National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers
RMT response to DECC and HSE Consultation on the implementation of EU Offshore Safety Directive 2013/30/EU and updating of onshore UK oil and gas safety legislation to cover emerging energy technologies
Introduction
The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) organises over 5,000 offshore workers employed at all grades in the industry, from catering on installations to diving in the North Sea.
RMT welcome the opportunity to contribute to the joint DECC and HSE consultation on implementing the EU’s Draft Directive on Offshore Safety.
Key points
The union makes the following key points in our submission:
· RMT believe that the Offshore Safety Case Regulations 2015 should be made more robust to require owners and operators to co-operate in the production of standards and guidance relating to the safe operation of installations.
· The Offshore Industry Advisory Committee should meet more frequently in recognition of its new responsibility for environmental issues in the offshore industry in addition to the existing offshore safety remit.
· Enforcement action should be taken against operators or owners who fail to adopt best practice recommendations from the OIAC on safety and environmental policies in the industry.
· The Step Change forum should be the body that decides how to implement the recommendations for change to environmental and safety practice that flow from the reformed OIAC.
· We welcome the ‘gold plating’ of regulations in four key areas, which highlights the tension between safety in hazardous industries and the Government’s ideological opposition to regulation.
· Emergency Search and Rescue capacity is being undermined by budget and resourcing cuts and privatisation which potentially compromise the emergency response plans that companies have to put in place for installations. The impact of central government policy, on coastguard numbers and the privatisation of SAR helicopters for example, should be weighed up in the context of emergency services for offshore workers on installations.
Consultation questions
1 / Do you agree with the rationale for selecting the proposed approach for establishing the UK’s offshore oil and gas competent authority? Yes/No.Yes, RMT agree with the rationale set out in the consultation document for establishing the Competent Authority (CA) for the UK offshore oil and gas industry.
We await with considerable interest, therefore, the publication of the ‘enhanced Memorandum of Understanding between DECC and HSE....analogous to the existing model used for the regulation of onshore major hazard installations.’ Clearly there are major differences between offshore and onshore major hazard installations and we are confident that these differences will be acknowledged and catered for in the proposed enhanced MoU between DECC and HSE.
2 / Do you agree with the proposed approach to dealing with the definition of major accident?
RMT agree with the proposed approach to dealing with the definition of a major accident. We have concerns over the impact of the Government’s proposed revocation of the Merchant Shipping (Diving Safety) Regulations 2002, the result of the Red Tape Challenge. Written Answers to Questions[1] from MPs highlight that HSE, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and Government Ministers are discussing the impact of this proposed revocation on the regulations governing offshore diving, although we acknowledge
We believe that this should have been given some prominence in the consultation document and, failing that, HSE should provide an update on how the provisions of the 2002 regulations are adequately captured elsewhere in regulations covering diving safety in the merchant shipping and offshore sectors, which overlap particularly during exploration work for oil and gas under the North Sea.
3 / Do you support the rationale for the HSE definition of offshore installation continuing to cover supplementary units beyond 500m?
Yes, RMT support the rationale for the HSE’s definition.
4 / Do you agree that keeping supplementary units beyond 500m in scope of the new requirements in SCR 2015 would result in no additional burdens to industry?
Yes, RMT agree that retaining supplementary units beyond 500m in the scope of the new regulations required to transpose the Directive will not result in additional burdens for industry.
5 / Do you agree that the UK regulator should continue to monitor non-production installations entering or leaving UK waters?
Yes, monitoring non-production installations entering or leaving UK waters should clearly remain with the regulator. The increase in extraction and decommissioning activity over the next 20 years alone justify this.
6 / Do you agree with the proposed operatorship model?
Yes, we agree with the proposed operatorship model and fully support the requirement for duty holders of installations to be licensed too. We also support the clear extension of operator liability to cover the activities of third parties, particularly contractors carrying out drilling, well management and other specialised tasks.
7 / Do you think that the proposed changes to operatorship will impact safety and environmental standards in the UKCS?
The proposed operatorship changes will have a positive impact on safety and environmental standards in the UKCS.
8 / Do you think that the proposed changes to operatorship will discourage any future groups from considering entering the UKCS to conduct oil and gas operations?
No. The proposed changes will not deter operator applications, although we hope they will discourage applications from disreputable operators.
9 / What do you think would be the impact of the proposed changes to operatorship on third party companies who currently act as production installation operators or well operators?
The proposed changes should make liability clearer to third party contractors engaged to work on production installations.
10 / HSE proposes to remove the phrase “the storage of gas in or under the shore or bed of relevant waters or the recovery of gas so stored” from the UK’s definition of offshore installation and develop a new regulatory regime to cover offshore gas storage. Do you agree or disagree with this approach? Please explain why.
No view either way.
11 / Do you agree with the proposed approach of applying similar requirements to those in SCR 2005 and the supporting suite of offshore oil and gas regulations for internal waters?
Yes, oil and gas exploration, extraction and production operations in internal waters should be subject to the same health, safety and environmental regime as offshore activities outside territorial waters.
12 / DECC and HSE propose to broadly maintain the current UK approach of having different emergency arrangements under our range of offshore oil and gas legislation, rather than introducing a requirement to produce one plan. Do you agree or disagree with this approach?
Agree.
13 / Do you agree with the estimates used in the IA to cost the following requirements: (a) Around 92 hours of staff time per installation to collect and add additional information to the internal emergency response arrangements; (b) Around 70 hours of staff time per installation to assemble the inventory of emergency response equipment; (c) Around 116 hours of staff time per installation to describe the internal emergency response arrangements in the Safety Case; and (d) Around 144 staff hours per installation per annum to keep the description of the internal emergency response arrangements up to date?
