TGCCC Adopted Minutes 11 April 2005
TGCCC
TERMINALS GEELONG COMMUNITY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
ADOPTED MINUTES
MONDAY 11 APRIL 2005
PRESENT Leanne McHugh
Interim Chair
Paul Dakin:
Northern Community Consultative Group
Franceska Dezalak:
Special Monitors of Geelong
Anne Marie McCarthy:
Community Relations Officer, EPA
Marcus Mulcare:
EPA Client Manager
Ralph Taylor:
Community Rep
George Horman:
Managing Director, Terminals Pty Ltd
Jack Moor:
Ports Chemical Action Group
Bill Aitken:
Northern Community Consultative Group
Carlo Fasolino:
State Manager, Terminals Pty Ltd
Gary O'Sullivan:
Operations Manager Corio, Terminals P/L
John Wilson:
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Group
Sue McLean:
Geelong Community for Good Life
Col Edwards:
Friends of Point Lillias and Corio Bay
Jon Apted:
Director Planning, Geelong Grammar School
Barry Foss:
Operations Officer, CFA Geelong
Katie Rafferty:
Minute Taker
Geoff Millard:
HSE Manager, Terminals Pty Ltd
Steve Sodamaco:
City of Greater Geelong
Margrette Lewis:
North Shore Residents Group
Joe Cicero:
Geelong Community for Good Life
Elsie Teer:
Geelong Greens
Peter Tyler:
Northern Community Consultative Group
Sue Kelly-Turner:
Geelong Community Forum
David Henshaw:
Geelong Environment Council
APOLOGIES
Geoff Cooke, Terry Croke, Kas Szakiel (has withdrawn from committee), Catherine Jones,
Dale Jennings, Phil Flaherty and partner
NOT PRESENT
Doreen Rafferty, Alexander Jovcic, Jeff Hibbert, Chris Collins, Joan Lindros, Irena Moor, Angelo Smarelli, Cr Tony Ansett, Bernie Bliss, Bruce Coles, Joyce Bliss, Mr J Arnott, Peter Linaker
ITEM 1. Welcome: Introduction by Chair
Leanne: Introduced herself and stated the wish for the committee to abide by the draft terms of reference and to treat others at the meeting with respect.
ITEM 2. Apologies, confirmation of Draft Agenda.
Katie: Apologies from Geoff Cooke, Kas Szakiel (now withdrawing from the committee), Dale Jennings.
Paul: Terry Croak
Franceska: Catherine Jones
Sue M: Phil Flaherty and partner.
Leanne: Wished to add Business Arising From Last Meeting to the agenda if the group was in agreement.
Sue M: Suggested adding it under Confirmation of Draft Minutes.
Leanne: Items 5 (Update on Butadiene proposal) and 6 (Proposal for increased storage of Monoethylene Glycol) to be presented in reverse order.
Sue M: Suggested deferring item 4 (Committee Terms of Reference) until later in the meeting. Items 6, 5 then 7 (Further advice on Iso-propylene-alcohol spill, slot in Item 4 prior to Item 8 (Major tasks of the Committee).
Leanne: Asked if group happy with this. Moved on to Confirmation of Draft Minutes, asked for any amendments.
George: Page 8 with reference to Tony Ansett arranging the Chair, that his appreciation of the offer of the city to pay was very much tongue in cheek that Terminals would be happy to pay for the Chair. Wished for the addition of (tongue in cheek) to be added after Appreciates offer of city to pay.
Page 9, 5th paragraph, add "eventually" at the end of "will have to shut down".
Bill: Page 6, application put in for two tanks in 1999 not 1994.
Marcus: Spelling of Anne Marie McCarthy (not McCarty).
Joe: Spelling of Angelo Smarelli (not Morelli).
Franceska: Page 2.Had stated several times that the community was not happy about having any chemicals in Geelong and that they will try to stop more toxic chemicals coming to Geelong. Stated this did not appear in the minutes and requested it be added on page 2.
Stated that Maria Ostoja was a guest at the last meeting from Slovenia, that she had a lot of information on environmental matters but was not a committee member, a special guest who will not be coming again.
Page 7 under "Chris: Requests for the committee to be able to see the tanks at some stage" stated that she had asked "Are you being paid by Terminals P/L?" and Robin answered "Yes I am." And that was why he went on to discuss being Chair for the Coode Island CC. Requested this be amended in the minutes.
