Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Unofficial translation
Report
Report title
Activity number
12F11
Classified
; Public
Exempt publ. disc.
Restricted
Confidential
Highly confidential
Summary
T1-StatoilHydro
Approved by / date
Investigation leader
Sigurd Jacobsen
Bjrn Olsgrd
Oddvar vestad
Contents
1
2
3
4
6
7
SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 4
2.1 PSA investigation team ........................................................................ 4
2.2 Mandate ................................................................................................ 4
2.3 PSA follow-up of the incident.............................................................. 4
2.4 Method.................................................................................................. 5
COURSE OF EVENTS .................................................................................................... 5
INCIDENT POTENTIAL................................................................................................. 9
4.1 Actual consequences ............................................................................ 9
4.2 Potential consequences......................................................................... 9
OBSERVATIONS .......................................................................................................... 10
5.1 Nonconformances............................................................................... 10
5.1.1 Nonconformance: Incorrect design of sheave arrangement. .. 10
5.1.2 Nonconformance: Deficient engineering and risk assessment10
5.1.3 Nonconformance: No evaluation of the use of technology to reduce
risk
11
5.1.4 Nonconformance: Deficient analysis of risks and understanding of
risks 11
5.1.5 Nonconformance: Deficient distribution of responsibility and
communication lines........................................................................... 12
5.1.6 Nonconformance: Deficient handover/communication ......... 12
5.1.7 Nonconformance: Deficient follow-up by operator ............... 13
DISCUSSION REGARDING UNCERTAINTY........................................................... 14
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 14
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
2.1
Statoil notified the PSA of the incident on 12 August 2007 at 11:45 hours in accordance with
the requirements. The PSA established an investigation team to assist the police during their
investigation, as well as to carry out a separate investigation of the incident.
The members of the PSA investigation team were as follows:
Oddvar vestad
Sigurd Jacobsen
Bjrn Olsgrd
2.2
Mandate
2.3
There was an official inspection after the PSA and the police arrived on Saipem 7000 on
Monday, 13 August 2007. The installation of the subsea module was completed on Sunday,
12 August 2007 (after stopping for a few hours) after consultation with the police and the
PSA.
There was no reconstruction of the incident, partly because of the practical challenges
involved in carrying out a simulation, but also because the course of events and physical
causes were sufficiently clarified after the inspection at the scene and reading Saipem's
internal incident report.
Information was obtained from leading personnel on the installation, from the crew that
participated in the operation on the winch platform and from personnel that worked on the
main deck through questioning by the police with the PSA present.
In addition to questioning on board, there were also meetings with Statoil in Stavanger and
Saipem UK Ltd. in London. The purpose of these meetings was to ascertain the
responsibilities for engineering, execution of the activity and follow-up in relation to
applicable regulatory requirements.
Video recordings and still images of the activities on board Saipem 7000 before, during and
after the accident have been reviewed.
The investigation team stayed on the installation for 4 days.
An overview of documents reviewed in connection with the investigation is available in
Appendix B. A list of personnel that have participated in questioning, interviews or meetings
is available in Appendix C.
2.4
Method
A Man, Technology and Organisation (MTO) diagram describing the course of events and
direct and underlying causes as well as nonconformances is available in Appendix A.
3
COURSE OF EVENTS
The lifting operation was planned through engineering and preparation of an installation
manual and associated risk assessments (HAZID/HAZOP). This work had taken more than
one year and had been performed by Saipem UK in London. The handover and review of the
project were carried out at a separate meeting on board Saipem 7000. The Safe Job Analysis
(SJA) was performed by personnel on board Saipem 7000.
On the day before the accident took place, the module was prepared and rigged, and there
were only a few final preparations left before the module could be lifted clear of the deck and
installed on the seabed.
As the work was to continue past midnight, an ordinary shift meeting and toolbox meetings
were held for the ongoing shift between 11 and 12 August 2007 (shift plan 00 to 12).
At approximately 07:00 hours on 12 August 2007 the lifting operation itself commenced.
