Corrosion at Varanus Island

In mid-July 2008, the West Australian Liberal Party detailed leaked correspondence concerning the maintenance program at the Apache Energy facility at Varanus Island.  In the letter from July 2007, the director of petroleum and major hazard facilities, Richard Craddock, said

“The Five-Year Integrity Review report does not objectively demonstrate that the … pipeline complies with the conditions of … licence PL17, the variations under PL17 and the primary technical standard AS2885.”

The letter identified several areas of attention – pipeline integrity, corrosion and safety management.

A spokesman for Energy Minister Fran Logan said the issues raised were about a mainland pipeline however he also said that the Department of Industrial Relations “did raise the issues that were raised with Apache.”

Economic forecasts by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA said the pipeline explosion on Varanus Island had lead to a $6.7 billion reduction in business production and a $2.4 billion negative impact on the general WA economy.   

Other reports are emerging over interdepartmental disputes in the area of enforcement of pipelines.

Other reports on the Varanus Island explosion are available in this blog by search “Varanus” in the search field on this page.

Australian Workplace Injury Statistics

On 15 July 2008, the Australian government released the 2005-2006 Compendium of Workers’ Compensation Statistics Australia. I am pleasantly surprised that although the number of fatalities is never at an acceptable level the trend data is very positive in terms of safety management.

Some key findings and trends reported in the Compendium include:

  • Preliminary data for 2005-06 shows there were 231 compensated fatalities, 93 per cent of which were men.
  • Preliminary data for 2005-06 reports the transport and storage industry accounted for the largest number of fatalities (41), followed by construction (33) and manufacturing (28).
  • Trend data results showed all industries experienced a fall in incidence rates of injury and disease between 1997-98 and 2004-05, with the greatest falls being in the priority industries of mining (45 per cent decrease), construction (27 per cent decrease), transport and storage (20 per cent decrease), agriculture, forestry and fishing (19 per cent decrease) and manufacturing (18 per cent decrease).
  • Reflecting Australia’s ageing labour force, the proportion of claims for employees aged 45 years or more increased from 33 per cent in 1997-98 to 39 per cent in 2004-05.

Such decreases in these major industries should be applauded. Certainly the background to the statistics should be analysed for a proper consideration but the mining results are terrific given that the sector is booming in Australia with new mines opening frequently and is suffering a shortage of skilled labour. Colleagues of mine in that sector have been crowing about the improvements for some time and they seem to be supported by this compendium.

The data can be downloaded HERE

The crash of Blackhawk 221 and safety culture

The Australian’s government’s report into the crash of a Blackhawk helicopter on the deck of the HMAS Kanimbla in November 2006, in which two defence personnel were killed, has been released by Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston.

According to media statements

“The principal and overarching finding of the Board of Inquiry was that the cause of the crash of Black Hawk 221 was pilot error by the aircraft captain,” Air Chief Marshal Houston said. “Justice Levine stated that the principal finding, however, could not be viewed in isolation nor blame attributed to a highly experienced and well-respected Black Hawk pilot.

“This accident was the regrettable result of a number of factors coming together which culminated in this tragic incident.  There was a gradual adoption of approach profiles which, on occasions, exceeded the limits of the aircraft.  Other factors included a ‘can do’ culture in the Squadron, inadequate supervision, the pressures of preparing for operations, the relocation of the Squadron and a high operational tempo.”

Amongst the control measures introduced following the Blackhawk 221crash and an earlier incident, the Army issued a new risk-management policy in October 2007.  It provides “commanders with clear instructions on how to conduct risk management on operations and in training.”

Ultimately, good has come from the results of the Blackhawk crashes.  The decision to release this report, provide audio of the press conference and considerable inquiry background, is commendable. However, as reflected in the Air Chief Marshal’s comments above, and expanded upon in the must-hear podcast (35Mb MP3), safety management standards had slipped over time.  He is keen to emphasise that the crashes need to be seen in a broader organizational context, as any incident investigation should.

