phase 4 report - DNV

More documents

Recommendations

Info

RN03: RISK MANAGEMENT OF MAJOR HAZARDS RELATED TO OFFSHORE ACTIVITIES IN ARCTIC AREAS // observations from the seminarwelfare are to be protected”, (Deep water – Reportto the President, report p. 234).Most regulative regimes will hence have somecharacteristics of both a performance based andprescriptive system. A performance based systemwhich refers to specific industry standards that canbe applied to meet the required performance level isoften referred to as a hybrid system.7.2. Risk tolerance criteria, ALARP processand cost-benefit assessmentsCriteria for risk acceptability or risk tolerance area central part of the risk management process. Therisk tolerance criteria defines the risk levels or ranges,often in quantitative terms, which are unacceptableand acceptable with respect to exposure of personnel,environment etc.There are different approaches for formulatingsuch criteria (quantitative, qualitiative, what kindof parameters to measure etc.); and also who hasthe responsibility to define the criteria. In thepetroleum industry it is both seen that criteria areset by the operators themselves, but also some placesby the authorities. By including in the regulationsa requirement that the operators shall establish arisk acceptance criteria, but not giving the specificcriteria, one can attain a dynamic process where eachoperator wants to appear as best in class – or at leastbe as good as the others, and by that a continuousprocess to increase the safety ambitions of theindustry. This also makes it possible for the authorityto confront the operators with their safety ambitions,relative to other operators. On the opposite sidecriteria defined by each operator may lead to aconserving process, where the industry as a whole isreluctant to take the responsibility for improvement,afraid of costs that may incur from raising safetyambitions in the industry. In any sense it will be thetask of the authority to supervise the applicationof the risk tolerance criteria, to ensure that theregulations are complied with and risks are managed.The risk tolerance criteria is a central part of therisk based approach to safety, but needs to be linkedwith a process to reduce the risk to a level which isAs Low As Reasonably Practicable. This implies thatrisk reduction shall continue, even when the riskacceptance criteria is complied with, until the benefitfrom further risk reduction is outweighed by anycosts/disadvantages. In this process is also includedthe use of cost-benefit assessments, as an analyticalprocess of estimating the costs and benefits of specificrisk reducing measures. The ALARP process withassessments of benefit from risk reducing measuresimplies that the responsible party will need tocompare the implied costs of a statistically saved lifeand other relevant benefits such as expected increasedproduction, secured brand/reputations (ICAF =cost of measure/ number of saved lives), with theactual willingness to pay for these benefits (i.erisk reduction). The willingness to pay for the riskreduction is not a constant and objective factor, butis influenced by the risk perception in the industry,the risk management policy of the operator, societalrisk perception, expectations from non-governmentalorganizations etc.Through company internal and public processesall these stakeholders play a necessary part ofthe process to achieve a knowledge based riskmanagement process, that applies the ALARPprocessin a holistic way.7.3. Approaches for adaption of ISO31000into Safety Barrier ManagementThe main objective with barrier management isto establish and maintain safety barriers so thatthey at any time can handle the hazards involvedby preventing that incident happens and/or reduceloss and mitigates the consequences if the incidentoccurs. The use of safety barriers to manager fire andexplosion hazards is reflected in ISO 13702 – Controland mitigation of fires and explosions on offshoreproduction facilities. The Norwegian PetroleumSafety Authority have requirements for safety barriermanagement in their regulations, reference is given to§5 of the Activity Regulation.Management of safety barriers includes themanagement processes, systems and measures tobe in place to ensure necessary risk reduction andcomply to the requirements set to safe design andoperation.For good barrier management, it shall be known:• Which function the differentbarriers shall maintain• Which performance requirements havebeen placed on the technical, operational ororganisational elements that are necessary toensure that the individual barrier is effective• Monitoring - which barriers are non-functioningor weakened, and the effect on the risk level• How to implement necessary compensatingmeasures to restore or compensatefor missing or weakened barriersRisk management, as per ISO 31000 std. assumesthe use of risk assessments, suitable for the purposeto support decisions to be taken that directly orindirectly can influence the risk, positive or negative.Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority have124RUSSIAN–NORWEGIAN COOPERATION PROJECT
