Gå til hovedinnhold

Safety Forum - minutes of meeting nr. 3, 2002

Meeting date: 6 September 2002 Meeting location: Kristiansand S

The deceased was land-based (project manager - "supervisory personnel"), no documentation that the person worked more than 1han 16 hours per day.

When the matter came up again in August, the NPD did not see a reason to reinvestigateigate the circumstances. No new information.


From the debate: What the NPD learned from this is this that we must be more clear with regard to what we have done and what we have considered. The NPD notes that some unions have severely criticized the NPD - the- the NPD does not understand why. DSO emphasized that they did not support the criticism of the NPD.

One of the union representatives emphasized that the Office of the Auditor General has reviewed several other bodies/systems on the basis of a desire for someone to "check the inspectorsctors". The NPD's lack of resources to carry out adequate follow-up is well-known. It is not helpful that processes are initiated so that the NPD's scanty resources are used in the wrong place.

It is six months since the HES White Paper was submitted, and the AAD has confirmed that the ministry will perform a review of the NPD. If thIf the Auditor General takes the ball, this could have an impact on the AAD's review. The issue is unfortunate for the work in the Safety Forum.

2. b nbsp; Working hours and safety, brief presentation (OFS)

OFS reviewed the letter to the NPD dated 4 September 2002 regarding working hours and safety (see enclosure) in ) in which OFS points out that extensive abuse of overtime is taking place, with work shifts that far exceed 16 hours. A letter to the Working Environment Committees in well serviservice companies and operating companies regarding the manning situation within the well service area was also reviewed. The letters are under consideration by the reciprecipients.

OFS emphasized the connection between "fatigue management" and prudent, responsible activities. An article on experiences from the airline industry (Flight Safety Australia, July-August 2002, "Dead tired") was handed out together with an article on the link between creativity and a brain that is not overloaded, "Stop! My Brain Hurts".rts". (To be sent out together with the final minutes).

The NPD's follow-up of working hours in an audit context in recent years ears was reviewed.

· Audits dits in 2002: 1st phase

· Two contracting companies after tips from OFS and NOPEF

· No regulatory violations uncovered with regard to working hours

· Potential for impr improvement in working hours and reporting systems, as well as establishing of work plans/available perioderiods - will be followed up

· &nbp; Phase 2 of the audit this autumn with with identical letters to operators and shipping companies:

· Give an account of their control procedures regarding their own personnel, contractor employees and in relation to new requirements for registering the working hours of supervisory personnel

·ana"> Identified needs for improvements and assessments of what can contribute ensuring that the registration system and its application are as reliable as possible - involvement of employee representatives is emphasized

· Consider further follow-up vis-à-vis the individual companies depending oing on the responses

· Spot tests within certain groups, ups, also in connection with other planned audit activities

· Follow up specific cases (anonymous tips)

· Consideration of specific initiatives from OFSSPAN>

From the debate: NOPEF supports OFS' viewpoint. Would like the Safety Forum to discuss the problems. Deliberate cheating on timesheets is a criminal offence. At the same time, the interview survey in the risk level project shows that 37% believe that the results are "doctored".


People fear for their jobs and often do not record hours worked in excess of the 16 hours. It would, however, be wrong for the NPD to threaten with reprisals - this will not help us get to the bottom of the problem.

We are talking about a problem that we do not know enough about. The risk project is anonymous and may be able to capture the actual problems. The NPD should be critical when reviewing timesheets in audits and compare these with information from drilling/well operations.

· Requirement that the board must have professional safety competence.

· Start-up problems are unfortunate, but they will be resolved.


· The industry experiences that they do not have a hand in this since the industry and the unions do not participate in any formal forum in this area

· AAD: The Research Council of Norway will arrive at a solution. Waiting on this.

· The group has been formally terminated. AAD expects a response from the Research Council of Norway to the letter sent by the Ministry.

· Here one is more concerned with technical knowledge rather than a partisan contribution.

· The intention is for funds to be obtained from the industry. A challenge since the industry seems to have lost this ability.

· Item 18 on review of the Acknowledge of Compliance (SUT) system

· AAD is evaluating formal issues such are technical regulatory factors and the relationship to EU in connection with making the system mandatory.

· The NPD is evaluating the experiences.

· Item 19 - study of employee participation - similar arrangement as for Item No. 10.

· Item 20 on establishing a commission for major accidents - deferred until next year. Either a committee will be formed or the Safety Forum will be used for evaluations/ input.

