obvious quiet zones and not
replacing them for high noise level areas.
“The appropriate technique for noise health
surveillance is audiometry”.
The important facet about audiometry is that it
is the feedback loop that demonstrates that the
objective of the regulations “to prevent
damage to the hearing of workers from
excessive noise at work” has been met.
Unfortunately most audiometry is carried out
by third parties, records of previous
assessments are not always kept in a central
database and the data is rarely audited to assess
the effectiveness of the programme. It is
unlikely, therefore, that any feedback occurs to
enable the responsible/competent person to use
the data to improve the programme.
Most importantly it was understood that the
HSE was against this policy because the goal
of the regulations was to minimise the risk to
as low as reasonably practicable without the
use of hearing protection.
Some assets carry out audiometry onboard,
which gives the competent person more
feedback on the success of the programme.
ATL is in the process, with a major UK
operator, of maximising the information that
can be obtained with audiometric screening at
the work site. Audiometry is now carried out
annually and instead of trying to minimise the
possibility of personnel suffering from
Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) by carrying
out the tests in the morning, etc., the tests are
carried out at the end of each shift in order to
look for TTS. If a person is displaying TTS, it
is evidence that the hearing conservation
programme has failed in some way for that
person, because if hearing protection had been
worn correctly then the exposure should be
less than that required to give TTS. The tests
may not be as accurate as those carried out
onshore but if a person is demonstrating
worrying signs of hearing threshold decay then
they should be referred to a practitioner as a
matter of course where a more accurate
assessment can be carried out.
We believe that the implementation of this
policy has become confused with the HSE
endorsing the mandatory use policy on some
assets whilst requesting other assets to desist;
this has made the arguments against the policy
difficult to defend and is an area that requires
clarification.
Records (Regulation 5)
This is an important area, particularly for the
employer, as it is through record keeping that
holds the evidence demonstrating the
implementation of the regulations. Most assets
are good at storing copies of reports of
exposure assessments and noise control
studies. The main weakness is in keeping
records of services provided to employees.
This includes hearing protection, training and
information provided.
160
80
70
% P o p u la t ion
60
50
40
68
30
20
10
22
15
13
2
3
19
0
1
4
5
H S E Ca t e g o r y
Category 1 to 3: “Referral Category 4: “Warning” Category 5: “Acceptable”
Example of Audiometric Data for a UK Field Assessed against HSE Criteria in 1999
smaller platforms, perhaps where it’s
particularly noisy. But it is open to abuse if
you do find quiet areas because people will
take their hearing protection off. I would say
generally it’s the lazy way out, so I would say
generally we are not keen on it. It’s not
something that we can prohibit as such though,
but to say we think it’s a good idea, I hope that
my comment reflects that we don’t think it’s a
good idea per se.
In this way the competent/responsible persons
can be satisfied that they have implemented a
successful hearing conservation programme.
Summary
In summary, it is believed that most assets
have implemented the regulations in good
faith, keep up to date with the assessments and
ensure that the hearing protection provided is
adequate and is used by personnel.
Weaknesses include not differentiating
between competent and responsible persons,
not keeping records on training and
information provided or operating an adequate
health surveillance programme.
Answer - Mr Curt Robinson, Acoustic
Technology
I agree. All I think is that perhaps it is the way
it’s communicated to the people because it’s
then been disseminated through the other
assets and so forth so as soon as I say I don’t
think it’s a good idea I get this feedback
coming through.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
Comment – Mr Kevin O’Donnell, Offshore
Safety Division, HSE
A bit of feedback on your view, or the view
expressed about HSE’s view of total hearing
protection zones outside the accommodation. I
have come across them but to say that HSE
‘thinks it’s good’ - I’m sure you have quoted
other people who say that’s not true. Our view
is that, at best, it’s a rather crude way to deal
with the problem. It may be appropriate on
Question – Unknown speaker, offshore medic
with Shell
I recently attended a noise awareness course
and want to know if it is true that levels are to
drop by 5dBs.
Answer - Mr Curt Robinson, Acoustic
Technology Ltd
161
There was a European Directive a while back
where it was proposed that the levels be
dropped by about 5dBs. Basically, it is not so
much that the first action level becomes 80 but
it’s really having the actions commensurate
with the second action level applying after
85dBs. Then nothing really happened from
that and it met with some resistance. But it’s
interesting that the European Presidency has
just changed over to Sweden and there is a
Vibration Physical Agents Directive that’s
been on the cards for a while now looking at
Hand Arm Vibration. It’s been a bit of a
football. The Swedish Presidency suddenly
also reintroduced the Physical Agents
Directive on noise. At the moment it’s up as a
proposal and up for discussions.
Answer - Mr Curt Robinson, Acoustic
Technology Ltd
That’s something we’re hoping to look at in
the next six months. We had a federal contract
with BP to oversee noise management issues,
so that’s where I got my data from. But ATL
has done a number of measurements on all
sorts of installations and it’s something that
we’ll be looking at producing in the future, that
is the comparisons between different types of
vessels.
Question - Bob Hanson, BG Group
The reason I ask the question is from my own
experience it would seem that when you arrive
on a drilling rig that they do tend to be noisier.
I know it’s anecdotal but I’d be interested if
any of the drilling organisations have done any
work in assessing noise exposure on drilling
rigs specifically.
Question - Bob Hanson, BG Group
The data that you presented is from one
company and it refers to fixed installations. Is
that correct?
Answer - Mr Curt Robinson, Acoustic
Technology Ltd
It is part of the legislation, that they need to I
think that the effort put in by some of the
drilling companies is equal to the oil
installations. Because of the fact that they are
small and live then yes, there are noise issues.
But I’d like to think that the drilling companies
are taking measures to put precautions through.
Answer - Mr Curt Robinson, Acoustic
Technology Ltd
It’s mainly fixed installations. There are a
couple of FPSOs in there as well.
Question - Bob Hanson, BG Group
Have you done any work and have you any
data on drilling rigs and how did the two
compare?
162
THE LSA FOCUSED RESULTS DELIVERY PROJECT ON NORM
Mr Brian McKendrick, Shell Expro
The FRD Team and Why it Was
Formed
item is not caught before it leaves our
control.
Focussed Results Delivery (FRD) projects are
used by Shell Expro to bring a high-powered
team to focus on a problem which has become
intractable, proven “too difficult” or needs
multiple skills. The team has a sponsor,
usually an Asset Manager, a budget and a tight
timescale. Team dynamics training is used to
maximise team effectiveness. It is, in effect, a
“tough nut cracker”.
Shell Expro has had Naturally Occurring
Radioactive Material (NORM), in the form of
Low Specific Activity (LSA) scale, within its
wells, plant and pipelines for many years. It
has developed working procedures (Local
Rules) and recording systems to manage the
problem over the years. These have been
developed in a “top down” way - company
experts writing procedures for the workforce to
apply.
4
ISO
14001,
the
environmental
management standard, requires rigorous
documentation systems, and while the
NORM systems passed the inspection,
the piecemeal nature was noted.
A team of eleven people was set up, consisting
of radiation specialists (RPA, corporate and
Business Unit), plus representatives from
operations, logistics, procurement, production
chemistry and a decontamination contractor.
All the key stakeholders were represented.
A growing NORM contamination of the
process plant on our platforms, both in
terms of extent and activity. In effect, all
of our oil producing wells and processes
are NORM contaminated. NORM is also
being found in service water systems.
The NORM in some wells, coolers and
other equipment is also growing steadily
more active.
The FRD Process
The FRD project was sponsored by Shell
Expro’s Tern/Eider/North Cormorant (TENC)
asset.
This in turn means that many more staff
are potentially exposed to NORM.
Virtually every maintenance job now has
a NORM dimension. It also means an
increasing burden to the business in terms
of planning, preparation, delays, costs,
training and record keeping.
2
The Scottish Environment Protection
Agency (SEPA) has adopted a much
more stringent inspection approach,
particularly on record keeping, and has
identified certain shortcomings.
In response to these concerns, an FRD
approach was used to improve the NORM
management system. The logic was that the
work was urgent and important, so needed
concentrated and dedicated effort. It was a
multi-stakeholder issue, so needed input from a
range of angles, and in particular from
operators who had not really been involved in
the decision making in the previous “top
down” process.
However a number of issues had recently made
us uncomfortable about our NORM
management systems. These included 1
3
The team spent three days together off-site to
build, exchange positions and analyse the job
in hand. Team building exercises helped to
build inter-personal understanding and trust.
Rules
of
engagement
were
agreed.
Brainstorming of the key NORM issues for
each individual, and thus each sector, was
carried out, and this was used to identify the
perfect situation and the gaps to be filled. A
complete general process map of NORM
management from identification to disposal
was developed, and possible improvement
actions locked into each stage of the process
map. These were then assessed, prioritised and
locked into an improvement plan.
An increasing number of incidents where
NORM contaminated equipment has not
been identified or has been wrongly
assigned. The installation of a gate
detector at our Torry base now identifies
every mistake. Each of these incidents
has potential legal exposure and
reputational damage if the contaminated
163
IDENTIFICATION AND MARKING OF
CONTAMINATED EQUIPMENT
Each person on the team then worked their
actions from the plan, meeting at monthly
intervals to report progress and agree next
steps as required.
The Team Leader
maintained rigorous control on progress.
Process Map for each Installation
with NORM Areas Highlighted
Concrete Deliverables
At the request of the FRD team, each
installation developed a process plan, marked
up with areas known to be NORM
contaminated and a feel for the extent of the
contamination. This will be used in work
planning to predict NORM problems at the
planning stage.
The concrete deliverables developed by the
FRD team fall into five groups • Working Procedures
• Identification
and
Marking
Contaminated Equipment
• Record Keeping
• Disposal
• Information, Instruction and Training.
of
The Aberdeen University NORM
Project
Shell Expro has sponsored a project at
Aberdeen University, part of which is to
identify better meters for identification of
NORM contamination. The researcher was
part of the FRD team, which allowed better
understanding of the operator requirements
from such meters. It also allowed the FRD
team to understand the restrictions and
tradeoffs on such meters.
WORKING PROCEDURES
Analysis of the NORM Processes and
Flow Diagrams
The overall NORM process and each subprocess was mapped. Decision points were
identified, and bottlenecks, duplications and
unclear areas considered and resolved. The
information flows supporting each process
were also mapped and streamlined. This was
used as the basis of Local Rules review.
Use of EP15 Meter to Confirm
External Tubular Contamination
A particular problem addressed was the
identification of external contamination on
internally contaminated tubulars, where the
internal NORM affects the external reading. A
solution using an alpha sensing meter was
developed.
Improved Definitive Local Rules
The Local Rules (radiation protection
procedures) were reviewed by the team in a
collaborative way. Two workshops were held
with the Radiation Protection Supervisors from
the offshore installations, at which further line
by line reviews were carried out. This meant
that all players had their concerns addressed,
that good ideas from the users were
incorporated, and that a much greater
ownership and understanding of the procedures
was obtained.
Better SAP Descriptions of Meters
The SAP ordering system was revised to give a
better description of the NORM meters and
thus make new meter ordering easier.
Improved Meter Recalibration
Process
A pocket (A5) version was also produced for
operator use on the plant.
The meter repair and recalibration process was
changed from each installation having its own
meters and organising their own repair and
calibration, to a pool of meters being held by
Aberdeen University and receipt of a broken
meter stimulating immediate return of a new
meter. True NORM calibration standards will
also be used. This will give better turnround
times, better use of the meter pool and better
calibration.
Rationalisation of Permit Checklists
and Local Rules
Some contradictions between Permit to Work
checklists and Local Rules were identified. A
new system was set up where the Permit
signposts directly to the Local Rules on
radiation matters, rather than to checklists.
164
Improved Record Auditing
Improved Standard
Taping/Tagging/Labelling
Conventions
The annual Radiation Protection Adviser audit
has been enlarged to include a detailed
inspection of records.
Marking of contaminated items was reviewed,
and new improved tape, tags and labels
designed. Green tape and labels for tested externally clean items were introduced.
DISPOSAL
Improved Information Flow and
Transaction Efficiency between
Shell and AEAT
RECORD KEEPING
The relationship and interface between Shell
Expro and its onshore decontamination
contractor, AEAT Dounreay, was discussed
fully.
Inefficiencies and “niggles” were
identified and corrected, particularly around
job accounting and information flow.
Improved Source Register Layout
The Source Register, which is the on-site
record of audit and use of radioactive sources,
was reviewed and improved in a collaborative
way. Several new fields were introduced to
allow better traceability across the total life of
the source.
Sponsor, Plan and Test Platform for
NORM Reinjection
Electronic Source Register
Shell Expro considers reinjection as the best
practicable environmental option for NORM
disposal. Regulators are presently considering
this option, and, if so minded, will permit it
through review of Authorisations. The FRD
team reviewed the technical and radiological
protection issues around reinjection, and
identified the Tern as first candidate platform.
The FRD team has initiated work on an
electronic source register to replace the
paper version. This will give better
access and search features.
Improved LSA Work Record Form
Consideration of New
Decontamination Options
The LSA Work Record Form, which is the
overview of each NORM job, was reviewed
and improved in the same way. A job
numbering system was developed, and several
new fields were introduced to give a complete
record of the job.
The FRD team investigated a series of ideas
for more efficient decontamination of
hardware, such as chemical dissolving (in situ
or in baths), ultrasonic cleaning, and different
types of jet hosing, such as in situ retrojetting.
While these are all longer term projects, the
team intends to keep a watching eye on them.
New Sampling/Testing/Recording
System for Offshore Discharges
A better sampling, testing and recording
system for offshore discharge data was
developed and installed. New features include
the use of Production Chemistry as
coordinator, sample tracking through the
intranet and result calculation and recording
through a shared data system accessible
directly from offshore.
INFORMATION, INSTRUCTION AND
TRAINING
Policy on NORM versus LSA Naming
Convention
There are two distinct names in Shell Expro
for the radioactive material produced with well
fluids - Naturally Occurring Radioactive
Material (NORM) and Low Specific Activity
(LSA) scale. Both names have their strengths,
but two names for the same thing can be
confusing.
The FRD team considered
standardising on one name, but settled on a
compromise position.
New Recording System for Onshore
NORM Arisings
A shared data system capable of assigning
Shell NORM arisings at AEAT Dounreay back
to the source platform was developed and
installed. This is also accessible directly from
onshore.
165
FRD Brand Style (Logo, Look)
NORM/LSA NEWSLETTERS
The FRD team produced two NORM
newsletters aimed at the general workforce.
Feedback on these was good.
The FRD team has developed its own brand
style, with a definitive logo. The newsletter,
overhead pack etc are in this style. This will
give an identity to NORM informational
material.
SOFT DELIVERABLES
Training Matrix
In addition to these concrete deliverables, the
use of the FRD process in this way sent several
important messages around the organisation.
The following were important.
A matrix of NORM competence, on a scale 1
(aware) to 5 (expert) was produced. This
shows the level of competence that each
position with NORM responsibility requires.
It also gives guidance on training methods to
reach each competence level.
Demonstration of Seriousness and
Commitment to Solving NORM
Problems
New Training Package
While the management has repeatedly
emphasised the importance of proper NORM
management, this amount of concentrated
effort gives tangible evidence of that
commitment.
A new overhead training package was
produced. This is a resource pack, allowing
the presenter to select material from the pack
appropriate to the knowledge and needs of the
audience. It also includes a matrix which ties
into the competence matrix above to guide the
presenter on the material to use with each
audience.
Better Onshore/Offshore Liaison on
NORM Issues - Openness and Trust
The
involvement
of
operations
and
decontamination contractor personnel in the
decision making around NORM gave a better
openness and trust across the onshore/offshore
divide. By co-creating the solutions, a better
understanding of where they came from and
why they are the way they are, and thus a
better ownership and buy-in, was obtained.
Computer based training (CBT) for delivery of
lower level training was investigated, but the
FRD team felt that for such a complex and
emotive subject, person to person training was
best.
Onshore Awareness and Training on
NORM
Emphasis on Onshore planning of
NORM Work
It was recognised at an early stage that
planning of the NORM elements of work
should start in the onshore planning of the job
rather than when NORM is encountered
offshore. This requires a greater awareness of
NORM
management
among
onshore
supervisory, support and planning staff. A
series of onshore workshops (about 2 hours)
were run to raise onshore awareness.
The Local Rules and onshore training now
emphasise the need for NORM management to
be built into workplans right at the onshore
planning stage.
Knowledge Improvement of FRD
Team - Ambassadors
Setup of RPS Network and RPS
Workshops
Participation in the FRD project created a
group of eleven people with a much greater
appreciation of NORM issues, who will act as
advisers and ambassadors for the issue in their
business sectors.
The was a recognition that the Radiation
Protection Supervisor (RPS) - the on-site
supervisor
responsible
for
NORM
management at each location, is critical to the
success of the system. An RPS network was
established and two large one day RPS
workshops run to get a common understanding
and discussion of issues, and particularly a
detailed review of the Local Rules.
Focusing and Communicating the
Range of NORM Work Ongoing
The FRD team found that a number of small
projects
and
initiatives
on
NORM
improvement were going on in isolation. Also
a lot of good ideas had been implemented on
166
specific locations. The FRD team focussed,
collated and communicated these.
business. This would not have been achieved
by conventional review systems.
Understanding of Pros and Cons of
Offshore versus Onshore
Decontamination
Team and Authors
Paul Abernethy
Decontamination
Contractor Representative
Fred Beadling
Operations
Jim Beresford-Lambert Procurement Adviser
Douglas Clark
Corporate HS&E Adviser
Contact Author
Muriel Dorthe
Research Student
Erica Edwards
Logistics Adviser
Terry Harvey
Operations
Brian Heaton
Radiation
Protection
Adviser
Brian McKendrick Operations Leader
Ian Reynolds
Northern Business Unit
HS&E Adviser
Stuart McGregor Production Chemist
There has been a growing demand for offshore
NORM decontamination. The FRD team,
during the mapping phase, reviewed when
offshore decontamination is appropriate, under
what circumstances, and what arrangements
must be put in place. This has been formalised
into the Local Rules.
Contact with SEPA
SEPA is the regulator of NORM disposal.
They were kept appraised of the work being
done by the FRD team, and invited to present
their position at the RPS workshops. This
allowed us to give SEPA a favourable
impression of our commitment to improvement
of our NORM management, and allowed us a
better understanding of the drivers on them as
regulator.
Dave Windle
TENC Asset
Sponsor
Manager
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
Question - Ed Brookes, BROA
Could I kick off Brian.
That’s a very
interesting video. Is that just for Shell or are
you going to be making a profit and selling it?
Contact with AEAT
AEAT
is
Shell
Expro’s
onshore
decontamination contractor.
They were
invited to present details of their business at
the RPS workshops. This gave a better
understanding of what they do.
Answer – Mr Brian McKendrick, Shell Expro
Let’s face it, with health and safety and
environmental matters in Shell Expro we don’t
make profits! But we’re happy to share our
experiences with other operators.
Ideas Exchange with BP
Question - Dr Ahsan Saleem, HSE
I was interested in the training matrix, where
you had level 1 to 5, and particularly with the
fact that you said there is some offshore
decontamination work that goes on. Do you
have any classified workers and how do you
monitor their doses?
BP has been appraised of the work of the FRD
project, and is impressed with what has been
done. Joint opportunities have been identified.
Setup of Radiation Coordination
Group
FRD teams, by definition, do the work
required, then disband. It was felt that, to
embed the lessons of the FRD project and to
maintain the new systems, a Radiation
Coordination Group be set up to maintain the
momentum. The membership will be the same
as the FRD team, and a Terms of Reference
has been drawn up.
Answer – Mr Brian McKendrick, Shell Expro
Basically our classified workers are from our
ISE contractor, Rigblast, and they are
classified workers and they do have
certification for offshore decontamination.
Question - Alan Wilson, PGS
Not just the video for across industry training
but it looks as though the entire job has been
well thought out and I’m also impressed. With
the rest of the training, is that possible for
something like a cross industry initiative?
Conclusion
The use of an FRD approach has resulted in a
much more robust NORM management
system, with the requirements of all
stakeholders recognised and accommodated,
and understanding and buy-in from around the
Answer – Mr Brian McKendrick, Shell Expro
167
The actual training consists of, from level 1 to
level 5, about 65 viewgraphs. Obviously for
level 1 only about 10 or so viewgraphs will be
used and then up to level 5 (the expert level),
the 65. I’m sure that they can also be made
available. Is that okay Stuart?
Answer - Brian McKendrick, Shell Expro
I’m actually sure we do. People in the Shell
Expro safety department, have you got any
history of this? [to colleagues in audience – no
immediate response] For instance, with the
environment, we had to go back to flared gas
on one platform. It was so huge we knew there
was a problem but the difficulty was again
there were quite a few potential solutions. We
have a big FRD team at the moment looking at
that as well, but it’s not a very good
reputational thing for our platforms.
Answer – Mr Stuart Whitely, Shell Expro
Yes, Brian. The main forum for sharing
knowledge that we’ve got at the moment is a
UKOOA Radiation Working Group which sits
under the Environmental Committee. I think
in time it will be forming links with BROA
and IADC and people like that, again to share
the knowledge as wide as possible.
Comment – Mr Lindsay Ross, BP
For a similar size organisation (BP) it seems
like a good way of approaching these type of
issues.
Question – Mr Lindsay Ross, BP
I just wonder if you use this FRD focused
results delivery nutcracker that you have here
to tackle any other kind of occupational health
hygiene-related issues?
168
TACKLING BAD VIBES IN THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY – A
CASE STUDY ON HAND ARM VIBRATION SYNDROME
(HAVS)
Mr Stuart McIlroy, Senior HSE Advisor, Halliburton Brown and
Root
Introduction
followed by pain and loss of grip during
manual tasks. HAVS is a prescribed industrial
disease and is reportable under the Reporting
of injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrence
regulations (RIDDOR).
According to HSE funded research more than a
million workers are exposed to potentially
harmful levels of vibration. Around 300,000
have symptoms of vibration white finger. The
proposals for a Directive on vibration are
progressing through the E.U System and are
likely to effect all activities that cause hand
arm vibration. If as seems likely the directive
is adopted this will lead to the introduction of
exposure limit values and with it a change in
U.K law, this in turn will have a significant
impact on how organisations manage the risks
associated with Physical agents such as
vibration.
It can be seen as a ‘people problem’ – it hurts
people in the workplace and continued
exposure to high levels of vibration can make
the health effects irreversible. The results of
this type of exposure are graphically shown in
the HSE health promotion video “Hard to
Handle”
The Case Study
The case study looks at vibration issues
identified during work carried out by members
of the integrated HSE team on Shell Central
Business unit.
The focus is on the way in which information
and ideas were shared with others within the
industry and how that communication process
ensured that the tools were available for
effective management of the issue within the
Oil and Gas Industry.
It would be reasonable to say that If employers
are to work within the law they have to ensure
they have effective means of controlling the
risk associated with using hand held power
tools.
This was highlighted in the1996 test case when
a group of miners took out a civil action
against their employer and successfully won
their case. The employer - British Coal were
well aware of the dangers of using percussion
tools as far back as 1973, they had carried out
a study, the results of which were largely
suppressed or ignored. The judge ruled that
they should have taken steps to prevent injury
by warning those working with percussion
tools of the possible dangers.
At the start of 1998 there was a nervousness
surrounding the possibility that the Physical
agents directive would be introduced – this
was the directive aimed at controlling vibration
exposure to individuals who regularly used
percussion/power tools.
The HSE were raising the awareness of the
HAVS problem and were also taking a keen
interest in how companies were managing the
issue – from a business unit perspective we
were conscious that existing controls for
managing vibration exposure was based on
custom and practice rather than scientific
measurement.
Workers whose hands are regularly exposed to
high vibration may suffer from several kinds of
injury to the hands and arms - collectively
known as Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome
(HAVS) common names for such injuries are
• Dead Finger
• Dead Hand
• White finger
In conjunction with the Tool Manufacturers
and fabric maintenance contractors a power
tool trial was set up the main deliverables
being to:-
The injuries may be due to impaired blood
circulation, neurological and muscular damage
or damage to joints.
• Measuring the vibration exposure levels
generated by using hand held power tools
Damage is progressive and may not be
apparent initially; gradual numbness and
paleness increase with cold conditions
169
• Introduction of engineering controls such
as ultra high pressure water jetting as a
method of removing weld metal around a
scrap compressor housing. Conventional
removal would mean hours of exposure
using a caulking gun
• Benchmarking against current exposure
standards
• Identify areas of weakness in achieving
compliance with future legislation
Occupational hygienists were contracted in to
take measurements to a recognised industry
standard; all power tools were tested under
normal operating conditions. By being pro
active in addressing the issue this provided a
good opportunity to apply best practice within
the business unit.
Such controls were identified and implemented
as part of the activity risk assessment process,
care being taken not to eliminate one problem
and introduce another!
A consensus was reached that a co-operative
approach was the way forward to facilitate
understanding and common ground to
managing the issues.
During the course of 1998 the team gathered
information internal and external to the
industry on how best to tackle the issues –
Shell
occupational
health
department
introduced Design Engineers from Atlas
Copco who manufactured low vibration
tooling. – They had vast experience in
designing high performance tooling for
industry and had worked extensively in this
area with British Aerospace.
British aerospace were happy to share their
experiences with us and this gave us some
direction on how to formulate a workable
policy for controlling HAVS,
There was recognition that HAVS was a live
issue and not all companies would face the
same problems in addressing the issue. One
example being the Fabrication Facility where
due to the nature of the business workforce
exposure to vibration may be high. Compare
this against a small offshore installation where
the use of power tools is infrequent – in both
cases there would be a need to balance the cost
of proposed controls against the perceived risk
of exposure.
This led to the introduction of a Business unit
HAV policy developed as an operational guide
to managers and supervisors to assist them in
applying appropriate controls for the health
and safety of exposed employees. The key
elements of the policy were as follows
Lack of available HSE resource would also
present problems to small service companies –
how many could call on a resident
Occupational health expert to give them sound
advice, the more likely scenario being one of
taking HSE advice from ‘another hat’
• To provide management awareness of
where there might be a risk of HAVS and
the type of control measures to reduce
exposure
• To enable those employees likely to be
exposed to recognise and understand the
nature of the problem and the precautions
to be observed
• To ensure the above employees recognise
early onset of symptoms and how to obtain
expert advice.
HSE specialist inspectors attended these
meetings, they acknowledged that the group
was moving along the right lines in terms of
identifying where likely exposure would arise.
The question was raised as to who ‘owned ‘the
problem was it the oil companies or the
contracting companies themselves
Although
operating
companies
have
responsibility to satisfy themselves that
activities are being carried out on their
installations and Facilities in a safe manner
ultimately it’s the contracting companies
responsibility for managing the risk and for the
health of their employees in the workplace.
During the first quarter of 1999 a series of
meetings were held involving Atlas Copco as
well as operating and service companies from
the industry.
Given that ownership of the problem lay with
the contracting companies it was decided that
the best way to raise the profile would be
through the Offshore Contractors Association.
It was clear from the large number of attendees
at these meetings that many companies had
been working in isolation on the issue, many
companies were already implementing
workable solutions to reduce vibration
exposure for example: -
A case was put before the OCA Technical
committee who noted that although there was
some excellent guidance already published
170
• Agreed common approach for managing
the issue
• Tangible benefits to the workforce
including the HSE publication Vibration
Solutions it was agreed that there was a need
for some specific industry guidance consequently a working group was set up with
a remit to: -
Practice Sharing Opportunities
With the imminent introduction of the Physical
Agents Directive comes new challenges, daily
exposure action values and daily exposure
limit values will be introduced to protect
personnel exposed to vibration on a regular
basis. The Directive will have an impact on
measurement methodology and with it a need
to develop standard methodology for taking of
measurements.
The OCA document entitled Guidance notes
of Good Contracting Practice within the Oil
and Gas Industry –Hand Arm Vibration
Syndrome was published in January 2000.
The OCA Health Committee met in November
2000 to follow up on identified issues and will
continue to work towards industry wide
standards for management of HAVS.
Prior to issue of the document practice sharing
had been carried out in an ad hoc manner –
within my own organisation this was achieved
by carrying out presentations at safety
meetings and forums and through articles
published in company bulletins
Conclusions
• Develop a guidance document that would
benefit and recognise the broad needs of
the oil and gas industry i.e. fabrication
facility V small manned platform,
occupational hygienist V “another hat”.
One of the key areas in achieving a “step
Change” is the sharing of HS&E information
and best practice to satisfy project needs and
guide industry in general. The approach to
practice sharing initially was adhoc, however
safety professionals played a large part in
driving the issue and developing industry
guidance on the subject.
After publication of the OCA guidance we
were able to promote the document in a more
formal manner. Forums such as the Industry
led Step Change in safety presented an
opportunity to promote the work carried out to
date -the shopping Mall workshops were
specifically set up to enable anyone to cherry
pick good ideas and best practice for use
within their own organisation.
Practice sharing provided some practical
examples of elimination and reduction
measurers, this showed excellent lateral
thinking when looking for solutions to reduce
HAVS exposure in the workplace, these
examples were drawn from all areas of our
industry.
To date a total of 200 copies of the document
have been taken up by member companies of
the OCA and operating companies of
UKOOA.
Due to the different working environments
within the industry there will be a need for
individual companies to take a risk based
approach when adopting management controls
to meet their given situation.
An OCA data bank was set up to encourage
further sharing of knowledge and experiences
on the subject, reference and how to access the
OCA data bank are made in the document.
The OCA working group acknowledged this as
a further opportunity to cascade and share
knowledge and experience – so far there has
been poor response to this offer
As a direct result of trading ideas many
companies have now introduced tangible
benefits to the workforce – brought about by
introducing
improved
tooling
and
understanding of the problem. This in itself
can be seen as a motivator for improved HSE
performance amongst the workforce.
In November 2000 the case study was used as
an example of how the practice sharing process
presently works in the Oil and Gas Industry,
there were seen to be many plus points
including: -
Overall we set out to benchmark against future
legislation and I think that from the efforts to
date the different sectors of our industry can
draw on the lessons learnt along the way and
are in a position to comply with future
legislation
• Exchange of information and vibration case
studies within the industry
• Buying in of experience external to our
Industry – British Aerospace study
171
172
REPORT ON HAND ARM VIBRATION SYNDROME
Ian Campbell, BP, HSE Advisor Health
A major focus for the HSE this year is in the
area of occupational health. Noise and other
allied health issues has been, and will continue
to be scrutinised by the HSE Inspectors
looking at how individual assets comply with
legislation, regulations and guidance. The
Harding platform has a HAVS working
practice document, first issued in May 1999.
Since then the document has been updated
twice to incorporate comments as a result of
two external audits.
Specification:- Responsible person: Platform
OIM/OOE
Ensuring that the power tools used on
Harding create the lowest HAVS risk whilst
being suitable for the intended workscope
• Both BP Amoco and contractor-owned
tools used on the platform shall be
specified as having the lowest HAVS risk
but still be able to be used for a practicable
working period
• All Harding contracts will include the
Harding Tool Specification as a contract
requirement, and that data sheets are
provided for all equipment.
