The

human factor
 Kaare Wessel
Wetlesen, Oreco,
Denmark, shares
his perspective on
how best to improve
safety in oil tank
cleaning.
D
esludging and cleaning is undoubtedly the least attractive part of maintaining oil storage
tanks. It is usually put off as long as possible and, when it can no longer be postponed,
the work is often subcontracted. At this point, immediate budget considerations prompt
many to choose the offer that quotes the (seemingly) lowest price, offers which will typically rely
on manual tank cleaning methods.
However, such offers can entail hidden costs, financial and human, that may well prove
unacceptable. In their efforts to keep prices low, and faced with difficulties in attracting staff for
what is essentially an unpleasant task, manual tank cleaning companies frequently make use of
personnel that possess only very low levels of qualifications and are inadequately trained, perhaps
due to imperfect understanding of how to operate within potentially explosive atmospheres.
Unequivocally, the risk of accidents rises rapidly when ill-prepared, unskilled workers operate
in hazardous areas; a risk which is exacerbated by the use of equipment and tools unfit for use
under hazardous conditions.
These risks should certainly be carefully considered, for steps can be taken to counteract
them. In this context, it is worth noting that when tank cleaning work is subcontracted, many
assume that the possible consequences of the risks are also subcontracted. While individual
insurance setups will vary, this is usually not the case; and if mishaps occur, companies may find
themselves facing costly downtime, material damage and, worst of all, the fact that people have
been hurt on their premises. The risks can, however, be significantly reduced through the use
of safer technology and implementation of best practices regarding staff behaviour. From there,
proper instruction and procedures can improve safety by leaps and bounds and, as can be seen
below, the human factor is well worth the attention.

www.hydrocarbonengineering.com Reprinted from September2008 HydrocarbonEngineering


Human error
If ‘accident’ is defined as ‘an undesirable event, giving
rise to death, ill health, injury, damage or other loss’,
better plant safety is clearly about selecting appropriate
equipment for the task at hand, and about implementing
safe working procedures onsite. Conclusive statistics to
build the case for the importance of human error are hard to
come by. Even so, just a few internet searches corroborate
what is accepted as common knowledge regarding the
causes of accidents. It is a widely accepted fact in many
industries, including the oil industry, that the root cause of
accidents arise within the following categories according to
these approximate proportions:
l Equipment failure: 20% of all accidents.
l Human error: 80% of all accidents.
Figure 1. Fatal accident rate (FAR), oil companies versus contractors.1
Figure 2. Fatality causes 2007 (excluding 'unknown'), %.1
Figure 3. Lost time injury frequency (LTIF).1
Reprinted from HydrocarbonEngineering
For the purposes of this article, ‘equipment failure’
means any suspension of plant operation due to
mechanical or electrical malfunctions caused by inadequate
design, poor selection of materials or components, and
insufficient quality during production. Similarly, ‘human
error’ means unintentional wrongdoing, specifically in
relation to a work process, caused by lack/neglect of formal
procedures, information, knowledge, and experience.
Based on the above, Oreco feels confident in proposing
that implementing efforts to minimise human error will yield
the biggest gains in terms of plant safety. The issue of
human error will be returned to later in this article, but for
the time being a quick look at the ‘OGP Safety performance
indicators: 2007 data’ (report 409, May 2008, published by
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers), provides
further insight into the causes of accidents.
The annual OGP incident report records the global
safety performance of participating oil companies. The
report covers worldwide exploration and production
operations, both onshore and offshore. It includes incidents
involving oil companies and contractors, thereby revealing
some very salient facts.
The report documents that, in 2007, companies
reported an overall fatal accident rate (FAR) of 2.99 (3.01
onshore and 2.92 offshore) fatalities per 100 million hours
worked. Looking at the relative proportion of fatalities at
oil companies and contractors respectively, it can be seen
that among member companies the FAR was 1.65 fatalities
per 100 million hours worked, while it was 3.39 among their
contractors, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 indicates the
main causes of fatalities.
