1 / 6

CASE STUDY

CASE STUDY. The Importance of Accurate Hazard Identification. Greg Dunlop ( Geokinetics (Australasia) Pty Ltd). Significant Incident Review Panel. 16 January 2013 Seismic Power Pole Incident 22 nd November 2012 Seismic Power Pole Incident Classification: Near Miss (HIPO)

thora
Download Presentation

CASE STUDY

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CASE STUDY The Importance of Accurate Hazard Identification Greg Dunlop (Geokinetics (Australasia) Pty Ltd)

  2. Significant Incident Review Panel • 16 January 2013 • Seismic Power Pole Incident • 22nd November 2012 • Seismic Power Pole Incident • Classification: Near Miss (HIPO) • Classification: Near Miss (HIPO) • Presenters: Greg Dunlop – Australasia

  3. INCIDENT- Executive Summary • A timber power pole (12.7kVSWER line) was struck and knocked to the ground by an OnSEIS (tracked seismic source) unit as it negotiated a gateway on a detour between source locations • The incident occurred at approx 8:40am on 22 November 2012 on a Seismic Line to the east of Miles • Consequences: • 2 spot fires – extinguished quickly by OnSEIS operators • First aid case – minor bruising • IP jumped over the downed wire to receive first aid from the Lead Operator. • Immediate response by PM, Snr HSE advisor, fire team, paramedic and exclusion zone was established. • Ergon Energy contacted and replacement power pole installed by 12.30 pm • Incident report completed November 22nd. • Crew had a 1 day safety “stand down”. • Incident investigation conducted November 23rd to November 26th. Power pole before the incident Power pole after the incident

  4. INCIDENT- Findings & Recommendations 1 • Immediate Causes: • Congestion or restricted motion – The position of the power pole restricted access through the gate for the OnSEIS machine. • Improper behavior – OnSEIS driver not driving with due care and attention around potential hazard. • Failure to warn – Potential hazard of the power pole restricting access through the gate not identified and conveyed to OnSeis operators. • Improper behavior – Operator assumed that 12.7kV line was dead and safe to jump over. • Procedure violation – Congested gateway not treated as a tight maneuver under the general operating procedure requiring third party guidance past the obstacle. • Root Causes: • Management and Leadership – 02 Risk Management – Inadequate identification of the potential hazard created by the position of the power pole restricting access through the gate for the OnSEIS machine. • Mental incapacity – 04 Capacity and Training – Although operator trained and assessed as competent he was not driving with due care and attention around potential hazard. • Inadequate Tools and Equipment – 02 Risk Management – No ability for OnSeis operator to accurately judge the distance between the front right corner of the unit with stationary objects.

  5. INCIDENT- Findings & Recommendations 2 • Recommended corrective actions: • Implement exclusion zones of 5m radius around all power poles. • Educate seismic crew on Electrical Safety Life Saver, the dangers of arcing and also step and touch potential associated with high voltage. Arcing distances increase with voltage • Educate seismic crews on ACR (Automatic Circuit Re-closer) procedures that most rural power supplies have in place. • Change survey SOP so that line sketches include all power poles within 25m of the line. • Create a role on the crew for a person to drive each line with the line sketch to ensure all hazards have been correctly identified on the line sketch; marked in the field and communicated to the operators. • Fit reversing cameras to all of the OnSEIS units. • Fit a sighting rod to the front right-hand corner of each OnSEIS to allow the operator to be more spatially aware of the corner of the vehicle in relationship to obstacles/hazards on the seismic line. • Increase the use of survey flagging/other highlighters for marking hazards. • All vehicles to undergo a blind-spot survey by operators.

  6. Use of Blind Spot Surveys for vehicles. Hazard Scout position appointed on seismic crew to ensure all hazards have been correctly identified on the line sketch; marked in the field and communicated to operators. Minimum 5 meter exclusion zone for all seismic activity around any power pole. Fit reversing cameras on all OnSEIS units and sighting poles to right-side front corner. Although the power pole has been identified as an obstruction to access for the gate, the potential of injury due to the power lines it carried was not identified. QUESTIONS and DISCUSSION INCIDENT- Lessons to be Learnt

More Related