The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (OCSLA) granted primary authority for worker health and safety on the outer continental shelf (OCS) to the United States Coast Guard (USCG). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was created in 1970 as the lead agency for all worker health and safety regulation, but offshore oil and gas (nonrenewable minerals) production is a special case, for which the enforcement of health and safety regulations remained with USCG as the lead authority. The 1978 amendments to OCSLA expanded USCG’s ability to make and enforce health and safety regulations on the OCS. In 2002, USCG involved the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) Minerals Management Service (MMS) by authorizing it to conduct safety inspections aboard oil and gas platforms on USCG’s behalf.
The introduction of renewable energy regulation (nonminerals) brings about new circumstances and complexities in offshore worker safety. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended OCSLA and gave DOI responsibility for regulating renewable energy on the OCS. USCG has determined itself to be a cooperating agency for navigation safety and a subject matter expert for marine safety. This chapter provides a brief overview of the federal agencies that regulate worker health and safety and that have jurisdiction over the OCS. It discusses how these agencies interact and their approaches to regulation. It briefly touches on worker health and safety regulations at the state level and introduces worker health and safety standards and guidance from various relevant sources, both domestic and international.
Minerals Management Service
DOI created MMS in 1982 to oversee offshore energy production and collection of mineral revenues. The focus of MMS was on oil and gas production. Section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended Section 8 of OCSLA and granted MMS the authority to regulate renewable energy operations on the OCS (Federal Register 2011b, 64731). Under this authority, MMS regulated the generation of electricity for forms of energy from sources other than oil and natural gas on OCS facilities. The agency was allowed to issue regulations essential for carrying out its new responsibilities, including those with regard to safety and protection of the environment for any activities completed under its authority (Federal Register 2011b, 64731).
On May 19, 2010, after the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon accident, Secretary Kenneth Salazar issued Secretarial Order No. 3299 (DOI 2010b), which established three new bureaus within DOI: the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE),1 and the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR).2 The new bureaus were to be in place by October 2011. On June 18, 2010, Secretary Salazar issued Order No. 3302 (DOI 2010c), which changed the name of MMS to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE). That name would remain in effect until the new bureaus were in place. DOI transferred BOEMRE’s royalty and revenue management functions to ONRR on October 1, 2010. This action separated revenue collection from leasing and enforcement and eliminated a conflict of interest that could have arisen if all the functions were carried out within the same office. On October 1, 2011, DOI completed the reorganization by separating BOEMRE into the two remaining independent bureaus—BOEM and BSEE—and assigned the existing rules to each. The goals of the reorganization included (a) strengthening the role of BOEM and BSEE in environmental review and analysis and
2 ONRR is under DOI’s Assistant Secretary and is part of the Office of Policy, Management, and Budget.
FIGURE 3-1 DOI’s reorganization of MMS (1982 to present), by responsibility and resource area. (SOURCE: Generated by the committee.)
(b) separating the functions of resource development and energy management from the functions of safety and environmental enforcement that had previously coexisted under the old MMS and BOEMRE (Federal Register 2011b, 64731).3 The new independent bureaus (see Figure 3-1) were focused on managing and enforcing regulations for oil and gas production. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 placed responsibility for offshore renewable energy with an agency that was accustomed to regulating offshore oil and gas exploration. The next sections briefly introduce the organizational structure and roles of BOEM and BSEE and discuss current regulations for worker health and safety.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
BOEM is responsible for managing the development of the nation’s offshore resources, including nonrenewable and renewable energy. For nonrenewable energy resources, BOEM’s mission involves evaluation,
3 For more information about the BOEMRE reorganization, see BOEMRE 2011. Although MMS no longer exists as an agency, its name is still referred to in some documents.
planning, and leasing; economic analysis; and environmental science and analysis. Its mission also involves all aspects of the Renewable Energy Program (BOEM 2011).4 BOEM has three national offices and three regional offices. As part of its role in meeting the mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, BOEM is developing renewable energy regulations that address safety, protect the environment, and coordinate its actions with state and local governments and with other federal agencies. In his presentation to the committee, the Acting Deputy Director of BSEE said that BOEM intended to develop a “regulatory framework for renewable energy activities” that provides “a comprehensive approach to offshore renewable energy initiatives—from preliminary study and lease issuance, to construction and operation, to decommissioning of projects.” The Acting Deputy Director added that BOEM would need to rely on BSEE’s engineering expertise for permit reviews and the inspection processes for renewable energy, since BOEM’s main focus is on developing and managing offshore resources and not on safety and environmental enforcement.5
BOEM Office of Strategic Resources
The Office of Strategic Resources assesses potential oil, gas, and other mineral resources on the OCS; inventories oil and gas reserves; develops production projections; and conducts economic evaluations that ensure a fair market return for OCS leases.
BOEM Office of Environmental Programs
The Office of Environmental Programs conducts environmental assessments and reviews (including the National Environmental Policy Act process) for nonrenewable and renewable energy activities during each stage of the offshore energy development planning process. These assessments
4 According to the final rule, BOEM will manage the Renewable Energy Program in the near future, but that program will be reorganized and functions will be redistributed between BSEE and BOEM once it is larger and more established (Federal Register 2011b, 64459). See http://www.federalregister.gov/a/2011-22675/p-64, accessed March 1, 2013.
5 Robert LaBelle, BSEE, presentation to the committee, November 30, 2011. Mr. LaBelle currently serves as BOEM’s Science Advisor. At the time of his presentation, he served as Acting Deputy Director of BSEE.
inform BOEM’s decisions on environmentally responsible ocean energy and mineral development.
BOEM Office of Renewable Energy Programs
The Office of Renewable Energy Programs is responsible for the granting of leases, easements, and rights-of-way needed for the installation, operations, and decommissioning of all renewable energy activities on the OCS in an “orderly, safe, and environmentally responsible” way. This includes the “Smart from the Start” initiative for facilitating the siting, leasing, and construction of new offshore wind projects off the Atlantic coast (DOI 2010a).
BOEM Regional Offices
BOEM’s three regional offices—Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, and Alaska— are integrated into the national programs and help conduct oil and gas resource evaluations, environmental studies and assessments, leasing activities, review of exploration and development plans, fair market value determinations, and geological and geophysical permitting.
Current BOEM Regulations for Worker Health and Safety
As mentioned above, BOEM manages the leasing and environmental reviews of offshore nonrenewable energy–related resources and regulates offshore wind energy production (Federal Register 2011b, 64731). Although BOEM does not enforce health and safety or environmental regulations for nonrenewable energy, its mission includes the enforcement of such regulations for offshore wind energy activities on the OCS6 and for activities involving the alternative use of OCS facilities (Federal Register 2011b, 64459). The brief review of BOEM’s organizational structure and responsibilities above indicates the uniqueness of its safety compliance role for renewable energy. In accordance with 30 CFR 585.810
6 During the drafting of this report, the sponsor indicated that “there is an expectation that BSEE will conduct safety compliance inspections of offshore renewable energy facilities and this is entirely consistent with the purpose for reorganizing MMS and BOEMRE—to separate the resource management agency (BOEM) from the safety compliance agency (BSEE).” Personal e-mail communication with John Cushing, BSEE, August 21, 2012.
(see Box 1-1), BOEM’s Office of Renewable Energy Programs requires the lessee to submit a description of a safety management system (SMS) that meets such goals as ensuring “the safety of personnel or anyone on or near your facilities” and ensuring that workers “who operate … facilities are properly trained” (Federal Register 2011b, 64774). Chapter 5 further discusses BOEM’s SMS and provides suggestions for strengthening and clarifying it.
The regulations in §5857 allow BOEM to conduct scheduled and unscheduled inspections of a lessee’s facilities and vessels used in operations to verify that all project activities are conducted in compliance with the terms of the lease. The lessee must provide access to all facilities and areas listed on the lease and provide all records of design, installation, operations and maintenance, repairs, or investigations on or related to the project area. The lessee must demonstrate compliance with its own SMS (Federal Register 2011b, 64774–64775). Each lessee will also develop and conduct an annual self-inspection plan for all facilities and make the plan available on request. The plan must include such details as type, extent, and frequency of inspections conducted for relevant structures and components and an assessment of structural integrity.8 The lessee must submit an annual report listing all facilities inspected over the previous 12 months, the type of inspection used, and a summary of actions taken.
