Get documents about "Safety Risk Assessment Form
W
Description
Safety Risk Assessment Form document sample
Document Sample
TUBULAR HANDLING APPRAISAL FORM
Rig Name SUMMARY FORM Version 3.3 22th August 2005 imc
Type of Rig
What’s the impact on competency
Owner
maintenance offshore? (H, M, L)
recommendations and reasons
Year of Manufacture
Can space be made available?
What is the structural impact?
Would there be an issue with
Can benefit be achieved by
Drilling Contractor
What’s the training impact
What’s the training impact
rig interfaces? (H, M or L)
Risk mitigation measures,
(H,M,L) N=Not Applicable
working practices? Y or N
Difficulty of installation?
Sheet Completed By
Safety benefit (H,M,L)
additional information
Are utilities available?
assessment? (Y or N)
What's the impact on
Position
onshore? (H, M, L)
Frequency of use?
Current situation?
offshore? (H,M,L)
Current situation
Checked By
(Y, N, T or U)
Position
(H, M or L)
(H, M or L)
(Y, N or E)
Date Completed
Highlight each cell for input or right click a cell to
view the guidance notes
Derrick
Derrick Crane Telescopic Stabbing and Basket
Derrick Crane Vertical Hoist Type Stabbing Basket
Pipe Racking System
Tuggers Man Riding
Tuggers Non Manriding
Tuggers Dual Use
Finger Board Mechanised Finger Board
Finger Board Manual Monkey Board
Offline Tubular Building
Rig Floor
Iron Roughneck
Slips Drill Pipe
Slips Drill Collar
Slips Casing
Slips Tubing
Dog Collar
Elevators Drill Pipe
Elevators Drill Collar
Elevators Tubing
Casing Stabbing System
Stabbing Arm
Mouse Hole
Mouse Hole 2
Automatic Thread Doper
Top Drive
Pipe Spinners
Hydraulic Cathead
Rotary Table
Drawworks
Auxiliary Braking System
Block Control System (KEMS)
Battery Backup System
Crown and Floor Saver Systems
Pick Up/Lay Down Machines V Door Pick Up/Lay Down Machine
Mud bucket
Pipe Deck
Riser Handling System
Gantry Crane
Knuckle Boom Crane
Pipe Deck Pipe Transfer Machine
Pipe Conveyor
Catwalk Tugger
Electronic Pipe Measuring Device
Other Handling Tasks/Equipment
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\0fed639a-e240-4b44-8d3f-14d1c62edc09.xls Page 1 of 12 7/22/2011 2:25 PM
TUBULAR HANDLING APPRAISAL FORM
Rig Name ADDITIONAL DATA SHEET Version 3.3 22th August 2005 imc
Type of Rig
Owner Operational Program Additional Information
Year of Manufacture
Drilling Contractor
Sheet Completed By
Position
Checked By
Position
Date Completed
Highlight a cell to show the appropriate data entry dialogue box Risk Mitigation Measures Recommendations Reasons
Derrick
Derrick Crane Telescopic Stabbing and Basket
Derrick Crane Vertical Hoist Type Stabbing Basket
Pipe Racking System
Tuggers Man Riding
Tuggers Non Manriding
Tuggers Dual Use
Finger Board Mechanised Finger Board
Finger Board Manual Monkey Board
Offline Tubular Building
Rig Floor
Iron Roughneck
Slips Drill Pipe
Slips Drill Collar
Slips Casing
Slips Tubing
Dog Collar
Elevators Drill Pipe
Elevators Drill Collar
Elevators Tubing
Casing Stabbing System
Stabbing Arm
Mouse Hole
Mouse Hole 2
Automatic Thread Doper
Top Drive
Pipe Spinners
Hydraulic Cathead
Rotary Table
Drawworks
Auxiliary Braking System
Block Control System (KEMS)
Battery Backup System
Crown and Floor Saver Systems
Pick Up/Lay Down Machines V Door Pick Up/Lay Down Machine
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\0fed639a-e240-4b44-8d3f-14d1c62edc09.xls Page 2 of 12 7/22/2011 2:25 PM
TUBULAR HANDLING APPRAISAL FORM
Highlight a cell to show the appropriate data entry dialogue box Risk Mitigation Measures Recommendations Reasons
Mud bucket Derrick
Pipe Deck
Riser Handling System
Gantry Crane
Knuckle Boom Crane
Pipe Deck Pipe Transfer Machine
Pipe Conveyor
Catwalk Tugger
Electronic Pipe Measuring Device
Other Handling Tasks/Equipment
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\0fed639a-e240-4b44-8d3f-14d1c62edc09.xls Page 3 of 12 7/22/2011 2:25 PM
Tubular Handling Appraisal Form
Help
Macro Security Problems
This spreadsheet requires that macros are enabled in order to function correctly. If you think that the
spreadsheet is not working the way it should then you can test if the macros are enabled by pressing
the [Return to Form] button at the top of this screen. If you are returned back to the main form then
macros are enabled.
