RenewableUK has rejected the UK oil&gas industry’s three-day baseline safety competence standard in favour of pursuing what is says is a set of standards better suited to offshore wind.
The decision follows a series of meetings with the Offshore Petroleum Industry Training Organisation (OPITO) that ended in an agreement to disagree regarding approach.
RUK director of health and safety Chris Streatfeild told Energy that it was three or four years ago when it became clear to the renewables sector that it was “going to need a much more sophisticated look at training standards and approvals” than it started out with.
“Prior to my joining the association, working groups within Renewable UK sought to identify appropriate providers of training standards and approvals.
“Part of that selection process identified a number of potential providers and my contact with colleagues who still work in the industry and were party to that process were very clear that OPITO was absolutely the best choice at the time … professional capability competence, particularly, because it had the systems, knowledge, and the issues of offshore was very helpful as well.
“During 2009, I was starting to review the training accreditation and approval process as I bedded into my (then) new role, and part of that related to the commissioning of OPITO to update the actual standards process.
“So we asked OPITO to assist us with making the necessary technical changes. We received draft documentation and, although we did not make a big issue of it, some very early alarm bells were picked up because it was identified that a number of standards sent, one in particular … work at height … contained errors that indicated some level of perhaps minor quality-assurance issues. I didn’t pursue that any further; just pointed it out at the time.
“Our working group identified some substantial changes that we required to be made in both sets of standards … marine survival and working at height.
“That resulted in a number of actions in areas that we wished to make sure we brought to the table when we subsequently met with OPITO last October.”
Streatfeild said that, in the first session – working at height – it became clear that the safety-critical changes RUK (then BWEA) felt were necessary in terms of defining and clarifying the necessary competency standards were not going to be made.
He told Energy that he has since been unable to fathom what the problem was about making the changes requested. As he put it, “We obviously hit a brick wall at that stage”.
On day two, although invited to continue with the meeting, OPITO withdrew.
This was followed by a high-level meeting between OPITO and RUK, with their respective CEOs, Maria Maccaffrey and David Doig, concluding that the organisations would go their separate ways while respecting one another’s “professionalism and capability”.
“Effectively, there was a separation in terms of the approvals and standardisation process,” said Streatfeild, adding that there were further related issues that “reinforced” RUK’s position and decision on the matter.
“On a personal level, quite clearly, OPITO is a highly respected international organisation so I’m not going to comment on any of their wider issues. I can only comment on what we experienced and what information we received direct from (RUK) members.
“And so the breakdown was unfortunate. We’re still willing to maintain (a link), but the agreement was taken between the two CEOs that it was in the best interest of the two organisations to go their separate ways.
“However, my door is open should anyone from OPITO wish to talk with me. I’m more than happy to do so.”
Defending RUK’s position on the oil&gas three-day basic safety training (the Boseit) versus the one-day basic for offshore-wind personnel, Streatfeild pointed out that the original MST (marine survival training) used by the BWEA had been OPITO-approved with “substantial content” provided by the oil&gas body. Effectively, it was a combined end result.
“OPITO was an active party to making the decision that the MST was a suitable standard for the renewables sector as it was at the time.”
Streatfeild pointed out that helicopters were, at the time, perceived as not being a substantial operation component, although there were signs of that changing. And, if so, then adjustments would be made in the training standard as appropriate.
“The vast majority, if not all, of our members, would undertake that anyway, irrespective of the MST.”
Zooming in on why RUK is not convinced that the Boseit is right for renewables, RUK health and safety director Chris Streatfeild said: “First, it is still embedded in oil&gas. All the examples used in the Boseit are hydrocarbon. It is focused on fixed and mobile installations and manned installations, though, yes, there is some small element of comparison. But where we are in renewables today, they are not directly comparable.
“In terms of the most significant reason, why the Boseit is not suitable in its present format is the (personnel) transfer element. And the transfer element involves the various means of transfer from a vessel on to a turbine structure … primarily monopile … on to a ladder with appropriate personal protection fall-arrest equipment.
“That is the dominant form of transfer, but it is not covered within the Boseit in any form. There is no renewables-specific reference to that at all.
“As an industry, as we move to the next level, we need to look at a lot more innovation and to use existing technology as appropriate … helicopters or whatever … the industry as a whole and not just RenewableUK really must be looking at the best and safest means of access during construction and operations and maintenance.
“Within the working groups, we have access to the MCA (Maritime & Coastguard Agency), Trinity House and people who are experienced ex-mariners. They’re not just renewables people. Those who came to our MST review were, in the main, not renewables people; they had come from oil&gas and other sectors … giving of their maritime expertise.”
Streatfeild said marine survival was being covered not only by the basic course, but also via company-specific programmes. And not only that: issues such as how to handle a transformer platform fire were being planned for, as was training within the wider safety competency framework – working at height, transfer, electrical, slips, trips and a maritime environment. Those were the most significant risks.
He accepted the point that, perhaps one day there might be a common basic core that could serve both oil&gas and renewables, but that each would have sector-specific options. This could help with workforce flexibility.
“Answering personally, the more that you achieve aligned standards, the more you can use equivalence and recognition, especially where there is movement (of personnel). From a renewable-industry perspective, we would have no problem in principle in working with the oil&gas, specifically in the offshore environment, to ensure maximum compatibility.”