Fundamental management of risk features of protection case regime in reducing the peril of major accidents

Prepare a short paper (2000 words max), to explain the key risk management features of the safety case regime in reducing the risk of major accidents and describe how its application may have prevented the Piper Alpha Oil & Gas Platform Explosion in 1988.

Every organization around global community is always motivated to link their operations with other corporations. The linkage helps an organization to effectively widen proactive as well as rigorous safety management practices for reducing risk of major accidents. Improving risk assessment by better reflecting uncertainties along with the unforeseen helps in reducing the risk of significant events in operations (Gill 2013, p. 54). The need to have strength of knowledge considerations that are incorporated in supporting the risk assessment help in improving management. In most cases, significant accidents in organizations are frequently traced to failures in systems that deal with safety management and different surveys occasionally disclose that protection systems of management are slight greater than sets of guides occupying meters of ledge space along with enduring slight relation to what happens in place of work (May and Koski 2013, p. 145). Lack of uniform regulatory technique has led to shifting in focus from occupational health to process safety management in major accidents. Therefore, principal target of this research paperwork is to clarify fundamental features of management of risk of protection case command in reducing the peril of main disasters as well as examination of how these features may have prohibited the Piper Alpha Platform for Oil along with Gas Explosion in 1988.

There are several principal risk management features available to offer assistance with making appropriate decisions pertaining management of risk of major accidents. Some of the common features include danger classification of assessment and control of risk and analysis of safety of job and safe work method statements (Steinzor 2011, p. 423). Instances of timely reporting, investigation and associated prevention incentives, any organization will reduce the cases of risk resulting in injuries or linked charges along with improved safety alertness that will, consequently, put off incidents of future mishaps. Therefore, any corporation can develop triumphant program of reducing threat by evidently defining as well as sticking to developments for investigating, reporting, together with focusing on basis of events together with calamities (Vinogradov 2013, p. 341). The primary vital management of risk features of protection case regime in reducing danger of significant mishap include the need to spotting hazard (identification of hazard), assessing danger (assessment of risk), along with making vital changes (control of risk) among other factors.

Spotting the hazard (hazard identification)

The need to spot the hazard in operation of every organization helps in understanding anything that could hurt an individual during their involvement in operations of an organization. During operations of an organization, an individual need to stay prepared to everything that may be risky to their wellbeing. In the process an individual sees, hears, or smell anything odd, they need to take note of the situation (Walker et al., 201, p. 839). In case they think that it could be the hazard then they need to tell their coworkers or any individual around them for quick response to be taken. The use of hazard identification remains to be the widely used approach to apply different principles and methods to assess, identify, and control risk. Hazard identification can entail populating the spreadsheet that steps the users through the process of risk management in major accidents.

It is critical to assess any risk that occurs in operation as effective way of reducing the negative effects on people during major accidents. The assessing of risk work out on how probable it is able to hurt an individual and how severe the damage can be during operations of an organization (Wimalasiri et al 2010, p. 58). In case a hazard is potted, assessing the risk by asking different questions is essential in reducing such occurrences of risk in major accidents. These questions for consideration include how probably risk could hurt an individual or their counterparts and how terribly could an individual be harmed? It is necessary to tell an individual whether employer, supervisor, or health and safety personnel about hazards that employee is unable to fix by themselves particularly if the risk could cause serious harm to operations of people and outcome of an organization (Bottani et al., 2009, p. 159). For instance, this feature of management of risk in of security case management in reducing danger of chief accidents help in allowing every individual to be able to ask their supervisor for appropriate training and instructions before using any equipment or handling devices. It also allows people in asking for help or lifting different objects as well as telling the supervisor or managers what an individual think when the work practice could be dangerous.

