Informed choices, safer outcomes – A process for off-the-shelf product selection

Product selection is a critical element in designing all energy transition projects, including offshore wind farms. Ensuring products have a high degree of inherent safety is essential to reduce risks to people, property, and the environment to acceptable levels. However, many products used in offshore wind are “off-the-shelf” (OTS), limiting a developer’s control over their inherent safety features. This raises an important question: How can a project effectively assess and manage OTS product safety to ensure the selected product aligns with a robust safe by design (SBD) approach?

Introduction

Offshore wind farms are dynamic working environments that present significant hazards from both common sources such as flammable materials and suspended loads, and unique, site-specific risks like personnel transfer. The project team is responsible for identifying, understanding, and addressing all risks inherent within the design. In the UK, this requirement is mandated by the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015).

The regulator requires that hazards associated with all assets throughout a project’s lifecycle be identified during the design phase. This enables proactive design decisions to manage risks to acceptable levels. The goal is for developers to create facilities that are safe by design (SBD) rather than “safe by procedure”.

For energy generation projects like offshore wind, it is crucial that developers understand all sources of risk within their project. This includes not only risks originating from their own design work but also those arising from purchased products. This comprehensive approach ensures a complete risk management strategy from the outset.

Elements of the offshore wind lifecycle

The lifecycle of a typical offshore wind farm development comprises three key elements: project, product and logistics, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Project: This encompasses all activities the project team undertakes to plan, design, procure, and manage the development, operation, and eventual decommissioning of the wind farm. Each project has unique characteristics, resulting in a design specific to that development.
Logistics: This includes the processes of transporting products and equipment to the construction site, as well as the operations and maintenance activities to keep the asset functioning throughout its operating life.
Product: This involves the processes undertaken by the design team and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to develop, manufacture and test their products. The products may be bespoke – tailor-made for the specific needs of the project, for instance wind turbine foundations, inter-array and export cables. Or the products may be off-the-shelf (OTS) – mass-produced by an OEM and integrated into the wind farm by the project team, for example wind turbine generators (WTGs), transformers, and switchgear for electrical substations.

Figure 1 – The three elements of the asset lifecycle

While OTS products with a history of successful application might be expected to carry lower risks compared to new, bespoke, one-off products without operational history, a developer must not become complacent. It is crucial to avoid assuming all risks associated with OTS products are fully understood and controlled.

Inherited and integration risks

The developer must understand two key types of risks associated with OTS products:

Inherited risks: These are risks inherent to the product itself, regardless of its application. They are present within the product design and transferred to the developer upon purchase. They are site-agnostic, existing independently of where or how the product is used. They represent the residual risks remaining after the OEM’s risk management efforts. For example, an inherited risk for a WTG is the potential for fire in the nacelle due to the presence of lubricating oils and hydraulic fluids that could be ignited by heat-generating components or electrical systems.
Integration risks: These are risks that arise when incorporating the product into the specific project. They are created by the product’s introduction into its design application within the project. They are site-specific risks, emerging from the unique characteristics of the development. An example integration risk would be transferring maintenance personnel from service vessels to the WTG in an offshore environment.

Understanding both types of risk is required as early as possible in the design stage. This ensures that all OTS product-related risks can be managed effectively through design decisions.

A significant portion of products within an offshore wind farm design are OTS and non-customisable. Procurement of major components such as WTGs from an OEM significantly influences the overall risk profile of the wind farm. This impact extends to personnel accessing the wind farm, those working in its vicinity and even people living in the immediate environment.

The design features of each WTG have far-reaching effects on the entire wind farm’s productivity, reliability, and safety. Key factors such as WTG internal layout, structural integrity, and environmental and sustainability considerations influence the project’s success and long-term viability.

By thoroughly understanding both inherited and integration risks, developers can make informed decisions that enhance the overall safety and efficiency of the offshore wind farm project.

A process for product selection

To ensure an overall project is SBD and risks are reduced to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), each product within the development must meet these same criteria. This applies not only to the products themselves, but also to how they are integrated into the unique project.

Developers must be aware that the ability to influence both inherited and integration risks is greatest during the early design phases. As the project progresses, implementing effective risk reduction measures becomes increasingly difficult and expensive.

Given the significant impact the chosen WTG model has on the success and safety of a wind farm project, a thorough assessment of available options is essential. To adequately consider both inherited and integration risks in product selections, developers should implement a robust selection process, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – A staged approach to product selection

While the following discussion focuses on WTG selection for offshore wind farms, the same process should be applied when selecting all significant products across energy transition projects.

Stage one: set requirement

The first step in the procurement process involves identifying a comprehensive list of viable OEMs and developing a complete set of requirements for evaluating each OEM and its turbine design. These requirements ensure the WTGs meet performance and safety expectations, the OEM’s capabilities align with the project objectives, and the WTGs adhere to industry standards and regulations.

