**2. The problems and the objectives**

Although we pay more attention to accident prevention from the state to our corporation, we own little effective safety risk prevention method before. What we have done is to learn the lessons after the accident happened instead of taking prevention beforehand. We have been exploring a suitable method to apply the risk management theory to the daily production and operation of grassroots organizations since the introduction of HSEMS [1]. When we got to know the HSE case [2], we found it was a good method to prevent accident beforehand at least in theory, but many problems aroused during our application of the method in our daily HSE management of the construction projects in the frontline organizations.

HSE case is a comprehensive document for risk prevention [3, 4]. It is rich in content and covers a wide range, which however will not only increase the preparation workload but also affect its implementation. To prepare a HSE case, it is necessary to comprehensively identify HSE hazards and assess their risk, develop corresponding risk prevention measures, and establish documents in writing before a project started [5]. Since all these work must be done before the project is started, problems such as tight schedule and burdensome task may be encountered, leading to failure in compiling such kind of a huge document, let alone its quality. On the other hand, as HSE case is rich in contents, there is usually no enough time to organize a process to educate relevant personnel in the project preparation phase. Even if the education process is implemented, the effect will always be too poor due to its too many contents,. In view of the above problems, some companies only regard HSE case as "a letter of guarantee" and submit it to relevant stakeholders, emphasizing their concern for project HSE risk prevention while downplaying relevant education. As a result, even the companies within Shell Co. once internally dubbed HSE case as "the case sits on the shelf." In a word, although there are many problems mentioned above, the key problem is its too much content of the HSE case. Because of too much content, it is difficult to compile such a huge document within the limited time just before the beginning of a project especially for the frontline organizational persons, let alone train the workers with it in such a short time.

According to the above analysis, the main objective is to reduce its content and to make the document of HSE case a bit simple in order to compile and apply it in daily HSE management of the construction projects in the frontline organizations smoothly. Based on the analysis, a new safety risk management mode for construction project, called the HSE-TDOC (two documents and one checklist), was developed in 2001 [6] and was modified in 2007 according to the problems met in practice [7]. The underlying principle and application of the model, as well as the document structure and steps of compilation, were described in the following, through which the model is well explained.

#### **3. The methodology used to develop the HSE-TDOC**

HSE case is a kind of HSE risk management document developed to enhance the project HSE risk prevention capabilities. Its biggest advantage lies in the organic integration of HSE risk management theories and the practice. It applies risk management theories to effectively guide actual HSE risk management, especially the project HSE risk management.

Based on the problems met in the application of HSE case, a new safety risk management mode, named the HSE-TDOC (two documents and one checklist), was developed for construction project, and it will be introduced in this section.

**19**

*A New Mode of HSE Risk Management for Construction Projects*

In fact, HSE case has become not only "the case sits on the shelf" but has been questioned by some experts and scholars for its way of managing operational risks. For example, in the co-authored paper "Integrating Safety Management Through the Bowtie Concept—A move away from the Safety Case Focus," Australian scholars Acfield et al. [8] believed that HSE case is applicable to managing risks arising from changes in the

Through the study of risk management theories and systematic analysis of various risks, we believe that the risks encountered in practice can be roughly divided into two types, i.e., "relatively stable" risks and "changing" risks [9]. "Relatively stable" risks have two characteristics. The first feature is just as the name implied that they are relatively stable, e.g., in oil or gas well-drilling industry, the blowout risks while drilling is a "relatively stable" risk. As long as there are no great changes to the work object, process and technology, equipment, and facilities, such risks will keep being stable; whenever, wherever, or whoever has an oil or gas well drilled, the risk of well blowout will always exist. Because the underground high-pressure fluid layer may be meted while drilling, the well blowout will happen if the preventive measures are null and void. The second feature is that they are specialty-related. The blowout risks, for example, may only exist in business areas related to the underground high-pressure fluid layer, such as drilling, logging, and workover, while in other unrelated fields such as refining and chemical and transport, blowout

Such "relatively stable" risks are actually the so-called operational risks by Acfield et al. [8]. They are often called as conventional risks or conventional operational risks, because they generally occur in the course of conventional operations. Conventional operations refer to those operations with relatively fixed work contents and environment that can be carried out according to preset procedures, which is also named standard operating procedure (SOP). Therefore, risks arising from conventional operations can be prevented by complying with the corresponding operating procedures, working procedures, SOP, etc. that aim to regulate the behavior of operators. As conventional risks are relatively stable, and the measures to control them are also stable, there is no need to manage such kind of risks based

on project-specific HSE case which is changed from one project to another.

measures of unconventional risks from one project to another.

**3.2 The development of HSE-TDOC**

Compared with conventional risks, unconventional risks have unique characteristics. Firstly, unconventional risks are changing. Prevention of such risks requires pertinent measures considering many associated factors, not like conventional risks which can be prevented by developing operating procedures, working procedures, SOP, etc. Such risks are called as "change risks" by Acfield et al. [8]. Secondly, although there are many types of unconventional risks (risks arising from unconventional operational activities and changes), the total amount of is quite less than that of conventional ones. Thirdly, unconventional risks are unrelated to specialties and may exist in any field. Because of the above characteristics, unconventional risks are more suitable for HSE case. As different projects may encounter different unconventional risks, it is necessary to identify, evaluate, and develop control

As the abovementioned, since one kind of risk is specialty-related, a relatively stable document can be developed to meet such kind of needs. Therefore, according to different kinds of specialties, we develop relatively stable HSE guidance which are specific to the specialties or work post. Preparing HSE guidance may take a

project or activities, and it should not be used to manage operational risks.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84358*

**3.1 The analysis of the HSE case**

accidents are impossible.
