g9 safe by design workshop report: escape from the … · figure 1 bow tie analysis – escape from...

G9 Safe by design

Workshop report: Escape from the nacelle in the event of a fire

In partnership with

G9 SAFE BY DESIGN

WORKSHOP REPORT: ESCAPE FROM THE NACELLE IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE

September 2015

Published byENERGY INSTITUTE, LONDON

The Energy Institute is a professional membership body incorporated by Royal Charter 2003

Registered charity number 1097899

The Energy Institute (EI) is the chartered professional membership body for the energy industry, supporting over 20 000 individuals working in or studying energy and 250 energy companies worldwide. The EI provides learning and networking opportunities to support professional development, as well as professional recognition and technical and scientific knowledge resources on energy in all its forms and applications.

The EI’s purpose is to develop and disseminate knowledge, skills and good practice towards a safe, secure and sustainable energy system. In fulfilling this mission, the EI addresses the depth and breadth of the energy sector, from fuels and fuels distribution to health and safety, sustainability and the environment. It also informs policy by providing a platform for debate and scientifically-sound information on energy issues.

The EI is licensed by: − the Engineering Council to award Chartered, Incorporated and Engineering Technician status; − the Science Council to award Chartered Scientist status, and − the Society for the Environment to award Chartered Environmentalist status.

It also offers its own Chartered Energy Engineer, Chartered Petroleum Engineer and Chartered Energy Manager titles.

A registered charity, the EI serves society with independence, professionalism and a wealth of expertise in all energy matters.

This publication has been produced as a result of work carried out within the Technical Team of the EI, funded by the EI’s Technical Partners. The EI’s Technical Work Programme provides industry with cost-effective, value-adding knowledge on key current and future issues affecting those operating in the energy sector, both in the UK and internationally.

For further information, please visit http://www.energyinst.org

The EI gratefully acknowledges the financial contributions towards the development of this publication from members of the G9 Offshore Wind Health and Safety Association.

CentricaDONG EnergyEDFE. ONRWEScottish PowerSSEStatkraftStatoilVattenfall

Copyright © 2015 by the Energy Institute, London.The Energy Institute is a professional membership body incorporated by Royal Charter 2003.Registered charity number 1097899, EnglandAll rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced by any means, or transmitted or translated into a machine language without the written permission of the publisher.

ISBN 978 0 85293 758 7

Published by the Energy Institute

The information contained in this publication is provided for general information purposes only. Whilst the Energy Institute and the contributors have applied reasonable care in developing this publication, no representations or warranties, express or implied, are made by the Energy Institute or any of the contributors concerning the applicability, suitability, accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein and the Energy Institute and the contributors accept no responsibility whatsoever for the use of this information. Neither the Energy Institute nor any of the contributors shall be liable in any way for any liability, loss, cost or damage incurred as a result of the receipt or use of the information contained herein.

Hard copy and electronic access to EI and IP publications is available via our website, https://publishing.energyinst.org.Documents can be purchased online as downloadable pdfs or on an annual subscription for single users and companies.For more information, contact the EI Publications Team.e: [email protected]

Front cover image courtesy of DONG Energy A/S.

G9 SAFE BY DESIGN WORKSHOP REPORT: ESCAPE FROM THE NACELLE IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE

3

CONTENTSPage

1 Background and introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Method, agenda and attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1 Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3 Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4 Breakout group discussions, results and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Annexes

Annex A Workshop outputs and presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A.1 Workshop outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A.2 Presentation introductions and slides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Annex B Abbreviations and acronyms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES

Figure 1 Bow tie analysis – Escape from the nacelle in the event of fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

TABLES

Table 1: Group 1 – Fire mitigation: nacelle design characteristics (facilitator: Euan Fenelon, ScottishPower Renewables) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 2: Group 2 – Fire mitigation: escape equipment/PPE/WTG – escape methodology (facilitator: Peter Villadsen, DONG Energy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14


4

1 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

The G9 Offshore Wind Health and Safety Association (G9) comprises the world's largest offshore wind developers who have come together to form a group that places health and safety at the forefront of all offshore wind activity and development. The primary aim of the G9 is to create and deliver world class health and safety performance across all of its activities in the offshore wind industry. The G9 has partnered with the Energy Institute (EI) to develop materials including good practice guidelines for the offshore wind industry in order to improve health and safety performance. Through sharing and analysis of incident data provided by G9 member companies, an evidence-based understanding of the risks encountered during the development, construction and operational phases of a wind farm project has been developed. This information has been used to identify the health and safety risk profile for the offshore wind industry.

In 2014, the Crown Estate asked the G9 to take over the running and delivery of their Safe by Design workshops. The Crown Estate had run a number of these previously, covering topics such as diving operations, lifting operations, wind turbine design and installation and the safe optimisation of marine operations.

By bringing the Safe by Design workshops into the G9 work programme, the G9 aims to explore industry operations and technologies with a focus on Safe by Design principles. The G9 workshops will examine the current design controls relating to a particular topic, discuss where current design has potentially failed, identify opportunities for improvement and then seek to demonstrate the potential risk reduction to be gained from these new ways of thinking. The outputs from these workshops will be made available on the G9 website in reports to be used as a reference by the industry.

The second workshop was held on 25 March 2015 and covered emergency escape from the nacelle in the event of fire. It explored a number of key topics covering: fire suppression and mitigation; emergency escape equipment and personal protective equipment (PPE), and emergency escape training and competency requirements. The outputs from this workshop are documented in this report.

The information contained in this publication is provided for general information purposes only. Whilst the EI and the contributors have applied reasonable care in developing this publication, no representations or warranties, express or implied, are made by the EI or any of the contributors concerning the applicability, suitability, accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein and the EI and the contributors accept no responsibility whatsoever for the use of this information. Neither the EI nor any of the contributors shall be liable in any way for any liability, loss, cost or damage incurred as a result of the receipt or use of the information contained herein.


5

2 METHOD, AGENDA AND ATTENDANCE

2.1 METHOD

A one-day workshop was held on 25 March 2015 in Oslo, Norway. After opening remarks from Frank Monaghan (Health & Safety Director, ScottishPower Renewables and G9 Focal Group member) the workshop started with the first of three presentations focusing on establishing a wind turbine fire safety case, to demonstrate how the risk of fire to personnel working within an offshore wind turbine has been reduced to the as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) level.

A second presentation focused on the design characteristics of various types of PPE and emergency escape equipment used in the offshore wind industry, exploring some of the benefits, limitations and characteristics of the different equipment and PPE.

The final presentation focused on emergency escape training and competency requirements, and looked at a particular case study where a G9 member had to review the adequacy of their emergency escape provision after a high potential incident.

After the second presentation, a short exercise was used to communicate the bow tie risk analysis/evaluation method as a tool to demonstrate the links between the potential causes, barriers, controls and consequences of a particular incident (in this case a fire in a turbine). During the breakout sessions, workshop attendees were encouraged to consider the bow tie method for defining the causes of incidents and also the barriers and controls that are currently in use in the offshore wind industry.

There were a total of three breakout groups each facilitated by a G9 member, tasked with looking at different aspects of fire mitigation/suppression/detection technologies, emergency escape equipment and PPE and training and competence of technicians. At the end of the breakout sessions, each group leader presented their main findings and conclusions to all of the attendees in a plenary session and further discussions were held before concluding the workshop.

Feedback forms were also provided to workshop attendees and the results of these are being analysed to inform future workshop topics.


6

2.2 AGENDA

Workshop opening remarks

Frank Monaghan, Health and Safety Director, ScottishPower Renewables

Presentation 1 – Design characteristics of a nacelle that mitigate the impact of a fire and increase the time for a person to affect an escape

Andy Lidstone, Risktec Solutions and Mark Jenkins, EHS Project and Stakeholder Manager, Siemens Energy

Presentation 2 – Overview of different types of escape mechanisms/systems

Dave Thomas, Technical Director, heightec

First exercise – overview of the bow tie risk analysis methodology

Euan Fenelon, Offshore Health and Safety Manager, ScottishPower Renewables

Presentation – Training and competence of technicians in the use of escape mechanisms and equipment

Stu Axcell, Emergency Planning Manager, HFR Solutions and Mervyn Coldron, Senior HSEQ Manager – Power Operations, Centrica

Second exercise – breakout group sessions

Group 1 – Fire mitigation: nacelle design characteristics (facilitator: Euan Fenelon, ScottishPower Renewables)Group 2 – Fire mitigation: escape equipment/PPE/WTG escape methodology (facilitator: Peter Villadsen, DONG Energy)Group 3 – Training and competence processes (facilitator: Thomas Eriksen, Statkraft)

Plenary session – Presentation on key findings/outputs from breakout group discussions

Closing remarks

Frank Monaghan, Health and Safety Director, ScottishPower Renewables


7

2.3 ATTENDANCE

Name Company

Mervyn Coldron Centrica

Peter Villadsen DONG Energy

Jody Plaister E.ON

Marcus Peters E.ON

Garry Bradford EDF Energy Renewables

John Yorston EDPR

Andrew Sykes Energy Institute

Bir Virk Energy Institute

Claire Smith Energy Institute

David Thomas heightec

Stu Axcell HFR Solutions

Arve Sandve Lloyd's Register Consulting

Lucia Quintana Alonso MHI Vestas Offshore Wind

Mark Higgins MHI Vestas Offshore Wind

Peter Armstrong-Cribb MHI Vestas Offshore Wind

Philip Merson Repsol

Andy Lidstone Risktec

Gareth Ellor Risktec

Tom Semple Risktec

Roland Gutbrod RWE Innogy

Euan Fenelon ScottishPower Renewables

Frank Monaghan ScottishPower Renewables

Jan Filip Rasmussen Siemens Energy

Mark Jenkins Siemens Energy

David Lange SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden

Fredrik Rosen SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden

Stephen Rose SSE

Peter Brun Statkraft

Thomas Eriksen Statkraft

Anne Marit Hansen Statoil

Jostein Bolstad-Lind Statoil

Colin Mooney The Crown Estate

Per Holten-Møller Vestas


8

2.4 BREAKOUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS, RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The notes presented in Annex A capture the discussions which occurred during the breakout sessions. They have not been edited post workshop and so capture the essence of the discussions which occurred.

In addition, the bow tie risk assessment in Figure 1 is a high-level illustration of the systems, processes, mitigations and controls that were considered within workshop. Where the workshop focused on the mitigations resulting from a fire in a wind turbine generator (WTG) (more information is provided in this report), the suggested causes and threats of fire in the WTG are also added to provide context. Controls for those threats are also suggested. A more detailed risk assessment would be needed for each threat. For example, within the maintenance threat line, if 'hot work' was being carried out then controls such as physical protection, firewatcher and extra fire-fighting equipment may be required.

Going forward, and in response to some of the comments and suggestions that have been made in these breakout sessions, the G9 will aim to:

− Support and collaborate on research that assesses and quantifies the risk of fire occurring in a WTG.

− Engage with WTG manufacturers and obtain further information on their in-house design/fire risk assessments.

− Encourage research institutes and organisations with specialist fire departments to undertake further research on WTG fire risk.

− Investigate whether it is possible to quantify the 'human factor' and incorporate this into a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for WTG fire scenarios.

− Review the adequacy of current technician emergency escape equipment and PPE and also the detection and suppression equipment installed in a WTG.


9

Con

trol

s M

itiga

tions

Ligh

teni

ng

Smok

e

Fire

Not

ifica

tion

Esca

pe

Fire

lead

ing

to

exte

nsiv

e sm

oke

in

nace

lle

Mai

nten

ance

Failu

re e

ven

t

Thre

ats

Con

sequ

ence

s

Risk

ass

essm

ent

and

met

hod

stat

emen

t (R

AM

S)

Equi

pmen

tfa

ilure

Esca

pe f

rom

the

nac

elle

in t

he e

vent

of

a fi

reBo

w t

ie a

naly

sis

Hou

seke

epin

g

Isol

atio

n Supe

rvis

ion

Ope

ratio

ns

Ala

rms/

trip

s

Hou

seke

epin

g

Safe

ty in

tegr

ity le

vel

(SIL

) ass

essm

ent

Mai

nten

ance

Tem

pera

ture

mon

itorin

g

Less

ons

lear

ned

Ligh

tnin

g pr

otec

tion

syst

em

Am

pere

mon

itorin

g

Vib

ratio

n m

onito

ring

Com

part

men

talis

atio

n

Intu

itive

ala

rms

Com

mun

icat

ions St

anda

rd s

igna

ge

Des

ign

Smok

e ho

od

Plac

e of

ref

uge

Det

ectio

n Supp

ress

ion

Con

tain

men

t

Des

ign:

fire

resi

stan

ce

Esca

pe r

oute

s

Trai

ning

Dril

ls

PPE

Met

hodo

logy

Lift

des

ign

Emer

genc

y es

cape

equ

ipm

ent

ALARP risk assessment

ALARP risk assessment

Hel

icop

ter

and

vess

el

Rele

ase

Trai

ning

and

com

pete

ncy

Trai

ning

and

com

pete

ncy

Fire

-fig

htin

g eq

uipm

ent

Mai

nten

ance

Des

ign

and

ergo

nom

ics

Oil

and

grea

sing

Fig

ure

1: B

ow

tie

an

alys

is –

Esc

ape

fro

m t

he

nac

elle

in t

he

even

t o

f fi

re


10

AN

NEX

AW

OR

KSH

OP

OU

TPU

TS A

ND

PR

ESEN

TATI

ON

S

A.1

B

REA

KO

UT

GR

OU

P O

UTP

UTS

Tab

le 1

: Gro

up

1 –

Fir

e m

itig

atio

n: n

acel

le d

esig

n c

har

acte

rist

ics

(fac

ilita

tor:

Eu

an F

enel

on

, Sco

ttis

hPo

wer

Ren

ewab

les)

Co

nsi

der

ed d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Det

ecti

on

Whe

re a

re fi

re d

etec

tion

syst

ems

need

ed in

the

tur

bine

? A

re t

hey

need

ed in

the

tow

er a

nd n

acel

le o

r ca

n th

ey b

e fo

cuse

d on

par

ticul

ar a

reas

?

