Committe e IADC HSE Julia F itzGe r ald 19 Oc to b e r 2017 Se nio r Asso c ia te Ho usto n, T X fitzg e ra ldj@ c e nte rfo ro ffsho re sa fe ty.o rg
SEMS Auditing & Certification Center for Offshore Safety Data Collection, Data Collection, Analysis & Rprtg Analysis & Rprtg COS Good Practice Development Share Knowledge
COS - Committe e Struc ture
Sa fe ty Pe rforma nc e Indic a tors SPI 1 a nd SPI 2 2013- 2016 SPI 1 Consequence Frequency Fatal Incidents SPI 1 Incident Categories Incidents with 5 or More Injuries Tier 1 PSE 2013 2014 L1 Well Control Incident 2015 ≥ $1M Damage 2016 Oil Spill to Water ≥ 238 bbl. 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 Frequency SPI 2 Consequence Frequency Tier 2 PSE SPI 2 Incident Category Collision Damage ≥ $25K 2013 Mechanical Lifting or Lowering 2014 Loss of Station Keeping 2015 Life Boat, Life Raft, or Rescue Boat 2016 L2 Well Control Incident 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 4 Frequency
Sa fe ty Pe rforma nc e Indic a tors SPI 3 2013- 2016 Equipment Failure Rate Equipment Failure Rates (# of SPI 1 and that involved equipment failure / total # (# SPI 1 and SPI 2 involving equipment of SPI 1 and 2) failures / total # of SPI 1 and SPI 2) Other (M) 2013 Life Boat (L) 68% Station Keeping (J) Mechanical Lifting (I) Equipment Category FGD/FFS (H) 2014 45% Reporting Year PRD/F/BD/RD (G) 2013 2014 SDS/SIS (F) 2015 PE/PV/P (E) 2015 38% 2016 BOP (D) SSSV (C) Trees (B) 2016 47% WPCS (A) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 5 Rate Rate
Sa fe ty Pe rforma nc e Indic a tors - Ne xt Ste ps SPI Summary • Data shows generally good safety and environmental performance, but there may be weak signals coming through (Tier 2 PSE, MIT ) • Are these the right metrics? Do we have the right data to be able to draw conclusions? • SPI Committee, and COS in general, is trying to act and share the data in a way that best helps the industry improve
L F I Prog ra m Obje c tive s • Provide Members a mechanism for sharing timely information which can be used in decision - making regarding standards and practices • Sharing is anonymous • Sharing Individual Incidents and Events in ‘real - time’ • Learning Opportunity Identification (captured in Annual Performance Report) • Complement the COS Safety Performance Indicators Program (SPIP) with more information and analysis on SPI 1 and SPI 2 incidents • Provide additional learnings in the form of High Value Learning Events (HVLE)
Are a s F or Improve me nt (AF I) T he Are a s fo r I ndividua l o r Gro up De c isio n-Ma king I mpro ve me nt (AF I ) Qua lity o f Ha za rd Mitig a tio n da ta we re distrib ute d People Qua lity o f T a sk E xe c utio n a c ro ss the thre e Co mmunic a tio n g e ne ra l c a te g o rie s Pe rso nne l Skills o r K no wle dg e • Physic a l F a c ility, Qua lity o f T a sk Pla nning a nd Pre pa ra tio n E q uipme nt a nd E me rg e nc y Re spo nse Administrative Processes Pro c e ss 2013 2014 Ma na g e me nt o f Cha ng e • Administra tive 2015 Wo rk Dire c tio n o r Ma na g e me nt Pro c e sse s 2016 Risk Asse ssme nt a nd Ma na g e me nt • Pe o ple Ope ra ting Pro c e dure s o r Sa fe Wo rk Pra c tic e s Physical Facility , Equipment I nstrume nt, Ana lyze r a nd Co ntro ls Re lia b ility Pro c e ss o r E q uipme nt Re lia b ility and Process No te tha t a sing le Pro c e ss o r E q uip Ma te ria l Spe c , F a b a nd re po rt ma y g e ne ra te Co nstruc tio n Pro c e ss o r E q uipme nt De sig n o r L a yo ut multiple AF I 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
T op Are a s for Improve me nt (2013 - 2016) 4- yr Avg Ar e a for Impr ove me nt 2013 2014 2015 2016 (% ) Ope r ating Pr oc e dur e s or Safe 25 (54%) 25 (49%) 23 (49%) 22 (51%) 51% Wor k Pr ac tic e s Quality of T ask Planning and 14 (30%) 6 (12%) 11 (23%) 16 (37%) 25% Pr e par ation Quality of T ask E xe c ution 5 (11%) 6 (12%) 15 (32%) 14 (33%) 21% Communic ation 7 (15%) 6 (12%) 8 (17%) 13 (30%) 18% Pe r sonne l Skills or Knowle dge 9 (20%) 10 (20%) 18 (38%) 12 (28%) 26% Risk Asse ssme nt and 11 (24%) 11 (22%) 7 (15%) 12 (28%) 22% Manage me nt No te : mo re than o ne Are a F o r I mpro ve me nt may b e se le c te d fo r any o ne inc ide nt
L e a rning from Inc ide nts & E ve nts - Ne xt Ste ps • Relatively high HVLE reporting suggests strong support of LFI process and culture of sharing • Similar to SPI, are these the right metrics? Review and revise process has begun • Evaluating actions based on data pointing to Operating Procedures, Process Safety and Work Planning
