72

20.5 The hazards, potential consequences and existing controls listed in the following
examples for Section 1 of this form of risk assessment are specific to jack-up
operations. The list is not exhaustive and should be used only as a guide. Duty
holders should develop a complete risk assessment that accounts for all the
hazards that are common to all types of vessel and to each task undertaken.

20.6 In the
Our ref: following tables an incident frequency range from reasonably probable to
5771/R.02-A/LOCL 116
remote has been considered, with the consequences in each case listed from
Guidelines
seriousforto
the Selection and
reasonably Operation
credible, of Jack-ups
based on actualinindustry
the Marine Renewable Energy Industry
experience.

20.7 When considering the additional control measures that should be implemented
20.8 it is important
The risk to
of remember
personal injury hasHealth
that the not been
and specifically addressed
Safety at Work Act etc.at this level, but
(HSWA)
requires that
such theisrisk
risk has been from
self-evident reduced to a level
inspection ofthat
the is as low as
possible reasonably in each
consequences
practicable (ALARP).
case. Every care should be taken to ensure that risk assessments are fully
 
20.8 developed
The risk to include
of personal annot
injury has assessment of criticality,
been specifically together
addressed at thiswith calculation of
level,
but such
risk risk is self-evident
factors from inspection of
and recommendations fortheadditional
possible consequences
control measures in where
each case. Every care should be taken to ensure that risk assessments are fully
necessary.
developed to include an assessment of criticality, together with calculation of risk
factorsbeing
Activity and recommendations
assessed: TRANSIT forAFLOAT
additional control measures where necessary.
Section 1: Hazard analysis of the intended activity
Activity being assessed: TRANSIT AFLOAT
Section 1:
Hazard Hazard analysis
Description of the
of identified intended activity
hazards Existing control measures
No. and potential consequences
1 Deteriorating weather conditions
Hazard Description
• increased of identified
and accelerated hazards
motions (a) Class-approved design limits for transit afloat
No. • pounding
and potential
and slamming consequences Existing controlstatement
(b) Method measures stating limits for transit
1 • waves breaking on deck
Deteriorating weather conditions (c) Route-specific high-resolution weather forecasts
• shifting equipment and liquid spills (e) Securing of all loose gear and equipment
2 • increased
Gale-force winds and and accelerated
rough seas motions (a) Class-approved design limits for transit
• pounding
• increased and slamming
and accelerated motions afloat
(a) All controls listed above
• waves breaking
• damage to project deck cargo on deck (b) M
 ethod statement
(b) Strength stating limits
calculations for transit
for transport motions
• shifting equipment and liquid spills (c) Route-specific
(c) Competenthigh-resolution
sea fastening designweatherand inspection
• failure of equipment and cargo sea fastenings
forecasts
(d) Limit for transit set lower than design criteria
• shifting cargo damages hatches or tank vents
(e) Securing of all loose gear and equipment
• loss of watertight integrity (e) Closing all watertight doors, ports and hatches
3 2 Storm Gale-force
conditionswinds and rough seas
• increased and accelerated motions (a) All controls listed above
• increased and accelerated motions (a) All controls listed above
• breakage or losstoofproject
survival craftcargo (b) Alteration of course to reduce motions
• damage deck (b) Strength calculations for transport motions
• leg structural failure
• failure of equipment and cargo (c) Passage
(c) Competent seaplans with shelter
fastening design points
and en route
• hull structural failure in way of leg guides
sea fastenings (d) Shelter points identified en route
inspection
• progressive flooding,
• shifting capsize and
cargo damages (e) Compliance
sinking (d) Limit
hatches with
for transit set jack-up
lower thanstability
designcriteria
or tank vents criteria
• loss of watertight integrity (e) Closing all watertight doors, ports and
hatches
3 Storm conditions
• increased and accelerated motions (a) All controls listed above
• breakage or loss of survival craft (b) Alteration of course to reduce motions
• leg structural failure (c) Passage plans with shelter points en
• hull structural failure in way of leg route
guides (d) Shelter points identified en route
• progressive flooding, capsize and (e) Compliance with jack-up stability criteria
sinking

