Overview of Recovery and Rescue Validation, Verification and Extrapolation

Transcription

1 Overview of Recovery and Rescue Validation, Verification and Extrapolation Health and Safety Seminar - AECC 29 June 2017

2 Purpose The purpose of this presentation is to provide an overview of how Emergency Response and Rescue Vessel performance in measured for PFEER compliance, incorporating: - The background to ERRV performance measurement Legislation, guidelines and performance standards Validation & verification trials Extrapolation to measure performance in the range of sea states in which the vessel may have to respond to an emergency Current HSE focus The duty of care Potential future developments

3 Introduction - Who are Seacroft? An independent Marine Consultancy with specialist expertise in offshore recovery and rescue, providing marine assurance and/or consultancy services to the following and more: -

4 Background Seacroft have been leading experts in offshore recovery and rescue since goal setting PFEER legislation was introduced in 1995 Pioneering ERRV sharing arrangements to ensure an effective yet efficient level of support without compromising safety Seacroft s Extrapolation Model, developed by Shell, was acquired by Seacroft in 1999 / 2000, reviewed and accepted by Industry bodies as a best industry practice Seacroft have conducted thousands of trials on location and offshore locally (>6nm). Trials must simulate reasonable and realistic scenarios but cannot be conducted in conditions that risk crew safety to an unacceptable level The risks can be effectively managed The current largely modern fleet of vessels and more extensive exercising offshore has improved overall performance in the majority of cases over time. However, vessels and crews still occasionally fall short of the requirements and corrective or preventative action is required.

5 Applicable Legislation Offshore Installations (Prevention of Fire and Explosion, and Emergency Response) Regulations 1995 (PFEER) PFEER Regulations applicable to Recovery and Rescue Arrangements: PFEER regulation 5 PFEER regulation 8 PFEER regulation 11 Assessments Emergency Response Plan Communications PFEER regulation 17 Arrangements for Recovery and Rescue.and for the purposes of Regulation 17, arrangements shall be regarded as being effective if they secure a good prospect of those persons being recovered, rescued and taken to: - A PLACE OF SAFETY Slide Title Example1 The Duty Holder / Owner is obliged to satisfy the legislative Requirements and Industry Guidelines to provide effective R&R Support

6 R&R Industry Guidelines Duty Holders and ERRVs should comply with Oil & Gas UK Guidelines as a recognised method of satisfying PFEER requirements ERRV Survey Guidelines ERRV Management Guidelines Ship / Installation Collision Avoidance Guidelines Management of Emergency Response for Offshore Installations

7 R&R Performance Standards Emergency Incident ERRV / Rescue Craft Response Time PIW Time to Place of Safety Operational Guidelines Installation Escape to Sea Helicopter Incident 2 mins 21 < SNS 2 mins 21 < SNS 120 mins Last survivor recovered to a Place of Safety within 120 minutes up to a SWH circa. 7.0 metres (Often 5.5m in SNS) 120 mins Last survivor recovered to a Place of Safety within 120 minutes up to a SWH circa. 6.0 metres (Often 5.5m in SNS) MOB - Overside Work 2 mins Note: - Rescue Craft should be in position to rescue the first casualty from the sea within 4 minutes mins Overside Work Operations generally restricted to a SWH of 3.5 metres.

8 Current ERRV Trial Regime The following are differences between validation and verification trials and summarise what was previously arranged and agreed between the HSE and ERRVA: - Validation Trials Normally independently witnessed aboard the vessel Conducted at least 6nm offshore Extrapolated up to 7m SWH (not 1.5 times) Conducted at least annually (normally per crew) Full scenarios simulated with mannequin numbers and spread PLBs not normally used Verification Trials Conducted offshore on an ongoing basis, often in poorer conditions Current reporting regime cannot be extrapolated Were not intended to be against the clock to avoid crew taking risks in higher sea states and hours of darkness Normally use smaller numbers of mannequins PLBs sometimes used Some parts of the guidelines are difficult to comply with as currently written. Being reviewed and updated at present.

9 Methods of Rescue

10 Extrapolation Model Results MECHANICAL EXERCISE - MAJOR INCIDENT - 21 TARGETS IN THE WATER Performance Standard SWH = 7 Number of Targets = 21 VESSEL NAME / EXERCISE: EXAMPLE EXERCISE ORIGINAL EXTRAPOLATION MODEL Input data 7 swh Hsig < >3.5 7 Test SWH 0.00 if <2 DISTANCE Transit speed of ERRV Time to alarm ERRV transit Transit ERRV to area Time to manoeuvre- including search Time to recover each target Time to recover targets Time since alarm to recovery of targets ABOVE MODEL BASED ON MOST RECENT TRIAL DATA

11 R&R Validation Performance Chart

12 R&R Verification Chart

13 HSE Focus In communication between the HSE, Seacroft, Clients and Industry Bodies the following items were raised as observations and potential improvements: Trials are often undertaken in a professional manner simulating realistic and robust rescue scenarios and good practices are often adopted in trials procedures, but some are not and the quality is inconsistent across the industry. Some trials observed by the HSE offshore have not been to a good standard The HSE are sceptical about the distances that Extrapolation predicts R&R Performance Standards could be achieved from at the upper sea states. The Mechanical Recovery Device performance and associated Extrapolation would benefit from further data to verify results in higher sea states over 3.5m SWH. There is a desire to achieve more consistency and uniformity in the trial process across the Industry, duty holders and service providers The duty holders and offshore installation personnel should take an active involvement in the verification processes

14 The Duty of Care Demonstration of PFEER compliance is the responsibility of the Duty Holder Independent experts are often required for specialist elements and for credible third party validation and verification with no conflicting agendas (commercial or legal consequences) Questions often asked: - How does the duty holder verify that their independent experts and service providers are delivering a quality service and end product? How does the duty holder ensure the accuracy and robustness of the extrapolated trial results and vessel performance? Do offshore installation personnel understand their role and the importance of taking an active involvement in the verification trials and exercises undertaken by the ERRV offshore on location?

15 Potential Future Developments? ERRV Guidelines are currently under review HSE focus will hopefully be addressed in the guidelines More involvement from the duty holder and offshore installation personnel More consistency and uniformity in how trials are conducted and performance measured Review extrapolation methods, results and data to verify predictions in the higher sea states Only share ERRVs over distances where performance standards can be confidently and reliably achieved More evidence and justification for larger or more complex ERRV sharing arrangements Recovery and rescue strategies and operations must ensure the safety of offshore installation personnel and ERRV crews is the number 1 priority.

16 Thank You