BP Amoco Harding has a recognised duty of
care to ensure that the local workforce are
protected against the effects of Hand-Arm
Vibration Syndrome (HAVS), under the
following legislation;
Registration:- Responsible person: Platform
HSEA [ HEALTH ]
Ensuring that all HAVS risk equipment is
uniquely registered on a central platform
register that records all tool details
including HAVS risk level
All powered tools on Harding will:• be registered in an index bearing unique
identification numbers and HAVS details
as provided by the supplier / manufacturer
• be issued with a HAVS Risk Assessment
Sheet recording vibration level and
recommended daily use
• be supplied with a coloured label showing
the maximum permissible use per day
• Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work
Act 1974
• Management of Health and Safety at Work
Regulations 1992
• Supply of Machinery ( Safety) Regulation
1992
• The Provision and Use of Work Equipment
Regulations 1992 (PUWER)
• Reporting of Injuries, Disease and
Dangerous Occurrences Regulation 1995
(RIDDOR)
• HSE Guidance on Hand -Arm Vibration
HS (G) 88.
Current legislation in the UK, recommends
health surveillance for workers who’s exposure
regularly exceeds a guidance level for
maximum hand - arm vibration exposure of 2.8
ms² over 8 hours.
Awareness:- Responsible person: HSEA [
HEALTH ]
Ensuring that all Harding personnel are
aware of hand arm vibration syndrome and
the control measures to be taken to reduce
risk
• All new personnel to the Harding platform
will be made aware of the Harding HAVS
policy
• All personnel using powered tools and will
be trained in the requirements of the
Harding HAVS Policy before being issued
with the tools. This will include watching
the HAVS video / Interactive CD - ROM
Harding prior to May 1999, had made attempts
to control HAVS exposure to personnel by the
issue of HAVS timesheets whenever a
vibrating tool was in use. However this was
not uniformly used across the platform, nor
was the actual level of vibration generated
from a tool known. The HAVS working
practice document sets out the standard by
which all tools sent to the Harding platform
and tools already on the platform are
controlled.
Risk Assessment:- Responsible person:
HSEA [ HEALTH ]
Ensuring that the HAVS risk is assessed and
minimised
• Where possible, alternative methods shall
be used to remove the risk of hand arm
vibration syndrome
The principle methods of control are
Registration, Specification, Risk Assessment,
Reporting, Awareness and Analysis & Audit,
for example;
173
• Risk Assessments will be carried out to
identify the minimisation of HAVS
exposure prior to each task
frequencies between 5 and 20 Hz and less
outside these frequencies.
Two methods of measuring vibration are
widely used. Tri - axial accelerometer
measures and sums the three directions x, y
and z simultaneously, however, measuring
separately in each direction x, y and z gives
additional information on the direction with
the highest vibration, the individual results are
then summed to give a total vibration level. It
is widely accepted that measuring individually
in the three directions gives the most accurate
vibration level.
Reporting:- Responsible person: HSEA [
HEALTH ]
Ensuring that all platform personnel record
their use of power tools in a controllable
and auditable manner
• Each registered HAVS tool user on
Harding will be issued with a HAVS Log
Sheet
• HAVS tool users will be responsible for
completing HAVS Log Sheets with actual
exposure time
• Supervisors and users will ensure that both
the maximum permitted time and the daily
cumulative time for the tool(s) is not
exceeded
The HSE recommends a programme of
preventative measures and health surveillance
where workers exposure regularly exceeds
2.8ms² for a period of 8hours, which is
achieved using the following mathematical
calculation A(8) =ah.w.x√(t/8). The value A(8)
is equivalent to an average vibration level of
2.8ms² for a period of 8hours. This gives the
following exposure / level relationship;
Analysis & Audit:- Responsible person:
HSEA [ HEALTH ]
The Harding HAVS Policy will use a process
of data analysis and audit to drive a continuous
HAVS risk improvement process.
Exposure time ( hours )
16
4
2
1
Vibration ah.w ms²
2.8
4
5.68
11.2
The initial approach utilised on the Harding
Platform, was to register the tools with a
unique HAVS number, then to request the
companies who supplied the tools ( Deutag,
Cape, KOGL and AMEC ) for the tool product
data sheet.
8
½
2
Thus a tool that vibrates at 11.2 ms² can only
safely be used for 30 minutes, however a tools
that vibrates at 2ms² can safely be used for up
to 16 hours.
Tool product sheets usually accompany a tool
which is purchased from a DIY outlet etc,
however it was not usual practice for the
complete data sheet to travel offshore.
Normally electrical and air tools arrived
offshore with a letter of conformity issued by
the contracting company, which cover topics
as; Safety and Operating Instructions, Use of
the Machine, Maintenance and Repair,
Lubrication, Air Supply, Electrical supply etc.,
but rarely included information on Vibration
or noise generated by the tool. Thus it has been
a major achievement that information for every
tool has eventually been received on the
platform, with details of Vibration and noise.
This contained the vital information that
allowed the risk assessment process to begin.
One of the key components to the Harding
HAVS practice was the label to be attached to
the Hand tools. Most tools already have some
distinguishing mark or test certificate attached,
Harding wanted a system that was easily
identifiable to all workers, thus Harding opted
for a visual risk system, utilising the concept of
the traffic lights ; ( See appendix 1 )
• Red
: Potentially Hazardous, can
be used up to 2 hours
• Yellow
: Medium risk, can be used
for between 2 - 4 hours
• Green
: Slight risk, can be used
between 4 - 8 hours
• Black
: Low risk, can be used
between 8 - 12 hours
Hand-arm vibration is measured in terms of
acceleration (in ms²). Therefore measurements
are made with an accelerometer attached to
either the tool or the workpiece. However,
because the risk depends on the frequency
content of the vibration, the signal from the
accelerometer is passed through an electrical
filter. This filter gives greater weighting to
The system above was well received by the
workforce, it allowed them to easily identify
and differentiate between high risk and low
risk tools and offered a degree of
empowerment to the workforce in choosing the
tool for the task. With the arrival of the tool
data sheets, all tools were risked assessed and
174
labelled according to the above classification,
(see appendix 2) and a tool register
established, ( see appendix 3 ).
All risk assessment sheets on the installation
had been formed on the information supplied,
which we now know to be inaccurate at the
time of testing. Thus personnel were exposed
to vibration levels higher than those
recommended by the HSE.
There are various tools which are known to
cause high vibration in particular, Needle guns,
impact wrenches and air saws. Therefore
within the Harding working practice we
specified that power tools should create the
lowest HAVS risk commensurate with being
suitable for the task proposed. All companies
supplying personnel and power tools were
further advised that the platform expected high
vibration red labelled tools to be gradually
phased out and replaced with HAVS friendly
tools. Through continuous onboard audits the
main contracting companies have been
challenged, and responded positively in
replacing high vibration tools with tools that
they believed to be low vibration.
The large disparity between the measured
vibration levels and data supplied with the
tools may be due to several factors, including
wear of the tool during normal use, the
condition of the blade or disc fitted to the tool
and the test conditions. It is not known the
exact methods that tool manufactures use to
obtain their vibration and noise levels.
The vast majority of tools used and tested
during this audit on BP Harding were under
one year old.
Through discussions with various BPA sites
there appears to be a requirement for coaching
of the workforce into the mechanics of Hand Arm Vibration syndrome and the provisions to
mitigate against its effects, in the majority of
BPA sites in the UK.
During May 2000, the Harding platform was
audited, by an Engineer from Acoustic
Technology Limited ( ATL ). Part of the ATL
audit was to conduct the final Noise survey on
the ‘Green Compressor’, but the visit was
mainly to obtain vibration data readings from
all the hand - held vibrating tools in operation
on the Harding Platform and compare them
with previously obtained data. The Engineer
used a Bruel and Kjaer Type 2537 Hand Arm
Vibration Kit, fitted with a Bruel and Klaer
Type 4505 accelerometer. This equipment was
calibrated prior to and after the measurement
using a Bruel and Kjaer Type 4294 Vibration
Exciter. ATL’s calibration procedures are
traceable to NPL standards.
Recommendations
There are several measures which can be
implement which will reduce the potential
effect of vibration to the hand, these include
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For each type of tool the hand - arm vibration
measurements were taken over a representative
period, by an operator carrying out a simulated
task. The measurement period included
variations in vibration levels due to pressure,
lifting or movement of the tool. The meter
averaged the vibration level over the measured
period. Measurements were made using the
integral hand - arm weighting filter built into
this unit. All measurements were in terms of
average hand - arm weighted acceleration (ah.w
ms²). All results obtained were then entered
into a data base and are presented in ( appendix
4 ).
Factors influencing grip
Posture
Tool Choice
Vibration Isolation
Work Rotation and Planning
Tool Maintenance
Training and Information
Health Surveillance
Purchasing Policy
Contracts
There will be continuous maintenance and
construction activities both offshore and
onshore within BPA. It is recommended that
each unit should address the Hand - Arm
vibration issue., by the implementation of
recognised tools and best practice.
The HSE recently conducted an audit of the
management of HAVS on Harding and regard
the Harding model as best practice.
Conclusion
It is clear that there is a significant level of
disparity between the information supplied
with the tools and the actual results obtained
by the ATL Engineer whilst testing on the
installation, (appendix 3 & 4 ).
The HSE has released several aids which can
assist business units in meeting the required
standards, these include ;
175
• ‘The Successful Management of Hand Arm vibration’ ; CD - ROM,
• ‘ Hard To Handle’, video, Hand -Arm
vibration - manage the risk,
• ‘Vibration Solutions’, HSE publication,
BS 6842:1987 Guide to measurement and
evaluation of human exposure to vibration
transmitted to the hand
Whole- body vibration; Occupational exposure
and their health effects in Great Britain.
Contract research report 233 / 1999. Institute
of Sound and Vibration Research, University
of Southampton
References
A guide to the Health and Safety at Work etc.
Act 1974 ( 5th ed ) HSE Books 1992
Hand-transmitted vibration; Occupational
exposure and their health effects in Great
Britain. Contract research report 232 / 1999.
Institute of Sound and Vibration Research,
University of Southampton
Management of Health and Safety at Works
Regulations 1992 Approved Code of Practice
L21 HSE Books
The Supply of Machinery ( Safety )
Regulations 1992, as amended by the Supply
of Machinery ( Safety ) ( Amendment )
Regulations 1994 SI 1992/3073 HMSO 1992
Hand - Arm Vibration Assessment, Technical
report No: AT 4794/1 REV 0 Acoustic
Technology Ltd
Hand -arm vibration HS(G) 88 HSE Books
1994
176
Appendix 1
Serial No.
Serial No.
Vib. Level
Vib. Level
Noise Level
Noise Level
Max Daily Use
Max Daily Use
Serial No.
Serial No.
Vib. Level
Vib. Level
Noise Level
Noise Level
Max Daily Use
Max Daily Use
177
Appendix 2
HAVS Tool Risk Assessment
BPA Harding Tool No.
Tool Description :
HARptID 1654
User
AMEC
Atlas Copco 5" Electric Angle Grinder
Supplier AMEC
Serial Number JSMP 95718
Technical Details :
Vibration Level Noise LevelTested
LevelTested By:
By ATL
10/06/00
10.13 m/s² 105.00
dB(A) Status:
Recommended Maximum Daily Use
Hearing Protection:
0.61
Wear Hearing Protection
Comments James Scott Test 15/10/99 Vibration 2.2m/s², 87dB(A), Re-tested by ATL 10/06/00
Personnel involved in the use of this tool whilst onboard BPA
Harding must be aware of the BPA Harding HAVS Policy
Date Used:........................
Start:........................
Stop:......................
Start:.........................
Start:........................
Stop:......................
Start:.........................
Start:........................
Stop:......................
Start:.........................
Start:........................
Stop:......................
Start:.........................
TOOL User Name
Supervisor Approved
Job Title
Signed
Signature
Date
178
179
Ingersol - Rand 1” impact wrench
Hitachi 13mm chuck rotary drill
MAKITA 6.5mm chuck rotary drill
MAKITA rotary drill
Ingersol - Rand ½ “ impact wrench
Angle grinder
INGERSOL-RAND drill
INGERSOL-RAND 3/8” drill
CP857 Angle Grinder
CP875 Mini - Angle Die Grinder
Atlas Copco Electric Grinder
Air Wrench 292
Air pencil grinder
Air pistol drill
Cenger RS air saw ( Clamp mounted )
AMEC 01
AMEC03
AMEC04
CP 785 3/8” drill
CP 785H ½” drill
Cengar Air Saw
Cengar Air Saw
Spitzner Air Saw
Type of Tool
Drilling 01
Drilling 02
Drilling 03
Drilling 04
Drilling 05
Drilling 06
Drilling 07
Drilling 08
Drilling 09
Drilling 10
Drilling 11
Drilling 12
BPA 01
BPA 02
BPA03
BPA04
BPA05
Appendix 3
Assessment #
JSMP94249
JSMP2425
JSMP90648
97001A
CA156680
SWJ06002 95
D80059
377309E
5002155
231 - EU
AG 1300 - 125 EX
1978
7502
KAT 61
KAT 62
KAT 57
KAT 58
KAT 59
Serial #
HarPT1693
HarPT1682
HarPT1683
HarPT1975
HarPT 1973
HarPT 1954
HarPT 1955
HarPT1667
HarPT1669
HarPT 1959
HarPT 1951
HarPT 1671
HarPT1675
HarPT1673
HarPT1662
HarPT 1666
HarPT 1665
HarPT 1655
HarPT 1663
HarPT 1653
Harding #
90
90
95
104.6
100
81
89
102
87
92.9
92.9
93
101
87
110
Noise level
dB(A)
90
90
95
95
100
7
10
10
30 Minutes
9
9
1.4
2
1.2
12
12
3.6
12
12
4.5
Max Usage
Time (hrs)
9
9
10
10
10
3 ms²
2.5 ms²
2.5 ms²
9.4 ms²
2.5 ms²
2.5 ms²
3.6 ms²
5.2 ms²
7 ms²
0.4 ms²
1.8 ms²
4.2 ms²
2.5 ms²
2.5 ms²
Vibration
ms²
1.1ms²
0.55 ms²
2.5 ms²
2.5 ms²
2.5 ms²
180
Cenger RS air saw ( Clamp mounted )
Spitznas RS21 air saw ( Clamp mounted )
1” Air Impact wrench
7” Air angle grinder
Air Needle gun
4” Electric angle grinder
Vibro - Lo 200 needle gun
Vibro - Lo 200 needle gun
Vibro - Lo 200 needle gun
Vibro - Lo 200 needle gun
3/8 capacity pistol grip drill
Air Nibbler
Cape01
Cape02
Cape03
Cape04
Cape 05
Cape 06
Type of Tool
AMEC05
AMEC06
AMEC07
AMEC09
AMEC 12
AMEC13
Appendix 3
Continued
Assessment #
R2344
R2345
R2367
R2366
JSMP94231
JSMP90627
JSMP95861
JSMP95285
JSMP94183
JSMP95718
Serial #
HarPT 1699
HarPT 1680
HarPT1679
HarPT 1700
HarPT 1953
HarPT 1698
HarPT1684
HarPT1685
HarPT1686
HarPT1688
HarPT1652
HarPT1654
Harding #
98.6
98.6
98.6
98.6
103.4
82.2
Noise level
dB(A)
95
100
110
90
97.6
100
4
4
4
4
9
6
Max Usage
Time (hrs)
10
10
3.4
12
6.5
13
3.7 ms²
3.7 ms²
3.7 ms²
3.7 ms²
2.5 ms²
3.0 ms²
Vibration
ms²
2.5 ms²
2.5 ms²
4.3ms²
1.3 ms²
3.1 ms²
2.2 ms²
181
BPA 01
BPA 02
BPA 03
BPA 04
BPA 05
Drilling 01
Drilling 02
Drilling 03
Drilling 04
Drilling 05
Drilling 06
Drilling 07
Drilling 08
Drilling 09
Drilling 10
Drilling 11
Drilling 12
AMEC 01
AMEC 03
AMEC 04
AMEC 05
HAV
Assessment
No.
Appendix 4
CP 785 3/8" drill
CP 785 1/2" drill
Cengar Air Saw
Cengar Air Saw
Spitzner Air Saw
Ingersol - Rand 1" impact wrench
Hitachi 13mm chuck rotary drill
MAKITA 6.5mm chck rotary drill
MATIKA rotary drill
Ingersol - Rand 1/2" impact wrench
Angle grinder
INGERSOL - RAND drill
INGERSOL - RAND 3/8" drill
CP857 Angle Grinder
CP875 Mini - Angle Die Grinder
Atlas Copco Electric Grinder
Air Wrench 292
Air pencil grinder
Air pistol drill
Cenger RS air saw (Clamp mounted)
Cenger RS air saw (Clamp mounted)
Tool Type
HarPT 1666
HarPT 1665
HarPT 1655
HarPT 1663
HarPT 1653
HarPT 1975
HarPT 1973
HarPT 1954
HarPT 1955
HarPT 1667
HarPT 1669
HarPT 1959
HarPT 1951
HarPT 1671
HarPT 1675
HarPT 1673
HarPT 1662
HarPT 1693
HarPT 1682
HarPT 1683
HarPT 1684
Tag No.
1.1
0.6
0.0
8.8
10.2
9.4
3.4
3.7
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.7
1.8
2.2
5.5
4.0
3.6
5.9
1.8
0.0
6.7
Vibration (ms ²)
1.4
119.2
19.4
12.5
2.0
3.8
4.9
1.8
19.6
16.6
0.8
0.6
0.7
5.4
4.6
Maximum
Recommended
Continuous Use
(hours)
50.6
205.6
92.7
90.6
90.0
87.8
83.8
109.5
93.1
85.3
90.0
99.4
90.0
91.8
90.9
103.2
99.2
101.3
111.6
98.0
95.7
90.0
91.0
Noise dB(A)
182
AMEC 06
AMEC 07
AMEC 09
CAPE 01
CAPE 02
CAPE 03
CAPE 04
CAPE 05
CAPE 06
CAPE 08
CAPE 07
BPA 09
N/A
AMEC 04
BPA 06
BPA 07
BPA 08
HAV
Assessment
No.
Appendix 4
continued
Spitzner RS21 air saw (Clamp mounted)
1" Air Impact Wrench
7" Air angle grinder
Vibro - Lo 200 needle gun
Vibro - Lo 200 needle gun
Vibro - Lo 200 needle gun
Vibro - Lo 200 needle gun
3/8 capacity pistol grip drill
Air Nibbler
Hand held grinder
Hand held compressed air paint mixer
Hand held grinder
CompAir impact wrench
Cenger air saw
Cenger air saw
SBA 55K Battery powered drill
Hitachi CJ65V2 Jigsaw
Tool Type
HarPT 1685
HarPT 1686
HarPT 1688
HarPT 1699
HarPT 1680
HarPT 1679
HarPT 1700
HarPT 1953
HarPT 1698
HarPT 1658
HarPT 1657
HarPT 1664
BW 1019A
HarPT 1683
HarPT 1674
HarPT 1672
HarPT 1660
Tag No.
13.6
8.1
2.5
0.0
11.8
8.9
0.0
2.8
2.9
2.6
4.4
3.5
33.2
7.8
8.3
1.9
3.6
Vibration (m/s2)
7.7
7.3
9.4
3.2
5.0
0.0
1.0
0.9
17.5
5.0
0.4
0.8
Maximum
Recommended
Continuous Use
(hours)
0.3
0.9
10.0
105.2
104.7
105.2
90.0
92.9
91.1
93.7
93.7
97.2
107.3
90.3
87.6
87.1
92.7
92.8
106.5
Noise dB(A)
have they got it themselves, so we immediately
identify from day one, any guys going on the
platform who do have a concern with it, or
have been exposed to it previously. Of course
one of the core components of HAVs
maintenance and health surveillance is actually
feeding the information that we’re collecting
back to the parent companies so that they can
start looking after their chaps.
Following Ian Campbell’s presentation,
Richard McLellan gave a presentation
explaining the use of the database.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
Question - Dave Freeman, HSE Norwich
The rest period, you say for using the tools
‘per day’. Is that a per 12 hour day or 24 hour
day and are rest periods between a week or a
fortnight? Do you have weekends off? Are
the rest periods critical to your findings please?
Comment – Dr Jim Keech, BP, Chairman of
UKOOA HAC
I must sound a warning bell for any process
that would be so grossly discriminating as was
maybe suggested from the back of the room
here. We have to be very careful as an
industry. We have a reputation of being
somewhat elitist in terms of selecting our
workers. It is quite contrary to the Disability
Discrimination Act. As the chair of the
UKOOA Health Advisory Committee I am
very sensitive about this and although it is a
sensible precaution to exclude those who
already may have suffered some harm, I think
we must be very careful not to use that as a
selection procedure. I would recommend the
preventative measures which we’ve heard from
the speakers as against selection.
Answer – Richard McLellan, BP
I think the HSE guidance says that you can
have an exposure of 2.8 metres per second for
every 24 hour period. The long term is that if
someone is exposed to 2.8 metres per second
on a five day week over 8 years, 15% of them
will suffer white finger or something like that.
I’m getting nodding heads from the HSE, so I
think that’s pretty near right.
Question - Tony Parkinson, Noble Drilling,
for Texaco
Did you do calculations on the eight hour day
or was it 12 hours for offshore workers?
Answer – Richard McLellan, BP
We do it on eight hours, which is another
factor of safety.
Comment - Mr Graham Cowling, Acoustic
Technology Ltd
Just to clarify one thing. Probably one of the
reasons why you are getting unsatisfactory
data from manufacturers is not because they’re
trying to sell you tools but the actual standards
that the tools are measured to, have them
hanging on wires unloaded. Whereas the
measurements you take have the tools in the
real situation with people actually using them
up against the wall. So there’s likely to be
quite a difference. It is the fault of the
standards. This can be easily remedied. You
credited Amec with giving you good data and
that’s because they have bothered to set up a
testing booth. Also they train the people who
pack up the tools in boxes and send them to
you, to a basic level in competence in
measuring. That’s something that can be
easily achieved by contractors.
Question - Steve Taylor, Shell Expro
Southern North Sea
Again a question for the vibration boys on
their experience. We’ve looked at all the good
stuff for reducing the risk as such. Have we
looked at the susceptibility of certain people to
this? That is, through pre-employment
medicals or for on-going reasons, are there
certain people who just shouldn’t be doing it in
the first place?
Answer - Richard McLellan, BP
The guys get an induction. They’re registered
in the system before they go on. There’s a
questionnaire we go through, we show them
the video, discuss the system, how it works. I
can’t say we’ve ever identified anyone with a
problem yet, but we would refer that onshore
to our medical department. If we had a guy
who looked as though he was at risk due to
previous exposure, or if he had blanching or
tingling, we’d refer him onshore to our
medical department for referral for further
advice.
Answer – Ian Campbell?
Thanks for that Graham. We are aware also
that the HSE are setting up a working group
looking at the measurements so that we get
effective and cross industry measurements in
relation to power tools.
Question - Tony Garner, Conoco
Do you take into account any off-the-job
exposures?
Answer – Ian Campbell?
That is part of our induction process, actually
asking the guys if they have experience of it or
183
Answer – unknown speaker
No.
Comment – Edmund Brookes, BROA
I suppose that argument could well be applied
equally with sound with a chap being at a disco
all night. He then goes offshore and he’s got
his ears ringing because of the noise level.
We’ve got no control over that. That raises all
sorts of issues.
184
DAY 3
MORNING SESSION
SESSION THEME – HUMAN FACTORS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH
185
186
CIRCADIAN ADAPTATION TO SHIFT CHANGE IN OFFSHORE
SHIFT WORKERS
Michelle Gibbs, S. Hampton, L. Morgan and Professor Josephine
Arendt, Centre for Chronobiology, University of Surrey
discussed as a probable factor in decreased
work efficiency and vulnerability to human
error during night work (Costa, 1997).
Abstract
There is increasing interest in the health
problems associated with working shifts and
the role of circadian adaptation to a night shift.
Previously it has been shown that
physiological adaptation to night shift can be
achieved in offshore shift workers, but that
shift schedule and season may both be
important influencing factors. In this study 11
males were studied for a fourteen-day tour
offshore on a schedule of 7 nights followed by
7 days. Circadian adaptation was measured by
acrophase of the urinary melatonin metabolite
6-sulphatoxymelatonin (aMT6s). A significant
difference was found in the mean acrophase
(peak time) of aMT6s between the start
(05:34h) and end (10.95h) of the night shift
week (p = 0.0004). There was no significant
difference in the mean acrophase between the
start (11:04h) and end (12:59h) of the day shift
week, suggesting that as a group the subjects
did adapt to the night shift, but did not adapt to
the change back to day shift. However the
inter-subject variation was high and increased
over the day shift week. Adaptation to a night
shift occurred in 73% (n = 8) of subjects, of
those who adapt to nights, only 37.5% (n = 3)
adapted back to day shift. A further 37.5%
showed no adaptation to night or day shift. All
the adaptation to the night shift occurred by
delay, but the adaptation to day shift showed
both advance (n=1) and delay (n=2) of the
internal clock. These individual differences
clearly require further study.
Working shifts, especially night shift, causes
the body to attempt to make physiological
adjustments in order to adapt to the different
working
times.
These
physiological
adjustments require investigation, not only to
identify changes that may have health and
safety implications, but also to distinguish if
certain shift patterns offer greater or lesser risk
than others, and to find solutions.
Shift schedules
Offshore oil and gas installation workers have
different shift patterns and environmental
factors to onshore shiftworkers, producing
different physiological responses particularly
with regard to circadian adaptation to night
shifts. There is currently a number of shift
patterns being worked offshore and it is
unclear if there are benefits or increased
problems with each schedule. The complexity
of designing shift schedules requires
consideration of factors other than simply the
most appropriate for circadian adaptation.
Operational constraints, such as helicopter
schedules and crew change arrangements,
further complicate decisions about shift
rotation schedules.
Adaptation to shift work offshore
The offshore petrochemical industry is the
only industry working 12-hour shifts for 7,14
or 21 days/nights with managed meal times,
segregated shifts and daytime darkness for
night workers. While it has been shown that,
in some schedules they do physiologically
adapt to a night shift (Barnes et al, 1998a), the
process takes days, so they may be working a
significant percentage of their tour in an
unadapted state on both the day and night
shifts. Barnes showed that on North Sea rigs,
for a 14-day 12-hour night shift (1800-0600h),
subjects are out of phase for at least the first 45 days of the night shift (Barnes et al, 1998a).
For a 7 day sequence starting with day shift
(1200-2400h) then switching to night shift
(2400-1200h) the majority of crew do not
Introduction
Shift work is becoming more and more a
necessary part of working life as the demand
for a 24 hour society increases, yet it
introduces some concerns for the health &
safety of the worker. Reported symptoms of
reduced well being amongst shift workers
include fatigue, and reduced sleep quality
(Nicholson and D’Auria, 1999). In addition to
these undesired symptoms, when the working
environment incorporates dangerous activity
fatigue and reduced cognitive performance
present a more immediate health and safety
risk. Performance and safety are of concern in
shift workers and circadian rhythms have been
187
pattern amongst them. The subjects have
therefore been grouped into those who did not
adapt at all (n = 3) figure 2, those who adapted
to the night shift but not to the day shift (n =
5) figure 3, and those who adapted to both the
night and day shifts (n = 3) figure 4. Of the
subjects who adapted to both of the shift
changes, all demonstrated adaptation to the
night shift by delay of their rhythm but further
adaptation to the day shift was by a
combination of delay and advance (figure 4).
adapt to night shift (Barnes et al, 1998b). It is
likely that for a 7 day sequence, 12 hour shift,
starting with night shift (1800-0600h), subjects
will be out of phase for at least 4-5 days out of
7 days on night shift followed by 4-5 days out
of phase on day shift.
Here we have studied the schedule that causes
the worker to attempt adaptation to two shift
changes over a two-week period, working
seven nights followed by seven days. The
objective was to measure the extent and
direction of circadian adaptation in a 14 day
schedule of 7 nights and 7 days (12 hour shifts
1800h to 0600h) on oil installations in the
North Sea (61oN).
Discussion
We conclude that on a 14 day schedule of 7
nights (1800h to 0600h) followed by 7 days
(0600h to 1800h) adaptation to a night shift
did occur in 73% (n = 8) of subjects but with
high inter-subject variation of adaptation rate
and extent. Of those who adapted to nights
37.5% (n = 3) adapt to the change back to day
shift. All adaptation to the night shift on this
schedule occurs by delay, but the adaptation to
day shift is divided in the ratio 2:1.
Methods
Eleven healthy male subjects aged between 25
and 47 years with a mean body mass index of
25.7kg/m2 (± 2.45 SD), were studied for a
fourteen day tour offshore. Circadian
adaptation was measured by the urinary
melatonin metabolite 6-sulphatoxymelatonin
(aMT6s). Sequential 3-4h urine collections (810h overnight) were taken throughout the 14day study and aliquots frozen for analysis of
the urinary melatonin metabolite aMT6s, by
specific radioimmunoassay (Aldhous and
Arendt, 1988). Acrophase of the aMT6s
rhythm was calculated by cosinor analysis.
The criteria for adaptation was taken as at least
a three hour acrophase shift from baseline
maintained for three or more days, and for
adaptation back to day shift was a shift in
acrophase to within 3 hours of the basal
acrophase time. Day two was used as basal
acrophase, as this was the first full 24-hour
period of the study. Paired t-tests were applied
to the data to identify statistically significant
data.
Previously circadian adaptation in offshore
shiftworkers has been found in a schedule of
14 nights 1800h to 0600h by delay of the
circadian rhythm, and in a schedule of 7 days
and 7 nights working 00.00h to 12.00h during
(Barnes et al, 1998b), where the partial
adaptation was by advance of the rhythm. This
difference indicates that the work time within
the schedule may be critical in the direction of
adaptation. Here, in contrast, we have found a
combination of advance and delay, along with
no adaptation at all within the same schedule.
The schedule of 7 nights followed by 7 days is
the most complex in terms of adaptation,
requiring an adjustment twice during the
schedule. The subjects while all working on
the same installation had differing duties and
therefore different activity and environmental
conditions such as light exposure. There may
be endogenous differences as well as these
exogenous influences contributing to the
individual variation in adaptation found here.
Results
There was a significant difference in the mean
acrophase between the start (05:34h) and end
(10.95h) of the night shift week (p = 0.0004)
suggesting that as a group the subjects did
adapt to the night shift (figure 1.). There was
no significant difference in the acrophase
change between the start (11:04h) and end
(12:59h) of the day shift week suggesting that
as a group the subjects did not adapt to the
change back to day shift.
Subject specific light exposure data may
provide some explanation of the variation in
adaptation patterns as the duration, timing and
brightness of light exposure are associated
with the entrainment of circadian rhythms.