The same report also states that the overall lost time
injury frequency (LTIF = fatalities + accidents involving
lost work days) is 66 per 100 million hours worked. Once
again, however, it can be seen that contactors account
for the largest proportion of the two, having an LTIF of 70
compared to the companies’ frequency of 54 per
100 million hours worked.
The above numbers as well as the trend over the
last five years are shown in Figure 3. It is worth noting
that onsite safety has improved greatly in recent years.
However, it can also be concluded that the probability of
a LTI is 30% greater when companies use a contractor
instead of carrying out the tank cleaning themselves.
Furthermore, such accidents are far more likely to result
in the death of one or more people when contractors are
employed, more than twice as likely (105%).
These figures support the conviction that accidents
are mainly caused by the people behind the machines, not
the machines themselves, and that accidents are more
likely to happen when work is subcontracted. It would
seem that contractors do not have the same experience
or general level of skills as company employees when
it comes to conducting safe work procedures. Another
aspect is the fact that a majority of non-routine and highly
hazardous operations are handed over to contractors by
the companies. When the fact that contractors often find
themselves relying on unskilled workers is added in, it is
hardly surprising that risks increase.
How can risks be reduced?
Those risks can, however, be mitigated. What follows is an
account of some of the thoughts behind Oreco’s automated
September2008 www.hydrocarbonengineering.com
Figure 4. Human error accounts for approximately 80% of all incidents experienced around the world. Therefore, proper theoretical and onsite
practical training is imperaitve to ensure safe tank cleaning operating procedures.
tank cleaning concept, thoughts that the company believes
to be widely applicable in the industry. Oreco realises that
house contractors will continue to be around to perform
service jobs, such as tank cleaning, at refineries and
tank farms. As a result, Oreco focuses on two main areas
to reduce risks: ensuring that the technology is as safe
as possible and, very crucially, that operating procedures
eliminate human error to the widest extent possible. So, the
company’s main concerns are:
l Equipment safety.
l Safe operating procedures.
Equipment safety
Health and safety should be one of the central pillars
right from the earliest design stage of any process plant.
This ensures that health and safety factors are naturally
incorporated, eliminating the need for subsequent
measures that will frequently be costly, and may well prove
unsatisfactory.
It goes without saying that any design work will meet all
applicable norms/standards and laws, such as ATEX, UL, and
CSA. However, not all aspects of plant safety are covered by
standards and laws, so meeting the demands of standards
and regulations does not in itself ensure safe processes.
Whenever, during the design phase, a potential hazard to
health and safety is identified, the issue should be dealt with
according to the following priorities:
l Eliminate: remove the hazard through proper design,
selection of safe components, etc.
l Protect: if the risk cannot be eliminated, it should be
minimised by incorporating all necessary protection
against it.
l Warn: where neither elimination nor protection is
possible, clear warning signs must be implemented as
an absolute minimum.
To protect the process plant and the surrounding
environment, integrated safety sensors should be used in
the plant design. The sensors should be an incorporated
part of the control system, automatically shutting down the
system if safety levels are compromised.
Alarm systems should be incorporated locally at plants
and, where applicable, at central control rooms to ensure
www.hydrocarbonengineering.com Reprinted from September2008
that relevant staff are alerted and appropriate action taken.
It is vital that all operators are well trained in efficient
emergency response in case of alarms.
Maintenance during the design phase
Health, safety and environment (HSE) issues in relation to
maintenance and repairs is an area that is often overlooked in
the design phase. However, it should certainly be prioritised
as incidents often occur when staff are trying to carry out
maintenance on components that are difficult to access.
Accessibility and, consequently, the scope for performing
safe repairs/maintenance depends greatly on the original
design. It is not uncommon to see that even small repairs end
up requiring large and difficult disassembly operations, or
require operators to enter small, cramped spaces.
Having the right tools at hand is another factor that
deserves careful consideration. Tank cleaning systems
consist of a number of machines and components that
often require special tools for maintenance and repair
jobs. If these are not made available to plant operators,
human ingenuity takes over and will see them improvising.