BOEM requires that lessees submit incident reports (as defined in §585.831) promptly for events involving fatalities, evacuation of personnel, fires and explosions, certain vessel collisions, and certain types of property or equipment damage, as well as for any injury that requires personnel to miss the following day of work and for any evacuation that is not related to the weather (Federal Register 2011b, 64775). The
7 The current study does not discuss the possible need for health and safety protection for projects under research leases on the OCS, although similar SMS requirements may apply. Information can be found in 30 CFR 585.238: Are there any other renewable energy research activities that will be allowed on the OCS? Under this provision, BOEM can issue leases, right-of-way grants, and right-of-use and easement grants to a federal agency or a state on the OCS for renewable energy research activities.
8 See Federal Register 2011b, 64775; the American Petroleum Institute’s API RP 2A-WSD is incorporated by reference.
regulations also provide detailed instructions on reporting an incident (both verbal and written notifications are required) and on what a report should include (see §585.833).
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
BSEE,9 which is divided into three main offices and three regional offices, enforces safety and environmental regulations for operations with regard to the exploration, development, and production of oil and gas on the OCS. Under the current structure, BSEE’s authority does not extend to wind energy power. Major BSEE tasks include permitting and inspecting oil and gas facilities, developing regulations and standards, supporting research on health and safety, reviewing operator oil spill response plans, and operating a newly formed national training center for inspectors.
Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs
BSEE’s Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs (OORP) develops standards and regulations for enhancing operational safety and environmental protection for the exploration and development of offshore oil and natural gas on the U.S. OCS and includes four branches. OORP also operates BSEE’s National Offshore Training and Learning Center (NOTLC). NOTLC’s mission is to enhance the capabilities of BSEE inspectors in enforcing safety and environmental regulations through evolving technical curricula and specialized training that adapts to meet emerging technologies and processes.
Oil Spill Response Division
The Oil Spill Response Division (OSRD) reviews industry oil spill response plans to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. OSRD is also central in developing policy about, disseminating guidance on, and overseeing oil spill response activities. The division over sees the Unannounced Oil Spill Drill program and works closely with other federal agencies, such as USCG and the Environmental Protection Agency.
9 See http://www.bsee.gov/About-BSEE/index.aspx or http://www.bsee.gov/BSEE-Newsroom/BSEE-Fact-Sheets.aspx, accessed March 1, 2013.
Environmental Enforcement Division
The Environmental Enforcement Division oversees operators’ compliance with all applicable environmental regulations and ensures that operators adhere to the stipulations of their approved leases, plans, and permits.
BSEE Regional Offices
BSEE’s three regional offices—Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, and Alaska— support its mission by reviewing permit to drill applications and ensuring that safety requirements are met. Personnel from the regional offices also inspect drilling rigs and production facilities, cite noncompliance issues, fine companies for regulatory infractions, and investigate accidents and incidents.
Current BSEE Regulations for Worker Health and Safety
The rules contained in 30 CFR 250 (Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf) permit BSEE to regulate oil and gas operations on the OCS to prevent injury or loss of life. In an effort to clarify these rules, BSEE often provides industry with a notice to lessees and operators (NTL).10 Subpart A of 30 CFR 250 presents general requirements for protecting health and safety, maintaining equipment and safe work areas, and using the best available and safest technology. Subpart A sets forth requirements for using and maintaining cranes, for submitting a welding plan that includes qualifications of personnel and procedures that must be followed, and for installing and operating electrical equipment on all facilities. BSEE conducts scheduled and unscheduled inspections on facilities and vessels engaged in operations (including, by agreement, facilities under the jurisdiction of other agencies) to verify that all project activities are conducted in compliance with the terms of the lease and other applicable regulations and laws. Part of the inspection process allows BSEE to examine safety equipment and safe operations with a series of checklist items referred to as potential
10 NTLs are formal documents that clarify, describe, or interpret a regulation or OCS standard. NTLs provide the lessee with guidance on the implementation of a special lease stipulation or regional requirement or with an explanation of a regulation’s scope and meaning, as interpreted by BSEE.
incidents of noncompliance (PINCs). PINC checklists11 are inspection items derived from relevant safety and environmental regulations and are used to issue citations in cases of violations.12 PINCs are more prescriptive and tend to focus on hardware-related issues and whether the hardware is maintained according to a particular standard. As noted by a previous Marine Board study, mechanical failures identified by PINCs are not the main cause of most injuries on offshore oil and gas facilities, which are more often attributed to improper safety procedures or human factors (NRC 1990; TRB 2012). BSEE also has a set of PINCs for renewable energy operations based on the regulations listed in 30 CFR 585.13 However, inspection processes that continue to rely on PINCs may not capture improvements in the operational procedures of operators or issues caused by improper safety procedures.
During inspections, the operator must provide access to all facilities and areas listed on the lease and provide all records of design, installation, operations and maintenance, repairs, or investigations on or related to the project area. Under §250.141, the operator may use alternative procedures and equipment as long as a level of safety that equals or surpasses that provided by current requirements or regulations results. BSEE also requires that operators submit incident reports (as defined in §250.187) promptly for events involving fatalities, evacuation of personnel, fires and explosions, certain vessel collisions, and certain types of property or equipment damage. Incident reports are submitted in hard copy (or in digital form if the agency office is equipped to handle it) and should include any injury that requires personnel to miss the following day of work and any evacuation that is not related to the weather.14
Subparts D, E, and F list requirements for oil and gas well drilling, well completion, and well workover operations. Subpart H includes
11 Lists of all PINCs are found at http://www.bsee.gov/Inspection-and-Enforcement/Inspection-Programs/Potential-Incident-of-Noncompliance---PINC.aspx.
13 A complete list of renewable energy PINCs is found at http://www.bsee.gov/Inspection-and-Enforcement/GLT-pdf.aspx.
requirements for designing, installing, and operating safety equipment for oil and gas production systems, and Subpart I includes requirements for the design, construction, maintenance, inspection, and assessment of all platforms and related structures located on the OCS. Subpart O contains requirements for implementing a well control and production safety training program and provides details of items that are to be included. Among them are the type of training and the methods used, the length of the training program and the frequency of the training, procedures for evaluating and auditing the program and for maintaining documents and records, and how BSEE will audit and assess a training program.15
Subpart S requires the lessee to develop, implement, and maintain a safety and environmental management system (SEMS) for oil and gas operations.16 SEMS is an SMS based on the American Petroleum Institute’s (API’s) Recommended Practice (RP) 75 ensuring that the lessee “identifies, addresses, and manages safety, environmental hazards … during the design, construction, start-up, operation, inspection, and maintenance of all new and existing facilities.”17 SEMS requires the lessee to provide plans for 12 elements including hazards analysis, management of change, safe operating procedures, safe work practices, training, emergency response, incident reporting, auditing, and record keeping.18 On September 14, 2011, BSEE issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (referred to as SEMS II) that revised SEMS and added elements, which are proposed and have not been implemented (Federal Register 2011a, 56683). The introduction of SEMS requirements moved regulation of oil and gas operations toward a more goal-based system, away from the prescriptive approach of PINCs. Chapter 5 discusses the SEMS elements in more detail and evaluates whether the elements included could be used as a model for BOEM’s SMS.
16 For more information on Subpart S, see http://cfr.regstoday.com/30cfr250.aspx30_CFR_SUBPART_S.
17 The goals of the SEMS are explained in §250.1901. See http://cfr.regstoday.com/30cfr250.aspx30_CFR_250p1901.
18 The complete list of elements is given in §250.1902. See http://cfr.regstoday.com/30cfr250.aspx30_CFR_250p1902.
United States Coast Guard
USCG has played an important part in U.S. maritime history. It maintains three broad roles—maritime safety, maritime security, and maritime stewardship—composed of 11 missions that are connected and that at times overlap (USCG 2009). All USCG offices and functions are located under the offices of Commandant and Vice Commandant. Among them are Deputy Commandant for Mission Support, Deputy Commandant for Operations, and nine districts distributed between the Atlantic Area and the Pacific Area.19 The Deputy Commandant for Mission Support manages the life cycle of all USCG assets, including ships, planes, buildings, and information technology, from acquisition through decommissioning. The Deputy Commandant for Operations oversees operational planning, policy, and international engagement at the strategic level and maintains relations with interagency partners and other stakeholders in the development of policy.20
Current USCG Regulations for Worker Health and Safety
The safety of navigation and the safety of life and property on facilities (and vessels that service those facilities) engaged in exploring and exploiting mineral resources on the OCS are regulated by 33 CFR Subchapter N, Outer Continental Shelf Activities, Parts 140 to 147,21 but USCG only participates indirectly for activities related to renewable energy operations. Through a memorandum of agreement (MOA), USCG works cooperatively with BOEM to clarify roles and responsibilities related to regulations applied to offshore renewable energy installations (OREIs) and the vessels that service the installations.22 Although the MOA encourages communication and cooperation to avoid overlapping regulations with regard to vessels servicing offshore wind farms,
19 For more information about USCG organizational structure, see http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/org-chart-uscg.pdf and http://www.uscg.mil/top/units/.