 
 73
Our ref: 5771/R.02-A/LOCL 117

Guidelines for the Selection and Operation of Jack-ups in the Marine Renewable Energy Industry
Activity being assessed: POSITIONING AFLOAT USING TUGS AND MOORINGS
Section 1: Hazard analysis of the intended activity
Activity being assessed: POSITIONING AFLOAT USING TUGS AND MOORINGS
Section 1: Hazard analysis of the intended activity
Hazard Description of identified hazards
No. and potential consequences Existing control measures
Hazard Description of identified hazards and Existing control measures
1 Jack-up collision with surface structure
No. potential consequences
1 •Damage
Jack-up collision to surface
with surface structure
structure (a) Suitable tugs and towing arrangements
(turbines,
• Damage to surface etc.) (turbines, etc.)
structure (b)
(a) Safe anchor-handling
Suitable tugs and towing procedures
arrangements
• Damagefoundation
• Damage to structure to structure foundation (c)
(b)CSafe
ertified & experiencedprocedures
anchor-handling tow master & tug
• Damage to jack-up (c) masters
Certified & experienced tow master & tug masters
• Damage to jack-up
(d) Compliance with mooring guidelines
(d) Compliance with mooring guidelines
(e) Compliance with minimum safe
(e)clearances
Compliance with minimum safe clearances
(f)C
(f) Calibrated DGPSnavigation
alibrated DGPS navigation survey
survey system
system
(g) Environmental
(g) Environmentallimitslimitsset
setfor
forpositioning
positioning
(h)CCompetent
(h) planning for
ompetent planning for approach
approach and and positioning
2 Leg-footing contact with pipelines or cables positioning
• Damage to pipelines or cables (a) All controls listed above
2 Leg-footing contact with pipelines or cables
(b) Site drawings verified accurate as built
• Breakage of oil pipelines resulting in pollution
• Damage to jack-up
• Damage legstoand spudcans
pipelines or cables (c) All
(a) Recent bathymetric
controls listed aboveand side-scan survey
•Breakage of oil pipelines (b)
(d) Site drawings
Pipeline verified
and cable accuratezones
exclusion as built
identified
resulting in pollution (c)
(e)Recent
Continuousbathymetric andof
monitoring side-scan
overall legsurvey
draft
•Damage to jack-up legs and (d)
(f) PUse
ipeline and cable
of echo exclusion zones identified
sounders
3 Anchors/moorings spudcans
contact with pipelines (e) Continuous monitoring of overall leg draft
• Damage to pipelines or cables (f)
(a) Use of echo listed
All controls sounders
above
• Breakage
3 ofAnchors/moorings
oil pipelines resulting in pollution
contact (b) Competent mooring plans
with pipelines
• Loss of mooring wires and anchors (c) Mooring catenary analysis
• Damage to pipelines or cables (a) All controls listed above
•Breakage of oil pipelines (d) Competent
(b) Use of line mooring
buoys (damage
plans preventer buoys)
resulting in pollution (e)Mooring
(c) Tug Management System (TMS)
catenary analysis
•Loss of mooring wires and (f) Anchor
(d) position
Use of line buoys and dragpreventer
(damage monitoringbuoys)
anchors (e) Tug Management System (TMS)
(f) Anchor position and drag monitoring

74

Our ref: 5771/R.02-A/LOCL 118

Guidelines
for the Selection
Activity and Operation
being assessed: of Jack-ups
POSITIONING in the
AFLOAT Marine Renewable
– SELF-PROPELLED Energy Industry
JACK-UP
Section 1: Hazard analysis of the intended activity

