Dr LIM - 1996-08-20
At the weekend, an acid spill occurred at Fort Hill Wharf. What danger was there from the sulphuric acid spill that occurred at the wharf, and what action was taken to minimise that danger? I recall from my chemistry days at university that it is safe to add acid to water but not water to acid.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thank the honourable member for his question. It gives me the opportunity to counter some of the irresponsible statements that have been made in relation to the handling of dangerous goods by Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) in that transfer, and to commend the company publicly for its efforts in handling this type of industrial accident.
Operators from ERA were filling a 2.8 ML storage tank. There appears to have been an underestimation of the quantity of acid already in the storage tank, resulting in the excess overflowing. The storage tank is surrounded by a bund to contain liquid in the event of a spill. This is required by law. The spill was contained completely within the bund, and the liquid was channelled from the bund to a containment pit. No acid escaped from the pit. No acid entered the harbour. The tank is located approximately 20 m from the sea. The acid was neutralised immediately by the addition of potash and, as has been reported, the Fire and Emergency Services attended the spill immediately it was reported. They are the lead authority to combat incidents of this sort.
The shipment was 4750 t of sulphuric acid and I am advised that the pumping rate was a massive 3.6 ML per hour. The pumping equipment met all Australian standards. The safety device that is fitted to the tank, to give warning of an overflow, appears to have failed. When the overflow was observed, the pumping was ceased immediately. When we consider the rate of pumping, the fact that the spillage was only 500 L to 1000 L gives a clear indication of the level of vigilance that was exercised during that operation. As for the NT News claim that a toxic vapour cloud would have developed if the acid had come into contact with the water, clearly there was little or no chance of the fluid coming in contact with the water. However, had that occurred, while sulphuric acid is corrosive if it comes into contact with the skin, toxic fumes would not have been released if it had flowed into the sea.
I say again, I think that the operations and the vigilance of ERA throughout the operation deserve our commendation.
Page 1511
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thank the honourable member for his question. It gives me the opportunity to counter some of the irresponsible statements that have been made in relation to the handling of dangerous goods by Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) in that transfer, and to commend the company publicly for its efforts in handling this type of industrial accident.
Operators from ERA were filling a 2.8 ML storage tank. There appears to have been an underestimation of the quantity of acid already in the storage tank, resulting in the excess overflowing. The storage tank is surrounded by a bund to contain liquid in the event of a spill. This is required by law. The spill was contained completely within the bund, and the liquid was channelled from the bund to a containment pit. No acid escaped from the pit. No acid entered the harbour. The tank is located approximately 20 m from the sea. The acid was neutralised immediately by the addition of potash and, as has been reported, the Fire and Emergency Services attended the spill immediately it was reported. They are the lead authority to combat incidents of this sort.
The shipment was 4750 t of sulphuric acid and I am advised that the pumping rate was a massive 3.6 ML per hour. The pumping equipment met all Australian standards. The safety device that is fitted to the tank, to give warning of an overflow, appears to have failed. When the overflow was observed, the pumping was ceased immediately. When we consider the rate of pumping, the fact that the spillage was only 500 L to 1000 L gives a clear indication of the level of vigilance that was exercised during that operation. As for the NT News claim that a toxic vapour cloud would have developed if the acid had come into contact with the water, clearly there was little or no chance of the fluid coming in contact with the water. However, had that occurred, while sulphuric acid is corrosive if it comes into contact with the skin, toxic fumes would not have been released if it had flowed into the sea.
I say again, I think that the operations and the vigilance of ERA throughout the operation deserve our commendation.
Page 1511
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016