On the day of the Major Hazard Installations (MHI) Workshop hosted by the Department of Labour (DoL) on 27^th October 2017, the one day I was required to travel down from Centurion West to Emperors Palace in Kempton Park, metered taxi drivers blocked the two main highways leading to OR Tambo International Airport which is adjacent to Emperors Palace Hotel.  That called for some creative driving and tested many of the MHI Workshop attendees’ knowledge of Joburg roads and/or their trust of Google Maps and WAZE as “risk control measures”. It was a stressful morning, but somewhat entertaining as many of us recounted our traffic battle stories during the tea break. 

 

While the traffic story was somewhat amusing, elsewhere in the world however, another story broke just as I was leaving the house which was anything but: there was a massive explosion (about 2am GMT on 27^th October 2017) at a fireworks factory in Indonesia leading to a fire which brought down the entire roof of the factory.  The incident left 47 people dead, 46 injured and 10 unaccounted for at the time of my last reading.  Fireworks are typically made up of Potassium Nitrate (KNO₃) which is one of the named substances in the proposed MHI regulations to be described below; KNO₃ is a known explosive substance and there are regulations and standards around the world governing the storage and use of explosives and one wonders to what extent these were adhered to in this incident. There was no more fitting story than that to use as a Safety Moment.  After all, the prevention of incidents like that is at the core of the MHI industry in South Africa and around the world.

The aim of the MHI Workshop was to introduce the upcoming changes in MHI legislation in South Africa, the technical and legislative aspects.  The session began with addresses by officers of the DoL, including Ms Iggy Moiloa, Inspector General and Rachel Aphane, Deputy Director, Major Hazard Installations. 

Ms Moiloa set the scene for the need for OHS regulation, emphasising that every incident affects someone’s father, mother, sister or brother and that taking shortcuts in OHS is unacceptable.

 

A NEW APPROACH: LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH HAZARD ESTABLISHMENTS

The main changes in these new regulations are the introduction of Hazard Levels and segregation of facilities into Low, Medium and High Hazard and the inclusion of information on the Process Safety Management System (PSMS) of the establishment.  A colleague, Daniel Rademeyer spoke about how one goes about classifying an establishment as Low, Medium and High Hazard, while my own presentation focussed on the new Safety Report requirement for High Hazard establishments.  Classification is based on the maximum inventory of hazardous material which will be stored on-site.  The regulations will contain a large number of named substances, and thresholds for consideration as Low, Medium and High Hazard establishments.  The following requirements will apply per establishment as far as risk assessment:

Low Hazard Establishment (LoMHE)

1.    Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) and

2.    Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP)

For LoMHEs the approach will be very similar to the current MHI regime, in that the establishment will be required to compile a QRA and an EPP.  The DoL will be notified by the Dutyholder of the existence of the LoMHE, with the QRA and EPP accompanying the notification.

LoMHEs are likely to be those storing, for example: between 5 and 50 tons of anhydrous ammonia; or between 5 and 50 tons of LPG; or between 250 and 2,500 tons of petroleum products, e.g. petrol, diesel, kerosene and others.

 

Medium Hazard Establishment (MedMHE)

1.    QRA,

2.    EPP,

3.    Major Incident Prevention Policy (MIPP), and

4.    Safety Management System (SMS)

For MedMHEs the regulations will start to require more: in addition to the QRA and EPP a Major Incident Prevention Policy (MIPP) and a Process Safety Management System (PSMS) will be required.  The MIPP and PSMS will be explained in more detail in other briefings which I will compile.

MedMHEs are likely to be those storing, for example: between 50 and 200 tons of anhydrous ammonia; or between 50 and 200 tons of LPG; or between 2,500 and 25,000 tons of petroleum products, e.g. petrol, diesel, kerosene and others.