21 The current version of Subchapter N is available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2003-title33-vol2/pdf/CFR-2003-title33-vol2-chapI-subchapN.pdf.
22 The MOA is available at http://www.boemre.gov/pdfs/MOA_USCG_BOEMRE_July_27_2011.pdf.
the MOA is vague and does not fully explain how each agency will handle issues involving worker safety and health. The rules in Subchapter N give USCG responsibility for enforcing a wide range of requirements concerning inspections and general workplace safety and health issues—such as personal protective equipment, lifesaving equipment, and firefighting equipment. In 2002,23 USCG authorized MMS (now BSEE) to conduct safety inspections aboard oil and gas platforms on its behalf in accordance with 33 CFR Subchapter N and collaborated with MMS in developing procedures and a PINC checklist—corresponding to USCG inspection items—identified as the “personal safety (USCG) PINCs” or “Z-PINCs.”24 At the time of this report, USCG was revising 33 CFR Subchapter N, and substantial updates were expected. Information about these revisions was not available to the committee but could inform safety standards for offshore wind facilities.
Regulations for offshore manned and unmanned barges, including construction barges, are contained in 46 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter I, Cargo and Miscellaneous Vessels, Parts 90 to 105.25 Subchapter I addresses general safety for personnel on board the vessel. It is of particular interest because it contains many of the regulations that will apply to inspected vessels used in constructing offshore wind farms, including vessels that will transport wind farm elements from port to construction site and vessels equipped with cranes.
Regulations for offshore supply vessels (OSVs) supporting both oil and gas and alternative energy operations are contained in 46 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter L, Offshore Supply Vessels, Parts 125 to 134. USCG has determined that these regulations apply to boats involved in construction and transport activities for offshore wind farms.26 In addition, the rules for OSVs apply to lift boats and allow OSVs to carry up to
23 See Federal Register 2002, 5912, http://www.boemre.gov/federalregister/PDFs/DOT%20Inspection%20Final%20Rule.pdf.
24 A complete list of Z-PINCs is available at http://www.bsee.gov/Inspection-and-Enforcement/Inspection-Programs/GLZ-pdf.aspx.
26 Memorandum on OSV determination; see http://www.brymar-consulting.com/wp-content/uploads/Misc/OSV_110418.pdf.
36 “offshore workers” provided the vessel complies with the provisions of Subchapter L.27
Regulations for safety and health standards for commercial diving operations originating from vessels and facilities under USCG jurisdiction are contained in 46 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter V, Part 197, Subpart B—Commercial Diving Operations, but they are being revised by USCG. The revision of these rules was addressed at a recent National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee meeting, where industry representatives requested that USCG, OSHA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) harmonize their commercial diving rules so that diving contractors can more easily meet them and avoid injuries and fatalities (Shaefer 2011).
Another issue involves vessels providing accommodation service on the OCS. As offshore construction and operation have moved farther offshore, companies in the oil and gas business have chartered floating hotels or “floatels” to house the workers. Similar arrangements may be made for future offshore wind farm operations in the United States. To address the safety of these facilities, USCG requested public comment on appropriate standards for their design, construction, and operation. Although development of final rules may take several years, the standards would apply to wind farm operations once they go into effect (Federal Register 2012, 5039).28
USCG and International Safety Management Code
The International Safety Management (ISM) Code is a mandated SMS of the International Maritime Organization for vessels subject to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, and is administered in the United States by USCG. The ISM Code establishes safety management goals and requires the shipowner or ship operator
27 For more information, see http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1991/n8-91.pdf, http://www.uscg.mil/d8/prevention/docs/1997Policy/D8m97-36.pdf, and http://www.uscg.mil/d8/prevention/docs/1998Policy/D8m98-21.pdf. NVIC stands for Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular, a document providing guidance concerning enforcement or compliance with USCG safety regulations or programs. Although an NVIC does not have the force of law, it can indicate how USCG will enforce certain regulations.
to implement an SMS. The ISM guidelines establish basic principles for verifying that a ship operator’s SMS complies with the ISM Code and for issuing and verifying a document of compliance (DOC). USCG implements and enforces the ISM Code for U.S.-flag vessels and for foreign-flag vessels entering U.S. ports and is authorized to board a vessel and to determine the existence of a valid DOC or safety management certificate.29 The U.S. regulations that implement the ISM Code are found in 33 CFR Part 96, and detailed guidelines for ISM Code enforcement with regard to foreign-flag vessels are contained in Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 04-05.30
Subchapter M, Inspection of Towing Vessels
A rule that applies to U.S.-flag vessels and that contains regulations for a comprehensive SMS has been proposed as 46 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter M, Inspection of Towing Vessels, Parts 136 to 144. The towing safety management system (TSMS) will include company and vessel compliance policies, vessel standards, and inspection procedures for new and existing towing vessels. The TSMS would allow companies flexibility in customizing their approach to meeting the rule’s requirements. The TSMS will provide an organized and reviewable document of a company’s health and safety policies and procedures and will describe how its vessels and employees would comply with all applicable requirements prescribed in this new subchapter, including lines of communication, emergency response procedures, contractor management, and management review procedures. A company’s existing SMS that is fully compliant with the ISM Code requirements, as found in 33 CFR Part 96, Rules for the Safe Operation of Vessels and Safety Management Systems, will be considered compliant with the proposed TSMS requirements.
To achieve compliance, a company must select one of two options. The first involves developing and implementing a TSMS and using a third-party auditor approved by USCG. The company has 2 years to create the TSMS and have the third party approve and issue a TSMS
29 See TRB 2012, pp. 35–36, for additional details about USCG enforcement of the ISM Code.
30 NVIC 04-05 cancels NVIC 04-98. See http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/2005/NVIC%2004-05.pdf for more information.
certificate. The company would then have 4 more years to bring all vessels under the TSMS before receiving a certificate of inspection (COI) from USCG.
The second compliance option occurs if a company decides not to develop a TSMS (or if no TSMS is developed within the first 2 years after the rule is implemented). The company must submit to an alternative USCG inspection for 25 percent of its vessels every year until all its vessels comply. One hundred percent compliance must be achieved before the company will receive the COI for its vessel from USCG. For both options, USCG will allow companies to distribute the burden of implementation over multiple years.
COIs would be issued by USCG to vessels on the basis of evidence of vessels’ compliance with the subchapter. USCG oversees the third-party organizations that conduct TSMS audits and surveys, and USCG will conduct compliance examinations at least once every 5 years, along with additional random compliance checks based on risk, which is to be determined by an analysis of management and vessel safety histories.
Auditing will be an integral part of the proposed TSMS. Internal and external audits will be incorporated, in a manner similar to audits associated with the ISM Code. Internal audits would be conducted by or on behalf of an organization’s management, and external audits are to be conducted by an approved third-party auditor. Before an external audit, an operator must notify USCG, which may require one of its representatives to be present during the audit and could require an audit of its own. The results of any external audit must be submitted to USCG.
Discussions beginning in early 2003 between USCG and the leadership of the American Waterways Association, the national trade association for the tugboat, towboat, and barge industry, led to the proposed Subchapter M. The proposed rule serves as an example of an industry working with its regulator to advance safety through the implementation of an SMS requirement by providing flexibility to vessel owners to demonstrate compliance with the regulations.
