Gå til hovedinnhold

Audit of major accident risk – Kårstø

During the period 26-29 May 2010, the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway (PSA) performed an audit of major accident risk at the Kårstø facility. The purpose of the audit was to assess whether the activities at Kårstø are performed in accordance with regulatory requirements and recognised standards. The audit did not uncover any non-conformities or improvement items.


The audit was performed pursuant to regulations relating to measures for preventing and limiting the consequences of major accidents in activities where hazardous chemicals are present (the Major Accident Regulations), Temporary regulations of 19 December 2003 relating to safety and working environment for certain petroleum facilities on land and associated pipeline systems and Regulations relating to systematic health, safety and environment work in the activities (the Internal Control Regulations).

Goal
The purpose of the audit activity was to verify compliance with relevant regulations in areas influencing the risk of major accidents. This included:

  • follow-up and measures following the previous major accident audit, including learning from incidents
  • the activities’ systems for condition inspection and maintenance
  • follow-up of selected items relating to the enterprise’s safety report, including job preparations

Result
The Kårstø facility has continued the positive development as regards awareness and systematic work to reduce risk in relation to major accidents.

Awareness and understanding of contributions to risk and management of these was evident with all interviewed personnel. The interviews gave the impression of a joint understanding of organisational responsibilities.

A systematic review has been performed of previous incidents to examine if measures following investigations have had the desired and planned effect.

Observations
The PSA’s observations are generally grouped into one of two categories:
• Non-conformity: Related to those observations where we believe we can prove a breach of regulations.
• Improvement item: Related to observations where we identify faults, but do not have enough information to prove a breach of regulations.

No non-conformities or improvement items were identified during the audit.

Other comments
There is extensive use of scaffolding in connection with different projects. This represents a risk that will require attention in the future.
 

Inger Anda, Director for communication and public affairs
Email: inger.anda@ptil.no | +47 970 54 064