Renewal of a major hazard facility licence

Major hazard facility license

The major hazard facility parts of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2017 (OHS Regulations) set out legal duties for control of risks from operating a major hazard facility (MHF). They apply to the operator of a facility who is the employer with management or control of the facility.

To get a licence to operate an MHF in Victoria, MHF operators need to submit a Safety case which sets out how the facility will be operated safely.

MHF licences are assessed by WorkSafe Victoria for renewal at least every 5 years. To renew an MHF licence, an operator must review and revise the Safety case and resubmit it to WorkSafe.

This guidance provides information relevant to MHF operators in the 2 year period before expiry of an MHF licence.

WorkSafe provides early feedback to operators during the renewal process to enable them to take the necessary actions to submit compliant, revised Safety cases. WorkSafe then decides on renewal of a licence, the licence term and any conditions.

Successful Safety case review and revision

The following factors are important to successful Safety case review and revision:

MHF operators should:

• develop a plan for review and revision of the Safety case, and for review and revision of supporting matters
• establish a steering group to oversee progress of plan
• ensure resources for the revision of the Safety case
• draw on experience from the preparation of the previous Safety case
• involve a mix of personnel with previous direct Safety case experience and personnel with limited direct experience
• find external information to assist in the review and revision of the Safety case
• submit revised Safety case for licence renewal at least 6 months before to licence expiry

Revised Safety case must remain in compliance with regulation 385 and must include specific reference to changes in the information required by regulation 385(1).

WorkSafe should:

• provide the Oversight history report (a summary of the MHF’s performance during the current licence term) to operators
• make sure issues that may affect licensing are well communicated and understood
• provide timely feedback to operators on the Safety case review plan
• prioritise review and revision in the facility’s oversight plan for detailed monitoring
• provide timely and constructive feedback during oversight on matters of review and revision
• provide guidance on compliance for the review and revision
• provide a copy of the Safety case assessment findings report for operators to review before to licence decision

Planning and preparation

The operator is required to follow these steps during licence renewal:

1. Review WorkSafe's Oversight history report, received approximately 12 - 18 months before the licence expires. This outlines the site’s safety performance and operation of the Safety case during the current licence period.
2. Develop and submit a Safety case review plan to WorkSafe. Although not mandatory, this plan has a similar purpose to the Safety case outline and is recommended to assist operators to focus on the necessary work for each facility.
3. Review and revise the Safety case to ensure it is compliant. Take into account new knowledge, events, changes over time and continuous improvement. During this period WorkSafe will focus on the key activities and milestones of the Safety case review and revision process and provide feedback. WorkSafe may also 'pre-assess' parts of the revised Safety case and provide feedback.
4. Submit the revised Safety case and licence application to WorkSafe for assessment 6 months before the licence expires. WorkSafe will provide feedback during this period and a draft Assessment findings report for the operator to review and comment.
5. WorkSafe has an appointed regulatory delegate who will make the licence renewal decision, supported by the Licence panel (see Safety assessment review). WorkSafe will assess the MHF licence renewal application and provide written notice of the intention to renew, or to propose to refuse to renew, the licence within 6 months of receiving the application [Reg 486(3)(a))]. For MHF licence renewals, MHFs may have their assessment period extended by the Authority in accordance with regulation 488.

Process and time line for licence renewal

Figure 1 shows steps involving both the operator and WorkSafe.

Key activities for MHF operators

Key activities for MHF operators include reviewing WorkSafe’s Oversight history report —received approximately 12-18 months before licence expiry — developing a Safety case review plan, reviewing and revising the Safety case to ensure it is compliant and submitting the revised Safety case for licence renewal — at least 6 months before to licence expiry.

A draft Assessment findings report will be provided by WorkSafe before to the Licence panel where the MHF operator will have the opportunity to review and comment on the findings.

Key activities for WorkSafe

Key activities for WorkSafe include providing the Oversight history report to the operator, conducting oversight and pre-assessment activities, assessing and verifying the Safety case — approximately 6 months before licence expiry.

An Assessment findings report will be prepared for the Licence panel. The Licence panel will be held approximately 6 weeks before to the licence expiry where WorkSafe’s delegate will make a decision regarding the licence renewal application.

