Safety Case - A Perspective

Abstract

Following the Piper Alpha disaster in UK 6 July 1988, with 167 fatalities, a major shift was called for in the Safety Regulatory Scheme in UK. Among changes introduced were requirements to Safety Case. In Norway, a similar scheme had already been in practical use for some years. Other countries as Australia have later introduced similar regulations. In some countries as e.g. China, Brazil and Indonesia, some Operating Companies are following similar schemes although not specifically required by the regulations. For mobile drilling Units (MOU) the IADC has developed a global Case Guideline which is recognized by Authorities, Owners and Operating Companies. The challenge is to ensure that the Safety Case is addressing the critical safety aspect of the operations, applying state of the art methodologies and data and keep the Safety Cases up to date as "living and useful document". The conveyance of useful information to personnel in first line of command onboard is another challenge. The well prepared Safety Case may be an important instrument in conveying the understanding of major hazard risk potential to employees and the training for handling emergency situations. When MOUs are sailing from one part of the world to another, the Safety Case sails with. A Safety Case prepared for one country is normally accepted in another; subject to a site specific update Experiences from MOUs use of Safety Cases when moving around is discussed. The directions from the preliminary investigations after the GOM blowout may point towards a shift in the regulatory requirement in US Deepwater operations towards more functional requirements. It is LR view that functional requirements will be a valuable supplement to the more prescriptive approach that has been the standard. Introduction Safety Regimes normally changes in the aftermath of major accidents. The marine industry has been suffering from loss of ships and crews/passengers since man started his voyages on seas, and the step change improvements to the marine industry have often been in the aftermath of major losses. E.g. the LR Ship Classification Rules have been subject to changes continuously since LR was founded in 1760. The offshore oil and gas industry is very closely related to the marine industry. Growing up with the offshore industry in Norway it is very natural to remind myself of the Alexander Kielland Accommodation rig which capsized in 1980, causing 123 fatalities and a lot of survivors with traumas for the rest of their lives. The safety regime in Norway changed, reflecting the focus from public and the politicians as well as the owners and other stakeholders. Similar, the Piper Alpha accident in 1988 on the British Continental shelf shifted the regulatory regime in UK significantly. In both cases the industry as well as the regulators recognized the need for revised technical standards as well as e need for improved work processes to improve the overall safety standard. One of the very important consequences from the accidents mentioned above was the increased focus on R&D; new and improved knowledge was required and this enabled both budgets and management attention wherefrom improved methodologies and tools could be developed. There were some new basic fundamental requirements established, e.g. the need for a well structured and documented safety management system. An industry standard for Safety Management has been established since then e.g. documented in ISO standards and industry standards such as API.