Crit

ical

kno

wle

dge

whi

ch is

nee

ded

- w

here

are

the

fire

s lik

ely

to s

tart

? Th

is c

an t

hen

be u

sed

to in

form

whe

re

dete

ctio

n sy

stem

s sh

ould

be

cons

ider

ed/in

stal

led.

It is

crit

ical

tha

t th

e ap

prop

riate

fire

de

tect

ion

syst

ems

are

cons

ider

ed

durin

g th

e de

sign

pha

se o

f th

e W

TG.

Onc

e a

unit

has

been

inst

alle

d an

d co

mm

issi

oned

, it

is

muc

h ha

rder

and

mor

e ch

alle

ngin

g to

initi

ate

a re

trofi

t in

stal

latio

n of

a d

etec

tion

syst

em. O

n on

e si

te, i

ssue

s ha

ve

been

iden

tified

in t

he o

pera

tiona

l pha

ses

of a

win

d fa

rm

whe

re a

det

ectio

n sy

stem

was

inst

alle

d in

the

fou

ndat

ion

and

then

a n

ew s

yste

m in

stal

led

in t

he t

ower

. Giv

en t

he

time

elap

sed

betw

een

the

two

inst

alla

tions

tak

ing

plac

e,

the

syst

ems

wer

e no

t in

tegr

ated

(thi

s co

uld

have

bee

n ad

dres

sed

in t

he d

esig

n ph

ase

whe

n sp

ecify

ing

the

two

syst

ems)

.

Whe

n lo

okin

g at

oth

er in

dust

ries

e.g.

av

iatio

n, a

ir tr

affic

con

trol

tow

ers

are

desi

gned

in s

uch

a w

ay t

hat

they

can

w

ithst

and

seve

re fi

res

and

still

fun

ctio

n to

pro

vide

info

rmat

ion

for

fligh

t op

erat

ions

.

In t

he G

erm

an s

ecto

r, ce

rtifi

catio

n of

th

e fir

e de

tect

ion

syst

ems

is d

one

in li

ne

with

Alli

anz

stan

dard

s an

d pr

oces

ses.


11

Co

nsi

der

ed d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Det

ecti

on

(co

nti

nu

ed)

A d

etec

tion

syst

em n

eeds

to

be c

lear

ly

audi

ble

in a

ll lo

catio

ns w

here

the

te

chni

cian

may

be

wor

king

(e.g

. in

the

hub

whe

n en

terin

g fr

om a

nac

elle

). Fi

re w

atch

ers

may

als

o be

req

uire

d de

pend

ent

upon

the

typ

e of

wor

k be

ing

carr

ied

out

(e.g

. wor

k in

the

fo

unda

tion/

mon

opile

).

Can

a d

etec

tion

syst

em a

ccur

atel

y pi

npoi

nt w

here

a

fire

is/h

as o

ccur

red

and

prov

ide

this

info

rmat

ion

to t

he

tech

nici

an w

ho is

in t

he n

acel

le?

Whi

lst

ther

e is

an

alar

m

func

tion

in t

urbi

ne c

ontr

olle

r, in

som

e de

sign

s th

is m

ay

not

diff

eren

tiate

bet

wee

n ty

pes

of a

larm

s –

ther

e w

ould

be

ben

efit

in h

avin

g a

fire

spec

ific

alar

m o

n th

e tu

rbin

e co

ntro

ller.

Whe

n an

ala

rm t

rigge

rs in

the

con

trol

un

it, s

houl

d th

is in

dica

te 'g

o to

saf

ety'

ra

ther

tha

n 'g

o in

vest

igat

e'?

Whe

n th

is

even

t is

iden

tified

as

serio

us s

houl

d th

e al

arm

indi

cate

'pre

pare

to

evac

uate

'?

Like

ly t

hat

the

inst

ruct

ion

give

n w

ill b

e de

pend

ent

upon

th

e se

verit

y of

the

inci

dent

(fro

m s

mal

l spa

rks/

smok

e al

l th

e w

ay t

o la

rge

fires

).

Wha

t is

the

leve

l of

varia

nce

in c

urre

nt d

etec

tion

alar

m

tech

nolo

gy?

(e.g

. lig

ht a

nd s

ound

var

iant

s, p

ulsi

ng v

s.

cont

inuo

us a

udio

, etc

.). W

hat

tech

nolo

gies

do

dete

ctio

n sy

stem

s em

ploy

to

dete

ct fi

re/s

mok

e? (e

.g. o

ptic

al/v

isua

l/th

erm

al e

tc.)

and

wha

t is

the

leve

l of

stan

dard

izat

ion

acro

ss t

he in

dust

ry in

sel

ectin

g an

d us

ing

stan

dard

ized

de

tect

ion

equi

pmen

t?

Hav

e sa

fety

inte

grat

ed le

vel (

SIL)

de

term

inat

ion

and

faul

t ch

ain

anal

yses

be

en u

nder

take

n fo

r tu

rbin

es a

nd

nace

lles?

The

perf

orm

ance

leve

l for

the

tur

bine

can

be

calc

ulat

ed

then

thi

s ca

n be

use

d to

defi

ne t

he S

ILs.

It is

impo

rtan

t th

at c

lient

eng

inee

rs h

ave

the

nece

ssar

y co

mpe

tenc

e to

ask

for

and

und

erst

and

any

SIL

asse

ssm

ent.

Oth

er

indu

strie

s (e

.g. a

viat

ion

or r

ail)

are

mor

e he

avily

reg

ulat

ed

and

cons

eque

ntly

hav

e fu

rthe

r de

fined

wha

t is

saf

ety

criti

cal e

quip

men

t (r

ef. d

etec

tion

tech

nolo

gies

) – it

wou

ld

be b

enefi

cial

to

have

a s

imila

r/co

mm

on u

nder

stan

ding

/ag

reem

ent

with

in t

he o

ffsh

ore

win

d in

dust

ry o

n w

hat

is

cons

ider

ed s

afet

y cr

itica

l equ

ipm

ent.

Bene

fit in

dev

elop

ing

a st

anda

rd s

et o

f in

dust

ry a

ccep

ted

bow

tie

s.

Thes

e ca

n be

use

d to

iden

tify

wha

t ar

e sa

fety

crit

ical

eq

uipm

ent/

syst

ems.

It is

impo

rtan

t th

at t

he G

9 (r

epre

sent

ing

the

colle

ctiv

e of

fsho

re w

ind

indu

stry

) is

not

see

n to

be

defin

ing

wha

t ar

e 't

oler

able

' ris

k le

vels

/acc

epta

nce.

This

is f

or in

divi

dual

com

pani

es t

o de

term

ine

base

d on

the

co

ntex

t of

the

ris

ks in

the

ir op

erat

ions

.

Tab

le 1

: Gro

up

1 –

Fir

e m

itig

atio

n: n

acel

le d

esig

n c

har

acte

rist

ics

(fac

ilita

tor:

Eu

an F

enel

on

, Sco

ttis

hPo

wer

Ren

ewab

les)

(co

nti

nu

ed)


12

Co

nsi

der

ed d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Sup

pre

ssio

nTh

ere

are

vario

us t

ypes

of

supp

ress

ion

syst

ems

on t

he m

arke

t.

Gas

sup

pres

sion

sys

tem

s re

quire

airt

ight

bu

ildin

gs in

ord

er t

o be

eff

ectiv

e.

Wat

er m

istin

g so

lutio

ns a

re a

vaila

ble;

ho

wev

er, u

sing

the

m w

ill le

ad t

o el

ectr

ical

equ

ipm

ent

dam

age.

Com

pete

nce

of t

echn

icia

ns a

nd k

now

ledg

e of

the

su

ppre

ssio

n sy

stem

s is

crit

ical

– e

xam

ple

cite

d w

here

a

crew

tra

nsfe

r ve

ssel

(CTV

) had

a F

M20

0 sy

stem

on

boar

d w

hich

the

tec

hnic

ian

didn

't k

now

how

to

oper

ate/

use.

A

fire

occu

rred

and

a d

ry p

owde

r fir

e ex

tingu

ishe

r w

as u

sed,

w

hich

resu

lted

in b

reat

hing

diffi

culti

es d

ue t

o po

wde

r in

hala

tion.

Gas

sup

pres

sion

syst

ems

can

be

expe

nsiv

e to

inst

all,

mai

ntai

n an

d re

plen

ish o

nce

depl

oyed

. Also

, onc

e th

e ga

s is

100

% u

sed,

if th

e ig

nitio

n so

urce

ha

s no

t bee

n el

imin

ated

or r

emov

ed th

en

the

fire

will

be

able

to re

igni

te o

nce

the

gas

disp

erse

s.

Som

e G

9 m

embe

rs h

ave

expe

rienc

e of

insu

ranc

e co

mpa

nies

not

agr

eein

g on

wha

t is

bes

t pr

actic

e fo

r su

ppre

ssio

n sy

stem

s in

off

shor

e w

ind

turb

ines

.

Ther

e ar

e bo

th a

dvan

tage

s an

d di

sadv

anta

ges

to in

stal

ling

auto

mat

ic

man

ual fi

re s

uppr

essi

on s

yste

ms.

W

here

aut

omat

ic s

yste

ms

are

inst

alle

d,

ther

e ne

eds

to b

e gr

eate

r re

dund

ancy

in

the

sys

tem

.

Som

e au

tom

atic

sys

tem

s ca

n be

st

oppe

d fo

r fa

lse

alar

ms

but

cann

ot b

e tu

rned

off

.

Faul

t de

tect

ions

can

occ

ur f

requ

ently

du

e to

det

ectio

n of

bra

ke d

ust.

If pe

rson

nel a

re n

ot p

rese

nt o

n th

e tu

rbin

e or

if t

hey

have

su

cces

sful

ly e

vacu

ated

, con

trol

ling

and

supr

essi

ng t

he fi

re

may

no

long

er b

e re

quire

d.

If th

ere

was

bet

ter a

irtig

htne

ss b

etw

een

the

nace

lle a

nd th

e to

wer

, thi

s co

uld

assis

t in

cont

rolli

ng a

fire

.

A fi

re e

xtin

guis

her

shou

ld b

e co

nsid

ered

as

an a

id t

o es

cape

rat

her

than

a p

rimar

y m

eans

of

fire

cont

rol/

supp

ress

ion.

Tab

le 1

: Gro

up

1 –

Fir

e m

itig

atio

n: n

acel

le d

esig

n c

har

acte

rist

ics

(fac

ilita

tor:

Eu

an F

enel

on

, Sco

ttis

hPo

wer

Ren

ewab

les)

(co

nti

nu

ed)


13

Co

nsi

der

ed d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Co

nta

inm

ent

Wou

ld b

enefi

t fr

om f

urth

er

cons

ider

atio

n du

ring

the

desi

gn s

tage

. C

urre

ntly

tur

bine

tow

ers/

nace

lles

are

not

desi

gned

to

be a

irtig

ht.

Air

flow

is o

ften

req

uire

d in

tur

bine

s in

ord

er t

o co

ntro

l co

nden

satio

n fo

rmat

ion,

and

thi

s w

ould

not

wor

k if

airt

ight

prin

cipl

es w

ere

adop

ted.

Als

o, h

igh-

pow

ered

co

mpo

nent

s ge

nera

te h

igh

leve

ls o

f he

at a

nd a

ir flo

w c

an

act

as c

oolin

g on

the

se c

ompo

nent

s.

Shou

ld it

be

com

mon

to

clos

e tr

ansi

tion

piec

e (T

P) d

oors

/hat

ches

whe

n m

ovin

g in

the

tur

bine

? Is

thi

s a

stan

dard

pr

actic

e ad

opte

d by

all

oper

atin

g co

mpa

nies

?

If a

fire

inci

dent

res

ults

in p

erso

nnel

inju

red

or b

urne

d, d

o ha

tche

s ne

ed t

o op

en a

utom

atic

ally

(mec

hani

cal p

roce

ss

rath

er t

han

elec

tric

al)?

In t

he s

cena

rio w

here

the

TP

door

is le

ft o

pen,

in t

he

even

t of

a fi

re t

hen

it w

ill b

urn

fast

er; h

owev

er, i

t w

ill a

lso

extin

guis

h fa

ster

as

wel

l.

Hor

izon

tal s

epar

atio

n/co

mpa

rtm

enta

lisat

ion

can

be d

esig

ned

into

bui

ldin

gs t

o im

prov

e fir

e re

sist

ance

. C

an t

his

also

be

cons

ider

ed w

hen

desi

gnin

g w

ind

turb

ines

?

Refu

ge p

ositi

ons

and

plac

es o

f la

st

reso

rt -

on

offs

hore

sub

stat

ions

the

se

wou

ld c

erta

inly

be

deve

lope

d du

ring

the

desi

gn p

hase

; how

ever

, wou

ld it

be

feas

ible

to

desi

gn r

efug

e po

sitio

ns o

n th

e ac

tual

tur

bine

s?

Any

pla

ce o

f sa

fe r

efug

e de

sign

ed in

to t

he t

urbi

ne w

ould

ne

ed t

o ha

ve a

min

imum

of

two

exit

path

s.

For

futu

re d

esig

ns, t

here

will

be

a re

quire

men

t/ex

pect

atio

n fo

r m

anuf

actu

rers

to

advi

se c

lient

s of

any

lim

itatio

ns f

or n

umbe

r of

peo

ple

in t

he

nace

lle, e

spec

ially

with

des

igns

tha

t in

corp

orat

e m

ore

high

vol

tage

(HV

) sw

itchg

ear

in t

he b

ase

of t

he t

ower

.