Specifically, demonstration is required for the:

Technical capability of the product. Can the WTG achieve the project’s generation aims? Can the OEM provide evidence to support this?
Design risk capability of the OEM. Does the OEM understand the safety requirements for the WTG’s construction, operation and decommissioning? Can the OEM demonstrate that the design ensures this? What level of organisational support will be available during the operational life?
Legal compliance of the product. What regulations must the WTG comply with in the operating jurisdiction? Can the OEM demonstrate that the product is compliant?

Recent guidance by G+ (Ref. 1) acknowledges that developers need sufficient oversight of purchased products. While a detailed audit of every OEM’s product development process is impractical, the OEM’s responses should enable the developer to confidently assert that:

The OEM understands the risks within its product design and has implemented effective measures to ensure inherited residual risks are ALARP.
The OEM has provided sufficient credible information to enable a comprehensive assessment of the product’s integration into the project.

OEMs may be unwilling or unable to provide all requested information due to commercial sensitivities. However, demonstrating an effective design risk management process should not be considered commercially sensitive. It is crucial for developers to understand that if a product cannot be shown to be SBD, the project’s viability is considerably weakened.

Stage two: assess applicable options

After receiving responses from all OEMs based on stage one requirements, the next step is to assess which WTG is most appropriate to integrate into the design. Those options that are not technically feasible can be screened out. For instance, a WTG model which cannot deliver the project generation aims, or one not available within the project timeframe.

All remaining options should be assessed for their hazard impact, by undertaking an optioneering hazard analysis study. The purpose is to ensure the OEM has conducted extensive due diligence in product development. That is, hazards have been identified, risks reduced to ALARP, and all residual risks ranked and documented.

The key message for developers is that the OEM’s safety justification is not separate to the project’s overall Design Risk Management Plan (DRMP) but an integral part of it. Therefore, developers must ensure the OEM’s output and the project’s DRMP work in tandem, leveraging the OEM’s product expertise.

The hazard analysis study involves a qualitative assessment of each WTG option for its level of design safety against each significant accident hazard (high severity hazards that could lead to a fatality or major injury). The study should assess both inherent WTG hazards and those arising from WTG integration into the wind farm.

The developer must consider the efficacy of the safeguards within the design. CDM 2015 requires hazards to be eliminated where possible and, where not possible, reduced using adequate risk controls. This approach should follow the hierarchy of risk controls, as shown in Figure 3. A developer should prioritise WTGs with more effective risk controls in place over a high number of less effective safeguards.

Figure 3 – The hierarchy of risk controls

Hazard analysis is not equivalent to certification. A certified WTG does not automatically ensure regulatory compliance for the WTG or the project. Developers should avoid “certification dependency” – relying solely on certificates of safety compliance rather than engaging in a comprehensive risk-based approach (Ref. 2).

Stage three: develop justification for selection

While safety is a critical factor in WTG selection, it is not the only consideration. However, in a generative safety culture aiming for SBD, safety should be the driving factor. Achieving SBD requires demonstrating risks are reduced to ALARP levels. The ALARP principle is based on balancing the potential benefits of further risk reduction against the costs of that reduction. Therefore, the justification for WTG selection should balance the safety and environmental risks of each WTG, both inherited and integration risks, against its beneficial impact on the project.

This balancing act can be navigated using the SBD flowchart presented in Figure 4, to inform an understanding of the preferred option. The flowchart helps the project to determine whether:

It is free to select a product based solely on factors other than safety.
It should select the lowest risk option.
A higher risk option brings sufficient wider benefits such that it could potentially be justified ALARP.

The justification for the final WTG selection should be fully documented, detailing the assessment and decision-making process.

Figure 4 – A safe by design decision making flowchart

By following this structured approach, developers can ensure that their WTG selection process is thorough, balanced, and aligned with SBD principles, while still considering the broader project requirements and benefits.

Conclusion

The development of an energy transition asset involves incorporating OTS products alongside bespoke engineering designs. To ensure that the purchased OTS products enable the asset to be justified as SBD, the developer must take the following steps:

Select a qualified OEM. The product should be supplied by an OEM with demonstrated expertise in design risk management. The OEM must have thoroughly assessed the product design, understood the associated hazards and implemented effective risk controls. Residual risks should be clearly understood and communicated to the developer for informed risk inheritance. The developer should avoid reassessing the inherent risks but also not rely solely on product certification. The due diligence should be based on objective evidence, fostering mutual trust and respect among all parties.
Justify the selected product. The chosen product should be selected over other viable options after careful consideration of safety risks. It should either present the lowest risk or offer substantial benefits that justify a potentially higher risk.
Ensure comprehensive hazard awareness. All package managers within the project team must understand the hazards associated with integrating the product into the asset. Design decisions should implement effective risk controls to reduce risks to ALARP levels.

Only by combining these three steps can a project demonstrate that its SBD approach truly encompasses all aspects of the design.