It is responsibility of every organization worker to fix dangers. Occasionally, people may be capable to fix instance of dangers by an employee as long as they do not put themselves or others in danger. For instance, an individual can lift up things from ground and place them away to get rid of trip risk (WorkSafe.Victoria 2007.1). It is not always possible to get rid of hazard, but an individual should try to make hazard less dangerous by focusing on different options that ranges from its elimination, substitution, isolation, safeguards, and training specialists in the safety approach to accomplish something, to using personal proactive equipment along with clothing. The idea of elimination as a feature of risk management illustrates that sometimes risk caused by different equipments, substances, or work practices can be evaded altogether during significant damages (Hale et al., 2010, p. 1029). There is need o control the risk by relying upon substitution as a way of focusing on the use of less hazardous substances, things, or work practice to manage occurrences of risk.

Assessing the risk

Risk control also involves technique of isolation as a way of separating hazard from individual by marking the hazardous region, putting up safety barriers, or fitting screen during significant accidents. Besides, protections can be included through technique of altering gadgets or gear or fitting gatekeepers to hardware. The safeguards in risk management process must always be expelled or debilitated by laborers utilizing proper gear (WorkSafe.Victoria 2007.3). Operation of risk management feature that relies on instructing worker in the safest approach to doing something during significant accidents involves the process of developing as well as enforcing safe procedures of work to eliminate instances of risk. People or workers on an organization need to be given data alongside direction and must take after concurred process to enable them in ensuring that they remain safe. Besides, risk control involves the idea of using personal protective equipment together with clothing.  These gadgets can help in protecting an individual during significant accidents from perils related with their obligations, for example, taking care of chemicals operating with the noisy surrounding (Robson et al., 2007, p. 347). Hence, it will require more than one of the hazard administration includes above to successfully reducing the risk of major accidents.

The use of the above illustrated essential chance administration highlights of the wellbeing case administration in lessening the danger of critical mishaps may have prohibited Oil along with Gas Explosion by Piper Platform within 1988. The management could have use feature of hazard identification as a way of identifying the accident that was yet to happen by providing knowledge of the sectors (Pate-Cornell 1993, p. 221). The management could have used hazard identification in spotting hazard that resulted into explosion of gas and oil at Piper Alpha. The use of this feature could have prevented the accident by ensuring that every worker was capable of understanding anything that could have lead to hurting of individuals during their operations. Besides, hazard identification could have helped in preventing of the accident of Piper Alpha Oil & Gas Platform Explosion in 1988 by allowing every worker within the firm to remain alert to all the elements that were dangerous to their operations. The feature could have helped workers to note and report to their respective authorities when they smelled, heard, or saw anything odd during their services (WorkSafe.Victoria. 2007.2). The use of hazard identification could have prohibited the Piper Alpha Platform for Oil along with Gas Explosion in 1988 as it would have helped management of the operations to use different methods and principles to assess, identify, as well as control such risk resulting to major accidents.         

Make the change (risk control)

Key risk management feature of assessing the risk could have prohibited Oil along with Gas Explosion by Piper Platform within 1988. The feature of assassin risk would have helped the operations of such explorations in reducing negative effects that people could have on operations. The feature could have helped in assessing the risk by posing various questions to management and workers to fully understand if there exist any negative influential elements in exploitation of oil and gas by Piper Alpha (Larsson et al., 2007, p. 263). The questions during assessment can allow the responsible persons to concentrate on ideal ways of improving their explorations that would have led to effective approaches of exploration of resources that could have not lead to instances of Piper Alpha Platform for Oil along with Gas Explosion in 1988. The feature of assessing the risk could have prevented explosion that occurred in Piper Alpha during its operation of exploring gas and oil as every employee would have been able to report cases of inability to fix different risk by their own to responsible individuals (Steinzor 2011, p. 435). The risk assessment could have prohibited the Piper Alpha Platform for Oil along with Gas Explosion in 1988 as the feature could have helped individuals in requesting for necessary assistance and alerting supervisor and management what an individual tend to think of when they faced such dangerous instances in their operations.