Major hazard facility operator tasks

Oversight history report

WorkSafe provides each MHF operator with an Oversight history report about 18 months before the licence expiry date. The report summarises WorkSafe's view on the facility's major incident safety performance during the licence period.

The Oversight history report is based on information collected by WorkSafe from oversight and inspection activities.

The Oversight history report will include:

• an assessment of the performance of risk control measure and Safety management system (SMS) elements
• a summary of reported incidents and enforcement action taken by WorkSafe
• key matters that the operator should consider when reviewing and revising the Safety case and preparing for licence renewal

Safety case review plan

Building the Safety case required time and organisational resources.

It is important that the review and revision process for the Safety case be managed, to get an efficient and complete outcome.

WorkSafe recommends that MHF operators develop a Safety case review plan at least 12 months before the required submission date for the revised Safety case.

The Safety case review plan should be a brief document which addresses the scope, methods, resourcing and timing for the key revisions under the OHS Regulations (see The process).

The recommendation for a Safety case review plan is based on the usefulness of the pre-planning processes. These processes are provided during initial MHF licensing by the Safety case outline.

WorkSafe anticipates that significant benefits will be gained from a Safety case review plan.

The process of pre-planning the work and resourcing needs for the Safety case review and revision helps operators understand and identify efficiencies in doing the work.

Pre-planning will ensure a systematic and comprehensive approach to continuous improvement for a revised Safety case.

MHF operators will receive WorkSafe's feedback on the scope, method and resourcing for the review and revision early in the process.

WorkSafe will be able to include the operator's review and revision activities and milestones into oversight of the MHF during the 12 months before submission of the revised Safety case.

WorkSafe will be able to plan for and start 'pre-assessment' of the main parts of the Safety case, as it is being revised, based on the MHF’s work scope and timing.

MHF operators should use their project planning, approval and management processes to prepare the Safety case review plan.

Copies of the plan and related information provided to WorkSafe can be the same high level plans that are given to internal senior managers.

WorkSafe needs enough information on scope, method, resourcing and timing to be able to provide feedback, and to plan for oversight and pre-assessment in the 12 months before Safety case submission. See Oversight and pre-assessment.

Operators should use successful parts from the original Safety case development process for the review and revision. Parts may include:

• the development of a Safety case steering committee
• early involvement of employees and health and safety representatives (HSR)
• dividing the facility into logical sections/modules for analysis, and
• trials of the proposed review and revision processes on a section of the facility

Resourcing

The work effort to do a Safety case review and revision will be different for each MHF. Less effort is needed if the MHF regularly does audits, reviews, updates safety systems and when site operations have been generally stable.

To estimate the work effort, resourcing and timings for the review, operators should trial proposed processes for review and revision on a small section or module of the facility's operations.

Retaining, improving or replacing previous processes for hazard identification and safety assessment will affect the work effort, the time needed and resources.

Milestones set by the review and revision project planners and regulatory timelines will determine how the necessary resources and work effort are spread, and peak loads.

Overseas industry experience shoes that re-validation of a Process hazard analysis usually takes between 10 to 50% of the time needed to do the initial analysis (expressed in person-hours). The higher effort levels are experienced when major method changes are introduced to the Process hazard analysis.

The Safety case review plan lets WorkSafe provide timely assessment and operator review before the licence decision. This allows the operator to track progress to ensure completion of the review and revision in time.

The plan is not a regulatory requirement, so there will be no statutory process concerned with updating and approving plans. Plans will not be enforced by WorkSafe.

The process

This section provides information that may assist operators in conducting the review and revision of their Safety case. Guidance is provided through suggested inputs, with a series of questions and prompts for the review process with expected outcomes.

Review and revision

An application for renewal of a licence must come with a revised Safety case which has been prepared under Part 5.2 of the OHS Regulations.

The work for the Safety case review and revision and key regulations are summarised in OHS regulations relating to review and revision of a Safety case.