Light exposure data has been collected
subjects on a shift schedule of 14 nights and
will be recorded on the 7N/7D shift schedule
in further studies to determine the most
desirable for performance and health, along
side the patterns and physiological effects of
adaptation. If adaptation is found to be
The variance between the subjects was high
and increased over the day shift week,
representing the subjects as a group serves
only to disguise the variation in adaptation
188
desirable, then studies applying strategies for
encouraging adaptation will also be proposed.
on offshore oil installations during a 2 week
12-h night shift. Neurosci Lett, 241: 9-12.
This research was undertaken with support and
funding from the Health and Safety Executive
- Offshore Safety Division, to whom our
thanks are extended.
Barnes RG, Forbes MJ, Arendt J. 1998b, Shift
type and season affect adaptation of the 6sulphatoxy melatonin rhythm in offshore oil
rig workers. Neurosci Lett, 252:179-182.
References
Costa G. 1997, The Problem:Shiftwork.
Chronobiology International, 14(2):89-98.
Aldhous ME, & Arendt J. 1988,
Radioimmunoassay
for
6-sulphatoxymelatonin in urine using an iodinated tracer.
Ann. Clin. Biochem, 25:298-303.
Nicholson PJ, and D’Auria DAP. 1999, Shift
work, health, the working time regulations and
health assessments. Occupational Medicine :
49(3):127-137.
Barnes RG, Deacon SJ, Forbes MJ, Arendt J.
1998a,
Adaptation
of
the
6sulphatoxymelatonin rhythm in shiftworkers
189
difference in mean acrophase time between
the start and end of each week
mean acrophase time
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
end
0
start
nights
days
week of nights/days
Figure 1. Mean acrophase time at start and end of each week of the tour.
Circadian Clock Timing
(evaluated by urinary melatonin metabolite aMT6s)
Subjects Not Adapting to Nights or Days (mean).
NIGHTS
DAYS
acrophase time (hours)
17
13
9
5
1
1
8
day of tour
Figure 2. Subjects showing no adaptation to either night or day shift (mean ± sem).
190
Circadian Clock Timing
(evaluated by urinary melatonin metabolite aMT6s)
Subjects Adapting to Nights But Not Back to Days.
NIGHTS
DAYS
acrophase time (hours)
20
16
12
8
4
1
8
day of tour
Figure 3. Subjects who adapt to night shift but not back to day shift (mean ± sem).
Acrophase shift of subjects (s3,s7,s8) who adapt to
night shift and day shift
acrophase time (hours)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12 13 14
day of tour
Figure 4. Subjects showing adaptation to nights and back to days.
191
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
Answer - Andy Smith, Cardiff University
I agree, I think that’s a very important point. I
don’t really think we know enough about the
medium-term effects, let alone the long-term
effects. Clearly as Jo said, one of the ways of
extending this is to focus not just on what’s
going on on the installations. I’d like to see it
extended over a much longer time period, to
really assess the impact of leave and work in
combination. I think this is a weakness of
shiftwork research in general, not just the
studies that we’re doing offshore.
Question - Melanie Clark, Amey Vectra
Are you intending or hoping to use those Acti
wrist watches which we’ve used, I’ve certainly
used in the past, to get them to observe the
effect when they go home? So, not just when
they’re on the rig or platform but when they’re
at home as well?
Answer – Professor Josephine Arendt,
University of Surrey
Yes absolutely.
Question - Gareth Powell, BP
Did you notice any difference at all in the
results from installations at different latitudes?
I notice you had the latitudes on some of them
and some of them are quite far north. I wonder
if you’ve got any of the southern sector ones
and was there any difference there?
Question - Tony Garner, Conoco
Have you done any crossover trials from the
7/7 and 14/14 people and seen if the response
is the same?
Answer – Professor Josephine Arendt,
University of Surrey
You mean, have we done 14 days day shift as
well as 14 days night shift?
Answer – Professor Josephine Arendt,
University of Surrey
That was why it was interesting to do fourteen
nights at 53°N and fourteen nights at 61°N,
because the daylight changes are very much
greater at 61°N. In the winter there is much
less likelihood of exposure to natural light at
61°N than there is at 53°N. Natural light at the
wrong time will counter adaptation to night
shift. This is if you like a classical situation.
You come off night shift at 6 o’clock in the
morning onshore and you go home in light
frequently and that light is at exactly the wrong
time if you wanted to adapt. It counters the
shift of your clock, that morning light. We
actually believe that the different results we get
from the drilling rig, for example, the 7 days/7
nights compared to the 14 nights, is related to
the light exposure that these guys have because
of the different hours of work that they did.
This is why we are currently recording light
exposure. But in fact, when we looked at
53°N and at 61°N on the 14 nights, they all
adapted on both of those latitudes so that’s
comforting from the point of view of people
who favour 14 nights on the trot.
Question - Tony Garner, Conoco
Yes, do they respond in the same way?
Answer – Professor Josephine Arendt,
University of Surrey
These are people who alternate on the Tern
study that we did. They did 2 weeks of nights,
2 weeks off and then 2 weeks of days, so we
have the day shift to compare with the night
shift.
Question - Tony Garner, Conoco
Sorry, I was meaning have they done a 7 day
day shift, then a night shift and then maybe a
14 day day shift?
Answer – Professor Josephine Arendt,
University of Surrey
No we haven’t got that comparative data. That
would be very interesting.
Question - Jake Molloy, OILC Offshore
Union
Theoretically, I suppose hypothetically, do you
believe, or do you consider, that a reduction in
shift work, that is to say extended leave
periods, may reduce the health risks to workers
carrying out these sorts of shift patterns?
Question - Alan Atkinson, Total Fina Elf,
Norway
Did you take into consideration the ages of the
participants? It’s just that during unscientific
discussions with our own people, when they
hit the 45-50 bracket they have a tremendous
problem with shift work and coming back onto
normal living when they go home.
Answer – Professor Josephine Arendt,
University of Surrey
Well quite honestly I think that question is
enormously important, but it’s beyond my
expertise. I don’t know whether Andy Smith
would like to reply?
192
Question - Rab Wilson, AEEU
Could I just attach to that question there. What
percentage of male and female were in the
study as well?
Answer – Professor Josephine Arendt,
University of Surrey
We have a trend which is not significant yet to
an increase of triacylglycerol during the night
shift but it is not significant yet.
Answer – Professor Josephine Arendt,
University of Surrey
I regret to say they were all male. We’d love
to have a mix of course and look at them
separately. This intolerance is a well-known
phenomenon as you get older. It’s also true of
adapting to time zone change. It becomes
much harder as you get older. We have a
range of ages. I think the average age is about
40.
We’re grateful for anybody who
volunteers so we’re not going turn anybody
down on the grounds of age but we haven’t got
enough to look at age differences.
Question - Ian Campbell, BP Amoco
May it possibly be due to the fact that for the
night shift workers, the only meal they have
available prior going to bed is a nice big fatty
breakfast?
Answer – Professor Josephine Arendt,
University of Surrey
This is where I think I ought to introduce
Michelle because Michelle has expertise in the
dietary area. We do get significant increases in
triacylglycerol in simulation experiments that
we do in the lab very clearly, no doubt about it,
and incidentally evidence that light treatment
reduces that blood lipid. I think the reason
we’re not getting significance is because the
diet is uncontrolled out there as you quite
rightly point out. This is going to make a huge
difference to the results. We are keeping
nutrition diaries so that we can look back at
what they’ve eaten but frankly I don’t think
they’re terribly reliable.
Question - Tony Parkinson, Noble Drilling,
for Texaco
Our platform does 2 weeks off, 2 weeks on.
Have you thought about the rigs that do 3/3?
Answer – Professor Josephine
University of Surrey
We’d like to get at them. Please.
Arendt,
Question - Ian Campbell, BP Amoco
You mentioned at the start there that one of the
things you were looking at were the markers
for CHD. Have you got any information on
results so far?
193
194
MANAGING STRESS IN THE OFFSHORE WORKING
ENVIRONMENT
Dr Valerie J Sutherland, Chartered Psychologist, SutherlandBradley Associates
The topic of stress has featured on offshore oil
and gas industry agendas for nearly two
decades. However, as an academic and
consultant, observing from the outside, I
believe that unease about ‘stress’ and stress
management still exists in the Industry. Some
forward thinking companies have gained
benefits from including stress management in
their business plan. However, others have
simply paid lip service to ‘stress’ because it
was fashionable, flavour of the month, or
because of pressures from a parent
organisation.
ANALYSIS
ACTION
‘AWARENESS’ – What is stress?
This means defining what we mean by the
‘stress’ word, and understanding why and how
stress is damaging in its consequences. The
problem here is one of definition since there is
lack of agreement about the meaning of this
word stress, and if, in fact, it exists. Stress,
pressure and strain are used interchangeably to
mean the same thing. Incorrect use of the
word stress is common since it is used to refer
to a state, a condition, or a symptom. Also,
people tend to perceive stress in negative
terms. Prevalence of this view is likely to be
detrimental to the effective management of
stress in the work environment because it is
regarded as synonymous with not coping. The
outcome is that staff will hide their problems
and health condition until they become victims
of exposure to stress, rather than actively and
positively managing the strains and pressure
that are an inevitable part of modern-day living
and working offshore.
Much of this resistance seems to have been
created because the word, ‘stress’ evokes
negative reaction and emotion – it has become
a four-letter word! Problems seem to arise,
because, like love and electricity, we cannot
see ‘stress’. Media hype and constant attention
have not helped. It has become a whipping
boy, blamed for all our ills and problems. To
often, stress is now used as an excuse, and
stress-related illness is in danger of becoming
the ‘back-pain’ of the new millennium.
Today I wish to help set this record straight. I
want to propose that it will be much more
useful and productive for the industry, and
beneficial for the men and women working
offshore, if we stop using this word ‘stress’. I
would like to suggest that instead of using the
term ‘stress management’, we begin to think
about the ways we can optimise the
performance effectiveness, health, satisfaction
and happiness of the workforce. In other
words, we need to find out what barriers exist
to adversely impact upon the productivity and
well-being of the offshore employee. This does
not mean that we wallow in a negative and
damaging, ‘isn’t it awful’ climate because part
of the process of identifying barriers to
effectiveness is the need to acknowledge the
factors that facilitate optimal performance and
health offshore.
Furthermore, it is important that we
acknowledge that NOT ALL STRESS IS
BAD. Hans Selye, the acknowledged "father"
of stress research said that the only person
without stress was a dead person. By this he
meant that stress is an inevitable part of being
alive, and should be viewed as, 'stimulation to
growth and development, challenge and
variety – stress is the spice of life'. In Selye's
terms stress is simply 'arousal' and so it is any
stimulus, event or demand impacting on the
sensory nervous system. When an imbalance
exists between a perceived demand (the
stimulus) and our perceived ability to meet that
demand, we will experience a state of stress
(i.e. distress). Stress, therefore, is unwanted
pressure and is manifest when we feel that a
situation is out of our control or when we feel
unable to cope. It is a subjective experience, "in the eye of the beholder", and this explains
why in a given situation one person might be
highly distressed, yet another seems to prosper
and thrive. In organisational life it is likely that
we are now denied natural outlet of the stress
response since we cannot "fight" nor "flee".
The Triple ‘A’ Stress Management Model
The ‘Triple A’ approach is recommended as a
stress management model: This stands for:
AWARENESS
195
to ‘burnout’. Having too little to do or a job
that does not offer stimulation, variety or
challenge are also a sources of stress, known
as, ‘rust-out’, leading to boredom and demotivation.
Responsibility
without
commensurate power, a fast pace of work, lack
of job control, and uneven distribution of
resources are also sources of pressure.
Fluctuations (peaks and troughs) in work
demand create uncertainty that can be stressful.
The introduction of new technology, originally
thought to be stressful because it was
associated with de-skilling of jobs, is often a
potent source of pressure because of the
manner in which it is introduced. That is,
without consultation, unfit for the purpose or a
lack of training etc. A scaled-down workforce
is often required to become multi-skilled so
that maximum use is made of the costly
investment in new technology. Whilst this can
offer variety and challenge, it can create stress
if the changes are introduced without
consultation or reward for extra effort. For the
offshore worker, safety concerns, the need to
travel by helicopter, and the environmental and
physical conditions of the work and living
environment have been described as sources of
strain intrinsic to the job offshore.
We are physiologically primed to take actions
that are inappropriate and the sedentary nature
of the job further exacerbates this problem.
Each of us, at various times during our life,
will be vulnerable and will need to know how
to actively and positively manage a stressful
situation without resorting to maladaptive
ways of coping (e.g. excessive alcohol and
nicotine; drug dependence; lack of exercise;
and comfort eating), which render us less fit to
cope with a demand. Thus, it is mismanaged
stress that is damaging in its consequences.
ANALYSIS – Identifying Stress
The identification and measurement of stress at
work has been described as the ‘stress audit’.
The objective of this type of psychological risk
assessment is to identify the negative factors or
barriers to performance effectiveness and wellbeing at work, and either eliminating or
minimising these harmful sources of stress.
Thus, we acknowledge the maxim, ‘healthy
work force - healthy organisation’. The word
‘health’ is used in its’ widest sense, to mean
not just the absence of physical and
psychological diseases, but to describe feelings
of well-being, happiness, and satisfaction. To
identify the action to be taken is it vital to
accurately diagnose the problem(s) (i.e. what,
who, how?). Stress audit benefits include:
1. It is a proactive rather than a reactive
approach to managing stress at work
2. It can identify organisational and individual
strengths and weaknesses and so is similar to
an appraisal or training and development needs
analysis. Thus it helps us to target scarce
resources.
3. Identify the level of stress management
required (primary, secondary, tertiary – see
below); thus this includes guidance in the
planning of organisational development
strategies.
4. Provides a baseline measure from which to
evaluate subsequent interventions
5. It makes stress a respectable topic for
discussion in the workplace.
By considering some of the most commonly
cited sources of stress it is possible to see that
there is not one problem, neither is there one
cure.
Job role stress
For many employees changes to job role
structure are common as companies
continually re-invent themselves.
Often
change is stressful because we tend to resist it,
but the impact of change might also result in
role ambiguity (lack of clarity about the task)
and/or role conflict (for example, coping with
the conflicting demands of quantity versus
quality, or safety versus quantity). Role
ambiguity has been associated with tension
and fatigue, resulting in leaving the job and
high levels of anxiety, physical and
psychological strain and sickness absence.
Role conflict has been associated with sickness
absence, job dissatisfaction, abnormal blood
chemistry and elevated blood pressure.
• Relationships with other people
Having to live and work with other people,
lack of privacy, constant company - 24-hours a
day, for seven or 14 days at a time can be
stressful. Perceived inequity between the oil
company and contractor status personnel can
create a strain in working relationships. A lack
of
supportive
relationships
or
poor
relationships with one’s crew, colleagues or
the boss are stress agents, leading to a low
level of trust, low supportiveness and low
interest in problem solving. Some personnel,
by virtue of their job role are exposed to
bullying and violence at work. Reports of this
Stress in the Offshore Environment
• Stress in the job.
Level of demand and workload is a potential
problem for many people working offshore.
This includes having too much to do, working
long hours and shift working (perhaps
exacerbated by ‘below strength’ manpower
levels) can create overload conditions, leading
196
adjustment at work. Concerns within the
family, life crises, financial difficulties,
conflicting personal and company beliefs, and
the conflict between organisational and
family/social demands are examples of
potential stressors which might spill over into
the individual's work domain, in the same way
in which stress at work might spill over and
have a negative impact on one's family and
personal life. Working and living away from
home can be an added source of stress for the
offshore worker. Leaving a partner to cope;
difficulties with the children; problems
unwinding on return home; feeling unable to
become involved in community and social
activities because of the demands of offshore
work, are all problems associated with
offshore working that must be actively
managed.
seem to be increasing and it is likely that the
extent of the problem is not well understood.
• Career stress.
Expectations not met, feeling undervalued and
frustration in attaining a sense of achievement
are common 'career'' stressors. Ultimately,
restricted opportunities for promotion and job
insecurity resulting from down-sizing and the
increased use of contract labour are potent
sources of stress. The ‘slimmed-down’ UK
workforce is also an ageing population and the
industry faces the issue of coping with this and
attracting a new breed of youngsters who enter
the world of work with very different
expectations than they did 25-30 years ago.
Although the stress of unemployment is more
damaging than the stress of work, threat of job
loss is a potent source of stress linked to
several serious health problems, including
ulcers, colitis, alopecia and increased muscular
and emotional complaints.
Also, as the
pyramid shape of organisations becomes
flatter, and many job levels are removed, there
are fewer opportunities for career progression.
Finally, in a recessionary climate, training and
development opportunities may be restricted.
The 'leaner' work-force experience pressures
associated with trying to release colleagues for
training, in addition to the time off necessary
for cover for holidays and sickness absence,
while trying to maintain performance, safety
and production demands. This creates a
demoralised workforce and quite clearly, an
under-trained workforce will perceive the work
environment to be more stressful and less safe.
• Stress in the organisational structure
and climate.
Simply 'being in the organisation', can bring
concerns about the sense of belonging, office
politics, social support from the management
structure in terms of resources, communication
and consultation. It is associated with the
threat to freedom, autonomy and decisionmaking imposed by the organisational
structure and climate. There is some evidence
to suggest that lack of participation in
decision-making processes, lack of effective
consultation
and
communication
and
unjustified restrictions on behaviour are
associated with negative psychological mood,
escapist drinking and heavy smoking. A
culture and climate of threat and/or fear to
speak out, simply creates a climate of mistrust,
resistance to change, an unwillingness to be
innovative or commitment to the vision and
goals of the organisation.
• Home-work interface stress.
Included in this category are the personal life
events that might have an effect upon
performance, efficiency, well-being and
‘ACTION’ – Options for the management
of stress
The processes of awareness raising and
analysis are necessary steps to guide and
inform action. However, too often, stress
management courses are introduced as a
reaction, in response to a perceived problem
within the organization.
Other stress
management initiatives, such as the use of a
counselling service or an employee assistance
programme seek to ‘cure’ the symptoms of
exposure to stress. This type of stress control
programmes focuses solely on the individual
and places the onus and burden for change on
the employee. The message is loud and clear.
It says ‘You do not seem to be able to handle
the stress and pressure of your job, so we will
help you to cope more effectively’. Whilst
these aims are well intentioned, the underlying
message to the employee also implies that, ‘we
(the organization) are not going to change the
way we do things around here. You must learn
to cope with the situation!’ Although these
approaches to stress control have a certain
appeal and can be very effective, stress control
can only be really successful if it is tackled at the
level of the individual, the team and the
organisation – that is, eliminate the source of
stress. The strategy of waiting for an employee
to become a victim of stress, before taking
action, is risky and costly for the organisation
from both legal and insurance perspectives. It
can also be damaging because it supposes that
distressed victims of exposure to stress are
either at work and probably behaving in
ineffective, non-productive ways, or they are
absent from their job, thereby causing extra
strains and pressures on the remaining work
197
colleagues or team.
undesirable and costly.
communication exercises such as role
negotiation.
3. Improving perceptions of worker control;
this includes increasing opportunities for
decision-making.
Both situations are
A Tripartite Model For Stress Management
It is recommended that stress in the workplace
should be addressed by adopting a tripartite
approach consisting of:
Change the Macro-environment
This includes attention to issues such as
• Organisational culture
Building a supportive and open climate and
culture, and ensuring that the style of
management is compatible with the goals and
aims of the organisation, are important in
reducing stress at work.
It also means
developing a culture that encourages staff be
more supportive of each other. This will
facilitate team working and good interpersonal
relationships in the workplace. The benefit of
social support as a stress reduction strategy is
well documented. It is likely to be an important
stress reduction prevention mechanism since
external forces prevents us from eliminating
certain sources of pressure and strain in the
workplace. For example, this would include the
need to work shifts, especially night-shift work.
An assessment of organisation culture guides the
process of culture change. Likewise, the use of
psychometric measures to understand the
appropriateness of ‘management style’ and its
role as a source of stress in the workplace might
be necessary
• Work overload conditions and long-hours
of working
It is acknowledged that both work over-load
(burnout) and under-load (rust-out – see next
section) are potent sources of stress in
contemporary organisations. A high workload
leads to long hours of working, extra duty shifts,
or reduced time-off periods. A re-analysis of
staffing levels and an improved (real) costing
of the impact of de-manning, or job and task
re-design are also recommended to help reduce
work overload stress and shift work. Some
organisations have found that their enthusiasm
for down-sizing has been too zealous, and a
subsequent cost benefit analysis has proven the
reinstatement of certain jobs to be the most
effective management strategy.
• The physical work environment
In a work overload situation it is important to
ensure that employees are not also stressed by
the physical conditions of the work environment.
In addition to being a source of stress in their
own right, they also take-up the attentional
capacity of the individual, and the employee is
more vulnerable to workplace stress. Research
evidence indicates that unpleasant working
conditions, the necessity to work fast, to expend
a lot of effort, and working excessive and
inconvenient hours were related to poor mental
1. Primary level stress management
This type of strategy or intervention is
‘stressor directed’ in that they eliminate,
reduce or control a source of stress. The aim is
to prevent stress at work.
2. Secondary level stress
management
These interventions are ‘response directed’ in
that they help individual employees or groups
of workers to recognise a potentially negative
response to stress, and change it before it
becomes harmful Thus, the aim is to develop
stress resistance and adaptive coping strategies
through education and training.
3. Tertiary level stress management
These forms of intervention are ‘symptom
directed’. The objective is to assist in the cure
and rehabilitation of stressed employees.
Using an, ‘onion’ as our metaphor, we would
describe stress management in the workplace,
as ‘peeling an onion’. The organisation exists
within its universe and is thereby exposed to
many different factors. Peel off this layer and
you find the organisation, exposed to change
and pressures imposed by the global economy,
financial constraints, international politics, and
legal requirements, etc. All of these, and
more, influence the fortunes of the business
and the decisions made. A description of each
‘level’ with examples of strategies and
interventions, are provided below.
Primary level stress management
interventions
A more commonly used term for this type of
stress management strategy is ‘organizationallevel
interventions’.
Essentially,
these
‘stressor’ directed strategies for the reduction
or elimination of stress in the workplace are
categorised in three ways, namely:
1. Change the macro environment; that is,
organisational culture and leadership, physical
work conditions and work load, safety climate,
career development programmes and bullying
at work.
2. Change the micro-environment; that is
systems and task redesign, alternative work
arrangements,
shift
working,
and
198
Indeed, the stress of insecurity that can be
alleviated by supportive working relationships
may be broken down if the work force perceives
that competition is necessary to retain a job.
Personnel may also stay in a job that is
unsuitable or disliked because no suitable
alternative for change exists. This results in costs
to the organisation due to poor productivity or
performance
• Bullying at work
Recent reports suggest that the incidents of
bullying in the workplace may be increasing.
However, we can not be sure if this now the
reality of work life in the 1990s, or due to the
fact that people are more willing to report that
they are being bullied. Nevertheless, there is an
acknowledgement that oppressive behaviour has
a negative effect in terms of reduced well being,
morale, motivation and contribution to the job. It
is suggested that bullies are ‘stress carriers’
within the organisation. Usually these people do
not personally suffer from the effects of stress,
but their behaviour causes a great deal of stress
for subordinates and colleagues alike. Whilst
there is no specific health and safety legislation
that deals with bullying at work, employers have
a general duty to protect employees’ health and
safety. In law, it is possible to seek redress for
bullying behaviours that generate sufficient
emotional distress and unhealthy physical stress.
Thus an employer must ensure that the dignity of
the employee is upheld, and acknowledge that he
or she has a right to be treated with respect. An
authoritarian culture, poor work relationships, a
lack of clear codes of acceptable behaviours, are
all conditions that foster a climate in which
bullying is likely to occur. Bullying is often
confused with strong management and so
becomes condoned and part of the culture of the
organisation. It can often be insidious and subtle
and so the victim has no witnesses and if there
are witnesses they are often afraid of supporting
a victim. In some organisations, help-line, helpdesk, employee assistance programmes, face-toface counselling, and the occupational health
service, all play some role in dealing with
bullying in the workplace.
health. Therefore, the work environment should
provide satisfying physical conditions. Also a
clean and orderly place of work is important for
both safety and hygiene reasons. This has
implications for the morale of the work force,
especially in an environment where the work
situation is acknowledged as hazardous. Clearly,
many of the opportunities for the prevention of
stress associated with the physical demands of
working exist at the design stage, and of course,
in the provision of adequate personal protection
equipment. Complaints about the lack of
ventilation, or conditions that are too hot, too
cold or too stuffy, are common, and in the
offshore environment this is exacerbated by the
perceived lack of personal control over physical
work conditions.
Whenever possible, the
practice of more open discussion and debate
about the issues that directly affect working
conditions should be encouraged. This includes
the arrangements for rest and lunch breaks. The
work environment should be perceived as
comfortable and safe and a high standard of
hygiene and cleanliness is desirable.
• Safety climate
Many individuals offshore are exposed to certain
dangers and hazardous conditions at work.
While a risk assessment allows us to control and
minimise these dangers, some jobs still have
inherent or perceived dangers. For example, the
safety of helicopter travel was identified as one
of the top ten sources of stress by offshore oil
and gas workers (Sutherland and Cooper, 1991).
Also, among Norwegian offshore workers, more
than one third reported that they felt unsafe
about the transportation of people by helicopter
(Hellesøy, 1985). The perceived risk associated
with helicopter travel was the most common
reason cited for resignation from offshore
employment in Norway. This action is costly to
the industry and helicopter travel remains a
reality that must be faced by these workers since
we do not yet have any means of ‘beaming
people through space’. However, education
about the nature of the risk and safety
performance might help to overcome the
irrational fears that are held.
• Career development.
Fear of job loss and threat of redundancy are
common features of contemporary working life.
Perceived or real, pay and job status inequity,
lack of job security or limited potential for future
career development are sources of stress. In
times of instability, poor work conditions are
tolerated and employees endure long hours and
arduous conditions. This does not happen
without personal and organisational costs. A
keen, competitive jobs market can threaten the
quality of co-worker relationships at a time when
social support is of particular importance.
• Change the Micro-environment
Rather than put the responsibility for stress
management on the individual employee,
exposure to stressful work conditions might be
reduced by the redesign of work systems and
practices. It is suggested that work redesign
can improve worker morale, motivation and
performance.
Although many workers
complain about having too much to do, or
having to work at a pace that is too fast, they
also complain that the job does not provide
enough variety or challenge. This can lead to
199
ineffectiveness caused by behaviour that an
individual is unwilling to change, because it
would mean a loss of power or influence. This
method works because most people prefer a
fair negotiated settlement to a state of
unresolved conflict. Thus, they will be
motivated to engage in some action themselves
and make concessions in order to achieve this
aim.
• Improve perceptions of worker control
Lack of job control is acknowledged as a
potent source of stress and perception of
control seems to be important for job
satisfaction, health and well-being. A variety
of strategies exist to improve perceptions of
worker control and increase the opportunities
for decision making at work. These include
building and developing semi-autonomous
work groups, quality circles, safety
improvement groups and health circles.
Ultimately the aim is to for the work force to
be empowered and involved in changes to any
system or practice that induces stress at work.
This is to create a better balance between the
perceived level of demand and worker control.
• Increase worker participation in decision
making
Lack of participation in decision-making is a
primary cause of role conflict and role
ambiguity, mediated by one's perceived
influence over the situation and the efficacy of
communication in the organisation. Feeling
controlled rather than 'in-control' is associated
with a state of stress; individuals who feel
controlled are likely to perceive their job as a
'strain' rather than a challenge and source of
motivation.
boredom, apathy and low motivation to work.
Thus, job redesign interventions can be used to
alleviate the problem of ‘rust-out’ in the
workplace.
• Work under-load: Under-stimulation
and boredom
Prevention of stress associated with ‘rust-out’,
due to boredom, and lack of stimulation in the
workplace can be achieved by changing the
‘micro’ work environment. This includes
increasing workers' skills, autonomy in the job
and providing more opportunities for decisionmaking. By re-designing or enriching the job, to
improve the amount of skill variety, task
identity, task significance, autonomy and
feedback, it is possible to improve both
motivation and job performance and reduce
levels of stress. Decisions to make this type of
change are usually made on the basis of a job
analysis, in conjunction with work force and
jobholder
discussions.
Job
enrichment
intervention strategies can increase job
satisfaction, improve production, and reduce job
absence and turnover.
• Reducing the stress of shift-work
The need to engage in shift work and work long
hours is the reality of work offshore, and the
spill-over impact can cause negative
consequences and costs for the family and
society itself. Thus it becomes a prudent part of
a stress management strategy to minimise the
impact of these potential sources of strain and
distress that cannot be eliminated from the world
of work. These options include the design of the
shift system, flexitime, selection and recruitment
for shift working, stress management education,
and physical interventions such as the use of
light therapy and the drug, melatonin. Clearly,
the need to work shifts represents a major source
of stress among offshore workers but it is likely
that individuals do habituate to shift work and it
becomes physically less stressful with time.
However, some work patterns might prevent
habituation occurring. Thus, there is a need to
follow guidelines provided for minimising the
negative impact of shift-work and long hours of
working.
• Reduce role stress
The constructs of role ambiguity and role
conflict are acknowledged as potent sources of
stress in the work environment that are
associated with a variety of negative attitudinal
health and behavioural outcomes. Thus role
clarification interventions can be used as stress
control strategies.
For example, a role
clarification intervention was used in an
engineering company to improve employee
communication and manage stressful work
demands. Role negotiation is a useful way of
overcoming the problems that lead to
Secondary level interventions
Although a growing body of evidence supports
the view that organisational-level stress control
and stress prevention interventions are more
effective than individual-level coping strategies,
because they have a more lasting effect, it is
clear that the prevention of all sources of
negative stress is not possible. Thus, the effects
of exposure to stress can be minimised by the
use of techniques to improve the stress coping
process. They are classified as ‘skills training
options’ and ‘healthy-lifestyle education and
management’.
Skills Training to Cope with Stress
The objective of skills training is to improve or
modify the individual's response to perceived
strain to avoid a negative outcome. This
includes:
200
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interpersonal and social skills; leadership skills
Assertiveness
Cognitive coping techniques, e.g. avoiding faulty thinking
Time management
Relaxation training, meditation, yoga, and biofeedback
Type A behaviour management
Anger management
• Time management
As we have acknowledged, an ever-increasing
volume of demand and pressure to do more
and more, in less time, and with fewer
resources, are ‘hot-spot’ sources of stress in
contemporary organisations. However, a
demand situation is only defined as stressful
when the perception of that level of demand
exceeds the perception of one’s ability to meet
the demand.
Thus, the goal of time
management is, to ‘work smarter not harder’.
• Relaxation
The purpose of relaxation training is to reduce
the individual's arousal level when exposed to a
source of stress. This technique is used to bring
about a calmer state of affairs, both
physiologically
and
psychologically.
