December
2014
Oilfield Technology
|
71
themselves in the differences in these expanded tests to better
judge new product differentiation, but it is not an easy journey.
There are limited credible sources that seek to explain the
rudimentary differences between the tests. The trend towards
tougher materials has a direct relationship with the longevity
of the product in use on the jobsite. This adjusted lifetime
should be factored in on the ‘worthiness’ of an investment when
companies are reviewing new PPE lines.
The testing methods of the EU and the US have been
undergoing change as well. The standards that PPE is measured
against are tweaked around every four years. PPE that has been
rated with outdated standards may not fare as well against the
modified standards of today. The introduction of dorsal impact
protection on gloves has substantially reduced the severity and
incidences of hand injuries on worksites where they have been
mandated. Some major drilling companies have seen a decrease
of over 60% in hand injuries since the implementation of the
impact glove safety programme. Despite the obvious success
of this venture, an aspect that has raised the concern of many
within the International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) is
the standardisation of impact testing on dorsal impact gloves.
Adjusting the standards will better facilitate fair comparisons
between products, and may nullify claims PPE manufacturers
have previously made. There has also been a change to the
vibration glove test that has made it more difficult to meet
this updated standard. Due to adjustments in the location of
anti‑vibration material, gloves that passed the 1996 standard
are unlikely to pass the 2013 standard.
Beyondderrickhands
Many in the PPE industry wrongly associate the oilfield
industry with drilling contractors only. A closer investigation
of the oilfield industry’s fastest growing positions reveals a
slightly different picture of who has the most to gain from
performance PPE. The PPE that has been released has
been targeted to derrick hands for years. Roughnecks and
derrick hands will generally be required to wear the highest
level of PPE the company can afford. According to many
job descriptions, a roughneck’s qualifications include a
high school diploma or equivalent, the ability to lift 150 pounds
with the aid of another person, and to stand for 12 hours
wearing steel‑toed boots. While it is obvious that this type
of extreme job duty should be treated with attention, Health
and Safety Executive’s March 2014 HID Statistics Report
2
reported that: “The ‘maintenance/construction’ work process
environment continued to produce the highest number of ‘all
injuries’ this year. This was followed by ‘deck operations’. Deck
operations produced the most ‘major’ injuries in 2012/13.”
Another surprising discovery was that: “Injuries from
‘handling, lifting or carrying’ produced the most injuries in a
single category followed by ‘struck by moving objects’, ‘slips,
trips and falls’ and ‘falls from height’. These four categories
account for 90% of all injuries with approximately 81% of major
injuries being attributed to limbs.”
Statisticallydrivendownthewrongroads
The oil production injury statistics listed above could lead
one to hypothesise about the noticeable lack of mention of
two top trending issues in the PPE industry: cut injury and
head injury. The incidence of these injuries on jobsites is still
important, but one cannot ignore the fact that, according to the
HID Statistics Report
2
, “Of all upper limb injuries, 31 (48.4%)
were attributed to injury to one or more fingers or thumbs (of
which 84% were over 7‑day injuries), with fractures leading the
way as the most frequently recorded single kind of major injury.”
To calculate the value of the latest PPE against productivity
and cost basis, it is important to examine the average cost
and length of common injuries versus the cost of the new
performance PPE, taking into account the projected reduction
of injuries and the projected increased lifespan of the improved
product. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 30% of
injuries occur because the gloves are “inadequate, damaged or
wrong for the type of hazard present”.
3
Clearly, ‘one‑size‑fits‑all’
does not apply to the protective glove market anymore.
It is also important to weigh the new PPE cost against
projected saving on injury claims. Based on industry
research, HSE professionals know that the average hand
injury claim has now exceeded US$ 6000, with each lost
time workers‑compensation claim reaching nearly US$ 7500,
according to the BLS and the National Safety Council.
4
Wearing
gloves lowers the risk of acute occupational hand injuries by
60 ‑ 70%, according to a study from the Liberty Mutual Research
Institute for Safety.
5
For example; if a site was currently going through 1000 pairs
of gloves with an average cost of US$ 4 per glove that lasted
one week, would it make sense to upgrade to a glove that cost
US$ 7.50 per glove but lasted three weeks and additionally
protected against cuts and punctures?
Calculating cost performance indicators is more than
simple cost accounting. Intangible variables are present
in the big‑picture view of safety programme changes, and
HSE professionals must weigh the advantages of a change
in addition to the quantitative data mentioned above. For
example, it does not make sense to implement a safety
programme that does not account for the workforce on
particular sites, or the variety of job duties within those
sites. Another factor that is qualitative, but still important,
is the company culture surrounding the reception of change
and the administrative costs and productive time spent on
implementation of an expanded safety programme. The
willingness of team members to accept the new PPE products
can positively or negatively affect the outcome of the
programme. Many times, workers feel appreciated when
attention is paid to their position and their PPE is improved.
This can indirectly affect productivity and job performance in a
positive way.
Conclusion
Today, efficiency is a keystone of HSE professionals’ broad view of
their teams. They carry the unseemly task of balancing the level of
protection with the comfort of their workers, the happiness of the
accounting team and shareholders, and the cyclical emergence
of new performance PPE products. The willingness to weigh the
true cost of performance PPE is important in understanding the
differentiation of PPE options, and their projected impact on
performance at jobsites and on the corporate ledger.
References
1.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses
Requiring Days Away From Work, 2012.
2.
‘HID Statistics Report’, Health and Safety Executive (March 2014)
3.
OSHA Personal Protective Equipment for General Industry Section II
Workplace Hazards Involved.
4.
National Safety Council Injury Facts 2011 Edition.
5.
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Vol 1, Issue 3, 2004.
