Demystifying major hazard facilities

Since the mid 1950s, the industrialisation of WA has kept pace with mineral and energy resource development. To sustain growth, WA continues to build and operate more industrial plants producing dangerous goods and petroleum products necessary for many reasons, including chemical manufacturing, power generation, water treatment and fuels.

A number of devastating incidents at industrial facilities have occurred globally in recent decades, causing significant loss of life, injury and environmental damage, leaving a lasting impact on the local community. To avoid similar incidents in WA, the Department has a dedicated Dangerous Goods and Critical Risks Directorate for the regulation of facilities which store, handle or produce dangerous goods or petroleum.

Historical incidents

Texas City Port, USA (1947): chemical explosion killing 581 people, injuring 5,000 and displacing 2,000.

Flixborough, UK (1974): chemical plant explosion killing 28 people and injuring 36.

Seveso, Italy (1976): toxic chemical release that resulted in evacuation of the town, with 3300 animals found dead and 80,000 animals had to be slaughtered.

Bhopal, India (1984): toxic chemical release killing between 3,787-8,000 people and injuring 558,000.

Toulouse, France (2001): chemical explosion killing 31 people and injuring 2,500.

Texas City, USA (2005): petroleum explosion killing 15 people and injuring 180.

The industrial sites which have the most potential to significantly impact on the community are classified as major hazard facilities (MHF). There are currently 22 MHFs located around WA, across a variety of industries. Examples include oil refineries, hydrocarbon processing plants, precious metal refineries, chemical plants, and large fuel and chemical storage depots.

The Department takes the regulation of MHFs seriously, with dedicated legislation (the Dangerous Goods Safety (Major Hazard Facilities) Regulations 2007) and a team of specialist inspectors dedicated solely to their enforcement. This legislation applies in addition to the occupational safety and health legislation for the facility. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 or the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 if the facility is a mine site.

MHF operators are required to go beyond compliance to standards and codes of practice. Each MHF must thoroughly detail all of the potential major incidents, the risk control measures in place, the systems to mitigate the impact of incidents, and demonstrate they have done all they reasonably can to reduce the risk and submit it to the Department in a safety report. The details in the safety report are thoroughly scrutinised prior to approval.

Importantly, the safety report isn’t a once off document. The MHF operator is required to revise it as the facility changes, after an incident, or if there are improvements in technology. Further to this, at least every five years the safety report must be fully reviewed, along with the risk assessments and re-submitted for approval. In addition the MHF sites are subject to regular audits and inspections by the Department to check for compliance against commitments made in the safety report.

The impacts outside of the MHF boundary fence are also considered. Initially, industrial complexes operated in locations with sufficient separation to residential areas. Over decades, with the growth of urban sprawl, residential developments have encroached on industrial complex buffer zones, creating conflicts between the different land users requiring careful management to ensuresafe coexistence.

Appropriate land use planning ensures the optimal utilisation of land available for both the industry and public, including buffer zones appropriately maintained to minimise the risk posed by industrial facilities to the public.

Even with these systems in place, we need to remain vigilant. Incidents that have occurred globally over last 10 years have served as a stark reminder of what can happen when people become complacent and fail to adequately control the risks posed by dangerous goods. The devastation, loss of life, livelihoods and property in the aftermath of incidents from West Texas, USA; Tianjin, China and Beirut, Lebanon is shocking and the effects are felt for decades after the incident itself.

WA Government agencies responsible for the regulatory oversight of MHF activities or life cycle aspects

Recent incidents

West Texas, USA (2013): chemical explosion killing 15 people and injuring 160-200.

Tianjin Port, China (2015): chemical explosion killing 173 people and injuring 800.

Beirut, Lebanon (2020): chemical explosion killing 210 people, injuring 7500 and displacing 300,000.

Further information

Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety

• Dangerous Goods Safety Act 2004

• Dangerous Goods Safety (Storage and Handling of Non-explosives) Regulations 2007

• Dangerous Goods Safety (Major Hazard Facilities) Regulations 2007

• A dangerous goods site also becoming a major hazard facility

• Preparing a safety report for a major hazard facility

• Applying for approval of a safety report for a major hazard facility

• Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994

• Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984

Department of Fire and Emergency Services

• WA Emergency & Risk Management

• Emergency Situation Declarations

• Safety Information – HAZMAT and other warnings

Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage

• WAPC - Introduction to the planning system