Tab

le 1

: Gro

up

1 –

Fir

e m

itig

atio

n: n

acel

le d

esig

n c

har

acte

rist

ics

(fac

ilita

tor:

Eu

an F

enel

on

, Sco

ttis

hPo

wer

Ren

ewab

les)

(co

nti

nu

ed)


14

Tab

le 2

: Gro

up

2 –

Fir

e m

itig

atio

n: e

scap

e eq

uip

men

t/PP

E/W

TG e

scap

e m

eth

od

olo

gy

(fac

ilita

tor:

Pet

er V

illad

sen

, DO

NG

En

erg

y)

Co

nsi

der

ed d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Scen

ario

1: T

echn

icia

n in

lift

Varia

tions

exi

st in

tur

bine

des

igns

: no

t al

l tur

bine

s ha

ve fi

re a

larm

s an

d lif

ts –

whe

re p

ossi

ble

retr

ofit

with

fire

ala

rm/li

ft if

with

out.

Mos

t of

fsho

re t

urbi

nes

have

a li

ft

(buc

ket/

man

rid

er) a

nd a

ladd

er

syst

em. S

houl

d th

e te

chni

cian

sta

y in

the

lift

or

clim

b?

1. In

tern

al c

omm

unic

atio

n be

twee

n te

chni

cian

s ne

eded

to

unde

rsta

nd w

here

eac

h pa

rty

is.

−

Doe

s th

e co

mm

unic

atio

ns s

yste

m w

ork

(is t

here

a h

ardw

ire

tele

phon

e in

the

lift

/nac

elle

)?2.

Com

mun

icat

ion

back

to

onsh

ore

(con

trol

roo

m) t

o ga

in a

n un

ders

tand

ing

of w

hat

the

indi

cato

rs a

re s

how

ing

– an

y fa

lse

alar

ms?

3. T

echn

icia

n ac

tions

in t

he n

acel

le d

epen

ding

on

info

rmat

ion

from

the

con

trol

roo

m. P

refe

renc

e fo

r ev

acua

tion.

Tec

hnic

ian

in t

he li

ft e

ither

sta

ys in

the

lift

or

star

ts t

o cl

imb

usin

g th

e la

dder

sys

tem

.

−U

ltim

atel

y th

is d

ecis

ion

depe

nds

on t

he t

ype

of li

ft in

stal

led.

−

The

tech

nici

an's

inst

inct

may

be

to s

tay

in t

he li

ft t

o st

ay

away

fro

m a

ny s

mok

e (a

s le

ss h

eavy

bre

athi

ng r

equi

red)

.

−Sa

fety

cri

tica

l asp

ects

fo

r lif

t d

esig

n –

sys

tem

des

igne

d to

sto

p, r

eset

and

mov

e. P

ossi

ble

to r

edes

ign

syst

ems

that

cu

rren

tly d

o no

t m

eet

this

fun

ctio

nalit

y?

−Se

rvic

e lif

t w

orki

ng –

can

go

up (u

nkno

wn

– w

ill li

ft g

et t

o th

e to

p?)

−

Lift

not

wor

king

– e

xit

lift

and

clim

b. L

ikel

ihoo

d no

t a

'big

' fir

e. P

PE r

equ

irem

ent

if lif

t no

t w

orki

ng.

−

Tech

nici

an h

as a

ll re

quire

d eq

uipm

ent

on t

hem

(apa

rt f

rom

a

smok

e ho

od).

Sim

ple

piec

es o

f eq

uipm

ent

= lo

wer

ris

k of

fa

ilure

. Clim

bing

kit,

tw

in t

ail l

anya

rd a

nd h

arne

ss.

−

Do

not

intr

oduc

e a

smok

e ho

od a

s it

offe

rs a

fal

se s

ense

of

safe

ty/c

onfid

ence

to

the

tech

nici

an.

−

If a

smok

e ho

od is

alre

ady

in t

he t

urbi

ne/n

acel

le t

here

is t

he

pote

ntia

l for

tec

hnic

ians

to

was

te v

alua

ble

time

sear

chin

g fo

r it.

1. T

echn

icia

n in

a li

ft m

ovin

g do

wnw

ards

(app

roxi

mat

ion

mad

e of

18

m/m

in).

2. T

echn

icia

ns in

the

nac

elle

.3.

Fire

at

base

of

tow

er.

4. F

ire a

larm

sou

nded

, sm

oke

deve

lopi

ng.

5. T

echn

icia

n in

lift

is u

nsur

e of

lo

catio

n of

ala

rm s

ound

ing.

−

Des

ign

chec

k: p

ulle

ys/a

ncho

r po

ints

abl

e to

with

stan

d fir

e an

d he

at?

−

Co

mb

ust

ible

s in

th

e to

wer

: cab

les,

die

sel f

uel i

n ge

nera

tor,

tran

sfor

mer

in t

he b

ase

of t

he t

ower

.


15

Co

nsi

der

ed d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Scen

ario

2: T

echn

icia

ns in

nac

elle

–

need

to

esca

peA

fter

tal

king

to

the

onsh

ore

cont

rol c

entr

e: e

mer

genc

y ev

acua

tion

plan

act

ed o

ut.

Tech

nici

ans

are

plan

ning

for

ev

acua

tion.

Tech

nici

ans

will

ass

embl

e re

scue

/ev

acua

tion

kit,

rad

io c

ontr

ol

cent

re, t

hen

disc

uss

whe

n to

ev

acua

te.

Ope

n na

celle

roo

f to

rel

ease

sm

oke?

−

Un

kno

wn

: how

will

the

tec

hnic

ians

kno

w w

hen

to

evac

uate

?

−St

ruct

ure

is s

afer

tha

n th

e se

a. A

fire

will

like

ly b

urn

out,

it

is r

are

for

fire

to t

rave

l up

to t

he n

acel

le. T

wo

deck

s of

st

ruct

ural

ste

el a

re c

onsi

dere

d 'f

airly

' saf

e.

−N

eed

to u

nder

stan

d th

e ha

zard

firs

t: o

nly

smok

e in

the

na

celle

, no

fire,

the

n po

ssib

ility

to

crea

te a

pat

h fo

r sm

oke

to

diss

ipat

e (e

.g. c

lam

sha

ped

roof

– q

uick

sm

oke

rele

ase

whe

n op

ened

).

−C

hoic

es a

nd d

ecis

ions

are

hig

hly

depe

nden

t on

the

te

chni

cian

s th

emse

lves

(the

'hum

an f

acto

r' a

nd t

urbi

ne t

ype

in t

his

situ

atio

n).

−

Res

cue

fro

m h

elic

op

ter

or

vess

el: d

epen

dent

on

turb

ine

type

. If

by h

elic

opte

r, th

en t

he h

elid

eck

is t

he s

afes

t lo

catio

n on

the

tur

bine

.

−PP

E: n

o m

ore

than

wha

t is

bei

ng w

orn,

unt

il th

e te

chni

cian

ha

s re

ache

d th

e na

celle

. Life

jack

et –

min

imum

req

uire

men

t it

is w

ith t

he t

echn

icia

n (n

ot w

earin

g it)

. Beh

avio

ural

saf

ety

issu

e ex

ists

with

car

ryin

g lif

e ja

cket

s up

to

the

nace

lle.

−

Dif

fere

nt

con

sid

erat

ion

s w

hen

co

nsi

der

ing

leg

acy

flee

t an

d n

ew t

urb

ines

.

−N

ew t

urb

ines

: des

igne

rs n

eed

to u

nder

stan

d th

e to

talit

y of

fir

e ris

k.

−Tu

rbin

e m

anuf

actu

rers

nee

d to

des

ign

to A

LARP

leve

ls.

Stan

dard

for

a t

urbi

ne s

houl

d be

sim

ilarly

str

uctu

red

to t

he

car

indu

stry

, i.e

. not

up

to t

he c

usto

mer

to

ask

for

prot

ectio

n sy

stem

s. T

he q

uest

ion

shou

ld b

e if

you

wan

t to

rem

ove

this

pr

otec

tion?

1. T

echn

icia

n in

a li

ft m

ovin

g do

wnw

ards

.2.

Tec

hnic

ians

in n

acel

le.

3. F

ire a

t ba

se o

f to

wer

.

Tab

le 2

: Gro

up

2 –

Fir

e m

itig

atio

n: e

scap

e eq

uip

men

t/PP

E/W

TG e

scap

e m

eth

od

olo

gy

(fac

ilita

tor:

Pet

er V

illad

sen

, DO

NG

En

erg

y)

(co

nti

nu

ed)


16

Co

nsi

der

ed d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Scen

ario

2: T

echn

icia

ns in

nac

elle

–

need

to

esca

pe (c

ontin

ued)

−

Cus

tom

ers

shou

ld b

e ab

le t

o in

crea

se t

he s

afet

y le

vel o

n tu

rbin

es b

ut t

he m

inim

um s

tand

ard

need

s to

be

desi

gned

to

ALA

RP le

vels

.

−Po

tent

ially

, whe

n a

turb

ine

man

ufac

ture

r de

sign

s to

ALA

RP

leve

ls t

here

is a

pot

entia

l inc

reas

e in

cos

ts, w

hich

may

mak

e cu

stom

ers

cons

ider

oth

er W

TG m

anuf

actu

rers

.

−H

ow t

o ve

rify

min

imum

saf

ety

in d

esig

n? D

ifficu

lt to

set

a

limit

of s

afet

y.

−In

dust

ry s

tand

ard

on P

PE?

Will

be

depe

nden

t on

tur

bine

ty

pe.

−

Fire

sup

pres

sion

sys

tem

s? R

isk

anal

ysis

nee

ded

to s

ee if

/w

here

nec

essa

ry.

−

His

toric

ally,

tur

bine

s ha

ve b

een

desi

gned

for

an

onsh

ore

envi

ronm

ent

and

mod

ified

, nev

er p

urpo

se d

esig

ned

for

an

offs

hore

env

ironm

ent.

Cur

rent

des

igns

can

not

be r

etro

fitte

d in

som

e ci

rcum

stan

ces

(e.g

. hat

ch lo

catio

n).

−

Futu

re d

esig

ns f

or o

ffsh

ore

spec

ific

turb

ines

will

ena

ble

bett

er

plan

ning

to

take

pla

ce. A

llow

use

of

sim

ilar

com

pone

nts

and

mai

nten

ance

act

iviti

es a

nd e

nsur

e up

fron

t ass

essm

ent o

f saf

ety

cons

ider

atio

ns.

Evac

uatio

n

−A

im is

to

ensu

re t

he t

echn

icia

n is

abl

e to

get

to

the

TP.

−

Siem

ens

rese

arch

stu

dy –

esc

ape

thro

ugh

emer

genc

y ha

tche

s. C

hanc

es o

f la

ndin

g on

the

TP

or in

the

sea

are

ro

ughl

y 50

/50.

Whe

n es

capi

ng f

rom

a h

elib

aske

t it

is a

lmos

t ce

rtai

n th

at a

tec

hnic

ian

will

land

in t

he s

ea.

−

Des

ign

: hat

ch p

ositi

on a

nd p

oten

tial t

o la

nd o

n a

hatc

h in

th

e se

a?

−U

nkn

ow

n: h

ow w

ill t

he t

echn

icia

n kn

ow w

hen

to e

vacu

ate?

Tab

le 2

: Gro

up

2 –

Fir

e m

itig

atio

n: e

scap

e eq

uip

men

t/PP

E/W

TG e

scap

e m

eth

od

olo

gy

(fac

ilita

tor:

Pet

er V

illad

sen

, DO

NG

En

erg

y)

(co

nti

nu

ed)


17

Co

nsi

der

ed d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Scen

ario

2: T

echn

icia

ns in

nac

elle

–

need

to

esca

pe (c

ontin

ued)

Ass

ume

tech

nici

ans

land

in w

ater

–

PPE

that

is n

eede

d

−Eq

uipm

ent

to g

et f

rom

top

of

WTG

to

the

sea

(e.g

. clim

bing

ha

rnes

s). P

erso

nal o

r co

llect

ive?

−

Rele

ase

and

get

into

the

sea

.

−C

lippi

ng o

ff –

ris

k sc

enar

io d

epen

dent

on

the

tech

nici

an in

th

is s

ituat

ion.

−

Qui

ck r

elea

se d

evic

e st

ill n

ot a

dequ

atel

y ad

dres

sed

by t

he

indu

stry

.

−Su

its m

ake

it m

ore

diffi

cult

to d

isco

nnec

t fr

om a

car

abin

er

as t

he t

echn

icia

ns b

ody

is in

the

rec

over

y po

sitio

n. In

fut

ure,

m

ore

tailo

red/

besp

oke

equi

pmen

t w

ill b

e ne

eded

. Dis

cuss

ion

betw

een

PPE

man

ufac

ture

rs a

nd t

urbi

ne m

anuf

actu

rers

is

also

nee

ded.

Prot

ectio

n fr

om s

ea e

xpos

ure

−

Surv

ival

sui

ts c

om

pat

ibili

ty w

ith e

scap

e/se

a su

rviv

al s

uit

requ

ired,

reg

ardl

ess

of s

ea t

empe

ratu

re.

−

Flot

atio

n su

it –

why

are

flot

atio

n su

its n

ot c

arrie

d?

Mai

nten

ance

of

equi

pmen

t is

an

issu

e; w

ear

and

tear

due

to

carr

ying

sui

ts, m

ore

conv

enie

nt t

o ha

ve s

tore

d in

the

tur

bine

(t

ake

away

per

cept

ion

of s

afet

y, h

uman

bar

rier)

.

−Fl

otat

ion

suit

over

vs.

sur

viva

l sui

t –

desi

gned

for

diff

eren

t pu

rpos

es.

−

Add

ition

al r

isks

: col

d w

ater

sho

ck, s

alt

wat

er d

row

ning

.