OHS regulations relating to review and revision of a Safety case

Action steps

1. Review and revise the major incident hazards and possible major incidents identification, the safety assessment, and the risk control measures. Include the emergency plan to ensure major incident risks are controlled so far as is reasonably practicable. Regulation 379(1).
2. Review and revise the SMS at least once every 5 years. This ensures it continues to be effective in ensuring safe operation of the facility MHF. Regulation 374.
3. Consult the workforce and third parties for the Safety case review and revision. Ensure the relevant procedures in the SMS are used and that consultation is documented and is compliant with regulatory requirements. Regulation 388(f), 389(2), 391(a), 396(4), 380(2), 375(3)(c).

Documentation steps

1. Review and revise the content of the Safety case to ensure that it continues to demonstrate the adequacy of adopted and reviewed control measures, and that the SMS is still operating as a comprehensive and integrated system for those control measures. Regulation 385.
2. Specify in the revised Safety case the changes made to the content of the previous Safety case. Regulation 387(2).

Submission

The revised Safety case should be provided to WorkSafe as soon as reasonably possible after the revision is made. Regulation 387(3).

Knowledge of major incidents, hazards, controls and assessments

The knowledge of major incidents, hazards, controls and assessments may be different to the knowledge of the previously submitted Safety case.

Reasons for this may include:

• changes to the plant, processes, operating procedures and quantities of hazardous materials may have introduced new hazards or intensified existing hazards
• personnel and organisational changes
• introduction of new plant, processes or operating procedures
• changes in on-site or off-site occupancy patterns and land use have changed the at risk populations
• new knowledge about existing hazards which may include more severe consequences
• incidents and near misses on the site or in the industry and like industries which have revealed hazards not previously identified
• controls previously recognised as providing risk reduction have been removed, compromised or discredited
• audit results and performance monitoring of control measures and the SMS are available for several years of operation
• realisation that hazards and controls in certain areas of the MHF are also applicable to other areas where they had not been previously considered or adopted

The review and revision process should include both new and experienced Safety case personnel.

This mix of Safety case personnel will:

• provide consistency of approach with the previous Safety case
• provide fresh operational experience and insights
• help train participants for future Safety case revisions

Information gathering

An important step in preparing for Safety case review and revision is to identify, collect and prepare the supporting information.

Information and documentation for review and revision

The following presents examples of types of information that would typically be considered.

Not all information types would necessarily apply to every MHF. Process safety information should be current and about existing operations.

SMS changes

• Changes in health and safety policy, procedures, performance standards, objectives, audit processes or priorities within SMS.
• Reorganisation of the responsibilities and accountabilities within the SMS.
• Outsourcing, delayering, de-manning or multi-skilling in relation to the operation or maintenance of the facility.

Control measure and performance monitoring

• Internal SMS performance monitoring and control measures audits critical function tests of control measures.
• Corporate audits for regulatory compliance external audits.
• Annual WorkSafe inspection report and other WorkSafe communications such as enforcement actions or performance indicators.

Modifications

• Change in the quantity of a Schedule 14 substance.
• Change in the phase, composition or characteristics of a Schedule 14 substance.
• Introduction of new Schedule 14 substances, or removal of existing Schedule 14 substances. Consider dangerous goods and hazardous substances that are not Schedule 14 but may change associated hazard profiles.
• Changed or new production or material handling processes changes to storage facilities.
• Changes to control systems.
• Changes to the type of delivery or transport of Schedule 14 substances.
• Changes to the location of occupied buildings, including control rooms and the number of people present within them.
• Changes to the original design and operating parameters for plant and equipment.
• Construction of a new installation, plant or equipment.
• A small change which could have large consequences introduction of temporary equipment.
• Repairs to structures or any plant and equipment decommissioning of plant and installations.
• Changes to third party suppliers or service providers.
• Changes in the local community.

Incident history

• Site incident records and investigation reports.
• External investigation reports.
• Publicly available databases or industry associations.
• National and international company incident information and alerts.

