Key Risk Management Features Of The Safety Case Regime In Reducing The Risk Of Major Accidents

Features of Safety Case Regime for Risk Management

Discuss about the Risk Management Features Of The Safety Case Regime.

Organizations that deal with vast quantities of dangerous goods such as petroleum and chemicals have a high probability of serious accidents. These facilities, commonly referred to as Major Health Facilities (MHFs), include all oil refining companies, petrochemical manufacturing companies, chemical processing plants, and organisations that deal in installing massive amounts of flammable and toxic substances (Khan & Hashemi, 2017). An explosion that occurred at Piper Alpha Oil & Gas facility in 1988 led to the loss of many lives and damage of property worth millions; and thereby highlighting the potentially catastrophic effects that such accidents can cause. Currently, such potential is regulated by the Safety Case Regime (SCR). This initiative regulates the storage, processing, and handling of hazardous materials in an MHF. This essay discusses some of the key risk management features of the safety case regime in reducing the risk of major accidents. It also addresses how these features might have prevented the Piper Alpha Oil & Gas Platform explosion.

The safety case regime regulations encompass significant attributes of risk management to help in mitigating the potential accidents that may occur in the MHFs. These features include the following: identifying the hazard, conducting a risk assessment, and mitigating the threats. The risks may be different depending on the type of the facility and the danger of the substances. Therefore, the application of the approaches of the SCR differs from one facility to another (Woolfson, 2013). The process of identifying the hazard makes use of essential tools. Some of these tools are discussed below.

These tools are essential in supporting decision making concerning risk management. They include Hazard Identification Risk Assessment and Control (HIRAC), Job Safety Analysis (JSA) and Safe Work Method Statements among others (Woolfson, 2013).. HIRAC is the most common approach; it contains methods and principles to identify the risks, assess them and control them. Generally, HIRAC principles include populating a spreadsheet document that would help the manager of the facility to plan for risk management procedure successfully. However, despite the international standards documented in HIRAC, the procedures are not consistent for all the industries. For example, one industry may require an in-depth analysis such as decision support methods and information while another may only require identification of strengths and weaknesses in the analysis of reports. These variations cases inherent disparities in the outcomes, especially in terms of precision.

Tools Used in Risk Management – HIRAC, JSA, and SWMS

The process of risk management is conducted in hierarchical order as required by the safety case regime. The list of these principles is commonly referred to as the Hierarchy of Control. The six levels of control include the following: elimination, substitution, isolation, engineering, administration, personal protective equipment (PPE). These categories are in descending order of their theoretical effectiveness. The most effective method of risk control is elimination. When a risk or hazard is eliminated from a workplace, there is entirely no chance of potential harm. After elimination, substitution is the next effective procedure. It involves replacing a dangerous substance, item, process, or activity with one that has a lesser effect. The next method is isolation (Obicci, 2017).. This procedure involves separating a dangerous substance or activity from the property or personnel that may be affected by an occurrence of the risk. The engineering process involves setting up control structures that would prevent the threat from happening. Such controls may include interlocks, automatic cut-offs and developing mechanical solutions. Administration procedures, on the other hand, include the regulations made by the management of the facility. They may include, work instructions, work procedures, operating procedures, training, supervision, signage, housekeeping etcetera. Finally, PPE is the lowest level procedure. Other controls like work procedures should be used together with PPE for proper outcomes to be achieved. Adequate training for the use of PPE is sufficient. Untrained personnel may think that PPE is protecting them when in fact it is exposing them to risks.

Another risk management tool is Job Safety Analysis (JSA) and Safe Work Method Statements. They are used to ensure that appropriate controls are in place to protect employees, the environment, the plant, and other people from dangers that may occur in the routine activities of the facility (Iverson, 2013). The Safety Case Regime, through JSA and SWMS, states that work in an MHF should only commence after the appropriate controls are in place. These tools also make use of spreadsheets to guide the user through the risk management process.

After analyzing the risks, the next step in risk management is an assessment (McNeil, Frey, and Embrechts, 2015). This involves reviewing the whole organization from its construction, design, to the operations. The process is important because it helps to predict the potential causes of the accidents; whether it might be a mechanical breakdown or human error. The perception is that major accidents often repeat themselves and hence identifying the potential causes of the incidents is the first step in mitigating the threat. A Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) is imperative for establishing a more objective regulatory framework. Some common techniques applied are hazard and operability (HAZOP) research, fault tree examination, quantitative risk assessment (QRA), safety audits and human factors analyses. There have been recommendations that the safety regime in the UK to be regulated by a single body. This proposal points out that coordination of regulatory activities is of great significance in the industry (Obicci, 2017). Also, it is predicted that the future might be characterized by strains in expertise, resources, and judgments. Therefore, coordinating the services might be the best chance of ensuring safety in these facilities through regulation. An inspector from the regulatory body is given the responsibility of evaluating the safety case of a facility according to the required standards. Risk assessment is therefore essential in determining the potential causes of risks and the dangers that may arise from the occurrence of the threat.