While initiative is commendable, history shows that not
all improvisation is entirely successful, and unnecessary
accidents may be the result.
Ensure construction matches design
Having considered all the aspects outlined above during
the design phase, it is prudent to ensure that the same level
of quality is observed during construction. Construction
errors can create an unsafe end result from even the safest
process plant design. Fortunately, a number of steps can
be taken to prevent risk factors from cropping up during the
construction phase.
l A carefully incorporated and monitored quality
assurance system will ensure uniform performance
throughout the construction phase.
l Component selection should be made on the basis of a
thorough evaluation of suppliers and products. One of
the most important, yet often overlooked, parameters is
the availability of spare parts. Minimal downtime being
a priority for everyone, long lead times on spare parts
will often result in non-original parts being used, and
this may well compromise plant safety.
HydrocarbonEngineering
 l Third party inspections made by notified bodies will
help ensure high quality.
l The completed process plant should be thoroughly
tested before being taken into use/supplied to the
customer.
The human factor
Safe operating procedures
No matter how well a tank cleaning system has been
designed from a health and safety point of view,
the possibility of human error cannot be completely
eliminated. As was previously stated, human error
accounts for approximately 80% of all incidents
experienced around the world. Because human error plays
such a significant part in the overall safety performance
of any process plant, giving it proper attention pays
off. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon to see process
equipment designed for high safety being operated by
inexperienced and/or poorly trained operators, leading
to an unacceptable overall safety performance of the
process plant.
However, a series of initiatives will, if correctly
implemented, help minimise the risk of human error.
l A high level of process automation reduces the
number of personnel needed to perform a given task.
The obvious benefit is that when fewer people are
involved, the possibility of a human error is reduced.
For tank cleaning, automation also means that no
person will ever have to enter the potentially hazardous
environment of the tank itself. It should also be
remembered that when fewer people are involved, it
becomes easier to ensure a high level of knowledge.
Training a small group of operators is easier than a
large group. The most sophisticated automated tank
cleaning systems on the market today require only two
onsite operators to desludge and clean even the largest
of aboveground oil storage tanks.
l Setting up an operator training programme. Good
training greatly decreases the risk associated with
human involvement. It should, however, be noted
that it is vital to conclude all courses with exams
to ensure that information conveyed has been fully
understood. Theoretical and practical issues should
be covered equally well. The exam method is a matter
of discretion. At Oreco operators must pass both a
written and an oral examination before they can receive
operator certification.
l Regular, ongoing training is important to ensure that
safety performance is maintained, because without a
constant focus on safety, plant operators will gradually
begin to slide, adopting unsafe practices.
l Operator work schedules should be planned and
managed to minimise the risk of fatigue. Several
studies have clearly tied fatigue with increases in
human error.
l Minimising turnover among plant operators helps
ensure and maintain the pool of knowledge and
experience accrued.
l Safety audits encourage operators to exhibit safe
behaviour. Unsafe actions can be identified and
behaviour adjusted accordingly before it leads to any
incidents.
Reprinted from HydrocarbonEngineering September2008 www.hydrocarbonengineering.com
l Proper maintenance schedules and policies will
minimise the risk of component failure and extend
the overall lifetime of the process plant. Operators
should be well trained, and managed, on how to
perform preventive maintenance in a timely matter.
The instructions should clearly state that only
approved spares, tools and consumables may be
used. Many incidents are caused by the use of non-
original parts.
l Quality, health, safety, and environment (QHSE)
management systems help ensure that the workflow
follows well planned and ordered routines. An
integrated QHSE system also ensures good internal
and external communication so everyone is on the
same page.
l Establish a stop card system that gives all personnel
the opportunity to stop any kind of operation if it is
deemed unsafe. A stop card system ensures that all
personnel are allowed to formally review and criticise
operation in a structured and constructive way, leading
to a general lift in safety performance.
l Know your culture. Perceptions and attitudes towards
safety vary from region to region and culture to culture,
but also often from company to company. It is important
to understand the safety culture of a given environment
and plant site in order to achieve well integrated safety
awareness, this in contrast to theoretical awareness that
is never fully implemented at plant operator level.