Activity being assessed: POSITIONING

Hazard Description of identifiedAFLOATExisting
– SELF-PROPELLED
control measures JACK-UP
No. hazards and potential
Section 1: Hazard analysis of the
consequences
intended activity
1 Collision with surface structure
Hazard Description of identified hazards and Existing control measures
No. • Damage to surface structure
potential consequences (a) DP system approved by Classification
(turbines, etc.) Society
1 Collision with surface structure
• Damage to structure foundation (b) Masters and deck officers with DP
• Damage to surface structure
• Damage (turbines, etc.)
to jack-up (a) DP system approved by Classification Society
endorsements
• Damage to structure foundation (c)(b)
DPMasters
Operatingand
Manual and
deck FMEACwith
officers report
DP endorsements
(d) DP trials prior to approach
• Damage to jack-up (c) DP Operating Manual
(e) Compliance with minimum safe
and FMEAC report
(d) DP trials prior to approach
clearances
(f)(e) Compliance
Calibrated with minimum
DGPS navigation surveysafe clearances
system
(f) Calibrated DGPS navigation survey system
(g) Environmental limits set for positioning
(g) Environmental limits set for positioning
(h) Competent planning for approach and
(h) Competent planning for approach and positioning
positioning
2 Collision with
2
subsea pipelines or cables
Collision with subsea pipelines or cables
• Damage to pipelines or cables (a) All controls listed above
• Damage to pipelines or cables (a) All controls listed above
• Breakage of pipelines causing
• Breakage pollution
of pipelines causing
(b) Site drawings verified accurate as built
(b) Site drawings verified accurate as built
• Damage to jack-uppollution
legs and spudcans (c)(c) Recent
Recent bathymetric
bathymetric and side-scan survey
and side-scan
• Damage to jack-up legs and (d) Pipeline and cable exclusion zones identified
survey
spudcans (d)(e)
Pipeline and cable
Continuous exclusion zones
monitoring of overall leg draft
identified
(e) Continuous monitoring of overallmonitoring
(f) Anchor position and drag leg draft
(f) Anchor position and drag monitoring