MOA Between BOEM and USCG
As mentioned earlier, an MOA was instituted to identify and clarify the roles and responsibilities of BOEMRE (now BOEM) and USCG for
OREIs on the OCS in the issuance of leases and the approval of site assessment plans, general activity plans, and construction and operations plans. In the MOA, an OREI is defined as “a facility located on the OCS that produces or supports the production, transportation, or transmission of energy from sources other than oil and gas.”31 While USCG is jointly responsible with BOEMRE (now through BSEE) for enforcing the safety and environmental regulations applicable to oil and gas facilities on the OCS, the current MOA for OREIs only sets a framework for communication and cooperation between BOEMRE (now BOEM) and USCG to encourage interaction throughout the OREI process and to avoid overlapping and duplicative regulations with regard to vessels servicing OREIs. However, the MOA does not clearly address the health and safety of personnel during the interaction between a vessel and a facility for wind farms on the OCS.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act)32 created OSHA. OSHA is located in the U.S. Department of Labor and is responsible for developing and enforcing workplace safety and health regulations for general industry (29 CFR 1910), the construction industry (29 CFR 1926), and the maritime and shipyard industry (29 CFR 1915, 1917, and 1918). OSHA is organized into eight directorates at the national level and has 10 regional offices.33 The directorates include Evaluation and Analysis, Standards and Guidance, Administrative Programs, Cooperative and State Programs, Technical Support and Emergency Management, Enforcement Programs, Construction, and Training and Education.
With the creation of OSHA, Congress intended “to assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women by setting
31 The entire MOA is available at http://www.boemre.gov/pdfs/MOA_USCG_BOEMRE_July_27_2011.pdf.
32 The OSH Act also created the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the Department of Health and Human Services and is responsible for conducting research and making recommendations for the prevention of work-related injury and illness.
and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education and assistance.”34 Section 5 of the OSH Act requires employers not only to comply with all health and safety regulations issued in accordance with the act but also to provide a workplace that is free of recognized hazards. The latter requirement is referred to as the General Duty Clause.35
Section 4(a) of the OSH Act gives OSHA jurisdiction over private-sector employers and employees in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and other U.S. jurisdictions (Box 3-1), either directly through the federal OSHA or through an OSHA-approved state program. Twenty-seven states and territories operate their own programs36 under their own statutes, but the state programs must be at least as effective as the federal OSHA program.37 Under Section 4(a), OSHA’s authority includes all U.S. navigable waters (defined as state territorial seas or U.S. inland waters) and the OCS lands, which begin 3 nautical miles from the coastline (9 nautical miles for Texas and the Gulf Coast of Florida).38 However, where other federal agencies have statutory authority for workplace safety and health and where they have chosen to exercise this authority (Box 3-1), OSHA does not have jurisdiction under Section 4(b)(1).39 USCG has primary enforcement duties for health and safety regulations on the OCS. As discussed above, BSEE shares health and safety regulatory authority with USCG for oil and gas operations on the OCS (see Federal Register 2002, 5912), and OSHA has acknowledged this authority in Compliance Directive (CPL) 02-01-047.40
35 A complete description of the General Duty Clause is given at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_tableOSHACT&p_id3359.
36 See http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/index.html. Five of these 27 state programs are limited to the nonfederal public sector; the federal OSHA has jurisdiction over the private sector in these five states.
38 See CPL 02-01-047, http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CPL_02-01-047.pdf.
39 OSHA has published guidance and a legal commentary on this policy. See http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id19819&p_tableINTERPRETATIONS. Other examples include the Mine Safety and Health Administration at all mining and mineral processing operations in the United States and the Department of Energy at its nuclear energy and weapons facilities and national laboratories subject to the Atomic Energy Act.
40 See OSHA 2010, p. 24, Summary Safety and Health Coverage Matrix, and Appendix E, Memorandum of Understanding between USCG and OSHA. OSHA CPLs provide a better understanding of OSHA requirements and help to clarify compliance with an OSHA standard or to instruct compliance officers when they inspect employer compliance with many OSHA standards.
OSHA Jurisdiction on the OCS and Applicability of the OSH Act
Section 4(a) states that the provisions of the OSH Act “shall apply with respect to employment performed in a workplace in a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Wake Island, Outer Continental Shelf Lands defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Johnston Island, and the Canal Zone. The Secretary of the Interior shall, by regulation, provide for judicial enforcement of this Act by the courts established for areas in which there are no United States district courts having jurisdiction.”
Section 4(b)(1) states that “nothing in this Act shall apply to working conditions of employees with respect to which other Federal agencies, and State agencies acting under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021), exercise statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health.”
For the complete text of Section 4, see http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=OSHACT&p_id=3358.
Current OSHA Regulations for Worker Health and Safety
All of OSHA’s health and safety regulations are contained in 29 CFR.41 Although duplicate regulations may exist in various subparts, the standards relevant to worker safety for offshore wind farms are found in Parts 1910 (general industry); 1915, 1917, and 1918 (maritime); and 1926 (construction).
41 All parts of 29 CFR are available at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owasrch.search_form?p_doc_typeSTANDARDS&p_toc_level0.
The general industry standards in 29 CFR 1910 contain numerous prescriptive rules covering almost all hazards. Among them are those associated with walking surfaces and ladders (Subpart D), means of egress (Subpart E), general environment controls—for example, confined space entry (1910.146) and lockout or tagout (1910.147)—in Subpart J, fire protection (Subpart L), electric power generation as in 1910.269, and commercial diving operations in Subpart T.
The maritime standards consist of three parts: 29 CFR 1915, 1917, and 1918.
• Rules for all shipyard employment are contained in 29 CFR 1915. They include provisions for shipbuilding, ship repairing, and ship breaking. Rules with regard to confined and enclosed spaces (Subpart B), scaffolds and ladders (Subpart E), and general working conditions (Subpart F) are encompassed.
• Aspects of marine terminal work are addressed by 29 CFR 1917. The movement (loading and unloading) of cargo or materials within the terminal area accomplished with the use of shore-based cranes, derricks, or other cargo-handling equipment is included.
• Rules that apply to longshoring operations and tasks associated with working aboard vessels, including general conditions, accessing the vessel, and handling cargo, are set forth by 29 CFR 1918.
The construction standards in 29 CFR 1926 apply specific rules to employers in the construction industry, although the general industry rules in Part 1910 remain in effect. The regulations in Part 1926 cover personal protective and life saving equipment (Subpart E), fire protection and prevention (Subpart F), fall protection (Subpart M), commercial diving (Subpart Y), and cranes and derricks (Subparts CC and DD).
OSHA Safety Management
OSHA is known for establishing prescriptive regulations for worker health and safety, but the agency has pursued more goal-based practices, including process safety management (PSM) and a voluntary protection program (VPP), both of which are explained below.
Process Safety Management
The Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals standard is located in 29 CFR 1910.119 (and 1926.64). As the title suggests, it is based on controlling the release of hazardous chemicals to protect worker health and safety. The rules, which were initiated in 1992, are designed for facilities and operations with a significant risk of hazardous chemical release, fire, or explosion. They include procedures and management practices to prevent or reduce the consequences of release of toxic, flammable, explosive, or reactive liquids and gases (listed in 1910.119, Appendix A). The PSM standard in 1910.119 lists 14 elements, which are similar to those of other SMSs: (a) employee participation, (b) process safety information, (c) process hazard analysis, (d) operating procedures, (e) training, (f) contractor safety, (g) prestartup safety review, (h) mechanical integrity, (i) hot work program, (j) management of change, (k) incident investigation, (l) emergency planning and response, (m) compliance audits, and (n) trade secrets. Appendix C provides guidance and examples for achieving the performance goals of the standard. The PSM regulation is similar to BSEE’s SEMS42—discussed earlier—in that both systems include measures for ensuring safe operations, such as comprehensive procedures and management practices for protecting workers and the environment.43
Voluntary Protection Program
VPP, primarily a recognition program, was established by OSHA in 1982 to identify and promote effective health and safety management systems of private industries and federal agencies that maintain illness and injury rates below the national average. Approval into VPP requires implementing a comprehensive health and safety management system and agreeing to a thorough on-site evaluation by an external team of health and safety professionals. A participant’s SMS must document the following four elements and their subelements: (a) management leadership
42 See TRB 2012, pp. 46–51, for more information comparing PSM and SEMS.
43 The PSM program is OSHA’s only rule that has the same basic elements as an SMS. OSHA is considering a second rule related to a health and safety management system and based on its voluntary guidelines published in 1989—Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines (Federal Register 1989, 3904).
and employee involvement, (b) work site analysis, (c) hazard prevention and control, and (d) safety and health training. Participation of both management and employees and annual self-evaluations are among the VPP requirements. VPP participants are reevaluated every 3 to 5 years, and as long as they maintain their VPP status, they are exempt from OSHA programmed inspections.44 VPP employers must show that their safety process is effective, typically by demonstrating that their injury experience is below the national average for a comparable workplace.