Quality, health and safety
management systems
Accepting the fact that human activity is the main cause
of accidents onsite, Oreco recognises that sophisticated
equipment for automated tank cleaning is not in itself
enough to maintain the desired level of safety in tank
cleaning. Consequently, steps such as those outlined above
have been taken to ensure that the technology supplied by
Oreco is used in a way that promotes maximum safety.
When addressing human error at the operational level
of tank cleaning, two issues must be dealt with:
l Ensuring quality of the service provided.
l Ensuring operational health and safety during
execution of service.
Drawing on the experience of a decade of automated
tank cleaning, Oreco has developed a Quality, Health & Safety
(QHS) management system intended for service providers
using the BLABO tank cleaning technology for cleaning of
large oil storage tanks. Of course, the principles are also
applicable to other cleaning systems, which is why they are
shared here to help all industries achieve maximum safety.
Oreco’s QHS management system adheres to and
fulfils the requirements of the international standards EN
ISO 9001:2000 (quality management system) and OHSAS
18001 (occupational health and safety management
system). The standards are compatible, facilitating the
integration of ‘quality’ and ‘occupational health and safety’
measures in a single management system.
The QHS management system comprises three layers:
l A system manual: outlining company policies in
relation to QHS as well as formal requirements of the
management system.
l A procedure manual: defining and specifying working
procedures.
l A forms library: a selection of standard forms and
checklists to be used for control and communication.
The intention is for service providers to adopt the
policies and procedures of the QHS management system
and maintain their business processes as outlined in the
system; this will be certified by an accredited certification
bureau of their choice.
The QHS management system is process oriented
and seeks to consider the big picture. It outlines issues
regarding quality and occupational health and safety
aspects in relation to the entire business process of tank
cleaning services. Company employees can simply follow
the path of a given work procedure; directions are given
on a step by step basis, and related procedures and/or
necessary forms to be used are clearly indicated whenever
relevant.
Using a QHS management system has a number of
advantages:
l All information required for a given tank cleaning job is
communicated in a correct and timely fashion.
l Employee skills and safety awareness are maintained
standard practice.
l Safety procedures such as risk assessment become a
fixed, formal part of the job.
l All processes are acknowledged and accepted by both
service provider and tank owner.
l All processes are performed uniformly in every tank
cleaning task.
Conclusion
Today, safety levels in connection with oil storage tank
cleaning frequently remain at unacceptable levels,
www.hydrocarbonengineering.com Reprinted from September2008
particularly when tank cleaning is performed manually by
subcontracted labour. In such cases, the risk of human
error becomes too great. However, safer methods are
available, and even though there still is a long way to go
before the unsafe practice of manual tank cleaning is
completely eliminated from the industry, there is a clear
shift towards implementing higher levels of safety, even
in the low priority, non-routine operations of which tank
cleaning is a part.
Plant safety is not easy to achieve; even designing
a state-of-the-art process plant is not enough in
itself. Maximum safety arises only through a complex
combination of good design and clear, well defined support
structures, including an integrated quality management
system.
Oreco believes in taking its own medicine, and
safety is a key concern. In fact, improving health,
safety, and environment factors is the very basis of
the business. Oreco develops and produces technical
solutions for automated tank cleaning, the BLABO
system, which meet the strictest industry standards,
but does not stop there. The system is supported by a
set of procedures which ensures that the actual tank
cleaning process is carried out exactly as intended: as
safely as possible. By combining these two factors,
external service providers can be used without
compromising safety, a major advantage when it is
known that outsourcing in itself entails greater risks
unless proper measures are taken.
References
1. Source and copyright: report name: OGP safety performance
indicators 2007, Report No. 409, May 2008. Copyright © The
International Association of Oil and Gas Producers.
HydrocarbonEngineering