−W

ear

boot

s w

hen

evac

uatin

g: e

xtra

wei

ght

resu

lts in

re

stric

ted

swim

min

g ca

pabi

lity.

−

Sear

ch a

nd r

escu

e de

vice

(per

sona

l loc

ator

bea

con)

– m

ay

be in

stal

led

depe

nden

t on

the

tur

bine

mod

el. M

aint

enan

ce

sche

me

for

devi

ce n

eces

sary

. Pot

entia

l to

be v

ery

usef

ul.

−

Wha

t if

ther

e is

a lo

ss o

f co

mm

unic

atio

n w

ith t

he li

ft

tech

nici

an o

r an

inju

ry t

o th

e lif

t te

chni

cian

(inj

ured

te

chni

cian

not

abl

e to

dis

conn

ect)

? W

hat

do n

acel

le

tech

nici

ans

do?

−

Smo

ke in

nac

elle

: put

em

erge

ncy

plan

at

the

base

of

nace

lle n

ot in

sm

oke

path

. Pro

vide

airp

lane

-like

em

erge

ncy

light

ing

line

on fl

oor

to s

how

the

esc

ape

rout

e.

Tab

le 2

: Gro

up

2 –

Fir

e m

itig

atio

n: e

scap

e eq

uip

men

t/PP

E/W

TG e

scap

e m

eth

od

olo

gy

(fac

ilita

tor:

Pet

er V

illad

sen

, DO

NG

En

erg

y)

(co

nti

nu

ed)


18

Co

nsi

der

ed d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Scen

ario

3: F

ire b

urnt

out

. How

do

tech

nici

ans

esca

pe?

Self-

reco

very

exe

rcis

e –

sam

e PP

E as

pre

viou

s sc

enar

ios

−

Vess

el a

rriv

es –

tec

hnic

ians

dro

p in

to t

he s

ea a

nd g

et r

escu

ed.

Pote

ntia

l to

adap

t ve

ssel

res

cue

to in

clud

e in

spec

tion

of T

P st

abili

ty b

ut t

his

is d

epen

dent

on

turb

ine

dist

ance

.

−Th

ere

is n

o gu

aran

tee

that

a h

elic

opte

r/ve

ssel

can

res

cue

peop

le im

med

iate

ly. U

se o

f a

life

raft

– d

ifficu

lty e

xist

s of

ge

ttin

g in

to t

o a

life

raft

onc

e in

the

sea

.

−Ev

acua

ting

from

nac

elle

into

the

sea

is t

he la

st r

esor

t, if

the

re

is o

nly

smok

e an

d no

hea

t th

en t

echn

icia

ns a

re a

dvis

ed t

o w

ait

out

the

fire.

−

Fire

in t

he n

acel

le –

pro

cedu

re in

stru

cts

tech

nici

ans

to g

o do

wn

to T

P th

roug

h th

e to

wer

.

−G

reat

er c

on

cern

is r

egar

din

g t

he

leg

acy

flee

t o

f W

TGs

as o

nly

slig

ht

adju

stm

ents

are

pro

vid

ing

incr

emen

tal

imp

rove

men

ts. L

egac

y fle

et –

ext

ende

d ne

t, lo

oked

into

as

a po

ssib

le o

ptio

n. T

he c

halle

nge

is t

o se

e ho

w m

uch

bett

er

this

wou

ld b

e co

mpa

red

to c

urre

nt in

dust

ry p

ract

ice.

−

Go

dow

n la

dder

insi

de t

he

tow

er?

Not

aft

er a

fire

.

Bett

er d

esig

ns o

f ne

w t

urbi

nes

are

requ

ired

to g

et t

echn

icia

ns t

o th

e TP

?

−

Indu

stry

is li

mite

d by

cur

rent

des

igns

. New

tur

bine

s ar

e ge

ttin

g la

rger

– t

here

is s

pace

for

mor

e eq

uipm

ent

and

the

pote

ntia

l to

rede

sign

esc

ape

solu

tions

.

PPE/

equi

pmen

t –

inno

vatio

n to

la

nd o

n an

ext

erna

l pla

tfor

m

−G

uide

wire

fro

m n

acel

le t

o th

e TP

: per

man

ent

wire

(s

pinn

ing)

? In

stal

led

each

tim

e w

ork

is c

arrie

d ou

t? Is

thi

s co

nsid

ered

pra

ctic

al?

−

Stag

gere

d fa

ll ne

ts: l

ife r

aft

at b

otto

m o

f st

agge

red

fall

nets

, hei

ght

and

spac

e is

sue

as <

100

m. A

lso

risk

of h

ittin

g pl

atfo

rm.

−

Pod:

use

lift

as

a he

at r

etar

dant

/saf

e zo

ne t

o w

ait

out

fire.

Ex

tern

al li

ft/p

od t

hat

can

be d

esce

nded

. Pot

entia

l ext

erna

l co

rros

ion

issu

es.

−

Life

raf

t lo

wer

ed d

own

with

win

ch b

y te

chni

cian

s –

thro

ugh

a fa

lse

floor

?

−Ex

tend

TP

plat

form

.

Tab

le 2

: Gro

up

2 –

Fir

e m

itig

atio

n: e

scap

e eq

uip

men

t/PP

E/W

TG e

scap

e m

eth

od

olo

gy

(fac

ilita

tor:

Pet

er V

illad

sen

, DO

NG

En

erg

y)

(co

nti

nu

ed)


19

Co

nsi

der

ed d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Scen

ario

3: F

ire b

urnt

out

. How

do

tech

nici

ans

esca

pe?

(con

tinue

d)

−H

elte

r-sk

elte

r or

use

of

nets

?

−M

etal

str

uctu

re in

tow

er t

o re

leas

e sm

oke?

−

Fire

proo

f po

d in

nac

elle

?

−Fi

repr

oof

turb

ine?

Nee

d re

thin

k on

fun

ctio

nal d

esig

n to

pro

tect

life

as

the

prio

rity,

an

d re

duce

the

tim

e ne

eded

to

spen

d w

orki

ng o

n tu

rbin

es.

Exit

stra

tegi

es

−Ev

acua

te a

ll in

one

go:

tan

gle

risk

but

less

rel

ianc

e on

oth

er

tech

nici

ans.

−

Prog

ress

ive

evac

uatio

n fr

om a

sys

tem

: hea

vily

rel

iant

on

othe

r te

chni

cian

s ah

ead.

Cu

rren

t sc

enar

io is

to

alw

ays

evac

uate

dow

n, li

ftin

g re

quire

men

ts a

re s

mal

l.

Pote

nti

al n

ew s

cen

ario

: exi

t th

roug

h to

p of

nac

elle

(via

he

licop

ter)

. A d

evic

e is

nee

ded

to r

escu

e up

. Kno

t in

sta

ndar

d m

ilan

rope

, with

pow

er d

rill a

ttac

hed

to m

ove

upw

ards

. C

halle

nge

that

is p

rese

nt is

the

pow

er d

rill i

s no

t m

ade

to r

un

flat

out

for

an e

xten

ded

perio

d.

Use

oil

and

gas

expe

rtis

e -

find

out

wha

t is

use

d an

d w

hat

wor

ks w

ell

to c

ontr

ol fi

re r

isk

−

Size

of

turb

ines

com

pare

d to

oil

rigs

– a

big

diff

eren

ce.

−

Oil

and

gas

– 'h

uman

fac

tor'

issu

es. D

urin

g so

me

maj

or

inci

dent

s th

ere

have

bee

n in

stan

ces

whe

re p

eopl

e fo

llow

ed

the

right

pro

cedu

re a

nd d

ied

and

whe

re p

eopl

e de

viat

ed f

rom

th

e pr

oced

ure

and

lived

.

−M

inds

et o

f pe

rson

in a

n em

erge

ncy

situ

atio

n is

crit

ical

.

−In

the

UK

, maj

or c

hang

es/im

prov

emen

ts m

ade

afte

r Pi

per

Alp

ha in

cide

nt.

−

No

helid

eck

– es

cape

fro

m h

atch

, mul

tiple

eva

cuat

ions

at

the

sam

e tim

e.

−D

esig

n fo

r m

ass

evac

uatio

n at

one

tim

e, t

o be

con

side

red

durin

g de

sign

pha

se f

or n

ew t

urbi

nes?

Redu

cing

pro

babi

lity

of fi

re

occu

ring

−

Ana

lyse

wha

t w

ork

is c

urre

ntly

bei

ng c

arrie

d ou

t –

cont

rol

of p

roce

dure

s. W

hen

on s

truc

ture

, var

y th

e us

e of

ele

ctric

al

com

pone

nts.

Tab

le 2

: Gro

up

2 –

Fir

e m

itig

atio

n: e

scap

e eq

uip

men

t/PP

E/W

TG e

scap

e m

eth

od

olo

gy

(fac

ilita

tor:

Pet

er V

illad

sen

, DO

NG

En

erg

y)

(co

nti

nu

ed)


20

Group 3 – Training and competence processes (facilitator: Thomas Eriksen, Statkraft)1

1. GWO/RenewableUK training

− The current Basic Safety Training every two years is considered sufficient but more drills with the emergency escape equipment that will be used offshore should be undertaken. After training is completed, a technician should be fully proficient in using the emergency escape equipment.

− A refresher course every two years is considered adequate for Basic Safety Training, but there would also be benefit once a quarter having a refresher-type course that is structured and logged for each technician. The refresher frequency will also depend on how often the equipment is being used.

− The current Basic Safety Training provides an understanding of the risks in offshore wind work, but it doesn’t necessarily result in a higher skill set being gained by the technician. There is a difference between training courses and drills, and drills are arguably more important for improving skills. This again reinforces the need to have more regular drills.

− The level and frequency of training course certificates to work offshore is at a good level. This has been confirmed within the industry recently.

− Site management may not always prioritise training: technicians are cleared to attend training courses, but when a turbine is down and maintenance work is required the technicians are instead sent to work on the turbine. Technicians need to have support from site management to reduce the number of training course cancellations.

2. Drills in a realistic environment in turbines

− Training complemented by drills

− Potential to have onshore familiarisation and offshore drills.

− Familiarisation can be a fairly simple process.

− More training in dedicated training centres is not necessarily needed as this may increase costs without a justifiable benefit.

− Mocked up clip on/attachment points on site can be used to give some practice/familiarisation of particular systems. Understanding the shift of the loads when clipped on is important. A mock up is a great idea if it can be done in a controlled environment. Can still have a full emergency evacuation drill done using a dummy on the turbine. There is a need to practice these on the turbine, which means the turbine will need to be shut down during the drill.

− Evacuation element in training is more focused around the rescue rather than the evacuation. Can the G9 discuss formally with training providers about mock evacuation situations and available facilities (which are more representative of working offshore)?

− How do incidents influence what the industry should be doing? Drills are important as technicians do not always have time to think about what’s going on in a real life situation.

1 Due to the nature of this topic it was not possible to structure the notes around design/risk controls. Instead, these notes are summarised and presented around the main issues and topics discussed.


21

− Planning drills − Experience has shown from an operational point-of-view that planning drills can

be complicated. Lots of planning is involved for a visitor to go on a turbine, visitors need to go with two advance technicians, but this is still thought of as appropriate. There can be a risk of people involved feeling demotivated, and so they need to feel that the drill is worthwhile and beneficial. If operators put in a requirement for people to go on a drill then it needs to be workable within the existing operations.

− How to create realistic drills − Demo installation offshore – use this as a live training base? Siemens opinion

that this would be valuable as it would allow for e.g. feel of the vessel motion and other 'in the field' experiences.

− Train realistically, i.e. be exposed to smoke. Smoke hoods may give you more time to escape in a fire scenario. It is rare a technician will experience these conditions, so a mock-up would be sufficient.

− Risk of panicking is higher in a realistic situation.

− Who will practice drills? − Not just about technicians but also need to think about people who go to

turbines less regularly. − Maybe need to look at requirements for people accompanying technicians. − Most people that go on training courses are technicians, they are working on

offshore wind farms full time. Zero ambition of incidents? Currently there is a good trend in the industry for the prevention of serious incidents/fatalities.

− When can drills be carried out? − If the turbine is shut down for the whole day then multiple drills/exercises can be

carried out in the morning and the afternoon. − Potential to use no wind days for drills? Cannot run training on these days,

so how is this dealt with? Weather days can be days where there is no travel offshore so on these days mock-up facilities onshore could be used.

− Dependent upon the turbine type and emergency escape plan to get someone down to the TP from the nacelle the whole end-to-end escape path may need reviewing and updating.

− How does the industry effectively supplement drills with training? Potential to implement a minimum number of drills offshore and then have the training to support and underpin this. Practice and training can take place, but it should always be recognised that this is not a real life situation. Drills should be undertaken in the right environment. Outcomes from drills should be made available to the turbine designer who should be challenged to find solutions to problems experienced. The point is to learn and promote through drills and the windfarm operators should have a certain number of drills planned and the necessary training to back this up.

− Workplace culture − Valid training certificates should be provided before sending anyone to work

offshore. When not offshore time should be used effectively e.g. team building exercises etc. (to promote a positive safety culture).

− A culture which recognises the importance of good housekeeping practices and workplace safety will reduce the probability of serious incidents/fatalities.

− The last barrier to an incident is the person (the ‘human factor’). The risk will still be present if there is a poor safety culture.


22

− Other industries − Strong case to look at other industries and sectors and see what their requirements

are for training and drills.

3. Feedback learning to manufacturers/designers

− Need to start looking at emergency escape issues at the turbine design phase and inform designers of these in sufficient time in order to influence future turbine designs.

− Designing and engineering the issues out at the beginning of the turbine design process can greatly assist in ensuring incidents are not repeated.

− Turbine manufacturers do not always fully understand the risks and hazards encountered during wind farm O&M phase: it is in the industry’s interest to inform the manufacturers of these issues at the early stages of a turbine design process.

