Safety Case Regime: Risk Management, Piper Alpha, and Prevention

This essay provides a comprehensive overview of the Safety Case Regime (SCR), a regulatory framework designed to manage risks in Major Health Facilities (MHFs) that handle hazardous materials such as petroleum and chemicals. It begins by highlighting the potential for catastrophic accidents in MHFs, referencing the Piper Alpha disaster, and then outlines the key risk management features of the SCR. These features include hazard identification, risk assessment, and risk mitigation, with detailed explanations of tools like HIRAC, JSA, and the Hierarchy of Control. The essay explores the importance of safety assessments, including Formal Safety Assessments (FSAs), and risk mitigation strategies specific to MHFs, such as inventory control and emergency response plans. The essay then analyzes how the SCR's features could have prevented the Piper Alpha explosion, emphasizing the role of engineering controls and proper administrative functionalities. The essay concludes by reiterating the SCR's significance in preventing accidents and protecting lives and property within the MHF industry. The provided solution is contributed by a student to be published on the website Desklib, a platform which provides all the necessary AI based study tools for students.

Safety Case Regime 1
SAFETY CASE REGIME
Name
Course
Professor
University
City
Date

Safety Case Regime 2
Organizations that deal with vast quantities of dangerous goods such as petroleum and
chemicals have a high probability of serious accidents. These facilities, commonly referred to as
Major Health Facilities (MHFs), include all oil refining companies, petrochemical manufacturing
companies, chemical processing plants, and organisations that deal in installing massive amounts
of flammable and toxic substances (Khan & Hashemi, 2017). An explosion that occurred at Piper
Alpha Oil & Gas facility in 1988 led to the loss of many lives and damage of property worth
millions; and thereby highlighting the potentially catastrophic effects that such accidents can
cause. Currently, such potential is regulated by the Safety Case Regime (SCR). This initiative
regulates the storage, processing, and handling of hazardous materials in an MHF. This essay
discusses some of the key risk management features of the safety case regime in reducing the
risk of major accidents. It also addresses how these features might have prevented the Piper
Alpha Oil & Gas Platform explosion.
1. Risk Management Features
The safety case regime regulations encompass significant attributes of risk management
to help in mitigating the potential accidents that may occur in the MHFs. These features include
the following: identifying the hazard, conducting a risk assessment, and mitigating the threats.
The risks may be different depending on the type of the facility and the danger of the substances.
Therefore, the application of the approaches of the SCR differs from one facility to another
(Woolfson, 2013). The process of identifying the hazard makes use of essential tools. Some of
these tools are discussed below.
1.1 Risk Analysis-Risk Management Tools

Safety Case Regime 3
These tools are essential in supporting decision making concerning risk management.
They include Hazard Identification Risk Assessment and Control (HIRAC), Job Safety Analysis
(JSA) and Safe Work Method Statements among others (Woolfson, 2013).. HIRAC is the most
common approach; it contains methods and principles to identify the risks, assess them and
control them. Generally, HIRAC principles include populating a spreadsheet document that
would help the manager of the facility to plan for risk management procedure successfully.
However, despite the international standards documented in HIRAC, the procedures are not
consistent for all the industries. For example, one industry may require an in-depth analysis such
as decision support methods and information while another may only require identification of
strengths and weaknesses in the analysis of reports. These variations cases inherent disparities in
the outcomes, especially in terms of precision.
The process of risk management is conducted in hierarchical order as required by the
safety case regime. The list of these principles is commonly referred to as the Hierarchy of
Control. The six levels of control include the following: elimination, substitution, isolation,
engineering, administration, personal protective equipment (PPE). These categories are in
descending order of their theoretical effectiveness. The most effective method of risk control is
elimination. When a risk or hazard is eliminated from a workplace, there is entirely no chance of
potential harm. After elimination, substitution is the next effective procedure. It involves
replacing a dangerous substance, item, process, or activity with one that has a lesser effect. The
next method is isolation (Obicci, 2017).. This procedure involves separating a dangerous
substance or activity from the property or personnel that may be affected by an occurrence of the
risk. The engineering process involves setting up control structures that would prevent the threat
from happening. Such controls may include interlocks, automatic cut-offs and developing

