Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Occupational health impacts: offshore crane lifts in life cycle assessment

  • METHODOLOGY
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background, Aim, and Scope

The identification and assessment of environmental tradeoffs is a strongpoint of life cycle assessment (LCA). A tradeoff made in many product systems is the exchange of potential for occupational accidents with the additional use of energy and materials. Net benefits of safety measures with respect to human health are best illustrated if the consequences avoided and health impacts induced by additional emissions are assessed using commensurable metrics. Our aim is to develop a human health impact indicator for offshore crane lifts. Crane lifts are a major cause of accidents on offshore oil and gas (O & G) rigs, and health impacts from crane lift accidents should be included in comparative LCA of O & G technologies if the alternatives differ in the use of crane lifts.

Materials and methods

Accident records for mobile offshore petroleum installations were used to develop an empirical occupational health indicator for crane lifts in LCA. Probabilistic parameters were introduced in the procedure, and results were calculated by Monte Carlo simulation. The disability adjusted life years (DALY) framework was used to classify health outcome. The characterization factor for offshore crane lifts was applied in three comparisons to evaluate the significance of crane lifts to human health impacts from drilling technology.

Results

The mean occupational health impact per crane lift was 4.5∙10−6 DALY, with cumulative percentiles {P 2.5, P 50, P 97.5} = {6.0∙10−7, 3.1∙10−6, 1.7∙10−5}. Analogously, the fatal accident frequency was described by {P 2.5, P 50, P 97.5} = {7.6∙10−9, 3.9∙10−8, 2.0∙10−7}, with mean 5.6∙10−8 lives lost per crane lift.

Discussion

The uncertainty in the results is caused mainly by the random nature of accidents, i.e., variability in accident frequency. Applications of the characterization factor indicate that although crane lifts may not be significant to the overall health impact of the life cycle of drilling fluids, they are important to the occupational safety of employees on offshore drilling rigs and contribute significantly to the life cycle health impact of loading technologies used to transport drilling waste to shore. A comparative LCA of technologies for loading and off-loading drilling wastes shows that a recently developed hydraulic system performs better than the traditional crane lift alternative in terms of human health impacts.

Conclusions

With the availability of statistics to assess the risk of single mechanical operations, safety aspects may well be included in LCA. For the case of offshore crane lifts, the uncertainty in the characterization factor compares favorably to what is indicated for other human health impact chains. In further work of quantifying occupational health impacts in DALY using accident statistics, it is advised to see if records of non-recoverable injuries (fatalities and amputation cases) can be used to simplify the damage assessment procedure as recoverable injuries were insignificant to the total burden from crane accidents.

Recommendations and perspectives

The characterization factor for crane lifts identifies contributions to life cycle health impact from loading technologies that otherwise would have been overlooked in LCA. While many contest the inclusion of occupational accidents in LCA, our results show that such impacts can be included and that their consideration adds valuable insights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antonsson A-B, Carlsson H (1995) The basis for a method to integrate work environment in life cycle assessments. J Clean Prod 3(4):215–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnthouse L, Fava J, Humphreys K, Hunt R, Laibson L, Noesen S, Norris G, Owens J, Todd J, Vigon B, Weitz K, Young J (eds) (1997) Life-cycle impact assessment: the state-of-the-art, 2nd edn. SETAC, Pensacola

  • Ciroth A, Fleischer G, Jörg S (2004) Uncertainty calculation in life cycle assessments: a combined model of simulation and approximation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(4):216–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crettaz P, Pennington D, Rhomberg L, Brand K, Jolliet O (2002) Assessing human health response in life cycle assessment using ED10s and DALYs, part 1—cancer effects. Risk Anal 22(5):931–946

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DNV (2005a) Accident statistics for floating offshore units on the UK continental shelf 1980–2003. Prepared by Det Norske Veritas for the Health and Safety Executive. Research report RR353. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, Norwich, http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr353.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • DNV(2005b) Accident statistics for fixed offshore units on the UK continental shelf 1980–2003. Prepared by Det Norske Veritas for the Health and Safety Executive. Research report RR349. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, Norwich, http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr349.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (1996) Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control. Official J Legis 257:26–40, Official publications of the European Communities