Activity being assessed: TRANSIENT CONDITION – JACKING AND PRELOADING
Section 1: Hazard analysis of the intended activity
Hazard Description of identified hazards
No. and potential consequences
1 Contact with footprint, slope or scour pit
• Sliding, as footings engage
seabed
• Leg damage through eccentric
footing loads
• Leg misalignment and binding
• Leg and guide damage through
misalignment
• Jacking system failure caused
by leg misalignment
2 Contact with pinnacle rocks, reefs or boulders
• Sliding, toppling, as footings
engage seabed
• Damage to spudcans dented by
boulders
3 Contact with seabed debris, including UXO
• Damage to legs and spudcans
• Catastrophic damage caused
by explosion
4 Leg impact on seabed
• Leg damage through impact on
seabed
• Loss of jacking capability
5 Jacking system mechanical or power failure
• Cannot elevate above the wave
crests
• Cannot raise legs and move to
shelter
6 Punch-through
• Sudden uncontrolled inclination
• Heavy items break loose
• Structural damage to legs and
hull
• Collision with adjacent fixed
structure
• Loss of jacking capability
• Inclination prevents launch of
survival craft
• Inclination prevents helicopters
landing
• Flooding, capsize and sinking
75
Existing control measures
(a) Competent site assessment
(b) Recent bathymetric and sonar survey
(c) Plotting seabed gradients and scour pits
(d) Plotting previous jack-up footprints
(e) RPD monitoring (truss-type legs)
(f) Calibrated DGPS navigation survey
system
(a) All controls listed above
(b) Investigation by ROV or divers’ survey
(c) Avoidance procedure and minimum safe
clearance
(d) Boulder removal procedure
(a) All controls listed above
(b) Gradiometer survey and interpretation
(c) Desktop study and UXO risk assessment
(d) Avoidance procedure and min. safe
clearance
(e) Object investigation and removal
procedure
(a) Class-approved limits for engaging the
seabed
(b) Limits based on leg/bottom impact
analysis
(a) IACS Class notation ‘self-elevating’
(b) Class approval for design and Class
surveys
(c) Planned maintenance system
(d) Routine inspections and tests
(e) Provision of manuals and instructions
(f) Compliance with the operating manual
(g) Experienced jacking engineers
(h) Hull motion monitoring
(i) Leg load and hull inclination monitoring
(a) Geophysical survey fit for purpose
(b) Geotechnical investigation fit for purpose
(c) Competent load–penetration assessment
(d) Lowest practicable airgap for preloading
(e) Compliance with operating manual
instructions
(f) Competent and experienced jacking
engineers
(g) Adequate length of weather window
(h) Leg load and hull inclination monitoring
(i) Comparison of actual vs predicted leg
penetration
(j) Availability of competent geotechnical
advice
76
Activity being assessed: ELEVATED OPERATIONS
Section 1: Hazard analysis of the intended activity
Hazard Description of identified hazards
No. and potential consequences
1 Storm overload
• Loss of airgap
• Sliding off location
• Settlement and inclination
• Structural failure
• Overturning
2 Foundation instability caused by scour
• Uncontrolled settlement and
inclination
• Instability caused by loss of
footing reaction
• Stress caused by displacement
of leg footing
• Leg misalignment and binding
• Unable to jack due to leg
misalignment
3 Punch-through resulting from scour
• Sudden inclination causes falls
and injury
• Heavy items break loose
• Structural damage to legs and hull
• Collision with adjacent fixed
structure
• Loss of jacking capability
• Inclination prevents survival
craft launch
• Inclination prevents helicopters
landing
• Flooding, capsize and sinking
4 Jacking system or leg structural failure
• Leg structural damage
• Loss of jacking capability
• Difficult recovery operation
• Potential for collapse and total
loss
5 Collision/impact by other vessel underway
• Leg structural damage
• Loss of jacking capability
• Difficult recovery operation
• Potential for collapse and total
loss
*SIMOPS: Simultaneous Operations, such as turbine installation and cable lay operations, being undertaken
concurrently in the same location
Existing control measures
(a) Geophysical survey fit for purpose
(b) Geotechnical investigation fit for purpose
(c) Meteorological extremes correctly
identified
(d) Class approval for jack-up design survival
limits
(e) Competent site-specific assessment (ISO
19905-1)
(f) Compliance with site assessment
recommendation
(g) Compliance with operating manual
instructions
(h) Capability to place the jack-up in survival
mode
(i) Daily leg load calculations
(j) Continuous monitoring of inclination
(a) Site survey records on seabed change
over time
(b) Competent geotechnical assessment of
scour
(c) Scour monitoring and management
procedure
(d) Continuous monitoring of leg loads &
penetration
(e) Repeating preload after storm or delay
(a) All controls listed above
(b) Effect of scour on soil bearing capacity
assessed
(c) Suspend operations during spring tidal
currents
(d) Adoption of a weather-restricted
operation
(e) Removal before foundation is
compromised
(a) IACS Class notation ‘self-elevating’
(b) IACS Class approval for design and Class
surveys
(c) Planned maintenance system
(d) Routine inspections and tests
(e) Provision of jacking system manuals
(f) Compliance with operating manual
instructions
(g) Competent and experienced jacking
engineers
(h) Leg load and hull inclination monitoring
(a) Site marine control procedures
(b) Notices to Mariners
(c) Establishment of 500-metre safety zone
(d) Competent planning of SIMOPS*
(e) AIS signal transmitting
(f) Navigation lights displayed and deck
floodlights on
(g) MOU obstruction lights displayed
(h) Fog signal operating in reduced visibility
(i) Radar watch and visual lookout
maintained
(j) VHF radio warnings transmitted
• breakage or loss of survival craft
• leg structural failure
• hull structural failure in way of leg guides
• progressive flooding, capsize and sinking
(b) Alteration of course to reduce motions
(c) Passage plans with shelter points en route
(d) Shelter points identified en route
(e) Compliance with jack-up stability criteria
77