Safety Case Regime 4
mechanical solutions. Administration procedures, on the other hand, include the regulations
made by the management of the facility. They may include, work instructions, work procedures,
operating procedures, training, supervision, signage, housekeeping etcetera. Finally, PPE is the
lowest level procedure. Other controls like work procedures should be used together with PPE
for proper outcomes to be achieved. Adequate training for the use of PPE is sufficient. Untrained
personnel may think that PPE is protecting them when in fact it is exposing them to risks.
Another risk management tool is Job Safety Analysis (JSA) and Safe Work Method
Statements. They are used to ensure that appropriate controls are in place to protect employees,
the environment, the plant, and other people from dangers that may occur in the routine activities
of the facility (Iverson, 2013). The Safety Case Regime, through JSA and SWMS, states that
work in an MHF should only commence after the appropriate controls are in place. These tools
also make use of spreadsheets to guide the user through the risk management process.
1.2 Safety Assessment
After analyzing the risks, the next step in risk management is an assessment (McNeil,
Frey, and Embrechts, 2015). This involves reviewing the whole organization from its
construction, design, to the operations. The process is important because it helps to predict the
potential causes of the accidents; whether it might be a mechanical breakdown or human error.
The perception is that major accidents often repeat themselves and hence identifying the
potential causes of the incidents is the first step in mitigating the threat. A Formal Safety
Assessment (FSA) is imperative for establishing a more objective regulatory framework. Some
common techniques applied are hazard and operability (HAZOP) research, fault tree
examination, quantitative risk assessment (QRA), safety audits and human factors analyses.
There have been recommendations that the safety regime in the UK to be regulated by a single

Safety Case Regime 5
body. This proposal points out that coordination of regulatory activities is of great significance in
the industry (Obicci, 2017). Also, it is predicted that the future might be characterized by strains
in expertise, resources, and judgments. Therefore, coordinating the services might be the best
chance of ensuring safety in these facilities through regulation. An inspector from the regulatory
body is given the responsibility of evaluating the safety case of a facility according to the
required standards. Risk assessment is therefore essential in determining the potential causes of
risks and the dangers that may arise from the occurrence of the threat.
1.3 Risk Mitigation
The last procedure for risk management is risk mitigation and prevention. These
measures are specific to the specific type of the primary health facility. For example, some of the
mitigation strategies in the industry may include inventory control for hydrocarbons, control
room operations and capabilities, protection from pipelines, fire, and gas detection, explosion
and fire protection, and emergency shutdown systems. These controls are important to reduce the
severity of the effects that arise from these accidents. The more the controls an organisation has,
the lesser the number of victims and property damage that might occur following the catastrophe.
In addition, the mitigation process entails the evacuation strategy after an occurrence of a threat.
All MHFs should have an appropriate plan for evacuating employees and other people in the
vicinity in case of a major accident (Al-Thani & Merna, 2013). For example, fires and explosions
in an oil refining company may result in massive death and burnt victims. Such facilities are
required to have as many fire emergency exits as possible. Similarly, the companies should be
located near emergency provision services such as firefighting organisations and ambulatory
healthcare services. These among other measures are appropriate to reduce the number of
casualties that may result from such an unfortunate occurrence (Hull, Alexander and Klein,