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes M (1997) A study of accident patterns in offshore drillers in the North Sea. Dissertation prepared for the diploma of membership of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine. Royal College of Physicians, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R, Braunschweig A, Hofstetter P, Suter P (2000) Human health damages due to ionising radiation in life cycle impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:159–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GAD (2006) Interim life tables. Published online by The United Kingdom Government Actuary’s Department: http://www.gad.gov.uk/Life_Tables/Interim_life_tables.htm. Accessed 12 September 2006

  • Geisler G, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler K (2005) Uncertainty analysis in life cycle assessment (LCA): Case study on plant protection products and implications for decision making. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(3):191–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2002) The Eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Methodology report, 3rd edn. Prè Consultants, Amersfoort

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop M, Hofstetter P, Müller-Wenk R, Spriensma R (1998) The Eco-Indicator 98 explained. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(6):352–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of products. Scientific background, vol 2. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) Computational structure of life cycle assessment. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK (2001) A decision-analytic framework or impact assessment. Part 1: LCA and decision analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(1):5–12

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hertwich EG, McKone TE, Pease WS (2000) A systematic uncertainty analysis of an evaluative fate and exposure model. Risk Anal 20(4):437–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstetter P (1998) Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment: A structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere and valuesphere. Kluwers Academic, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstetter P, Norris GA (2003) Why and how should we assess occupational health impacts in integrated product policy. Environ Sci Technol 37(10):2025–2035

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts M (2002) Uncertainty and variability in environmental life-cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(3):173

    Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MAJ, Rombouts LJA, Ragas AMJ, van de Meent D (2005) Human-toxicological effect and damage factors of carconigenic and noncarcinogenic chemicals for life cycle impact assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manage 1(3):181–244

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006) 14040:2006. Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijer A, Huijbregts MAJ, Reijnders L (2005) Human health damages due to indoor sources of organic compounds and radioactivity in life cycle impact assessment of dwellings. Part 1: characterisation factors. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(5):309–316

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzola A (2000) A probabilistic methodology for the assessment of safety from dropped loads in offshore engineering. Risk Anal 20:327–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty. A guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller BA, Morh DL, Rice JC, Clemmer DI (1987) Factors affecting individual injury experience among petroleum workers. J Occup Med 29(2):126–131

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Wenk R (2004) A method to include in LCA road traffic noise and its health effects. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(2):76–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray CJ, Lopez AD (eds) (1996) The global burden of disease. WHO, World Bank, and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • ODS-Petrodata (2005) RigPoint database: http://www.ods-petrodata.com

  • Pennington D, Crettaz P, Tauxe A, Rhomberg L, Brand K, Jolliet O (2002) Assessing human health response in life cycle assessment using ED10s and DALYs, part 2—noncancer effects. Risk Analysis 22(5):947–963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettersen J (2007) Overall evaluation of offshore drilling fluid technology—development and application of life-cycle inventory and impact assessment methods. PhD Thesis 2007:251. Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Department of Energy and Process Engineering

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulsen PB, Jensen AA (eds) (2004) Working environment in life-cycle assessment. SETAC, Pensacola

    Google Scholar 

  • Safetec (2005) Risk analysis of decommissioning activities. Main report. ST-20447-RA-1-Rev 03. Safetec Nordic AB, Trondheim

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt A, Jensen AA, Clausen AU, Kamstrup O, Postlethwaite D (2004a) A comparative life cycle assessment of building insulation products made of stone wool, paper wool and flax. Part 2: Comparative assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(2):122–129

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt A, Poulsen PB, Andreasen J, Fløe T, Poulsen KE (2004b) The working environment in LCA. A new approach. Guidelines from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency No. 72. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Udo de Haes HA, Lindeijer E (2002) The conceptual structure of life-cycle impact assessment. In: Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich E, Hofstetter P, Klöppfer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Mueller-Wenk R, Olsen I, Pennington D, Potting J, Steen B (eds) Life-cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. SETAC, Pensacola

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrisberg N, Udo de Haes HA, Triebswetter U, Eder P, Clift R (eds) (2002) Analytical tools for environmental design and management in a systems perspective—the combined use of analytical tools. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This work was funded by a PhD grant from StatoilHydro ASA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johan Pettersen.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Andreas Ciroth

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pettersen, J., Hertwich, E.G. Occupational health impacts: offshore crane lifts in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13, 440–449 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0003-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0003-2

Keywords

Navigation