New facts and knowledge

• New knowledge on chemical properties with implications for risk assessments.
• National or international events that reveal major incident scenarios and hazards not previously considered.
• Loss of control scenarios not previously considered.
• Recommendations made following a public inquiry or major incident.
• Step changes in technology that might render parts of the Safety case out of date.
• New scientific or technical research, or other advances such as reduction in the cost of safety measures that may affect the decisions previously made about which control measures are necessary and reasonably practicable.
• Site and industry Safety case operating experience reveals applicable new approaches.
• Urban encroachment since previous licensing may lead to a review of mitigation controls, including the emergency response plan.

Review Safety case methods

The first step in review and revision should be to evaluate the adequacy of the previous Safety case method to determine if it is still appropriate to apply the same process, in whole or in part, to revising the Safety case.

Experience of operating under the Safety case, new knowledge and feedback from WorkSafe may provide information to either confirm the original method, to improve it or to adopt another method.

Factors to consider in reviewing the Safety case methods are:

• feedback from HSRs, operators and management involved in the use of the method and its results during and since the previous Safety case submission
• advances in hazard identification and risk assessment methodologies, for example, by industry, academia, professional bodies
• whether views on the suitability and relevance of the original method for the complexity of site processes have evolved over the licence period
• consideration of possible benefits from combining workshops for hazard identification, safety assessment and control measure review

Hazard and major incident identification review

All major incidents and major incident hazards must be identified, documented and reviewed.

This helps to ensure that the subsequent review of control measure effectiveness is complete. This does not necessarily mean repeating the hazard identification.

The process will include:

• quality assurance of the risk register for completeness including full incorporation of changes over the licence period
• review of site incident and near miss data for implications for hazards and major incident scenarios
• consideration of new knowledge from external sources on potentially applicable hazards and major incidents
• application of new method to the analysis of hazards and major incidents, where there is a need for method change

The review will involve specific inputs and expected outputs, as shown in Stages of review and revision – hazards and major incidents.

Stages of review and revision – hazards and major incidents

Inputs

• Major incident definition.
• New method for hazard identification.
• Safety case.
• Major incident and hazard register.
• Incident and near miss reports.
• Changes to facility (management of change records).
• Non-routine types of operation.
• New knowledge.

Stages of review and revision

Review hazard identification and major incidents. Regulation 379, 368.

Outputs

• Update Safety case.
• Train employees.
• Input into safety assessment review.

Guidance in the form of prompts, questions and examples to assist the process of review and revision is provided in Hazard identification and major incident review.

Further guidance is available on hazard identification in Hazard identification at a major hazard facility.

Hazard identification and major incident review

Input: Major incident definition

Review the existing major incident definition. Ask the following:

• Does it cover all known major incidents?
• Is it consistent with hazard identification data?
• Does it fully comply with the regulatory definition?
• Is the list comprehensive and does it avoid screening out based on controls?

Output

Update Safety case.

Input: New method

If reviewing the previous Safety case method, results in a change to method, then do a review using the new method.

Output

Do a new hazard identification review and enter hazards into the hazard register.

Input: Safety case hazard register

Review the status of hazards in the current hazard register by checking:

• If hazards are still in the register?
• If more than one hazard register is maintained — are the registers consistent with each other, where the same hazards are covered in both?
• Are hazards correctly linked to a major incident?

Output

Update hazard register where required.

Input: Major incident and near miss reports

Review on-site industry incident and near miss reports to identify possible new hazards and consequences previously not identified.

Examples of sources of information that may be available are:

• Buncefield fire, December 2005
• BP refinery explosion at Texas City, March 2005
• MHF page on WorkSafe website
• Major Hazards Matters (WorkSafe MHF Newsletter)
• incident summaries and information via internal corporate networks
• liquid metal embrittlement in light ends processing (Santos incident)
• industry associations such as APEA, PACIA, API
• databases such as MHIDAS, HSE, Safe Work Australia

Output

Update hazard register where required.

Input: Management of change (MOC) documentation

Review MOC documentation by checking:

• if all new identified hazards are in the hazard register?
• if all new plant and process equipment covered are in the Safety case?

Review MOC documentation for adequacy and quality of hazard identification by checking that the hazard identification done within MOC has been effective and meets procedural guidelines.

Review changes to ensure that MOC has been applied wherever required by SMS procedures.

• Check that changes requiring an MOC have had an MOC completed.
• List each element needing MOC according to the SMS and check MOC data against all known changes that have happened on site.