RN03: RISK MANAGEMENT OF MAJOR HAZARDS RELATED TO OFFSHORE ACTIVITIES IN ARCTIC AREAS // Proposal for further work, outside scope of Barents 2020Barents 2020described a model for management of barriers basedon the ISO 31000 principles, and this is presented inAppendix A. A practical application of the principlesis presented in the presentation from Statoil onMonitoring and follow up of “safety barriers” as riskmanagement in operational phase, ref. Appendix A.The phases 1-3 for Barents 2020 have mainlyfocused on the principles that should be includedin HSE standards to design inherently safe offshoreinstallations for operations in the Barents Sea.The two presentations presented above extendedfocus to include safe operations, and to implementcontinuous risk management through the differentphases of planning, development, construction andcommissioning, operation and decommissioning.8. Proposal for further work,outside scope of Barents 2020Based on the work in the RN03 expert group,covering the work from all four phases, and theobservations from the risk management seminar thefollowing topics are suggested for further work:• Perform a gap-assessment of Risk tolerabilitycriteria, implementation of risk based approachand ALARP-principle, cost benefit assessmentsfor Russian and international best practice• Experience exchange and agree onapproaches for assessing efficiency ofsafety barriers, based on ISO31000.• Address the challenges (arctic risk picture)identified in Phase 1&2, and how thesenow can be managed with the use ofthe deliverables from Barents 2020.• Experience exchange and agree ondetailed modelling of gas dispersionunder natural and forced ventilation• Fires and explosions in confined/enclosed areas• Develop a framework for risk Assessmentand risk communication as a decisionsupport to the management;––who are the decision makers ?––what type of information dothey need, transfer of technicalknowledge to decision makers ?––how do you convey requiredinformation to the decision makers.––Use of economic figures to strengthen themessage compared to using “un-named” riskfigures.• Based on the work in Barents2020 develop a RiskAssessment “book of knowledge” for arctic areas9. References/1//2//3//4/Barents 2020 - Assessment of internationalstandards for safe exploration, production andtransportation of oil and gas in the Barents Sea,Final Report, 2010ISO/IEC Guide 73:2002 – Risk ManagementVocabulary, Guidelines for use in standardsSafety Baseline Offshore – Harmonisation of HSEstandards in the Barents Sea, DNV report 2008-0694, rev.01Deepwater Horizon-ulykken, vurderinger oganbefalinger for norsk petroleumsvirksomhet,Petrolumstilsynet, 2011.• Exchange of data on reliability and accidentrate for offshore objects in the Northernsea and Russian objects in the northernlatitude, and shelves of the Sakhalin island.• Qualify and possibly compile databases toestablish failure frequencies and losses for usein risk assessments of arctic offshore activities.• Update the Barents 2020 gap analysis from 2009of RU legislation and standards vs. internationalstandards, based on 2011 status in RU (Russiannormative documents PB 08-623-03, PB 08-623-03, RD 03-418-01, RD-03-14-2005, etc)Report no 2012-0690 125
Page 3 and 4:
Barents 2020Report no 2012-0690 1
Page 5 and 6:
Barents 2020Barents 2020Assessment
Page 7 and 8:
Barents 20206. Contents of Risk Man
Page 9 and 10:
Barents 20203. Hazard Identificatio
Page 11 and 12:
Barents 2020CONCLUSIVE SUMMARYThe B
Page 14 and 15:
2. Cooperation PartnersThe last Ste
Page 16 and 17:
RN02: DESIGN OF FLOATING STRUCTURES
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77: RN02: DESIGN OF FLOATING STRUCTURES
Page 110 and 111: RN03: RISK MANAGEMENT OF MAJOR HAZA
Page 130 and 131: RN04: ESCAPE, EVACUATION AND RESCUE
Page 176 and 177:
RN04: ESCAPE, EVACUATION AND RESCUE
Page 178 and 179:
RN04: ESCAPE, EVACUATION AND RESCUE
Page 180 and 181:
RN05: WORKING ENVIRONMENT - BARENTS
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
RN06: ICE MANAGEMENT - STATE OF THE
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
RN07: REGIONAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FO
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250:
Page 253 and 254:
RN07 // BibliographyBarents 20207.
Page 255 and 256:
RN07 // APPENDIXBarents 2020Table A
Page 257 and 258:
RN07 // APPENDIXBarents 2020Table A
Page 259 and 260:
RN07 // APPENDIXBarents 2020Appendi
Page 261 and 262:
RN07 // APPENDIXBarents 2020Report
Page 263 and 264:
RN01: CO-ORDINATION OF DELIVERABLES
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297:
show all

phase 4 report - DNV

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?