The Use of Qualitative Health Hazard Assessment (QHHA) Process in a Service Company
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Use of Qualitative Health Hazard Assessment (QHHA) Process in a Service Company Dale Vizzini; Dale Vizzini Halliburton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar John McCormick; John McCormick Halliburton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Joel Disatell Joel Disatell Halliburton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 2004. Paper Number: SPE-86849-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/86849-MS Published: March 29 2004 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Vizzini, Dale, McCormick, John, and Joel Disatell. "The Use of Qualitative Health Hazard Assessment (QHHA) Process in a Service Company." Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 2004. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/86849-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety, Environment, and Sustainability Search Advanced Search AbstractThis paper describes the Qualitative Health Hazard Assessment (QHHA) process. The process is used to determine the procedure level aspects and impacts of risks, as well as the order in which identified health hazards are evaluated. This process does not determine quantitatively if an exposure is within occupational exposure limits; rather, it models and ranks exposures for a more comprehensive evaluation that can determine exposure status.Since it is virtually impossible to eliminate all possible occupational exposures, industrial hygienists strive to control the hazards to an acceptable level. In the complex and varied environments in which personnel perform their job duties, the assessment of exposures must use a logical, systematic approach to controlling these hazards, so that resources are focused where they are needed most. Additionally, the hygienist must be able to communicate with and engage operations personnel so that recommended control measures are clearly conveyed, understood, and implemented.IntroductionService companies operate in well over 100 countries, consisting of thousands of worksites, around the world. Each of these sites presents unique challenges to operations personnel and industrial hygienists. The primary objective of industrial hygienists is to identify, quantify, and mitigate occupational exposures in the workplace, so as to minimize risk to employees and business partners.The QHHA process makes the necessary determinations by systematically combining information on chemical and physical agents with field employee observations. The process is based on work published by the Exposure Assessment Strategies Committee of the American Industrial Hygiene Association.1 It uses logic and objective criteria and, if used consistently, provides a reasonable means to rank potential hazards on a relative basis. The outcome of the QHHA is a list of "task exposure" situations that are then more thoroughly evaluated using traditional industrial hygiene sampling methods.Overview of the QHHA ProcessThe first step to assessing occupational exposures is to characterize the workplace, workforce, and the environmental agents present. This basic characterization should identify potential employee exposures and determine the appropriate occupational exposure limit (OEL) for each exposure.Workplace Characterization - Workplace characterization is performed by reviewing schematic and/or process flow diagrams, examining written process descriptions, conducting walk-through surveys, observing process execution, conducting employee interviews and reviewing existing area and personnel monitoring data. The nature of a service company introduces a degree of variability in field work locations which, in many instances, require the characterization to be specific to the work process and equipment utilized, rather than to a specific physical location.Workforce Characterization - Workforce characterization is required to understand the interface among workers, the work process, and its agents. This characterization can include a review of organizational charts, job classifications, job descriptions/assignments, job task descriptions, demographics, and the number of employees per job assignment. This process will help to divide workers into groups with similar exposure profiles.Environmental Agent Characterization - Environmental agents can be broken down into chemical, physical, or biological agents in the workplace. The mere presence of an agent does not in itself constitute a hazard; rather, a hazard is created when the potential exists for some level of personnel exposure to an agent. The characterization of environmental agents incorporates this premise, along with a detailed review of the potential agents present, to prepare a list of the agents that may be encountered in the work environment. Keywords: exposure assessment, spe 86849, evaluation, upstream oil & gas, industrial hygienist, company dale vizzini spe halliburton, qhha data collection form, characterization, hazard, society of petroleum engineers Subjects: Health, Exposure assessment This content is only available via PDF. 2004. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.105 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".