SE MS Audit Da ta 10 COS Operator members shared data for the 2nd round of audits. • Shared data included deficiencies, strengths and conclusions. • 44% of deficiencies were non - conformities, 56% were concerns. • 70% of the deficiencies lean toward a gap in the effective implementation • of a component that meets a requirement vs. establishing or maintaining the component. Deficiency - either a non- conformity, which is less than satisfactory fulfillment of a requirement, or a concern, which is a condition that marginally meets requirements but could lead to a non- conformity if sufficient controls are not in place to maintain the management system .
SE MS De fic ie nc ie s Audit Results - Number of Deficiencies by Element Safe Work Practices Mechanical Integrity Management of Change Hazard Analysis Records and Documentation Pre-Start Safety Review Operating Procedures SEMS Element Training Safety and Environmental Information General Audit Emergency Reponse and Control Investigation of Incidents Ultimate Work Authority* Stop Work Authority* Employee Participation Plan* Reporting Unsafe Conditions* * Element required for 2 nd Round audit only
Ke y De fic ie nc y T re nds a nd Insig hts* Safe Work Practices • Trend – lack of application and implementation of lock out / tag - out requirements, including in the areas of authorization and verification. Contractor Management • Trend - lack of a job - specific assessment of the skills and knowledge of contractor personnel. • Trend - inconsistent implementation or verification of the Operator/Contractor SEMS agreement or bridging document, especially contractor implementation of the agreed upon safe work practices. * Trends listed are attributed to the Operators that reported deficiencies to COS, and not necessarily representative of deficiencies for all Operators or industry.
Ke y De fic ie nc y T re nds a nd Insig hts* Assurance of Mechanical Integrity of Critical Equipment • Trend - gaps in the maintenance, inspection and testing programs for specific equipment or systems where the program was insufficient or was not being implemented per design or on schedule. • Trend - inability of critical equipment to respond on demand. Management of Change • Trend - MOC process not being consistently understood and/or implemented as written, including authorization, risk assessment, and closure. Hazard Analysis • Trend - incorrect or inadequate application and implementation of lock - out / tag - out as a control for various hazards. * Trends listed are attributed to the Operators that reported deficiencies to COS, and not necessarily representative of deficiencies for all Operators or industry.
Ke y De fic ie nc y T re nds a nd Insig hts* Records and Documentation • Trend - inconsistent review and document control of procedures, lack of availability of training records, and difficulty in accessing documents. Pre- Startup Review • Trend - lack of consistency in implementing established PSR procedures, particularly the use of ‘checklists’. Operating Procedures • Trend - documented procedures did not consistently reflect actual field conditions or practices and/or were not known by interviewed field personnel. * Trends listed are attributed to the Operators that reported deficiencies to COS, and not necessarily representative of deficiencies for all Operators or industry.
Ke y De fic ie nc y T re nds a nd Insig hts* Training • Trend - lack of sufficient evidence related to the assessment of skills or knowledge for a variety of personnel. Safety and Environmental Information • Trend - lack of accessibility of specific safety and environmental information (i.e. drawings) while under revision. * Trends listed are attributed to the Operators that reported deficiencies to COS, and not necessarily representative of deficiencies for all Operators or industry.
Stre ng ths Strength - A component that has been identified by the ASP as exceeding SEMS requirements or recommended practice which could benefit industry by being shared. Wanna see the strengths? www.centerforoffshoresafety.org
NEW COS Office Location: 19219 Katy Fwy*, Suite 175 Houston, TX 77094 * SE Corner of I- 10 and Greenhouse
Recommend
More recommend