Page 15 it was Doreen Rafferty who asked about shifts and labour at Terminals, not Franceska. She asked how many people worked there and the answer was 11 and that if Terminals need more they ring them from Melbourne, in an emergency.
George: Confirmed he had said that Terminals bring more people from Melbourne if needed but he was not sure he said it at this point or at some other point in the meeting. Minutes could be amended to show it was said at that point.
Sue M: Page 10 Requested that the full context of what she said be included in the minutes; that she read from the Urbis Planning Report presented to the City of Geelong and pointed out to the meeting that Urbis had bold and underlined this information which she had then directly quoted from Appendix 5 (information on butadiene). Amend minutes to also include the quote "In Victoria most Butadiene is in the local manufacture of styrene-butadiene latex for Geelong's carpet industry."
Leanne: Requested the minutes be moved.
Paul: Moved.
Sue M: Seconded with amendments made.
Leanne: Carried. Business arising from minutes.
Paul: Raised the issue of a representative from this committee to be on the council's Geelong Ports Strategic Land Use Plan Committee.
George: Suggested making a list of the business arising that the committee wants to discuss.
Sue K: Stressed that all business must be heard.
George: Clarified that he meant to prioritise it as Robin hadn't included it in the agenda.
Bill: Referred to the Action Items from the previous minutes.
Leanne: Requested a show of hands to determine how many people had business arising from the previous minutes. Counted 8 hands and determined to start at one end of the tables and work around.
Paul: Discussed two matters: the rep. for the council's committee and the appointment of a deputy chair.
Leanne: Threw it open to the floor.
George: Suggested going through the list of all the business arising.
Leanne: Asked if committee wanted to deal with each as they came up or make a list.
Sue M: Suggested spending 10 [^] 15 minutes going through matters arising.
Paul: Suggested dealing with each as they come up.
Steve: Raised the rep. position and stated that the group can vote on a rep. but he would have to take it back to the council as they nominate positions on the committee.
Paul: Stated he would rather take a proactive approach.
Leanne: Asked for any nominations.
Sue M: Suggested putting it on the agenda for the next meeting.
Paul: Requested it be dealt with right away and put himself forward for nomination.
Franceska: Wasn't sure. Requested clarification.
Paul: Explained.
Elsie: Stated the other groups were looking at the Port with much broader issues outside of butadiene.
Paul: Stated the council's committee needed to know where Terminals was coming from.
Elsie: Stated there are lots of groups looking at all the issues of the Ports.
John: Stated the people here only represent the committee about Terminals and he would support a rep. from here appointed to the council committee.
Franceska: Concerned that a lot of power and information would rest with one person.
Steve: Stated the issue of Ports is about strategic use. Issues regarding Butadiene wouldn't be discussed in that process but this group should have an influence over what happens in the Port.
Franceska: Raised the idea of having two people to represent, to distribute the work.
Elsie: Stressed that there are a lot of community representatives at this meeting and there is a need to have other calling points outside this meeting for community reps to meet and direct what happens.
Paul: Stated the rep would be a line of feed from this committee to the Port plan and back. A two way feed.
John: Stated this meeting is not just about butadiene, that there are other dangerous chemicals at issue. Said there is a danger of this committee holding all the information and that it needs to be spread to the community.
Sue K: Asked Paul to repeat motion.
Paul: Nominate one person to be representative to the council's Strategic Land Use Committee.
Sue K: Suggested the committee votes if that is what all present want to do.
Margrette: Raised the issue that the rep. needs to be part of both committees.
Paul: Suggested including a proxy.
John: Requested proxy be an elected member.
Leanne: Asked committee if they wanted a rep and a proxy to be on the committee.
Show of hands, 8 in favour, and 3 against.
Elsie: Disagreed with one rep from this group.
Sue: Stated the City of Greater Geelong would call for other reps.
Leanne: Motion carried.
Sue M: Suggested to Paul deferring the issue to the next meeting.
Paul: Suggested writing to the city to say Terminals GCCC wants a seat on the Strategic Land Use Plan committee.
Franceska: Asked who would write to the city..
ACTION: CHAIR TO WRITE TO THE CITY OF GREATER GEELONG.
Paul: Suggested deferring his issue of the deputy chair for another month.
George: Raised the issue of the planning permit applied for in 1997. Stated that the submission was for 7 general-purpose storage tanks to store general flammable chemicals. There was an opportunity to store boutique lube oils that never originated. As time went by the other business did not come. In 1999 the permit was going to expire. The same happened with propylene sphere permit and with the butadiene there is a chance that may occur as well. Once you get the permit it doesn't mean it happens.