4. Collaboration between manufacturer and the O&M service provider on deciding on drills

− It is possible that a realistic offshore environment can be replicated in a mock-up facility onshore. When a developer plans and builds an O&M facility there should be a budget in this for a mock-up as well.

− Technicians need time to practice on a turbine, which means it needs to be shut down for a period of time. There needs to be an agreement between the windfarm owner/operator and the O&M service provider when planning this shutdown. The operator needs to ensure the turbine is shut down when undertaking drills.

5. Train and drill with the equipment that is used

− How are different types of equipment dealt with? Benefit in standardizing across the industry.

− Some rescue kits are within the nacelle, some have to be taken out by the technicians.

− Examples of different equipment being used when an incident occurred compared to what is used in training meaning technicians have to spend time reading equipment instructions and becoming familiarised with it.

− How drills are carried out will vary and be influenced by the type of turbine operated, although this will not influence the number of drills undertaken.

6. Competency framework

− Should the G9 consider setting key performance indicators (KPIs) for competence and training?

− Currently no plan for the G9 to introduce industry KPIs. In the G9 context there are lagging indicators in the incident data and there is a commitment to produce LTIF and TRIR safety statistics on an annual basis.

− The G9 has already published good practice guidelines for some higher risk activities. There are no KPIs in these; however, the G9 member companies are currently looking to assess the level of implementation of the recommendations in the good practice guidelines.

− How many drills could be done per working hour? Drills can be expensive and complex, but this can be discussed further within the G9.

− Is there a benefit in setting a zero harm 2020 target in the industry?


23

− The industry is on a journey to develop these tools further and currently it is not as mature as some other industries (e.g. oil and gas).

− There may be an over focus on training type/methodology. Some people are more natural leaders. A company can have a good culture and still pull each other in the wrong direction. The industry should not add more training/syllabus requirements where they are not necessary.

− Competency framework: many elements that can be done offshore and also many at the O&M base. This can be managed by the operator in a number of ways. It is important to train in real world conditions, but there is more risk in doing this when training can be done onshore. Depends on the equipment needed.

− There should be a top-down approach to training and competency within the industry.

− Build on leadership skills which already exist within individual personnel.

− Consider having fixed teams of technicians as it can challenging to have different teams travelling to and working at different sites.

7. Assessing the effectiveness of training

− Vestas have developed a health and safety training questionnaire to assess the effectiveness of training. How else can the industry check that training has been successful?

− There is an obligation to audit training providers. At the end of each course a questionnaire should be given about the course which can be completed by those who attended.

− Whilst all companies have competency matrices these could be supplemented by completing feedback forms on training courses.

8. Contracts

− It should be recognised in tender documents and subsequent service contracts that turbines may require shutting down in order to perform drills and emergency exercises. This could be included in the relevant health and safety sections of any tender/contract documents.


24

A.2 PRESENTATION INTRODUCTIONS AND SLIDES

Presentation 1: Andy Lidstone, Risktec Solutions and Mark Jenkins, Siemens Energy: Design characteristics of a nacelle that mitigate the impact of a fire and increase the time for a person to effect an escape

Executive summary

The presentation provides an overview of the recent work performed by Siemens and Risktec in developing fire risk analyses for a number of turbine designs.

The fire analyses form part of a larger safety case project to provide a detailed review of all risks associated with the design, construction, operation and decommissioning of a generic offshore wind farm. The fire analyses comprised a detailed hazard identification to develop a list of all credible fire scenarios from which semi-quantitative bow ties were developed; representing the scenarios, and preventive and recovery controls, in place for the four major risk scenarios.

Detailed computational fluid dynamics modelling was performed to model the scenarios. For example, smoke and heat transport in fire scenarios. The results of which were used to inform escape and evacuation reviews and evaluate the adequacy of the arrangements in place for personnel in an emergency scenario.

The fire risk analyses concluded that there were no intolerable risk scenarios present; however, a number of changes were implemented to the escape and evacuation arrangements for personnel, including new equipment and alternative escape routes.


25

‘Saf

e by

Des

ign’

Wor

ksho

p –

Osl

o, M

arch

201

5W

ind

Turb

ine

Fire

Saf

ety

Cas

e

‘Saf

e by

Des

ign’

Wor

ksho

p –

Osl

o, M

arch

201

5

Win

d Tu

rbin

e Fi

re S

afet

y C

ase

A ho

listic

app

roac

h to

ens

urin

g an

d de

mon

stra

ting

that

the

risk

of

fire

to p

erso

nnel

wor

king

with

in a

n of

fsho

re w

ind

turb

ine

is re

duce

d A

s Lo

w A

s R

easo

nabl

y P

ract

icab

le.

‘Saf

e by

Des

ign’

Wor

ksho

p –

Osl

o, M

arch

201

5W

ind

Turb

ine

Fire

Saf

ety

Cas

e

Scop

e

1.A

Gen

eric

Saf

ety

Cas

e Fr

amew

ork

for O

ffsho

re W

ind;

w

hat i

s it

and

why

are

Sie

men

s de

velo

ping

this

app

roac

h?M

ark

Jenk

ins,

Sie

men

s2.

Win

d Tu

rbin

e Fi

re S

afet

y C

ase;

wha

t is

it, w

hat d

oes

it lo

ok li

ke, w

hat a

ppro

ach

was

take

n, w

hat w

ere

the

outc

omes

and

find

ings

and

how

will

it fi

t int

o ov

eral

l Saf

ety

Cas

e Fr

amew

ork?

And

y Li

dsto

ne, R

iskt

ec3.

Sum

mar

y of

key

mes

sage

s.An

dy L

idst

one,

Ris

ktec

/ M

ark

Jenk

ins,

Sie

men

s4.

Que

stio

n &

Answ

er S

essi

on.

Ris

k A

naly

sis

Haz

ard

Iden

tifi

cati

on

Mec

hani

cal

Sys

tem

s S

afet

y A

sses

smen

t

Fire

, Sm

oke

&

Gas

Ass

essm

ent

Ele

ctric

al/E

MF

Sys

tem

sS

afet

y A

sses

smen

t

Haz

ard

Reg

iste

r[p

opu

late

d R

AM

]

Con

trol

of H

azar

dous

Ene

rgy

Stru

ctur

al In

tegr

ityO

ccup

atio

nal R

isk

Hel

icop

ter

Impa

ct

Ana

lysi

s

Shi

p C

ollis

ion

Ass

essm

ent

Stru

ctur

alA

sses

smen

tD

ropp

ed

Obj

ect S

tudy

Occ

upat

iona

l Hea

lth&

Wel

fare

Firs

t Aid

Mar

ine

& H

eli

Tran

spor

tatio

n R

isk

Ass

essm

ent

Con

stru

ctio

n &

M

aint

enan

ceR

isk

Ass

essm

ent

Bow

tie

Ana

lysi

s

Qua

ntit

ativ

e R

isk

Ass

essm

ent

[QR

A]

Safe

ty S

yste

m R

egis

ter

and

Per

form

ance

St

anda

rds

Safe

ty S

yste

m

Rel

iabi

lity,

Ava

ilabi

lity

&

Mai

ntai

nabi

lity

Ana

lysi

s

Ris

k Ev

alua

tion

HAZ

OP

Stud

ies

Ris

k Tr

eatm

ent

Ris

k R

educ

tion

Actio

n Pl

an

HA

ZID

Stu

dy

Ope

rati

onal

Con

trol

Hum

an F

acto

rs

Rev

iew

SIM

OP

s A

sses

smen

t

Safe

ty S

tudi

esH

AZID

Che

cklis

t

Ris

k As

sess

men

t M

atrix

[R

AM]

Emer

genc

y Pr

epar

atio

n &

Res

pons

e

Esc

ape,

Ref

uge,

E

vacu

atio

n &

R

escu

e A

sses

smen

t

Rul

es o

f Sa

fe

Ope

rati

on

Wor

king

at H

eigh

t A

sses

smen

t

Lifti

ngA

sses

smen

t

Secu

rity

Ass

essm

ent

Cris

is &

Em

erge

ncy

Res

pons

e P

repa

redn

ess

Pne

umat

ics

&

Hyd

raul

ics

Saf

ety

Ass

essm

ent

ALAR

P As

sess

men

t

Cen

tre

of C

ompe

tenc

e fo

r EH

S O

ffsho

re W

ind;

Req

uest

For

Im

prov

emen

t [R

FI] Ze

ro H

arm

Cul

ture

“Buc

kets

of

Risk

”

Ris

k O

wne

r and

ag

reed

Act

ions

‘Saf

e by

Des

ign’

Wor

ksho

p –

Osl

o, M

arch

201

5W

ind

Turb

ine

Fire

Saf

ety

Cas

e

Dis

pelli

ng th

e

Pro

porti

onat

eto

risk.

A th

ick,

wei

ghty

doc

umen

tth

at n

o on

e re

ads!

Fi

t for

pur

pose

, sim

ple,

cle

ar

and

effe

ctiv

e. N

o ba

ggag

e or

pr

eced

ents

! Use

ful!

S

omet

hing

to ti

ck a

box

and

get

a

stak

ehol

der o

ff yo

ur b

ack

and

then

sits

on

a sh

elf g

athe

ring

dust

!

Pro

vide

s a

cent

ral f

ocal

poi

nt to

m

aint

ain

and

impr

ove

safe

ty

thro

ugho

ut th

e lif

e-cy

cle

of a

n as

set.

A liv

e do

cum

ent!

Sym

ptom

atic

of a

legi

slat

ive

regi

me.

In

depe

nden

t fro

m le

gisl

atio

n.

Goo

d pr

actic

e. S

how

s st

akeh

olde

rs y

ou a

re

man

agin

g ris

k ef

fect

ivel

y!

Com

plex

and

theo

retic

al.

Very

exp

ensi

ve!

E

ffect

ive

man

agem

ent o

f ris

k pr

oven

to re

duce

ove

rall

proj

ect c

osts

.

Opportunity for the Industry


26

‘Saf

e by

Des

ign’

Wor

ksho

p –

Osl

o, M

arch

201

5W

ind

Turb

ine

Fire

Saf

ety

Cas

e

FSC

Met

hodo

logy

Fina

l Fau

lt Sc

hedu

le

Equi

pmen

t and

O

pera

tions

Rev

iew

Siem

ens

Inci

dent

Re

view

Indu

stry

Ope

ratin

g H

isto

ryIn

form

atio

n G

athe

ring

Cons

eque

nce

Mod

ellin

gPh

ysic

al c

hara

cter

istic

s e.

g.•

Smok

e m

odel

ling

•R

ate

of s

prea

d•

Hea

t ra

diat

ion

Freq

uenc

y Es

timat

ion

Det

aile

d nu

mer

ical

est

imat

ion

Ris

kA

sses

smen

t

Revi

ew W

orks

hop

Safe

tyJu

stif

icat

ion

Rec

omm

enda

tion

s:•

Plan

t?•

Proc

esse

s?•

Peop

le?

Dra

ft F

ault

Sche

dule

Wha

t ar

e th

e fir

e an

d ex

plos

ion

scen

ario

s?•C

ause

s•S

cena

rios

•Con

trol

s

•Wha

t ar

e th

e si

gnifi

cant

or

maj

or h

azar

ds?

•Wha

t ar

eas

requ

ire f

urth

er s

tudy

?•W

hat

extr

a in

form

atio

n do

we

need

to

find

out?

Bow

tie A

naly

sis

To a

llow

for

det

aile

d ev

alua

tion

of c

ontr

ols

for

spec

ific

scen

ario

s

Esca

pe &

Eva

cuat

ion

Asse

ssm

ent

Can

pers

onne

l saf

ely

esca

pe

from

eac

h fir

e/ex

plos

ion

scen

ario

?

Fire

Prev

entio

nFi

rePr

otec

tion

Esca

pe &

Evac

uatio

n

‘Saf

e by

Des

ign’

Wor

ksho

p –

Osl

o, M

arch

201

5W

ind

Turb

ine

Fire

Saf

ety

Cas

e

Bow

tie M

etho

dolo

gy

Haz

ard

Cons

eque

nce

Thre

at

Top

Even

tTh

reatP

reve

nti

onM

itig

atio

n

Barr

iers

Thre

at

Cons

eque

nce

Cons

eque

nce

Iden

tifyi

ng g

aps

Dem

onst

ratin

g ris

k co

ntro

lCo

mm

unic

atin

g up

and

dow

n

Safe

ty-c

ritic

al a

ctiv

ities

Safe

ty-c

ritic

al e

quip

men

t

‘Saf

e by

Des

ign’

Wor

ksho

p –

Osl

o, M

arch

201

5W

ind

Turb

ine

Fire

Saf

ety

Cas

e

1.El

ectr

ical

Fire

2.Ac

tivity

Rel

ated

Fire

3.N

on-E

lect

rical

Fire

4.Tr

ansf

orm

er F

ire

Haz

ard

Top

Even

t

-Fi

re

Turb

ine

Bow

ties

Desig

n

Safe

ty R

ules

Em

erge

ncy

Resp

onse

‘Saf

e by

Des

ign’

Wor

ksho

p –

Osl

o, M

arch

201

5W

ind

Turb

ine

Fire

Saf

ety

Cas

e

Bow

ties

–K

ey In

form

atio

n

Supp

ortin

g D

ocum

ents

Acco

unta

ble

Pers

on

Resp

onsi

ble

Pers

ons


27

‘Saf

e by

Des

ign’

Wor

ksho

p –

Osl

o, M

arch

201

5W

ind

Turb

ine

Fire

Saf

ety

Cas

e

Qua

ntita

tive

Ana

lysi

sFr

eque

ncy

anal

ysis

:–

Very

spa

rse

data

ava

ilabl

eD

etai

led

fire

mod

ellin

g:–

Loca

tions

–N

acel

le/T

ower

–Ve

ntila

tion

–Se

aled

/Ven

ted

–Ex

tern

al w

ind

–Pr

esen

t/Ca

lmCo

nseq

uenc

es m

odel

led:

–Sm

oke

prog

ress

ion

–H

eat

diss

ipat

ion

–O

xyge

n de

plet

ion

All m

odel

ling

used

to

info

rm p

ost

even

t ac

tions

:–

Esca

pe r

oute

s–

Evac

uatio

n pl

ans

–Re

scue

req

uire

men

ts

‘Saf

e by

Des

ign’

Wor

ksho

p –

Osl

o, M

arch

201

5W

ind

Turb

ine

Fire

Saf

ety

Cas

e

Con

sequ

ence

Mod

ellin

g

‘Saf

e by

Des

ign’

Wor

ksho

p –

Osl

o, M

arch

201

5W

ind

Turb

ine

Fire

Saf

ety

Cas

e

Giv

en t

he c

onse

quen

ce m

odel

ling

resu

lts,

are

the

curr

ent

esca

pe,

evac

uatio

n an

d re

scue

arr

ange

men

ts a

ppro

pria

te?