Review growing impact of MOC by using an appropriate hazard identification method to identify any new hazards caused by the changes.

Consider minor or gradual changes which may or may not have required an MOC and have introduced a hazard or undermined a control.

Output

Update hazard register where required.

Identify hazards using the correct method and update the hazard register.

If there are gaps in compliance with MOC, then do an MOC and update the hazard register.

Update studies such as:

• blast studies
• fire safety studies
• quantified or quantitative risk assessment

Input: Changes to facility not covered by MOC

Review changes that may have a hazard impact but which are not necessarily covered under the MOC process.

Examples of changes to consider include:

• changes outside of site
• raw materials quantities
• suppliers for commonly used parts

Output

Update hazard register where required.

Input: Non-routine types of operation

Safety cases usually begin focusing on hazards to do with normal operations. But, many incidents do not happen during normal operation, instead, they happen during non-routine types of operation.

Review hazard register to ensure it covers hazards associated with critical operating types such as start-up, shutdown, preparation for maintenance, emergency shutdown, thermal stress and other activities whose characteristics differ from normal, steady state operations.

Output

Update hazard register where required.

Input: New knowledge

Review new knowledge that is relevant for the previous Safety case hazard identification process.

Information might come from company research, from work conducted by others and reported in industry literature or from findings from incident investigations.

Output

Update hazard register where required.

Safety assessment review

A review of the MHF's Safety Assessment must be done at least every 5 years.

The review of the Safety Assessment should ensure that adopted control measures are still eliminating or reducing risk so far as is reasonably practicable. This review of the existing and any new, control measures is generally repetitive.

The safety assessment review will include:

• review of the assumptions from the previous safety assessment —to see if they are still valid, or need to be replaced or refined
• check to see if changes in the safety assessments are satisfactory
• applying new safety assessment methods as needed
• applying new or improved assumptions as needed

The review will involve a range of specific inputs and expected outputs.

Further information is available at Safety assessment for a major hazard facility.

Inputs

• Changes in safety assessment methods.
• Identified new hazards and major incidents.
• Change to facility control measure review.
• Control measure performance review.
• New control measure and alternative control measures.

Stages of review and revision

• Review Safety Assessment.
• Regulation 379, 369.

Outputs

• Update hazard register and Safety case.
• Input into control measures assessment.
• Inform, instruct and train employees.

Input: New method

What to review and revise

If a change is necessary as a result of reviewing the previous Safety case methods, then do assessments using the new method as needed.

Examples:

• internal reviews have changed the screening criteria for assessment. QRA is now required where previous assessment used another method such as qualitative risk matrix or Layers of protection analysis
• learnings from the previous Safety case show a need to change the approach or method to be applied for the review and revision (continuous improvement)
• change from a simple risk matrix to a more systematic approach (such as semi quantitative, Layers of protection analysis, Safety integrity level analysis) or from a quantitative basis to a more easily applied and understood qualitative basis

Output

Do a new assessment and update hazard register where needed.

Input: New hazards or major incidents identified from review

What to review and revise

Do a safety assessment using Safety case methods on any new hazards.

Output

Update hazard register and Safety case.

Input: MOC safety assessments

What to review and revise

Review MOC documentation by checking that all new assessments are included in the Safety case.

Review MOC documentation for adequacy of safety assessments by auditing the safety assessments done in MOC — ensure they are effective and meet procedural guidelines.

Output

Update hazard register and Safety case.

Input: Control measures

What to review and revise

Have the control measures used since the last Safety case submission been included in the Safety case?

Have the new controls changed safety assessment results?

Are the assumptions and criteria for selection of controls still valid?

Output

Update hazard register and Safety case.

Input: Control measure performance review

What to review and revise

Are the new controls still reducing risk so far as is reasonably practicable, based on the results of control performance measurement over the licence period?

Are controls:

• performing below requirements as shown by measurement results?
• meeting performance requirements, but no longer reducing risk so far as is reasonably practicable?

Outputs

Update hazard register and Safety case.

Do a control measure review to achieve 'so far as is reasonably practicable'.