If clicking on the button does not return you to the main form then it is probably because macros are
not enabled. There are two ways to resolve this. Standard
Formatting
1. Did you see a message asking you to choose to Enable or Disable macros when you opened this
Reviewing
sheet? If the answer is yes then you should close this sheet and reopen and click on Enable Macros
when prompted.
2. The Excel macro security may be set to High which automatically disables ALL macros. To change
this setting, click on the Tools | Macro | Security... menu option, select the Medium security option and
click on the [OK] button.
You will now have to close Excel and reopen it again and when you open this spreadsheet you will be
asked if you want to enable or disable macros, please click on Enable Macros when prompted.
Using The Form
When using the form it is possible to get additional help for each question. If the user right-clicks on a
cell a popup dialogue box will be displayed offering extended guidance notes.
Data Entry
Some of the cells have data validation rules attached to them that will require you to provide one of a
preset list of answers, for example Y, N for yes or no or H, M, L for high, medium or low. If you get an
error message when entering your answers it will most probably be because your response does not
match one of the preset answers.
Some cells on the worksheet will popup an extended dialogue box when selected. One example of this
is the Rig Name cell at the top left of both the Summary form and the Additional Data form.
Highlighting any of the cells in this group will display the data entry input dialogue box.
On the Summary form there is a column titled Risk Mitigation Measures. Clicking on this column will
popup a dialog box into which risk, recommendation and reason text can be entered. When risk
mitigation measure text has been entered, the column will show "Yes" in each cell where text has
been entered. You can also view this text by looking at the Additional Data form.
0fed639a-e240-4b44-8d3f-14d1c62edc09.xls Help Pages 4 of 12 7/22/2011 2:25 PM
Tubular Handling Appraisal Form
Guidance
Background
Late 2004, a cross industry Workgroup was formed to look at developing an agreed methodology
which would allow duty holders to be able to demonstrate a robust and well-reasoned process to
determine the level of tubular handling mechanisation employed on any installation, and to be able
to formally justify these decisions using an appraisal tool.
This had been prompted by several forums questioning whether increased mechanisation of tubular
handling processes could result in better safety performance. Several attempts to fully address the
issue had been made in recent times, but none had been entirely successful.
The HSE were asked by the Offshore Industry Advisory Committee (OIAC) to formally address this
issue and, following discussions with industry representatives during 2004, accepted the
recommendation that a cross industry Steering Group and Workgroup be formed to work on
developing an agreed appraisal methodology for tubular handling operations. Details of Steering
Group and Workgroup participating members are shown below.
Guidelines
A key objective of this initiative is to assist operators and contractors to identify areas within Tubular
Handling Operations which have the potential to be conducted more safely, and to look at the
practicalities of reducing manual handling by the introduction of mechanical aids, or
changes/amendments to current working practices.
Duty Holders continue to voice the view that increased mechanisation does not necessarily lead to a
reduction in incident rates, and many would support this view. However, with the mechanisation
issue being raised after every incident, everyone agrees that development of a robust methodology
for justifying tubular handling equipment decisions is necessary. The HSE consider it unlikely that
this appraisal methodology will highlight a requirement for major changes in equipment usage
offshore in the immediate future.
Conducting an Appraisal
Each company should appoint a Team Leader/Project Manager with responsibility to oversee the
appraisal on all units owned by the company.
Offshore
It is recommended that initially an offshore appraisal is conducted with the following personnel
participating in the appraisal team:
Offshore Installation Manager
Rig Superintendent/Senior Toolpusher or Assistant Rig Super./ Night Toolpusher
Maintenance Supervisor
Deck Foreman or Crane Driver
This team of „appraisers‟ need not rely solely on their own knowledge and experience, but are
encouraged to involve personnel from within their organisation.
This could include:
• Persons with experience on different installations
• Persons with experience of different types of installations
• Persons with experience of working in different countries
• Persons with experience of working with different drilling contractors
• Persons with experience in working for different operators
• Persons with experience in working in different disciplines
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\0fed639a-e240-4b44-8d3f-14d1c62edc09.xls Page 5 of 12 7/22/2011 2:25 PM
Tubular Handling Appraisal Form
Guidance
When conducting the Appraisal consideration should be given to how often any given task is
performed, any planned future operations for the unit (if known) and what the expected operational
life of the unit is. Also the level and detail of the assessment will depend on the extent of any
Tubular Handling Equipment that may or may not be installed on the unit.