For

each

fire

sce

nario

[lo

catio

n an

d ty

pe o

f fir

e]–

How

are

per

sonn

el a

lert

ed?

–H

ow is

the

fire

loca

tion

dete

rmin

ed?

–Is

the

prim

ary

esca

pe r

oute

ava

ilabl

e?–

Is t

here

a s

econ

dary

esc

ape

rout

e av

aila

ble?

–W

hat

are

the

evac

uatio

n ar

rang

emen

ts?

Iden

tific

atio

n of

sho

rtfa

lls–

Alte

rnat

ive

esca

pe r

oute

not

ava

ilabl

e–

Evac

uatio

n m

ay p

rese

nt a

dditi

onal

/alte

rnat

ive

risks

Esca

pe &

Eva

cuat

ion

Rev

iew

s

‘Saf

e by

Des

ign’

Wor

ksho

p –

Osl

o, M

arch

201

5W

ind

Turb

ine

Fire

Saf

ety

Cas

e

Rev

ised

EER

Phi

loso

phy


28

‘Saf

e by

Des

ign’

Wor

ksho

p –

Osl

o, M

arch

201

5W

ind

Turb

ine

Fire

Saf

ety

Cas

e

Proo

f Tes

ting

Both

Exi

stin

g an

d Re

visi

ons

‘Saf

e by

Des

ign’

Wor

ksho

p –

Osl

o, M

arch

201

5W

ind

Turb

ine

Fire

Saf

ety

Cas

e

ALA

RP

Hav

e w

e do

ne e

noug

h?–

Risk

leve

ls–

Legi

slat

ive

requ

irem

ents

–Co

mpa

ny s

tand

ards

–G

ood

prac

tice

Is t

here

any

thin

g m

ore

we

can

do?

–O

pera

tiona

l cha

nges

–Eq

uipm

ent

chan

ges/

addi

tions

Is it

pra

ctic

able

?–

Wha

t ar

e th

e be

nefit

s?–

Wha

t ar

e th

e sa

crifi

ces?

‘Saf

e by

Des

ign’

Wor

ksho

p –

Osl

o, M

arch

201

5W

ind

Turb

ine

Fire

Saf

ety

Cas

e

Key

Fin

ding

s

Win

d tu

rbin

es a

re w

ell c

once

ived

and

res

idua

l ris

ks

are

low

No

into

lera

ble

risks

iden

tifie

d

Upd

ated

pol

icie

s e.

g.–

Fire

des

ign

–Es

cape

and

eva

cuat

ion

–Al

arm

s

Prov

isio

n of

new

tur

bine

eva

cuat

ion

and

surv

ival

eq

uipm

ent

with

in e

ach

nace

lle–

Floa

t su

its f

or n

orm

al m

axim

um P

OB

–D

esce

nder

spr

ovid

ed p

er t

wo

norm

al m

axim

um P

OB

Def

initi

on a

nd p

rovi

sion

of

alte

rnat

ive

esca

pe r

oute

s‘S

afe

by D

esig

n’ W

orks

hop

–O

slo,

Mar

ch 2

015

Win

d Tu

rbin

e Fi

re S

afet

y C

ase

Fire

Saf

ety

Ca

se

Logi

stic

s Wor

kpla

ce

Stru

ctur

al…

….

In P

rogr

ess…

..

EER

Prov

ision

s

Fire

is o

nly

Part

of t

he P

ictu

re


29

‘Saf

e by

Des

ign’

Wor

ksho

p –

Osl

o, M

arch

201

5W

ind

Turb

ine

Fire

Saf

ety

Cas

e

Sum

mar

y1.

EER m

ust

be c

onsi

dere

d at

des

ign

stag

e; it

mus

t ne

ver

be a

n af

tert

houg

ht.

2.An

inte

grat

ed a

ppro

ach

in p

artn

ersh

ip t

o un

ders

tand

the

inte

ract

ions

be

twee

n al

lris

ks fo

r al

lpha

ses

is e

ssen

tial.

D

esig

n Ri

sk A

sses

smen

ts a

re k

ey fo

unda

tions

, but

are

onl

y pa

rt o

f th

e so

lutio

n.

The

Fire

Saf

ety

Asse

ssm

ent

is a

com

pone

nt o

f th

e ov

eral

l Saf

ety

Case

.

EER

mus

t be

opt

imis

ed c

onsi

derin

g al

l pot

entia

l esc

ape

and

evac

uatio

n sc

enar

ios

from

all

haza

rds

and

all t

imes

.

3.Fo

cus

mus

t be

on

prot

ectin

g bo

thpe

ople

and

ass

ets.

Thi

s si

gnifi

cant

ly in

fluen

ces

risk

redu

ctio

n m

easu

res

to a

chie

ve a

n AL

ARP

posi

tion.

4.Jo

urne

y is

the

key

ben

efit,

not

the

del

iver

able

.

‘Saf

e by

Des

ign’

Wor

ksho

p –

Osl

o, M

arch

201

5W

ind

Turb

ine

Fire

Saf

ety

Cas

e

Are

we

safe

r?H

as it

cha

nged

the

way

we

thin

k?H

as it

bee

n ea

sy?

Sum

mar

y

‘Saf

e by

Des

ign’

Wor

ksho

p –

Osl

o, M

arch

201

5W

ind

Turb

ine

Fire

Saf

ety

Cas

e

Pete

r Ll

oyd

(pet

er.ll

oyd@

siem

ens.

com

)M

ark

Jenk

ins

(mar

k.je

nkin

s@si

emen

s.co

m)

Jan

Filip

Rasm

usse

n (j

an_f

ilip.

rasm

usse

n@si

emen

s.co

m)

Gar

eth

Ello

r (g

aret

h.el

lor@

riskt

ec.c

o.uk

)An

dy L

idst

one

(and

y.lid

ston

e@ris

ktec

.co.

uk)

Con

tact

s


30

Presentation 2 – David Thomas, heightec: Overview of different types of escape mechanisms/systems

Executive summary

Wind turbines provide particular challenges for emergency escape in the event of fire, the consequences of which need to be considered. Designers should consider the 'general principles of prevention' (in particular, the need to avoid risk and combat the risks at source) and the 'hierarchy for work at height' (remembering that personal fall protection equipment is a 'last resort').

In selecting equipment, it is important to 'look beyond the standard'. There is often confusion with what is defined as PPE and when a CE mark can be affixed (or not). Product markings should be clear and understood. If unsure, then consult with the manufacturer for advice.

Due account should be taken of the guidance given in G9's Working at height in the offshore wind industry, in particular see 3.1 and 5.2. Additionally, rescue plans are not just 'bits of paper'. They should be specific and not 'woolly'; avoid uncertainty and be specific. Make sure that the full evacuation and rescue path has been trialled and ensure that responsibilities are defined and understood.

There are many different types and makes of fall protection equipment: automatic descenders; abseiling kits, and self-evacuation kits. Different kits will be appropriate in different circumstances. Controlled rate descenders (CRDs) require the consideration of many issues: the height of descent (and more); the numbers of users (multi-user); the mass of any users (light and heavy); the number of people that need evacuating (the team size); the speed of descent (that will vary with mass); whether additional friction is required; whether the device can lift and lower; ease of deployment and intuitiveness, etc. Descent energy is important too: standards imply that load and distance are directly proportional; however, this is not the case, and the maximum rated load may not be achieved under the maximum descent height. For information on descent times and the effect of fire on rope, it is important to seek information from the device manufacturer.

A training regime should take account of 'skill fade' and there is a need to distinguish between training, re-training, refreshers, product familiarisation, rescue and evacuation drills, company induction, site induction and task briefings, etc.


31

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p - v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5 ©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

he

ight

ec -

The

Nat

iona

l Acc

ess

& R

escu

e C

entr

e

G9

Offs

hore

Win

d H

ealth

& S

afet

y A

ssoc

iatio

n

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p O

slo,

Nor

way

Esca

pe fr

om a

turb

ine

nace

lle in

the

even

t of a

fire

P

erso

nal p

rote

ctiv

e eq

uipm

ent

D

avid

Tho

mas

, CEn

g, F

ICE,

CFI

OSH

Te

chni

cal D

irect

or, h

eigh

tec

G

9 Sa

fe b

y D

esig

n W

orks

hop

- v1

– 25

Mar

ch 2

015

© T

he h

eigh

tec

Gro

up L

td

heig

htec

- Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Bac

kgro

und

•C

hart

ered

–

Civ

il E

ngin

eer (

CE

ng, F

ICE

) –

Saf

ety

and

Hea

lth P

ract

ition

er (C

FIO

SH

) •

Engi

neer

ing

and

man

agem

ent c

onsu

ltanc

y –

Allo

tt an

d Lo

max

Ltd

(now

par

t of J

acob

s)

–W

S A

tkin

s Lt

d (n

ow A

tkin

s pl

c)

•H

ealth

and

Saf

ety

Exec

utiv

e (1

997

to 2

007)

–

Tech

nolo

gy D

ivis

ion,

Boo

tle

–N

orth

ern

Spe

cial

ist G

roup

, Man

ches

ter

–C

onst

ruct

ion

Div

isio

n Te

chno

logy

Uni

t •

Con

trac

ting

and

man

ufac

turin

g –

Will

iam

Har

e Lt

d •

Wor

k at

hei

ght a

nd re

scue

–

heig

htec

•

Oth

er

–C

hairm

an, P

H/5

, Per

sona

l fal

l pro

tect

ion

(BS

I) –

Vice

- Cha

irman

, RU

K H

S&

E S

trate

gy G

roup

–

HS

E C

ON

IAC

Saf

ety

Wor

king

Gro

up

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p - v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5 ©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

he

ight

ec -

The

Nat

iona

l Acc

ess

& R

escu

e C

entr

e

Whe

n I w

as fi

tter …

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p - v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5 ©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

he

ight

ec -

The

Nat

iona

l Acc

ess

& R

escu

e C

entr

e

Con

sequ

ence

s …


32

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Age

nda

•D

esig

ners

–H

iera

rchy

–

ER

IC (P

PE

is a

‘las

t res

ort’)

•St

anda

rds

–C

E-m

arki

ng

•G

9 W

orki

ng a

t hei

ght

–G

ood

prac

tice

guid

ance

•D

esce

nt e

quip

men

t–

Diff

eren

t typ

es o

f ‘fa

ll pr

otec

tion

equi

pmen

t’

•C

RD

s–

Som

e le

sson

s le

arne

d

•To

fini

sh–

‘Saf

ety

mom

ent’

… C

onse

quen

ces

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Des

igne

rsPP

E is

a ‘l

ast r

esor

t’

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Prin

cipl

es o

f pre

vent

ion

Gen

eral

prin

cipl

es o

f pre

vent

ion:

a)av

oid

risks

;b)

ev

alua

te th

e ris

ks w

hich

can

not b

e av

oide

d;c)

co

mba

t the

risk

s at

sou

rce;

d)

adap

t the

wor

k to

the

indi

vidu

al, e

spec

ially

as

rega

rds

the

desi

gn o

f wor

kpla

ces,

th

e ch

oice

of w

ork

equi

pmen

t and

the

choi

ce o

f wor

king

and

pro

duct

ion

met

hods

, w

ith a

vie

w, in

par

ticul

ar, t

o al

levi

atin

g m

onot

onou

s w

ork

and

wor

k at

a

pred

eter

min

ed w

ork-

rate

and

to re

duci

ng th

eir e

ffect

on

heal

th;

e)

adap

t to

tech

nica

l pro

gres

s;f)

repl

ace

the

dang

erou

s by

the

non-

dang

erou

s or

the

less

dan

gero

us;

g)

deve

lop

a co

here

nt o

vera

ll pr

even

tion

polic

y w

hich

cov

ers

tech

nolo

gy,

orga

nisa

tion

of w

ork,

wor

king

con

ditio

ns, s

ocia

l rel

atio

nshi

ps a

nd th

e in

fluen

ce o

f fa

ctor

s re

latin

g to

the

wor

king

env

ironm

ent;

h)

give

col

lect

ive

prot

ectiv

e m

easu

res

prio

rity

over

indi

vidu

al p

rote

ctiv

e m

easu

res;

an

di)

give

app

ropr

iate

inst

ruct

ions

to e

mpl

oyee

s.

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

The

Des

igne

r’s ro

le …

ER

IC•

Elim

inat

e–

Why

do

need

to w

ork

at h

eigh

t?–

Can

I re

mov

e he

at, f

uel,

oxyg

en?

–W

hy d

o I n

eed

com

bust

ible

mat

eria

l?

•R

educ

e–

Use

som

ethi

ng le

ss h

arm

ful

–U

se le

ss o

f it

–C

ompa

rtmen

ted

esca

pe a

rea?