Sue M: Concerned that when Bill had asked George about it originally that George had denied the application had been put in.
George: Responded that Bill used the 1994 date and that had him stumped. It was a plan that never went ahead.
Bill: In 1999 Terminals put an application in to extend the overdue application and wanted five years. The panel decided it hadn't been put on public display and so that was done until January 2000. The resolution came that council would give a two year application to Terminals with a number of chemicals listed for that site. That went to 2002.
George: Responded that it never went ahead. It lapsed. The original application went in in 1997.
Margrette: Confirmed that it didn't come up before council before 1998.
Carlo: Raised the issue of the uses of butadiene and that the latex market had been one of the queries from the last meeting. Regarding the question about Godfrey Hurst, Carlo said Dow's representative had flown to Singapore that day and maybe Terminals could get him to come to the next meeting. The representative had said Godfrey Hurst was the largest user of latex.
Regarding the butadiene in South Australia, all butadiene produced had been in Victoria for things like rubber for car tyres.
George: Stated that regarding BASF, Brintons is their largest user and that was as much information as he could get.
Jon: Raised the question from the last meeting: to what degree could natural latex be used?
Carlo: Responded saying natural latex is not a consistent enough product and could not be used.
Sue M: Asked where Carlo had got his information.
Carlo: Dow.
George: Mentioned the possibility of getting a Dow person to attend the next meeting if the committee wanted.
Joe: Stated he was not at the last meeting but was confused because the use of butadiene is different in Australia compared to other countries where 13% is used for latex carpets. He requested clarification about why 100% is used for latex in Australia. Asked how Australia can be so different to the rest of the world.
George: Dow and BASF require the butadiene for their latex plants and so are underwriting the project.
Joe: Asked whether tyre manufacturers are sourcing from elsewhere.
Carlo: Qenos was the major source of butadiene rubber for tyres but Qenos shut it's plant due to quality reasons and it couldn't compete with imported butadiene rubber.
Sue M: Stated it was not just because it was cheaper, that there are other reasons.
Carlo: Stated the chemical industry in Australia is finding it hard to compete with imports, as is all manufacturing. Rubber is being imported.
Col: Demanded to know why they have to keep pushing chemicals onto Geelong. If Dow and Huntsmen are in Melbourne, why can't they store it in Melbourne. Also mentioned recycling natural rubber.
Geoff: Stated latex manufacturers are Dow and BASF.
George: Stated the chemical industry in Australia is shrinking as it is part of the manufacturing industry. It is false to say everywhere else the chemical industry is closing. It is harder to manufacture in Victoria [^] people are looking overseas.
Regarding the storage in Melbourne, butadiene needs to be imported. Don't believe there is room in Melbourne to put in a facility. Terminals is geared to store gasses and it doesn't increase the risk profile of our company. Dow and BASF have asked Terminals to store it. There is no other viable option.
Col: Asked if there was no other gas storage facility in Melbourne.
George: Answered no. Stated Terminals don't see it that only Geelong uses chemicals stored in Geelong and also Geelong business use chemicals brought in through Melbourne.
John: Stated that Marstels say they can store it in Melbourne so it is not true to say they can't store it in Melbourne.
George: Stated that Terminals doesn't have the room and that Dow didn't choose Marstel. It is not a cost issue but Terminals has a track record for storage.
Elsie: Asked what Terminal's overall plan is regarding what they will store and where they will be placed. Concerned there will be an odd mix of chemicals depending on who approaches Terminals.
George: Stated Terminals is a stevedore; they take products from ships and move them to other destinations. Terminals don't own the products. Butadiene is a proposal [^] it may be stored for the next 20 years. Terminals is receiving other enquiries about bitumen and lube oil. Facilities like Terminals are needed to enable liquids to be taken off ships. From 1970 to 1985 most of the Geelong Terminal development occurred and since then only 3-4 tanks have been added. If Terminals have the capacity and the room we will use it to grow our business if we can.
Franceska & Elsie: That's what we are scared of.
George: Butadiene is a special project that needs larger spaces between tanks.
Joe: Stated that regarding butadiene movements around the world, the use is on the decline. Asked if the unit (sphere) is dedicated for butadiene?
George: Replied yes, it is purpose built.
Col: Drew the conversation back to the proposed tanks to be built in 1996. Stated the tank built on the eastern edge near the gatehouse was said to be for fresh water but now it is used for something else.
