Manufacturing chemicals is inherently hazardous. Process plants are characterised by vessels operating under pressure, high temperatures, moving machinery, dangerous electrical circuits, explosive mixtures and toxic substances.
It is therefore not surprising that out of necessity the process industry has developed some sophisticated and well-established safety practices. These safety practices are designed to reduce both the probability of accidents and their consequences. It is also not surprising that companies that have the highest risks (such as petrochemical or explosives companies) are those whose safety practices are the most rigorous.
However, despite these mature and proven methods for reducing accidents, disasters can and do still happen. These accidents can lead to tragic injury or loss of life, irreparable environmental damage and loss of corporate and industry credibility. Companies that are not being seen to operate responsibly are increasingly facing the wrath of government, organised labour and the communities in which they operate.
There is reason to believe that South African companies (particularly those that operate globally) are equal to their overseas counterparts in achieving world-class safety processes. However, it is fair to state that pressure from organised labour, communities and other stakeholders has increased public awareness of safety, health and environmental matters in the South African context, and that penalties for non-compliance with legislation are increasing.
In SA, hazardous operations are governed by a number of Acts including the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1993, the Disaster Management Act of 2002 and the Mine Health and Safety Act of 1996. There are also a number of associated regulations including the General Safety Regulations, Hazardous Chemical Substances Regulations and Hazardous Biological Agents Regulations.
Most companies will agree that notwithstanding the legal imperative, it simply makes good business sense to operate in a manner that is responsible and sustainable. The King II report on Corporate Governance in 2002 built the concept of "Integrated Sustainability Reporting" through which safety, health and environment issues are integrated into policies and procedures for sustainable operations.
The OHS Act in SA has always been clear that the ultimate responsibility for safe operations rests with the CEO. Even if another person is designated under section 16.2 of the Act, ultimate liability rests with the CEO. The CEO can certainly make a major difference; for example their ability to significantly influence culture in the organisation will readily find its way into a culture of safe and responsible operations. However, the CEO is frequently in an unenviable position because despite all reasonable efforts, accidents can and do happen. Ultimately, the CEO depends on good people and good systems to avoid accidents and environmental incidents.
Higher probability of accidents
Most companies will agree that notwithstanding the legal imperative, it simply makes good business sense to operate in a manner that is responsible and sustainable.
Gavin Halse, MD, ApplyIT
In process manufacturing companies, as competition increases and profit margins decrease, employees and contractors are under increasing pressure to perform the same tasks with fewer resources. It takes simple reasoning to recognise that there is a point where the increased operating risk associated with tighter production deadlines and stretched resources become untenable and the probability of accidents or disasters is increased.
The question I pose is: what role can IT play in giving the CEO and business management assurance that they are doing "everything reasonably practical" to ensure safe and sustainable operations?
Many of the best practices to ensure safe and responsible operations follow straightforward principles and management practices that are universal across industries and companies. Innovative use of technology can automate these processes in a manner which, importantly, does not cause abdication of responsibility from people to the system. Properly designed IT systems can reduce the possibility of human error by ensuring that previous learning, risks and hazards are identified and analysed ahead of any work being undertaken on a chemical plant.
A good example of this is a computer-assisted, intelligent "permit to work", which governs maintenance work. An intelligent permit ensures that the employees and contractors are made aware of hazards and prior learning points and that all necessary isolations are in place and protective equipment is used for the work to be performed.
This combination of best safety practices and innovative IT inherent in an intelligent permit-to-work has succeeded in a number of South African companies to improve the overall safety in their plants. And not surprisingly it is the CEO and management of these operations that are the most supportive of such technology.
There surely exists an opportunity to take the best safety practices from those who have the track record, and use IT to replicate and deploy these practices in industries that are less prepared. Technology can play a vital role here, just in the way that many best financial and business processes were standardised through a combination of statutory and best practices embedded in ERP technology. There is no doubt that well applied IT can assist business management in achieving safe and responsible plant operations. And this can only be good for the industry, and the country as a whole.
Share