Risk Management And The Safety Case Regime â€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Risk Management And The Safety Case Regime? Answer: Introducation Risk management is the process of identification, acceptance, analysis and mitigation of the various kinds of uncertainties which is related with the decision making processes. An entity has to get exposed to various kinds of financial risks when he makes an investment. The quantum and the type of risk are associated with the type of instrument involved in the process. In order to control and minimize suck risks, the investors and the mangers practices risk management (Hopkins 2013). It is vital to give importance to risk management when making any kind of investments because there might be sudden financial turmoil in any economy. The organizations and the companies must also understand the various risks that might arise and they must readily accept them. The internal auditors, external auditors, board of directors and the management authority of the company plays various roles in managing the risk. There are various ways of managing risks such as sharing the risks with others, using derivatives and hedges, buying insurance and trying to avoid risky situations (Hayes 2014). Safety case regime There are certain facilities which are associated in handling the large quantities of dangerous goods and which have the risk for creating major incidents, the consequences of those accidents may lead to death, damage of property or injury. Such a facility in the generation of those incidents referred to as MHF. Only some rare accidents which may lead to such catastrophic situations and it gets very less attention in comparison with the operational issues. The aim of MHF is almost similar to the onshore and offshore facilities that exist in Europe and the offshore gas and oil operation of Australia. Safety case regime is an important regulatory initiative which aims to address these issues. The safety case issue must also try to lower OHS issues which lay higher frequency and lower consequence. The regulations of MHF facilities are related with the handling, storage and processing of those materials which are hazardous for the individuals. The mechanism of safety case is implemented and prepared by the different facility managers and it helps them in outlining various means for proper and safe operation of different kinds of facilities. The process which is associated with the development of safety case will help in the improvement of the operation facilities and it also ensures various measures which are associated with hazardous activities during the development and initialization of the safety case which is regarded as a continuous process of improvement (Arifin 2014). Key risk management features of the safety case regime in reducing the risk of major accidents There are .many important features which are very crucial and important for the success of safety case regime. They are discussed below: Safety case regime helps in the analysis and understanding of the various facilities such as the dangerous and hazardous goods which are held at the facility , the materials of Schedule 9 and various other activities which are performed using these materials involving the environment or the community as a whole. There are various types of hazardous activities which are associated with these facilities and the consequences and likelihood of these facilities are very similar to each other. Safety Case also involves the basis for the proper and safe operation of these varied facilities. It also includes different aspects of the Safety Management System which are used to support and control the measures associated with them. Safety management also helps in the designing and construction of the varied facilities which are used for any engineering control measures for any major incidents or hazardous activities (Lindoe and Engen 2013). Safety Case also helps in the process by which the hea lth and the safety personals or the third parties are involved or are very often consulted for the preparation of the safety case. The processes used in the safety case will be used in the analysis and review of any safety case which was previously used. Moreover, the various processes in which the assessments and procedures of the safety case are described and maintained in accordance with the facility operation and design. It also includes the technique or manner in varied aspects of safety case will be designed and integrated for managing the risks and the hazardous activities (Broadribb 2015). The CSB has set certain key features which are vital for the prevention of some of the major accidents. The duty holders safety responsibility involves a written case for the safety The organization is responsible for the protection and safety of various hazardous facilities. The main responsibility lies in the duty holder who are the regulator of the company, the various reasons for selecting one's potential control over another, the different techniques and methodologies which are used to assess the risk. It is the duty and responsibility of the duty holder to make arrangements for the written case involving safety. These case must identify the risks and the hazards and it must also describe how these risk can be minimized to ALARP. The safety case report also tries to visualize that the duty holder has made there arrangements properly and if they are implemented they will be able to reach those compliance with the other legal objectives (Sabel, Herrigel and Kristensen 2014). Moreover, it is also vital that the safety case must serve as an evergreen document which will help to highlight the improvements in the reduction of hazardous activities. In the onshore operational case, it is the responsibility of the duty holder to check the safety report for starting any new construction projects. These will be in improving the technical knowledge and new facts about the safety management system. The duty holders must also update and revise the safety report to provide a proper guideline in times of major accidents. The regulator must also accept the report of the so that he can start the operation process or continue the same process. However, it must be noted that mere acceptance of the safety report by the regulator does not help in the installation or license. It is the responsibility of the duty holder to ensure that installation process must be carried out in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down by the management. Continuous Risk Reduction associated with ALARP The principle of ALARP help the regulator in the foundation to accept or deny the safety report. It is the duty of the regulator to check whether the ALARP has been successfully achieved with the help of the authority or not. ALARP also helps in the reduction of risk to keep it updated with the latest technology. It is also important for the regulator to accept the application of good practices and this will help in the demonstration of ALARP (Chappel 2016). Adaptability and Improvement Safety case regulatory regime helps the regulator in the improvement of various facilities and thus it will also help in ensuring the risks which are associated with the reduction of ALARP. It will also help to focus the various activities which are based on varied regulatory requirements. The regulator must also have the ability in helping the facilities in going beyond the standards and thus it will help in achieving the ALARP without any particular rules and regulations (Sujan et al 2016). The processes which are associated with the regulation of safety will be the same for