Psychological benefits include a sense of
personal control and mastery, a reduction in felt
tension and anxiety, and an enhanced feeling of
well-being; physiological benefits include a
decrease in blood pressure, slower respiration
and heart rate, reduced muscle tension, less
stomach acid, lower cholesterol in the blood and
increased alpha and theta brain waves to
enhance creative and cognitive processes.
• Type ‘A’ behaviour management
In the late 1950s, a pattern of behaviour among
heart attack survivors, called 'Type A
behaviour' was observed.
It is now
acknowledged that the Type A Style of
Behaviour, referred to as 'TAB', is a risk factor
for heart disease, independent of heredity
factors (i.e. high blood pressure and
cholesterol levels), cigarette smoking, alcohol
consumption and obesity. Recent research
suggests that it is the hostility component of
TAB that is the factor that increases the risk of
heart disease. TAB appears to be a response to
a challenge in the environment and is a way of
coping which the individual finds rewarding.
Although the long-term impact is likely to be
costly to the individual and the organisation,
the immediate outcome is one of gain from
these workaholic individuals.
• Anger management
The inability to manage recurrent angerprovoking situations is associated with
impulsive
behaviours,
aggression
and
• Interpersonal and social skills training
Everyone has a vast capacity to being more
understanding, respectful, genuine, open,
direct, and concrete in his/her human
relationships.
With a sound body of
theoretical knowledge, appropriate models,
and numerous opportunities for personal
experiencing, the process of becoming more
fully human can be greatly accelerated. This is
the essence of interpersonal skills training. It
includes a range of communication skills and
the need to understand the barriers to good
communication. Interpersonal skills training
are usually key components of leadership
training.
• Assertiveness
Having to deal with other people as part of
one’s job can be one of the most stressful
aspect of working life. For example, having to
convey a decision that you know your staff
will not like; having to handle an irate
customer without losing valuable business or
making promises that are difficult to keep; or,
being faced with unreasonable work demands
or time deadlines. Assertiveness training helps
us to deal with such demands without
becoming angry or upset. Assertiveness
training teaches us to be able to speak-up and
be taken seriously without damaging the rights
of other people
• Cognitive coping
Occupational stress is now viewed as a
transactional process whereby employees
appraise and react to a potential source of
stress. Cognitive style influences our appraisal
of a potentially stressful situation and the coping
strategy subsequently used. The use of certain
coping strategies, such as ‘avoidance coping’ or
denial is associated with poor psychological well
being, whilst the use of problem-oriented coping
is linked to positive mental health. The use of
cognitive restructuring as a stress management
technique aims to examine dysfunctional
attitudes and irrational thoughts. The process
aims to improve the balance between
perceptions of a demand and our ability to
cope.
201
Tertiary level interventions
This type of intervention is directed at
symptoms of exposure to stress. It is concerned
with the rehabilitation and recovery process of
those individuals who have suffered or are
suffering from ill health as a result of stress
• Counselling services
Counselling services typically help the
individual employees deal with a particular
personal or work-related problem. Thereby, they
attempt to increase the employee's capacity to
withstand the perceived stressor. Counselling is
described by the British Association of
Counselling as the task of giving a client an
opportunity to explore, discover, and clarify
ways of living more resourcefully and toward a
greater well-being.
• Employee assistance programmes
An organisation contracts an Employee
Assistance Programme (EAP) provider to give
employees (and sometimes their immediate
families) access to an external, independent,
confidential advice and s short-counselling
service. EAP counselling is for individuals
with work related problems, relationship
difficulties, illness worries, redundancy or
retirement concerns, substance abuse, or
financial worries, etc. Typically the function of
an EAP is to assist in the identification of
problems that lead to impaired job
performance and constructive confrontation of
the issue. Ultimately the objective is to
improve job performance
• Training supervisors and managers in
basic counselling skills
Knowledge that a spouse or partner is unhappy
may affect one’s performance, safety or wellbeing. Management sometimes prefers to
regard these issues as ‘none of our business’.
However, an important part of the
management process is ensuring that there is
collaboration with employees in order to
remove any barriers that exist to adversely
impact upon performance and productivity.
Distressed employees who are anxious and
depressed because of worries about home are
likely to be ineffective, potentially unsafe, and
often disruptive when they are at work. By
helping the individual to resolve a homerelated stress problem quickly and efficiently,
the manager regains an effective worker.
Making stress a respectable topic for
discussion in the workplace is the first step in
this process, because a climate of trust and
openness is necessary for the exchange of
potentially sensitive information. Therefore,
supervisors and managers need training in
basic counselling skills.
cardiovascular disease. Suppressed anger is
viewed as maladaptive and also associated
with cardiovascular problems. Whilst stress
inoculation interventions may help to reduce
the stress response when the individual is
exposed to difficult conditions, anger
management courses may also help to avoid
undesirable behavioural outcomes.
Also at the ‘secondary level’, options are
available that aim to keep the individual fit to
cope with the pressures of work and living.
These include stress education and awareness
programmes, and on-site ‘healthy-lifestyle
options.
• Stress education and awareness raising
These programmes are designed to increase
knowledge about stress, to increase awareness
of links between stress, illness and personal
behaviour, and improve personal stress coping
skills. Promoting self-awareness helps the
individual to take actions to reduce their own
stress levels. This is usually offered with
follow-up programmes such as, skills training,
relaxation,
assertiveness
and
keep-fit
programmes.
• Healthy lifestyle options for the
management of stress
In addition to stress management training,
many companies have adopted health
promotion as an attempt to keep employees
healthy. These include weight control and
dietary advice, smoking and alcohol cessation,
hypertension reduction, substance abuse
clinics and fitness programmes.
• Exercise and fitness programmes
Employee exercise programmes are probably
the most popular forms of stress management
activities offered to employees in the
workplace. They are usually offered to as a
way of reducing sickness absence and
improving work performance. As our
understanding of the effects of work-related
stress increased, it is accepted that our
increasing sedentary lifestyle is a contributory
factor to ill-health and a sedentary lifestyle is
associated with increased risk for coronary
heart disease. Benefits of exercise and fitness
programmes are in terms of a decrease in
absenteeism, staff turnover, and improved staff
morale and productivity. Reductions in levels
of anxiety and depression, improved mood
states are reported and employees say that they
feel ‘better’. They also report fewer symptoms
of stress and perceive the organisation more
favourably.
202
• Social support as a stress reducer
The value of emotional support in one's social
network as a protection against adverse
environmental forces or negative life events is
well documented. Social support from one’s
fellow workers and supervisor appears to
moderate the effects of job stress more
effectively than support from one’s family and
friends and there is much evidence to suggest
that social support can play a significant role in
enhancing the level of employee well being. It is
necessary to emphasise the importance of
supportive relationships and networks during the
selection process in order to promote a desirable
climate and culture, since this affects the quality
of working relationships. Thu, a supportive
image should be encouraged, reinforced and
acknowledged as criteria for recruitment into the
job. Managers and supervisors should be
selected and trained for their ability to
understand the need for social support and
reflect it in their style of supervision. Structures
to provide support include access to an
occupational health and counselling services and
social networks and self-help groups need to be
encouraged.
• Career sabbaticals
The opportunity to take a career sabbatical can
help an individual to recover from the effects
of stress. With so many people today working
to the point of exhaustion, organisations
should encourage staff to take sabbaticals to
recharge themselves, ideally, before the
individual becomes a victim of stress.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Conclusion
It is worth remembering that pressure is an
inevitable part of living and working, but
distress is not! Whilst our lives will continue to
become more complex and change will
continue to be a feature of life in the 21st
Century, we must remember that not all stress
is bad. It is a vital part of being alive.
Ultimately, we might need to concede that is
no longer useful to use this word ‘stress’ and
the term stress management, because ‘stress’
has a negative image. Employees do not like
being labelled, ‘stressed’, or ‘non-copers’.
Organisations do not like causing ‘stress’ to
their staff. In reality, stress management
simply means identifying all those barriers that
exist to adversely impact upon the
performance effectiveness at work, and the
satisfaction, health, well-being and happiness
of personnel offshore - IT IS ABOUT
MANAGING
ONE’S
BUSINESS
EFFECTIVELY. Nevertheless, as a generic
way of discussing how we can optimise
performance effectiveness at work, and the
satisfaction, health, well-being and happiness
of personnel offshore, it is a useful shorthand
phrase to use until we can find another less
emotive label.
An integrated model of stress management
It is desirable that organisations will use
proactive,
preventive
AND
curative
approaches to the management of stress, and at
the same time operating at more than one
level.
1.
2.
3.
and what they need to be more effective,
productive and healthy as employees.
Define who is to be involved in the
initiative, the project champion, how it
will be staffed, who will be involved, and
what will you need from each employee.
The project must be endorsed at the
highest level to gain commitment to the
initiative and subsequent change.
Communicate your intentions in a clear
manner – verbally, visually and
preferably, more than once!
Provide guarantees of confidentiality.
Define and communicate how the
feedback of results of a stress audit or risk
assessment will be used.
Successful Stress Management
Have a clear idea about why you are
becoming
involved
in
a
stress
management programme. Identify clear
objectives and goals. For example, is your
objective to reduce sickness absence or
accident levels?
Decide how you are going evaluate
measure the benefits. Share rewards with
employees to sustain a culture and climate
that acknowledges the link between
employee well being and business
effectiveness.
Take the time to understand staff attitudes
to the stress management policy and
strategy. Ask employees for heir opinions
Both preventive and curative stress
management strategies are essential in an
organisational approach to stress control in the
work place. Increasingly, evaluation studies
indicate that prevention is more effective AND
cheaper than trying to cure problems and
victims of exposure to stress.
Undoubtedly, stress management in the
workplace must be the joint responsibility of
both the organisation and the individual. Both
parties have a duty of care and need to exercise
203
this obligation in order to remain healthy and
free from harm. Ultimately, the effective
management of potential sources of stress is
about being in control of the pressures in one’s
life.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
Question – Dr Ron Gardner, HSE
Actually it’s more of a point I’d like a view on.
Very interesting when you said you felt a
stress policy should be integrated with the
general policy. We’ve found with traditional
hazards it’s more effective to have a set policy
on that topic as it focuses the mind. I think the
big difference is that the management is
usually the stress problem so I think you’re
right in this particular case but I’d just like a
view. The second thing is, I think you are also
right to put health as the tertiary end of this. I
tend, (although we’ve got the topic covered at
this conference), to think of stress as a
management issue rather than a health issue.
Whilst change will continue to exert a
considerable force on our working lives, it
must be acknowledged that some degree of
pressure is inevitable and can be spur to
improved performance and motivation. Stress
is a dynamic process and this means that stress
management is not a one-off project. It must
become an on-going process within the
organisation. To be successful it must become
part of day-to-day management and practice,
and embedded within the culture of the
organisation. Ultimately this is the only
effective and cost efficient strategy to avoid
the unacceptable costs of distress in the
workplace.
Answer – Dr Valerie Sutherland, SutherlandBradley Associates
As I said, I do get asked for help in how to
write a stress management policy and I don’t
really think that’s the way to go. I think if you
have a good health and safety in the workplace
policy and policies for the way you manage
your business, that actually should cover what
you need to have in place. My only concern is
that this stress activity just then becomes an
isolated issue which is given to some poor
project manager who is targeted as the stress
management manager.
They are forever
almost like a leper pushed into the cupboard
because everybody else would rather get on
with what they see as the more important
business of the day. So that’s my only
warning on that and what I see going on in lots
of other businesses, certainly not just in the
offshore industry. It’s the same onshore as
well.
We need to understand the nature of stress at
work before we can eliminate or moderate it. A
stress control programme can be effective if
resources are targeted to specific problems and
aimed at the elimination of the source of stress.
Organisations who recognise the high costs of
mismanaged stress in the workplace and seek to
achieve enhanced levels of effectiveness and the
well being of their work force, will adopt this
integrated approach to stress management. It
embraces both individual coping and
organisational change to combat the problems
associated with stress at work.
References
Hellesoy, O H, (Editor) 1985 “Work
environment:
Statfjord
field”
Bergen
(Norway): Universitetsforlaget.
Sutherland, V J, and Cooper, C L. 1991,
“Personality, stress and accident involvement
in the offshore oil and gas industry.” Pers.
Indiv. Diff., 12:195-204”
204
WHAT’S NEW IN STRESS MANAGEMENT?
Ronny Lardner, Chartered Occupational Psychologist, The Keil
Centre Ltd and Mr Bob Miles, HSE
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
• HSE view
• Current offshore stress trends
• HSE’s strategy
• Joint industry project
OCCUPATIONAL STRESS IS A PROBLEM
• HSE receives regular complaints from members of the working public
• HSE is under pressure from Government, the Trades Unions and a number of single issue groups
to “do something”
• Successful civil compensation cases indicate that harm to workers can be demonstrated in court
STRESS OFFSHORE
• Until recently, HSE research had not given reason to believe there is a particular problem offshore
• The presence of rig medics and offshore medicals has tended to ensure a healthier than average
workforce.
RECENT STRESS OFFSHORE TRENDS
• Emerging data from Kathy Parkes’ research indicates GHQ “caseness” up from 15.8% in 1995 to
19.9% in 2000
• e.g. six “extra” cases on 150 POB platform
• Aggressive down-manning and cost cutting has increased workloads
• Rise in complaints about long working hours
• Indications of a “two tier” workforce with those in low status contract jobs worse off
HEALTH OR SAFETY?
• Debate within HSE, is work-related stress primarily a health issue, or a safety issue?
• Civil compensation, stress practitioner industry and stress audits have concentrated on health at the
expense of safety
• This bias may be quite inappropriate for high hazard industries, such as offshore
TIME TO ALIGN OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AND SAFETY
• Offshore workers’ complaints regarding stress or fatigue usually focus on the increased probability
of human error leading to personal injury or a major incident
• The threshold stress or fatigue level, and duration necessary for a significant increase in error
probability, is almost certainly lower than that required to cause a permanent decrement in long
term health
A HIERARCHY
• Workers in high hazard industries tend to rank the possible stress outcomes in order of immediacy
and severity:
• increased accident risk
• reduced physical health
• reduced mental health
• Why do we tend to address these in the reverse order?
• What does this mean?
• Probable that stress reduction and human error reduction strategies overlap to a very significant
extent
205
•
Emerging evidence from JIP on HF incident investigation (Rachel Gordon at Aberdeen Univ.)
that HF error reduction strategies and good management (safety and business) are closely related
PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS? - WHERE TO NOW?
• We should be able to integrate HF root cause analyses into business improvement / knowledge
management programmes, most of the issues addressed are turning out to be the same
• It is only a small step to include occupational stress into the same programmes as it is all about
“good management”
THE OFFSHORE STRESS JIP
• The current work by The Keil Centre / Birkbeck College is challenging HSE’s approach
• Explicit links to HF root cause and risk assessment methodologies
• Response in terms of the hazard control hierarchy, as first suggested by Tom Cox, and
management standards
• Prevention at source
HSE’S STRESS STRATEGY
• Public consultation
• Work with industry partners
• Develop “management standards” on how to deal with a range of work-related stressors
JOINT INDUSTRY PROJECT
• HSE / BP / East of Scotland Water / The Keil Centre / Birkbeck College
• Initiated by BP’s Occupational Health Department
• Risk management framework
• Develop simple risk assessment methodology
- stress & human factors
• Identify “top three” stressors
• Develop, apply and evaluate internal management standards
MANAGEMENT STANDARDS
• internally vs externally-developed
• specific, locally-relevant stressors
• how to prevent / manage
• gap analysis
• HSE interested in process & outcomes
DEBATE
• In your organisation:
do you have any work-related stress cases?
are these treated as LTIs?
if not, why not?
would doing so help address root causes?
DEBATE
• Do you think the video promotes the right message about work-related stress?
• Do you think it would help remove stigma?
• Would your organisation endorse this type of message?
that to you is that certainly in the last six
months I’ve dealt with two individuals who
have reported stress, who subsequently were
sacked in actual fact because the medical
aspects for offshore working deemed them to
be unsuitable for offshore working. So do you
think that could be a deterrent for reporting
stress?
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
Question - Jake Molloy, OILC Offshore
Union
You say that Kathy Parkes’ research suggested
a 4% increase in stress cases. Could it be that
in actual fact there is significantly more and a
degree of under reporting? The reason I put
206
point with this research was that it tended to
point towards an increase, without explaining
at the present time why that increase has
occurred.
Answer – Ronny Lardner, Keil Centre
I guess that’s possible. I guess the other thing
that we need to remember is that in any
organisation no matter how well run it is, you
will get incidences of mental health problems
at any point in time. I think the important
207
208
THE ROLE OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMMES IN
ORGANISATIONAL STRESS MANAGEMENT
Dr Stephen Galliano, ICAS Group
Occupational Health Offshore
Work Stress
Body of evidence
The role of EAP in Organisational
Stress Management
work can cause stress
work pace
role in organisation
relationships
poor communications
decision-making
organisational style
working environment
working conditions
new technology
work overload/underload
job design
29 March 2001
Health & Safety at Work (1974)
Work/Personal Stress
Many personal sources of stress but
work/non work issues will often be
closely inter-related and therefore
difficult to disentangle
If work
stress and
stress
ill health then it
becomes a health and safety issue
Employee Assistance Programmes
Core elements
Employee Assistance Programmes
For employees & managers
Worksite focused service to assist in the
identification and resolution of employee concerns
which affect, or may affect, performance
work matters ………. work demands, relationships,
work-life balance, stress
personal matters ….. relationships, health,
emotional, family, alcohol,
drugs, financial, etc.
209
•
Confidential/timely problem assessment
•
Provision of short-term psychological help
and other specialist support services
•
Referral on for longer term help
•
Manager/OH/HR referral
•
Manager consultation
Employee Assistance Programmes
Core elements
EAPs & Organisational Stress Management
For the employer
EAPs are not intended (primarily)
to prevent work-related stress nor
to reduce the likelihood that it will
ever occur ……...
•
Assessment of need/design
•
Communication of EAP policy
•
Partnership philosophy
•
Effective implementation/promotion
•
Training for managers
•
Feedback to organisations of themes and trend
Matrix of
Organisational Stress Management
Employee Assistance Programme
Primary
Prevention
•
•
•
Change management and
Policy implementation
Stress auditing
Risk Assessment
•
•
•
Secondary
Tertiary
Resilience/
coping resources
Remedial
Training and education
Health & fitness
Manager Training
•
•
•
Medical treatment
Psychological treatment
and counselling
Grievance Procedures
A strategic intervention designed to
Employee Assistance Programmes
produce organisational benefit
Accurate and timely
organisational feedback
Consulting
Early identification of
individual problems
Manager training in identifying at
risk employees
Counselling (self-referral)
Crisis Management Policy
work-life balance services
Manager referrals
Crisis support
Manager consultation
Usage of EAP Services (by problems)
Usage of EAP Services
Oil Industry
Managerial
Consultancy
5%
Other
Counselling
Work Life
Services
Change
Services
30%
(contractual)
Issue
etc
40%
35%
65%
Counselling Clients
General
Supervisory
35%
Non-Supervisory
65%
Stress
25%
210
Personal
Work-related
Problem
25%
75%
EAP & Organisational Stress Management
EAP and Organisational Stress Management
Case Study 1
Case Study 2
Large insurance company, sites throughout the UK.
Multinational telecoms company
8 calls received at our 24-hour centre regarding alleged ‘bullying’
in one large site (call centre) involving 2 different call centre
supervisors.
4 Middle managers in 2 different business units under
stress
long hours expected (12+) and overseas
travel v. poor work-life balance and consequent family
impact.
Feedback process agreed
Outcome
Outcome
relaunch of corporate harassment policy
Work-life balance/travel policy
Time in lieu procedures
training of internal harassment “counsellors”
211
turn up and disclose issues that hadn’t been
consented to with the client beforehand.
However, I have to say that in that sort of case,
it would probably have been referred to us
some months before. We would prefer that a
manager or an occupational health doctor
actually made a referral and in the process of
referral engaged the employee’s consent for
ICAS to disclose to that one person for
example on a need-to-know basis. I think to
be able to have a clinical discussion about the
client’s issues in front of a whole panel of
people would also be somewhat questionable.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSIONS
Question - Tony Garner, Conoco
You say you’re a good provider and seem to
differentiate between good and bad EAP
providers. How do you know you’re good
because it’s so difficult to audit EAP because
of the confidentiality issue? By definition,
occupational health/human resources don’t
really know what you are doing.
Answer - Dr Stephen Galliano, ICAS Group
Did you say Conoco? I just wanted to check
where you came from because we’ve just
managed to survive a major audit by DuPont
and they sent in their heavy troops from the
US and we’re expecting companies like
Conoco and our oil customers to do exactly the
same. We’ve had probably about four or five
audits every year. The auditors up till now,
most of them have been Americans coming in
working with occupational health in the UK.
So we’ve had occupational health doctors
viewing our cases, viewing our workflow,
studying our procedures, looking to see
whether we implement the procedures that we
have written down, interviewing our affiliates,
checking out their credentials, checking out
what they think about us as an EAP provider.
We’ve also had one audit, which has involved
UK-based auditors. That has also gone well.
An audit is possible, and audits are done. All
EAPs should be audited at least every two
years. You can find out a great deal about it
through an auditor, if you know what you are
looking for, and I take your point.
I often leave it to occupational health doctors
to say what they want to say to HR and line
managers. We will disclose everything with
occupational health and I know that they will
give as little information as they can, but
enough to make the determination about
fitness for duty etc, work safety etc. So the
answer is ‘yes’, you could have somebody at a
case conference, but you would need some
kind of consent from the client to be able to
disclose any clinical personal data.
Question - Bob Hanson, BG Group
You made reference to the fact you train
counsellors? Are these lay counsellors, people
in the workforce?
Answer - Dr Stephen Galliano, ICAS Group
Within the context of the harassment exercise?
Answer - Bob Hanson, BG Group?
Yes.
Question - Jim Johnson, Shell UK
Just on the point of confidentiality. When we
have a problem with an employee we tend to
have a sort of mini case conference where we
typically bring in OH, HR and the line. It
would be useful and perhaps reduce a sense of
standaloneness of the EAP if they could join in
these things. Would you have to have the
client’s express permission before you take
part in such a mini case conference?
Answer - Dr Stephen Galliano, ICAS Group
We didn’t call them counsellors. They were
called listening posts but nobody wanted to
describe them as listening posts, so the
organisation was quite keen to call them
harassment counsellors but with a very clear
brief, supervised on a regular basis by the way.
We did train them. We did a whole series of
four-day counselling skills programmes and
we did a top-up every year for them.
Answer - Dr Stephen Galliano, ICAS Group
That is if we are already consulting the client
and helping that client?
Question - Bob Hanson, BG Group
And did their colleagues feel happy about
using them?
Answer - Jim Johnson, Shell UK
Yes.
Answer - Dr Stephen Galliano, ICAS Group
The policy was quite well written up really and
it allowed for people in certain business units
to contact a harassment counsellor in another
unit so they were not expected to be talking to
their own colleagues. They’d set it up in as
independent and safe a way as possible really.
There was a published list in the organisation
Answer - Dr Stephen Galliano, ICAS Group
There has to be consent for any one of us to
disclose any information about the client so
yes, you need the client’s support for us to do
that. It would be totally unethical for us to
212
with the locations of all of those people, so the
idea was they would ring somebody who was
three hundred miles away in another site rather
than in their own location.
213
214
FEEDBACK AND DISCUSSION – HUMAN FACTORS AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH – WHERE NEXT?
Introduction to Video Session – Ronny Lardner
Just a little bit of introduction to this video.
It’s intended really as a concrete example of
how an organisation can perhaps bring
together many of the things we’ve discussed
this morning in relation to stress. This is
particularly relevant to the awareness part of
dealing with stress. The history of this is that
it is something that occurred in your own
industry where back in 1998 BP at
Grangemouth had some issues about stress.
There was an analysis, an action exercise
carried out there to identify what were the
main work-related causes of stress and those
were addressed. At the same time it was
realised that there was a need to raise
awareness amongst the whole workforce about
the site’s position on the topic of stress and
what was available locally to deal with it.
Answer - Tony Garner, Conoco
I thought it was a bit on the negative side
whereas Dr Sutherland was very much on the
positive side of stress.
Stress is very
important, a very good tool, it’s a very
motivating subject and that was a negative
impression of stress. Stress isn’t negative.
Question - Ronny Lardner, Keil Centre
Any other views on that, on the overall
message that came over?
Answer – Dr Ron Gardner, HSE
It’s a little focused on the individual. It was
nice to hear you say there had also been
seminars and materials for managers, but what
managers could actually do towards the
process didn’t really come out of that at all. It
was very person orientated.
I was a member, along with many other BP
employees of a working party, a vertical slice
throughout the organisation including safety
reps and process operators who had the task of
putting together an educational programme for
the site about stress. The final product of this
was a video, an intranet website, booklets for
every employee and also a poster campaign.
That was followed up by seminars for
managers, team leaders and safety reps, in
short everybody who had responsibility for
other people.
Answer - Ronny Lardner, Keil Centre
It’s interesting you should say that. At the
time our intention was to try and get the
message over about the importance of
preventing things rather than it being an
individual – a subject that was purely about
individual coping. We thought we made great
strides in doing that by getting the senior
management to endorse it and allow inclusion
of that sort of message. I think perhaps things
have moved forward a bit since then and now
people would be looking for a much stronger
preventative message.
What we are going to do is look at the video.
Bear in mind that it was produced three years
ago and maybe thinking has moved forward a
bit since then but at the time it was believed to
be the right message to put forward. I would
be interested in getting your views after we’ve
seen it about whether you agree with that.
Question - Dennis Krahn, International
Association of Drilling Contractors
In that situation you had the ability to go
offsite.
In an offshore location you don’t.
Could you talk about the difference in the
situations and what we might do about that?
- Video shown to delegates.
Answer - Ronny Lardner, Keil Centre
Is that in a sense Dennis that employees have
the ability to seek support offsite?
Question - Ronny Lardner, Keil Centre
On the basis of what we’ve listened to today
and your own personal experience do you
think that video promotes the right sort of
message from an organisation about work
related stress? Does anybody have a view on
that?
Question - Dennis Krahn, International
Association of Drilling Contractors
That’s correct, implying perhaps that initially
there may be some shyness to be seen to be
taking advantage of these resources. If so,
then your only recourse is to go where your
shyness doesn’t matter, where nobody but
215
Dennis has raised an important question, but
we’re here today for one particular thing.
We’re talking about offshore and there are
differences. I think really we want to open up
the debate. We’ve got a panel of speakers here
and really what we should be doing is sharing
the views because I think there’s a silence in
stress that is ready to explode in this industry.
I think the one area that certain people have
got to deal with, particularly in dealing with
occupational health, is stress.
yourself can see. Is that a factor in getting to
the state of play offshore that we would like to
be at?
Answer - Ronny Lardner, Keil Centre
Yes, I’m sure the fact that it’s a lot more
difficult to access resources confidentially if
you’re working offshore for a fortnight at a
time is very relevant. I guess perhaps people
store that up until they come back onshore.
One of the intentions of the video was to try
and help remove some of the stigma that’s
associated with stress, so it’s a legitimate
subject for conversation. Personally I used to
be in the police service. I was in the police
service for twelve years and at that time the
notion of mentioning or discussing that you
might be experiencing stress would be
completely out of the question. It would just
not be a subject that you could have raised and
discussed because it would have been viewed
very much as though it was about your
individual ability to cope. It wouldn’t really
be a legitimate subject. So, one of the things I
wondered of the audience was, do you think
something along those lines actually helps to
remove the stigma that is attached to the topic
of stress and legitimise it as something you can
discuss?
As Ronny says, it’s three years ago. BP has
done this on their refinery at Grangemouth.
Dennis has raised an important question that
will be in everybody’s mind. There was also
the question from Conoco which I thought
Stephen in a sense had answered - how do you
think you’re doing well? Well it’s up to the
organisations that take you on to audit.
In general let’s open up for the panel and if
anybody wants to, throw in questions about
stress. How we would handle it? How we
would tackle it? Bear in mind that our aim is
to share views, challenges and successes and
look at research studies.
Comment – Una Corpe, Shell Expro
I’ve been involved in stress management at
Shell for about 10–12 years and this is
comment rather than a question. We’ve done
large-scale research in the past. It’s taken
maybe 12–18 months to do some research and
then to get our final figures. To carry on from
that, we looked at EAP programmes, many of
them in the UK and we looked at some
experience in one of our own Shell operating
companies further south. We really didn’t find
it beneficial. Going back to the speaker’s
comments of good and bad EAPs, we didn’t
find EAPs particularly helpful at that time.
Because there were particularly maybe good to
the individuals, but not particularly good to the
organisation for the management of stress,
whatever the causation was.
Comment – Mr Kevin O’Donnell, HSE
I tend to agree with you there. If you see the
video as part of a package, some of the aspects
describing the symptoms of stress are useful.
People here are probably reasonably well
educated as to what these are. A lot of people
in the workplace may not realise very simply
what the symptoms are that they are
experiencing and having it explained at a very
basic level, as Ian and Tony did, is a very good
starting point as an overall package, not just on
its own. It’s got to be remembered that the
video isn’t standalone, it’s got to be part of a
package for a whole set of issues.
Question - Ronny Lardner, Keil Centre
I guess the final question I wanted to ask the
audience is do they feel that their own
organisation would endorse that general sort of
message about the subject of stress? Would
that be the sort of message you would endorse
putting over to your own employees, or would
there be a different type of message you would
want to put over?
We haven’t seen much development from that
as such.
What we’ve done within the
organisation is we’ve used the ‘Triple A’
management approach that Dr. Valerie
Sutherland has described. We’ve more or less
had that system in force for probably about
five years. Now what we do; we do real time
measurement; we do the ‘Triple A’ approach
as regards the education and awareness; we do
the stress research in real time where we
include GHQ and the HADs mental health
questionnaires in all of our health screening.
In addition to that, we do surveys for any areas
Chairman – Rab Wilson, AEEU
In essence, what the video was for me, was
giving the opportunity to show you what BP is
doing. Now whether we like it or not, BP is
identifying that there are problems with stress.
216
management initiative and you’ve got pretty
firm views of how you want to roll that
initiative out, then it would be pointless to get
an off-the-shelf programme coming into your
organisation because it wouldn’t integrate that
well with your requirements.
that consider they’ve got hot spots onshore or
offshore throughout our organisation. The
figures that we’ve got on this real time stress
analysis are about 14-15% which compare
with Kathy Parkes’ figures from about four to
five years ago which we were part of her study
and which haven’t increased since then.
If you want GHQs and HADs and whatever
else done for all those employees presenting to
an EAP for example then I think you can, if
you specify that, and if it fits in. It has to be
upfront but I have to say you need to position
it very carefully. One of the problems that
exists in the market is that you get customer
organisations saying okay, we want an EAP.
Let’s invite proposals and let these people send
us one of their proposals and it’s often not easy
to try and understand the real motivation
behind the EAP. It may not be that easy to
understand why the organisation wants an EAP
and in fact how far the organisation is going to
roll out an effective stress management
programme. But it’s sad that you had that
experience I’ve got to say, and it’s regrettable.