Yes, RMT agree with the estimates in the Impact Assessment, although we seek reform to the role of trade union health and safety representatives offshore which would contribute to the assessment roles above.
14 / Do you agree with the proposal to extend the independent verification system to cover safety and environmental-critical elements (SECE) and to meet the new Directive criteria via SCR 2015?
Yes.
15 / Do you agree with the estimates used in the IA to cost the following requirements: (a) Around 280 hours of staff time per installation to add new criteria to the verification scheme; (b) Around 35 hours of staff time per installation to provide a description of the extended scheme for the safety case; (c) Around £15,000 charge per installation for the independent verifier to establish new criteria for ECE; and (d) Around 17 hours staff time per annum to maintain the extended verification scheme?
Yes.
16 / Do you agree with DECC and HSE’s rationale for applying the requirement to produce a Corporate Major Accident Prevention Policy (CMAPP) on all operators and owners, and not just corporations?
Yes.
17 / Do you agree with the estimates used in the IA to cost the following requirements: (a) Around 833 staff hours to prepare each CMAPP; and (b) Around 50 hours of staff time per annum to keep the CMAPP up to date?
Yes.
18 / Do you agree with the estimates used in the IA to cost the following requirements: (a) Around 58 hours of staff time per installation to collect the additional safety information for the SEMS document; and (b) Around 44 hours of staff time per installation to produce the adequate description for the safety case as outlined in paragraph 2.56?
Yes.
19 / Do you agree with the DECC/HSE approach to implementing the requirements for a SEMS?
Yes.
20 / DECC and HSE propose including within the Safety Case short descriptions and links relating to environmental information to meet the Directive’s requirement for the report on major hazards. Do you support this approach?
Yes, although a standard format for abbreviated descriptions, particularly electronic links to documents should be set out.
21 / Do you agree with the estimates used in the IA to cost the following requirements: (a) Around 419 staff hours per installation to update a production installation safety case; (b) Around 140 staff hours per installation to update a non-production installation safety case; and (c) Around 35 hours per installation per annum to keep additional information in the safety case up to date? Yes/No. Please explain why.
22 / Do you agree with the proposal to briefly describe and/or make appropriate links to existing environmental information within a design or relocation notification? Yes/No. Please explain why.
23 / Do you agree with the estimates used in the IA to cost the following requirements: (a) Around 35 hours of staff time per notification to add additional information into a design notification; and (b) No additional time needed to add information to a relocation notification (because the information is already included)? Yes/No. Please explain why.
24 / Do you agree with the proposal to briefly describe and/or make appropriate links to the environmental information within a well notification? Yes/No. Please explain why.
25 / Do you agree with the estimate used in the IA to cost the following requirement: Around 35 hours to add the additional information per well notification? Yes/No. Please explain why.
26 / If you are an operator submitting a well notification what would be the additional cost charged by your well examiner to review prior to submission: (a) a well notification; and (b) a material change to a well notification?
27 / If you are an operator submitting a well notification or a material change to a well notification, how long would it take to: (a) include a report of the findings of the well examiner and a description of the action taken; and (b) who in your organisation would do it?
28 / Do you agree with the proposal to briefly describe and/or make appropriate links to the environmental information within a combined operations notification? Yes/No. Please explain why.
29 / Do you agree with the estimates used in the IA to cost the following requirement: Around 70 hours of staff time for adding the additional information per combined operations notification? Yes/No. Please explain why.
30 / Do you agree with the proposal to briefly describe and/or make appropriate links to existing information in the decommissioning safety case? Yes/No. Please explain why.
31 / Do you agree with the estimate in the IA that there will be no additional cost for adding any information to a dismantling safety case? Yes/No. If not: (a) What information would you need to add? (b) Who would do this work? (c) How long would it take?
32 / Do you agree with our assessment that reporting the measures taken where there is imminent danger or increased risk of a major accident would impose no additional cost? Yes/No. Please explain why.
33 / Do you agree with our assessment that reporting major accidents outside the EU that UK registered companies or their subsidiaries have been involved in would impose no additional cost? Yes/No. Please explain why.
34 / Do you agree with our assessment that there would not be any circumstances where permission to enter the safety zone would be granted by an operator or owner? Yes/No. Please explain why.
35 / Do you agree with our assessment that there are no additional costs to industry associated with collecting and recording data? Yes/No. Please explain why.
36 / Our assessment is that the requirement to report under the Implementing Act would impose no additional costs as such reports would be routine and incorporated into existing processes for internal reporting, investigations and learning mechanisms. Do you agree or disagree with this assessment? Please explain why.
37 / The IA roughly estimates that operators/owners that need to create a new database for this reporting requirement would incur a cost of around £113,000. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain why.
38 / Do you agree with the estimate used to cost the following impact: Around 488 hours of staff time per installation to promote the changes to staff? Yes/No. Please explain why.
39 / Do you support DECC and HSE’s proposed approach to implementing the requirement for operators and owners to cooperate in producing standards and guidance?
No, RMT do not support the proposed approach. We believe that the proposal for ‘...an obligation encouraging operators and owners to co-operate in producing standards and guidance’ is too weak. A legal duty on operators and owners to co-operate in the production of standards and guidance on essential health and safety issues on installations should be included in the 2015 regulations, as these issues are too important to be left to the inclination of operators and owners. This joint approach needs to be accompanied by robust regulation, not an obligation encouraging this essential and vital work.