Gå til hovedinnhold

Report following major accident audit at the Kårstø facility

The Petroleum Safety Authority Norway (PSA) conducted an audit of the Kårstø facility in the period 19-21 September 2006. The audit clearly indicated that HSE efforts are given priority at Kårstø.

Kårstø (kilde: Statoil)

Gassco is the operator and Statoil is the Technical Service Provider at Kårstø (pictured).

The audit started with a kick-off meeting where Statoil presented the organisation and the risk mapping work. The audit was carried out through interviews with personnel in Statoil's organisation and an observation round in the oldest parts of the facility.

The audit activity was carried out with a basis in the Temporary regulations of 19 December 2003 relating to safety and working environment for certain petroleum facilities on land and affiliated pipeline systems. The major accident regulations are included in these.

Background for the audit

The background for the audit was the obligation on the part of Norwegian authorities to conduct annual audits pursuant to the major accident regulations.

Purpose of the audit

The purpose of the audit was to verify compliance with prevailing regulations relating to matters which affect the risk of a major accident. Priority topics were risk reduction and emergency preparedness. Other topics covered during the audit were maintenance, systematic monitoring and review, training and maintenance of competence.

Result of the audit

The interviews clearly indicated that the HSE efforts are given priority at Kårstø. The following positive observations were noted:

  • There is an obvious awareness and commitment on the part of the management.

  • Competence enhancement is being worked on. One example is the offer of technical training for own operators, and the upcoming introduction of a requirement for a completed four-day HSE course for contractors who will work on the facility for more than 14 days.

  • The maintenance and inspection work was characterised by a systematic and enthusiastic approach.

  • Emergency preparedness crews are motivated and train regularly.


The following areas with potential for improvement were identified:

  • Definition of acceptable activity level beyond regular operation.

  • Systematic use of verification to confirm compliance with internal requirements and regulations.

  • Closing of improvement measures in "Synergi".


Contact person i the Petroleum Safety Authority
Mike Theiss