Lashings were removed and the module was lifted clear of the deck.
The person responsible for the lift held a meeting with relevant leading personnel, with
special focus on the high risk activity of installing lanyards between the crown blocks and
guide lines.
At approximately 08:00 hours the module was hanging in the two co-lifting cranes over the
side of Saipem 7000, and the work of connecting the lanyards between the crown blocks and
the guide lines could be performed. After the guide lines were connected, the operation
continued and the module was lowered into the sea.
The module was lowered down to a depth of approximately 190 meters, where there was a
break in the lifting operation to allow for a survey of the seabed and a final check of the
position, before the module was landed on the seabed.
Winch platform
The accident took place at approximately 10:18 hours, shortly after the lowering of the
module had stopped.
"Man over board" was shouted and a life buoy thrown down on the sea. The rescue operation
was initiated immediately and the MOB (Man Over Board) boat was launched. The deceased
sank shortly thereafter. He was found on the seabed at a depth of 200 meters after
approximately 1.5 hours by the vessel's ROV.
Detailed description of the work and the incident
The deceased was a member of a work team consisting of four people that worked together
near a winch with a hydraulic hose on its reel, on the right hand side of Crane 1 on the port
side of the vessel. The crew consisted of an Italian supervisor, an Italian mechanic and two
Philippine engine men. They were responsible for operating a winch with local controls and a
hydraulic hose on the reel. The hose was routed from the winch via a sheave in the crane
boom down to the module itself.
The purpose of the hydraulic hose was to provide hydraulic power for the release mechanism
for hydraulically operated shackles that connected the slings to the subsea module. When the
module had landed on the seabed, the hydraulic shackles were actuated and the slings
disengaged and lifted back on deck.
In order to avoid tension in the hydraulic hose during the lowering of the module, the
hydraulic hose had to be reeled out. This was done by operating the winch locally using the
control lever fastened to the winch.
Winch platform
Hydraulic hose
It was observed early on during the lifting operation that the hydraulic hose was in contact
with the barrier chain on the winch platform in front of the winch. There are two chains fitted
in front of the winch to protect against falling into the sea. The hydraulic hose was initially
routed between these two chains. To prevent the hydraulic hose from being in contact with the
upper barrier chain, this chain was removed to allow the hydraulic hose to pass without any
obstacles. After a while, the upper chain was put back in place, and the hydraulic hose could
now freely pass above the upper chain.
It was observed early that there was tension on the hydraulic hose between the sheave and the
module, while it was hanging slack between the sheave and the winch. It was concluded that
the disc on the sheave was in contact with the crane boom structure, thus preventing it from
rotating freely.
Hydraulic hose
sheave - winch
Hydraulic hose
sheave - module
Sheave arrangement
The work team by the winch thought they were told by the rig foreman to shake/pull the
hydraulic hose in an attempt to free it and allow it to pass over the sheave. This shaking did to
some extent make it possible for the hose to pass through the sheave, but for the work team on
the winch platform the problem appeared to increase as the module was lowered down into
the sea.
When the lifting operation was stopped at a water depth of 190 meters (10 meters above the
seabed), there were several attempts to make the hose clear the sheave by shaking the hose. In
addition, the hose was reeled out to ensure more slack so that it could be pulled sideways.
These attempts were abandoned, however, when it proved impossible to have the hose pass
through the sheave. It was hoped that the problem would resolve itself when the module was
lowered further.
As a result of having paid out slack and pulling the hose sidewise, there was now a 3-4 meter
long loop of the hydraulic hose lying on deck. Two persons moved away from the area, while
the deceased and one more person remained standing in the area where the loop in the hose
was located. It is assumed that the deceased was standing inside the loop.
Motor man
Deceased
Mechanic
Foreman
Image showing the location of the work team on the winch platform
Nothing abnormal was noticed before the deceased was observed falling down towards the
sea. It was stated that no one in the work team by the winch had seen or heard how the
deceased fell into the sea. They only observed that the hydraulic hose had been tightened.