Hierarchy of Control in Risk Management

The last procedure for risk management is risk mitigation and prevention. These measures are specific to the specific type of the primary health facility. For example, some of the mitigation strategies in the industry may include inventory control for hydrocarbons, control room operations and capabilities, protection from pipelines, fire, and gas detection, explosion and fire protection, and emergency shutdown systems. These controls are important to reduce the severity of the effects that arise from these accidents. The more the controls an organisation has, the lesser the number of victims and property damage that might occur following the catastrophe. In addition, the mitigation process entails the evacuation strategy after an occurrence of a threat. All MHFs should have an appropriate plan for evacuating employees and other people in the vicinity in case of a major accident (Al-Thani & Merna, 2013). For example, fires and explosions in an oil refining company may result in massive death and burnt victims. Such facilities are required to have as many fire emergency exits as possible. Similarly, the companies should be located near emergency provision services such as firefighting organisations and ambulatory healthcare services. These among other measures are appropriate to reduce the number of casualties that may result from such an unfortunate occurrence (Hull, Alexander and Klein, 2002). Other recommendations include the provision of temporary self-refuge (TSR), embarking points, escape routes, rescue helicopters, standby vessels etcetera. The organisations are also required to train their workers on how to deal with such emergencies. For instance, basic fire extinguishing education is critical for such employees teaching what and where to go in case a fire occurs, evacuation procedures should also be clear to the staff members following (Al-Thani & Merna, 2013). Finally, the training should encompass the means of notifying the rest of the people in the facility. Many MHFs are very large buildings. Therefore, an accident such as an explosion or fire occurring in one section may take a few minutes before the other people in different sections notice it. Such facilities are required to install emergency communication systems such as fire alarms for these purposes. Risk mitigation is arguably the most important feature of risk management. It ensures that the organization does not suffer huge losses from an accident.

Piper Alpha was an Oil and Gas production company in Scotland formed in 1976. In 1988, an unfortunate explosion occurred in the facility, killing 167 individuals, including two rescuers. The total loss was approximated to be worth $ 3.4 billion, making the incident one of the most massive catastrophes in the world’s history. An organisation called the Cullen inquiry was set up to investigate the issue and determine the cause of the accident. According to the Cullen report, the incident was caused by leakage on one of the pumps that were being used and underwent maintenance at the same time (Frigo & Anderson, 2012). The conclusion was that the facility lacked adequate maintenance and safety procedures. The features of safety case regime might have played a huge role in preventing this explosion.

Risk Assessment in Risk Management

First and foremost, the tools and techniques documented in HIRAC, JSA, and SWMS would have been vital in ensuring that the right controls are in place to guarantee safety. The six control levels of elimination, substitution, isolation, engineering, administration, personal protective equipment (PPE) would have played a huge role. For example, engineering controls would have detected the leaks are performed automatic cut-offs preventing the defaulted pump from working until it got fixed (Heiler, 2006). In addition, proper administration functionalities would have prevented such kind of negligence shown by the supervisor and workers of at operations center. These preventive measures are mandatory according to the safety case regime. Similarly, according to JSA, the activities would have stopped until the mechanical default was fixed and thus preventing the occurrence of the tragedy. The sudden stop of activities would have implied a loss of company revenue, and hence the appropriate management would have fixed the issue as soon as possible to prevent further loss of revenue. Therefore, vigilant control measures documented in these regulation documents would have prevented the accident and save a lot of lives (Hopkins, A., 2011).

In conclusion, the Safety Case Regime is an essential regulation initiative in the industry of Major Health Facilities. It contains some of the critical risk management features that are critical for preventing accidents that might arise from the hazardous substances and processes carried out in these facilities. Piper Alpha suffered massive losses due to lack of safety procedures. The safety case regime would have prevented the incident through its regulations and risk management features discussed in this paper.

References

 Al-Thani, F., & Merna, T. (2013). Corporate risk management. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Frigo, M., & Anderson, R. (2012). Strategic risk management.. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Heiler, K., 2006. Is the Australian mining industry ready for a safety case regime. Work. Pap, 45.

Hopkins, A., 2011. Management walkarounds: Lessons learned from the Gulf of Mexico Oil Well Blowout. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 39(4), pp.3-10.

Hull, A.M., Alexander, D.A. and Klein, S., 2002. Survivors of the Piper Alpha oil platform disaster: a long-term follow-up study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 181(5), pp.433-

Iverson, D. (2013). Strategic risk management. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.

Khan, F. and Hashemi, S.J., 2017. Introduction. In Methods in Chemical Process Safety (Vol. 1,1-36). Elsevier.

McNeil, A.J., Frey, R. and Embrechts, P., 2015. Quantitative risk management: Concepts, techniques and tools. Princeton university press.

 Obicci, P. (2017). Risk management strategies in public-private partnerships. Hershey, PA, USA: Business Science Reference.

Woolfson, C., 2013. Preventable disasters in the offshore oil industry: from Piper Alpha to Deepwater Horizon. New solutions: a journal of environmental and occupational health policy, 22(4), pp.497-524.