George: Stated in 1998 an application for mono isopropyl amine was submitted. At no stage was it ever said to store water. It was a five-year contract. Now it is used for gas condensate (Crude oil) from the western Victorian gas fields. It goes through that tank now and is eventually transferred to Shell and refined.
Col: Stated he thought it was second hand materials and that George had said it was new materials. He was told it was for fresh water for firefighting and felt it was lie after lie after lie.
George: Responded that it was for mono isopropyl amine and that is what Terminals built it for.
John: Concerned about emotive language without figures to quantify it. For example that users are major or large is very emotive but needs to be accompanied by a set of figures, which define large users for the community. Felt it is implied that Terminals is being set up for chemical storage outside Melbourne. Concerned that every time a cylinder is built it can be used for whatever at a later date.
George: Replied he was not sure what he could say.
Franceska: Stated she felt Coode Island was moving to Geelong.
George: Responded that Terminals are expanding the western side storage facilities and that Coode Island is not shifting to Geelong. The Melbourne terminal will not be closed. Terminals have long term leases.
Franceska: Asked the question: Leases to do what?
George: Replied for land.
Franceska: Reiterated the question: Lease for 20 years for what?
George: Responded to operate the facility as a bulk liquid stevedoring facility.
Margrette: Stated the manufacturing industry is going overseas because labour is cheaper and then we buy products back.
Stated a big concern to our families is that trucks will be located through Lara and is concerned if something goes wrong with the trucks.
Jack: Asked the comparative question: if he bought a cannon, could he shoot the community. Stated latex only made from butadiene at Altona complex. Stated that Terminals put in tanks wherever necessary without notifying the community and he asked what would happen if there was another catastrophe like Coode Island.
Asked regarding the committee's Terms of Reference, what the reason was for the limit of 3-5 people from the community.
George: Responded to the first part of Jack's statement saying that Terminals have to comply with regulations to store butadiene. Terminals have to demonstrate best practice.
Confirmed latex is made in Altona.
Explained that bulk liquid tanks store different classes of chemicals and that if Terminals wants to change classes stored in a tank they have to make an amendment and then go through the same process as when the initial chemical was stored.
Regarding the Terms of Reference that guidelines were only brainstormed by Terminals and the number of people from the community depends on what the committee wants.
Leanne: Drew attention to the time and that committee still discussing business arising.
Sue M: Stated her questions and maybe others were about butadiene.
Leanne: Asked if Sue could submit them in writing for George to answer.
Sue M: Replied no, wanted them answered now.
George: Asked if Sue could ask them during the butadiene presentation.
Sue: Thought that was next.
Leanne: Directed the committee would finish business arising, take a break and come back with the presentation including butadiene.
George: Stated that the Environment Plan was due in September and that he had copies at the meeting as well as an Operations Report and asked to add it to the agenda.
Franceska: Stated that the committee initials TGCCC were the same as for Toll Geelong and indicated this would cause problems. Suggested changing the initials of this committee.
Sue K: Confirmed it is a problem.
Sue M: Suggested changing it to Terminals Geelong Community Liaison Committee.
Leanne: Directed that while taking a break the committee could decide on that.
BREAK
Leanne: Asked for a new name for the committee.
Paul: Suggested Term G.
Jon: Suggested that the strongest part needed to be the C for Community and suggested Terminals GCCC.
Leanne: Put the suggestion to the committee.
Carlo: Wrote it on the board for all to see.
Leanne: Directed committee to vote. 13 in favour, majority declared, new committee name accepted as Terminals GCCC.
Joe: Asked if this committee meeting is open to the public.
Jon: Replied yes.
Joe: Asked if the meeting is advertised in the papers prior.
George: Suggested discussing this at a later meeting.
ITEM 6:Proposal for the storage of Monoethylene Glycol (non hazardous)
Carlo: Began the presentation by requesting that the information on Monoethylene Glycol (MEG) be presented first. No objections so Carlo presented the MEG Proposal to install a new tank near tank 29. (Overhead slides attached as a separate document to the minutes)
Margrette: Asked that regarding the 1350 capacity to be increased to 2000, would Terminals build a smaller tank.
Carlo: Terminals would build a 750 cubic metre tank.
Sue M: Asked if the proposal was for one or two tanks.
Carlo: Replied one.
Sue M: Asked whether safety would be upgraded and how to distinguish between upgrading and reviewing the safety case.
