Requires external oil inspection after Melkøya – E24

– We have had this as a proposal before without winning, but the serious fire in Melkøya, where the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority is also questioned in the follow-up of inspections, makes it very relevant to establish an independent commission of inquiry afterwards of serious oil accidents, union leader Hilde-Marit Rysst tells Aftenbladet.

In a full Bellona report, Equinor receives harsh criticism following the severe fire at the Melkøya LNG plant. In the report, Bellona links the long-term failure of maintenance to the large fire at the Melkøya plant in Hammerfest.

Examine investigators

But it is not just Equinor that receives criticism. In the report, Bellona also asks questions about the follow-up of inspections at the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority’s plant in recent years. Especially with regard to the fact that the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority in a separate report revealed that Equinor long before the fire in September lacked a systematic approach to the use and execution of nonconformity treatment.

Hilde-Marit Rysst at Safe would like the oil industry to have independent major accident investigations, where investigations are structured according to the same reading as the AIBN.

– Such investigations can also look at how the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority has done in the lead-up to the accident and can independently look at all matters related to an accident, says Rysst.

Rysst does not hide the fact that, for the purposes of an investigation, it can be problematic for the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority to be too close to the actors it investigates and that there may therefore be reason to wonder whether the Authority is sometimes independent enough.

– I think it is important independently, so that you avoid that those who dialogue daily are also those who investigate. But not only that. We have also recorded that investigations by the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority stop at our own doorstep. An independent commission of inquiry could also, in a completely different way than the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority can, assess whether the follow-ups by the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority prior to any incident have been good enough or no, Rysst continues.

– Does the PSA have enough distance?

Director Anne Myhrvold does not want to answer questions about whether the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority, the PSA, manages to have enough distance from the oil companies that investigate and follow up. Myhrvold refers to Storting Report 12 (2017-18), which states that independent oil accident investigations have previously been considered, and where he states that the investigations of the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority are important:

“Investigations by the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority are an important part of risk-based monitoring and control of companies and the strong role of the agency in relation to investigations has been considered important.”

The report also establishes that in some cases a review by an independent commission of inquiry about the course of events, regulations and the role of operators and authorities may be necessary, the then Ministry of Labor in 2010 entered into an agreement with the Accident Investigation Board. It will be necessary to appoint an independent commission of inquiry in the area of ​​oil.

“This scheme has not been used so far.”

– You take discoveries lightly

One of the specific problems Rysst points to is that Equinor owns the largest law firm in the country. She believes this leads to a skewed balance of power between operating companies as Equinor can challenge deviations and orders legally, Rysst believes.

– When the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority has been told to be tougher in a pinch, some companies respond that they question deviations and orders. Instead of following what the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority proposes, they decide to follow orders. This further helps challenge the power and remedial tools the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority has, believes Rysst.

This with Equinor’s defiant deviations and orders was also addressed in the review by the Office of the Auditor General of the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority, which was presented in January 2019. It stated, among other things:

Several unions note in interviews that there are no consequences for companies if they do not close deviations or follow orders, and that the audit is not good enough to ensure that companies follow up on deviations noted in the audit. They believe, for example, that Equinor takes findings too lightly and that they have no respect for the audit and the orders they receive. One of the unions experiences that the company in some cases defies the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority and argues against the deviations rather than closing them. The shop stewards of one of the unions in this company have experienced that internal work orders prepared after an audit have been canceled. ”

In many cases, they don’t think it’s good enough for the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority to accept a letter outlining plans and measures to close the diversions. One of the unions also responds that the audit does not comment on previous findings at the same facility when new audits are conducted. In his opinion, the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority should react to a much greater extent when diversions are not closed.

Equinor press contact Eskil Eriksen comments on the allegations as follows:

– Our approach is not to challenge the supervision of the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority. Rather, tracking audits is an important part of our security work, and it is followed up with significant resources on our part.

It agrees with Bellona’s conclusions

The full report that Bellona has produced after the Melkøya fire seems to Hilde-Marit Rysst very relevant.

– We get a lot of matching comments from our members and clubs, as Bellona points out. Subject to Bellona not sitting on all the roles in this case here, we say that what Bellona concludes and emphasizes coincides with what we have been told from our people, Rysst notes.

The Bellona report also questions the security service and claims it is under pressure.

– We also noticed that the security service is under pressure and that assuming the role of security representative is a challenge for the career and does not promote it much. This is very worrying. The protection service represents the weakest part in the tripartite cooperation and then it is about making this part as strong as possible so that the protection service is included in the team, but also can be safely and good dismissed. It is not at all musical that there should be challenges with the security service today and that there are no clear signs that this should be reversed. Here Anders Opedal, Equinor’s executive vice president, needs to make sure the company takes this seriously, Rysst says.

– Equinor has a close dialogue

– What are Equinor and CEO Anders Opedal doing to ensure you have a powerful security service?

– The security service is an important support in our security work. They are permanent members of all the company’s work environment committees and participate in safety and work environment plans and measures. They are also involved in processes seeking improvements, organizational changes and digitization projects, etc. To ensure that we have a solid security service at Equinor, we will continue this work and maintain a close dialogue with the security service at all levels, he responds Equinor press contact Eskil Eriksen.

– How is the Melkøya fire related to deficiencies in the security service?

– We believe that Bellona does not have sufficient grounds to reach a conclusion on the causal links to the Melkøya fire. They have not been to Melkøya or to the scene of the fire, and the report contains errors in the course of events and causes. Extensive investigative work is still underway to clarify the events surrounding the fire. We are confident that the investigations will clarify the causal links behind the fire and will share the investigation findings with the public, responds press contact Eriksen.

Equinor has not pointed out to Aftenbladet or other outlets, when the Bellona report came in, what is specifically “wrong” in the Bellona report.