The Template
The attached „Tubular Handling Appraisal Form‟ is a tool in template format for Microsoft Excel which
has been developed to allow users to formally document the factors leading to the choices of
equipment and level of mechanisation used on offshore installations. A key element is that the
template should be in a user-friendly format, which could be easily completed by offshore personnel
during the course of their everyday business.
The template is designed to be followed through to a conclusion, however it may identify any
possible “show stoppers” as progress is made through the process. Should a show stopper be
identified offshore it should be fully analysed and discussed with the onshore team prior to
furthering the assessment.
While the template has been developed with the expectation that this will for the most part be
completed electronically, an accompanying guidance sheet has been included which should assist
users in completing the spreadsheet in paper format when the electronic version (with its enhanced
information features) is unavailable.
By right-clicking on each cell on the form, a pop-up window provides additional guidance or
information. If more than yes/no answers are required, further text should be included in the risk
mitigation section.
In the top row, after completing the self explanatory rig details, users are asked to consider a
number of features which have a direct relevance to mechanisation decisions. These range from
frequency of task, availability of utilities, through to competency and maintenance issues. Boxes
should be completed for each item of equipment (grouped into categories), according to the
questions asked and using the guidance available.
An important section allows the user to document recommendations from the assessment of each
piece of equipment‟s usage, and the reasons behind these. Risk mitigation measures already carried
out should also be noted.
Onshore
Once completed the appraisal should be forwarded to the Project Manager onshore for review and
approval.
Some appraisals will require further review and consideration by an onshore team to clarify any
outstanding points raised during the offshore appraisal, and decide if any further action is required
(e.g. ascertain budget requirements or constraints).
The onshore team should include the following disciplines, and should possess the necessary
experience and knowledge to deliver a comprehensive appraisal:
Project Manager, Drilling Operations, Engineering, Health and Safety
The Project Manager shall agree an action plan with the offshore and onshore appraisal teams.
Appraisals should be carried out for all installations, even those which are non-operational or
stacked, and new appraisals should be completed should the installation‟s operational status or work
programme change.
After Completion
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\0fed639a-e240-4b44-8d3f-14d1c62edc09.xls Page 6 of 12 7/22/2011 2:25 PM
Tubular Handling Appraisal Form
Guidance
Once the template is completed and rig owners have developed any action plan necessary, this
should be retained as a reference document. During safety case assessment or incident
investigation, the HSE may ask rig owners to use the appraisal tool to demonstrate that the
necessary steps have been taken, to justify ALARP practices. It may be considered technically
limiting if the costs involved are high and the operational future of the unit is short or available work
limited.
A definition of technically limiting could be where additional costs (e.g. these could be shipyard and
mooring costs, major structural changes and power generation costs [electrical or otherwise])
accumulate to 100% of the costs of providing new mechanised equipment plus ancillary equipment.
Any additional costs in the region of 10%-100% of the cost of new mechanised equipment plus
ancillary equipment costs would support arguments from the duty holder that the provision cannot
be fully met.
If deemed appropriate, the HSE may sample the appraisal, and/or inspect action plan
implementation.
Acknowledgements
Tubular Handling Steering Group Members
Mark Burns (Noble Drilling /IADC NSC Chairman 2004)
Dominic Cattini (IADC)
Margaret Copland (HSE)
Michael Griffin (Maritime Hydraulics)
Bob Kyle (UKOOA)
Jimmy Moore (Diamond Offshore)
Chris Ness (GlobalSantaFe/IADC NSC Chairman 2005)
Dave Richardson (National Oilwell Varco)
Ferdinand Gubler (SSOM)
Mohamed El Halimi (DEA)
Tubular Handling Workgroup
Richie Adams (Maersk Contractors/BROA)
John Bowie (Maritime Hydraulics)
Ian Clydesdale (GlobalSantaFe)
Kenny Dey
Billy Gill (National Oilwell Varco)
Allan Green (HSE)
Peter Mayo (BP)
Alan MacLeod (ENSCO Offshore)
Wes McDonald (Rowan Drilling)
Ian McKay (ENSCO Offshore)
Gerry Murphy (KCA Deutag)
Martin Nuttall (GlobalSantaFe)
Martin Reekie (Shell)
Eddie Sarkis (Maersk Contractors) - Workgroup Chairman
Richard Tait (Maritime Hydraulics)
Tom Whalen (Talisman)
Steering and Work Group Facilitators
Val Hood (IADC North Sea Chapter)
Vicky Reid (IADC North Sea Chapter)
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\0fed639a-e240-4b44-8d3f-14d1c62edc09.xls Page 7 of 12 7/22/2011 2:25 PM
Tubular Handling Appraisal Form
Question Guidance
Current Please indicate what the current situation is regarding this equipment. For most
Situation equipment, please indicate:
Yes=The equipment is onboard, No=The equipment is not onboard
For some equipment you will be asked to indicate if the equipment is:
A=Automatic, S=Semi Automatic, M=Manual, No=Not Applicable
For Drawworks, please indicate:
B=Band, D=Disc or Y=Dynamic
For Crown and floor saver, please indicate:
C=Crown only or CF=Crown and floor.