· Item 22 on facilitating overall supervision of the petroleum activities on the shelf and on land.

· Working group studies various scenarios with point of departure in an integration of the activities between land/shelf.

· Have looked at selected land facilities to concretize the issue.

· This work can be a contribution to the Storting White Paper on organization of the supervision that is to be submitted before Christmas. The AAD takes a somewhat longer view and puts the problem in context with Item 23 concerning an overall approach to marine operations.


· The industry wants one supervision regime.

· The AAD would like to have the study of legal and practical interfaces between the petroleum activities and association vessel activities which is to be carried out by the NPD in cooperation with the parties, as a basis for Item 22.

b. Status of "Development of Risk Level - Norwegian shelf" (NPD)

The NPD is planning a seminar (for the industry) on 4 October with the purpose of communicatiicating several results of the project. Trying to find external players who can talk about "success stories" from their own companies to motivate others.

17 and 24 October - workshops with contractors and operators on HES culture/follow-up of p of questionnaire.

Conference 27-28 November. HES Culture: Characteristics, survey, development and supervision.

Data collection will be carried out this fall for testing indicators for noise - est- establishing a good indicator for chemical working environment is further in the future.


Data collection related to DFUs (Defined Hazard and Accident Situation) has been carried out for the first half of 2002.

Method development related to the effect of physical barriers in a major accident context continues as planned. Data collection has startedarted and will be concluded at the end of 2002.

Development of better indicators for helicopter transportation is underway in cooperation with the Civil Aviation Authority. The basis for the indicators is the NOU Report Helicopter Safety Part 2: Development trends, goals, risk factors and prioritized measures (NOU to be submitted to the Ministry of Transport and Communications on 9 September 2002).

The industry's follow-up of the questionnaire survey: The operating companies are well underway on analyzing their own data. However, only a couple of shipping companies and no other contractors have requested analyses of their own data.

Conclusion: The NPD should clarify the economic factors surrounding the use of consultants.

c. Aging and Health (OLF)

Financing has been secured for a 50% position as project manager for a two-year period. The position will be filled this week. A conference to achieve greater involvement is being considered, where the target group should be senior management.

d. The Cancer Project (OLF)

The project is now underway. See separate milestone plan for the progress (enclosure).


5. (4) The Safety Forum on the Net (NPD)

Ole-Johan Faret of the NPD presented the NPD's web site on the Interneterneterneterneterneterneterneternet and the recently started HES page, which also presents the Safety Forum. He discussed various ways to go to further develop information from the work under the direction of the Safety Forum:

From the debate: Important to have a strategic approach. People have lost track. Shall we establish many sites? Should HES work in the North Sea have its own web site? How can this be run so that we can achieve a commitment to this work? How is this done in the UK for example? What about lessons learned from best practice and the distribution of this?

There is an HES web site already for all HES agencies in Norway (except for the NPD, which has its own).

We should start work on the Safety Forum on the NPD's web site, and gradually consider alternative solutions based on lesson learned. Important to have readable minutes of meetings for people who were not present. Highlight openness.


Conclusion: Minutes of meetings, follow-up list and follow-up matrix for the HES White Paper, plus summons to meetings and agendas, to b to be published on the Internet.

6. Briefings - items submitted

a. Criteria for area preparedness (OFS/Lederne)

The starting point for the presentation was inter alia a letter of 19 June 2002 from Lederne and OFS to the NPD and OLF in connection with the establishment of area preparedness on the Norwegian shelf and elements linked to the criteria foia foia foia foia foia foia foia for this, which the unions feel are fundamentally wrong on some points. (See enclosure).

A newspaper clipping from VG on 4 September 2002 was also distributed, together with a copy of the conclusions of a technical report on "Evacuation and Rescue Means", prepared by Det Norske Veritas on assignment from OLF (Report No. 98-5601 rev. 03), Item 26: "Due to low availability of the MOB boats, minimum two MOB boats should be available on the vessel in addition to the Sealift system". Reference was also made to a conference in Rotterdam in June on waves and limitations in rescue means - with pool tests that confirm the weaknesses in today's criteria. Neither the NPD nor OLF were present.

From the debate:

The NPD emphasized that circumstances surrounding the current criteria of inter alia 120 minutes should be reviewed by OFS/Lede/Lede/Lede/Lede/Lede/Lede/Lede/Lederne and the NPD/OLF. Lederne/OFS are awaiting a summons to meetings with both OLF and the NPD.

