Nowadays Health Risks Assessment is part of project's activities in Oil and Gas Industry. To deal with this issue in a standardized, efficient and effective way Saipem developed in-house dedicated software. This HRA software provides a framework to identify health hazards, evaluate health, risks, identify exposed persons and determine appropriate control and recovery measures with the overall intent of protecting employee's' health.
Health hazards are grouped into physical, chemical, biological, ergonomic/psychosocial and geographical categories. The authors are briefly presenting the use of the software and the t4raining system of the personnel envisaged to use it.
Saipem innovating approach consists of developing and implementing a standardized process, reachable and sharable through intranet, that will help to create in a few days an interactive, specific project tailor made web database, for health risks management and occupational illness prevention. As all data related to health hazards are already included in the central server database, the team developing the HRA has to select the country where the project is located to have automatically the geographical hazards all the personnel is exposed to, then to choose the specific hazards to which employees are exposed to and automatically will have "route of exposure," "consequences" and the "potential hazard and harm rating before mitigation" for each specific hazard. The next step is to choose, among the ones already proposed in the system, the appropriate "control" and "recovery measures," to mention the "frequency" and "duration" of exposure and to "evaluate the risk after mitigation." Going to the field the team will have to evaluate the HRA prepared and to ensure that all "hazards" have been identified and assessed, all "functions" covered, to check the effectiveness of the actual "control" and "recovery" measures in place and then to draw a "Remedial Action Plan (RAP)" based on a gap analysis. Regular yearly review will be carried out as part of the formal review process of the suitability and effectiveness of the HSE-MS; in addition, any significant change which may impact on health risk will trigger a review of the HRA. The team can also consult all previous HRAs conducted on other similar projects.
Occupational doctors, evaluating the medical fitness, can consult the HRA prepared on a specific worksite and understand the health risks to which the employee they are checked is exposed to.
Performed and structure using the developed software the HRA becomes not only "user friendly" but also easy to interpret and manage by the Project Managers. It is also time, efforts and cost saving contributing thus to improve the cost-effectiveness of the project.
The objective of this work is to give a first view of the environmental impacts assessment in an arid region (Algeria) of water-based (WBM) and oil-based (OBM) drilling mud. They have a considerable pollution potential particularly on the aquifer system which constitutes the single drinking water resource. We use the Life-cycle Assessment (LCA) approach which takes into account all the stages of use, treatment and disposal of drilling mud.
We evaluate all the life cycle of drilling mud, and compare 4 scenarios of treatment and disposal: Thermal desorption, Stabilisation/Solidification off line, Stabilisation/Solidification on line, and reserve pit without treatment. The quantitative comparison is carried on, using the LCIA models in the simulation software SIMAPRO7. This assessment identifies the tendencies of the emission and impact categories dominating in the arid context. It appears that the treatment scenario which has the highest contribution to the human health, climate change and resources damage classes is the simple reserve pit without treatment. The second most contributing scenario is the thermal desorption scenario whereas the off line stabilisation/solidification is the less contributing treatment. These first results will be refined in order to precise the contributing impact classes and point out the stages of processes to be improved.
Keywords: Drilling waste, Life Cycle Assessment, arid area, hydrocarbons, groundwater, toxicity
In our industry, major risks are associated with the processing of explosive, flammable or toxic substances. Identifying, assessing and managing risks associated with these substances are integral part of our continuous efforts to improve safety. The management of risks involves reducing the risks for both inside and outside our sites to a level As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).
The principles involved in the assessment and management of major risks are:
There are two approaches for risks assessment, Aggregate Risk Assessment and Scenarios Based Risk Assessment.
Although these methodologies are often complementary, the first approach allows calculating the aggregate risk to personnel, expressed as Individual and Societal Risk. Thus the advantage of this approach is to address the global risk, the principal disadvantage is that it doesn't allow identifying the main critical scenarios of accident and the final results (Individual and Societal Risks) are hidden in mathematical calculations, with the use of computer model.
In the second approach, the Scenarios Based Risk Assessment, the critical events are selected in the preliminary evaluation step and studied in detail to establish the severity of damages and the likelihood of occurrence. The recommended methodology for the detailed risks analysis is the Bow-Tie approach (causes tree - consequences tree and safety barriers). Each critical scenario is assessed with respect to the Company risk acceptance criteria based on a Risk Ranking Matrix.
This methodology ensures the demonstration of the ALARP level of the risks and the identification of the Safety Critical Measures (SCM). Definition and ranking of the additional risk-reducing measures allows preparing a priority based program of actions and a register of the Major risks.
A Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is defined as a combination of procedures, methods and tools by which a policy, programme or project may be judged as to its potential effects on the health of a population and the distribution of these effects in that population. It has the objective to deliver evidence based recommendations to maximise potential positive health benefits and prevent or mitigate any detrimental health impacts that a project may have on any potentially impacted communities.
While the concept of Health Impact Assessments is relativity well defined for policy, it is still a relatively new field for assessing the impacts of development projects. Unlike the process of environmental and social impact assessments that are well regulated, but that have a very narrow view of the health impacts, there is no legal requirement for a formal more in depth health impact assessment.
However, many companies are adopting the HIA process and as a minimum standard, and it is increasingly required for the external financing of projects. It is thus essential to understand the concept of a HIA.
The procedures and methods of a HIA are generally well defined, but the objectives and deliverables are often not that well understood by the project proponents that commission these assessments. Thus; it is essential that the first stages of the assessment procedures are conducted in a meticulous fashion, as the design of the assessment will reflect the final result. This may require initial training in the concept of HIA and what it does and does not deliver.
Exploration and production of oil and gas exposes workers to some inherent health hazards associated with use of chemicals, exposure to physical and biological agents and poor ergonomic design of work places. Health hazards and the associated occupational illnesses can be easily overlooked in a regular HSE Management system since health hazards are not always apparent and may take many years for the effects to manifest in workers. Putting in place an effective risk assessment tool and an employee health management system will help employers to answer the very important question - when, where, how and to what hazard is an employee potentially exposed at work? An industrial hygiene risk assessment methodology was developed and tested in an oil and gas exploration and production multinational company in Nigeria. The method entails the systematic assessment of the potential risk of tasks resulting from the intrinsic hazard of chemical products and other hazardous agents (noise, radiations, extreme temperatures, biohazards, etc), and estimating the duration and frequency of tasks carried out by Similar Exposure Groups (SEGs) of workers. The method also estimates the protection means available in the workplace and hence calculates the residual risk to be managed by employers.
The results of the risk assessment exercise are consolidated in a Risk Assessment File document detailing action plans to mitigate high potential residual risks. To facilitate this risk assessment process and enhance employee health data archiving and retrieval, a database management and risk assessment software was employed. The software includes Chemical/MSDS management, Human Resources information, Risk Assessment/Estimation, Personnel Monitoring and link to Occupational Medical data. The use of the software has greatly enhanced access to employee exposure assessments records and overall management of occupational health of the Company's workforce.
Exploration and production of oil and gas is associated with inherent risks arising from health, safety and environmental hazards encountered in the workplace (Jewett, 1934). Oil and gas workers are generally faced with health risks arising from three main sources - risks associated with work on oil and gas facilities and operations (exploration, development, drilling & completion, production and maintenance of facilities and decommissioning); risks associated with the living quarters, and risks that have to do with the work environment (onshore, swamp, offshore and deep offshore locations). In carrying out operations in these widely diverse environment, oil and gas workers are generally faced with health hazards from five main categories, viz: chemical, physical, biological, ergonomic and psychosocial hazards (OGP and IPIECA, 2006).
Chemical: carcinogens, mutagens, reproductive toxins and tera-toxic substances, systemic poisons (e.g. heavy metals, H2S);irritants; sensitizers (that cause skin and respiratory reactions);acids and alkalis/caustic agents, etc.
Physical: noise;ionizing and non-ionizing radiations; motion (e.g. sea-sickness);vibration (hand-arm, whole body);pressure (vessels, diving); temperature extremes, Sharp objects;Transport during work;ambient light levels.
It is widely accepted that a large amount of accidents and incidents are caused by unsafe behaviours. As a result the use of behavioural safety programs has increased in occupational safety. The behavioural approach has proven to be effective in reducing accidents and incidents. This paper describes a different application of the psychological principles of behaviour and demonstrates the results of this approach by illustrating a case study.
The principles of behaviour used in this case study were applied differently in comparison to a ‘traditional' behavioural safety program. The methodology described here followed the traditional approach in that the observation of safe and at risk behaviours as well as feedback relating to these observations was crucial to accomplish behaviour change in safety. However, the importance of positive and negative consequences along with immediate feedback by work colleagues was emphasised. Furthermore, in this approach each participant acted as an observer as well as an observee, which is a further methodology difference to a ‘traditional' approach.
The procedure of the program involved work teams to decide on a number of work related behaviours that have potential to be performed unsafely and to observe each other on these behaviours. Rather than just recording the safe and at-risk observations made the team members were encouraged to give praise for observed safe behaviours and to intervene in at risk behaviours. The amount of praise and interventions was recorded as well as safe and at risk observations. Goal-setting methodology was used to promote increases in safe behaviours.