We look closely at our stress measurement
within the organisation and integrate it into the
management. There are one or two of our
areas where we’ve got hot spots. We’ve had
hot spots on offshore installations and one of
them in particular that had fairly high cases
rates was actually one of the areas that had an
EAP type programme in place. So, using our
‘Triple A’ approach for reinforcement in that
particular area, the levels have come right
down to the 14-15% for the company as a
whole.
Going back to the EAP programme again. In
our experience that system wasn’t integrated.
We weren’t able to integrate that system into
the company because of the confidentiality
element.
Not to do away with the
confidentiality to employees, but to release
information to management as a whole, you
need to be able to have more real time
intervention so as to do something about it.
Because, if the individuals go off sick with
stress that may be the first time that you find
out about it, if it’s just an EAP programme
that’s in place.
Comment - Dr Valerie Sutherland,
Sutherland-Bradley Associates
I have been in the fortunate position to be able
to speak to a lot of the guys and fewer of the
women who work offshore and certainly not to
admit to being under stress is something that
comes over quite clearly. What they also tell
me is that they don’t have anybody to talk to
when they’ve got problems. When you tease
that out a bit further they probably will go and
talk to somebody like the radio operator or the
medic. So I think that’s a resource and
Stephen’s going to hate me for this, but we
should consider training somebody like that in
some basic skills. We need to acknowledge
that they can’t provide the full gamut of a
counselling service offered by an EAP, but
they can provide help.
We measure sickness absence within our
company. I said at the beginning of this
conference that our sickness absence rate for
Shell Expro is one percent. We look at the
causation of absence and looking at the
causation of absences of 28 days or over, stress
and backs are the main problems. They are a
very small proportion of the total, but in saying
that, if somebody actually goes off sick with
stress, they’re off for at least six months.
What we need to do is have an early
intervention programme which is a total
‘Triple A’ management approach, which is
what we’ve got in operation and which works.
If you’re on a rig for fourteen days and you
have a problem, and you’ve got to sit there for
another thirteen and stew about it, well that’s
probably a person who is an accident looking
for a place to happen, so I do think you do
need this. You can’t go (as they do in BP
Grangemouth) to another building tucked
away in a corner of a site somewhere. It’s got
to be something that people can do. There is
access to telephone services with EAPs.
Maybe that could be used more, but then there
is still this issue of confidentiality. That’s my
point on EAPs.
Comment – Dr Stephen Galliano, ICAS
Group
I think one of the challenges when you’re
looking for an EAP, (well an external EAP
because a lot of organisations have internal
programmes equally but not more effective
and powerful than external ones) is trying to
decide what you want the EAP to do, and how
you want to position the EAP. I think if there
is a very up front substantial stress
I do want to say something about getting to
people quicker before they become sick which
217
for those who haven’t got the ability to fall
back on an EAP programme themselves? You
talked about basic training for the medics. It
seemed to me that the medic or the OIM,
should surely have some sort of responsibility
here – probably the OIM - because he is
responsible for everybody’s health and welfare
on the platform. I can understand there are
some pitfalls involved, but how would we go
about trying to ensure that all the people that
you have working on your platform can get
some stress counselling?
I agree is absolutely crucial. We are in
prevention here and being proactive. Part of
my notion of integrating something into dayto-day systems and practices is that there’s got
to be some mechanism where people either as
individuals, or in a group, can just simply
reflect without even using the word stress.
How am I doing? Am I effective? If I’m not
effective, why not? If I don’t feel job satisfied
why not? Then you’re going to tease out the
reasons for this.
If that’s done, I guess I’m saying a bottom-up
driven model, they can then go to a supervisor,
or crew manager, or whatever you like to call
them, and then sit down as a group and say can
we do something about this? Can we take the
heat out of this situation? I don’t think we
really tap in enough to people out there and
ask their opinions of what they want done and
how they would better manage their stress. I
feel, because we’re all so busy all the time
we’re rather like hamsters aren’t we running in
this wretched wheel and hamsters just seem to
do it for hours and hours and hours and hours.
It’s not just offshore this is a criticism of, it’s
all the other places I go onshore. We just
don’t seem to be able to get out of that wheel
and think about what it is we’re doing. A lot
of the time we look around and think if I could
just stop for a few minutes and reorganise
myself, things would just be so much better
and less stressful. But we seem to be on this
madcap go go go all the time and that’s what I
think is creating a lot of stress.
Chairman – Rab Wilson, AEEU
There’s somebody else who has got a question
and we’ll ask it because you’ve asked the
panel on their views on the multi-skilling one
with stress. There’s another question as well
and we could take two questions so that the
panel get the opportunity.
Question - Gareth Powell, BP
I’m in design but I’m an offshore medic, so it’s
relevant to both the last points in a way.
Certainly within BP we do have training in
basic counselling and stress management
skills, but you need to remember the situation
offshore, that we’re offshore for fourteen days
with these people as well. Whereas some
people are quite comfortable to come and talk
to us about problems in their personal life or
their work life, there are others for whom
we’re just a bit too close. They’d much rather
speak to someone they don’t know, a bit more
distant on the end of the telephone. I certainly
think that’s where EAPs are invaluable. I’ve
had experience over the last couple of years of
people that have used both those routes with
equally good outcomes.
Chairman – Rab Wilson, AEEU
We are here today, in particular to listen to you
and you’ve been very patient out there. Just a
couple of thoughts for debate here. I’ve been
given something here. In your organisation do
you have any work-related stress cases? Are
these treated as LTIs? If not, why not and
would doing so help address the root causes?
It’s something to think about but because
we’re here to listen to you and the speakers
have had a fair bit today, maybe if we take one
or two questions and open it up.
Answer – Dr Stephen Galliano, ICAS Group
I wanted to make a comment in fact, initially
in response to this gentleman’s question about
offshore workers and how do they get to see
somebody offsite and partly to this last
question. I think that all of our oil customers
allow access to the EAP to the contractors as
well. I can’t think of any of our customers that
don’t to be honest with you. It would seem
that they also pay for that, i.e. it’s not the
contracting companies that are paying for the
service, but that the oil producers have taken
the view that the contractors are working on
producers’ installations, producers’ platforms.
It’s the producers’ responsibility and therefore
it is important that contractors also have access
to certainly at least the telephone services
when they’re offshore and all the rest of it
when they’re onshore and that their families
also have access to it.
Question - Ian Loughran, Phillips Petroleum
Within our organisation, people who work for
Phillips have got access to an EAP through
their health care if I remember rightly. What
are the panel’s thoughts about the fact that
with multi-skilling, that it uses contractor
workforces etc. which means you’ve got
people who’ve got different terms and
conditions and may not have access to EAPs?
How can the duty holder try and deal with this
issue to try and bring stress out into the open
218
contractors to access. But we’ve found that
there is a barrier, there is a psychological
barrier. It’s very difficult sometimes to pick
up that telephone and there is clear evidence
that many people pick up the telephone and put
it down again before it actually gets answered.
What we are trying to do there is look at, in
cooperation with our EAP provider, alternative
portals. We’re looking at the use of the web,
we’re looking at the use of chatrooms and
using any technique that people will feel
comfortable with to get this help that we’re
paying for.
I know that these people use our services.
There are telephones on platforms, though
conditions are better in some than others in
terms of how much privacy you get, how many
lines there are and how many telephone points
there are. I have to say that we do get regular
calls from the platforms. The only problem we
experience is that the contracting companies
tend not to join in in the promotion and
implementation of those services to their
contractors. Therefore, what we do now is go
offshore on a fairly regular basis and do
presentations offshore to the managers,
supervisors and to all staff, whether they are
contractors or employed staff.
The other issue is using your EAP. Not every
offshore worker lives in Aberdeen.
My
workforce is spread throughout the UK and
near Europe and I have a great benefit in using
the EAP. Our EAP has a very good network
of psychiatrists, psychologists, specialist
counsellors. We have been using those for
therapeutic reasons to provide us with the
psychological support network where we can
refer where necessary. This is a service I can
offer to general practitioners when managing
our cases as well. I suppose the end of it is
that you have to integrate the whole lot.
Include the medic training - we certainly have
done that. Include the management training as
well. Keep it in the public domain. Keep it in
management’s view. Finally, try and stop
management taking unthought out initiatives,
because there’s one sure thing, there is no
magic bullet, but that doesn’t necessarily stop
many of our managers going in search of it,
somewhat like the holy grail I suppose.
Comment - Dr Valerie Sutherland,
Sutherland-Bradley Associates
My comment is to the gentleman from Phillips.
I agree with Stephen on that. I presume,
unless you specify that all your contractors
provide a service for their employees, then
probably you are going to be it.
Question - Dennis Krahn, International
Association of Drilling Contractors
I would like to ask a question relating stress to
safety performance. In the drilling industry
we’ve had, I can recall, three very serious
incidents where it seemed like the team knew
what to do, but they didn’t do it. One of the
team didn’t do something right and nobody
else called that out. Training seems to have
been okay, management tells them to take time
out for safety and not to hurry, so my question
is this. Is there some amount of stress that we
haven’t identified that causes them to lose
situation awareness such that they almost don’t
see that it’s wrong; or like it’s disembodied they see it’s wrong but it’s not going to happen
to them, or they’re for the moment immortal or
something. Can you help us to understand this
perhaps, this relationship?
Comment - Ronny Lardner
I’m just going to comment on I think it was
Dennis’ point about incidents where you
wonder whether stress played a part in it. I
guess the only thing you can say about that is
it’s very difficult to determine after the event
whether that’s actually the case and it would
simply be speculation on my part to comment
further on that. I think it’s very difficult after
an incident has taken place to determine with
any certainty whether, for the individuals
involved, being under stress was relevant in
individual cases.
Comment – Dr Jim Keech, BP, Chairman of
UKOOA HAC
My first comment is that the approach has to
be an integrated approach. We’ve heard
aspects of bits and pieces. If the EAP is to
work, and I believe EAPs can work, they have
to be integrated within the whole of the
psychological health plan. I would say to
operators and contractors alike that they need
to consider planning for psychological health
just as much as physical health. Your EAP, if
properly utilised, can be very much part of
that.
Certainly we’ve been working to
improve access to EAP. We do have access
via telephone and yes we do pay for all our
Comment – Professor Josephine Arendt,
University of Surrey
I was just going to add to that question about
lack of decision making ability cognitive
impairment over here. Without wanting to
labour the point, there has been the recent
publication that jet-lag crossing time zones
rapidly induces deficits in cognitive reasoning
and ability to perform, and long term
219
moreover.
Now you may think that’s
irrelevant but it’s not because it’s precisely the
same situation for an unadapted night shift
worker.
Answer - Dr Ron Gardner, HSE
There are various aspects to that. I might want
to pull in Shirley and Alan as well because of
their background to make sure I get this right.
Stress per se is not reportable. There is no
mechanism for reporting it except as I recall in
parts of RIDDOR there’s some generality to
cover things you need to report, but stress as a
condition isn’t reportable. It’s not included. I
don’t see any simple mechanism for saying
yes, you report it. Accidents are the only ones
where you need to have a three-day limit. All
the other illnesses and diseases if you’ve got
them, if they are reportable, they are reported.
It doesn’t depend on the amount of time you
have off. It just happens that stress per se is
not defined.
Comment - Dr Valerie Sutherland,
Sutherland-Bradley Associates
Could I just say that I think if people were
trained and educated to understand the stress
process, not just to be told it’s going to make
them feel irritable or have a dry mouth, but
why they feel like that. As Jo says, we know
that if you are under stress you do have
cognitive impairment that will affect your
reaction times. If they can know that they are
going to be impaired in these ways and they
are going to have the physiological and
emotional reactions, then they are a little bit
more prepared for it, without blaming them for
something that they can’t cope with, that it is a
normal response and if they can recognise it.
It’s the sort of training you would expect bomb
disposal experts to have. If they’re crouched
over the bomb I should imagine their stress
levels are very high but they are just trained to
override those because they know that’s what’s
going to happen to their body. They are
human beings. They’re not robots.
Comment - Steve Taylor, Shell Expro
The very point of this conference is getting off
the back foot, which is lagging indicators if
you like, such as accidents, and getting on the
front foot - occupational health - stopping
accidents before we have them. My point
would be perhaps we need to look at this again
because, as the lady said up there, stress is an
accident waiting to happen.
Comment – Dr Ron Gardner, HSE
I couldn’t agree more but your original
question was about what the regulations
currently say. One of the points that was made
early on in the conference was that under
Securing Health Together one of the
programmes is entitled ‘Compliance’ and part
of that is looking at whether our regulations
are fit for purpose, whether they need
changing. Maybe this is one area where we do
need some changes. The other point I would
make, Jim Keech spoke earlier as well about
the work that Step Change is setting up in
terms of collecting medic consultation data,
time off data, things like that and maybe again
this is a mechanism for picking up this sort of
incident.
Comment - Jake Molloy, OILC Offshore
Union
All the speakers have touched on, and indeed
the video touched on, the issue of selfconfidence, which in itself brings about this
feeling of empowerment.
I think an
observation sitting on the workforce side of the
fence is that that is severely lacking. If you
can address the self confidence and
empowerment issue, then it may assist in
reducing stress, incidents, accidents etc. One
typical example:- if the workforce were
empowered I’m quite sure that we would see
an immediate reduction in working hours
offshore and address a lot of the problems that
we were talking about here this morning.
Answer – Dr Jim Keech, BP, Chairman of
UKOOA HAC
Just to answer some of the points. The
regulator doesn’t help. RIDDOR certainly
doesn’t help. It’s not their fault. Most of the
operators here are already recording these
events and certainly I can speak very definitely
for BP that we do record psychological illness
as an occupational illness. It is reported as a
‘day away from work case’ and we are aware
of it and do report it and try and manage it. To
go on on Ron’s point, we intend certainly in
Step Change as we find this way forward with
the health database, to look at psychological
Question - Steve Taylor, Shell Expro
Your comments, Mr Chairman, on the question
that’s not been answered at the moment. You
said about the opinion of people actually
classifying stress or people off with stress as
an LTI. Well I guess there are the regulators
in the room secreted amongst us at the
moment. I’d like to hear what their view is on
that because to my knowledge everything that
we have is either medical, the guy’s injured,
he’s off as an LTI, or he’s off for medical
reasons which doesn’t appear. An opinion
please.
220
predominant factor there. I wonder if the
psychologists have got any comment to make
about the use of the word ‘pressure’ as being a
good thing in the individual? I think that to
most people pressure has got a bit of a
prejorative spin to it.
health issues. I’ve recently had a report.
We’ve got nine thousand encounters now
classified in the last two years in BP. We have
included psychological health classification in
there and this is very much the sort of thing we
would want to do with a cross industry
database. I think what it has shown me, and
what I’ve been able to use when presenting to
management, is the psychological ill-health
load as represented by the work that the
offshore medics are doing.
It doesn’t
necessarily cause an accident, it doesn’t
necessarily cause anybody to go off sick but it
is captured there in the encounter. Certainly
on some installations we have classified a third
of the workload on encounters as being due to
psychosocial encounters.
Answer – Ronny Lardner, Keil Centre
My comment would be that I think there is a
lot of confusion about these terms and you’ve
got to come to a decision about the best ones to
use and use them consistently. I notice that the
HSE’s definition of stress in their publicity is
that there is no such thing as good stress. You
often hear people say well a bit of stress is
good for you. I don’t think that’s a helpful
message to use because people can use that ill
advisedly. I certainly feel that the message
that there is no such thing as good stress, but
pressure is a positive thing is a consistent
message. I think perhaps what you’re referring
to is that many people would say when
pressure becomes excessive it is a problem.
That’s when it becomes stress.
Question - James Johnson, Shell
We, like BP, record sickness absence from
psychological problems as well, and we also
include contractor staff as well as operator
staff. We’re faced always with the problem
mentioned earlier of trying to tease out the
personal or domestic component from the
purely occupational one and we really have to
get around and decide which is the more
221
222
DAY 3
AFTERNOON SESSION
SESSION THEME – WELLBEING AND FITNESS FOR DUTY
223
224
HEALTH CARE AND FIRST AID ON OFFSHORE
INSTALLATIONS
- THE REVISED ACOP
Alan Morley, Safety Policy Directorate, HSE
Continuing to specify minimum provision
levels for people, equipment and facilities does
not fit in with making an individual assessment
of needs. So these lists were dropped in favour
of a new appendix, which sets out factors that
duty holders need to consider when making
their assessments. Factors like:
- how many people are normally on board,
- the types of activity taking place,
- likely weather conditions,
- and proper storage, supervision and security
for prescription only drugs.
I worked on production of the revised
Approved Code of Practice on the Offshore
First Aid Regulations. I shall outline for you
some of the main changes that were made and
explain why we made them.
The revised ACoP comes into force on 2 April
2001. And on that day the old one ceases to
have effect. You can buy copies of the revised
ACoP from HSE Books and other good book
sellers. The price is £6.00.
Revision of the ACoP followed the Health and
Safety Commission’s review of all health and
safety
regulations
and
ACoPs.
The
Commission found the offshore first aid
regulations were properly goal setting, but that
the ACoP was too prescriptive. As a result, in
1998, it published a Consultative Document
proposing changes to the ACoP (but not the
regulations) and inviting comments. I’d like to
thank everyone who responded. We took
careful note of all of the comments we
received, where possible making alterations to
what had been proposed. It became a lengthy
process. Health care and first aid is a subject
about which people have strong views. It led to
a further round of informal consultation before
the revised ACoP could be finalised.
Lets now look at the medical equipment list. A
number of respondents asked for the lists of
equipment and facilities in the old ACoP to be
retained. Their continued publication by HSC
would have been against the Commission’s
policy of moving to a goal based regime. But
they still have value, for example, as a means
of reference. UKOOA have therefore taken
them over and published updated lists. They
are called Guidelines for First aid on Medical
Equipment on Offshore Installations and
copies are available from UKOOA.
So far as the role and responsibilities of an
offshore medic are concerned, we have added
guidance as an Appendix. It includes advice on
what are and are not suitable secondary roles
for offshore medics. Suitable ones may well
include:
- helping prepare the assessment of needs for
an installation,
- making health-based risk assessments,
- and basic first-aid training.
But not roles that could be conflicting, for
example, helicopter landing officer - you
should not plan to have one person in two
places at once during an emergency.
There were a number of reasons that we
couldn’t take everything into account. These
include:
- legal reasons,
- the extent of HSE’s remit,
- some respondents gave opposing views or
their suggestions were not workable.
There are five main changes.
The first is about assessing needs. The revised
ACoP brings the provision of offshore health
care and first aid into line with modern
legislation. For health care and first aid, duty
holders will now determine what people,
equipment and facilities are required through
an assessment of needs. So that, in future, duty
holders will establish the requirements for their
own particular installation, rather than mostly
relying on lists in the old ACoP.
More prominence has been given to health
care. As already indicated, the name of the
ACoP has changed to ‘Health care and first aid
on offshore installations and pipeline works’.
Thus adding ‘health care’. This follows
concerns raised by a number of people, that
health care should clearly be a part of the
ACoP, and not take second place to first aid. In
spite of their titles, the regulations and ACoP
have always dealt with both health care and
225
onshore. Copies are available from HSE
Books.
first aid. But in re-writing the ACoP we have
tried to make the place of health care clearer.
So, as well as the title, for example, the
Appendix on the roles and responsibilities of
offshore medics clearly includes health care.
To sum up, we believe that this revised ACoP
will allow duty holders much greater flexibility
to assess their own health care and first aid
needs. In future, you will tailor what is
provided to suit your individual offshore
location, instead of a standard package which
is less fitted to the needs of that place. In other
words - as a duty holder, you decide what you
need and you provide it. This revised ACoP is
relevant to everyone in promoting health care
and well being offshore.
Finally, we have revised some of the training
arrangements. In particular trainers no longer
have to have experience of working offshore.
This will only directly affect the training
organisations. The old ACoP gave no
indication about what the experience should
be. We concluded an understanding could - for
the purposes of first aid and health care - be
obtained in other ways. The most important
factor is for people to be used who are good
trainers. This should ultimately be of benefit to
everyone.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
(NB – The following question and answer was
taken from FD’s notes as this session was not
recorded on tape.)
And secondly, for training, especially first aid
training, the ACoP has been revised to bring it
more into line with what is said in the
ONSHORE first aid ACoP. For example, the
list of training subjects for offshore firstaiders, has been re-written as a list of
competencies.
Question – Jake Malloy, OILC Offshore
Union
Is the ACOP enforceable? Particularly in
relation to medics’ alternative roles, such as
cleaning duties.
In revising the ACoP, we realised that the
offshore emergency first aid advice leaflet is
very similar to the onshore one - ‘Basic Advice
on first aid at work’. After consideration by
our doctors, we decided that there is no need to
have a separate offshore leaflet. So this has
been replaced by the onshore one - which is
now approved for use offshore, as well as
Answer – Alan Morley, HSE
The guidance suggests that medics should not
be undertaking cleaning duties. It would be
difficult for an OIM to show that a medic who
was doing cleaning was immediately available
for emergencies. Inspectors may challenge
such a situation.
226
WELLBEING AT WORK
Fiona Farmer, Regional Officer, MSF
Family responsibilities
Working hours
Employment security
Musculoskeletal Disorders
Control of work
Occupational health scheme
The World Health Organisation defines
health as “a state of complete physical,
mental and social well-being and does not
merely consist of an absence of disease or
infirmity.”
MSF is running a campaign to demonstrate the
importance of well-being to the employee and
the employer.
Really good occupational health as expressed
by well-being, can only be effective if all
decisions in the organisation are subject to an
OH audit. All decisions need to take account
of the potential impact on well-being. Wellbeing should be seen as an holistic approach to
the broadest interpretation of Occupational
Health.
Occupational health has improved in the past
two decades but still concentrates on the
physical issues where cause and effect are
clearly demonstrated. The tackling of stress is
still seen by too many as a “difficult” area, let
alone some of the “softer” areas such a wellbeing which incorporate social and family
factors into the equation.
To be effective these issues have to be
addressed by a partnership between employers
and employees, which has to be reflected at all
levels in the organisation. Thus occupational
health should not be seen as something which
is “done” to or for employees but something of
which they take joint control.
Workers well-being will be high if employers
provide a good response to the issues of:
Workplace hazards
Dignity at work
Equal opportunities
227
228
THE MEDICAL AND PHYSICAL FITNESS OF OFFSHORE
EMERGENCY RESPONSE RESCUE TEAM MEMBERS
Dr Allan C Prentice, Aon Occupational Health
Abstract
Introduction
Objective – To determine whether the selection
process for fire-team duties in the offshore oil
industry takes sufficient account of the medical
and physical status of the personnel selected.
My interest in the issue of medical and
physical fitness for fire-team duties in the
offshore environment commenced many years
ago following an enquiry from an employer
when an employee had been refused entry onto
a fire-team course. The employee had assumed
that since the employee had already passed a
medical assessment for offshore work that he
would be fit for this additional role. Further to
this I identified more cases where fitness for
fire-team duties was an issue. These were
mostly problems with the loco-motor system,
respiratory problems, visual defects and
cardio-respiratory fitness problems.
Methods – The medical selection criteria for
fire-fighters onshore were identified, with a
literature review to determine their basis, and
the relevance of the physiological performance
tests to fire-fighting. These were contrasted
with the guidelines for offshore work. A
physical fitness assessment, comparable to that
used for fire-fighters, was performed on
offshore fire-team members following the
completion of a fitness questionnaire. Their
occupational health records were then
reviewed to determine whether there were any
issues relevant to fire-fighting.
Fitness for fire-team duties can be regarded as
a health and safety issue where it would be
appropriate to assess an individual’s suitability
rather than leaving the identification of any
potential problems to chance.
Main findings - 73 per cent of subjects in the
study group (n = 48) had a satisfactory cardiorespiratory fitness for effective fire-fighting
(VO2 max ≥ 45 ml/kg/min). A further 23 per
cent had an equivocal aerobic fitness (VO2
max ≥ 40 ml/kg/min, < 45 ml/kg/min). Only 4
per cent found with poor cardio-respiratory
fitness for fire-fighting (VO2 max <
40ml/kg/min).
Fitness for fire-fighting onshore is governed by
legislative standards.
The Fire Service
(Appointments and Provisions) Amendment
Regulations 1988 and The Fire Service
(Appointments and Provisions) Regulations
1978. What are these standards and would
they be appropriate? The amendments were
based on the work of Scott (Scott, 1987) and
are essentially physical fitness standards.
75 per cent had sufficient lower body strength,
when compared to the desired level (leg/back
pull ≥ 139 kg). All but one had a leg/back
pull score within the current guidelines for
fire-fighting (≥ 117kg). All subjects had
satisfactory upper body strength (grip strength
≥ 35 kg) when compared to the fire-fighting
standard. All grip strengths were also above
the desired level (≥ 40 kg). Two subjects fell
out with the visual acuity standards for firefighting (6/60, N48 (uncorrected), 6/9-4, N12
(corrected).
This research identified that a low physical
fitness capability existed in serving firefighters. Only 14 per cent were of normal
weight, with 27 per cent mildly overweight
and the remaining 59 per cent either obese or
excessively obese. In addition the fire-fighters
as a group possessed only average aerobic
fitness, with nearly 25 per cent having a
maximum aerobic capacity (VO2 max) where
they would be unduly fatigued when
undertaking some drills and calls (Brown et
al, 1982; Lemon and Hermiston, 1977;
Horowitz and Montgomery, 1993; Saupe et al,
1991). Also reported was an increasing
percentage of low physiological test scores in
older groups indicating that fire-fighters were
not able to maintain their fitness as they aged.
Conclusion – An additional assessment to that
required for offshore work is needed for fireteam members. This should include a detailed
evaluation of musculo-skeletal and cardiorespiratory fitness. Recommendations for this
assessment have been made, which includes
physiological testing.
229
will also affect the cardiovascular response to
exercise.
The normal thermo-regulatory
response is compromised, as sweat will not be
able to evaporate. The increase in core body
temperature, which cannot be dissipated, leads
to a further reduction in peripheral resistance
and to an increase in peripheral circulation.
Venous return is reduced and with this
ventricular filling. The reduced stroke volume
leads to a compensatory increase in heart rate
to maintain cardiac output, thereby creating
more cardiac strain. In extreme situations
where cardiac output cannot be maintained
collapse will occur.
Other studies in the UK and abroad have
identified similar findings. This decline has
been reported, in part to be caused by the
increasing prevalence of medical conditions
with ageing. Lifestyle factors may also
contribute to this change (Freil et al, 1988) and
specific fitness training programmes have been
recommended together with health education
to mitigate against this effect. (Shephard,
1991; Posner et al, 1986).
Fitness for fire-fighting
Cardiovascular Fitness
Several studies have demonstrated the
cardiovascular strain imposed by fire-fighting
in the emergency situation (Barnard and
Duncan, 1975; Sothman et al, 1992; Douglas
et al, 1988). It is also recognised that those
fire-fighters, with lower cardiovascular fitness,
performing at lower work rates, will take
longer to complete any physically strenuous
work tasks (Manning and Griggs, 1983;
Sothman et al, 1990; Sothman et al, 1991).
This can have serious implications to the
individual fire-fighter, his colleagues and
others, where the success of an operation can
be defined in terms of lives saved and in the
minimisation of structural or property damage.
In order to avoid fatigue in an individual,
aerobic work lasting longer than one hour
should only be sustained at a level, which is
approximately equal to 50 per cent of their
VO2 max. A more intense work rate can be
sustained for a shorter period and work at 85
per cent VO2 max can be performed for
periods of up to 10 minutes.
Employment discrimination law in North
America has focused attention on job specific
functional fitness requirements, and with firefighting this has been determined following
analysis of the energy costs of key tasks. This
has then been used to determine a level of
aerobic capacity considered appropriate.
Gledhill and Jamnik (1992) studied the most
demanding fire-fighting operations. Ninety
per cent of these required a mean oxygen
consumption (VO2) of 23 ml/kg/min, but the
most demanding tasks require a mean VO2 of
41.5 ml/kg/min. Based on this a minimum
standard for fire-fighter applicants of 45
ml/kg/min was recommended. Sothman et al
(1991) measured oxygen consumption during
simulated fire-fighting tasks and concluded
that a minimum VO2 max of 33.5 ml/kg/min
would be necessary. However, the tasks
involved were representative of a walk up or
low rise fire and they then questioned whether
this limit would provide sufficient reserve for
effective performance under situations
demanding more strenuous physical work. A
VO2 of 41 ml/kg/min was the level at which all
tasks were completed correctly and in a later
study, it was concluded that aerobic capacity
should be maintained at a level of 42
ml/kg/min or above (Douglas et al, 1988).
This is the same figure that was recommended
by Davis et al in 1982 as the minimum, with
49 ml/kg/min recommended to meet the
requirements of the job, and to provide a
sufficient margin of safety.
Emergency fire fighting is a strenuous physical
activity where any cardiovascular strain caused
by the tasks is compounded by the conditions
encountered. The effect of an increased
workload caused by the weight of protective
equipment and the use of positive pressure
demand self contained breathing apparatus
(SCBA) is well documented (Lusa et al, 1993;
Sköldström, 1987; Louhevarara et al,
1995). Fire fighters have reported that work
involving the use of SCBA and under
conditions of extreme heat is particularly
fatiguing (Lusa et al, 1994) with up to a 25 per
cent increase in fatigue reported (Davis, 1982).
When SCBA respiratory effort is increased due
to exhalation resistance from the valve,
designed to maintain positive pressure within
the facemask. The respiratory dead space is
also increased which has the effect of
increasing alveolar carbon dioxide tension
thereby increasing ventilation rate at rest and at
work.
However, in those with adequate
respiratory function this will not have any
significant implications. Pulmonary factors
will not limit cardio-respiratory performance
unless there is significant pulmonary disease or
the exercise is being performed at altitude.
The high ambient temperature and humidity
that may be encountered on the fire-ground
230
applied, with the minimum acceptable aerobic
capacity reducing, as shown in Table 1, from
the recruitment level to 37 ml/kg/min at age 65
(Home Office, 1991). This position is
somewhat controversial, since it is not possible
to match the demands of any particular
emergency task to the age of the fire-fighter
(Haisman, 1996).
In the UK the recommended minimum aerobic
capacity for fire-fighter recruits is 45
ml/kg/min (Home Office, 1988). This
recommendation is based on Scott’s findings
where the top 75 per cent of his subjects were
found to have an aerobic capacity equal to or
above this level. Guidance produced
subsequently recommended that for in service
fire-fighters age related criteria should be
Table 1 : Suggested minimum VO2 max values for serving fire-fighters
Nearest Age
(years)
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
VO2 max.