Geoff: Responded MEG is not flammable and comes under normal principles.
Sue M: Asked if it is not necessary to upgrade safety systems.
Geoff: Discussed the steps such as design reviews, hazard operability studies, handover form from engineer to operation site and risk assessment principles.
Sue M: Asked if it required a change to the current safety case.
Joe: Stated that the tank being built could be used for another chemical later. Asked if it was being constructed to a standard for flammable and hazardous chemicals.
Geoff: Answered yes.
Sue M: Queried that MEG is not flammable yet was Terminals building the tank for flammable and hazardous chemicals in the future.
George: Stated that the tank has to be able to withstand fire from other tanks.
Sue: Explained that Joe was questioning whether building this tank was a back door to be able to store hazardous and flammable chemicals in the future.
Geoff: Explained there was a minimum code for combustible or flammable chemicals.
George: Explained the tank was being proposed for a contract with Leading Synthetics and that he didn't foresee what might occur down the track.
Col: Asked how long a fish can survive in MEG.
Carlo: Couldn't say.
Col: Asked Carlo/Terminals to supply an environmental effects report. Asked whether there would be a miscalculation with the MEG to cause it to flow into the creek behind Terminals. Asked what scientific proof Terminals has that MEG wont effect the environment.
Carlo: Replied he didn't have scientific data but that the bund would contain a spill, that chemicals are not allowed into the environment and there is a $240,000 fine from the EPA for breaches.
Sue M: Stated Shell got a lesser fine and it is not true to make those comments.
George: Clarified the EPA can fine Terminals up to $240,000.
Marcus: Stated the maximum fine under EPA court action is $240,000. Managers and directors of companies can be held personally responsible and be fined up to $1,000,000 and jailed.
Sue M: Stated that the amount of the fine depends on which court the company is prosecuted in.
Marcus: Confirmed that in the Magistrates Court, the rules that concern introducing evidence are easier than in County Court but the maximum figures have been quoted. Stated the EPA issues a media release when people are prosecuted and that these are on the EPA's website but generally fines are less than the maximum. Stated that George knows Terminals may be fined up to $240,000 and that he may be held personally liable.
George: Regarding the fish, was unsure whether MEG is a known marine pollutant.
Col: Stated that tanks are not foolproof. Bund systems might be good enough but asked what is lying in the earth. Concerned water from the bund would contain spillage and that Terminals test it then let it go into the bay.
Carlo: Responded that it gets tested every time water has to be discharged.
Col: Requested that the results be published and requested an analysis of MEG.
Carlo: Stated: We don't want to put chemicals into Corio Bay.
Col: Stated Carlo should go down to the Bay and see what is in the mud. Stated that his friends have suffered from the water in the bay.
Jack: Stated MEG not good for fish and asked what would happen if a smoke cloud were to go over Geelong.
Sue M: Asked if a risk assessment had been done.
George: Stated that the smoke from Coode Island affected no one, that no one suffered long-term effects and no one sought compensation from Terminals.
Paul: Advised he knows someone who fought the Coode Island fires and would ask if he could come and talk about it at the next meeting.
Bill: Stated concerned industries can put works approval in which takes away original use of tank 5-6 years ago. Asked Marcus if this changed any situations in a works approval.
Marcus: Responded that if a change is made to a premises the EPA looks at whether the premises has the capacity for the change. The size of the bund is related to the biggest tank in the bund. The drainage system for all tanks is looked at. The whole premises is looked at not just individual tanks.
Bill: Asked what the process was with the EPA and the City of Greater Geelong if the content of the tank would be different to the first approval.
Marcus: Responded that the EPA would look at how the tank was built and if it can handle the new chemical.
Steve: Responded that the change constituted a change of use and would require a separate planning application. There would be a DHS health assessment and a referral process, a three-way discussion of technical aspects such as air, water and noise.
Bill: Concerned that from the original works approval when something is changed a new risk assessment is not conducted.
Ralph: Asked whether the bund is completely impervious and what the EPA does to avoid gross contamination of impervious material.
Carlo: Replied bund has a clay liner. It is not impervious but will hold the leak until taken out. VM spheres have bitumen lining.
Geoff: Responded that the lining must be sufficiently impervious to contain a spill.
Ralph: Asked how contaminated material would be dealt with.
Marcus: Replied the bund would contain the chemical until cleanup so the material wouldn't leach out or contaminate ground water.
George: Offered a presentation on the ground water contamination from Terminal's neighbours (Shell) and how Terminals monitors ground water.