High Hazard Establishment (HiMHE)

1.    QRA,

2.    EPP,

3.    MIPP,

4.    Safety Report,

5.    SMS

HiMHEs will have the most stringent requirements of all establishments.  These will be those establishments storing and handling large quantities of hazardous materials, and as such, those posing the highest risk on their surroundings; the approach for HiMHE is proportional to their risk profile.  A Safety Report will be required, which identifies the major accident hazards at the establishment, quantifies their effects and likelihood of occurrence and goes into considerable detail on how those will be managed, going into details of safety critical element (SCE) identification.  Accompanying the Safety Report will need to be a PSMS which implements the MIPP.  A QRA (whose main arguments and findings will be recorded in the Safety Report) and an EPP will also be required.

 

HiMHEs are likely to be those storing, for example: more than 200 tons of anhydrous ammonia; or more than 200 tons of LPG; or more than 25,000 tons of petroleum products, e.g. petrol, diesel, kerosene and others.  These will include the crude oil refineries and other such establishments.

EXEMPT ESTABLISHMENTS?

There will be establishments which are exempt from at least performing QRAs and compiling EPPs if they store less than the minimum qualifying substances.  These will still have to adhere to requirements for safeguarding the health and safety of personnel as per the OHS Act.

HOWEVER, when considering whether an establishment is exempt, it will be important for the Dutyholder to consider the “2% Quantity Rule” and the “Aggregation Rule”, both of which will be explained in the regulations, and by me in a later briefing.

Establishments which were previously (and perhaps erroneously) considered exempt from the MHI Regulations, e.g. fuel stations and pipelines for example, are explicitly included in this new regime.  Pipelines particularly will be included, those storing flammable and/or toxic materials; they will include cross-country pipelines and those conveying materials “across the fence”, etc.

THE JOB OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

It was clear from questions at the Workshop that procedural issues will need to be ironed out with regards to the approval process of the MHIs and empowerment of local authorities (LAs).  The LAs have more responsibility in this new regime and this should be accompanied by a process to get all municipalities to the same level of competence in terms of interpretation of technical risk assessment information.  At present, the bigger metropolitan municipalities are able to interact better with the technical content within MHI reports than the smaller ones.  The DoL has expressed that peer review teams will be set up for the review of QRA reports, and that there will be interaction between DoL and the LAs.  Discussions and clarifications will be necessary between LAs, DoL and the AIAs about:

·         Turnaround times for responding to QRAs from Dutyholders,

·         How to identify and address issues in the QRA and Safety Reports,

·         How the peer review system will work, especially in the case of, e.g. pipelines where the establishment extends over various municipal jurisdictions,

·         What guidance the AIAs can/will provide to the LAs.

 

SO, WHERE TO?

The process of promulgation of the new MHI Regulations is going to follow the steps:

1.    Consultation with the Public,

2.    Publishing of draft MHI Regulations (target second week of January 2018 if we’re lucky ),

3.    Consolidation of public comments,

4.    Presentation of draft regulations to ACOHS (minister’s advisory council on OHS matters),

5.    Consultation with the state law advisor (including Department of Justice, to ensure alignment with other laws),

6.    Approval by the Minister of Labour,

7.    Promulgation (May/ June 2018 if we’re really lucky ),

8.    Implementation.

The implementation process will be done through various steps:

1.    12 month until:

a.    Implementation of new notification process

b.    Risk Assessments performed as per prescribed format

c.    EPPs performed as per standard.

2.    24 month until full implementation of the MIPP.

3.    36 months for all applicable establishments to comply with H&S reports and the LtO.

CONCLUSIONS

This new MHI regime will put South Afrika in a place where we’re in line with global best practice in terms of safety and risk regulation.  The hazard level approach is likely to result in a system where the approach to safety and risk is proportional to the risk posed by an establishment.  It will do away with current practice where, essentially we approach a crude oil refinery the same way that we approach a small establishment with cylinders of LPG used in the canteen, for example.  All in all it’s a great effort and much better approach than before. 

 

We will have to patient and wait for its implementation but that doesn’t mean the industry cannot use this guidance to formulate a way forward.  When the regulations do come, application will require more effort (and will be a little more expensive for Dutyholders), but at the end of it we will definitely have a robust system for managing safety and risk in industrial facilities.

 

Motlatsi Mabaso CEng MIChemE

Director | MMRisk Process Safety and Risk Consultants

30 October 2017