Based on this, it is probable that the hydraulic hose, which had tension between the sheave
and the module, could pass freely over the sheave, thus tightening the slack in the hose
between the sheave and the winch. It is assumed that the deceased was hit by the hydraulic
hose as it was tightened. The person in question was then either hit or pushed over the railing
by the hose.
4
4.1
INCIDENT POTENTIAL
Actual consequences
The actual consequence of the incident was that a person fell over board and drowned.
4.2
Potential consequences
There were several persons working on the hydraulic hose earlier in the day and just before
the accident took place. Several persons could have been injured when the hose was
tightened. Several persons could also have fallen over board.
10
OBSERVATIONS
Nonconformances
Nonconformance: Incorrect design of sheave arrangement.
Incorrect design of the sheave arrangement resulted in the sheave itself being prevented from
rotating freely and in tension in the hydraulic hose from the sheave arrangement and down to
the subsea module. When this tension was released and the hydraulic hose tightened and hit
the deceased, this most likely resulted in this person being knocked over board and drowned.
Grounds:
The rigging of the sheave arrangement did not take into consideration the steep angle of the
boom for Crane 1 on the port side of the vessel. The design of the arrangement resulted in a
collision between the sheave and steel structure of the crane boom, thus preventing the sheave
itself from rotating freely. An open sheave was used where the sheave was not protected
against contact with surrounding structures.
Verification or testing of the functionality of the sheave arrangement was not part of the
rigging operation prior to the lift.
Requirements:
Section 1 of the Management Regulations on risk reduction
Section 28 of the Activities Regulations on actions during conduct of activities
5.1.2
The engineering and risk assessments of the sheave arrangement for supporting the hydraulic
hose in the crane boom were deficient.
Grounds:
The arrangement around the sheave for supporting the hydraulic hose in the crane boom was
not included in the detailed engineering, and the solution was improvised. The interviews
showed that the selected solution was copied from another project. It was not taken into
consideration that the angle was steeper because the crane boom was at a steeper angle, thus
making it impossible to copy the previous solution.
As the sheave arrangement was not part of the detailed engineering, it was also not included
in the risk assessments (HAZID/HAZOP) during the design and engineering phase. The
HAZID/HAZOP processes also did not identify this issue.
Requirements:
11
5.1.3
An evaluation of the use of technology to reduce personnel risk could not be presented.
Grounds:
The investigation showed no evaluation of whether to install constant tension control and/or
remote operation of the hydraulic hose winch or use of other technology in order to reduce the
number of persons and thus the risk for personnel working on the winch platform.
The review of pictures and film also show that the solutions selected involve a large number
of persons working in high exposure areas, for example during rigging of anti-spin guide lines
and the work being performed on the winch platform. It was also observed that there was a
person on top of the module during the tensioning of the slings.
No documents have been presented to confirm that the use of personnel for carrying out
activities in exposed areas is optimum as regards ensuring the lowest possible risk. There is
also no documentation showing risk-reducing measures implemented out of consideration for
personnel safety.
Requirements:
Section 1 of the Management Regulations on risk reduction
Section 27 on planning and Section 31, first subsection, first sentence of the Activities
Regulations on arrangement of work (..., and so that the probability of mistakes that can
lead to situations of hazard and accident, is reduced.)
5.1.4
12
Pictures reviewed in connection with the investigation also show one person supporting
himself on the tensioned hydraulic hose.
Requirements:
Section 25 of the Activities Regulations on critical activities
5.1.5
The handover of the project to Saipem 7000 was deficient. There was also deficient
communication regarding risk factors that had been identified and documented during the SJA
process at the shift meeting and toolbox meeting.
Grounds:
The handover and review of information from the project to the executive section on board
Saipem 7000 was handled at a meeting lasting 25 minutes. During the meeting, the project
reviewed the general activity plan step by step. There was no review of the HAZID /HAZOP
or other risk assessments at this handover.
