TERP – The Business Case Mark Williams Heavy Motor Risk Management Consultant / OAMPS Ltd

TERP – Who’s involved? Who’s effected? Police & Emergency Services Worksafe EPA Unions Clean Up Croierg ISS Other Emergency Incident C o R Consigner of DG’s Legals & Courts Logistics Transport Operator INSURERS Oamps Govt. Community Associations NBTA Croierg PACIA Consignee of DG’s

Why should we have training for TERP’s The Philosophy: It is not a requirement under the ADG 7 to be accredited to a program - but must have a TERP process within the business Perception that DG industry has not universally TERP compliance Fire authorities rely on working relationships – they don’t have all the capabilities to resolve all incidents Incident controllers need qualified workers and safe equipment under their control National approach needed for training and resources DG Transport industry is being `proactive` in seeking conformity and a National protocol to train and certify people to attend and deal with emergency incidents involving all classes of dangerous goods

TERPS - THE BACKGROUND General DG community concern about stakeholders being to be able to advise and assist at an DG emergency situation. NSW Fire Brigade with CROIERG established a training course for Class 3 operators for emergency response. CROIERG consulted TISC who developed a training program now nationally recognised for Class 3 Emergency Response training. NBTA has been working with AFAC and others and want the course to cover all DG Classes. AFAC have agreed that this is a good idea and “endorse” the work done by TISC for Class 3 products. TISC prepared to include other DG categories into the programs, (some re-write needed).

TERPS – Where are we at ? Terps questionnaire - survey work completed. - 24 questions covering compliance, training & operators understanding of their DG obligations Survey conducted through NBTA, PACIA, ACAPMA & OAMPS members 60 respondents covering small, medium & large operators

TERPS – Survey Results (1) 75% know that they need a documented TERP and training is required to meet the regulations 23% don’t 93% know that the equipment must be maintained 80% know that the equipment is being maintained, - 20% don’t know or don’t check Responsible person for TERP system in the business: - Divisional Manager / Supervisor 66%, Compliance Officer 34% - CoR extends well beyond these people

TERPS – Survey Results (2) Responsibilities & Training What level is the TERP program at in the business: - Fully developed 49% - Partially or desk top only 51% Practical training exercises 62% (Yes) - 38% (No or don’t know) At what level is that training at: - Significant 30% - Limited or none 70% Who conducts the training: - RTO & Others 36% - Internal Trainer 57% - No Training 7% How often is the training updated - Regularly 35% - Annually or induction only 65%

TERPS – Survey Results (3) Training Are reviews conducted on effectiveness of TERP training - Regular 31%, Irregular or never 69%, Are you aware of Industry specific TERP training programs - Aware or Fully Aware 45% , Not aware 55%, Is the TERP training program “accredited” or “not accredited” - Accredited 24%, Not Accredited / Don’t know 76% Are your staff trained to assist at an emergency situation - Yes 73%, No or Don’t Know 27% Are your staff trained in the safe discharge from vessel to vessel, to a level acceptable to the relevant authority - Yes 71%, No or Don’t No 29%

Survey Conclusions Many Operators do not know what their obligations are with regard to TERP requirements – some conflicting & confusing results 23% do not have a documented TERP 24% believe that their TERP training is “accredited” 49% believe that their system is fully developed 55% are not aware of any “specific” TERP training 70% have little or no training in TERP requirements THERE IS CONSIDERABLE ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT

TERPS - The Business Case

IS TERP A COMMERCIAL PROPOSITION ? Est. 3000 Articulated trucks that carry bulk fuel / chemicals Est. 10000 to 12000 tankers (tanks) that carry Bulk DG’s. Fuel (Class 3 inc diesel) = (9000) Chemicals (All other classes) Tankers / ISO’s (3000) Scope of TERP training is likely to be 200 to 300 people only from DG Transport Companies - $ carved up between RTO’s, TISC, Administration & future course developments, not a big commercial venture / opportunity on its own - perhaps further scope with Manufacturers, Distributors, Emergency Services & others to become “accredited”

Class 3 is easy Chemical Transport is more complicated than Class 3 Many different DG classes to consider in the training modules Classes 8 & 6.1 require very specialized expertise Classes 2.1 & 2.3 (gases) require a different set of measures again Class 9 (Environmentally Hazardous) growing in number and have particular requirements Suggestion from Matthew Quinn (QHSE Manager) FBT Transwest “ a standard card that covers incident response protocols, risk management, and injury/evacuation protocols, which can be drilled down into specific modules covering the various DG classes” The idea of a card carried by “trained & accredited” personal is the preferred method of identification and of the level of expertise at an emergency incident site.

? WHO, WHAT, HOW? TISC ADMINISTRATION & CONTROL TERP Competency Selected RTO’s Selected RTO’s Upgrades ? TRAINERS, internal & external ASSOCIATIONS CROIERG PACIA NBTA ? ADMINISTRATION & CONTROL DG Operators Emergency Response ISS / Others ACCREDITATION TERP Competency CARD Auditing

Where to from here ? Not a strong Business Case Control and development of the system is unclear, - who should / who will administer ? “Associations” should not take responsibility Unlikely that Govt. or Emergency Services would take responsibility TISC – probably outside their scope & charter So where does it fit & who will put their hand up ! Options (possible): - One (1) Specialist DG RTO (add to existing business model) - ISS Emergency Response (or a similar ES provider) - AIP (Australian Institute Petroleum) (as an extension of Class 3)

Thank you for listening. Mark Williams Motor Risk Services OAMPS Ltd.