John: Mentioned a recommendation that bunds not be used to store water for more than a week. Clay liner is a slow down mechanism but leaks can potentially go into the water table or the environment. Asked whether the clay liner was replaced periodically.
George: Responded that the clay is there but is a secondary containment. The isopropyl alcohol area was cleaned up and nothing got into the ground water. Records confirm no ground water contamination.
Geoff: Added that the records go back to the 1980's.
George: Stated that old sites in Melbourne have contamination from previous practices but Geelong site does not have that problem. The new tank will have an HDP liner.
John: Asked if Terminals was involved in the clean up of the Shell contamination.
George: Replied he could not answer that quickly or simply, could present on that topic.
Col: Asked if there is a fire how does Terminals control where the smoke goes. Noted that schools were closed in Hastings in the Coode Island fire.
George: Responded that no one was hospitalized or sought compensation after Coode Island fire.
Col: Asked if there were a fire here in Geelong how would Terminals control the smoke.
George: Stated that a different company owned Terminals in the days of the Coode Island fire but since then Terminals have spent a lot of money updating systems to deal with fire. The fire brigade is familiar with Terminals systems.
Explained the nitro gas blanketing that Terminals uses within tanks so that substances cannot burn. Terminals does two things to prevent fires.
Paul: Again mentioned knowing a fire fighter who had fought with the MFB in the Coode Island fire. Suggested getting him to come and talk about what happened and what the plume was like.
Jon: Asked if it was relevant.
Paul: Argued relevance.
ACTION: PAUL TO ASK FIRE FIGHTER TOATTEND THE NEXT MEETING
Bill: Asked whether the CFA have emergency responses.
Barry: Explained every site (e.g. Terminals) has an emergency plan both on site and by notifying the CFA. CFA has had the same or more training than the MFB on handling hazardous chemicals. Corio is the hazardous station for Geelong. Offered to show CFA response in a presentation at the next meeting.
Col: Stated the CFA doesn't have the equipment to handle an emergency.
Barry: Again offered to give a presentation to show how the CFA would handle an emergency.
ACTION: CFA TO DO A PRESENTATION AND CASE SCENARIOS OF HANDLING OF AN EMERGENCY.
Sue M: Asked regarding the safety case upgrade, if Terminals got to store butadiene, what has Terminals done to assess add on risks.
Regarding the CFA's response in a potential worst-case scenario, what changes would they make to handle it.
Carlo: Replied Terminals has done a quantative risk assessment with the whole site.
Sue M: Stated there was not one done in 2001 with the VCM and that this is an add on.
Carlo: Replied that a model is developed and new chemicals are added on to the risk assessment.
Barry: Stated the CFA is a referral organisation for Work Cover and they look at it from a regulatory point of view. CFA looks at the emergency plan, bunding systems, own and site's equipment and changes to training required. The CFA has the same training as the MFB and it is a matter of course to train to a number of systems. The CFA knows Terminals emergency plan and information and has input into the safety case.
John: Stated that Coode Island could have been more serious. Raised concern regarding class 3 gases. Asked if there are enough retardants stored. Stated the desire to push the industry to address the concerns of the community. Stated that Coode Island was a demonstration that this could happen and could have been worse.
Joe: Asked how the CFA budgets for specialized equipment that might be expensive.
Barry: Said the CFA does well out of the government. Stated he could not see there would be too many changes to the equipment needed. The CFA already has fully encapsulated gas suits and the MFB supports the CFA as well. Overall they are better equipped today than two years ago.
Franceska: Requested that the meeting finish at 9.30pm and defer the rest to the next meeting.
Leanne: Asked Franceska and Jack if they were willing to forgo their questions.
Jack: Responded yes.
Franceska: Responded no. Stated that she felt intimidated by the fact that the Monoethylene Glycol proposal has been put to the committee at the second meeting. Stated she was getting upset that Terminals were not one step into the butadiene issue and now this (MEG) had been slipped in.
George: Asked if Franceska would prefer Terminals didn't raise it.
Franceska: Said she appreciated it but is scared.
Carlo: Reminded committee that the MEG presentation was set for the last meeting.
George: Stated the committee had a lot to catch up on.
Leanne: Advised that the EPA reps would be leaving at 9.30pm.
ITEM 5: Update on the Butadiene proposal.
Carlo: Continued with Butadiene presentation with a map of the berths around the Terminals site.
Sue M: Referred to an action item from the last minutes that copies of presentations be made for the meetings.