Jurisdictional issues and enforcement responsibilities facing the federal government with regard to wind farm worker health and safety were discussed during an April 2012 meeting of representatives from BSEE, USCG, and OSHA. The goals of the meeting included defining all the relevant phases of the offshore wind farm life cycle and defining the authority, responsibility, and relevant guidance for each phase. In addition, several follow-up action items were discussed.
One of the most important determinations of the meeting was that jurisdiction for offshore worker health and safety on wind farms resides in BOEM’s Office of Renewable Energy Programs (see Table 3-1 for a summary of jurisdictional responsibility) and that DOI would provide a letter stating its intent to exercise its statutory authority over enforcement of health and safety regulations, thus preempting OSHA. Furthermore, BOEM would regulate by requiring an SMS.45 DOI has determined that the SMS required in the current regulations should cover all activities at all facilities described in the approved site assessment plan, construction and operations plan, and general activities plan, including activities occurring at onshore facilities.46
44 See http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CSP_03-01-003.pdf for additional information concerning VPP.
45 Ron Beck, USCG, and John Cushing, BSEE, May 30, 2012, teleconference with the committee discussing the April 18 meeting of BSEE, USCG, and OSHA representatives.
46 Personal communication, John Cushing, BSEE, September 24, 2012. This determination is consistent with how the current regulation (§585.811) is written.
TABLE 3-1 Summary of Health and Safety Jurisdiction for Offshore Wind Farms
|Regulator||Jurisdiction for Offshore Wind Farms|
|State Waters and the Great Lakes||OCS|
Jurisdiction of wind farms on the OCS and a requirement for an SMS for wind farms on the OCS. The scope of the SMS should discuss all activities and all facilities, regardless of jurisdiction.
No jurisdiction for wind farms on the OCS; jurisdiction only for oil and gas operations and a requirement for a SEMS for oil and gas on the OCS.
Safety of navigation, life, and property on inspected and certain other vessels, but not for wind farms in state waters or on the Great Lakes.
Safety of navigation, life, and property on vessels and facilities pertaining to mineral (nonrenewable) resources on the OCS, but interaction between vessel and facility for wind farms on the OCS is still unclear.
OSHAe or state OSHA
Jurisdiction and regulations for specific hazards of offshore wind farms in state waters and the Great Lakes (and on the OCS—unless another agency exercises statutory authority).
No jurisdiction; BOEM intends to exercise statutory authority.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
No jurisdiction; no health and safety responsibilities or regulations for offshore wind farms.
No jurisdiction; no health and safety responsibilities or regulations for wind farms on the OCS; commission’s jurisdiction only includes hydrokinetic projects on the OCS.
No jurisdiction, but does have health and safety regulations for its own contractors.
No jurisdiction, but does have health and safety regulations for its own contractors.
aBOEM has jurisdiction over enforcing health and safety regulations for wind farms on the OCS but does not have the necessary enforcement staff. BOEM will consult with BSEE with regard to enforcement.
bBOEM does not have jurisdiction in state waters. However, according to Subpart H of 30 CFR 585, BOEM’s SMS should discuss all activities and all facilities described in and conducted under an operator’s site assessment plan, construction and operations plan, or general activities plan, regardless of jurisdiction (see also Finding 6).
cBSEE is expected to conduct safety compliance inspections of offshore renewable energy facilities by 2014.
dUSCG regulates the health and safety of seamen on inspected vessels, regardless of jurisdiction, but the responsibility for interaction between vessel and facility still needs to be resolved between USCG, BOEM, and BSEE.
eOSHA regulates health and safety of personnel (nonseamen) in state waters and on the Great Lakes, but not on the OCS.
SOURCE: Generated by the committee.
Representatives at the April 18 meeting also determined that the existing memorandum of understanding between OSHA and USCG should be revised given the likely introduction of OREIs in state waters and the likelihood of shared responsibility for investigations. Similarly, the MOA between USCG, BOEM, and BSEE should reflect the likelihood of shared responsibility for investigations. In addition, a trilateral agreement between DOI, USCG, and OSHA for any perceived violation would encourage collaboration across regulators and geographical jurisdictions.47
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USACE manages public engineering services in missions around the world for both military and civil works projects, and its programs have attained a safety record that is below the national average for accidents.48 USACE publishes a comprehensive set of safety standards found in the Safety and Health Requirements Manual [Engineering Manual (EM) 385-1-1].49 This manual is required in all Department of Defense construction contracts, and all contractors conducting business with USACE must adhere to its technical standards. EM 385-1-1 was first published in 1941, and many stakeholders have helped to develop it over time through the use of best practices and lessons learned.50
EM 385-1-1 contains health and safety requirements for high-hazard issues pertaining to cranes and hoisting equipment (Section 16), fall protection (Section 21), arc flash (Section 11), controls for hazardous energy—lockout and tagout (Section 12), and diving operations (Section 30) (USACE 2008). All contractors must develop and submit a primary safety program as outlined in the Accident Prevention Plan, which must be accepted by USACE before work may begin (USACE
47 Ron Beck, USCG, and John Cushing, BSEE, May 30, 2012, teleconference with the committee discussing the April 18 meeting of BSEE, USCG, and OSHA.
48 Richard Wright, USACE, December 1, 2011, presentation to the committee.
49 The manual is undergoing a revision. Its expected release date is 2013.
50 Richard Wright, USACE, December 1, 2011, presentation to the committee.
2008). This document defines how the contractor will manage its safety program during the contract and includes parts on responsibilities and lines of authority, training policies, safety and health inspections, risk management processes, accident reporting, auditing, and specific technical safety plans.51
Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, USACE has authority for permitting the construction of any obstructions, such as artificial islands, installations, or structures, in U.S. navigable waters and on the seabed of the OCS but does not have authority for the operations of these obstructions. In addition, USACE does not have authority over offshore wind farm worker safety.52
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
According to the memorandum of understanding between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and MMS, MMS (now BOEM) has jurisdiction over issuing leases, easements, and rights-of-way for hydrokinetic projects on the OCS, while FERC has jurisdiction over licensing and issuing exemptions only for hydrokinetic projects on the OCS.53 FERC does not have oversight authority over other renewable energy projects, such as wind and solar on the OCS—that authority belongs to BOEM.54 The committee’s understanding is that FERC has authority over the licensee (developer) of the hydrokinetic project but not the contractor. The licensee would require its contractor to perform work in accordance with pertinent safety requirements (e.g., those of OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association), but FERC does not require worker safety plans, nor does it review them.55 As hydrokinetic projects on the OCS are planned and authorized, BOEM and FERC are expected to provide more information and requirements relating to design, installation, operations, and compliance.
51 Richard Wright, USACE, December 1, 2011, presentation to the committee.
52 Richard Wright, USACE, December 1, 2011, presentation to the committee.
54 For updated guidelines on agency roles and jurisdiction, see also BOEM/FERC Guidelines on Regulation of Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Projects on the OCS, Version 2, July 19, 2012. http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing/hydrokinetics/pdf/mms080309.pdf.
55 Paul Shannon, FERC, November 30, 2011, presentation to the committee.
OSHA and state OSHA programs do not have specific offshore wind farm regulations. Instead, they would apply current regulations, depending on the nature of the work performed and the hazards presented. For offshore wind farms located in U.S. navigable waters, including state territorial seas and U.S. inland waters, OSHA would most likely apply rules from its construction standards (29 CFR 1926), general industry standards (29 CFR 1910), and maritime standards (29 CFR 1915, 1917, and 1918).