(ml/kg/min)
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
The justification for such tests, is also based on
the work of Scott. He showed that muscular
strength, in contrast to the findings
surrounding aerobic capacity, was effectively
maintained at a suitable level by the daily
duties required of a fire-fighter. Less than one
per cent assessed were found with insufficient
strength for the job. The JWPAP in its report
used these findings to recommend minimum
strength standards for fire-fighters (mean value
minus two standard deviations). Using this
criterion, the standards for handgrip were ≥ 40
kg dominant hand and ≥ 38 kg subordinate
hand, with a leg/back pull strength of ≥ 139 kg.
However, these figures were not included in
the regulations as concerns were raised that
they may discriminate against women firefighters and applicants indirectly, due to
natural differences in physique.
To
accommodate for this, and to ensure that there
is reasonable account taken to avoid the charge
of sex discrimination, the standards were set at
the 50th centile of strength for women.
Muscular Fitness
Good cardio-respiratory function is not the
only physiological parameter necessary for
effective fire-fighting. Reports from both firefighters and from job analysis studies have
identified that certain key emergency tasks
require a satisfactory level of muscular fitness
(Lusa, 1993; Davis et al, 1982; Gledhill and
Jamnik, 1992). The relevance of muscular
fitness and endurance has been recognised for
many years and testing was prescribed under
the 1978 Fire Services’ (Appointments and
Promotions) Regulations.
However, the
strength test prescribed was somewhat
empirical. A fire-fighter was expected to be
able to carry a person weighing between 63.5 76.2 kg (10 - 12 St) a distance of 91.4 km (100
yd) in a time not exceeding 60 seconds. This
test was recognised as being neither sensitive
nor specific and did not test upper-body
strength. The 1988 Regulations introduced the
concept of strength tests for different muscle
groups with measurements of upper-body and
lower-body strength, although it was noted that
several brigades had already introduced similar
testing procedures prior to this.
The
regulations specify that isometric strength
testing should be performed. Handgrip should
be tested as a measure for upper-body strength
(≥ 35 kg dominant hand, ≥ 33 kg subordinate
hand) with leg/back strength as the measure
for the lower-body (≥ 117 kg).
Respiratory Fitness
The current regulations specify that lung
function should be tested using standard
spirometric techniques with measures of the
Forced Expiratory Volume at one second
(FEV1) and the Forced Vital Capacity (FVC)
being prescribed. No specific limits are set,
candidates being assessed on clinical grounds.
Exposure to smoke and the products of
pyrolysis is a recognised occupational hazard
231
to fire-fighters and was particularly common
prior to the introduction of self-contained
Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) as a routine
measure.
Acute reduction in respiratory
function is well documented (Musk et al, 1979;
Sheppard et al, 1986; Brandt-Rauf et al, 1989;
Sherman et al, 1989; Chia et al, 1990). The
chronic effect of smoke inhalation is less clear.
Some have suggested an adverse effect
(Guidotti and Clough, 1992; Moisan, 1991)
whereas others have not (Douglas et al, 1985;
Horsfield et al, 1988). Thus, the JWPAP
recommendation for respiratory function was
included as a specific health surveillance
measure.
Vision Standards
Visual Acuity
The visual requirements were recently
reviewed by the Fireground Vision Research
Unit (City University, 1995). Stringent visual
acuity standards are specified on entry to fulltime work 6/6, 6/6 (Scottish Office, 1996).
This reflects an intention to ensure that a firefighter’s vision will remain satisfactory
throughout an operational career, anticipating
the possibility of presbyopic or other changes.
Subsequently, the in service standard is 6/9-4,
N12 (corrected if necessary).
From
assessment many of the distance tasks a firefighter must perform equate to 6/9-4 and near
tasks to N12.
Notwithstanding this, the
uncorrected visual acuity standards 6/60, N48
must be met, the minimum identified for
effective safety performance should spectacles
be lost. The in service standards also apply to
retained fire-fighters, although the entry
standard is less strict (6/9, 6/9) and can be
relaxed, where recruitment difficulties exist, to
the previous limit for serving fire-fighters
(6/18, 6/24). Where visual correction is
needed the spectacles must be compatible with
the SCBA mask, as when ordinary spectacles
have been used a significant reduction in
cylinder discharge has been noted, implying
that leakage must have occurred.
Anthropometric Standards
The 1988 Regulations continued with the
recommendation for a minimum height of 1.68
m and introduced a maximum height limit of
1.93 m. The minimum height requirement can
be traced back to the 1950 Fire Services’
(Appointments and Promotions) Regulations,
when a minimum height of 170 cm (5 ft 7 in)
was stipulated. This was reduced to the
current limit in 1967 to enable fire authorities
to recruit from a larger proportion of the
population than previously (David and
Hoffman, 1996). The recommendation for a
minimum height requirement was initially
based on the assumption of a good correlation
between height and strength. Since firefighting is regarded as a team based activity, it
was argued that maximum efficiency could be
achieved if all team members were of near
equal height. The need for a maximum height
limit (1.93 m) followed, giving what was
considered to be a reasonable and workable
span (25 cm). It was also argued that for Fire
Services to accommodate for those who were
out with the specified range was impractical as
the redesign of any necessary equipment was
considered to be difficult due to technical
constraints and, if possible, likely to be
prohibitively expensive.
Colour Vision
The Fireground Vision Research Unit also
reviewed the colour vision requirements.
Failure to identify colour codes quickly and
accurately may be extremely hazardous during
a fire emergency. Commonly encountered
tasks include the recognition of safety signs,
pipelines, gas cylinders (medical and
industrial), portable fire extinguishers and lines
which may be used to power various pieces of
fire-fighting equipment. Historically, only
individuals with perfect colour vision were
recruited to the Fire Service, but the standards
now permit those with a slight impairment of
green
perception
(deuteranomalous
trichromatism) to be considered fit for firefighting. It was shown that those with this as a
mild impairment do not compromise safety. In
contrast,
those
with
defective
red
discrimination (protanomalous trichromatism)
are a safety hazard. They are also unable to
differentiate numerous industrial gas cylinders
such as propane and methyl chloride, argon
and oxygen, and acetylene and oxygen. They
are unable to distinguish colours used to code
the contents of pipelines, as are severe
deuteranomalopes. Protanomalopes may also
David and Hoffman did not consider these
arguments to be valid.
Height was not
considered to be a useful selection tool, as
height does not correlate well with strength.
Also, any difficulties in team handling of loads
can usually be accommodated for with the
appropriate positioning of those individuals of
unequal heights. It has also been possible to
design improved equipment storage systems
on Fire Service vehicles. Therefore, they
concluded that the retention of the height
limits could not be justified.
232
confuse oxygen (black)
(maroon) cylinders.
and
such additional guidance for fire-fighting at
present. However, the guidelines do include
general guidance that a medical examiner, in
the assessment, needs to take account of the
work environment, and that individuals are
required to be physically fit for their
employment. This includes the ability to react
effectively to an emergency situation.
Although individuals are required to be
physically fit no physical performance tests or
standards are recommended, except for lung
function.
A peak flow measurement is
recommended to be part of each initial
assessment. Further spirometry is not essential
although the guidelines stipulate that, where
FVC is below 70 percent or FEV1 below 65
per cent of predicted values, this would
indicate a significant disability.
acetylene
Medical Standards
No national medical standards for fire-fighting
exist at present. A medical examination is
required on entry and recommended threeyearly thereafter, but the Fire Service
Regulations only state that the medical
examiner must be satisfied that a candidate is
able to perform fire-fighting duties. In its
report, the JWPAP did comment on certain
specific medical conditions and made a
recommendation that Fire Service Medical
Advisers should establish a forum to meet and
formulate common medical standards, policies
and
practice.
Comprehensive
medical
guidelines are currently being prepared by the
Association of Local Authority Medical
Advisors (ALAMA), which should form the
basis of nationally recognised minimum
standards (Davies, 1997).
In contrast to the offshore guidelines the firefighting standards provide general guidance
about the medical history and examination
findings, The current standards are essentially
based on the results from the physiological
tests, with additional account being taken of
any medical conditions. This situation is
therefore, almost the reverse to that required
for offshore work.
In making their recommendations for specific
medical conditions, the JWPAP obtained
guidance from the Faculty of Occupational
Medicine. Conditions such as insulindependant diabetes and epilepsy, where sudden
collapse is a possibility, were considered to be
a bar to fire-fighting. Other conditions noted
by the JWPAP to require special consideration
include disorders of the skin, musculo-skeletal
system, cardiovascular disease and hearing.
Back and knee conditions are a leading cause
of disability reported in fire-fighters (Lusa et
al, 1993). The cardiovascular strain imposed
by fire-fighting has been discussed above. No
comment was made specifically about
respiratory disease, although as mentioned
above lung function tests are recommended as
a health surveillance measure.
The UKOOA medical guidelines and the
Medical Standards for fire-fighters are
contrasted in Table 2.
Contrast Between the Offshore Medical
Guidelines and Standards for Fire-fighting
Fire-fighting offshore is performed as an
additional function to the employee’s main
task and the examination to determine fitness
for offshore work does not assess fitness for
fire-fighting specifically.
The UKOOA
medical guidelines include comprehensive
guidance about the history and examination
findings for each body system, indicating
which conditions would not be acceptable for
work in this environment. For the most part
the guidance is generic and not specific to any
group or occupation, although appendices to
the document offer additional guidance where
particular issues have been identified e.g.
catering crew and crane operators. There is no
233
Table 2 : Contrast between Fire-fighting Standards and UKOOA Guidelines
Systems Review
Fire-fighting Standard
General guidance only
(specific
guidance
developed)
being
UKOOA Guidelines
Specific guidance for each system
indicating what is acceptable /
unacceptable
Height
1.68m to 1.93m
None specified
Weight
None specified
None specified
BMI
None specified
> 35 kg/m2
generally unacceptable
Visual Acuity (distance)
6/9-4 (corrected),
6/60 (uncorrected)
when in service with higher
standards at recruitment
6/12 (corrected) in better eye.
No
uncorrected
standard
specified currently
Visual Acuity (near)
N12 (corrected),
N48 (uncorrected)
when in service with higher
standards at recruitment
None specified
Colour Vision
Normal
and
mild
impairment acceptable
green
Should be adequate for particular
type of employment to be
undertaken
Lung Function
Spirometry required as a health
surveillance measure.
No set limits
Peak Flow recommended at
initial assessment. FVC < 70 %
and FEV1 < 65% stated to be
indicative of significant disability
but no requirement for testing
Aerobic Capacity
Age related standard
45 ml/kg/min specified
recruits reducing to
37 ml/kg/min at age 65
No requirement to test
for
Grip Strength
≥ 35 kg (dominant),
≥ 33 kg (subordinate)
No requirement to test
Leg/Back Strength
≥ 117 kg
No requirement to test
The differences highlight the need to ensure
that a reasonable assessment is made to
determine the suitability of an offshore worker
to undertake fire-fighting duties, with
particular reference to their vision and physical
fitness. However, whether this means that
they need to meet the onshore fire-fighting
standard could be questioned, as this is a
secondary function to their main occupation.
This argument has also been used with parttime retained fire-fighters onshore, but has
been discounted. When in the fire-fighting
situation they face the same hazards and must
perform the same tasks as full-time firefighters, possibly at the same fire scene. Such
tasks are assessed as critical to safety and
effective performance, so the same medical
and fitness standards should apply. The
situation offshore is comparable, where in
addition, the fire-team member may be
exposed to some of the most extreme
conditions that could be encountered in firefighting.
These include high ambient
temperatures in humid conditions, fighting
industrial type fires in confined spaces, and
where withdrawal from the fire scene may be
restricted (Bennet et al, 1995). The structure of
an offshore installation also means that access
to the fire scene may involve a significant level
of exertion (O’Connell et al, 1986). Therefore,
234
height. This height is recommended for those
used to a moderate degree of vigorous exertion
to ensure that the heart rate is elevated to 80
percent of the age related maximum (Sykes,
1995). The stepping rate was controlled from a
tape recorded metronome. Heart rate was
monitored throughout the test using a Polar
heart rate monitor. The Chester Step Test is a
multistaged procedure, where the staged
increase in work-rate is controlled through an
incrementally increasing step rate. Each stage
lasts for two minutes and heart rate is
measured at the end. This is to ensure that a
steady heart rate has been reached thereby
increasing prediction accuracy. The subject’s
results were plotted on the set chart from
which the predicted maximum aerobic capacity
(VO2 max) was then read.
it is entirely appropriate that such fitness
standards or a similar equivalent should be
applied.
Offshore Emergency Response Rescue
Team Medical And Physical Fitness Study
Objective and Setting
The objective of the study was to determine
whether the current selection process for
offshore emergency response rescue team
(fire-team) duties takes sufficient account of
the medical and physical status of the
personnel selected. The study was based on
the workforce from an Operator with platforms
in the North Sea. The fire-teams consist of
both operator and contractor personnel.
Methods
Fire-team members were identified from
company records and sent letters inviting them
to participate in the study; there were 48
positive replies from 115. Individuals were
asked to assess their own capability and
proficiency using a modified Fitness of
Firemen questionnaire. The Fitness of Firemen
questionnaire had been developed to gain
information from full time fire-fighters
regarding their own perception of fitness
(Goldsmith, 1995). The questions specific to
full-time fire-fighting and training activities
were omitted and the lengthy section on sport
and leisure activities condensed.
The
questionnaire was then slightly altered
following a test with onshore safety personnel
responsible for emergency response.
Isometric muscle strength was assessed using
measurements of grip and leg/back strength
taken with digital dynamometers (Takei
Scientific Instruments). Grip strength was
measured after adjusting the grip for the
subject’s size. The average of 4 measurements
was taken from alternating tests on left and
right hands. The manufacturer’s guidelines
were followed with subjects standing upright
with arms extending downwards. Then, while
holding the dynamometer, they were requested
to exert full force without touching their body.
A modified procedure was used for assessing
leg/back strength because of the potential for
inducing injury when following the
manufacturer’s guidelines. The handle
attachment was adjusted for the patient’s
height and with the knees bent at 130°-140°
and back straight the subject was requested to
pull upwards using maximum force while
breathing out.
After
completing
the
questionnaire,
physiological parameters were assessed. This
was done at work, in the installation health
centres, by one of the offshore medics or
myself. Height and weight were measured and
Body Mass Index (BMI) was calculated
(weight/height2). Visual acuity was measured
using Snellen Charts at 6 m for distance and
reading cards at 30 cm. Colour vision was
assessed using the Ishihara method. Lung
function was measured using standard
spirometry measurements, FVC, FEV1 and
FEV1%. The spirometry measurements were
taken using a Micro Medical microspirometer
calibrated to read at body temperature and
pressure saturated with water vapour (BTPS).
Occupational health records were reviewed,
where these were obtainable, to determine
whether there was any significant condition
documented liable to affect fitness for firefighting. Particular emphasis was placed on
any cardio-respiratory or musculo-skeletal
problems because of the perceived increased
demands on such systems, which would be
employed in fire-fighting duties in contrast to
general offshore work.
Statistical Analysis
The records were collated on computer using
the Microsoft Access database and analysed
using the Excel spreadsheet and Analysis
Toolpak. Where relevant, parameters were
compared to the statutory fire-fighting
standard.
This included the visual
requirements, aerobic capacity and musculo-
Volunteers then underwent tests of aerobic
capacity and isometric muscle strength.
Maximum aerobic capacity (VO2 max) was
measured indirectly from a sub-maximal
exercise step following the Chester Step Test
protocol at the 30 cm (12 inch) stepping
235
allocated a numerical equivalent, as outlined
below in Table 3.
skeletal measurements. Correlation analysis
was then performed on the anthropometric
data, lung function and physical fitness tests.
Aerobic capacity and musculo-skeletal
strength were grouped according to the firefighting standard, and in the case of the
leg/back strength, also to the standards
originally recommended by the JWPAP.
Smoking was categorised dependant upon
whether the subject was a cigarette smoker (4),
pipe/cigar smoker (3), ex-smoker (2), or nonsmoker (1). Alcohol intake was converted into
equivalent dosage in units/week using the
standard
conversion
formula
(glass
wine/measure of spirit/half-pint beer = 1 unit).
Before analysis the ordered data obtained from
the Fitness for Firemen questionnaire was
Table 3: Numerical allocation of data from activity assessment
Numerical Equivalent
Fitness Rating
None
Extremely Low
Much Below Average
Slightly Below Average
Average
Slightly Above Average
Much Above Average
Extremely High
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Frequency of Physical Activity
None
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
0
1
2
3
Description of Activity
None
Primarily Anaerobic
Mixed
Primarily Aerobic
0
1
2
3
Level of Physical Exertion
Very Light
Light
Fairly Light
Moderate
Fairly Hard
Hard
Very Hard
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The data was analysed by non-parametric techniques using Spearman’s coefficient for correlation and
the Mann Whitney test for inter-group analysis.
236
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Table 4 summarises the descriptive statistics for the study group.
Table 4: Summary of study group
Mean
(SD)
Age (years)
Height (cm)
Weight (kg)
BMI (kg/m2)
41.7
177.5
81.5
25.7
(7.46)
(5.78)
(11.26)
(2.60)
Media
n
41
176.5
80.5
25.9
Lung Function
FEV1 (litres)
FVC (litres)
FEV1 %
4.0
4.7
84.7
(0.54)
(0.65)
(4.74)
3.9
4.6
84.9
(3.6 to 4.2)
(4.3 to 5.2)
(82.2 to 87)
3.1
3.7
71.9
5.3
6.3
93.8
49.3
(7.25)
49
(44 to 52)
39
69
Leg/Back Strength 163.8
(kg)
(37.53)
155
(139.5 to 171.5)
110
301
Grip Strength (kg)
(5.87)
VO2
(ml/kg/min)
max
50.6
48.9
(Inter-quartile
Range)
(33.5 to 50)
(173 to 182.5)
(73 to 89.5)
(23.6 to 27.2)
(46.2 to 55.2)
Minimum
Maximum
24
168
60
21
53
188
108
33
42
68.7
related reference scores for predicted aerobic
capacity values when using the Chester Step
Test. Thirty-eight percent had a good age
related fitness rating with the remaining 63
percent being in the excellent range.
Three individuals had FVC values below the
normal reference range when adjusted for age
and height (European Respiratory Journal,
1993. One of these included an FEV1 out with
the equivalent reference range. All FEV1 %
values were normal. Sykes has produced age
237
Questionnaire Returns
Tables 5 to 9 summarise the results from the questionnaire survey.
Table 5: Fitness self assessment
Muscular Strength
N
%
Fitness Rating
Extremely Low
Much Below Average
Slightly
Below
Average
Average
Slightly
Above
Average
Much Above Average
Extremely High
Stamina
%
General Fitness
n
%
0
0
3
0
0
6
0
1
4
0
2
8
0
1
4
0
2
8
25
12
52
25
19
11
40
22
21
7
44
15
7
1
15
2
13
0
27
0
15
0
31
0
Fire-team Duties
n
%
Regular Duties
n
%
Not fit Enough
Fit Enough
Fitter than Necessary
n
0
32
16
0
67
32
0
31
17
0
65
35
Table 6: Weight and diet
Predicted
Measured
n
%
n
%
BMI (kg/m )
< 19
19-24.9
25-29.9
30-39.9
≥ 40
0
14
30
3
1
0
29
63
6
2
0
19
26
3
0
0
40
54
6
0
Self Assessment of weight
Underweight
Normal
Slightly Overweight
Overweight
1
27
7
13
2
56
15
27
12
5
25
19
7
35
7
35
2
Special Effort to Diet
Whole Group
Assessed Wt Normal
(n=27)
Assessed
Overweight
(n=20)
Improvement with weight
loss
Overweight group (n=20)
238
Table 7: Physical activity
n
%
Exercise
Frequency
None
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
7
8
30
3
15
17
63
6
Exercise Type
None
Anaerobic
Mixed
Aerobic
7
0
16
25
15
0
33
52
Exercise Intensity
None
Very Light
Light
Fairly Light
Moderate
Fairly Hard
Hard
Very Hard
7
0
1
2
14
14
9
1
15
0
2
4
29
29
19
2
Table 8: Smoking and alcohol
n
%
Smoking Habits
Never smoked
Ex-smoker
Pipe/cigar smoker
Cigarette smoker
27
12
2
7
56
25
4
15
Alcohol
(units/week)
0-21
22-34
>34
25
12
11
52
25
13
Table 9: Injuries and illnesses
N
%
36
10
2
75
21
4
Injury Restricting Activity
3
6
Injury Due to Lack of
fitness
0
0
Days Off in Past Year
None
1-14 days
>14days
239
or circuit training). Jogging or running, weight
training, racquet and winter sports were
mentioned less frequently. Those who did not
exercise reported that this was either because
they were not interested or due to lack of time.
Fitness Self Assessment
In general, most subjects believed that they
were of average or above average physical
fitness levels. All felt that they were fit
enough to perform both their regular work and
fire team duties.
Smoking and Alcohol
Smoking was not a common activity with less
than 20 per cent of the study group being
current smokers and with over 50 percent
never having smoked.
Estimated alcohol
consumption showed that over half drank
within the recommended safe limit (≤
21units/week) but 23 per cent had an estimated
alcohol consumption in the hazardous range (≥
35 units/week).
Weight and Diet
Fifty-six per cent thought they were in the
normal weight range with 42 per cent
believing they were either slightly overweight
or overweight. However, when asked to
estimate their height and weight, 29 per cent
were in the desired range for weight, 63 per
cent were overweight and 6 per cent obese.
One individual’s estimate gave him a body
mass index ≥ 40. This individual was not
overweight and there may have been some
confusion between imperial and metric values.
The measured BMI showed slightly more
within the normal range (40 per cent) and
correspondingly less in the overweight range
(54 per cent).
Injuries and Illnesses
Most reported no time off through injury or
illness. One subject reported 35 days off
following a knee arthroscopy, and one 40 days
off with septicaemia. One had undergone
cataract surgery and required 10 days off. The
rest with less than 14 days absence declared
cold or flu symptoms, or musculoskeletal
complaints.
Two
of
those
with
musculoskeletal complaints stated that it
restricted their activities. One had a back
strain requiring 10 days off and the other 4
days absence due to a neck complaint.
Another subject declared a shoulder muscle
injury restricting his activities but had not
required any time off. No one reported an
injury due to lack of fitness
Twenty-five per cent of the study group as a
whole claimed that they made a special effort
to diet, split fairly evenly between those who
considered that their weight was normal and
the overweight group. Although they all felt
that they were fit enough to do the job, 35 per
cent in the overweight group felt that they
could do the job better if they weighed less.
This compares with 19 per cent in the normal
weight group a difference which is not
statistically significant (P > 0.05, Chi squared
test).
Correlation Analysis
Tables 10, 11 and 12 show the Spearman’s
ranked correlation coefficients (rs) for age and
anthropometry measurements, lung function
tests and the physical fitness tests against other
variables. For sample size n = 48, if rs ≥ 0.285
then P < 0.05).
Physical Activity
The majority undertook some form of physical
activity during their leisure time, more than
two-thirds doing this on a weekly basis, or
more frequently. This was usually at a
moderate, hard or fairly hard intensity. The
most popular forms of exercise mentioned
were cycling, golf, walking or hill-walking,
swimming and gym workouts (cardiovascular
240
Table 10: Correlation matrix for age and anthropometry
Age
Height
0.137
Measured
Weight
0.128
BMI
0.084
0.09
0.095
0.067
0.823
0.507
0.189
0.742
0.775
0.619
0.482
0.725
0.73
-0.006
0.266
-0.064
-0.03
-0.174
0.135
-0.19
0.197
0.085
-0.145
-0.25
-0.235
Alcohol Intake
0.013
-0.015
-0.012
-0.007
Smoking Score
-0.179
-0.347
-0.193
-0.01
Exercise
Type
Amount
Level
0.206
0.228
0.144
0.1
0.314
0.121
0.025
0.279
0.017
-0.007
0.192
-0.043
Age
Self Assessed
Height
Weight
BMI
Fitness Rating
Stamina
Muscular
Strength
General Fitness
Table 11 : Correlation matrix for lung function
FEV1
FVC
FEV1%
Age
Measured
Height
Weight
BMI
-0.22
-0.133
-0.213
0.596
0.394
0.122
0.702
0.451
0.139
-0.268
-0.095
0.036
Alcohol Intake
-0.11
-0.076
-0.123
Smoking Score
-0.08
-0.152
0.217
0.117
0.006
0.063
0.041
0.154
-0.073
0.042
0.075
-0.071
0.091
0.288
0.11
0.102
0.268
0.165
-0.078
0.112
-0.149
Fitness Rating
Stamina
Muscular
Strength
General Fitness
Exercise
Type
Amount
Level
241
Table 12: Correlation matrix for physical fitness
Aerobic
Capacity
-0.348
Leg/back
Strength
0.101
Grip
Strength
0.041
0.057
-0.158
-0.243
0.318
0.428
0.39
0.225
0.425
0.401
Lung Function
FEV1
FVC
FEV1%
0.385
0.343
0.05
0.249
0.266
0.002
0.355
0.346
0.006
Alcohol Intake
-0.224
-0.385
-0.068
Smoking Status
0.067
0.041
0.146
Leg/Back Strength
0.064
Grip Strength
0.027
0.26
Fitness Rating
Muscular Strength
Stamina
General Fitness
-0.119
0.301
0.269
0.308
0.238
0.114
0.174
-0.086
-0.084
Exercise
Amount
Type
Level
-0.061
-0.032
0.061
0.269
0.103
0.093
0.025
0.064
-0.001
Age
Measured
Height
Weight
BMI
Spearman’s correlation coefficient
Levels of significance (α2) (n=48)
Lung Function
As would have been expected, a significant
correlation was noted between height and both
FEV1 and FVC. Weight, which is related to
height also, showed a significant correlation.
Another finding of note was the correlation
between exercise amount and FEV1. The
correlation between exercise amount and FVC
did not reach significance, although exercise
amount and height did.
rs ≥ 0.285, P < 0.05
rs ≥ 0.336, P < 0.02
rs ≥ 0.370, P < 0.01
rs ≥ 0.401, P < 0.005
rs ≥ 0.439, P < 0.002
rs ≥ 0.465, P < 0.001
Anthropometry
A good correlation was noted between
predicted and measured values for height and
weight and consequently BMI. A significant
positive correlation was also noted between
height and exercise amount and a significant
negative correlation between height and
smoking score. There was also a significant
negative correlation between height and
smoking score.
Physical Fitness Tests
Aerobic capacity showed a significant positive
correlation with FEV1, FVC and stamina with
stamina, from the questionnaire survey. A
negative correlation was noted between
aerobic capacity and age.
A negative
correlation was also noted between aerobic
capacity and both alcohol intake and BMI,
although these did not reach significance.
Similarly, a negative correlation was noted
242
muscular strength. Grip strength did correlate
with BMI and FEV1 and FVC. There was no
significant correlation between leg/back
strength or grip strength and age.
between leg/back strength and alcohol intake,
which was significant. A significant positive
correlation was found between leg/back
strength and BMI and between leg/back
strength and muscular strength, from the
questionnaire survey. This is in contrast to the
findings when grip strength was compared to
Comparison with Onshore Fire-fighting Standards
Table 13 lists the number of subjects who did not meet the equivalent onshore fire-fighting standard for
vision and fitness tests.
Table 13: Subjects who fell below the onshore fire-fighting standards
n
%
2
1
4
2
Aerobic Capacity
< 45 ml/kg/min
< Age Allowance
13
4
27
8
Back Strength
< 117 kg
< 139 kg
1
12
2
25
0
0
Vision
Acuity < 6/60, or < N48
Colour defect
Grip Strength < 35 kg
per cent when the age related adjustment was
applied. The error of the test method (10 per
cent) means that those between 40 and 44
ml/kg/min from this indirect test method may
well have an aerobic capacity of 45 ml/kg/min
or greater were direct testing to be employed.
25 per cent did not meet the originally
recommended leg/back strength limit (≥ 139
kg), but only one candidate failed to reach the
current standard (≥ 117 kg). All grip strengths
measured were satisfactory (≥ 35 kg) indeed
all met the originally recommended standard
(≥ 40kg).
Vision
The visual standards for acuity refer to the in
service requirements for part-time fire-fighters.
Two subjects were found to be out with the
standards.
One fell below the uncorrected
standard, although his corrected visual acuity
was satisfactory. The second subject presented
wearing contact lenses. His corrected visual
acuity was normal, but the prescription
strength, which he quoted, was out with the
standard.
If the recruitment visual acuity standard (6/9,
6/9) were applied, a further 10 would be out
with the requirements, although one of these
would pass the relaxed standard (6/18, 6/24).
Anthropometry
No one in the study group fell out with the
height limits for fire-fighting.
Only one subject was found to be colour blind
on Ishihara plate testing, a deuteranomalous
defect. The severity of the defect was not
known, although the subject had volunteered
that it was severe.
Inter-Group Analysis
Table 14 compares those who met the
recommended aerobic capacity standard (≥ 45
ml/kg/min) with those who did not. For sample
sizes n1 = 13 and n2 = 35 using the two tailed
test, a U value of 313 or greater is considered
significant (P < 0.05).
Physical Fitness
The majority met the aerobic capacity
guidelines, although a substantial minority (27
per cent) fell below 45 ml/kg/min. The
number below the standard was reduced to 8
Table 15 compares those who met the
originally recommended leg/back strength
243
standard ( ≥ 139 kg) with those who did not.
Where n1 = 12 and n2 = 36, a U value of 299 or
greater is considered significant (P < 0.05).
