27/11/17 27/11/17

Update on Victoria’s Energy Safety Framework Review

From R2A’s reading of the interim report, the primary recommendation is that there should be a single piece of energy safety legislation that covers electricity, gas and pipelines, all to be administered by a single agency, Energy Safe Victoria.Pleasingly, from R2A’s perspective, the decision making criteria for safety should be consistent with that of the 2004 OHS act, that is, a precautionary approach that uses the SFAIRP principle rather than an ALARP principle using target levels of risk.In coming to this view Dr Grimes comments favourably on the R2A understanding of issues involved. He notes that R2A in its submission to the Review expressed a view that there needs to be clarity and consistency around the question of what constitutes “ reasonably practicable ” and, in addition, the language that is adopted to express the objective of the safety framework.

Nevertheless, the methodological distinction between the target risk and a precaution based approaches, and the other important practical implications identified by R2A, are highly relevant to the Review’s consideration and have helped inform its assessment of leading practice. (footnote on page 72)

Dr Grimes concludes that:

The Review is persuaded by the arguments that a pure target risk approach, while having some theoretical elegance, is less robust in practice than a precaution - based approach…(page 73) … the Review is proposing a draft recommendation that this definition be formally adopted for electricity and gas network safety.

The R2A Board considers the adoption of the precaution based approach to be an outstanding outcome and congratulates Dr Grimes on his acuity.The cutoff date for comment on the interim report of the Review of Victoria’s Electricity and Gas Network Safety Framework is the 27^th November.

16/5/17 16/5/17

Review of Victoria's Electricity and Gas Network Safety Framework

On 19 January 2017, the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change announced an independent review of Victoria’s Electricity Network Safety Framework, to be chaired by Dr Paul Grimes. On 5 May 2017, the Minister announced an expansion to the review's terms of reference to include Victoria’s gas network safety framework.It has been more than a decade since the current safety framework has been in place and it is timely to review the existing arrangements to ensure they adequately reflect the needs of the community in an increasingly complex environment.The review will include extensive consultation with industry and the community to inform the development of a final report and recommendations.Consistent with the expanded terms of reference, the Review of Victoria’s Electricity and Gas Network Safety Framework examines the safety framework applicable to the electricity and gas networks in Victoria and assesses its effectiveness in achieving desired safety outcomes. It will review the design and adequacy of the safety regulatory obligations, incentives and other arrangements governing the safety of Victoria’s electricity and gas networks.The existing Secretariat established within the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning to support the independent reviewer, Dr Paul Grimes, has been additionally resourced.Submissions for the Issues Paper on the review of Victoria’s electricity network safety framework closed on Friday 28 April. Along with the following organisations, R2A welcomed the opportunity to respond to the independent review.

Our response focuses on the following particular aspects of the review:

The objectives of the safety framework in Victoria and an assessment of its effectiveness in achieving safety outcomes.
The design and adequacy of the safety regulatory obligations (including safety cases and the Electricity Safety Management Scheme), incentives and other arrangements governing energy network businesses and any opportunities for improvement.

R2A’s overall perception is that electrical networks in Australia and New Zealand operate in an evolving and interesting regulatory space with overlapping financial, safety and security of supply issues. There is also a plethora of sometimes contradictory standards. Wending a path that simultaneously satisfies all of the competing issues is complex and fraught with methodological superstition. This undoubtedly creates substantial unnecessary expense and waste.From the viewpoint of an effective safety framework, the key issues we believe are causing the greatest angst at the moment are as follows:

Competition v Cooperation PolicyThe mantra of competition policy is being considered in isolation from the rest of the competing requirements for the safe (and reliable) delivery of electrical energy. This includes both security of supply and safety generally, and especially in Victoria major bushfires started by the electricity network. For example, high reliability requires redundancy whereas commercial efficiency is typically achieved by running without headroom. The current manifestation of economic competition policy does not deal effectively with disaster scenarios (where cooperation is essential) especially for low likelihood, high consequence events, such as black or ash bushfire days which occur about once every 25 years in Victoria.
Risk Management Standard v Occupational Health and Safety LegislationThe obligations of Victoria’s Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) legislation conflict with the Risk Management Standard (ISO31000) which most corporates and governments mandate. This is creating very serious confusion, particularly with the understanding of economic regulators.The risk management standard tries to manage ‘risk’ to ‘acceptable’ levels, whereas the 2004 Victorian OHS Act (and now model WHS legislation) ensures that everyone is entitled to the same minimum level of protection (but not necessarily the same level of risk).
Network Standards with Internal ContradictionsStandards with internal contradictions like AS 5577:2013 – Electrical network safety management systems and the EG(0) Power System Earthing Guide create enormous tensions. Specifically, they advocate using target risk criteria such as ALARP, below which risks are deemed ‘tolerable’ and do not require further action, a position in conflict with the health and safety legislation passed by all Australian parliaments and decisions of the High Court of Australia.

These key points are expanded in the body of the submission together with a possible way forward. See the full response here.

24/10/14 24/10/14

Implications of the model WHS legislation post the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program

For instance, a bane of electrical regulators is the home handyman working in a roof space and fiddling with the 240V conductors. The deaths arising from the home insulation Royal Commission also spring to mind.

The consequences of the WHS legislation on electrical safety is quite startling, but not yet realised. The legislation requires that risks to health and safety should be eliminated, so far as is reasonably practicable.For instance, a bane of electrical regulators is the home handyman working in a roof space and fiddling with the 240V conductors. The deaths arising from the home insulation Royal Commission also spring to mind.Many of us have been replacing our lights with energy efficient 12 V LEDs. And whilst it may be unreasonable to retrospectively replace the 240V wiring in the roof spaces with extra low voltage (ELV) conductors for existing structures, it is obviously quite achievable for a new dwelling. If all the wiring is a 12 or 24 V, the possibility of being electrocuted in a roof space is pretty much eliminated, which is the whole point of the legislation.So in the event of a death that would have been prevented with ELV wiring in a dwelling constructed after commencement of the model WHS act, the public prosecutor presumably has a duty to prosecute any officer of a PCBU (person conducting a business or undertaking) that facilitated the fatal 240V installation. This would include officers of firms of builders, engineers, electricians, architects and building surveyors at the very least.

19/8/14 19/8/14

WHS Disproportionality

Amongst other concerns, this is problematic for those involved in SIL allocation under IEC 61508. The usual comment is; how else can it be done? Actually, it’s quite straight forward.

The precautionary approach required by the model WHS act forbids, on pain of criminal imprisonment, the exclusive use of target levels of risk (tolerable or acceptable) as a method of establishing whether a situation or circumstance is safe.Amongst other concerns, this is problematic for those involved in SIL allocation under IEC 61508. The usual comment is; how else can it be done? Actually, it’s quite straight forward. Disproportionality in safety results from the economist’s law of diminishing returns (the pain is not worth the gain) for precautionary effort based on the significance of the risk vs the effort required to reduce it.For example, if an initial precaution reduces the risk by 99%, the next precaution can only address the remaining 1% of the risk and so on. This means that in terms of the balance of the significance of the risk vs the effort required to reduce it, the scales thump to the ‘lets not do anymore’ side very quickly for effective precautions. It is always hard to define this point in advance because it does depend on the actual circumstances of the issue of concern. But when considering the cost effectiveness of precautions in the context of all those available (as well as those already in place), it is generally quite obvious where to draw the line.This has always been R2A’s understanding of the meaning of disproportionality as used in case law and now the model WHS act.