For Electronic pipe measuring device, please indicate:
On=Onshore, Off=Offshore
Additional Where appropriate, please provide additional information about each item of
Information equipment, for example:
For winches, please indicate the number of winches onboard.
For slips, elevators, pipe spinners and pipe handlers etc, please indicate the maximum
size in inches.
For Hydraulic Cathead, please indicate the maximum line pull in ftlbs.
For auxiliary braking system please indicate water, electric (ElMagCo) or dynamic.
Frequency of Please indicate what the frequency of use is for this piece of equipment.
Use
H=Used daily, M=Several times per fortnight, L=Seldom, once per month or less,
N=Not applicable
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\0fed639a-e240-4b44-8d3f-14d1c62edc09.xls Page 8 of 12 7/22/20112:25 PM
Tubular Handling Appraisal Form
Question Guidance
Working Consider each piece of equipment separately when answering this column. Consider the
Practices item of equipment and its layout, then consider the working practices, procedures and
risk assessments used to operate the equipment. Consult all users of the equipment
and explore if working practices, procedures or ergonomics can be adjusted to improve
the operational safety of this equipment.
When considering if benefit can be gained by simply making changes to current work
practices, other risks, which may be introduced by the use of new equipment with
increased mechanisation, should be taken into account. These risks may include being
caught between moving machinery, pressurised hydraulic leaks, more compact areas to
work in due to an increased amount of equipment placed in the area, dropped objects
due to an increase in equipment being deployed, and operating within the area, and
coordination of movements for mechanised equipment and manpower.
Consultation with other units within your company which are mechanised may provide
operational feedback which may be beneficial to your assessment and final
conclusion.
Examples of changes to working practices could be BHA‟s pre-assembled in shore
base. The use of tuggers to handle tubulars in the derrick etc. The Step Change
booklet “Best Practice Guide to Handling Tubulars” may also be a source of guidance
to assist in any decisions and recommendations made.
Y=Yes (If yes, please add your comments to the Risk Mitigation box), N=No
Safety Consider each piece of equipment separately when answering this column. If working
Benefit practices etc. were to be changed in line with suggestions (if any) in previous column or
by installing new equipment, what would be the benefit to the safety of your operation
and reduced risk to personnel?
Prior to deciding on safety benefits each team should research and assess their past
safety record in order to determine if the current situation is causing concerns, and if
not, this could be taken into consideration when deciding if change is the correct
course of action for the unit at this moment. It is recognised that each company will
have their own variation of risk assessment procedures and system. However when
deciding on safety benefits some very good examples of questions and items for
consideration can be located in the Step Change for Safety document "Task Risk
Assessment". Review of this document may be of benefit to the team at this point in
the appraisal. This risk assessment should be conducted by the team without requiring
the involvement of an external agency on a higher level.
H=High, implementation of new practices (if any) which have been identified, or
further investigations into installation of new equipment is required, M=Medium,
introduction of new practices, or equipment may not significantly improve safety
or reduce risks. Technically limiting considerations should be further investigated,
L=Low, little or no safety benefit by the introduction of new practices, procedures
or equipment.
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\0fed639a-e240-4b44-8d3f-14d1c62edc09.xls Page 9 of 12 7/22/20112:25 PM
Tubular Handling Appraisal Form
Question Guidance
Space Consider each piece of equipment separately when answering this column. If you
Available have determined, from the previous columns, that additional equipment is required
then this column is designed to look at how practical it would be to install the desired
hardware. Note this section only looks at space. Deck loading is considered in another
column. This is just an initial appraisal; in any case a full engineering exercise would be
required for any rig modification.
Some of the areas to consider would be:
• Is there the physical space available to install the equipment?
• Can the equipment be brought to the location easily (there might be the space but
not the access)
For the installation of new equipment, can the space be made available without
compromising any other equipment or aspect of the operation?
Y=Yes, this would be an initial appraisal based on the deck space.