•In

form

–P

rovi

de in

form

atio

n---

-----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---

•C

ontr

ol–

The

job

of th

e C

ontra

ctor


33

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Stan

dard

sD

o th

ey h

elp?

Are

they

‘fit

for p

urpo

se’?

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

To C

E-m

ark

… o

r not

EN 3

41: 1

993

•Sc

ope

–re

quire

men

ts, t

est

met

hods

, mar

king

and

in

stru

ctio

ns fo

r use

for

desc

ende

r dev

ices

use

d fo

r res

cue

…•

Har

mon

ised

–S

o, c

ould

CE

-mar

k

EN 3

41: 1

996

•Sc

ope

–…

for d

esce

nder

dev

ices

as

resc

ue e

quip

men

t …

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

•C

heck

Eve

ryth

ing

–Is

equ

ipm

ent s

uita

ble

for

parti

cula

r ris

k be

ing

cons

ider

ed?

–N

ot n

eces

sary

; tes

ting

is

limite

d to

lab

cond

ition

s

•PP

E-D

89/

686/

EEC

–B

asic

hea

lth a

nd s

afet

y re

quire

men

ts (A

nnex

II)

–Ty

pe a

ppro

val;

Cat

egor

y III

–To

be

repl

aced

with

Reg

s

•Su

pply

issu

e–

Enf

orce

d by

BIS

(UK

)

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

EN 3

41: 2

011

•Ti

tle:

–D

esce

nder

dev

ices

for r

escu

e

•Sc

ope:

–R

equi

rem

ents

, tes

t met

hods

, m

arki

ng a

nd in

form

atio

n …

for

desc

ende

r dev

ices

… in

tend

ed

for r

escu

e an

d to

pro

tect

aga

inst

fa

lls in

a re

cue

syst

em …

•N

otha

rmon

ized

•N

ot “p

erso

nal p

rote

ctiv

e eq

uipm

ent”

(PPE

)–

89/6

86/E

EC

–Ju

st b

ecau

se s

omet

hing

is n

ot h

arm

oniz

ed

does

not

mea

n th

at it

is n

ot ‘P

PE

’ …


34

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

PPE

Gui

delin

es Blu

e B

ook

PPE:

•…

any

devi

ce o

r app

lianc

e de

sign

ed to

be

wor

n or

hel

d by

an

indi

vidu

al fo

r pro

tect

ion

agai

nst o

ne o

r mor

e he

alth

and

saf

ety

haza

rds

•…

Equ

ipm

ent u

sed

by a

resc

uer i

s no

t cl

asse

d as

PP

E, u

nles

s us

ed to

pro

tect

the

resc

uer h

imse

lf …

•…

The

haz

ards

invo

lved

are

thos

e w

hich

may

ha

rm th

e eq

uipm

ent u

ser …

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

CE-

mar

king

•K

ey p

oint

s:–

Is th

e eq

uipm

ent “

pers

onal

pr

otec

tive

equi

pmen

t”•

“wor

n” …

“hel

d” …

•“b

y an

indi

vidu

al” …

–Is

the

stan

dard

har

mon

ised

(Ann

ex Z

A)•

prov

ides

‘pre

sum

ptio

n of

co

nfor

mity

’

–La

ck o

f cla

rity

•U

K:

PP

E S

uppl

y is

enf

orce

d by

BIS

–N

ot re

spon

sive

to q

uerie

s

•V

G11 –

Don

’t m

eet o

ften;

poo

r lin

k w

ith

TC16

0

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

G9

Wor

king

at h

eigh

tG

ood

prac

tice

guid

ance

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Wor

king

at h

eigh

t gui

danc

e•

Des

ign

for r

escu

e(3

.1.5

.2)

–E

nabl

e fo

rese

eabl

e re

scue

s•

safe

ly a

nd s

wift

ly

–C

onsi

der:

•S

ize

of re

scue

par

ty•

Sui

tabl

e fix

ed a

nd/o

r mov

eabl

e an

chor

s•

Stre

tche

r(s)

–E

quip

men

t•

Pre

sent

in o

ffsho

re a

sset

•C

arrie

d at

all

times

•Av

aila

ble

near

by, e

.g. v

esse

l

–R

escu

e pa

th•

Siz

e of

ope

ning

s•

Obs

truct

ions

•E

dge

prot

ectio

n, e

.g. h

atch

es

–Fi

re •E

xter

nal d

esce

nt•

Win

d sp

eed;

land

ing

plat

form

; ves

sel r

ecov

ery


35

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Gen

eral

poi

nts

aris

ing

•R

escu

e an

d ev

acua

tion

–Is

trai

ning

suf

ficie

nt•

gene

ral (

‘gen

eric

’)•

turb

ine

spec

ific

–C

onsi

der f

ullr

escu

e pa

th•

mov

ing

arou

nd v

esse

l•

vess

el to

ves

sel

•ve

ssel

to s

hore

–Li

fe ja

cket

buo

yanc

y•

275N

–C

old

wat

er p

rote

ctio

n•

imm

ersi

on o

r sur

viva

l sui

t

–C

ompa

tibili

ty is

sues

•en

ergy

abs

orbe

rs–

unde

r life

jack

et

•ha

rnes

s ad

just

men

t–

sizi

ng o

ver o

ther

clo

thin

g

–E

vacu

atio

n tim

e•

resu

lts o

f fire

risk

ass

essm

ent

•sm

oke

spre

ad

–D

esig

n R

evie

ws

•A

re th

ese

unde

rtake

n

–H

ow s

hare

bes

t pra

ctic

e•

Bes

t Pra

ctic

e Fo

rum

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Ris

k pe

rcep

tion

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Res

cue

plan

s•

Key

poi

nts:

–Fu

ll pa

th …

Try

it!

•P

robl

ems

–B

e sp

ecifi

c, n

ot ‘w

oolly

’ •

“whe

re re

quire

d”•

“at r

egul

ar in

terv

als”

•“s

uita

ble

train

ing”

•“u

pdat

ed p

erio

dica

lly”

•“if

requ

ired”

•“d

esig

nate

d m

embe

rs”

•R

efre

sher

s …

•S

kill

fade

…–

Gla

sgow

Cal

edon

ian

Uni

vers

ity

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Des

cent

equ

ipm

ent

Evac

uatio

n an

d re

scue

Diff

eren

t sys

tem

s


36

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Aut

omat

ic d

esce

nder

•Ev

acua

tion

and/

or re

scue

–Li

fting

–C

ontro

lled

low

erin

g–

Evac

uatio

n

•D

esce

nt e

nerg

y–

Mul

ti-us

er, e

.g. t

wo-

pers

on•

Wha

t mas

s is

a ‘p

erso

n’–

HS

E R

R34

2, 1

16.2

-12

2.0

kg

–Tw

o-w

ay•

How

man

y pe

ople

nee

d to

get

out

•R

ope

is m

ovin

g, n

ot fi

xed

•U

se o

f a s

teel

stro

p: a

ncho

rage

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Abs

eilin

g ki

ts•

Rea

dy-to

-use

resc

ue a

nd

evac

uatio

n de

scen

der

–Se

lf ev

acua

tion

–Pi

ck-o

ff

•M

anua

lly o

pera

ted

•R

ope

is s

tatio

nary

•N

ot m

ulti-

pers

on–

Pow

erlo

ck 2

00kg

•En

d do

es n

ot c

ome

back

up

•D

oubl

e-br

aked

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Self

evac

uatio

n ki

ts•

Con

figur

ed fo

r im

med

iate

des

cent

•M

anua

lly o

pera

ted

•Sm

all s

ize,

trad

ition

ally

•Li

ghtw

eigh

t–

Mic

ropa

ck c

an b

e ca

rrie

d

•C

an c

onfig

ure

to o

ff-w

eigh

t•

Dou

ble-

brak

ed•

Spee

d co

ntro

l•

Qui

ck re

leas

e•

Tem

pera

ture

resi

stan

ce–

Tech

nora

(ara

mid

)G

9 Sa

fe b

y D

esig

n W

orks

hop

-v1

–25

Mar

ch 2

015

© T

he h

eigh

tec

Gro

up L

tdhe

ight

ec -

The

Nat

iona

l Acc

ess

& R

escu

e C

entr

e

CR

Ds

Con

trolle

d ra

te d

esce

nder

sSo

me

less

ons

lear

ned


37

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Equi

pmen

t sel

ectio

nC

onsi

der:

–H

eigh

t•

80 to

120

m

–N

umbe

r of u

sers

•6

No.

–M

ass

of u

sers

•In

clud

ing

kit (

but h

ow m

uch)

•W

hat i

s ‘tw

o pe

rson

’

–M

ultip

le p

erso

n•

Two

at a

tim

e•

Pro

babi

lity

of o

ne o

r mor

e be

ing

‘hea

vy’

–N

umbe

r of d

esce

nts

•Th

ree

–E

ase

of d

eplo

ymen

t•

Out

of t

he b

arre

l –‘c

lip a

nd g

o’•

Cut

with

kni

fe; t

ear

•S

tora

ge re

ady

asse

mbl

ed

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Con

t./…

–Sp

eed

of d

esce

nt•

Varie

s w

ith m

ass

•C

ontro

lled

–In

spec

tion

and

serv

icin

g re

quire

men

ts•

How

ofte

n an

d ho

w e

asy

–Ad

ditio

nal f

rictio

n•

For l

iftin

g an

d/or

low

erin

g•

Bot

h di

rect

ions

of t

rave

l

–Se

aled

•In

gres

s of

dirt

and

/or m

oist

ure

–Ea

se o

f use

•In

tuiti

ve

–Li

fting

and

low

erin

g•

Whe

re e

lse

may

the

kit b

e re

quire

d

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

–C

orro

sion

resi

stan

ce•

Test

ing

shal

l “…

not

affe

ct fu

nctio

n …

”•

EN

: 48

hr e

xpos

ure

–“…

con

form

ity w

ith th

is re

quire

men

t do

es n

ot im

ply

suita

bilit

y fo

r use

in a

m

arin

e en

viro

nmen

t …”

–M

aint

enan

ce re

gim

e•

AN

SI:

96 h

r exp

osur

e–

Orie

ntat

ion

of d

evic

e du

ring

test

ing

–Te

mpe

ratu

re ra

nge

•N

orm

al o

pera

tion

–H

ot–

Col

d

–Fi

re •Fi

re ri

sk a

sses

smen

t

–Es

cape

hat

ch s

ize

•H

ow m

any

at o

nce

Con

t./…

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

–H

arne

ss•

Is o

pera

tive

wea

ring

a ha

rnes

s•

Is a

n em

erge

ncy

harn

ess

requ

ired

–O

ther

use

s•

Is k

it re

quire

d fo

r oth

er re

scue

(s)

–C

hang

eove

r•

Tim

e•

Per

son(

s) o

ff to

per

son(

s) o

n

–An

chor

pos

ition

•H

igh

or lo

w•

Fire

pro

paga

tion;

tem

pera

ture

pro

file

–H

andl

e or

whe

el•

Sna

ggin

g

–D

ual a

ppro

ach

for 6

No.

out

?•

Two

CR

Ds

(4)

•Tw

o pe

rson

al d

esce

nder

s (2

)

Con

t./…


38

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Des

cent

ene

rgy

(W)

W =

m .

g . h

. nw

here

•W

is d

esce

nt e

nerg

y (J

)•

mis

des

cent

load

(kg)

•g

is g

ravi

ty (9

.81m

/s)

•n

is th

e de

scen

t hei

ght (

m)

•n

is th

e nu

mbe

r of d

esce

nts

Mar

king

s:

•St

anda

rd re

quire

s:–

Max

imum

rate

d lo

ad–

Min

imum

rate

d lo

ad–

Max

imum

des

cent

hei

ght

•M

ay b

e m

utua

lly e

xclu

sive

–i.e

. ‘m

axim

um ra

ted

load

’ may

not

be

achi

eved

und

er ‘m

axim

um d

esce

nt h

eigh

t’

•St

anda

rds

impl

y th

at lo

ad a

nd

dist

ance

are

dire

ctly

pr

opor

tiona

l–

e.g.

hal

f the

dis

tanc

e an

d do

uble

the

load

•Th

e in

put e

nerg

yis

the

sam

e•

Rat

e of

hea

t dis

sipa

tion

diffe

rs•

Hea

vier

load

–B

rake

is w

orki

ng h

arde

r–

Per

form

ance

redu

ces

–S

peed

is q

uick

er

•D

oes

man

ufac

ture

r pro

vide

in

form

atio

n on

load

, spe

ed a

nd

dist

ance

–A

re m

arki

ngs

clea

r–

Wha

t add

ition

al te

stin

g ha

s be

en u

nder

take

n

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Evac

uatio

n tim

e E

vide

nce-

base

d as

sess

men

t

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

In th

e w

ater

•C

ompa

tibilit

y–

Dep

loye

d lif

ejac

ket

–A

cces

s to

fron

t D-r

ing

•Ea

se a

nd m

etho

d of

de

tach

ing

unde

r loa

d–

Unc

lip c

onne

ctor

–C

ut c

ord

•N

ext p

erso

n do

wn

dela

yed!

•W

hat l

oad

…–

Tida

l –

No

stan

dard

for t

his

–N

o da

ta o

n w

hich

to a

sses

s

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Car

ry y

our o

wn

kit

•12

0m o

f 7m

m c

ord

(4.7

kg)

•50

m o

f 7m

m c

ord

(2.0

kg)


39

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Ris

k m

anag

emen

t•

How

ligh

twei

ght c

an y

ou g

et–

Incr

ease

d ris

k; re

duct

ion

in m

argi

ns

•C

limbe

rs, c

aver

s, e

tc.