But, in my opinion, that broader context remains damning.  The Defence Forces should, through their strict hierarchical system and regimented decision-making, be an exemplar of safety and risk management.

It is always the case that we should learn from our mistakes but it seems, as in the private sector, that those organizations with considerable safety resources who are best equipped to avoid problems continue to experience them.

With many workplace investigations the excuse for incidents that is frequently trotted out – poor safety culture – is becoming a term of reduced relevance.  The failure of a safety culture is not an “act of God” although the phrase, safety culture, is being used in the same manner.  It implies that there was only so much that could be done but it also indicates that prior to any incident not enough was done.

Safety improvements through hindsight have become the mainstay of contemporary management.  If there is a stuff-up, acknowledge the fact and promise restitution.  Don’t accept responsibility. Don’t admit liability.  In fact, don’t mention the incident, only mention what improvements one intends to make.

The depressing part of a no-blame investigation is that it can feel so unsatisfying.

Climate Change Green Paper – OHS role

At the moment I am watching Senator Penny Wong  releasing the Australian government’s green paper into climate change reduction, focussing on an emissions trading scheme.  Some OHS professionals have disputed the relationship between environmental management and safety management.  In practice there has always been an overlap in the disciplines and increasingly in management pocesses, auditing and standards.

The Green Paper  has a direct OHS impact in the mining industry where fugitive emissions now need to be measured for climate change purposes as well as for health and safety compliance. Section 5.4 of the Summary of Preferred Positions states

The following sources would have minimum standards for emissions estimation methodologies imposed from the commencement of the scheme:
* electricity sector emissions (as required for the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme and the Generator Efficiency Standards program)
* perfluorocarbon emissions (from aluminium production, as is current business practice and used for the National Greenhouse Accounts)
* fugitive emissions from underground coal mines (as currently mandated by state safety regulations for the large majority of mines).

The issue of climate change and the government’s emphasis on business impacts means that we need to reassess some of our amentiies, facilities and work methods to accommodate increased risks from climate change.  The Green Paper describes several ways that climate change will change how we work.  For instance when assessing the integrity of our building facilities we need to reconsider the structural tolerances as the report says

In our built environment, a 25 per cent increase in wind gust speed can lead to a 550 per cent increase in damage costs for buildings, with risks to human safety, largely because building or engineering standards have been exceeded.

Business continuity is going to undergo a revolution in criteria to be considered far beyond what we experienced with increased terrorist risks.

Workplace Safety Inspector Ad

WorkSafe Victoria has launched a new advertising campaign emphasising its role as an OHS inspectorate (click image below to view).  The emphasis fits that of WorkSafe’s CEO, John Merritt, who has pledged mre inspectorate resources and enforcement in the future.

The ad is clever in its structure by relieving the boss’ tension over an expected WorkSafe inspector visit and then reinforcing the surprise nature of many WorkSafe visits.  The ad is also very well acted but I wonder about the effectiveness of the message as a TV ad.  Not being privy to WorkSafe ad strategies, I would have thought that billboards in and around industrial sectors with the boss’ worried face may be more effective.

One small point though, the female worker being asked about office cabling is too stereotypical.  However I acknowledge that having a female machine operator may have distracted the focus from the main message.

Still from new WorkSafe inspector ad
Still from new WorkSafe inspector ad

OHS Law Review and the International Labour Organisation

Several submissions, from those currently publicly available, to Australia’s National OHS Law Review have referenced OHS conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). It is early days in the process of assessing submissions and one would expect more details on ILO Conventions to come from submissions of the ACTU and ACCI, both members of the…

Login or subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.

Likely Process of State OHS Legislation

As part of the COAG meeting in early July 2008 the Ausralain governments have signed an Inter-Governmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety. For those of you interested in how the replacement body for the Australian Safety & Compensation Council will operate and be funded, this is the blueprint.

