Safety in Offshore Operations - Assignment Example

Safety in Offshore Operations  Name: Date Professor: 2432 words   Question 1(a) Major Accident Prevention Policy The European Seveso III Directive primary objective is to deal with rampant technical risks with the aim of controlling and preventing the latter that mainly involve hazardous substances. The scope of Seveso III Directive is extending since its inception after a fatal accident in Seveso involving harmful pesticides and herbicides. In this regard, organizations such as energy companies are not only required to adopt and implement the OSHA regulations but are additionally needed to apply the provisions of the Seveso III Directive. Under the latter directive, organizations are supposed to create the Major Accident Prevention Policies that covers the employees at all levels of production in risky and hazardous industrial environments. ‘The European Seveso III Directive provides for the classification of the major industrial substances, packaging, and labeling of mixtures and substances. Also, the directive strengthens the provisions that relate to the communication of critical and safety information and total access to the latter by the members of the public. The Seveso III Directive also provides for proper decision making and justice. The Seveso III Directive, therefore, introduces stricter inspection standards for all industrial installations. The directive has also improved the way the information is managed, collected, shared, and made available to all parties’1. In essence, the Seveso III Directive is more elaborate than the Seveso I or II Directives. The review of the Major Accident Prevention Policy shows that the policy has in greater extent implemented the major provisions of the Seveso III Directive listed above and covers many dangerous incidents likely to occur in industries handling harmful substances. Question 1(b) Minerals such as gas and oil production in Europe happen offshore and with a growing operation in European waters offshore safety concerns arise. Marine accidents, for instance, the Gulf of Mexico disaster illustrate the need for elaborate maritime security measures to prevent economic and environmental damages caused by these accidents. In essence, the CMAPP for the Offshore Safety Directive provides for the safety of offshore gas and oil operations for the prevention of risks associated with exploration activities. ‘The primary objective of the Offshore Safety Directive is to reduce the occurrence of major accidents and to limit the consequences of the accidents relating to offshore gas and oil operations. The Corporate Major Accident Prevention Policy under the Safety of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations Directive has enacted some rules for the prevention of accidents and profound response ways in case the latter occurs. In essence, the directive requires companies to prepare a Major Hazard Report for offshore installations.”2 Companies are also obliged to keep resources on hand to put them at work when needed. The technical solutions critical for the safety of operators’ installations must be approved independently and must do before the installation process going into effect. Moreover, the national authorities are required to verify environmental measure, safety provisions, and emergency preparedness of platforms and rigs. The information on how EU and companies keep installations in safe conditions must also be made available to the public. By the requirements of the CMAPP for the Offshore Safety Directive, the Major Accident Prevention Policy has covered the most critical areas of installations. In this regard, the Major Accident Prevention Policy has totally complied with the corporate Major Accident Prevention Policy requirements. Question 2(a) Safety and reactive cultures in organization A safety organization culture can only be created and sustained when all the stakeholders; leaders and employees, consider safety as a key element in day to day operations. Leadership and employees involvement/engagement are two fundamental factors to creating a sustainable safety culture while abolishing reactive culture. In essence, creating an effective safety leadership requires leaders and employees to see the cultural change as critical in the success of the organization. The latter can be achieved by creating a safety vision for all to follow. For example, employees must understand that safety working culture is the “right way to do things” and the management must also believe that for employees to support the change. In addition, the safety culture vision can be easily understood by the employees when the leaders communicate the need and importance of safety culture in the organization i.e. why and what is changing. In this regard, cultural change should be tied to the organization success and goals and the value and contribution of employees towards the achievement of the latter. This can be achieved through the establishment of a core team and including employees in the team. When all these considerations are implemented then the organization will freely adopt a safety culture. On the other hand, reactive organizational culture means that the latter makes alterations in its operations and practices only after a threat or an opportunity has happened already. For example, a reactive approach to cultural change would only happen if the organization management had waited to enact changes as a result of continued incidents concerning safety until operational managers receives repeated requests from the employees to consider their safety when working. A response to the environmental or social issues, a reactive culture involves very little or no action at all. Organization practicing this kind of culture operates in an economy which is neoclassic and with the main aim of maximizing the shareholder value. Organizations in reactive cultures make little if any changes to operations in regard to organization issues. In this regard, the organization in the context must change from reactive to safety culture for the benefit of all. Tools for change A few theoretical models of cultural change in organizations exist with an attempt to explain how many organizations alter their culture, practices, and structure. The Bullock and Butten’s planned change requires the management to explore, integrate, plan, and take actions that promotes safety coexistence in the organization. Carnall’s change management model argues that culture change largely depends on the management skills in dealing and managing the organization culture, transitions, and overall politics. In addition to these models, the management must create, communicate, and empower employees towards the vision. Question 2(b) Worker Involvement The affected employees in an organization actively bring positive results in their work through their tireless efforts. These workers can willingly go an extra mile in their responsibilities, work with great passion, and feel connected to the organization. They are therefore the people who drive innovation and move the organization forward. In contrast, disengaged workers are more or less against the company and can damage the latter through illegal operations. Organizations should firstly prioritize involving employees in all of the organization activities such as decision making. To ensure effective employee’s involvement, then the organization needs to use the right employee’s involvement surveys that collect relevant, specific, and actionable data for employees at any level of organization. Focus should be on