–ac

cept

incr

ease

d ris

k–

use

the

equi

pmen

t all

the

time

•C

ompe

tenc

e–

Kno

wle

dge,

ski

lls, e

xper

ienc

e

•R

efre

sher

s …

–D

istin

guis

h be

twee

n:•

Trai

ning

(and

re-tr

aini

ng)

•E

quip

men

t fam

iliar

isat

ion

•R

efre

sher

s–

Reg

ular

, e.g

. dril

ls–

Per

iodi

c, e

.g. t

oolb

ox ta

lk

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Tem

pera

ture

•Th

e br

ake

gets

ver

y ho

t whe

n us

ed!

•H

eat

–R

adia

nt, c

ondu

cted

•Fi

re –Fl

ame

•Te

stin

g–

Lots

on

aram

id c

ord

–S

urvi

val a

t the

se te

mpe

ratu

res

–A

ram

id s

heat

h: F

ire v

ersu

sho

t sur

face

•P

olye

ster

cor

e w

ill m

elt

•M

anuf

actu

rer h

as te

sted

rope

afte

r 21

0oC

for 1

0min

s–

10%

loss

of s

treng

th–

MB

L: 2

,500

kg (1

0:1

FoS

)

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Mat

eria

l pro

pert

ies

Poly

amid

(Nyl

on®

)•

Mel

ting

poin

t–

215

o C

•W

ater

abs

orpt

ion

–1

to 7

%

•Li

ght r

esis

tanc

e–

Goo

d

•Br

eaki

ng s

tretc

hing

–16

to 2

7%

•R

esis

tanc

e to

abr

asio

n–

Very

goo

d

Ara

mid

(Tec

hnor

a®)

•M

eltin

g po

int:

–C

hars

at 5

00 o C

•D

ecom

posi

tion

•W

ater

abs

orpt

ion

–2

to 5

%

•Li

ght r

esis

tanc

e–

Bad

•Br

eaki

ng s

tretc

hing

–2

to 4

%

•R

esis

tanc

e to

abr

asio

n–

Adeq

uate

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

‘Rea

l-life

’ fire

test

ing

(USA

)•

Res

earc

h in

pro

gres

s …

..•

Esca

pe fr

om a

bur

ning

bui

ldin

g–

Asse

ssm

ent o

f rop

e he

at re

sist

ance

•R

oom

tem

pera

ture

s:–

Cei

ling:

517

deg

C–

Win

dow

cill:

254

deg

C

•W

hile

wea

ring

full

stru

ctur

al fi

re fi

ghtin

g ki

t and

BA:

–4

peop

le g

ot 1

st a

nd 2

nd d

egre

e bu

rns

–5

out o

f 8 B

A cy

linde

r gau

ges

mel

ted

–3

fire

tuni

cs h

ad s

mal

l hol

es b

urnt

in th

em–

1 he

lmet

was

des

troye

d


40

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Poly

este

r and

Nyl

on

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Anc

hor p

oint

s•

Dire

ctio

nof

load

ing

•Po

sitio

n•

Inte

grity

–S

treng

th–

Sta

ndar

d(s)

–Te

stin

g:

•in

itial

and

per

iodi

c–

Insp

ectio

n

•Ea

se o

f atta

chm

ent

•M

arki

ng•

Anch

or s

lings

–w

ire s

trops

–ra

ther

than

fibr

e

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Skill

fade

Is th

e tra

inin

g re

gim

e ad

equa

te

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Gla

sgow

Cal

edon

ian

Uni

Ref

resh

er c

andi

date

s•

“… s

houl

d un

derta

ke

resc

ue a

nd e

vacu

atio

n pr

actic

e dr

ills b

etw

een

thre

e to

six

mon

ths

afte

r ac

quis

ition

…”

New

can

dida

tes

(‘Fre

sh’)

•“…

sho

uld

unde

rgo

prac

tice

drills

with

in th

e fir

st th

ree

mon

ths

…”

Obs

erva

tions

:•

Nee

d to

dis

tingu

ish

mor

e cl

early

bet

wee

n:–

Trai

ning

; Ref

resh

ers;

Pro

duct

fam

iliar

isat

ion;

Res

cue

and

evac

uatio

n dr

ills

•Eq

uipm

ent i

s irr

egul

arly

see

n an

d us

ed–

Not

nec

essa

rily

intu

itive

; Pan

ic in

the

heat

of t

he m

omen

t


41

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

To fi

nish

…

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Lim

eric

k, Ir

elan

d

G9

Safe

by

Des

ign

Wor

ksho

p -v

1 –

25 M

arch

201

5©

The

hei

ghte

c G

roup

Ltd

heig

htec

-Th

e N

atio

nal A

cces

s &

Res

cue

Cen

tre

Look

Thin

k

Con

side

r

Dec

ide

Thou

ght f

or th

e da

y …

Con

sequ

ence

s


42

Presentation 3 – Stu Axcell, HFR Solutions and Mervyn Coldron, Centrica: Training and competence of technicians in the use of escape mechanisms and equipment

Executive summary

The purpose of the presentation was to provide an overview of the work that Centrica Energy have been doing to improve their emergency response to offshore windfarm installations.

The presentation was broken into two distinct parts; firstly looking at the history and a case study that highlighted potential improvements in response to an emergency. This covered the current status quo in terms of equipment, training and procedures to meet the needs of an offshore incident. The second part of the presentation explained the work currently underway to improve upon the status quo via a project called 'Boy Scout'.

Project 'Boy Scout' is a pioneering project reviewing all areas of emergency preparedness, through a series of focus groups. The intention is that each focus group will critically examine all areas of emergency preparedness and deliver recommendations for improvement. Importantly, a number of recommendations centred around training frequency and the use of no sail days (weather days) have already been implemented; supporting the competence of personnel in the use and execution of first aid and rescue equipment.

A number of other work streams have been introduced as a result of this, including the design and implementation of bespoke confined space training courses and further induction training in collaboration with HFR Solutions. Whilst the project remains work in progress, this G9 Safe by Design workshop provided a platform to share the work being undertaken with the wider industry.


43

Pro

ject

Boy

Sco

utG

9In

trodu

ctio

n M

arch

201

5

Cas

e S

tudy

-th

e fa

cts

80m

Pro

ject

Boy

Sco

ut w

ill e

nsur

e w

e ar

ere

ady

and

able

to re

act t

o an

offs

hore

em

erge

ncy

quic

kly

and

effe

ctiv

ely.

Cas

e S

tudy

-lo

catio

nC

SC

onfin

ed s

pace

CS

CS

UF

Une

ven

floor

s

UF

OO

bsta

cles

O

OO

PS

Pre

ssur

e sy

stem

sP

S

PS PS

Spi

nner

Hub


44

Cas

e S

tudy

-is

sues

80m

1.Lo

catio

n?2.

Nor

mal

num

ber i

n w

orki

ng p

arty

?3.

Clo

sest

hel

p?4.

Way

s of

f the

turb

ine?

5.E

quip

men

t nee

ded

/ use

d?6.

Trai

ning

?7.

Tim

e ta

ken

to e

vacu

ate

to h

ospi

tal?

8.S

erio

us o

r not

?

Res

cue

Met

hod

Inju

ry T

ype

Res

pons

e Ti

me

Ava

ilabi

lity

Lim

itatio

ns

Coa

stgu

ard

Life

thre

aten

ing

45-9

0 m

ins

85%

Acc

ess

to

Nac

elle

onl

y

RN

LILi

fe th

reat

enin

g20

-30

min

sTB

CW

ill n

ot tr

ansf

er

to W

TG

Res

cue

Vess

elFi

rst A

id30

min

s10

0%-

Res

pons

e O

ptio

ns

1.Is

olat

ed e

nviro

nmen

t.2.

Diff

icul

t eva

cuat

ion.

3.N

o tra

ined

med

ical

/ re

scue

pe

rson

nel o

n th

e tu

rbin

es.

4.N

ew in

dust

ry a

nd d

evel

opin

g te

chni

ques

.5.

Var

iabl

e tra

inin

g an

d eq

uipm

ent.

6.R

espo

nsib

ility

lies

with

indi

vidu

als.

Cha

lleng

es

How

we

wor

kIN

CID

ENT

HA

PPEN

SC

E B

USI

NES

S IM

PAC

T TE

AM

LEV

EL

1

LEV

EL

2

LEV

EL

3

Dea

ls d

irect

ly w

ith th

e sc

ene

Coo

rdin

ates

em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

Liai

ses

with

IST

for s

uppo

rt re

ques

ts

Giv

es s

uppo

rt to

the

scen

eC

oord

inat

es a

nd p

rovi

des

loca

l HR

, ER

an

d H

SE

sup

port

Dea

ls w

ith o

pera

tiona

l / c

omm

erci

al im

pact

Pro

vide

s pe

rson

nel s

uppo

rtC

omm

unic

ates

-JV

and

CE

gro

up li

aiso

n


45

Our

Cur

rent

Res

pons

e

2.V

esse

l has

to fi

rst p

ick

up a

wor

king

par

ty w

ho w

ill ca

rry o

ut

the

resc

ue.

3. V

esse

l and

resc

ue

party

trav

els

to tu

rbin

e to

ca

rry o

ut th

e re

scue

.

INC

IDEN

T1.

Wor

king

par

ty

radi

os v

esse

l for

he

lp.

Pro

ject

Boy

Sco

utTh

e Jo

urne

y S

o Fa

r

Is th

is Is

this

goo

den

ough

?

in p

artn

ersh

ip w

ith

and

in c

olla

bora

tion

with

…


46

Tim

elin

eC

aptu

re c

redi

ble

scen

ario

s an

d ris

k an

alys

is 24.7.2014

2. H

ub, S

pinn

er

and

Bla

de

Acc

ess

3. T

rans

ition

P

iece

and

B

asem

ent

4. M

arin

e O

pera

tions

(s

epar

ate)

1. N

acel

le a

nd

Turb

ine

Tow

er

Pro

gres

s an

d S

ucce

sses

Tim

elin

e20

14C

aptu

re c

redi

ble

scen

ario

s an

d ris

k an

alys

is 24.7.2014

Vis

it to

Sie

men

s O

ffsho

re

Trai

ning

Cen

tre w

ith re

scue

ex

perts

16.8.2014

Gap

A

naly

sis

Offs

hore

E

xerc

ises

13.9.2014

12.12.2014

Competence Training Rescue

Equipment12.12.2014

Con

fined

Spa

ce T

rain

ing

•B

espo

ke c

onfin

ed s

pace

trai

ning

de

velo

ped

by C

E a

nd H

FR S

olut

ions

.•

Cou

rse

is u

p an

d ru

nnin

g an

d aw

aitin

g R

enew

able

UK

ac

cred

itatio

n.•

Alre

ady

deliv

ered

to S

iem

ens

and

RE

S O

ffsho

re.

•A

gre

at e

xam

ple

of c

olla

bora

tive

wor

king

to im

prov

e sa

fety

offs

hore

.


47

Indu

ctio

n an

d Tu

rbin

e Fa

mili

aris

atio

n

Our

offs

hore

indu

ctio

n in

clud

es a

six

-mod

ule

vide

o-ba

sed

cour

se w

ith ‘h

ands

-on’

pra

ctic

al a

nd fi

eld-

base

d tra

inin

g.

Res

cue

Pla

nsW

e're

in th

e pr

oces

s of

dev

elop

ing

besp

oke

resc

ue p

lans

for s

peci

fic

area

s of

the

turb

inef

ocus

sing

on

tech

niqu

es, e

quip

men

t and

trai

ning

re

quire

men

ts.

Ref

resh

er T

rain

ing

We

are

now

pla

nnin

g to

use

wea

ther

day

s fo

r the

use

of

refre

sher

trai

ning

at H

FR S

olut

ions

, with

gro

ups

gain

ing

prac

tical

exp

erie

nce

of s

afet

y eq

uipm

ent,

wor

k at

hei

ght a

nd

liftin

g pr

oced

ures

.

Trai

ning

Fac

ility

Dev

elop

men

tA

s w

ell a

s H

FR S

olut

ions

’ wor

k at

hei

ght t

ower

, we

are

plan

ning

to

add

full-

scal

e eq

uipm

ent t

o gi

ve h

ands

-on

expe

rienc

e of

key

w

ork

area

s on

shor

ein

a s

afe

and

cont

rolle

d en

viro

nmen

t.


48

Focu

s A

reas

Res

cue

Equ

ipm

ent

Med

ical

Ass

ista

nce

and

Equ

ipm

ent

Em

erge

ncy

Res

pons

e

Em

erge

ncy

Pla

nnin

g

Turb

ine

Des

ign

Trai

ning

and

Com

pete

nce

Fire

and

Eva

cuat

ion

Mar

ine

Ope

ratio

ns

Que

stio

ns?

2015

Wor

k S

tream

s

•D

evel

opm

ent o

f Fire

Ris

k A

sses

smen

t for

3.

6MW

Tur

bine

•E

mer

genc

y pl

an im

prov

emen

t•

Med

ical

sta

ndar

ds a

nd tr

aini

ng•

Impr

ovem

ent i

n of

fsho

re re

spon

se p

roce

ss•

Ris

k A

sses

smen

t of T

rain

ing

and

Com

pete

nce

Req

uire

men

ts.


49

ANNEX BABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ALARP as low as reasonably practicableCE Conformité EuropéenneCDM construction, design and managementCRD controlled rate descenderCTV crew transfer vesselEI Energy InstituteG9 G9 Offshore Wind Health and Safety AssociationGWO Global Wind OrganisationHAZID hazard identification studyHAZOP hazard and operability studyHSE Health and Safety ExecutiveHV high voltageKPI key performance indicatorPPE personal protective equipmentO&M operation and maintenance QRA quantitative risk assessment RAM risk assessment method RAMS risk assessment and method statementSIL safety integrity levelTP transition pieceWTG wind turbine generator

ISBN 978 0 85293 758 7Registered Charity Number: 1097899

Energy Institute61 New Cavendish StreetLondon W1G 7AR, UK

t: +44 (0) 20 7467 7100f: +44 (0) 20 7255 1472e: [email protected]

9780852937587