The case study illustrates the benefits of giving emphasis to praise as well as interventions in a behavioural safety program. Results have shown an increase in safe behaviours in a short amount of time. However, additionally, results demonstrated an increase of communication within the team as well as between teams and supervisors leading to a safer work environment as well as increased morale. Furthermore, the participants of this program demonstrated greater ownership of issues relating to their safety resulting in greater engagement in creating a safe work place.
The Ramos - Cornejo pipeline carries natural gas along 38 km from the Ramos field, in Northwestern Argentina, to the trunk pipeline network operated by TGN S.A or, alternatively, to a gas processing facility located in Campo Duran. It has a rated capacity of about 7,100,000 m3/d STD and goes through a highly sensitive environment, the "Yungas?? or Northwestern Argentina's forest.
This paper focuses on how YPF (a company of Repsol-YPF group), which is responsible for this pipeline maintenance, addresses safety and environmental issues. Due to its unique features, including climate, and native flora and fauna, this location (near national parks and protected areas) requires special procedures.
The above-mentioned procedures are detailed in a maintenance handbook which describes several tasks and steps required to run the operation. Each such step is examined and documented, analyzing how it contributes to safety and environmental soundness. Environmental issues are also reviewed, particularly mitigation actions to deal with potential impacts. YPF's experience with this activity as well as empirical evidence is described.
Finally, a brief guide is proposed for use in this kind of operations in highly sensitive ecosystems.
Key words: sensitive ecosystems - impacts -mitigation actions- safety - environment
For Chevron Environmental Management Company (CEMC)—the operating company responsible for managing remediation, restoration and infrastructure abandonment projects around the world—contractor safety management (CSM) is critical. With a total workforce that is 90% contracted and which works over 3 million hours annually on many diverse project sites around the world, the safety performance of our third party suppliers is fundamental to our success.
CEMC followed Chevron's Contractor Health, Environment and Safety Management (CHESM) Expectations—a component of Chevron's Operational Excellence Management System ¹ (OEMS)—as a model to establish an effective program. This paper will describe Chevron's CHESM Expectations and will tell the story of CEMC's development, deployment and improvement of its own CHESM process—first in North Amercia and now globally.
Many organizations in the oil and gas industry continue to make significant, consistent reductions in incident and injury rates, and the industry itself has set aggressive new standards for safer equipment and working environments. However, serious injuries in our industry continue, while our improvement rates have begun to plateau. A new focus is required to reach and sustain the next significant milestone toward a zero-injury workplace.
Industries of all types are beginning to realize that traditional safety methods (engineering and administrative controls) will not be cnough to make this next step change. The new safety culture must include giving employees ownership and empowerment to make decisions about their safety and that of their co-workers.
This paper will demonstrate that employee-led safety programs expand and improve an organization's ability to curb injuries. It will explore how companies are engaging employees in safety through formal employee-led safety programs. The paper will include case studies from companies, both within and outside the oil and gas industry, who are in different states of engaging in this process. These case studies will look at the successes and lessons learned from initial implementation through various states of program maturity, as well as how management teams support an employee-led safety culture.
The oil and gas industry is rapidly developing innovative technologies - new types of fuels and distribution systems, technologies to produce in the most remote and harsh environments, integrated gas developments on scales never before achieved. While the world demands innovation to meet its energy needs, society also holds increasingly higher expectations. Energy must be supplied not only reliably and affordably but safely, in a manner that protects health and the environment and with due consideration to the concerns of stakeholders.
To meet the challenge of protecting workers, communities and the environment, Chevron has broadened its vision of health, environment and safety (HES) risk management. This new approach draws on best practices, experience, and science across a range of technical specialty areas within the HES fields, and it integrates this knowledge into a single, structured comprehensive procedure, RiskMan2. Within the context of a corporate-wide risk management process, the RiskMan2 procedure will ensure rational and consistent HES risk management.
A key to RiskMan2 is the recognition that HES risks do not act as independent variables, but they are highly interdependent. A holistic view of risk with clearly defined mechanisms for assessment, prioritization and action is critical. RiskMan2 provides the structure and tools to achieve this integrated picture and to understand risk trade-offs. RiskMan2 also provides a framework for identifying and appropriately applying continually advancing HES science and technology. More than ever, it is critical to have a robust decision framework to guide the use of HES tools so that they can be optimally applied in a business context. Finally, RiskMan2 provides a structured process for consideration of societal values outside of the science and technology arenas. This new and comprehensive approach will critically assist Chevron in managing HES risks across its evolving business.