Table 14: Comparison between subjects with a VO2 max < 45 ml/kg/min
to those with a VO2 max ≥ 45 ml/kg/min
Age
Height
Weight
BMI
Group A (n =13)
Aerobic Capacity < 45 ml/kg/min
Median (Inter-quartile U value
Range)
46.5
(40 to 49)
309.5
178.1
(175.2 to 183)
264.5
87
(80 to 94)
320.5
26.7
(26.1 to 28.5)
328.5
Alcohol Intake
30
(10 to 43)
Leg/Back
Strength
Grip Strength
Lung Function
FEV1
FVC
FEV1%
153.5
Group B (n = 35)
Aerobic Capacity ≥ 45 ml/kg/min
Median (Inter-quartile U
Range)
value
40
(35 to 47)
145.5
176
(173 to 182)
190.5
79
(71.3 to 85)
134.5
25.4
(23.3 to 27.2)
126.5
260.5
20
(14 to 31.5)
194.5
(135 to 170.5)
198
156
257
52.2
(46.6 to 56.5)
271
48.7
(143.5 to
170.4)
(46 to 52.4)
3.8
4.6
84.8
(3.6 to 4)
(4.3 to 4.8)
(82.9 to 86.5
193.5
204
233
4
4.7
85.2
(3.7 to 4.3 )
(4.1 to 5.2)
(82.1 to 86.9)
261.5
251
222
Smoking Status
1
(1 to 2)
214.5
1
(1 to 2)
240.5
Fitness Rating
Muscular
Stamina
General
Fitness
5
4.5
4
(4 to 5)
(4 to 5)
(4 to 5)
261
181
181.5
4
5
4.5
(4 to 5)
(4 to 6)
(4 to 6)
194
274
273.5
(2 to 3)
(2 to 2)
(4 to 5)
242.5
299.5
252.5
3
2
4.5
(2 to 3)
(1 to 2)
(4 to 5)
212.5
155.5
202.5
Exercise
Type
3
Amount
2
Level
5
U ≥ 313, P < 0.05
U ≥ 328, P < 0.02
244
184
Table 15: Comparison between subjects with a leg/back strength < 139 kg
to those with a leg/back strength ≥ 139kg
Age
Height
Weight
BMI
Group C (n =12)
Leg/Back Strength < 139 kg
Median (Inter-quartile
U value
Range)
39.5
(32.5 to 45.5)
170
173
(172.7 to
142.5
178.1)
80
(69.5 to 82.3)
142
25
(23.1 to 26.7)
167.5
Group D (n =36)
Leg/Back Strength ≥ 139 kg
Median (Inter-quartile
U
Range)
value
42
(39 to 48.5)
262
178
(173 to 183.5)
289.5
82.8
26.3
(75 to 92)
(24.2 to 27.5)
290
264.5
Alcohol Intake
36
(22.5 to 47)
302
19
(11.5 to 26)
130
Aerobic
Capacity
44.5
(42 to 51.5)
156.5
50
(45 to 52)
275
Grip Strength
48.2
(45.9 to 49.1)
145.5
50.5
(46.2 to 56.3)
286.5
Lung Function
FEV1
FVC
FEV1%
3.8
4.4
84.7
(3.5 to 3.9)
(4.1 to 4.7)
(82.5 to 86.7)
140.5
149.5
206
4.0
4.7
85.1
(3.7 to 4.5)
(4.4 to 5.1)
(82.1 to 87.6)
291.5
282.5
226
1
(1 to 2)
213.5
1
(1 to 2)
218.3
4
4
4
(4 to 4)
(3.5 to 5)
(4 to 5)
140
154.5
181
5
5
4
(4 to 5)
(4 to 6)
(4 to 6)
292
277.5
251
(0 to 3)
(0 to 2)
(0 to 5.5)
144
137
186.5
3
2
5
(2 to 3)
(2 to 2)
(4 to 5)
288
295
245.5
Smoking
Status
Fitness Rating
Muscular
Stamina
General
Fitness
Exercise
Type
2
Amount
1.5
Level
4
U ≥ 299, P < 0.05
strength ≥ 139 kg were taller and heavier, had
a stronger grip strength and larger FEV1. They
also undertook more exercise and from the
questionnaire had declared greater muscular
strength. These differences did not reach
significance, which may be due to the small
sample size, as the U values for weight, FEV1,
muscular strength and exercise amount fell just
below the level of significance.
Aerobic Capacity
Those who did not meet the standard,
≥ 45 ml/kg/min, were significantly
heavier than those who did. They also
tended to be older, although this
difference did not reach significance.
Leg/Back Strength
A significant difference was noted in alcohol
intake between the two groups. Those who did
not meet the recommended level (≥ 139 kg)
drank more than those who did.
Other
differences were noted, those with a leg/back
Review of Occupational Health Records
The review of medical records was restricted
to those members of the study team who were
245
ml/kg/min. Likewise, only 4 subjects fell
below the aerobic capacity standard when the
age related allowance was applied. None of
these were out with 10 per cent of that
standard. However, the application of the agerelated standard is controversial, as the
physical demands of fire-fighting cannot be
tailored to suit the age of fire-fighters
attending an incident Gledhill and Jamnik,
1992; de Vries, 1982.
employees of the Operator. Their occupational
health records are held at Liberty Occupational
Health and consist principally of preemployment
and
periodic
medical
examinations. This accounted for 28 (58 per
cent) of the total study group. The review
concentrated on current or recent problems
(those within the previous 5 years).
Ten subjects were found who had recognised
musculoskeletal disorders, 5 back problems, 3
knee problems, one ankle injury and a shoulder
condition.
Two of those declaring knee
problems had undergone arthroscopy in the
past 2 years. No respiratory disorders or
cardiovascular disorders were noted, although
one individual had undergone investigation for
an ECG abnormality, finally identified as a
false positive test for ischaemia. One case of
vestibular disorder was reported and one
subject had recently undergone cataract
surgery.
Age
In general, aerobic capacity is recognised to
decrease with age (Freil, 1988; Ilmarinen,
1991) and demonstrated in this study with the
negative correlation.
This reduction is
primarily thought to be due to the diminished
efficiency of both the circulatory system to
deliver oxygen to the tissues and for this
oxygen to be utilised by the tissues (de Vries,
1982). There is considerable inter-individual
variation in this effect as well trained older
men have been shown to be able to maintain
their aerobic fitness at high levels. The
negative correlation noted between aerobic
capacity and age did not reach significance.
This may, of course, have been due to the
small sample size as an age related decrease in
aerobic fitness has been a concern expressed
by a number of previous studies involving firefighters (Scott, 1987; Saupe et al, 1991;
Kilbom, 1980; Freil et al, 1988). It could also
be that the physical characteristics of offshore
installations impose certain physical attributes
within the workforce. The structure of an
offshore installation means that any worker
involved in plant maintenance or production
can spend a considerable time ascending the
numerous stairs on the installation. Such
incidental work effort may go some way to
explaining the findings from this study.
Thirdly, the voluntary nature of participation
in the study may have encouraged only fit fireteam members to present themselves.
Discussion
Certain limitations to the study should be
recognised. The sample size was relatively
small with recruitment being voluntary. Also,
those who volunteered may have been
influenced through knowledge of the
parameters being tested, with those who did
not consider themselves fit declining to
volunteer. However, the median age of the
study group, 41 (33.5 to 50) compares
favourably with the median age of the fireteam as a whole, 42 (37 to 47) and can be
considered representative from this aspect. It
also compares favourably with the platforms’
offshore workforce, 40 (33 to 46).
Limitations in the study method, in particular,
the predicted accuracy of the indirect
assessment of aerobic capacity and the
accuracy of the dynamometry measurements,
as mentioned above, also have to be
recognised. However, despite its limitations,
there are several points worthy of note from
the study, which are discussed below.
Age limits for operational fire-fighting duties
are applied in the UK and other countries. The
UK limit is 55 years, although this does not
extend to retained fire-fighters. In North
America employment discrimination law
against ageing provoked a lot of interest and
debate on the subject, and whether firefighting could be a bona fide occupational
qualification necessitating exception from this
ruling. It was considered that it could not,
hence the rationale behind the current
occupational related standards, which have
been recommended.
Aerobic Fitness
The aerobic fitness and muscular fitness
measured of the fire-team members was
generally satisfactory. Even those who did not
meet the equivalent onshore fire-fighter
aerobic fitness standard were generally above
40 ml/kg/min, equivalent to 10 per cent below
the standard. This figure cannot be considered
to be significantly different from 45 ml/kg/min
when the error in the test method is
considered. Only 2 results were below 40
246
fire-fighters to be aware of the need to
maintain fitness including body weight. This
was demonstrated in the study where no
correlation between age and BMI shown was
shown.
This is in contrast to reports
concerning onshore fire-fighters weight and
BMI has been noted to increase with age
(Scott, 1987; Brown et al, 1982; Lemon and
Hermiston, 1977). The conditions and climate
on offshore production facilities are much
different from those which were described by
Light and Gibson when they recorded an
increasing prevalence of obesity with ageing
(Light and Gibson, 1986). The environment is
now more conducive to encourage effective
maintenance of body weight.
Fitness for employment and age is important
generally due to the changing demographic
characteristics of the workforce (Posner et al,
1986; Lancet, 1993). Advancing age is not a
matter, which can be dismissed, and this is
particularly relevant to the offshore oil
industry as it matures along with the
workforce. The economics of the business and
advances in technology means that the
production plant and support functions operate
with fewer personnel than that which was
commonly found during the industry’s
inception in this country 15 - 20 years ago.
The surviving workforce has been bolstered by
new, younger recruits, where necessary, but
overall the workforce is ageing and with this
general medical and physical fitness will
reduce. There is no longer a large additional
pool of personnel which can be drawn from so
where there are employment fitness concerns
for additional duties such as fire-fighting the
solution to such problems has to be obtained
from the resources available.
This may
include additional incentives for fire-team
members to maintain fitness through
advancing age, with a greater emphasis in
selecting those with the appropriate physical
attributes for such duties, and training
initiatives to ensure that those selected for such
duties do retain sufficient capacity (Brown et
al, 1982). Increasing age and decreasing fitness
need not necessarily coincide. Chronological
age can be a relatively poor indicator of both
medical and physical fitness in an individual.
It has been noted that the best preserved 65
year old worker has a greater functional
capacity than a poorly endowed person of 25 30 years of age (Shephard, 1995) and been
argued that those who chose a healthy lifestyle
should not be punished for the sins of those
who do not (Sharkey, 1986).
Muscular Strength
Unlike aerobic capacity, musculoskeletal
strength test results did not decrease with age
in this study, another physiological feature that
has been demonstrated with onshore firefighters. The same has been noted with other
occupations, which require physical effort
(Nygård, 1991). Those who were heavier and
had a higher BMI scored better in the strength
tests. There was also a strong correlation
between exercise amount and weight. An
increased muscle mass, in these individuals,
may account for some of this difference.
Self Assessment of Fitness
The significant positive correlation found
between both stamina and aerobic capacity,
and muscular strength and leg/back strength
suggests that individuals already had a good
impression of their own level of fitness. A
similar finding has been noted in the past with
both onshore fire-fighters (Ellam, 1994) and
others (Leon et al, 1981) where it has been
concluded that substantial prediction of
physical fitness and work capacity can be
obtained relatively easily through such
techniques.
Obesity
In addition to age, other characteristics which
may determine aerobic capacity include
genetic endowment and factors which may be
influenced by lifestyle such as the degree of
physical training and relative body weight.
This study showed that those in the lower
aerobic capacity group were heavier and had a
higher BMI, this difference being significant.
Lifestyle Factors
The low leg/back strength group had
significantly higher alcohol consumption. This
could be taken as an indicator of lifestyle
differences. Exercise profile did not show any
significant difference, although in general
those in the high leg/back strength group did
tend to exercise more than those in the low
strength group. This difference was just below
the level of significance and again possibly in
a larger study group with greater statistical
power the difference may have been
significant.
Obesity, with its increasing prevalence, is
recognised as a major public health issue
(Ashwell, 1994; Björntorp, 1997) and in firefighting is noted to limit performance. It has
been argued that obesity has a more
deleterious effect than age when assessing
aerobic capacity (Schonfeld, 1990). This
emphasises the need for both full and part time
247
specifications for offshore work and guidelines
for fire-fighting are similar, fire-fighting does
impose specific demands above that required
for offshore work in general. Closer review of
those required to perform such duties offshore
is therefore warranted. I have been involved in
several such cases, mostly surrounding
musculoskeletal problems, but also others
including a case of respiratory airways
dysfunction syndrome (RADS). Individuals
may present when they are experiencing
difficulties, but this would not necessarily
always be the case. Therefore, a more formal
system of medical assessment for fire-team
duties is required. Such a system should
include a physical fitness assessment similar to
that required for onshore fire-fighters.
No difference in smoking status between the
high and low aerobic capacity group was
noted. This may have been due to the
relatively small number of smokers in the
group, or the effect of other variables.
Tobacco smoke is known to contain up to 4
per cent by volume of carbon monoxide and a
level of carboxyhaemoglobin greater than 5
per cent (reached from inhalation more than 10
- 12 cigarettes per day) has been noted to
reduce aerobic capacity and performance
(Horvath, 1975).
Vision
The revised visual standards for fire-fighters
take due account of the functional needs of the
task. The main difference from the previous
standard is that allowance for visual correction
can now be given. Two subjects fell out with
the uncorrected standard, although both had
satisfactory corrected vision.
One wore
contact lenses, not the recommended method
of choice for emergency fire-fighting.
However, studies have shown that contact lens
wearers can perform fire-fighting tasks
adequately (City University, 1995). This is
particularly true for soft contact lens wearers
which can be worn for prolonged periods.
Such visual correction should be considered
compatible with fire-team duties offshore. A
number in the study group use spectacles, and
for those in this category it is essential that
these are compatible with SCBA. This has
created logistical difficulties and added costs
as the fire-team may muster at a variety of
different locations, dependant on the
circumstances. Therefore, there is a need to
ensure that each muster station has a sufficient
stock of the appropriate respiratory protection
for those fire-team members who require to
use spectacle inserts.
Other Studies Relating to Fitness Offshore
Little work has been published on the physical
fitness of offshore personnel in general. Corpe
studied oil industry workers based both
onshore and offshore. Using the Harvard Step
Test she reported a mean VO2 max of 44.4
ml/kg/min (Corpe, 1991). This ranged from 54
ml/kg/min in the 15 - 19 age group, down to
38.5 ml/kg/min in the 50 - 59 age group. In a
study of North Sea divers Thompson et al
(1984) reported a maximum aerobic capacity
of 46 ml/kg/min and questioned whether this
would give them sufficient cardio-respiratory
reserve. Cotes and Reed reported comparable
findings who suggested that as diving involved
many sedentary and static tasks, this would not
promote cardiovascular fitness. They also
suggested that the greater experience of older
men may offset their lower aerobic capacity
(Cotes and Reed, 1984). This may well be true,
but has limited relevance in emergency
situations where speed of action is necessary.
Fast rescue craft crew operating within the
offshore oil industry are also required to
perform tasks which impose severe physical
demands, with the task of casualty recovery
noted to be particularly strenuous. In addition
to meeting the medical standards specified
under the Merchant Shipping Regulations
additional physical fitness standards have been
recommended (David et al, 1985). These
concentrate on muscular strength rather than
cardiovascular fitness parameters.
The fire-fighting visual standards make no
specific reference to cataract surgery.
However, the improvement in visual acuity
which can be obtained from cataract surgery
cannot be dismissed. It should be considered
best practice offshore, where the recruitment
pool is limited, to assess each such case and
continuing fitness on an individual basis.
Review of Occupational Health Records
The figures from the occupational health
review were too small for useful comparative
analysis, but do show the need to concentrate
on
medical
fitness
for
fire-fighting
independently from fitness for any other
function. Even in this small sample a number
of medical conditions that may impact on
suitability were found. Although the medical
Conclusion and Recommendations
The current selection method for choosing
emergency response rescue team (fire-team)
members on an offshore installation does not
specifically take account for the medical and
physical demands, which are imposed, from
this additional duty. However, the majority in
248
The recommendations made below should be
considered as part of a strategy for ensuring
that those who are trained for fire-fighting are
able to meet these demands effectively and
should be seen as additional to the medical
assessment for offshore work.
The health questionnaire should identify
current health issues and any particular
problems relevant to fire-fighting. Detailed
reference to the musculoskeletal, cardiorespiratory systems should be made. The
physical activity questionnaire, as a health
promotion tool, would be of use to identify
target actions where physical fitness is falling
or is below standard. The physical examination
should include assessment of height, weight,
BMI, lung function and an assessment of
vision. In addition, an assessment of aerobic
capacity using a step test method and
assessment
of
grip
strength
using
dynamometry is recommended.
An annual task related occupational health
assessment is proposed, which could be
performed by the offshore medic. The medic
would require to be adequately trained and
supervised, with any problematic cases being
referred for medical review. The primary
assessment should consist of a health
questionnaire and a physical activity
questionnaire followed by a medical and
physical assessment.
A holistic approach to the fitness assessment
should be adopted, an idea which has already
been proposed for both onshore fire-fighters.
Effective fire-fighting also requires the
optimum performance of the team. This itself
depends on the ability to use the attributes of
the team members most efficiently.
Nevertheless, certain basic standards of fitness
would normally be expected, as shown in
Table 16.
this study were found to be fit for the task
when assessed using the onshore fire-fighting
standard. There were exceptions and this has
important implications for the future,
particularly when considering issues such as
the ageing offshore workforce and reduced
manning levels with the requirement to
maintain an effective fire-fighting team.
Table 16 : Recommended fitness standards for offshore emergency response rescue work
Parameter
Age
Recommended Standard
No limit
BMI
< 30kg/m2
Vision
Uncorrected Acuity
Corrected Acuity
Colour Vision
6/60 N48
6/9-4 N12
Normal or mild green deficiency
(All defects require referral for medical assessment)
Spirometry
FEV1 , FVC, PEFR Within normal range
Aerobic Capacity
≥ 40 ml/kg/min (minimum)
≥ 45 ml/kg/min (preferred)
Grip Strength
≥ 40kg
Leg/Back Strength
No physiological testing, assessment based on history
With further evaluation as appropriate
Body mass index (BMI) should normally be
less than 30 kg/m2, with lung function test
results within the normal range. The visual
acuity should be similar to that required for
onshore-retained fire-fighters (6/9-4, N12 at 30
cm with both eyes open, using visual aids, if
necessary, with an uncorrected acuity of 6/60,
N48). Visual aids, if required, must be
compatible with fire-fighting. Where a colour
249
Chia KS, Jeyaratnam, Chan TB, Lim TK.
Airway responsiveness of firefighters after
smoke exposure. BJIM 1990;54:228-31
vision defect is identified, referral should be
made for further medical evaluation.
Aerobic capacity should be ≥ 40 ml/kg/min
and ideally ≥ 45 ml/kg/min. Where this
standard is not met, other parameters need to
be assessed to determine what fire-fighting
duties could be performed, and what can be
done to improve aerobic capacity.
Grip
strength should be ≥ 40 kg to ensure adequate
upper body strength.
No assessment of
leg/back strength has been recommended due
to the concerns relating to the safety of such a
test. No specific age limit for performing fireteam duties is recommended either, but when
fitness is assessed longitudinally, cases where
performance is noted to deteriorate should be
assessed on an individual basis.
Corpe U. A Step in the Right Direction.
Submitted for Certificate in Occupational
Health Nursing, Robert Gordon’s Institute of
Technology, Aberdeen, 1991
Cotes JE, Reed JW. North Sea divers are no
fitter than sedentary men (letter). Lancet
1984;2:348-9
David GC, Fernandes AF. Physical Selection
for Rescue Craft Crew. London, HSE Offshore
Technology Report, HMSO, 1995
David GC, Hoffman JS. Minimum and
Maximum Height Requirements for fire
Service Recruits. Guildford, Robens Institute,
University of Surrey,1996
The
implementation
of
these
recommendations, by assisting with the
maintenance of effective fire-teams, and
improving health and safety standards, will
assist all those employed within the offshore
oil and gas industry in the United Kingdom.
Davies WW. Physical Fitness Standards for
Firefighters. Personal communication, 1997
Davis PO, Dotson CO, Santa Maria DL.
Relationship between simulated fire fighting
tasks and physical performance measures. Med
Sci Sport Exer. 1982;14:65-71
References
Anonymous. Ageing at work: consequences
for
industry
and
individual.
Lancet
1993;341:87-8
Ashwell M. Obesity in men and women. Int J
Obesity 1994;18(Suppl 1):S1-7
deVries HA, Wiswell RA, Romero G,
Moritani T, Bulbulian R. Comparison of
oxygen kinetics in young and old subjects. Eur
J Appl Physiol 1982;49:277-86
Barnard RJ, Duncan HW. Heart rate and ECG
responses of fire fighters. JOM 1975;17:24750
Douglas DB, Douglas RB, Oakes D, Scott G.
Pulmonary function of London firemen. BJIM
1985;42:55-8
Bennet Bl, Hagan RD, Banta G, Williams F.
Physiological responses during shipboard firefighting.
Aviat
Space
Environ
Med
1995;65:225-31
Douglas RB, Blanks R, Crowther A, Scott G.
A study of stress in West Midlands firemen
using ambulatory electrocardiograms. Work
and Stress 1988;2:309-18
Björntorp P. Obesity. Lancet 1997;350:423-6
Ellam LD, Fieldman GB, Fordham M,
Goldsmith R, Barnham P. The perception of
physical fitness as a guide to its evaluation in
firemen. Ergonomics 1994;37:943-52
Brandt-Rauf PW, Cosman B, Fallon LF,
Tarantini T, Idema C. Health hazards of
firefighters: acute pulmonary effects after toxic
exposures. BJIM 1989;46:209-11
European Respiratory Journal, Supplement
16,1993
Brown A, Cotes JE, Mortimore IL, Reed JW.
An exercise training programme for firemen.
Ergonomics 1982;25:793-800
Fireground Vision Research Unit. Aids to
Vision on the Fireground. London, City
University, Fireground Unit Research Unit,
1995
Central Fire Brigades’ Advisory Council.
Report of the Joint Working Party on
Appointments Provisions.
London, Home
Office, 1988
Freil JK, Gabriel A, Stones M. Nutritional
status of firefighters. Can J Public Health
1988; 79:275-6
250
Louhevarara V, Ilmarinen R, Griefahn B,
Künemund C, Mäkinen H. Maximal physical
work performance with European based fireprotective clothing system and equipment in
relation to individual characteristics. Eur J
Appl Physiol 1995;71:223-9
Gledhill N, Jamnik VK. Characterization of
the physical demands of fire-fighting. Can J
Spt Sci 1992;17:207-13
Goldsmith R. Fitness of Firemen. Personal
communication. 1995
Lusa S, Louhevaara V, Kinnunen K. Are the
job demands on physical work capacity equal
for young and aging firefighters? JOM 1994;
36:70-4
Guidotti TL, Clough VM. Occupational health
concerns of fire-fighting. Annual Rev Public
Health 1992;13:151-71
Lusa S, Louhevaara V, Smolander J, Kivimäki
M, Korohonen O. Physiological responses of
firefighting students during simulated smokediving in the heat. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J
1993;54:228-31
Haisman M. Age Limit for Serving
Firefighters. London, Home Office Fire
Research and Development Group, 1996
Home Office. Fire Service Circular 8/1991,
Medical and Physical Standards in the Fire
Service: The Step Test and Occupational
Health Schemes. Home Office, 1991
Manning JE, Griggs TR. Heart rates in fire
fighters using light and heavy breathing
equipment: similar near-maximal exertion in
response to multiple work load conditions.
JOM 1983;25:215-8
Horowitz MR, Montgomery DL. Physiological
profile of fire fighters compared to norms for
the Canadian population. Can J Public Health
1993;84:50-2
Moisan TC. Prolonged asthma after smoke
inhalation: a report of three cases and a review
of previous reports. JOM 1991;33:458-61
Horsfield K, Guyatt AR, Cooper FM,
Buckman MP, Cumming G. Lung function in
West Sussex firemen: a four-year study. BJIM
1988;45:116-21
Musk AW, Smith TJ, Peters JM, McLaughlin
E. Pulmonary function in firefighters: acute
changes in ventilatory capacity and their
correlates. BJIM 1979;36:29-34
Horvath SM, Raven PB, Dahms TE, Gray DJ.
Maximal aerobic capacity at different levels of
carboxyhaemoglobin. J Appl Physiol 1975;
38:300-3
Nygård C, Luopajarvi T, Ilmarien J.
Musculoskeletal capacity and its changes
among aging municipal employees in different
work categories. Scand J Work Environ Health
1991;17(suppl 1):110-7
Ilmarinen J, Louhevaara V, Korhonen O,
Nygård C, Hakola T, Suvanto S. Changes in
maximal cardio-respiratory capacity among
aging municipal employees. Scand J Work
Environ Health 1991;17(suppl 1):99-109
O’Connell ER, Thomas PC, Cady LD,
Karawasky RJ. Energy costs of simulated stair
climbing as a job-related task in fire fighting.
JOM 1986;28:282-4
Kilbom Å. Physical work capacity of firemen,
with special reference to demands during fire
fighting. Scand J Work Environ Health
1980;6:48-57
Posner JD, Gorman KM, Klein HS , Woldow
A. Exercise capacity in the elderly. Am J
Cardiol 1986;57:52C-58C
Lemon PWR, Hermiston RT. Physiological
profile of professional fire fighters. JOM 1977;
19:337-40
Saupe K, Sothman M, Jasenof D. Ageing and
the fitness of fire fighters: the complex issues
in abolishing mandatory retirement ages. Am J
Public Health 1991;81:1192-94
Leon AS, Jacobs DR, DeBacker G, Taylor HL.
Relationship of physical characteristics and
life habits to treadmill exercise capacity. Am J
Epidemiology 1981;113:653-60
Schonfeld BR, Doerr DF, Convertino VA. An
occupational performance test validation
program for firefighters at the Kennedy Space
Center. JOM 1990;32:638-43
Light IM, Gibson M. Percentage body fat and
prevalence of obesity in a UK offshore
population. B J Nutrition 1986;56:97-104
Scott GE. Physical Fitness of Firefighters: A
Summary Report.
London, Home Office
251
Scientific Research and Development Branch,
1987
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION
Question - Tony Parkinson, Noble Drilling,
for Texaco
I think I’m one of the few people in this room
that actually work offshore at the moment and
I’ve been part of ER emergency response
teams for 20 years. So I think I know a little
bit about what I’m talking about. What the
audience will know is that all the fire fighters
onshore are volunteers. Offshore they’re not
and it’s the position that the company employs
them for, such as electricians, operations,
safety, whatever, that drives them into being
the ER team offshore. So, it’s a position that
they don’t volunteer for, they’re just put into it.
I’m not getting all of this in the right order
maybe, but what does the author of the
presentation we just had suggest, if they don’t
meet the criteria? Does the company stop
employing them or at some stage in the game
say well, you can’t be in the RT so we can no
longer employ you?
Scottish Office. Fire Service Circular 6/1996
,Visual Standards on the Fireground.
Edinburgh, Scottish Office, 1996
Sharkey BJ. Functional vs chronological age.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 1986;19:174-78
Shephard RJ. A personal perspective on aging
and productivity, with particular reference to
physically demanding work. Ergonomics
1995;38:617-36
Shephard RJ. Occupational demand and
human rights, public safety officers and
cardio-respiratory fitness. Sports Medicine
1991;12:94-109
Sheppard D, Distefano S, Morse L, Becker C.
Acute effects of routine fire-fighting on lung
function. Am JIM 1986;9:333-40
The offshore work force is getting older as we
know. I’m one of them. Also we’re getting
smaller per platform. They’re reducing the
number of people that they need to operate, so
that’s another factor. There are very few
people on my platform that can be in the team.
They’re required for emergency response,
they’re required for coxswains, things like that.
The regulations are driving all operators to
make platforms that don’t need manual
intervention. We’ve got safe havens, we’ve
got fire and gas systems. Montrose teaches
people now not to be gung ho. It teaches them
to think and step back and not to go in and
fight it. Leave it alone. Let it burn. Let’s get
off. Let’s leave it.
Sherman CB, Barnhart S, Miller MF, Segal
MR, Aitken M, Schoene R, Daniell W,
Rosenstock L. Fire-fighting acutely increases
airway responsiveness. Am Rev Respir Dis
1989;140:185-90
Sköldström B. Physiological responses of fire
fighters to workload and thermal stress.
Ergonomics 1987;30:1589-97
Sothman M, Saupe K, Raven J, Pawelczykl J,
Davis P, Dotson C, Landy F, Siliunas M.
Oxygen consumption during fire suppression:
error of heart rate estimation. Ergonomics
1991;34:1469-74
Sothman MS, Saupe K, Jasenhof D, Blaney J.
Heart rate response of firefighters to actual
emergencies. JOM 1992;34:797-800
Different things - the height, the weight - you
can’t control the people you employ to do an
electrician’s job. It is just a fact that he’s also
going to be in the emergency response team.
Alcohol, that part of it; there is no alcohol
offshore so for a fortnight there’s no access to
that. We’ve mentioned about the step test.
I’ve seen some results of that offshore. I go
hill walking. I consider myself quite fit to go
climbing mountains but I didn’t do too well in
the step test. I know people who go to the gym
a lot also failed it. It’s quite surprising, so I
don’t know how accurate that is for a
judgement.
Sothman MS, Saupe KW, Jasenhof D, Blaney
J Fuhrman SD, Woulfe T, Raven PB,
Pawelczyk JP, Dotson CO, Landy FJ, Smith
JJ, Davis PO. Advancing age and the cardiorespiratory stress of fire suppression:
determining a minimum standard for aerobic
fitness. Human Performance 1990;3:217-36
Sykes K. Chester Step
University College, 1995
Test.
Chester,
Thompson J, Barr D, McDonald DR, Rennie
MJ. North Sea divers are no fitter than
sedentary men (letter). Lancet 1984;2:107-8
Chairman
Can I ask you to summarise your question
please?
252
really think that should be an issue. I certainly
wouldn’t support that in terms of people losing
their jobs.
Question - Tony Parkinson, Noble Drilling,
for Texaco
Not really. What are we going to do about it?
When we heard about this step test, it was
more stress - people were worried that if they
failed it, they might be thrown out of the RT.
Would they lose their job? What are we
suggesting happens from this?
The company has got to be aware that if
people are required to do these tasks then they
are possibly putting themselves at risk. They
will get tasks done but will it be in sufficient
time? In terms of the step test, if it’s done
accurately as I said there is a 10% error, so I
wouldn’t accept that there are these wide
variations that you’re quoting. It obviously
depends on the training of the individual that’s
done the test and if they’re done in optimal
conditions even the standard is less than a 10%
error.
Answer - Dr Allan Prentice, Aon
Occupational Health
What I was doing was suggesting a particular
standard. Obviously these sorts of questions
have to go directly to the employer in terms of
what they do if someone isn’t meeting the
standards. I accept the point about obviously
voluntary recruitment for the fire teams
offshore. Obviously there’s a restricted choice
that is available and therefore people may not
be volunteers as such, they may be coerced
into these positions. They may be very
reluctant volunteers and that’s no motivation
really to achieve a standard. If you think you
might lose your job, well that is, but I don’t
In terms of the issue of what happens to people
if they do not meet the standard; I would say
the same as what happens in terms of onshore
fire teams, that really we have to have fitness
training programmes in terms of ensuring that
people do reach these standards.
253
254
AGEING OF THE OFFSHORE WORKFORCE IN THE
NORWEGIAN OFFSHORE INDUSTRY: IMPLICATIONS FOR
SAFETY AND HEALTH
Dr Eirik Bjerkeboek, Dr Helge Wiig and Dr Hilde Heber
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
face a shortage of labour in several sectors
within the next decade, giving a new focus on
the positive effects of continued/increased
participation of senior personnel in the work
force. Challenges associated with ageing and
increased disablement of the work force is
therefore currently addressed by the
government as an important topic.
Introduction
The Norwegian offshore oil industry has
grown through more than three decades into a
mature
industry
with
well-developed
infrastructure and a fairly stable work force
employing 15-20.000 persons depending on
variations in the activity level. Although new
oil and gas fields regularly are found and
developed, a significant increase in the amount
of labour invested. New technologies and new
organisational designs continuously reduce the
amount of human energy spent on upstream
activities.
In addition to the implications for workers
health and national economy, is has more
recently become apparent that the demographic
and organisational changes seen in the offshore
industry also may cause serious conflicts with
established and well proven strategies for
emergency preparedness and reduction of harm
during safety critical events.
