Category: risk

Montara oil spill report will provide clues for handling BP inquiry

The Montara oil spill in the Timor Sea that lasted for three months in late 2009 was large but affected no countries directly and is certainly a long way from the Gulf of Mexico and BP.  However there are enough similarities for considerable media attention to be focused on the investigative report into the incident that was handed to the Australian Government on 17 June 2010.

The Australian Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, acknowledged the receipt of the commission of inquiry’s final report but will not be releasing it yet.

Greens Senator Rachel Seiwert has said:

“The release of all information available to date is essential for the development of new regulatory and environmental procedures….  We need to be better prepared to respond to future disasters in our precious marine environment.”

Seiwert has at least acknowledged the global context of the report:

“Halliburton is reported to have carried out cementing work on both the Montara well and the US Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico. The failure of this cementing has been linked in the media to both spills.”

Speculation is that the report will recommend a “single national regulator for off-shore drilling” according to the Australian Financial Review (AFR) on 19 June 2010 (p5. not available online).   Continue reading “Montara oil spill report will provide clues for handling BP inquiry”

UK to see similar OHS review to Australia’s

England seems set to have the same debate over OHS laws as Australia has been having recently – a debate that focuses on compliance rather than the establishment of a safe workplace.

UK business groups clearly see Lord Young of Graffham as being like-minded.  On 15 June 2010 Adam Marshall,  Director of Policy and External Affairs of the British Chamber of Commerce is reported to have said:

“While it’s absolutely crucial for employers to take steps to ensure people are safe in the workplace, the proliferation of health and safety rules has resulted in more bureaucracy and less common sense… Lord Young should look to reduce the number of health and safety processes and costs businesses have to face”.

Stephen Alambritis of the Federation of Small Businesses said :

“Our members want the Government to think small first so that health and safety laws stick with small employers, so that they can comply”.

Big business want safety to cost less, small business want to comply – same attitudes as in Australia.   Continue reading “UK to see similar OHS review to Australia’s”

HSE and Lord Young test the waters of reform

The head of the UK’s Health & Safety Executive, Judith Hackitt has released part of a letter that she sent to Lord Young of Graffham on the announcement of his OHS review.  According to Hackitt’s media statement she advised

“The terms of reference of your review extend beyond HSE’s remit, which is concerned with addressing real risks and preventing death, injury and ill health to those at work and those affected by work related activities.

“However, we in HSE have been saying for some time that health and safety is being used by too many as a convenient excuse to hide behind.”

Hackitt welcomed the review and has released Lord Young’s response in which he says:

“Thank you for your letter of 14 June confirming your commitment to the review commissioned by the Prime Minister into Health and Safety and the growth of the compensation culture.   Continue reading “HSE and Lord Young test the waters of reform”

New nanotechnology safety papers

Safe Work Australia has released two research papers concerning safety sisues raised by nanotechnology.

An Evaluation of MSDS and Labels associated with the Use of Engineered Nanomaterials

Safe Work Australia advises that

“This report details findings from an evaluation of 50 Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) and 15 labels for products containing engineered nanomaterials. Key findings in the report include:

Off shore drilling safety will change forever

The ramifications for corporate America and particularly, the oil industry, from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill are becoming clearer.  In his 15 June 2010, address to the nation, President Obama stated his financial and operational expectations of BP prior to his meeting the company’s CEO, Tony Hayward on 16 June.

In essence, BP will be required to fund compensation for the families of dead and injured workers and those who are suffering economic hardship as a result of action which the President described as “reckless”.  The distrust of BP was evident by the compensation fund, which is likely to be billions of dollars, being administered by a third party.

But the BP spill has changed the way that oil exploration and extraction will occur in American waters.   Continue reading “Off shore drilling safety will change forever”

OHS Canaries and Apathy

Guest author, Yossi Berger writes:

“What’s the point of tellin’ them the same thing over and over when nothin’ changes?  I open my mouth about safety again I could lose me job” he said, “Why would I bother?”[a]

Introduction

Words and names can be used as sneaky accomplices to construct popular or inaccurate narratives.  When such constructions are used as explanations of workers’ behaviour and presumed attitudes they can misdirect occupational health and safety (OHS) programs.  An example is the frequently heard ‘workers’ apathy’ explanation of poor OHS standards.  The important UK 1972 Robens Report on OHS noted:

”….our deliberations over the course of two years have left us in no doubt that the most important single reason for accidents at work is apathy”.[1]

It’s 2009 and some of this in various guises[b] still obscures simple facts at work.

I believe that choosing the banner of ‘apathy’[c] as an explanation of poor OHS standards was and continues to be inaccurate.   Continue reading “OHS Canaries and Apathy”

A safe (social) system of work

For years Australian OHS legislation has focused on establishing a “safe system of work”.  This focus is inclusive and is an understandable approach to safety regulation but it has also generated a fair share of confusion.  If a business does not have a documented safety management system, does it have a system of work?  Yes it does but the lack of documentation makes it very difficult to describe, particularly if there is a performance benchmark such as “compliance”.  Humans like to have a clean line of cause and effect or a linear, causative management process.  So vague concepts like “system of work” can be challenging.

Prescriptive rules used to be the way that safety compliance could be met but that world is long gone.  Its distance can be seen by looking at the Australian Government’s new model Work Health and Safety Act which compounds the vagueness by including “as far as reasonably practicable” wherever possible.  All of this vagueness makes the lot of the business operator more complex and more costly as the business operator seeks clarity from others such as lawyers, OHS consultants, auditors and Standards organizations.  Is it any wonder that safety is seen as an exorbitant cost?  In essence, OHS regulators have outsourced the responsibility, and the cost, to employers. Continue reading “A safe (social) system of work”

© Workplace Safety Services P/L (ABN: 68091088621) and SafetyAtWorkBlog, 2008-2026. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kevin Jones and SafetyAtWorkBlog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

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