Input: New knowledge

What to review and revise

Review new knowledge that may alter safety assessment findings.

For example, consider:

• data changes
• changes in surrounding community
• changes in likelihood and/or consequence of previous risk assessments.

Output

Update hazard assessment where required.

Operators should do a review of the control measures to ensure control measures are still eliminating risk so far as is practicable, or, if not practicable to eliminate, reducing risk so far as is reasonably practicable.

This will generally include:

• quality assurance that new, altered or removed control measures have been accurately captured in the risk register
• review effectiveness of control measures in meeting performance standards outlined in the Safety case
• review if it is now reasonably practicable to introduce different controls on the site to be able to demonstrate that risk is reduced so far as is reasonably practicable

The review will involve specific inputs and anticipated outputs.

Further information is available in Control measures for a major hazard facility.

Inputs

• Emergency plan.
• Safety assessments.
• Changes to facility (MOC).
• Control measure performance review (audit internal and external results).
• Previously rejected control measures.
• New technology for reducing or eliminating risk.

Stages of review and revision

• Review control measures.
• Regulation 379, 371, 385, 375.
• Schedule 15 clause 7.

Outputs

• Update Safety case (risk register).
• Update safety assessment.
• New control measures.
• Inform, instruct and train employees.

Input: Emergency plan

What to review and revise

• Are all current major incident scenarios, including any newly identified scenarios, represented in the emergency plan?
• Are the mitigation controls referenced in the plan current?
• Are additional or alternative mitigation controls needed, based on findings from emergency exercises or incident reports?
• Personnel able to do multiple emergency tasks?
• Does personnel have the necessary skills and experience? Is training for the key roles in the emergency response plan needed?
• Review changes in organisational roles and responsibilities which may affect the capacity or capability of personnel to fulfil their roles under the plan.
• Have changes to the MHF affected the integrity of the emergency plan?

Output

Update emergency plan and Safety case.

Input: Safety assessment

What to review and revise

Where a review of safety assessment has found controls that are no longer reducing risk so far as is reasonably practicable, then controls will need to be changed. New controls may be needed to eliminate or reduce risk so far as is reasonably practicable.

Outputs

• Update hazard register.
• Modify existing or adopt new control measures.

Input: MOC control measures

What to review and revise

Review MOC documentation by checking:

• are all new control measures, performance standards, indicators and critical operating limits included in the Safety case
• check that the control measures in MOC have been adopted

Outputs

Update Safety case where required.

Input: Control measure performance review

What to review and revise

Review the controls performance monitoring program, and its results. Check that the program is capable of ensuring effective controls.

Check that the performance monitoring program is monitoring as frequently as expected.

Confirm that corrective actions are in place when control measures fail.

Review if the tests for the effectiveness of control measures are still appropriate.

Review if the indicators for failure of the control measures are effective.

Review if the frequency of tests are appropriate to the performance history.

Challenge the assumptions used for/or credited to the control measure's risk reduction contribution, resulting from the performance history.

Review the critical operating limits information. Ensure that the performance limits of any equipment, process or procedure necessary to avoid a major incident, are clearly and accurately documented.

Outputs

• Implement corrective actions and reassess risk assessment.
• Update Safety case.
• Review effectiveness of controls.

Input: Previously rejected control measures

What to review and revise

Review previously rejected control measures, to see if the ‘rejected’ status is still appropriate.

Outputs

Use control measures where reasonably practicable.

Input: New knowledge

What to review and revise

The standard for what is reasonably practicable will evolve and increase over time, with changes in knowledge, technology and practice.

Review new knowledge for control measures that may eliminate or further reduce the assessed risk.

Outputs

• Update safety assessment where required.
• Adopt control measures where reasonably practicable.

Safety management system review

The operator must review and, if necessary, revise the Safety management system (SMS) at least once every 5 years. This is to ensure that it continues to provide a comprehensive and integrated management system for all of control measures.

The review will generally include:

• quality assurance to make sure that procedures and other SMS documentation is current and up to date
• review of the effectiveness of the SMS against the performance standards for the system set out in the Safety case
• review should ensure that any system improvement opportunities are applied

The review will involve specific inputs and expected outputs. Further guidance on the SMS is available in Safety management systems for major hazard facilities.

c

Inputs

• Performance monitoring of SMS.
• Changes to SMS.
• Control measures review.
• Control measure performance.
• Review.

Stages of review and revision

• Review SMS.
• Regulation 374.
• Schedule 15 Clause 7.

Outputs

• Update SMS.
• Update Safety case.
• Inform, instruct and train employees.

Input: Performance monitoring of SMS

What to review and revise

Review performance monitoring for the effectiveness of the SMS.

• Review and audit the performance monitoring program. Make sure it is achieving target frequency and sufficient monitoring.
• Confirm corrective actions have been identified and implemented when SMS fails in performance monitoring.
• Review if performance standards for measuring the effectiveness of the SMS are still appropriate.
• Review if performance indicators for measuring the effectiveness of the SMS are still appropriate and effective.

Outputs

• Implement corrective actions and reassess risk assessment.
• Update Safety case.
• Review effectiveness of controls.

Input: Management of change (MOC) SMS

What to review and revise

Review MOC documentation. Check if all changes to SMS as a result of MOC are being used.

Output

Update SMS where required.

Input: Control measure review

What to review and revise

The SMS will need to be reviewed if control measures have been changed or added as a result of review and revision activities. This ensures that the SMS continues to provide systems, procedures and tools to support the management and operation of those control measures.

Output

Update SMS where required.

Input: Control measure performance review

What to review and revise

Update the SMS when systems for monitoring the performance of control measures need to be changed as a result of control measure performance reviews.

Output

Update SMS as needed.

Input: New knowledge

What to review and revise

• Review steps taken to continually improve the SMS.
• Review new knowledge for SMS.

Output

Update SMS where required.

Emergency plan testing and review

The emergency plan should be reviewed and revised together with the relevant emergency services at least once every 5 years. The emergency plan should also be reviewed as a control measure.

Test the emergency plan with all relevant emergency services at least once every 3 years. This will show the effectiveness and any improvements for the plan. Guidance is available on emergency plans in Emergency planning at a major hazard facility.

Review of property protection assessment

Division 7 of Part 5.2 of the OHS Regulations requires the operator of an MHF to do a Property Protection Assessment of the hazards identified.

The operator is required to use control measures that eliminate, so far as is reasonably practicable, or, if it is not practicable to eliminate, to reduce the risk to property so far as is practicable.

The Property protection assessment must be reviewed and revised if there has been a change to the circumstances of the Safety case under Division 8 or of the initial Property Protection Assessment, or after receiving a request from an HSR to review the assessment.

Additional information

The revised Safety case needs to be updated to accurately show the additional matters outlined in Schedules 15 and 17 of the OHS Regulations.

These are:

• safety policy and safety objectives
• organisation and personnel
• operational controls
• compliance with Divisions 6 and 9 of Part 5.2 of the OHS Regulations
• description of MOC procedures
• principles and standards
• performance monitoring
• provision for auditing against performance standards
• description of the facility and surrounding area
• major incidents and major incident hazards
• summary of the safety assessment and Safety management system
• risk control measures
• precautions regarding control of access and unauthorised persons
• safety and reliability of plant
• major incident history

Consultation

To be granted an MHF licence, operators must have complied with the consultation requirements of Regulation 375(3) (c), and Division 9 of Part 5.2 of the OHS Regulations, which cover consultation and involvement of employees, their HSR and third parties. Consultation must continue throughout the licence period and into the review and revise period.

Operators must also be aware of the enhanced workplace consultation requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHS Act). These requirements are directly relevant to the scope of Safety case review and revision work.

Under the OHS Act, Employers must consult with employees so far as reasonably practicable when identifying or assessing hazards or risks at the workplace, making decisions on risk control measures, proposing changes that may affect the health and safety of employees, and other specified circumstances less relevant to a Safety case. Employers must consult with the employees who will be affected, or with their HSR, where there is such representation (whether or not the employees are also consulted directly).

Procedures should be agreed and implemented with the employees and HSRs (where the workplace has elected HSRs) to comply with the requirements of the OHS Act and should include review and revision arrangements for the Safety case.