Of the states that operate their own OSHA-approved state programs, only California, Minnesota, Vermont, and Washington assert health and safety authority over some aspects of private-sector maritime employment, but this authority has been limited to shore-based activities and not to vessels or workplaces on or adjacent to U.S. navigable waterways (see OSHA 2010). For commercial diving operations, California, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington have published state standards that differ from the federal standards in 29 CFR 1910, Subpart T, Commercial Diving Operations (see OSHA 2011).
With the exception of OSHA’s PSM in 29 CFR 1910.119, OSHA does not have a general health and safety program rule that would be comparable with an SMS or a SEMS. Among state OSHA programs, California has the most fully developed health and safety program rules, in addition to its general industry and construction rules. California’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program rule has existed since 1991 and requires many of the elements of other SMSs (e.g., management commitment, safe work practices, scheduled inspections, and hazard identification), but not the risk assessment common to many SMSs (see Title 8, Section 3202, California Code of Regulations).
In addition, the California State Lands Commission requires oil and gas operators to conduct a Safety Assessment of Management Systems (SAMS) assessment program based on API RP 75. The safety assessments rely on best management practices for high-risk industries. They include such elements as management and organizational issues, hazards analysis, management of change, operating procedures, safe work practices,
training and selection, mechanical integrity, emergency response, and investigation and audit.56
Washington State has an accident prevention program requiring such elements as a description of a health and safety program and its procedures, the reporting of unsafe work conditions, hazard identification, and health and safety training programs (see Washington Administrative Code 296-800-140).
Although offshore wind farms under California OSHA or Washington State OSHA jurisdiction could be covered by their safety and health program rules in addition to their construction and general industry rules, federal OSHA, with coordination from USCG, will likely assert jurisdiction over offshore wind farms in all state waters, at least during the initial phases.57
Regulatory approaches can be prescriptive and specific or goal- or performance-based. Prescriptive rules tend to provide clear statements and details about how to comply with a requirement and ensure a higher degree of consistency in compliance. Prescriptive regulations create a “bright line” of enforcement, so regulated parties know with some certainty whether they are in compliance. The development of prescriptive safety rules is sometimes a response to observed trends within an industry or to a specific event or hazard. Agencies develop requirements for equipment and operations and then use inspections or audits to determine compliance. Many regulations are prescriptive in nature. An example is the following in 30 CFR 250.114:
How must I install and operate electrical equipment?
The requirements in this section apply to all electrical equipment on all platforms, artificial islands, fixed structures, and their facilities.
56 For more information about the SAMS program, see TRB 2012, p. 54, and the SAMS website, http://www.slc.ca.gov/division_pages/MFD/MFD_Programs/SAMS/SAMS.html.
57 Ron Beck, USCG, and John Cushing, BSEE, May 30, 2012, teleconference with the committee discussing the April 18 meeting of BSEE, USCG, and OSHA.
(a) You must classify all areas according to API RP 500, Recommended Practice for Classification of Locations for Electrical Installations at Petroleum Facilities Classified as Class I, Division 1 and Division 2, or API RP 505, Recommended Practice for Classification of Locations for Electrical Installations at Petroleum Facilities Classified as Class I, Zone 0, Zone 1, and Zone 2.
USCG has the following prescriptive requirement for rails and guards in 46 CFR 92.25-5:
§92.25-5 Where rails required
(a) All vessels shall have efficient guard rails or bulwarks on decks and bridges. The height of rails or bulwarks shall be at least 39½ inches from the deck except that where this height would interfere with the normal operation of the vessel, a lesser height may be approved by the Commandant. At exposed peripheries of the freeboard and superstructure decks, the rails shall be in at least three courses, including the top. The opening below the lowest course shall not be more than 9 inches. The courses shall not be more than 15 inches apart. In the case of ships with rounded gunwales the guard rail supports shall be placed on the flat of the deck. On other decks and bridges the rails shall be in at least two courses, including the top, approximately evenly spaced. If it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, that the installation of rails of such height will be unreasonable and impracticable, having regard to the business of the vessel, rails of a lesser height or in some cases grab rails may be accepted and inboard rails may be eliminated if the deck is not generally accessible.
OSHA requires the following for fall protection:
1926.501(b)(2)(ii) Each employee on a walking/working surface 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above a lower level where leading edges are under construction, but who is not engaged in the leading edge work, shall be protected from falling by a guardrail system, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system. If a guardrail system is chosen to provide the fall protection, and a controlled access zone has already been established for leading edge work, the control line may be used in lieu of a guardrail along the edge that parallels the leading edge.
The following are required for the rungs and cleats on fixed ladders by 1910.27(b)(1):
1910.27(b)(1)(i) All rungs shall have a minimum diameter of three-fourths inch for metal ladders, except as covered in paragraph (b)(7)(i) of this section and a minimum diameter of 1⅛ inches for wood ladders.
1910.27(b)(1)(ii) The distance between rungs, cleats, and steps shall not exceed 12 inches and shall be uniform throughout the length of the ladder.
Although prescriptive regulations are useful and necessary, they have several shortcomings. It is impossible to draft rules to address all the possible hazards that contribute to major accidents, which are complex events. Even when necessary rules are identified, the regulatory process can take many years, and by the time prescriptive rules emerge from this process, they may be incomplete or inappropriate because circumstances or technologies have changed. As noted in the Macondo well report, regulators often struggle to keep up with industry when technologies are advancing rapidly (NAE and NRC 2012, 112). MMS’s prescriptive regulatory system did not keep up with the technological advances occurring in the oil and gas industry.
Goal-based or performance-based approaches, such as an SMS, are more flexible than prescriptive regulations and generally specify a required outcome instead of steps that the operator must follow for compliance. The flexibility allows the operator to manage the risk for all identified hazards and to choose the best method for achieving the desired safety outcome. BSEE’s SEMS requirement and OSHA’s PSM standards (described above) are examples of goal- or performance-based approaches. Such approaches have both advantages and disadvantages in comparison with prescriptive requirements. Performance-based rules sometimes provide regulated parties with too much flexibility, and they may not know whether they are in compliance until they are inspected. Flexibility can also contribute to inconsistent enforcement. One of the advantages of performance-based rules is their focus on clearly stated safety goals and a documented process for reaching those goals. A well-conceived SMS enhances consistent and effective communication for all workers (including management, operators, and subcontractors) concerning work requirements and expectations and promotes continual improvement. An SMS also supports independent assessment of operations and conformance to expectations, including a commitment to health and safety, regardless of advances in technology within an industry (NAE and NRC 2012).
Health and safety guidance can originate from sources other than regulations and can include standards, guidelines, and RPs. Such voluntary consensus documents usually are detailed and technical in nature, but they do not have statutory authority, although they can be incorporated by reference into a rule or regulation. The following subsections introduce guidance from several sources, both domestic and international.
ANSI/AIHA/ASSE Z10-2012 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems
With the oversight of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI),58 the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)59 developed and released a voluntary consensus standard for occupational health and safety management systems, ANSI/AIHA Z10-2005. That standard is made up of basic concepts of management leadership and employee participation, planning, implementation and operation, evaluation and corrective action, and management review. The standard is an effective tool for continually improving occupational health and safety performance and uses the quality concept of plan-do-check-act. ANSI has recently approved a revised version for 2012. Before 2012, AIHA had been the secretariat of the Z10 Accredited Standards Committee (ASC Z10), but it has relinquished all of its secretariats to the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE),60 which is now the ASSE Z10 ASC secretariat and copyright holder of both the 2005 and 2012 versions of the Z10 standard (ASSE 2012).
58 ANSI oversees the development and use of “voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment systems” for almost every U.S. industry by accrediting the procedures of standards development organizations, which work to develop standards through ANSI’s “requirements for openness, balance, consensus and due process.”
59 AIHA serves the needs of occupational and environmental health and safety professionals who practice industrial hygiene in industry, government, labor, academic institutions, and independent organizations.
