By Andrew Perks
I wonder how many people out there are somewhat mystified with the Major Hazard Installation (MHI) Regulations or really understand what they mean – or is it just me? Well to compound things, the regulations were re-gazetted on 31 January 2023.
An MHI is defined as an installation where there are hazardous materials stored or processed that could cause a major incident. Up until now there has not really been a definition of the quantity that this would entail. In the latest regulation it has been defined. A low risk is defined as a plant with 15 – 49 tons of Ammonia, a medium risk is defined as a plant with 50 – 199 tons and a high risk is one with over 200 tons of Ammonia. Now that means that almost all of our basic ammonia plants are excluded as they are below the 15-ton threshold, where larger plants such as breweries will be medium risk. So, we ask ourselves what do the MHI regulations actually cover?
Now we think that only plants with 15 tons of Ammonia are dangerous – A plant in America had approximately 2 500kg. The engine room ignited after an Ammonia leak, destroying the plant room. If it was here, and assuming it was SANS 10147 compliant, it should never have happened. That is also why each and every Ammonia plant must be built to SANS 10147 requirements and have a three-yearly re-assessment by a competent person. From my experience volumes of less than 15 tons of Ammonia are used in the majority of operations and distribution depots around the country, and that’s where the risk is. The problems are the lack of skilled, trained plant operators and non-compliance with SANS 10147. Some of these plants have never been inspected and work on the principle: “if it’s not broken, why fix it?” Now, I understand that the current economy is such that some of these plants are on the edge, but it is not good enough if we are looking after the safety of our staff.
From my experience volumes of less than 15 tons of Ammonia are used in the majority of operations and distribution depots around the country, and that’s where the risk is. The problems are the lack of skilled, trained plant operators and non-compliance with SANS 10147. Some of these plants have never been inspected and work on the principle: “if it’s not broken, why fix it?” Now, I understand that the current economy is such that some of these plants are on the edge, but it is not good enough if we are looking after the safety of our staff.
Any business operating in South Africa must conform to the OHS Act, which basically refers to safety. Based on this, we have to ensure the safety of workers or the general public – whose health and safety could be affected by any incident of whatever magnitude. That said, this is really not related to quantity but rather to the risk. Let’s say there are 10 of us doing some training in a typical office of 20m2, and a 63kg bottle of Ammonia is released. What do you think is the likelihood, if the door is locked, that we would survive? Pretty low I would say. So, what does that tell us? Any hazardous incident is related to risk, not quantity. And that doesn’t apply only to Ammonia – there are plenty of other hazards out there.
That is why in the MHI regulations’ tables of quantities governing the level of risks, we also have the clause which states, “considered a Major Hazard Installation.” Lots of people seem to think that the new regulations now deregulate them from being an MHI with all its constraints and conditions. There are quite a few people who believe this – but they can think again. There has to be a case submitted for each and every plant with hazardous material as to why it should not be defined an MHI. This still requires the services of an Approved Inspection Authority (AIA) to justify whether a plant must be registered or whether the material and the type of business on the site dictates that the site is an MHI.
The law is such that all users must conform and comply or face strict consequences if found negligent. Furthermore, you also cannot omit the consequences to your site from an MHI next door. All of this has to be taken into account in your emergency plan.
The Department of Employment and Labour (DEL) wants companies to have a good working relationship with the local authority. Should the local authority fail to comply or assist with the above, the DEL will take the local authority to task for not complying to the new regulations. There should be an offsite emergency plan to deal with associated consequences if there is an incident. To facilitate this, the council requires a dedicated contact person with whom sites can interact, assisting with the creating of the plan.
Each site must also have an onsite emergency plan that is approved by the local authority. So as not to confuse anyone, there is a new standard as to what is required in the emergency plan, SANS 1514:2018. This is a lengthy document which forces sites to look at their command structure and their readiness for any emergency situation. It is amazing the number of sites that think “it will never happen to me” and as such, are not prepared. You really only see the glitches when you do the mandatory yearly site incident response exercise. The site risks are cumulative, based on the number of hazardous/flammable materials on site. Let’s face it, there is normally more than just Ammonia – what about diesel, propane, petrol, and more? All of those delivery vehicles on site at any one time represent risks and need to be accounted for in the report. Any findings will be based on probability, not quantity stored.
The DEL is highly aware that there are a vast majority of installations with hazardous material that have never registered. With the new regulations, there was recently a roadshow travelling around the country which was attended by all the AIAs affected by the regulation change. It’s a new regulation so there are still some aspects of it which are not totally clear, but they are working on resolving the issues. So much so that they have appointed 70 additional inspectors in the Western Cape alone. They are clearly taking this seriously.
There are a lot of regulations that the normal operator is not aware of, that is why we use the services of an AIA. Are we aware that there must be an approved competent person appointed to ensure that the ongoing requirements of the report are being applied and conformed with? This is not a five-yearly exercise that is done then placed into a drawer until it’s time to re- submit: it is an ongoing commitment. What about the three-yearly emergency plan and the annual training. Think of those 73 people that recently died in Johannesburg – what about the gas explosion in the road?
Just doing an assessment does not cut it. It has to be undertaken within the scope of the regulations, and there are plenty. Not doing anything, claiming ignorance of the law will not help when the managing director is standing in court trying to explain that he did not think this applied to his company. There are so many incidents all around the country. Only by following the correct procedures and applying strict monitoring and control can we keep our people safe. I trust that this has made you think a bit – we need to develop a culture of safety. Stay safe until next time.
Andrew Perks is a subject expert in ammonia refrigeration. Since undertaking his apprenticeship in Glasgow in the 1960s he has held positions of contracts engineer, project engineer, refrigeration design engineer, company director for a refrigeration contracting company and eventually owning his own contracting company and low temperature cold store. He is now involved in adding skills to the ammonia industry, is merSETA accredited and has written a variety of unit standards for SAQA that define the levels to be achieved in training in our industry. |