Drilling advances

	Vol. 226 No. 6
LES SKINNER, PE CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

Behavior-based safety on the rig. Improving safety on drilling rigs has been a priority for many years. In the past, drilling crews willingly accepted the elevated exposures that were presumed to be inherent with the drilling process in exchange for the high salaries paid by drilling companies (compared to what they could make on dry land farms). Indeed, many drillers, derrickmen and roughnecks suffered serious injuries due to unguarded rotating equipment, falls, slips, trips, nips, blowouts and a variety of similar incidents we now accept as senseless. 

For two decades following World War II, there was no concerted industry effort to reduce these risks. The same was true of the construction, mining, refining, chemical process, manufacturing and transportation industries. Some individual companies did make outstanding strides in improved worker safety. However, the country was enjoying phenomenal growth and a profound sense of economic well-being following both the war and the Great Depression. The loss of a finger, an eye, an arm, a foot or a life was tolerated by the American worker as a cost of doing business.

In the late-1960s and early-1970s, the public conscience changed. Unions began demanding improved safety in the workplace and several governmental agencies were formed to address the problem. The workforce in the US, Europe and many other countries was growing rapidly, and many more injuries were occurring quite frequently due to increased probability as a result of increased exposure.

The first line of defense against accidents was, and is, the use of engineering controls. This involved guards, barricades, handrails and safety mechanisms that disabled equipment if they were not used correctly.

Various programs were mandated by government agencies to further reduce worker injuries. Some of these involved use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and training. Lock-out/ tag-out, hot work permits, confined space safety programs and similar systems became required elements of an effective safety plan. The use of hardhats, eye protection, steel-toed boots, gloves, hearing protection and other forms of PPE for special exposures (such as chemical handling and welding) became mandatory. Worker training was required in a variety of subjects. All of these measures led to reduced accident frequencies and improved safety. They are still vital to any safety program.

More recently, repetitive stress injuries have prompted the use of ergonomically-designed tools, better procedures and use of specialized equipment. Back safety has been improved by teaching proper lifting techniques. 

The latest effort at reducing reportable injuries involves application of behavioral psychology to promote safe worker performance by involving the employees in a system known as behavior-based safety (BBS). Where engineering controls and proper equipment design concentrate on removing unsafe conditions, BBS addresses unsafe acts. These systems are predicated on the notion that every human activity has some risk associated with it regardless of the safety equipment and engineering controls available. Humans have an annoying tendency to become comfortable performing their daily jobs. Complacency is the hobgoblin of every safety program. 

Behavior observation and analysis are the cornerstones of BBS. Most of these systems employ a fellow worker to observe how a task is performed by another worker. This observation system is based on the idea that the person doing the work is often too close to the tree line to clearly observe the forest or even the trees nearby. Also, he/ she may be too consumed with the task at hand to recognize external risks, or those of their own making. Thus, a non-working observer is employed to simply watch what is taking place, record the observation and then discuss his/ her findings with the participant in a mini-safety meeting. 

Clearly, this requires a knowledge of what constitutes a safe act on the part of the observer. It also requires familiarity with the task. Who would know more about the job than another worker who has to perform the same task? So, instead of using a corporate safety man, or an engineer, or a manager from the head office, most BBS systems use co-workers to be the observers. This aspect improves teamwork, a sense of belonging and knowing they will be protected. 

BBS has actually been around since the late-1970s. Much of the planning and BBS pilot programs were developed in the 1980s with full-scale implementation beginning in the early-1990s. BBS has been adopted across a wide segment of the industry, including the drilling business, with very good results. Research shows that most companies that employ these systems have overall reductions in accident frequencies and illnesses 20-50% below that experienced previously. 

Most drilling companies have had dramatic accident frequency reductions, up to 75% in some cases. The average accident rate reduction for both US and European industries is on the order of 30%. In some instances, the BBS system has identified situations in which improvements were possible through engineering controls, equipment designs and other safety system components. Other trickle-down effects have further reduced the accident frequency rate, a fact that is not lost on the workers.

Probably most important is that the workers have almost universally indicated an improved safety awareness. Some workers reported having only been vaguely interested in safety before the BBS system was implemented. Their involvement was limited to simply following orders: wearing PPE, observing safety signs, attending boring safety meetings and providing lip-service to safety on the job. Now, they wouldn’t even think about mowing the grass without wearing safety glasses and ear plugs.

BBS is not without its criticism. Like most unfamiliar systems in the oilfield, it will take some time to develop complete buy-in by the entire workforce. Also, BBS is not a panacea. Engineering controls, PPE, good design and training will continue to be required. Accidents must still be reported and investigated thoroughly. Causes, both primary and contributing, must be defined. Changes must be made to prevent future accidents.

So why bother with the cost and time required with BBS systems? Simply put, because they work. Do they have a place on a drilling rig? You bet they do. 

Les Skinner, Consultant, Houston, and a chemical engineering graduate from Texas Tech University, has 32 years’ experience in drilling and well control with major/ independent operators and well-control companies.