Blog

On November 15th, 2019 it was announced that the Draft MHI Regulations which had been mulled for the better part of a decade had finally been published for public comment via Regulation Gazette No. 11005, Volume 653, No. 42840 dated 15th November 2019. The publishing of the regulations for public comment marks a significant milestone for those involved in the drafting of the new requirements and will go some way in addressing some of the challenges encountered with the current regulations promulgated in 2001. Being part of the technical committee put together by the Department of Employment and Labour (DEL) to draft these regulations I personally felt like a small victory has been achieved, and now look forward to the collation of comments and working towards promulgation. The current MHI Regulations have been in use since 2001 and in that time have observed by many companies required to. There have however been recognised challenges with the wording of the regulations and the interpretation of some of the requirements therein. Those challenges have led to the need to draft a new set of regulations to close those gaps.

The answer to that question depends on what the person being questioned understands by what exactly a Major Hazard Installation (MHI) Risk Assessment contains (or should contain). To date there has been something of a variety definitions for what an MHI Risk Assessment should contain and with it, a variety of costs for one. I bet in the past when you’ve sent out a Request for Proposal (RFP/RFQ) you have received a number of very different responses with costs ranging wildly. That is probably because to date the industry has relied on the definitions given in the MHI Regulations (2001) for what should be contained in an MHI Risk Assessment (which is a type of Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA)).

I read an article recently about safety regulation (in America) that made me frown. The background: In 2013 you may remember reading about an explosion that occurred in a small town in Texas called ‘West’ (pic). West was home to the West Fertilizer Company, which stored about 240 tons of fertiliser grade Ammonium Nitrate (FGAN) and 50 tons of anhydrous ammonia at any one time. We know both these substances to be hazardous. The focus of this story is on FGAN, which is stable at ambient conditions, but becomes violently explosive when exposed to high temperatures, a shock wave or when in the presence of as little as 0.2% carbon

It has been an interesting few weeks in world politics (how often have we said that since the beginning of time?) But really it has been an interesting time, with America imposing tariffs on some Chinese products in an effort to protect American industry. What’s interesting is that these two powers are seemingly changing roles, with America wanting to be more closed and ‘internalistic’ to resurrect or resuscitate some of its dying industries, while China seems to want to expand and globalise. In typical media sensational phraseology, it has been called a “Trade War” between America and China: America is looking to impose US$ 46-billion worth of products from China (9% of Chinese exports to America), while China has retaliated by imposing US$ 50-billion worth of exports, about 38% of American exports to China, which include aircraft, cars and … soya beans! In terms of proportions, by my arithmetic, America will hurt more from this slapping contest than will China.