Key risk management feature of risk control could have prohibited the Piper Alpha Platform for Oil along with Gas Explosion in 1988 from occurring. The control of such risks could have seen many workers to understand that they are all responsible for fixing any danger that looms in their operations (May and Koski 2013, p. 142). The feature could have helped in prevention of the accident as all workers could have been to understand that they need to fix every problem by ensuring that every operation during exploration of as was done effectively. The individuals could have concentrated try to make hazards in the exploitation of gas and oil by Piper Alpha to be less dangerous through focusing on various options. These options range from instances of eliminating, isolation, substitution, safeguarding, instructing employees on safety approaches to performing exploitation activities, and using individual proactive devices along with clothing as a way of reducing risk during exploitation accident (Wimalasiri et al., 2010, p. 63). In conclusion, the focus on risk management standard process that lies on the set of principles remains to e vital to the great achievements of the process of delivering lower risk outcomes during major accidents.

List of References

Bottani, E., Monica, L. and Vignali, G. 2009. Safety management systems: Performance differences between adopters and non-adopters. Safety Science, 47(2), pp.155-162.

Gill, G. 2013. ‘Recurring accidents: inadequate isolations’, TCE: The Chemical Engineer, no. 870/871, pp. 52-56.

Hale, A., Guldenmund, F., van Loenhout, P. and Oh, J. 2010. Evaluating safety management and culture interventions to improve safety: Effective intervention strategies. Safety Science, 48(8), pp.1026-1035.

Larsson, T., Mather, E. and Dell, G. 2007. To influence corporate OH&S performance through the financial market. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 7(2), p.263.

May, PJ, & Koski, C. 2013. ‘Addressing Public Risks: Extreme Events and Critical Infrastructures’, Review of Policy Research, 30(2), pp. 139-159. Available from: 10.1111/ropr.12012. [28 May 2018].

Pate-Cornell, M. 1993. Learning from the Piper Alpha Accident: A Postmortem Analysis of Technical and Organizational Factors. Risk Analysis, 13(2), pp.215-232.

Robson, L., Clarke, J., Cullen, K., Bielecky, A., Severin, C., Bigelow, P., Irvin, E., Culyer, A. and Mahood, Q. 2007. The effectiveness of occupational health and safety management system interventions: A systematic review. Safety Science, 45(3), pp.329-353.

Steinzor, R. 2011. ‘Lessons From The North Sea: Should “Safety Cases” Come To America?’, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 38(2), pp. 417-444.

Vinogradov, S. 2013. ‘The Impact of the Deepwater Horizon: The Evolving International Legal Regime for Offshore Accidental Pollution Prevention, Preparedness, and Response’, Ocean Development & International Law, 44(4), pp. 335-362. Available from: 10.1080/00908320.2013.808938. [28 May 2018].

Walker, VK, Huang, Z, Hiroshi, O, Daraboina, N, Sharifi, H, Bagherzadeh, SA, Alavi, S, & Englezos, P. 2015. ‘Antifreeze proteins as gas hydrate inhibitors’, Canadian Journal of Chemistry, 93(8), pp. 839-849. Available from: 10.1139/cjc-2014-0538. [28 May 2018].

Wimalasiri, V, Beesley, N, Cheyne, A, & Daniels, K. 2010. ‘Social construction of the aetiology of designer error in the UK oil and gas industry: a stakeholder perspective’, Journal of Engineering Design, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 49-73. Available from: 10.1080/09544820802139704. [28 May 2018].

WorkSafe.Victoria. 2007.1. Safety Case Safety Management Systems FR07. [online] Available at: https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/pages/forms-and-publications/forms-and-publications/safety-case-safety-management-systems-fr07 [Accessed 29 May 2018].

WorkSafe.Victoria. 2007.2. Safety Case Assessment Principles Technical Protocol TP21. [online] Available at: https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/pages/forms-and-publications/forms-and-publications/safety-case-assessment-principles-technical-protocol-tp21 [Accessed 29 May 2018].

WorkSafe.Victoria. 2007.3. Safety Case Contents FR06. [online] Available at: https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/pages/forms-and-publications/forms-and-publications/safety-case-contents-fr06 [Accessed 29 May 2018].