Carlo: Replied that he thought he had to give it to the minute taker to be included with the minutes. Will bring next time if requested.
Joe: Asked how much butadiene would be in the first fill.
Carlo: Stated the capacity is 3600 cubic metres which is 2000 tonnes with a .6 to .7 density. The sphere would be run down to empty before the next ship came in.
Col: Pointed out there is 1000m of line and asked how this would be cleared.
George: Detailed the process of hot gassing from the ship to clear liquid from the line then depressurization through the combustor.
Sue M: Indicated to Carlo that he had presented the same information at the EPA works approval process. Dissatisfied that there was not enough detail and it was too vague.
Carlo: Stated he had not completed a detailed design because Terminals have not got approval yet.
Sue: Asked Terminals how they expect to reassure the community by just saying they are using best practice. Went on to mention the spill and to stress that Terminals have not provided the details the community is concerned about.
George: Stated that what happened with the spill can't happen with the sphere because of the technology.
Sue M: Stressed that she wanted the detail now rather than when the community doesn't have a say. Annoyed that the community can't have their questions answered at appropriate times.
George: Stated a preliminary design had been put up that the EPA had to assess. Stated that a detailed design of the facility takes ages but would be presented to this committee and he would be happy to involve the members in the design reviews.
Marcus: Stated the works approval process would consider the proceedings of the recent conference, that community concerns would be considered in the works approval and would be addressed as part of the approval.
Ralph: Asked what Terminals was expecting to achieve from the presentation. Were they after a response or were they simply passing out information.
Carlo: Responded that the aim was to put out information and that he had used his best guess about what people would be interested in.
George: Stressed this was preliminary information and if it was not good enough to tell them and they would talk through what the community wants and try to answer every question.
Sue: Disagreed that Terminals had attempted to answer every question. Questions had been shut down at the conference. The doctor was put in by Terminals and the community was not able to ask questions.
Ralph: Asked how Terminals would present information so the committee could contribute towards the design. Stated that if Terminals doesn't give information they can't expect the community to be satisfied and be in a position to be able to comment.
George: Requested that the presentation be finished first as he wished to go on to talk about the information Dr Barton presented at the conference.
Sue M: Strongly objected to evidence from Terminals expert being given by George, that it should come from Dr Barton in person. Again objected to information being presented to the committee and stressed it should come either from the expert or in a technically appropriate form.
Geoff: Stated he had the doctor's paper with him and could talk in summary about what the doctor had said or it could be presented.
Sue M: Demanded that in terms of future presentations, the full report must be presented rather than isolated excerpts. Asks chair to make a ruling that information from experts be presented as a full report and not as isolated excerpts.
Sue K: Seconded that and further requested that information be presented prior to the meeting.
Jack: Stated he would be happier with a doctor who is not biased.
Sue M: Angered by the principle of the way information is presented.
George: Declared this a cynical attempt to gag Terminals. Stated he was quite happy to get Dr Barton to present the information. Told Sue she could not tell Terminals what they could or could not present.
Sue: Declared that the cynical attempt to gag was Terminals preventing the community from having a say.
Leanne: Stated it was common practice, best practice that when wanting weight behind what is being presented (by giving information from an expert) that it be provided prior to the presentation. That papers be made available to the committee prior.
George: Stressed he was happy to provide it to the committee, by Geoff or Dr Barton. Said it could go out with the minutes.
Leanne: Asked for the motion to be moved.
Bill: Moved.
Sue K: Seconded.
Ralph: Unclear about what is being moved.
Leanne: Clarified what had been moved by stating that: The committee agree that when presentations rely on expert advice that the relevant documentation be provided within 7 days of the presentation.
Leanne: Carried.
Steve: Suggested future meetings need an achievable agenda.
Paul: Suggested deferring items 4,8 and 9 until the next meeting along with the Operations Report.
George: Suggested including the Operations Report with the minutes.
Leanne: Suggested deferring Item 12 (Content of the first media release) as well.
Paul: Noted the June meeting is on a public holiday.
Leanne: Suggested Terms of Reference need to be sorted out first at the next meeting to establish the guidelines for the committee.
Issues of the next meeting's agenda discussed.
Ralph: Suggested Carlo be able to finish his presentation.
Leanne: Agreed as a courtesy, committee should let Carlo finish.
Carlo: Continued with presentation.
Sue M: Asked about pressure alarms on tanks.