The NPD has followed up the trial arrangement in the Ekofisk area, which has been positiositive. On Haltenbanken there has been a trial arrangement for two years. The NPD will probably have confidence in the Troll/Oseberg arrangement which is also for a two-year period. In the Tampen area one has not come far enough yet, and the basis for afor a decision is too shallow. The employee organizations are awaitiwaitiwaitiwaitiwaitiwaitiwaitiwaiting a joint meeting with the NPD. The trial arrangements must demonstrate that the established arrangement safeguards the criteria.

The rig owners have pointed out some areas that should be considered. This applies inter alia to close preparedness through coverage from the rig, even if there are two independent MOB boats. Small probability of such operations succeeding. Believe the arrangement with close preparedness with rigs (ref. new regulations) has caused the companies substantial expenses and also reduced preparedness.

According to the operating companies, the areas and resources have been thoroughly analyzed, including close preparedness. There is considerable disagreement in the industry and between the parties concerning this.

Conclusion: Await a conclusion on this debate to be made in a separate meeting between the NPD, OLF and the employee organizations.

6. b HES lunch ONS (NPD)

A positive concept and event that the NPD will work on with a view towards cooperation with ONS in the future. The NPD will continue to be the technical organizer. Should take place in Norwegian in the future.

6. c. Student doing his main thesis - observer Safety Forum? (NOPEF/NPD)

Ref. Storting White Paper No. 7 and focus on the safety delegate service. Conclusion: Send a positive reply to the inquiry and invite the person concerned to participate in the next meeting. Also link this to the organizations.

7. Any other business

Experiences following the well service strike in July - August 2002 (NPD).

The NPD gave an account of the following issues and called on the parties to contribute to solve these problems:

* Problems complying with Section 8 of the Information Duty Regulations

* Notification procedures between affected companies in a conflict?

* Notification to the authorities

* Need for amendments to regulations?

* Procedures for establishing agreements on safety manning (Section 31 of the Framework Regulations)

The parties acknowledged the issues and confirmed the NPD's description. At the same time it was emphasized that it had been a long time since this part of the industry had had a strike, and that the situation therefore was unique with regard to lack of follow-up in relation to regulations, procedures and agreements.

Conclusion: The parties take this lesson back to their own organizations; particularly important to follow-up vis-à-vis the service industry.

Implementing the meetings (Lederne).

As some people experience the meeting as being too short with regard to input and contributions from all the players, it was emphasized that the best way to solve this was that items be submitted in advance so that the NPD can plan and chair the meeting in relation to the number of items submitted.

Konkraft (TBL)

Konkraft has made a target poster with a vision for the oil and gas industry in Norway with specific targets for various activity areas on the Norwegian shelf. The Norwegian shelf shall, among other things, be identified with world-class HES. Konkraft also wants to contribute to development opportunities for the supplier industry and to an increased commitment in order to get foreign industry to invest in the Norwegian shelf.

Conclusion: The Safety Forum takes the information under advisement, and at the same time seeks greater visibility with regard to the Senior Management Forum's contribution to also focusing on HES in the petroleum activities.

Presentation of newly developed protective gear for surface treatment (OFS)

Halvor Erikstein presented new personal protective gear for sandblasting and VHP jetting. The equipment has been developed in close cooperation with professionals in this field. The equipment is CE-approved and reduces noise by 39 dBA. The equipment has integrated ear protection, head protection, air flow indicator, is low-weight and rubber-coated. Erikstein was praised for his personal commitment in this matter.

Capturing lessons learned from the supplier industry

The meeting was concluded with agreement that the program for company visits the first day at Hydralift and Maritime Hydraulics had functioned successfully and was an arrangement that should be conducted annually.

As a result of the company visits, TBL was willing to organize a process in the supplier industry for capturing lessons learned in customer/supplier relations that may be significant for HES. Both the companies visited were positive in respect of contributing to such a process.

Conclusion: TBL organizes work on capturing lessons learned in the supplier industry, focusing on customer/supplier relations. One should look at matters related to special wishes from the customers regarding functionality, design and quality, and the consequences for the suppliers' ability to supply equipment that complies with HES requirements. The supplier industry's experiences with regard to the customers' contribution to and facilitating training of operating and maintenance personnel should also be mapped.

Next meeting

The next meeting of the Safety Forum will be held in the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate on 5 December 2002.