Committe e IADC HSE Julia F itzGe r ald 19 Oc to b e r 2017 Se - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

19 Oc to b e r 2017 Ho usto n, T X

Julia F itzGe r ald

Se nio r Asso c ia te

fitzg e ra ldj@ c e nte rfo ro ffsho re sa fe ty.o rg

IADC HSE Committe e

COS Center for Offshore Safety

Data Collection, Analysis & Rprtg Good Practice Development SEMS Auditing & Certification Share Knowledge Data Collection, Analysis & Rprtg

COS - Committe e Struc ture

4

Sa fe ty Pe rforma nc e Indic a tors SPI 1 a nd SPI 2 2013- 2016

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 Oil Spill to Water ≥ 238 bbl. ≥ $1M Damage L1 Well Control Incident Tier 1 PSE Incidents with 5 or More Injuries Fatal Incidents Frequency SPI 1 Incident Categories

SPI 1 Consequence Frequency

2013 2014 2015 2016

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 L2 Well Control Incident Life Boat, Life Raft, or Rescue Boat Loss of Station Keeping Mechanical Lifting or Lowering Collision Damage ≥ $25K Tier 2 PSE Frequency SPI 2 Incident Category

SPI 2 Consequence Frequency

2013 2014 2015 2016

5

Sa fe ty Pe rforma nc e Indic a tors SPI 3 2013- 2016

68% 45% 38% 47% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2013 2014 2015 2016

Rate Reporting Year

Equipment Failure Rates (# SPI 1 and SPI 2 involving equipment failures / total # of SPI 1 and SPI 2)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% WPCS (A) Trees (B) SSSV (C) BOP (D) PE/PV/P (E) SDS/SIS (F) PRD/F/BD/RD (G) FGD/FFS (H) Mechanical Lifting (I) Station Keeping (J) Life Boat (L) Other (M) Rate Equipment Category

Equipment Failure Rate (# of SPI 1 and that involved equipment failure / total #

• f SPI 1 and 2)

2013 2014 2015 2016

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

Sa fe ty Pe rforma nc e Indic a tors - Ne xt Ste ps

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

• r Improve me nt (AF

I) T he Are a s fo r I mpro ve me nt (AF I ) da ta we re distrib ute d a c ro ss the thre e g e ne ra l c a te g o rie s

• Physic a l F

a c ility, E q uipme nt a nd Pro c e ss

• Administra tive

Pro c e sse s

• Pe o ple

No te tha t a sing le re po rt ma y g e ne ra te multiple AF I

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Pro c e ss o r E q uipme nt De sig n o r L a yo ut Pro c e ss o r E q uip Ma te ria l Spe c , F a b a nd Co nstruc tio n Pro c e ss o r E q uipme nt Re lia b ility I nstrume nt, Ana lyze r a nd Co ntro ls Re lia b ility Ope ra ting Pro c e dure s o r Sa fe Wo rk Pra c tic e s Risk Asse ssme nt a nd Ma na g e me nt Wo rk Dire c tio n o r Ma na g e me nt Ma na g e me nt o f Cha ng e E me rg e nc y Re spo nse Qua lity o f T a sk Pla nning a nd Pre pa ra tio n Pe rso nne l Skills o r K no wle dg e Co mmunic a tio n Qua lity o f T a sk E xe c utio n Qua lity o f Ha za rd Mitig a tio n I ndividua l o r Gro up De c isio n-Ma king 2013 2014 2015 2016

People Administrative Processes Physical Facility, Equipment and Process

T

• p Are a s for Improve me nt (2013 - 2016)

Ar e a for Impr

• ve me nt

2013 2014 2015 2016 4- yr Avg (% ) Ope r ating Pr

• c e dur

e s or Safe Wor k Pr ac tic e s

25 (54%) 25 (49%) 23 (49%) 22 (51%) 51%

Quality of T ask Planning and Pr e par ation

14 (30%) 6 (12%) 11 (23%) 16 (37%) 25%

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 Manage me nt

11 (24%) 11 (22%) 7 (15%) 12 (28%) 22% No te : mo re than o ne Are a F

• r I

mpro ve me nt may b e se le c te d fo r any o ne inc ide nt

• 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

L e a rning from Inc ide nts & E ve nts - Ne xt Ste ps

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
• f 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

Reporting Unsafe Conditions* Employee Participation Plan* Stop Work Authority* Ultimate Work Authority* Investigation of Incidents Emergency Reponse and Control Audit General Safety and Environmental Information Training Operating Procedures Pre-Start Safety Review Records and Documentation Hazard Analysis Management of Change Mechanical Integrity Safe Work Practices

SEMS Element

Audit Results - Number of Deficiencies by Element

* Element required for 2nd 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-
• ut / 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

Wanna see the strengths? www.centerforoffshoresafety.org

Strength - A component that has been identified by the ASP as exceeding SEMS requirements

• r recommended practice which could benefit industry by being shared.

NEW COS Office Location:

19219 Katy Fwy*, Suite 175 Houston, TX 77094 *SE Corner of I-10 and Greenhouse