Safety Case Regime 6
2002). Other recommendations include the provision of temporary self-refuge (TSR), embarking
points, escape routes, rescue helicopters, standby vessels etcetera. The organisations are also
required to train their workers on how to deal with such emergencies. For instance, basic fire
extinguishing education is critical for such employees teaching what and where to go in case a
fire occurs, evacuation procedures should also be clear to the staff members following (Al-Thani
& Merna, 2013). Finally, the training should encompass the means of notifying the rest of the
people in the facility. Many MHFs are very large buildings. Therefore, an accident such as an
explosion or fire occurring in one section may take a few minutes before the other people in
different sections notice it. Such facilities are required to install emergency communication
systems such as fire alarms for these purposes. Risk mitigation is arguably the most important
feature of risk management. It ensures that the organization does not suffer huge losses from an
accident.
2. The Case of Piper Alpha Oil & Gas Platform Explosion
Piper Alpha was an Oil and Gas production company in Scotland formed in 1976. In
1988, an unfortunate explosion occurred in the facility, killing 167 individuals, including two
rescuers. The total loss was approximated to be worth $ 3.4 billion, making the incident one of
the most massive catastrophes in the world’s history. An organisation called the Cullen inquiry
was set up to investigate the issue and determine the cause of the accident. According to the
Cullen report, the incident was caused by leakage on one of the pumps that were being used and
underwent maintenance at the same time (Frigo & Anderson, 2012). The conclusion was that the
facility lacked adequate maintenance and safety procedures. The features of safety case regime
might have played a huge role in preventing this explosion.

Safety Case Regime 7
First and foremost, the tools and techniques documented in HIRAC, JSA, and SWMS
would have been vital in ensuring that the right controls are in place to guarantee safety. The six
control levels of elimination, substitution, isolation, engineering, administration, personal
protective equipment (PPE) would have played a huge role. For example, engineering controls
would have detected the leaks are performed automatic cut-offs preventing the defaulted pump
from working until it got fixed (Heiler, 2006). In addition, proper administration functionalities
would have prevented such kind of negligence shown by the supervisor and workers of at
operations center. These preventive measures are mandatory according to the safety case regime.
Similarly, according to JSA, the activities would have stopped until the mechanical default was
fixed and thus preventing the occurrence of the tragedy. The sudden stop of activities would have
implied a loss of company revenue, and hence the appropriate management would have fixed the
issue as soon as possible to prevent further loss of revenue. Therefore, vigilant control measures
documented in these regulation documents would have prevented the accident and save a lot of
lives (Hopkins, A., 2011).
In conclusion, the Safety Case Regime is an essential regulation initiative in the industry
of Major Health Facilities. It contains some of the critical risk management features that are
critical for preventing accidents that might arise from the hazardous substances and processes
carried out in these facilities. Piper Alpha suffered massive losses due to lack of safety
procedures. The safety case regime would have prevented the incident through its regulations
and risk management features discussed in this paper.

Safety Case Regime 8
References
Al-Thani, F., & Merna, T. (2013). Corporate risk management. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
Frigo, M., & Anderson, R. (2012). Strategic risk management.. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Heiler, K., 2006. Is the Australian mining industry ready for a safety case regime. Work. Pap, 45.
Hopkins, A., 2011. Management walkarounds: Lessons learned from the Gulf of Mexico Oil
Well Blowout. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 39(4), pp.3-10.
Hull, A.M., Alexander, D.A. and Klein, S., 2002. Survivors of the Piper Alpha oil platform
disaster: a long-term follow-up study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 181(5), pp.433-
438.
Iverson, D. (2013). Strategic risk management. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.
Khan, F. and Hashemi, S.J., 2017. Introduction. In Methods in Chemical Process Safety (Vol. 1,
pp. 1-36). Elsevier.
McNeil, A.J., Frey, R. and Embrechts, P., 2015. Quantitative risk management: Concepts,
techniques and tools. Princeton university press.
Obicci, P. (2017). Risk management strategies in public-private partnerships. Hershey, PA,
USA: Business Science Reference.
Woolfson, C., 2013. Preventable disasters in the offshore oil industry: from Piper Alpha to
Deepwater Horizon. New solutions: a journal of environmental and occupational health

Safety Case Regime 9
policy, 22(4), pp.497-524.