Further information on consultation is available in Consulting with major hazard facility employees.

Oversight and pre-assessment

Oversight occurs through the entire licence period. Pre-assessment refers to the 12 month period before to submission of the revised Safety case. This is likely to be the most intensive period of Safety case review and revision work for operators and WorkSafe therefore focuses its oversight activities on the progress of key review and revision aspects for each MHF.

Oversight visits will be scheduled to enable WorkSafe to liaise with the facility and monitor key activities and key milestones, and provide feedback and suggestions as relevant.

WorkSafe will involve agencies with which it has Memorandum of Understanding wherever relevant, particularly if key issues are also in an agency’s jurisdiction or involve its expertise.

During this period, WorkSafe may also do a pre-assessment of aspects of the revised Safety case. These pre-assessments will be done using the same process and procedures as used for the Safety case assessment. Findings will be provided to the facility and will be incorporated into the Assessment findings report for the facility.

The intent of pre-assessment is to advance assessment progress towards re-licensing wherever feasible and provide early feedback to operators on the assessed aspects of the revised Safety case. Operators then have an opportunity to correct any issues before to Safety case submission.

Submission of revised Safety case

MHF operators must submit their revised Safety case and licence application 6 months before the expiry of their current MHF licence.

WorkSafe requires:

• an electronic copy of the revised Safety case via the Objective connect portal, or one hard copy and one electronic copy on universal serial bus (USB)
• a copy of the licence application
• a statement in accordance with regulation 385(3) and signed by the operator's chief executive, or the most senior officer resident in Victoria. This must be included in the Safety case
• a summary in the Safety case of the changes that have been made to the content of the Safety case, as described in regulation 385(1)

WorkSafe may request further material to support a revised Safety case and licence renewal application.

Assessment and licence decision period

WorkSafe will assess the MHF licence renewal application and provide a notice of the intention to renew, or propose to refuse to renew, the licence within 6 months of receiving the application [Reg 486(3) (a)]. For MHF licence renewals, MHFs may have their assessment period extended by the Authority in accordance with Regulation 488.

Operators and WorkSafe need to identify, understand and rectify any non-compliance with the submission as early in the assessment as possible.

Issues which may affect the licence renewal decision should have been addressed during the review and revision and pre-assessment period. They should be resolved in the submitted Safety case.

On submission of the revised Safety case and licence application, WorkSafe will start assessment using its Safety case assessment process. Any non-compliances or requirements for clarification will be communicated to operators as early as possible in the assessment period.

Pre-assessment findings will also be incorporated into the Assessment findings report. Verification will be done once assessment is sufficiently progressed.

Operators are provided a draft version of the Assessment findings report and are invited to provide comment on the findings, correct errors of fact or provide more evidence.

How the renewal decision is made

The decision is made by WorkSafe's regulation delegate, supported by a Licence panel.

The role of the panel is to provide advice to the delegate on technical matters and the panel usually includes WorkSafe technical and strategic standardisers, and other WorkSafe or external advisers as may be required by the delegate.

The delegate and panel will consider the information in the Assessment findings report. The Assessment findings report includes information from the Oversight history report and the operator’s response to the draft Assessment findings report.

WorkSafe's lead assessor of the revised Safety case attends the panel to answer any questions the delegate may have about the Assessment findings report.

The delegate's licence renewal decision is made in accordance with regulation 452.

A renewed licence is issued for a maximum term of 5 years, and can be accompanied by such conditions as WorkSafe considers necessary.

Maximum terms are extended to operators, unless there are factors to justify a shorter licence term, with or without additional conditions. Such factors may include WorkSafe’s assessment of the overall performance history of an MHF. The unique circumstances of each MHF will be evaluated by the delegate and the panel whenever conditions or a shorter term licence are under consideration.

Compliance checklist

The following MHF regulations relate to Safety case review and revision and MHF licence renewal

More information on key terms is found in other MHF guidance material available from the WorkSafe website and in regulation 5 of the OHS regulations.

References

Frank, W.L. and Whittle, D.K., Revalidating Process Hazard Analyses, CCPS, AIChE, New York, 2001.