N=No, there is no obvious way the desired equipment could be installed.
E =Engineering work required, there is some doubt about how the equipment would be
installed and further engineering work to prove or disprove the concept is needed.
Structural Consider each piece of equipment separately when answering this column. If you
Impact have determined, from the previous columns, that additional equipment is required and
there is the space and utilities available, this column looks at the structural impact of
the equipment installation. This is just an initial appraisal; in any case a full engineering
exercise would be required for any rig modification.
With some installations this may be the limiting factor, especially where the jacket
loading is already high, where the allowable deck loading is low or where increasing the
equipment loading may impact on some other critical factor like maximum allowable
forces on the derrick structure (this is especially the case with topdrive installation, for
example)
Some of the areas to consider would be:
• Is the existing deck loading capable of taking the additional equipment?
• Can the installation (jacket, substructure) take the additional load?
• In mobile rigs the overall effect on stability would need to be included.
What is the structural impact?
H=High, significant structural modifications required. That would be major additional
beams and modification resulting in disruption to the rig operations.
M=Medium, spreader beams required. That would be some structural calculations
required to prove that the spreader beams would be all that is needed.
L=Low, none or very minor structural modifications required. This would be where
the additional equipment doesn‟t exceed the current deck loading.
Utilities If equipment upgrades are identified as the best method of tubular handling, please
Available indicate if the utilities (air, water, electrical or hydraulic) are available.
Y=Yes, N=No, T=Temporary power can be used, U=No equipment upgrade identified.
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\0fed639a-e240-4b44-8d3f-14d1c62edc09.xls Page 10 of 12 7/22/20112:25 PM
Tubular Handling Appraisal Form
Question Guidance
Difficulty of Please indicate what you consider would be the difficulty of installation.
Installation
H=High, total shutdown required greater than 3 days, M=Medium, total shutdown
required less than 3 days, L=Low, work can be carried out offline
Competency Consider each piece of equipment separately when answering this column. If you were
Assessment to recommend changes to existing work practices or the installation of new equipment,
do you think your personnel are already competent to carry out safe operations with
this new practices/procedures/equipment.
Some competencies may be operation of the equipment, maintenance of the equipment
both mechanical and electrical as well as electronic, PLC, and computer based.
Y=Yes, current competency modules adequately cover required standards personnel
are already competent to carry out new tasks, N=No, new competency modules will
require to be written to cover new requirements.
Offshore Consider each piece of equipment separately when answering this column. When
Training recommending new work practices or the installation of new equipment do you think
additional training will be required to be conducted? Consideration should be given to
drill crews, deck crews and maintenance crews. This training may include operations,
repairs and planned maintenance.
H=High, training will be required both on shift and off shift over a number of days,
which will impact on rig time.
M=Medium, training can be achieved on shift only, and in one shift.
L=Low, very little training will be required and this can be conducted during normal
operations with little to no effect on rig time.
Onshore Consider each piece of equipment separately when answering this column. What is the
Training time and resource impact for onshore training?
This question may require to be assessed by shorebased staff, however offshore staff
may contribute by considering if further Electrician and Mechanic training may be
required for example in PLC‟s, computer software, hydraulics, pneumatics etc. And for
Drillers Top Drive and PRS Simulator training etc.
H=High, more than two days.
M=Medium, up to two days.
L=Low, less than one day.
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\0fed639a-e240-4b44-8d3f-14d1c62edc09.xls Page 11 of 12 7/22/20112:25 PM
Tubular Handling Appraisal Form
Question Guidance
Rig Interface Consider each piece of equipment separately when answering this column. If you have
determined, from the previous columns, that additional equipment is required and
there is the space, utilities and deck loading available, this column looks at the impact
of the equipment generally.
Some of the areas to consider would be that:
• By installing some equipment the use of other nearby hardware would be
compromised, that is reduced work area, restricted escape routes; possible conflicts if
both machines were to operate simultaneously, etc.
• Would existing practices be altered. Even if a change is beneficial, a great change in
the way the crew works may have an initial impact on operations, safety and
performance.
Would there be an issue with existing rig interfaces?
H=High, requiring changes to other equipment and practices.
M=Medium, requiring major changes to existing practises.
L=Low, little or no impact.
Offshore Please indicate what you consider would be the impact on maintenance offshore.
Maintenance
H=High, requiring additional staff offshore, M=Medium, requiring more than 3 days
onshore training for existing staff, L=Low, can be carried out by existing staff with on
the job or offshore training.
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\0fed639a-e240-4b44-8d3f-14d1c62edc09.xls Page 12 of 12 7/22/20112:25 PM