During this period the recruitment strategy has
changed. In the early days there were good job
opportunities for low educated workers.
During the last two decades mainly
experienced and specialised workers have been
recruited. Within the traditionally hierarchical
organisations of the petroleum industry,
offshore career opportunities have generally
been recognised as scarce, and a pattern of low
mobility and increasing workforce age has
developed.
Thus, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
(NPD) as the governmental agency responsible
for following up legislation on working
environment, workers health and safety on the
Norwegian continental shelf, the (NPD)
addresses these challenges seriously and in
collaboration with trade unions and the NOIO.
Norwegian legal requirements pertaining to
work environment and health for ageing
employees
External recruitment has been low for years.
Transferring
personnel
from
already
established offshore organisations has mostly
staffed the more recently developed
organisations on new installations. A
consistent trend of downsizing in existing
organisations has enforced the picture of a
stable and steadily aging cohort.
As a background for a description of the
changes and challenges that increasing
workforce age raise with respect to health and
safety, a brief summary of relevant legislation
and regulations is given.
The general mandatory retirement age in
Norway of 67 years is established by
agreement between employers and employees
organisations. This age level is high compared
with most other European countries. For
special groups of employees, such as police,
firemen and seamen, the retirement age is
lower, set by agreement between workers
unions and employers. The mandatory age of
67 applies to most employees in the petroleum
offshore industry, although several companies
The challenges pertaining to increasing
average workforce age has been addressed
since the early 1990s by the different trade
unions, The Norwegian Oil Industry
Organisation (NOIO) as well as the
government. During the same time period the
average age of the Norwegian work force as a
whole has increased, accompanied by large
increases in the rate of disablement
pensioning, increased health problems and
large increases in health related costs. At the
same time predictions show that Norway will
255
offshore that allow those who wish to continue
working until mandatory retirement age.
have special agreements on lower pensioning
age.
The Norwegian Working Environment Act
states as objectives, to secure sound
employment conditions and meaningful work
situation for the individual employee.
Furthermore § 14 e states that; employer shall
organise and arrange the work giving due
consideration to age, proficiency, working
ability and other capabilities of the individual
employee. This act also requires that
employers show attention to workers welfare
and dignity, which is of relevance in handling
the consequences of ageing.
Changes in age and health in the work force
in the Norwegian petroleum industry
In order to monitor the situation, the NPD
carried out to surveys on workers age and
health in the offshore industry, in 1992 and
1998 respectively. These surveys included the
major part of all operating companies, ship/rig
owners, and entrepreneur/service companies
active on the Norwegian continental shelf. The
information presented from the 1998 survey
represents
aggregated
statistics
from
approximately 11000 employees, with a fair
distribution between the different industrial
categories. This is about 2/3 of the total
population carrying out regular work on the
continental shelf. Staffing on supply and
standby vessels are not included in the survey.
These requirements are further elaborated in
Regulations relating to systematic follow-up of
the working environment in the petroleum
activities. Here a number of paragraphs state
requirements relevant to the topics of this
paper, such as; monitoring and follow up
adverse health effects from long term
exposure, as well as arrangement and
organising of work operations.
Figure 1 shows the age distribution in 1992
and 1998, demonstrating a clear shift towards
higher age. Mean age for the population
increased from 38,8 to 42,9 yrs. The increase
is largest within operator company employees
on permanent installations. The increase in
mean age of ca 0,7 yrs/yr. is not due to
migration effects e.g. from educational
reforms, which cause similar increases in mean
work force age in Norway as a whole. Low
recruitment of young employees combined
with low mobility in existing work force are
the most probable explanations. It should be
noted that the increase in age probably is
attenuated by a larger proportion of senior
workers exiting from offshore employment
during the large number of reorganisations in
the industry lately.
There are also mandatory health requirements
for offshore employees in the petroleum
industry. These requirements are related to
functional
requirements
in
emergency
preparedness situations, and are not related to
working ability. All employees carrying out
work on offshore installations therefore need
to be certified by a physician, obtaining a socalled health licence. This licence has to be
renewed on a two-yearly basis and can be
revoked at any time by company doctors or
any other physician.
As the enforcer of these regulations, the NPDs
policy is to ensure that the industry offers
working and “off-working” conditions
Proportion (%) of
employees
50
40
30
1992
20
1997-98
10
0
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60 +
Age
Figure 1 Age distribution in the offshore industry work force
256
in a marked increase in yearly total number of
days away from work. Figure 2 shows the total
number of sick days per employee/year.
Sickleave (days/employee/yr)
Health problems and thus the amount of sick
leave increases markedly in the age groups of
50+ yrs. We do not have data to show changes
in the sick leave ratios over the last six years,
but the shift in mean age probably have result
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60 +
Age
Figure 2 Sick leave in the offshore industry
The age-related increase in sick leave is not
accompanied by a similar increase in the
number of cases of work-related sickness
reported to NPD. This may be due difficulties
determining
work
related
cause-effect
relationships, especially of long-term exposure
and for complaints with multi-causal origin.
A mean total sick leave of ca 7 days/employee
offshore is low, however compared to ca 17
days/employee in comparable onshore
industries. This discrepancy is probably
contributable to several factors. The health
requirements, as well as special working
conditions offshore probably result in a
marked “healthy worker” selection effect. Also
the special shift arrangements contribute to
low reporting by the companies. With a 2
week on – three/four week off schedule,
sickness during off schedule is most often not
registered by the companies.
A comparison of the offshore data with sick
leave onshore is difficult. No similar age
distributed data for the onshore population
exist, but the national rate of long-term sick
leave (more than 14 days) shows a similar
trend in age development and a consistent
increase in long duration leave during the last
five years. This supports research from
Statistics Norway (personal communication),
showing that older workers stand for the major
part of long-term sick leave. Off shore the
most aggravating result is a mean value of 44
days sick leave/employee/year for operating
company personnel over 60 years.
The increase in health problems and sickness
with age is also clearly demonstrated in the
rate of loss of health licence, shown in figure
3. The blue columns in the figure show the rate
of loss of licence in 1998 relative to the
proportion of employees in each age group.
257
% of work force within
age group
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60 +
Age
loss of licence
disablement pensioning
Figure 3 Rate of loss of health licence in the offshore industry work force
offshore environment. The fact that
disablement-pensioning follows most revoked
Our data show a more than 50% rise in the
licenses, strongly indicates that doctors
frequency of loss of licence for employees 60
judgement
is
reasonable,
although
+ years from 1992 to 1998. For the other age
undocumented.
groups the frequencies are unchanged. For
comparison, the black columns depict the
The rate of loss of licence within each age
frequency of new disablement pensioners in
group can be used to generate a simple
Norway in 1999. Data presently being
prediction of “work-survival” in offshore
collected from the offshore industry show, that
employment. Such a model is shown in figure
those who loose their health licence almost
4. The remaining population progressively
always exit from working life altogether, most
declines as the number of “survivors” is
commonly through disablement pensioning.
multiplied with the rate of license loss in each
Licences can be revoked by any medical
age group.
doctor in Norway. Unfortunately no register of
the causes for loss of licence has been
The model clearly indicates the magnitude of
established. Since the licence reflects
the health problems, and implies that sickness
emergency preparedness requirements, and not
contribute largely to the rate of early exit from
working ability, we must be cautious in
offshore employment. The increased rate of
ascribing the high rate of loss to adverse health
sick leave of workers age 50 + is thus clearly
effects attributable to work related exposure.
in accordance with the rate of exit from
However, it is generally recognised that
working life due to adverse health effects.
company physicians revoke licences on the
basis of evaluation of working ability in an
258
Proportion remaining in work
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
20
30
40
50
60
Age
Figure 4 Modelled “survival” in an offshore workforce cohort
point themselves
environment are:
The challenges associated with increasing
health problems and early exit from working
life will most likely continue to increase in the
near future. The major proportions of the
existing work force are now between 40 and
60 years. Also, a major increase in early
retirement and increased recruitment of young
personnel is unlikely. Thus the old-timers will
have to carry on working with similar
exposure levels as they have had up to now,
with a high risk of sickness and long-term sick
leave as they approach the end of their careers.
out
in
the
offshore
• Long-term shift work. Since mobility is
very low, most employees tend to remain
in a highly demanding shift schedule for a
more prolonged period of time than
workers onshore. Increased risk of sickness
from working shift work, especially night
shifts, is well documented in the literature.
However the relationship between ageing
processes and effects of shift work is less
studied.
• Shift arrangements with long on-duty
periods and even longer off-duty periods.
This arrangement clearly presents many
employees with problems handling the
relatively constrained life offshore, the
repeated separation from family, as well as
problems associated with fragmented
participation in family and social life
during off-duty periods.
• High physical demand/work load often
combined with poor conditions for manual
handling of equipment. This risk factor is
well documented in the literature, resulting
in both acute and chronic musculo-skeletal
sickness.
• Hard surfaces, steep stairs and ladders.
Several company doctors attribute the age
related increase in prevalence of skeletal
illness in the lower extremities to these
factors.
• Motivational factors. The organisations on
permanent offshore installations have, up
Possible causes of increased health
problems in older offshore employees
Between the employers and employees
organisations it is a hot topic of debate,
whether offshore working conditions represent
especially harmful effects, which again are
reflected in more adverse health effects than
those found in comparable industries onshore.
Although we do not have statistics on the
causes for loss of licence it is generally
believed
that
musculo-skeletal
and
cardiovascular
conditions
are
main
contributors. These are also important causes
for the increasing rate nationally of
disablement pensioning. On the national scale,
however, mental sickness such as depressions
and neuroses is a large and the most rapidly
increasing diagnosis group.
Pertaining to the age related increase in
sickness, the exposure factors that most clearly
259
safety requirements, with early withdrawal as a
likely result.
to now, been rather bureaucratic compared
to similar industries onshore. Also, for the
large majority of employees there are
limited
opportunities
for
career
development. It is possible that these
conditions, combined with customisation to
long periods of leisure time, are factors that
reduce motivation for a long working life,
which again may affect health and working
ability.
• Uncertainty and anxiety associated with the
increases risk of travel and period of stay
on the installations.
In our effort to ensure that early and
involuntary exits from offshore work due to
health complaints are minimised, we need to
focus both on measures directed towards the
older portion of the workforce. However at the
same time measures must be taken to ensure
that the younger part of the population have
working conditions that allow long-term
occupation in the offshore business. The NPD
directs its effort to secure workers health and
welfare mainly by;
Of these factors increased individual risk of
illness is well documented for long-term shift
work and long-term exposure to unfortunate
physical load and walking/working on hard
surfaces. For the other factors changes in risk
with age has not been systematically examined
or documented.
• Issuing an adequate and updated regulatory
framework
that
encompasses
new
knowledge on risk factors, identification of
risk and risk handling measures.
• Following up of the regulatory framework
through audits and quality revisions.
• Counselling,
including
transfer
of
experience, surveys and direct counselling
in disputes involving interpretation of the
regulatory framework
In addition there are a number of other factors
that may have negative effects with increasing
age, such as; rapid rate of organisational and
technical change; increased learning demand;
increased use of advanced technologies; and
the increasing use of non-hierarchical
organisations. However, these factors are not
specific to the offshore industry.
In all these activities, the focus on
consequences of ageing will become more
important in the years to come. For instance,
the major update of the regulatory framework,
to be issued this year, focus on work
arrangement and organisation is increased.
While the main objective up to now has been
arrangement of each separate work place or
operation to obtain low-risk of injury or
sickness, the new regulations require a broader
approach where total work organisation and
restitution shall be included in risk assessment.
NPD strategies on ageing and health
The NPD has during the latter years increased
its attention towards the safety and health
challenges presented by an ageing work force.
Our objective is to ensure that workers health
and well-being is appropriately attended to,
allowing those who wish so to continue their
career till retirement age. Furthermore to
ensure that the industries emergency
preparedness organisation and contingency
plans are adapted to the present and expected
changes in age and health.
In our effort to ensure that long-term
employment offshore is compatible with a
good health outcome, we have a main focus on
preventive strategies:
• Obviously, a good design is of essence in
creating work and restitution environments
that allow long-term employment without
undue negative health effects. The NPD
focuses both on requirements for the design
process and the design itself.
• Arrangement of work places and
organisation of work is followed up
closely, combined with a follow up of
general screening of personnel and
reporting of work related sickness. A
special focus is given to the follow up of
effects of organisational restructuring in the
business
Search and rescue (SAR) teams are important
components of most emergency preparedness
organisations on the installations in the
Norwegian petroleum industry. In order to
meet the NPDs functional requirements for
emergency preparedness, many companies
have established specific requirements for
minimal physical capacity for participants in
SAR team. Older workers do not easily meet
these limits. In some cases SAR-team age
limits well below pensioning age have been
introduced as well. We thus see a possible
scenario where downsizing of organisations
and increasing age comes into conflict with
260
can only be made if employers and employees
collaborate in defining and carrying out unified
preventive strategies.
The NPD is also active in ensuring that the
industry has an adequate monitoring and
follow up of work related disease. Furthermore
to ensure that both systems and activities are in
place to follow up and support to those
employees who either develop, or have higher
risk of developing work related health
problems.
The strategies of the industry and the
employers o
Recently the NOIO have initiated a project on
age and health, inviting the major trade unions,
the organisation for ship and rig owners, as
well as governmental agencies to participate.
The aims of the project is to reduce sick leave
and disablement pensioning and develop
proactive measures for handling the expected
rise in mean age for offshore workers. Through
this project the NOIO also aims to make
offshore employment more attractive to senior
personnel.
Adequate measures to prevent the number of
early exits from working life due to health
problems are now prioritised also on a national
level. A governmental committee has recently
suggested several measures that may allow
older workers to remain in active work, despite
increasing health problems:
• Increased maximal period of self-reported
sick leave, a period where employee is
allowed to stay away from work with
presumptive sickness without physician’s
evaluation.
• “Active sick leave”, an arrangement where
the employee regulates participation in
work based on a self-assessment of the
ability to function adequately.
• A more active collaboration between the
local social security offices and employer
in rehabilitating employee after long-term
sick leave.
• Increased flexibility in disablement pension
arrangements, allowing a smaller disability
fraction for allotment of partial pension.
Besides a closer survey and statistical analysis
of relevant data from the industry, the project
aims to provide a knowledge base and a
political platform for launching more practical
preventive measures in the future.
Whether this strategy succeeds remains to be
seen. The NOIO and the trade unions still
disagree on major issues such as:
• Are offshore employees subject to negative
health effects that put them significantly
more at risk than colleges onshore?
• What is a reasonable pensioning age for
offshore employees?
Due to the special offshore shift arrangements,
as well as the relatively small opportunities
that the petroleum industry offer for onshore
rehabilitation, is questionable whether the
suggested measures will have much effect for
older workers offshore.
Hopefully the descriptive and analytical part of
the project will give some answer to the first
question, while the practical part of the project
will give results that allow older worker to
remain in offshore employment without
negative health consequences.
From the NPDs point of view it seams clear
that significant progress on improving working
conditions and health risk for older workers
261
262
IMPACT OF HEALTH SURVEILLANCE AND PROMOTION ON
OFFSHORE ACCIDENT RATES
Dr Kathryn Mearns, Industrial Psychology Group, University of
Aberdeen
management, ‘stop smoking’ and advice on
diet and nutrition. In the USA their main
objectives are to promote employee health and
reduce corporate health care costs, however
other documented spin-off effects include:
• Reductions in employee absenteeism and
lateness
• Fewer accidents
• Less worker compensation costs and
employee turnover
• Greater employee loyalty and commitment
• More creativity and effectiveness in
decision-making amongst employees
• Better labour relations and employee
recruitment
• Improved company image
Unlike the USA and some European countries,
e.g. Norway and Sweden, where legislation
has mandated health promotion, Britain has
lagged behind in promoting health at the
workplace. This imbalance has been redressed
to some extent in the HSE document ‘Good
Health is Good Business (www.hse.gov.uk)
which focuses employers’ attention on
identifying and mitigating against potential
occupational health risks at the workplace.
Occupational health is not a new issue for the
offshore industry and the HSE theme ‘good
health is good business’ underpins some of the
management systems adopted by the industry.
However, it is worthwhile noting that whereas
the issue of occupational health is receiving
the attention it merits, there is comparatively
little research conducted on the impact of
health promotion programmes on the wellbeing of offshore workers.
Abstract
The
Aberdeen
University
Industrial
Psychology Group have just completed a
project entitled ‘Benchmarking human and
organisational factors in offshore safety’
involving the HSE and 13 offshore operator
and contractor companies.
The exercise
involved using questionnaires to collect safety
information for the previous year for a
particular installation from three different
sources:
1. The offshore workforce, in terms of how
they perceived the installation’s current
state of safety;
2. Managers, in terms of recording health
and safety management policies and
practices;
3. Safety performance data in terms of selfreported accidents from workforce
respondents and official accident and
incident rates (e.g. RIDDOR)
Nine installations were compared according to
their scores on each section of the
questionnaires, and relationships between the
scores on the questionnaires and accident and
incident rates were explored. A section in the
management
questionnaire
requested
information on health surveillance and
promotion and a high significant correlation
was found between scores on this section and
the rate of LT1>3 (rho9-0.76). In addition,
there was a high and significant correlation
(rho9-0.81) between scores on this section and
the proportion of workforce respondents
reporting an accident in the previous year. This
paper will present the methodology used to
collect the data and discuss the possible
implications of this finding.
A pilot study on the extent of health promotion
activities in the offshore oil industry was
conducted by Mearns and Fenn in 1993 (HSE,
1994). The Medical Directors of 41 offshore
companies operating in the UK sector and 21
companies operating in the Norwegian sector
were surveyed about the number and types of
health promotion programmes currently in
place on their installations and the
individuals/organisations responsible for these
programmes. In addition, 145 UK and 76
Norwegian offshore medics were surveyed
about the need and priority for health
Introduction
The literature on workplace health promotion
or employee ‘wellness’ programmes is
extensive with the USA leading the field in
initiating, implementing and assessing the
effects of such programmes.
These
programmes usually focus on weight
reduction, hypertension control, fitness
training,
medical
screening,
stress
263
promotion offshore. The overall response rate
was 36% (53% UK rig medics: 25%
Norwegian rig medics: 14% UK Medical
Directors and 29% of Norwegian Medical
Directors). Most respondents gave offshore
health promotion a high priority because of the
ageing workforce and their relatively poor
lifestyle (smoking, lack of exercise and
overeating).
Various health promotion
activities were in operation but were limited to
47% of the Norwegian installations and 36%
of the UK installations surveyed.
Results
With respect to the current paper the area of
interest lies in the results obtained from the
Safety Management Questionnaire (SMQ).
Analysis of data from the nine installations
which provided data in both 1998 and 1999
(i.e. were common to both years), took the
form of rank correlations between the six subsections of the SMQ, the total SMQ and four
outcome measures. These outcome measures
were LTI>3 days, RIDDOR data (although it is
acknowledged that this indicator is an
aggregate of other lagging indicators); Near
misses and Dangerous Occurrences. A pattern
of negative correlations was predicted and
found: favourable scores on the entire SMQ
were associated with lower accident and
incident rates.
All significant negative
correlations involving sub-scale scores were
confined to two areas of management strategy
- health promotion and surveillance and health
and safety auditing. In particular in 1998, high
scores on the full sub-scale ‘Health promotion
and surveillance’ (which included both
quantitative and qualitative data) were
significantly associated with lower lost time
injury rates (rho -0.76). Responses to an
abbreviated
sub-scale
including
just
quantitative data were significantly correlated
with lower rates of dangerous occurrence (rho
–0.79), near misses (rho –0.76) and RIDDOR
(rho-.78). A pattern of negative correlations
was also found in the 1999 data, however, the
effects were not as strong. From these results
it is proposed that the benefits of health
promotion
and
occupational
health
programmes may be realised through a number
of possible processes:
Method
More recently (Mearns, et al. 2000), Mearns,
Whitaker, Flin, Gordon and O’Connor have
carried out a health and safety benchmarking
study (sponsored by 13 offshore oil and gas
companies and the HSE).
This study
compared the health and safety performance of
13 offshore installations (including fixed
production platforms, well-service vessels,
FPSOs and drilling rigs) on a range of leading
and lagging performance indicators. The
leading indicators included safety climate
surveys of the offshore installations in which
respondents indicated their involvement in
safety, safety behaviour, safety attitudes,
satisfaction with safety measures and
satisfaction with communication about health
and safety. In addition, HSG 65 (HSE 1997)
was used as a model for development of a
Safety Management Questionnaire (SMQ),
which recorded a range of safety performance
indicators used in other health and safety
benchmarking programmes. These covered six
main areas: i) Health and safety policy; ii)
Organising for health and safety; iii)
Management Commitment; iv) Workforce
Involvement; v) Health surveillance and
promotion; vi) Health and safety auditing.
The participating installations were also
required to provide details of their
management structure, including the position
of safety professionals within the hierarchy,
and their accident and incident statistics
including RIDDOR data, near-misses, visits to
the offshore medic and number of cards/
reports from behavioural modification
programmes.
Relevant documentation to
support the questions asked in the Safety
Management Questionnaire (SMQ) was also
requested. All information related to the
period June 31st 1997 to June 31st 1998 (for the
1998 benchmarking survey) and June 31st 1998
to June 31st 1999 (for the 1999 benchmarking
survey).
264
1.
Investment by the company in these areas
fosters
perceptions
of
company
commitment and builds worker loyalty in
areas such as safety behaviour
2.
Health plans and health programmes
improve worker health directly and
‘immunise’ against work-related injury
(although there is also a possibility that
they mask early signs of occupational ill
health).
3.
Health plans and health programmes
‘weed-out’ unhealthy workers leaving a
‘survivor population’ that are best suited
to the offshore environment, both
physically and mentally. However, it
should be noted that this process is already
in place through the mandatory regular
4.
crew, including contractors (i.e. those
members of the workforce who are most
familiar with the installation) and would
request the following information:
• Demographics (age category, years
worked offshore, years worked on current
installation)
• Perceived management commitment to
health and safety (both offshore and
onshore),
• Perceptions of work pressure
• Perceptions of social support
• Perceptions of stress
• Self-reported health and well being,
coping strategies, safety behaviour and
accidents/injuries/illness.
offshore medicals that workers have to
pass in order to work offshore.
A final mechanism can also be suggested
whereby an installation that is good at
heath promotion and health surveillance
may also be good at the risk assessment
and control approaches and training.
These processes are presented speculatively.
Indeed, it is important to emphasise that the
data presented here are correlational and
relatively limited. There is therefore a need to
conduct further research in order to
corroborate the findings and to understand the
mechanism behind any effects. In other words,
apart from showing associations between these
variables it is important to model potential
cause-effect relationships.
All information collected would be anonymous
and confidential.
There are three questions that can be
specifically posed with respect to the above:
1.
2.
Questionnaires would also be sent to a senior
manager associated with the installation
requesting information on the following:
• Type of health promotion programmes on
the installation and how long they have
been in place.
• Details of how health issues are
communicated to the workforce.
• Whether an occupational health plan is in
place and what percentage of the health
plan has been completed for the previous
year.
• What provision there is for routine health
surveillance of workers. Here, there is a
need to distinguish with surveillance for
medical fitness and more frequent
surveillance for auditory problems and
dermatitis, for example.
• Whether there are facilities for health
review on return to work after sickness
• Whether counselling, support and
professional advice are made available
during periods of ill health or stress. For
example, uptake of Employee Assistance
Programmes (EAPs) could be measured,
as could the extent of rehabilitation after
injury or ill health and follow-up of the
individual’s well being and progress while
still absent.
• Whether there are mechanisms for
identifying and helping individuals with
alcohol or drug related programmes. In
addition, how the process for identifying
and helping individuals is actually carried
out may be of particular importance.
• Number of personnel visits to the sick bay
in the past year. An attempt will be made
to categorise these visits according to
various criteria, e.g. major injuries, lost
Is enhanced health and fitness associated
with a perceived increase in ability to cope
both physically and psychologically with
the offshore working environment? In
other words, increased feelings of physical
and mental well-being have a direct
impact on physical and psycho-social
stressors leading to improved ability to
cope, greater attentiveness and ability to
respond to potentially hazardous situations
Are increased investments in health
promotion & surveillance indicative of
higher levels of management commitment
to safety and a culture of care and
concern? The effects of this on the
workforce could operate through two
possible mechanisms a) a higher
perception of self-worth leads to personnel
taking more care and experiencing fewer
accidents, b) an improved perception of
company commitment to worker wellbeing builds loyalty in areas such as safety
behaviour?
These hypothesised relationships provide the
basis for a proposed new study, investigating
the impact of health promotion and
surveillance on accident and incident rates
offshore.
The proposed methods for collecting the data
are through questionnaires and interview
techniques. These should be used across as
large a sample of installations as possible
(minimum 10), preferably including a sub-set
of installations on which there are no health
promotion and surveillance programmes. The
questionnaires would be directed at the core
265
time injuries in excess of three days, first
aids, distribution of medication, ‘no
treatment’. A mechanism will also have
to be put in place to monitor repeat visits
to sick bay. Care will be taken so as not to
jeopardise patient confidentiality.
References
HSE (1997) Successful Health and Safety
Management HS(G) 65. Sudbury: HSE Books.
Mearns, K. and Fenn, C. (1994) Diet, Health
and the Offshore Worker. OTH 93 339.
Sudbury: HSE Books.
Interviews would be conducted with members
of the workforce, rig medics and senior
managers to check the validity of the proposed
questionnaire items and also to collect
qualitative data on attitudes to the
organisation,
health
promotion,
health
surveillance and personal health and fitness
and its perceived benefits or problems.
Mearns, K., Whitaker, S., Flin, R., Gordon, R.
and O’Connor, P. (2000). Benchmarking
human and organisational factors in offshore
safety. Vol I of III in ‘Factoring the human
into safety: Translating research into practice’.
OTO 2000 036. Sudbury: HSE Books.
266
SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE
Ian Whewell, HSE
If I could just apologise again on behalf of Taf
Powell who had another pressing engagement
and therefore wasn’t able to attend. My role
really is to bring to a close what I hope and
believe has been a very successful three day
conference.
Summarising a three-day
conference, three days of quite intense
presentations, discussions and debate is not an
easy matter. I’m not sure whether it’s stress or
pressure I’m under at the moment. The aim of
the organisers was to raise the profile of what
is often a Cinderella subject. I realise that
obviously those of you who are here have a
particular interest in occupational health but
there is no doubt that there is a struggle in
drawing the attention of industry and the
population at large to health issues because
they tend not to be so visible as the classic
accident situations.
The theme of partnership I think was extended
into the second day where certainly the role of
good design in occupational health, and of
course the ever present physical, chemical and
biological agents, emphasise how much good
work has been done in these areas. We heard
about a number of cooperative projects and
there is clearly a considerable commitment to
tackle occupational health problems.
Finally, today we heard how some of the
difficult issues, and let’s be honest, these are
even more tenuous occupational health issues
such as stress and workforce well-being issues
are being tackled. Again the partnership in
particular was emphasised by Fiona Farmer
this afternoon and I was interested to hear as I
was writing my summary that she emphasised
the important role of partnership in developing
well-being and good health. The other thing I
think these sessions did do as well was
emphasise the importance of the workforce
involvement and employee and employer
awareness to jointly tackle these issues.
I hope the conference has provided
opportunities to share views and challenges
and successes and perhaps failures. I believe
the underlying message that seems to be
coming through here is one of partnership and
shared responsibility. Certainly the first day
set the tone for that with Bill Callaghan from
the Health and Safety Commission coming to
the conference and Malcolm Brinded (Shell),
both emphasising aspects of shared
responsibility and the commitment of both the
regulator and the industry at large to tackle
occupational ill health. It’s certainly clear to
me at any rate that all health and safety
matters.
The conference has covered a wide range of
occupational health issues and I think it comes
as no surprise that the key topics emerging as
creating significant concern are stress and
musculoskeletal issues.
HSE is already
tackling aspects of musculoskeletal disorders
as part of its current initiatives. We’ve also
recognised stress as a problem that we have to
get to grips with. Certainly we are looking
towards next year of trying to raise the profile
of our approaches to stress and see how the
industry can further deal with that.
TAPE CHANGE, therefore bit missing here
We shouldn’t forget though in looking at
partnership that it’s the employer that does
hold the key. The employer can facilitate this
and it’s encouraging to see this renewed
commitment, certainly as a result of the
conference that was held under the auspices of
the Offshore Industry Advisory Committee to
develop cooperative working.
And in
particular, I think this has been emphasised at
least once today, the importance of identifying
the statistics, of coming together, because the
RIDDOR statistics, in other words the
statistics held by the regulator are pretty thin
because of the nature of the reporting, which
has already been criticised today.
If I could put a quick plug in here for
musculoskeletal issues. There are to be two
seminars later this year and I think there’s
information in your pack and there will be
information on the HSE website of two
seminars, one in Aberdeen and one in Great
Yarmouth, looking at musculoskeletal issues.
We must not forget in looking at emerging
issues, that the traditional problems still
haven’t gone away. We are still getting
dermatitis, we still need to tackle the problems
of noise, chemicals, other hazardous materials.
267
The effects of them may not be immediately
obvious but they do need to be dealt with.
I hope you are taking away ideas from the
conference.
It is important that it has
stimulated your thoughts as to how you might
proceed on the issues. HSE certainly is taking
away a number of issues and certainly Ron and
his colleagues who have been here will be
taking points. In particular, we have taken to
heart the criticisms of ill health reporting and
that there is a review of formal accident,
incident and ill health reporting which
obviously we can feed in. We have also taken
away some good examples of good practice
and best practice which as a regulator who can
move across the industry, we can provide an
opportunity to deal with this.
I want to take this opportunity of reminding
you of the role that industry has got in terms of
the Step Change initiative because there is a
great emphasis on improving the cooperative
working as I said earlier.
Certainly
distributing examples of good practice and best
practice
across
the
range
including
occupational ill health, dealing with
occupational ill health, is invaluable and that
shared knowledge is of great importance.
It finally remains for me to thank all the
speakers and chairmen and all the delegates for
your commitment in stimulating debate. I
overheard a conversation at lunchtime
complaining there wasn’t enough time for
discussion generally over the three days. I
think that’s always a good indicator of a
challenging and interesting conference that
needs to stimulate debate. It’s always difficult
to single out individual contributors but I
would particularly like to take the opportunity
of thanking Kevin O’Donnell who has done
extensive work in organising the conference
and Vee Gatrell and the team from DIAS, the
publications
organisation
for
their
organisation. Also, and it looks like he’s gone,
but I was asked to thank Alistair in the booth at
the back there, who has had to tackle the
various IT gremlins, and of course the
Aberdeen Conference Centre for providing the
venue.
Finally can I ask you if you could take time to
provide us with some feedback. There are
forms in your pack. That would be very
useful. Thank you very much.
Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive
C0.50
1/02
ISBN 0-7176-2260-6
OTO 2001/041
£25.00
9 780717 622603