certain decades. There are also certain problems which are closely associated in maintaining the aging and the safety equipments and this helps to know whether the safety cases are operating properly or not. HSE has made different kinds of efforts to make improvement in its area of operation (Silye and Authority 2014). Active Participation of the workforce. CSB has identified that the representatives and the workers plays a vital role in the prevention of various kinds of accidents. The API and the USW also works together for the implementation of a joint program that will help in the analysis of different kinds of investigation and this also helps in addressing the safety indicators. The employers must also consult with the employees for the safety and security of their health. Moreover, USB is a also a constant battle for the workers to voice their opinion in the management and safety programmes. The regulations also helps the employers for establishing the safety committee (Bennear 2015). Regulatory assessment, Intervention and Verification Safety case reports must help in the prevention and utilization of different kinds audits and preventive inspections for the intervention of risk associated activities. Greater emphasis must also be laid upon the assessment of various kinds of safer designs. Moreover, the intervention of the regulator must also ensure that the facility and the various kind of operation which are held consistent with the various kinds of information. The regulator also has the power to accept the accept reject the safety case authority. The regulator can also suggest more additional methods for the reduction of various kinds of risks. The various kinds of inspections and audits also helps in mitigating the challenges of the industry (Aven and Reniers 2013). Application of Safety Regime preventing the Piper Alpha Oil Gas Platform Explosion in 1988 The number of deaths which occurred from the Piper Alpha Disaster was a great issue in the petroleum industry. This incident also reported the vulnerable condition of the offshore personals in the installations. The Australian operators undertook a varied range of safety and emergency responses after consulting the government. The Australian offshore safety regulation of the petroleum industry are in collaboration with the states, territories and the commonwealth countries. These organizations have developed certain specific standards which are also accepted by the other international committees. The PSL Act wants the operators to carry out their operation in a workmanlike and proper manner (Okoh and Haugen 2014). Lord Cullen has set out certain recommendations on the industry and it has also mentioned certain guidelines and standards in accordance with the process of setting the goals. These guidelines are designed in such away so that it can help in providing guidance on the procedure and measures which are considered suitable in controlling these risks (Walker, Waterfield and Thompson 2014). The approach of goal setting in the safety legislation process varies from the perspective style and also helps in the fixed list of various things which are necessary to meet the statutory requirements. The UK government has tried to bring certain improvements after the Piper Alpha case. It has tried to bring improvements in the safety culture and hardware of these industry. The launching of the step change in the safety process which was designed in such way so as to bring further improvements and change in the Piper Alpha process which will improve the workforce pattern and help[ in the improvement p rocess (ShallCross 2013). The safety case regime also led to the installation of a safety case which had to be submitted to the health and safety executives (HSE). It requires that the regulator or the duty holder must have a definite mobile installation process of operating in the UK waters and they must submit it to HSE. The industry must also properly communicate with its work force. They must also try to replace the stand by vessels and try to bring further improvements. After the incident of Piper Alpha, the joint projects of the industries were itemized and it provided a more realistic assessment (Paterson 2016). There were certain assessments which were carried out as a result of the contamination process and this has helped in the generation of frequencies based on the research of a wide data set. Moreover the HSE also set out certain plans for the various kinds of requirements and this were done in accordance with the downward mode which resulted in the loss of contamination by the process of risk ma nagement. Certain experimental research work were also carried in collaboration with the major projects of the industry (Swuste et al 2017). Reference List Arifin, K., Mustaffa, F., Zakaria, S.Z.S., Razman, M.R., Aiyub, K. and Jaafar, M.H., 2014. Implementation of the fire safety programme: A case study on the oil and gas industry in Terengganu.Journal of Food, Agriculture Environment,12(2), pp.861-866. Aven, T. and Reniers, G., 2013. How to define and interpret a probability in a risk and safety setting.Safety science,51(1), pp.223-231. Bennear, L.S., 2015. Offshore oil and gas drilling: a review of regulatory regimes in the United States, United Kingdom, and Norway.Review of Environmental Economics and Policy,9(1), pp.2-22. Broadribb, M.P., 2015. What have we really learned? Twenty five years after Piper Alpha.Process Safety Progress,34(1), pp.16-23. Chappell, N., 2016. Doing Community Safety by Locality Working: Regime Theory and Micro-Climates of Crime and Disorder Co-Governance. Hayes, J., 2014. A new policy direction in Australian offshore safety regulation.Risk Governance of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations, p.188. Hopkins, A., 2013. The Cost-Benefit Hurdle for Safety Case Regulation.US Chemical Safety Board. Lindoe, P.H. and Engen, O.A., 2013. Offshore safety regimesa contested terrain.The Regulation of Continental Shelf Development. Rethinking International Standards, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, Boston, pp.195-212. Okoh, P. and Haugen, S., 2014. The implication of maintenance in major accident causation.Loss Prevention Bulletin, (236). Paterson, J., 2016. Health, Safety and Environmental Regulation on theUnited Kingdom Continental Shelf in the Aftermathof the Macondo Disaster.LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources,4(2), p.7. Sabel, C., Herrigel, G. and Kristensen, P.H., 2014. Regulation under Uncertainty: The Co-evolution of Industry and Regulation in the Norwegian Offshore Gas and Oil Industry. Shallcross, D.C., 2013. Using concept maps to assess learning of safety case studiesThe Piper Alpha disaster.Education for Chemical Engineers,8(1), pp.e1-e11. Silye, J. and Authority, H.A.E., 2014. EU Initiatives Following Fukushima Nuclear Accident: Amending The Nuclear Safety Directive and Establishing the EU Liability Regime.Nuclear law iN Progress Derecho Nuclear eN evoluciN, p.267. Sujan, M.A., Habli, I., Kelly, T.P., Pozzi, S. and Johnson, C.W., 2016. Should healthcare providers do safety cases? Lessons from a cross-industry review of safety case practices.Safety science,84, pp.181-189. Swuste, P., Groeneweg, J., Van Gulijk, C., Zwaard, W. and Lemkowitz, S., 2017. Safety management systems from Three Mile Island to Piper Alpha, a review in English and Dutch literature for the period 1979 to 1988.Safety Science. Walker, G.H., Waterfield, S. and Thompson, P., 2014. All at sea: An ergonomic analysis of oil production platform control rooms.International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,44(5), pp.723-731.