However, part of the agreement on OHS reform does not sit right with the commitments we have heard from the government over the last 6 months or so.  Perhaps our interpretations and expectations were a little unrealistic.

Part 5 of the inter-governmental agreement says

5.1 Model OHS Legislation
5.1.1 The Parties commit to work cooperatively to harmonise OHS regulation through the adoption and implementation of model OHS legislation.
5.1.2 The Parties support the National Review into Model Occupational Health and Safety Laws, announced by the Commonwealth Minister on 4 April2008.
5.1.3 Model OHS legislation will comprise a model principal Act supported by model OHS regulations and model codes of practice. Model OHS legislation will be developed by [ASCC replacement body] in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
5.1.4 The development process for model OHS legislation will allow for interested persons to make representations concerning any proposed model legislation. Prior to submitting any proposed model legislation to WRMC, [ASCC replacement body] will give due consideration to any representations duly made to it and make such alterations to the proposed legislation as it sees fit.
5.1.5 The Parties agree that a national compliance and enforcement policy will be developed to ensure a consistent regulatory approach across all jurisdictions.
5.1.6 For the purpose of ensuring that model OHS legislation applies throughout Australia, each Party to this Agreement will, subject to its parliamentary and other law-making processes, take all necessary steps to enact or otherwise give effect to model OHS legislation within its jurisdiction within the timeframes agreed by WRMC.
5.1.7 For the purposes of subclause 5.1.1, the adoption and implementation of model OHS legislation requires each jurisdiction to enact or otherwise give effect to their own laws that mirror the model laws as far as possible having regard to the drafting protocols in each jurisdiction.
5.1.8 The adoption and implementation of model OHS legislation is not intended to prevent jurisdictions from enacting or otherwise giving effect to additional provisions, provided these do not materially affect the operation of the model legislation, for example, by providing for a consultative mechanism within a jurisdiction.
5.1.9 [ASCC replacement body] will make model OHS legislation publicly available on its website when it is agreed by WRMC. [ASCC replacement body] will hold and maintain all original copies of agreed model OHS legislation, including any subsequent amendments.

Clearly, there is not going to be one OHS Act and jurisdiction for Australia.  Many OHS organisations and businesses advocated for a single administrative structure but there was always the Constitution in the way.  The Workplace Relations Ministerial Council (WRMC) has suggested that each State structures its own OHS legislation “subject to its parliamentary and other law-making processes” (5.1.6 above)

Certainly States could not implement something that conflicts with the core obligations and conditions but the quote above clearly allows State politics to affect OHS operations within the State.  However you look at there is clearly room for the States to move.

However this movement will be tempered by having amendments and new legislation “approved” by the WRMC and then have each of the States amend their own OHS legislation to accommodate the other State’s changes, in order to keep close to national uniformity

5.5.2 Any Party that proposes to amend its legislation or introduce new legislation so as to materially affect the operation of model OHS legislation will submit the proposed amendments or new legislation to WRMC for decision. Each Party agrees that it will not progress implementation of any such amendment or such new legislation unless WRMC has endorsed the proposed amendment or new legislation.
5.5.3 Where WRMC approves an amendment to legislation or new legislation that affects the operation of the agreed model OHS legislation, all Parties will (unless otherwise agreed by WRMC) undertake all necessary steps to introduce appropriate changes to their legislation with a view to ensuring that OHS legislation remains nationally consistent.

In no way does any of this diminish the level of political activity related to OHS law making over the next few years.  In fact I would be surprised if the lobbyists are not revising their strategies now.

The structure sounds workable while there is a friendly relationship between State and Federal governments.  If one of the States changed to a conservative government the timelines or processes could vary considerably.  There has already been persistent questioning about New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma’s tenure over the last week.  For the reform process to work, the NSW Labor Party would need to provide a strong leader before the next election so as to avoid a conservative government.  New South Wales has some of the most (according to business groups) draconian OHS legislation.  If a Liberal government came into power, and with a clear mandate, OHS will become a battleground.

Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd