(70a) Modeling Oil Spill Defense System Using Functional Resonance Analysis Method

Introduction

The organization responsible for the oil spill response actions in Brazil is the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) created, after an accident occurred in the Guanabara Bay involving oil spill [1]. The EDC operates in contingency and emergency situations to mitigate the impacts from oil spill accidents. They operate seven days a week and 24 hours a day. The main function of the EDC is to support the existing local contingency plans in the refineries and the Operational Units of the oil company. This means that the EDC operates in oil spill occurrence aiming to ensure the maximum protection to the Operational Units and refineries to minimize the environmental consequences and the cost of the emergency.    

In 2000 the EDC was Currently, there are nine EDC in strategic points around Brazil (Amazônia, Maranhão, Rio Grande do Norte, Bahia, Centro-Oeste, Bacia de Campos, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Minas Gerais), where there are petroleum activities. Each EDC is responsible to attend an emergency in a distance of 248.55 miles in eight hours at maximum. 

The aim of this research is to model the performance variability of the EDC’s oil spill response actions. We use ergonomic field studies to capture data from EDC operations and the Functional Resonance Analysis - FRAM to model that operations, as a method to identifying constrains and possible variability in the normal performance that may result in adverse events in the oil spill response actions.

Method

The Functional Resonance Analysis Method, developed by Hollnagel [2], instigates a systemic and non-linear analysis for accident investigation and risk assessment. It uses the normal performance variability within a sociotechnical system to describe what is needed to accomplish a purpose of the everyday performance. Based on the assumption that risk and accidents can arise from sudden and out of scale combinations of normal performance variability, the FRAM cope with this by creating instantiations of several functions coupling to create non-linear propagation of events.

The analysis comprises 4 steps to perform the FRAM:

(i)    Identify the system functions that are needed for everyday work and their characteristics. Each function is characterized by six different aspects which are: (I) Input, (O) Output, (P) Precondition, (R) Resource, (C) and (T) Time.

(ii)  Characterize the variability of each function.

(iii) Identify and describe areas where functional resonance could emerge.

(iv) Propose how performance variance can be managed.

Case study

We focus our research on the EDC’s oil spill response actions that occur in a canal of the refinery located in the state of Rio de Janeiro. Most of the resources and the equipment used in oil spill response such as booms, skimmers, pumps, trailers and so on are in the operation base of the EDC, located inside the refinery area, which facilitates the mobilization of all equipment needed and of all personnel involved in the oil spill response.

The refinery’s production process has many stages; one of them is the processes of separating oil from the water used to cool up some equipment during the refining process. The separating process is also used to recover oil from the main refinery wastewater streams. Separating oil from a continuous flow of water is commonly required in oil refineries, petrochemical plants, chemical plants, and other industrial facilities for resource recovery as well as environmental reasons. The water without oil is discarded in the refinery canal which has a connection with the Iguaçu River and the Guanabara Bay.  Nevertheless, sometimes the tank, where is the water contaminated with oil, overflows causing a spread of contaminated water in areas of environmental protection. This kind of situation happens frequently, specifically during rainy season and it is characterized as an emergency in the refinery.  As the canal of the refinery frequently overflows, there are several preventive booms along the canal. Hence, the EDC is called to mitigate and minimize the impact of the spilled oil that is passing under and over the prevent booms aiming to avoid the arrival of the oil in the Iguaçu River and in to other areas. This is the most common EDC’s activity in which we based our study.

The emergency scenario studied is based on data collected in the emergency, antecedents, interview and observation of simulation of the strategic oil spill response scenario. These sources include documents of procedures, trainings, emergency reports and operators’ testimonies.

The emergency approach is described through the eight-phase below:

1)    Oil spill incident: when the tank of water with oil overflows, the EDC is called for an emergency situation about contaminated water in the refinery’s canal. This is characterized as a contingency demand.

2)    Initial communication: an operator of the refinery contacts the EDC reporting about the incident. In this contact the EDC try to get as much as information about the incident they can (i.e., kind of product that was spill, how much, where, a manager in charge of the emergency).

3)    Readiness: with the information they got from the operator or coordinator of the emergency, the EDC analyze the situation and structure a preliminary strategy with experienced operators about human resources, equipment, procedures and supplies needed to attend the emergency, while they wait for an attendance authorization. All the EDC operators are aware of the contingency demand.

4)    Actuating: if the EDC has conditions and resources to attend the emergency, the oil company manager authorizes the attendance.

5)    Calculation of resources: with the authorized attendance and a preview knowledge about the incident (experience from past emergencies and information about the actual incident), the EDC go to the emergency area. They analyze and assess the conditions around the incident (i.e., level of the canal water, weather conditions, geomorphology of the local) and calculate all necessary resources to attend the emergency.

6)    Mobilization: the EDC moves the resources to the emergency area such as: operators, barriers and equipment.

7)    Operation: it is the mitigating action (i.e., set up the oil spill response strategy with the operators, positioned the oil barriers and the equipment, drag the oil barriers,  drag the oil and gather the oil).

8)    Closure: the manager of the emergency authorize formally the conclusion of the emergency response actions. Therefore, winding down the response involves the recovery, cleaning and maintenance of all equipment used during the cleanup, demobilization of all personnel involved in the response of the oil spill.

The description of each phase gives us a frame of the sociotechnical system, and a comprehension of the oil spill response system to recognize the basic interactions among operators, the emergency, the organization and the resources needed in the attendance.

Results and Conclusions

The manipulation of the booms functions are described in the FRAM diagram, which represents the normal performance variability within sociotechnical system to describe the interaction among the functions needed to accomplish the manipulation of the booms for removing the oil from the refinery canal functions. These main functions produce many complex interactions between human operators (EDC’s operators and refinery’s operators), between human operators and procedures (oil spill response strategies, general safety rules and refinery internal regulation) and between human operators and artifacts (resources needed in the oil spill response). The comprehension of the complex socio-technical system through the ergonomic knowledge provides a better identification and description of the six conditions of the FRAM for each function.

References

[1] Carvalho,P. V. R. , Vidal, M., 2001 . A sociotechnical review of theREDUC's oil pipeline accident occurred in 18-01-2000 in Rio de Janeiro. In: Mondelo, Mattila, Karwowski, and Das Eds., Proceedings of Computer Aided Ergonomics and Safety - CAES 2001, Maui, USA.

[2]Hollnagel E. 2004. Barriers and accident prevention. UK: Ashgate.