According to the procedure, the shift meeting is intended to be a review of planned activities
and related safety issues. The minutes show that the meeting does not address issues related to
13
safety in connection with individual activities, but is a meeting for review of the work
program for the ongoing shift.
According to the minutes, the toolbox meeting does not address issues related to safety in
connection with individual activities, but is a meeting for reviewing the work program for the
ongoing shift in addition to focusing on the use of personal protective equipment, checking of
tools, isolation of equipment to be worked on and the use of chemicals.
The investigation showed that the person responsible for the lift ordered the lifting operation
stopped at a water depth of 190 meters. This order was intended to include all activities
associated with the lifting operation, but it was not perceived this way by the personnel
working on the winch platform. Thus, the work of trying to make the hydraulic hose run
freely over the sheave continued after the stop order was given.
The investigation has shown that the personnel that participated in the lifting operation spoke
different languages (Italian, English and Philippine/Indonesian). Risk assessments such as
HAZID/HAZOP and SJA are documented solely in English, and the risk factors identified
must be safeguarded by those performing the lifting operation. In addition, the personnel
participating in the lifting operation must also contribute additional details during the risk
assessments. Language barriers will prevent this flow of information. Important governing
documents, such as Lifting Operations, Work Permit System, Safe Job Analysis, are only
available in English.
Requirements:
Section 12 of the Management Regulations on information
Section 83, second subsection, second sentence of the Activities Regulations (The party
responsible shall ensure that the communication takes place in a clear and unambiguous way
and without disturbance.)
14
No HSE issues have been pointed out during the daily meetings between the operation
manager and the company's representative on board (SR).
Statoil has not reacted to the Italian language being used as a working language during the
lifting operation and that this reduces the opportunity for participants speaking other
languages to know what is being communicated.
Requirements:
Section 5 of the Framework Regulations on the supervision obligation
No one saw the deceased from the time he was observed on the winch platform until he was
falling towards the sea. The deceased was in all probability hit by the hydraulic hose as it
suddenly was tightened. The person in question was then either hit or pushed over the railing
by the hose. This is also supported by the deceased's injuries as indicated in the autopsy
report.
There are some contradictory statements regarding what was said in connection with the
problems that had occurred in connection with the hydraulic hose and the sheave. However,
there are no contradictory statements as regards the lack of communication between the
responsible supervisor on the winch platform and the person responsible for the lifting
operation.
APPENDICES
A:
B:
The following documents have been taken into account during the investigation:
Received on board Saipem 7000:
Doc. No. S7000-HSE-033-E report no 058/2007 dated 12 August 2007 "Event Report"
Folder containing:
- Doc. No S7000-PRO-HSE-06-E Man Riding Lifting Operation Plan (Guidance)
- Man Over Board Time Report
- Master Report
- Medical Report
- Periods on Board Report (deceased)
- Doc. no. S7000-MAN-SMME-E "Ship Organization Chart"
- Doc. no. TIOR-SAI-A-RD-2021 page 12 "Project org. chart for installation"
- Crew list of 11 August 2007
- List of deck personnel 12 August 2007
- Time Sheet (deceased)
- S 7000 Tool Box Talk Report Mechanics 12-08-2007
- Doc. no. S7000 HSE-029-E 08/09/10.08.2007 Safe Job Analysis
- Doc. no. S7000-PRO-HSE-18-E "Work Permit System"
15
C: List of personnel that have been questioned, interviewed or participated in meetings (not
available on the Internet)
NAME
FUNCTION
COMPANY
D: Abbreviations:
HAZID
HAZOP
HSE
MOB
MTO
PSA
ROV
SJA
SR
Hazard Identification
Hazard and Operability
Health, Safety and the Environment
Man Over Board
Man Technology Organisation
Petroleum Safety Authority
Remotely Operated Vehicle
Safe Job Analysis
Company Representative
START-UP
MEETING
INTERVIEWED
DURING
INVESTIGATIO
N
SUMMARY MEETING