60 ASSE represents safety, health, and environmental professionals from many industries around the world.
American Wind Energy Association
The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) is a national trade association representing wind energy interests in the United States and wind advocates from around the world. It provides information about the wind industry to members of Congress, government officials, the media, and the general public. Under the authority of ANSI, AWEA is an accredited standards developer for consensus wind energy standards documents in the United States. It has released AWEA Large Turbine Compliance Guidelines: AWEA Offshore Recommended Practices (2012): Recommended Practices for Design, Deployment, and Operation of Offshore Wind Turbines in the United States (AWEA 2012). In addition, the AWEA Safety Committee, through its Offshore Safety Subcommittee, is drafting Health and Safety Best Practice Guidelines for Offshore Wind Energy.61 AWEA is collaborating with ASSE in drafting the standard “Safe Construction and Demolition of Wind Generation/Turbine Facilities” (A10.21-201x). ASSE expects to circulate a public draft of the document in 2013.
The Training and Education Safety Subcommittee has produced an orientation video, Introduction to Windfarm Safety, which shows the hazards of wind farm work. The subcommittee has created an Introduction to Safety: Wind Energy training course, which will be an introduction to construction safety on wind energy projects and will include an instructor’s manual and a student manual covering eleven topics: (a) introduction to OSHA, (b) walking and working surfaces, (c) emergency action plan, (d) electrical, (e) personal protective equipment, (f) hazard communication, (g) material handling, (h) safety and health, (i) ergonomics, (j) fall protection, and (k) confined space. AWEA will seek OSHA Training Institute approval for the course material. The subcommittee is also creating a course training manual for a qualified electrical worker presenting basic guidelines and elements that all companies should include in their training. The material will include an orientation video on electrical safety for new employees.62
61 Presentation at AWEA Offshore WindPower 2012, Offshore Safety Subcommittee Meeting, Virginia Beach, Virginia, October 9–11, 2012.
62 Presentation at AWEA WindPower 2012, Safety Committee Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, June 4–6, 2012.
Through its national alliance with OSHA, AWEA developed and coordinated a 3-day training class for OSHA health and safety compliance officers from around the country to improve their understanding of the wind energy industry. The purpose of the training was to help compliance officers understand how to climb a wind turbine, how the components inside the nacelle operate, and how to perform a self-rescue from the tower.63 The goal of the training and the alliance is to showcase industry best practices and to develop a better compliance process among the alliance participants.
UK Health and Safety Executive
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Great Britain’s regulator for all work-related health, safety, and illness issues and uses the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA) to control and manage risks in the workplace. HSE regulates only health and safety; it does not develop or manage energy resources—a function controlled by the Crown Estate.64 HSE believes that new wind-energy-specific legislation is not necessary and that it will use the existing general provisions of the HSWA to regulate both onshore and offshore sectors.65 As reported in a position paper submitted to the committee, HSE staff consider offshore wind a “high-hazard” industry that requires management of known hazards and risks in new and challenging environments, but not a “major hazard.” According to HSE staff, industries labeled as major hazards are limited to certain sectors working with chemicals or oil and gas and require “special permissioning,” such as a “safety case.”66
In regulating offshore wind, HSE believes that identifying and considering potential hazards and associated risks early in the development process are important. The use of safe design guidelines is a better and more cost-effective option than struggling with “bolt-on safety” solu-
63 Press release from AWEA: http://www.awea.org/newsroom/pressreleases/OSHASept.cfm.
64 For information on the Crown Estate, see http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/energy/offshore-wind-energy.
tions later in the process. HSE does not recommend or endorse a particular technology over another; it allows the adoption or adaptation of any technology as long as the developer or “dutyholder” accounts for potential risks. HSE does look to other sectors and industries for lessons learned and how these other sectors have managed risks.
As stated in the position paper, HSE staff believe that the wind industry needs to define its own health and safety culture. HSE reports that large operators and manufacturers have exhibited strong leadership in developing a regulatory framework that demonstrates safety throughout their supply chain. To this end, HSE believes that cooperation and collaboration with all stakeholders are essential aspects of building and maintaining a health and safety culture. By engaging the sector at all levels, HSE wants to encourage stakeholders to set standards and to generate guidelines. Through contacts and site visits, collaboration will also facilitate a better understanding of the wind farm life cycle and the hazard and risk profile of the wind sector.67
In addition, the committee was informed by industry representatives that many European companies look to HSE for health and safety guidance because it has the most offshore wind turbines installed; has established clear jurisdictional lines; and has the most established set of regulations and guidelines, which are updated on the basis of experience.68
RenewableUK is the leading trade association for the wind and marine renewable industries in the United Kingdom. It promotes the generation, deployment, and use of wind, wave, and tidal power. Originally formed in 1984 as the British Wind Energy Association, RenewableUK changed its name and broadened its focus in 2004. The association became involved in offshore wind more than a decade ago and has since produced and developed a range of publications, reports, and industry guidelines. RenewableUK’s guidelines, in particular, provide important summaries of relevant health and safety issues and are drafted in
67 Gary Lang and Rhiannon Hardy, UK HSE, paper submitted to the committee, April 2012.
68 J. Nielsen, Siemens, presentation to the committee, April 2012.
consultation with HSE.69 Among them are Guidelines for Onshore and Offshore Wind Farms: Health and Safety in the Wind Energy Industry Sector (RenewableUK 2010) and Vessel Safety Guide: Guidance for Offshore Renewable Energy Developers (RenewableUK 2012).70
Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series
Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series (OHSAS) 18001:2007, Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems—Requirements is a recognized standard, but the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has not adopted it. OHSAS 18001 is a specification document for developing an occupational health and safety management system and is compatible with the ISO 9001 (quality management) and ISO 14001 (environmental management) systems standards, which make integration of the management systems easier. Like ISO 9001 and ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 is based on the plan-do-check-act management model, which is characterized by a feedback loop and continued improvement.71 The accompanying OHSAS 18002:2008, Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems—Guidelines for the Implementation of OHSAS 18001:2007 provides guidance for implementing or improving an OHSAS 18001 SMS.
International Marine Contractors Association
The International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA) is an international association representing offshore and marine engineering companies. IMCA has two core activities, one focusing on health, safety, and the environment and the other on training and competence. These activities are divided into the four technical divisions of marine vessels, diving, offshore survey, and remote systems. Within these areas, IMCA publishes safety guidance documents, technical reports, and fact sheets for the marine contracting sector. It also collects and reports data on
69 More information concerning RenewableUK’s health and safety topics is available at http://www.renewableuk.com/en/our-work/health-and-safety/index.cfm.
70 An updated Health and Safety Guideline is available at http://www.renewableuk.com/en/publications/index.cfm/2013-03-13-hs-guidelines-offshore-wind-marine-energy.
incidents for and about its members and documents industry best practices in the areas of equipment, procedures, and personnel.
The guidance documents are available on IMCA’s website; topics include personnel transfer, diving operations, lifting operations, subsea construction, and simultaneous operations.72 The guidance document on personnel transfer, for example, focuses on safe methods for transferring between vessels, offshore structures, and quaysides and covers such items as a risk assessment of the conditions, the training and competence of personnel, unambiguous roles and responsibilities of all involved, and clear lines of communication (IMCA 2010).
IMCA collects, analyzes, and shares data on industry incidents from work in offshore construction. One key system for distributing the data is an alert called a “safety flash.” Safety flashes are developed from reports submitted to IMCA and contain descriptions of incidents, near misses, and potential hazards. The reports also give the apparent cause (or causes) of the incident and any actions taken to prevent a recurrence. Before it is distributed publicly, a safety flash is stripped of identifying information and is sent to the contributing company for its approval.73
Through an annual survey, IMCA gathers additional safety information from its members. Leading and lagging performance indicators developed by the association are used. The safety performance statistics produced by IMCA allow member organizations to identify trends within the industry and to measure their performance against industry averages. According to IMCA, this continuous effort of benchmarking assists organizations in improving safety performance and reducing injury rates (IMCA 2008).
