Ten Years After the Deepwater Horizon Accident: Regulatory Reforms and the Implementation of Safety and Environmental Management Systems in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margarita Nieves-Zárate

Abstract The Deepwater Horizon accident is one of the major environmental disasters in the history of the United States. This accident occurred in 2010, when the Deepwater Horizon mobile offshore drilling unit exploded, while the rig's crew was conducting the drilling work of the exploratory well Macondo deep under the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Environmental damages included more than four million barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, and economic losses total tens of billions of dollars. The accident brought into question the effectiveness of the regulatory regime for preventing accidents, and protecting the marine environment from oil and gas operations, and prompted regulatory reforms. Ten years after the Deepwater Horizon accident, this article analyzes the implementation of Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) as one of the main regulatory reforms introduced in the United States after the accident. The analysis uses the theory of regulation which takes into account both state and non-state actors involved in regulation, and therefore, the shift from regulation to governance. The study includes regulations issued after the Deepwater Horizon accident, particularly, SEMS rules I and II, and reports conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Commission on the BP Oil Spill, the Center for Offshore Safety, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). The article reveals that though offshore oil and gas operators in the U.S. federal waters have adopted SEMS, as a mechanism of self-regulation, there is not clarity on how SEMS have been implemented in practice towards achieving its goal of reducing risks. The BSEE, as the public regulator has the task of providing a complete analysis on the results of the three audits to SEMS conducted by the operators and third parties from 2013 to 2019. This article argues that the assessment of SEMS audits should be complemented with leading and lagging indicators in the industry in order to identify how SEMS have influenced safety behavior beyond regulatory compliance. BSEE has the challenge of providing this assessment and making transparency a cornerstone of SEMS regulations. In this way, the lessons of the DHW accident may be internalized by all actors in the offshore oil and gas industry.

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlie Williams ◽  
Om Chawla

Abstract Introduction In the United States, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) requires an offshore lease operator to implement a Safety and Environmental Management System (SEMS), and to have it audited at least once every 3 years to evaluate its compliance to the regulatory requirements detailed in 30 CFR 250, Subpart S. The first round of these SEMS audits, which concluded in 2013, was executed using varying audit styles – from system audits through to compliance audits. These varying audit styles, in turn, lead to differing types output, levels of detail, format and presentation.These diverse approaches may have been due, at least in part, to disparities in the expectations of stakeholders, differing interpretations of the use of the Center for Offshore Safety's (COS) SEMS Audit Protocol tools, use of other audit protocols, the experience-level of individual auditors, and the newness of the regulation. System audits are intended to be a holistic assessment of a system, its elements, and how the elements work together to achieve system objectives. Compliance audits, on the other hand, are intended to assess adherence to specific requirements. This white paper proposes that both types of audits should be used in tandem to reduce risk and increase confidence that a management system, and its verification programs, is operating as designed and meeting regulatory and company requirements.


Author(s):  
Yoram (Jerry) Arnoni

Abstract There is increasing interest all over the world in Environmental Management Systems. Many Japanese electronic companies have mandated that their plants should be registered to ISO 14001 irrespective of what country they are located in. The big three automobile manufacturers in the United States have requested their suppliers to become registered to ISO 14001 within the next few years. The EPA is openly supporting Environmental Management Systems including ISO 14001. Twenty-two US States have enacted legislation that encourages voluntary environmental audits by granting immunity to certain non-compliance issues that was discovered during the audit, providing prior notice of the audit was given to the state and the auditee had no prior knowledge of the non-compliance. In response to the interest in Environmental Management Systems, this paper highlights the process flow from one environmental core element to the next in flow diagrams and gives examples from a number of implemented systems. There are a number of system concepts comprising of core elements that are described in ISO 14001 but the link between the core elements are not always immediately obvious. The main processes are as follows: • Identifying aspects, evaluating which are significant and then implementing control procedures for those issues, monitoring/measuring the outcome of the controls and reporting to management for corrective action or continuous improvement. • Identification of regulatory issues that apply to the organizations activities, keeping up to date with regulatory changes and reporting to regulatory offices as may be required. • Identifying which aspects that the organization wishes to pursue as an improvement program. The improvement program will include objectives, measurable targets for those objectives, the means by which those objectives will be achieved, the time frame and people responsible for the program. • Internal assessments, corrective actions, preventive actions and management review and re-action. An understanding of the EMS core elements and their inter relationship will be of interest to those who are considering implementing an Environmental management System in their organization.


BioScience ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (11) ◽  
pp. 920-927 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard L Wallace ◽  
Sherryl Gilbert ◽  
John E Reynolds

Abstract In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, much has been learned about the biological, ecological, physical, and chemical conditions of the Gulf of Mexico. In parallel, the research community has also gained insight about the social and organizational structures and processes necessary for oil spill response and subsequent marine and coastal restoration. However, even with these lessons from both the Deepwater Horizon and previous spills, including 1989’s Exxon Valdez and the Ixtoc 1 in 1979, our understanding of how to avoid future crises has not advanced at the same pace as offshore oil and gas development. We argue that this progress deficit indicates a continued devaluing of marine and coastal resources. We believe that we must, instead, advance a proactive conservation ethic based on the precautionary principle and an appropriately placed burden of proof—strategies that will help reduce our reliance on costly restoration and protect marine and coastal ecosystems.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document