involvement at organizational and local levels. The group must also select the right managers who understand that the success of the organization depends on and relies on the employee’s achievements. Employee’s involvement can also be improved by coaching managers at the organizational levels and holding them accountable for their employee’s engagement. In this regard, the organization must, therefore, define realistic goals in everyday terms. On the other hand, organizations need to monitor inputs, outputs, impacts, and outcomes. In this regard, setting and identifying true performance indicators will help the team collect critical information about the employees. Performance indicators are observable and real features that can be measured or accessed to show the quantity or quality of aspects of the company, its processes, resources, processes, or the outcomes of its activities. The organization can consider using the output performance indicators that demonstrate the work that the latter does and show its progress towards meeting the set objectives. On the other, the organization can opt to use outcome indicators that demonstrate the changes as a result of organization work and show the progress in meeting specific aims. Question 3(a) The Bow Tie Diagram Question 3(b) 1. Regulations on design and development 2. Developing a safety and environment management system 3. Creation of a verification scheme 4. Developing an internal emergency response plan 5. Communication with regulators 6. Preparation of Major Hazard Report Question 3 (c) To ensure the efficiency and reliability of the blow down system, then the requirements and objectives must be noted and performance indicators set to monitor the effectiveness of the system in controlling risks. The system shall be in an ideal and safe location that does not jeopardize or pose any risk to evacuation or escape as a result of impinging fire or flare frame out during emergency situations. The approach to system design shall also define the type of fire that is likely to affect it. The system must also be able to estimate the rate of heat input relevant to the type of fire. The design of the blow down system shall also be able to calculate the rate of the temperature rise and time to vessel rapture. The improvements to the system design should be considered if the time to rupture is not in line with established safety criteria i.e. time to escape or evacuate. The system should also be able to function with integrity, must also be reliable, effective, robust, and be able to withstand loads. If the latter standards are manifested in the blow down system then it is effective enough to handle and mitigate hazardous risks. Question 4 The OSHA and EIPSM framework have a lot in common in their effort to ensure employees health and safety is maintained in the workplace. Both systems provide guidance on hazard identification and assessment and overall management of risks likely to occur at workplaces. They also state that workers involvement, communication with the stakeholders, and compliance with the industrial standards, legislations, and safety practices should be the aim of every organization. Organizations are required by the two systems to produce and document operational manuals and procedures for the employees. In this case, they are required to use the latter for emergency preparedness, inspection and maintenance of the industrial processes. The two systems also provide a system for incident reporting, response, and investigation, assurance, audit, risk intervention, and management review of the organizational culture. Differences between OSHA and EIPSM framework OSHA Energy Institute Process Management System The OSHA regulations requires the employer to create and maintain a written safety document citing technology, equipment’s used in the processes, and risky chemical and processes at the workplace. In essence, it is the duty of the employer to make sure the workplace is safe. Unlike OSHA, the EIPSM framework provides guidance on how organizations shall identify the risks needed to be managed to ensure the integrity of their operations. In this case, this is achieved through workers involvement, communication with stake holders, and compliance with industrial standard’s and legislations. The OSHA Act does not cover self-employed persons. The EIPSM framework primary objective is to protect employees working in hazardous environments. In this case, the framework covers every business despite ownership structure as long as the venture has employees working in risky processes. The OSHA guidelines do not cover workers conditions if the latter are regulated by other government agencies operating under the authority of other government laws. In essence, the OSHA guidelines covers many organizations with exemptions to most working conditions in nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, mining, manufacture, and many aspects of industries in the transport sector. Unlike OSHA The EIPSM framework mostly covers employees working in the high energy industries. In this case, the system was developed to champion for the health and safety of employees in high energy, mining, and manufacturing industries of hazardous substances. The OSHA does not cover state and local government employees unless they reside in a state practicing an OSHA plan. The EIPSM framework applies to all industries in the energy sector no matter their geographical location in the country of interest. Question 5(a) “A safety management system is a systematic process for measuring and evaluating the organizations and individual safety performance with emphasis on continuous improvement. According to the Energy Institute framework, an Effective Safety Management System consists of the following elements; the system is preventive, proactive, and integrated into the organizational culture. Also, the organization failed in leadership, responsibility, and commitment to the set standards and measures to control and prevent the occurrence of accidents.”3 Failure to identify and comply with the industry standards and legislation and workforce involvement made the crash occur. The organization should also have had a risk assessment and hazard identification programs within the company. The group also failed in monitoring the management of operational status, interfaces, and processes, practices and standards and the overall handover among employees. The Energy Institute framework also requires an organization to conduct regular audits, review of the management, and intervention measures. In this regard, the group failed to manage and monitor the diagnostic devices on safety that achieved through regular inspection and maintenance of industrial equipment. Question 5(b) The review of the components of the management system shows that any organization that disregards the above elements faces fatal accidents with painful consequences in its operations. In this regard, an organization wanting to create and maintain safety and a healthy environment must consider applying the above elements to the latter. Also, the organization must also have emergency preparedness measures to protect them in case an accident occurs. An effective communication must also be maintained. But above all, to improve the above elements, an organization must consider incident investigation and reporting and performing regular audits, management review, assurance, and intervention References Jouko Heikkilä. "Principles of adaptive management in complex safety–critical organizations.(2015)" Safety Science 71 (2015): 80-92. Read More