Det Norske Veritas, Germanischer Lloyd, and the American Bureau of Shipping, along with other members of the International Association of Classification Societies, verify compliance with statutory regulations and recognized standards. These organizations’ services include verification
72 For a full list of documents, see http://www.imca-int.com/documents/publications.html.
73 A listing of the most recent safety flashes is available at http://www.imca-int.com/documents/core/sel/safetyflash/.
that vessels and marine structures comply with specific rules (classification) and certification that programs or systems conform to a standard. For classification, the classification society only reports whether a vessel conforms to the society’s rules—whether it is “in” or “out of” class. For developing and implementing safety management programs, classification societies offer guidance documents for the marine industry that incorporate many of the following management system standards: the ISM Code, ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 50001, and OHSAS 18001.74 In addition, most classification societies provide documents on safe work design and practices, including guidance on offshore wind turbine structures,75 ergonomics and human factors engineering, safety culture and leading indicators,76 and the certification of management systems.77
The reorganization of MMS in 2010 (see Figure 3-1) separated the previously coexisting functions of safety and environmental enforcement from those of resource development and energy management to prevent conflicts of interest. An exception to the arrangement is authority for the Offshore Renewable Energy Program, which is located in BOEM’s Office of Renewable Energy. At present, BOEM will regulate worker health and safety for offshore wind farms on the OCS by requiring the submission of an SMS and will rely on another agency, BSEE, for technical expertise in the areas of safety and environmental enforcement. Although BOEM has this jurisdiction, its SMS requirements are unclear and incomplete, and they will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.
74 For one example, see ABS 2012.
75 For an example of technical requirements for offshore structures, see DNV 2011, Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Structures, DNV-OS-J101.
76 Kevin McSweeney, American Bureau of Shipping, presentation to the committee, April 17, 2012. http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/Rules&Guides/Current/188_Safety/Guide; http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/Rules%26Guides/Current/86_ApplicationsofErgonomicstoMarineSystems/Pub86_ErgoMarineSystems.
The government agencies and regulations discussed earlier could help BOEM in clarifying its offshore wind farm worker health and safety management program, but most of the regulations are prescriptive in nature. Until recently, BSEE has enforced oil and gas operations by issuing PINC notices on the basis of the prescriptive regulations contained in 30 CFR 250. With the introduction of the SEMS rules in Subpart S, BSEE is moving toward a more goal-based risk management system. The elements of SEMS are discussed in Chapter 5 and could provide a more robust model for BOEM’s SMS. USCG regulates health and safety for activities on the OCS involving mineral resources but not for renewable energy activities. USCG regulations, including the revised Subchapter N, could, however, inform future standards for offshore wind. BOEM’s intention of regulating worker health and safety on offshore wind farms preempts OSHA’s jurisdiction on the OCS according to Section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act. However, OSHA has stated that it retains jurisdiction for wind farm projects within state waters and on the Great Lakes and that it will regulate on the basis of current health and safety rules. According to information received by the committee, neither USACE nor FERC has authority for offshore wind farm worker health and safety on the OCS, but USACE’s comprehensive health and safety guidelines in its engineering manual could provide BOEM with insight for updating offshore safety standards (see Table 3-1).
HSE in the United Kingdom offers BOEM considerable guidance from its more than 10 years of regulating worker health and safety for offshore wind farms that includes collaborating with stakeholders to build and maintain a health and safety culture. Finally, BOEM could look to domestic and international standards for management models and for health and safety guidelines as it prepares to enhance its SMS. Trade associations such as AWEA, RenewableUK, and IMCA publish health and safety guidelines that often represent the best practices of their respective industries.
Chapter 4 discusses hazards associated with offshore wind farms and how regulations and standards are used to address those hazards. Chapter 5 discusses published management systems in more detail and provides examples of important SMS elements that BOEM could reference for enhancing its SMS. Chapter 6 presents the committee’s key findings
and recommendations concerning the regulation of worker health and safety for wind farms on the OCS.
|ABS||American Bureau of Shipping|
|ASSE||American Society of Safety Engineers|
|AWEA||American Wind Energy Association|
|BOEM||Bureau of Ocean Energy Management|
|BOEMRE||Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement|
|DNV||Det Norske Veritas|
|DOI||U.S. Department of the Interior|
|IMCA||International Marine Contractors Association|
|NAE||National Academy of Engineering|
|NRC||National Research Council|
|OSHA||Occupational Safety and Health Administration|
|TRB||Transportation Research Board|
|USACE||U.S. Army Corps of Engineers|
|USCG||U.S. Coast Guard|
ABS. 2012. Guide for Marine Health, Safety, Quality, Environmental and Energy Management (The ABS Guide for Marine Management Systems). Houston, Tex. http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/References/Booklets/2012/MarineManagementSystems.
ASSE. 2012. ASSE Tech Brief. https://www.asse.org/shoponline/docs/Z10_Tech_Brief_2012_Revised.pdf.
AWEA. 2012. AWEA Offshore Recommended Practices (2012): Recommended Practices for Design, Deployment, and Operation of Offshore Wind Turbines in the United States. Washington, D.C.
BOEM. 2011. Fact Sheet. http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/FACT%20SHEET%20BOEM.pdf.
BOEMRE. 2011. Fact Sheet: The BSEE and BOEM Separation: An Independent Safety, Enforcement and Oversight Mission. http://www.bsee.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEMRE%20Reorganization%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.
DNV. 2011. Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Structures. DNV-OS-J101. Hovik, Oslo, Norway, Sept.
DOI. 2010a. Salazar Launches “Smart from the Start” Initiative to Speed Offshore Wind Energy Development off the Atlantic Coast. http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/
DOI. 2010b. Secretarial Order No. 3299. http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=32475. Accessed March 1, 2013.
DOI. 2010c. Secretarial Order No. 3302. http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=35872. Accessed March 1, 2013.
Federal Register. 1989. Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines; Issuance of Voluntary Guidelines. Vol. 54, No. 16, Jan. 26, pp. 3904–3916.
Federal Register. 2002. Inspection Under, and Enforcement of, Coast Guard Regulations for Fixed Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf by the Minerals Management Service. Vol. 67, No. 26, Feb. 7, pp. 5912–5916.
Federal Register. 2011a. Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf—Revisions to Safety and Environmental Management Systems. Vol. 76, No. 178, Sept. 14, pp. 56683–56694.
Federal Register. 2011b. Reorganization of Title 30: Bureaus of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and Ocean Energy Management. Vol. 76, No. 201, Oct. 18, pp. 64432– 64780.
Federal Register. 2012. Accommodation Service Provided on Vessels Engaged in U.S. Outer Continental Shelf Activities. Vol. 77, No. 21, Feb. 1, pp. 5039–5041.
IMCA. 2008. Safety, Environment and Legislation. http://www.imca-int.com/documents/factsheets/IMCA-fs-SEL.pdf.
IMCA. 2010. Guidance on the Transfer of Personnel to and from Offshore Vessels. MCA SEL 025, IMCA M 202. http://www.imca-int.com/documents/core/sel/docs/IMCASEL025.pdf.
NAE and NRC. 2012. Macondo Well Deepwater Horizon Blowout: Lessons for Improving Offshore Drilling Safety. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13273.
NRC. 1990. Alternatives for Inspecting Outer Continental Shelf Operations. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1517.
OSHA. 2010. OSHA Authority over Vessels and Facilities on or Adjacent to U.S. Navigable Waters and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Directive CPL 02-01-047. http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CPL_02-01-047.pdf.
OSHA. 2011. CPL 02-00-151: 29 CFR Part 1910, Subpart T—Commercial Diving Operations. http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CPL_02-00-151.pdf.
RenewableUK. 2010. Guidelines for Onshore and Offshore Wind Farms: Health and Safety in the Wind Energy Industry Sector. http://www.renewableuk.com/en/publications/index.cfm/guidelines-for-onshore-and-offshore-wind-farms.
RenewableUK. 2012. Vessel Safety Guide: Guidance for Offshore Renewable Energy Developers. http://www.renewableuk.com/en/publications/index.cfm/vessel-safety-guide.
Shaefer, L. E. 2011. Safety in Commercial Diving Practices: A Comparison of Three (3), Four (4), and Five (5) Man Dive Teams. Presented at National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee Fall Meeting, Nov. 15, Houston, Tex.
TRB. 2012. Special Report 309: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Offshore Safety and Environmental Management Systems. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/167249.aspx.
USACE. 2008. Safety and Health Requirements Manual, 2008 ed. Engineering Manual 385-1-1. Department of Defense, Washington, D.C. http://publications.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-manuals/EM_385-1-1_languages/EM_385-1-1_English_2008/toc.html.
USCG. 2009. U.S. Coast Guard: America’s Maritime Guardian. Coast Guard Publication 1. Washington, D.C. http://www.uscg.mil/doctrine/CGPub/Pub_1.pdf.