Carlo: Explained pressure alarms would be fitted to warn of both high and low pressures.
Joe: Asked if there are other insulated spheres at any of Terminals other four sites.
Carlo: Stated that Terminals Sydney site stored gasses in cryogenic storage, i.e. they don't have a pressure capacity, in that case the cooling systems are vital whereas the Geelong proposal was a full pressure sphere.
George: Explained the pipe work to and from the ship was new and dedicated to Butadiene.
Jack: Stated there was no control over the pumps on the ships.
Gary: Explained that the ships pumps are pre set with maximum operating pressures.
George: Stated that the communication with the ship was by mobile phone and radio. Gas ships can be shut down by the operators at the berth with a remote control connected to the ship.
Joe: Asked if Dow and BASF could source butadiene from wherever they wanted.
George: Replied yes gas ships must have safety systems checked and if the ship is not suitable Terminals wont discharge it.
Gary: Stated most gas ships, even 20 years old are in better condition than other chemical ships.
Franceska: Asked whether the 15metre combustor is higher than Shell's. Queried where the combustor would be located.
Gary: Replied not higher than Shell's, would be located 40m back from the road.
Carlo: Showed on the layout where it would be located. Spheres 22m high.
Franceska: Asked if the combustor would be radiating heat.
Gary: Replied no.
Carlo: Explained that the combustor is lined.
Steve: Asked what the typical emissions would be and what monitoring is in place.
Carlo: Explained 99.6% efficiency in Melbourne. Licensed discharge point by EPA.
George: Avoids incomplete combustion. Has a continuous monitoring arrangement.
Bill: Queried the pilot in the combustor.
Carlo: Explained it has a cold start: no pilot.
Bill: Asked if it would be used more than 3 times per year.
Fran: Asked if the combustor would have other toxic chemicals in it.
George: Answered no, only butadiene.
Jack: Queried where the air for the combustor was drawn from.
Carlo: Showed on the diagram.
Jack: Pointed out you would have to be careful there was no gas in the air.
Gary: Stressed gas detectors would pick that up.
George: Explained zonings and that emission sources have to be outside those zones.
Gary: Explained gas detectors would shut the plant down.
Jack: Stressed that gas clouds can travel in funny ways, a long way. Noted that if Terminals got gas in their combustor they would have some fun.
George: Explained what would happen if it did get into the combustor. It would not cause spheres or pipe works to blow up. It would damage the combustor and flash back to Shell or where the gas came from.
Carlo: Finished presentation. Notes to be attached as part of minutes.
Sue: Stated the committee was expecting a response from Worksafe regarding the spill.
George: Asked to make note in the minutes for Worksafe to present something on the spill.
ACTION: GEORGE TO FOLLOW UP WORKSAFE PRESENTATION
ITEM 7:Further advice on Iso-propylene-alcohol spill.
Geoff: Prior to presenting the Incident Investigation Geoff gave a run down on his qualifications to report on the incident. Geoff has a Chemical Engineering Degree, a Masters in Engineering Science in Industrial Safety, has 30 years experience in the chemical industry with 15 of those with Terminals in his current role as HSE Manager.
Made presentation to committee (notes attached separately to minutes)
Sue M: Asked what the process is once recommendations have been made, for example with the alarms.
Geoff: Explained that high-level alarms would be fitted in the next two to three months.
George: Stated that they have to be convinced measures will be of benefit. If measures were imperative it would be done more quickly otherwise it would be budgeted for as very expensive.
Geoff: Stressed the incident had not been a pleasant experience for Terminals and that they consider it to be extremely serious.
Col: Pointed out that as Geoff was a safety officer and asked if he was concerned that an illegal process had been carried out by not labeling the bottle containing the MEG on the desk in front of him. Not best practice.
Geoff: Agreed it was totally inadequate.
Bill: Mentioned the pipe volume coming from the ship to the tank and that there was no mention of the volume in the pipe.
Geoff: Explained how it is pushed through to the tank from the ship.
Gary: Explained the calculations made on the ship's volume.
Barry: Explained the application of foam to the spill.
Joe: Asked if a Collex truck picked up the spill.
Gary: Said it was a Paramount (specialized services) truck.
Sue M: Asked if the CFA and Teminals calculations about how much was spilled were estimates.
Geoff: Replied yes.
Leanne: Closed the meeting at 10.35 pm.
NEXT MEETING: 9th May at Centenary Hall Supper Room, Cox Rd Norlane at 6:00 for 6:30pm.