WorkSafe

Geoff Cooke

EPA

Dirk Dukker (EPA Environment Protection Officer)

Tim Turnbull (Acting Manager)

John Williamson (Snr Manager Regional Services)

Geelong Community for Good Life

Sue McLean

Joe Cicero

Geelong Community Forum

Sue Kelly-Turner

Geelong Environment Council

David Henshaw

Geelong Grammar School

Jon Apted (Director of Planning)

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Group

John Wilson

Northern Community Consultative Group

Paul Dakin

Bill Aitken

Special Monitors of Geelong

Franceska Dezalak

Catherine Jones

Terminals Pty Ltd

George Horman (Managing Director)

Carlo Fasolino (State Manager)

Gary O'Sullivan (Operations Manager, Corio)

Geoff Millard (HSE Manager)

Community Representative

Ralph Taylor

Ports Chemical Action Group

Peter Linaker

Gordon Alderson

Friends of Point Lillias and Corio Bay

Col Edwards

CFA Geelong

Bob Barry, Bob Smith

North Shore Residents Group

Margrette Lewis

Item 1

Welcome by Chair

Robin

Welcomed committee and introduced EPA reps Tim Turnbull and John Williamson present in place of Alex Jovcic who was on leave.

Item 2

Apologies, confirmation of Draft Agenda

Apologies given from Margrette Lewis, Col Edwards and the CFA reps Bob Barry and Bob Smith.

Item 3

Business Arising from Minutes

Robin/

Committee

Review the Action Summary Sheet to determine status of items not yet checked off. The status of the items was as follows:

1/3 - SLUP Committee meeting had passed so item ticked off.

1/4 - EPA Works Approval Decision already reached, so item ticked off.

Agenda

1/9 - Environment Report provided but still on agenda as hadn't yet been discussed. Ticked off.

Agenda

2/2 - Paul Dakin re firefighter, deferred until September as too much on agenda.

ACTION/

Agenda

2/4 - CFA presentation: Robin to set August September date for presentation (depending on the size of the agenda) and inform CFA.

Agenda

3/2 - BASF to attend meeting - Barry Seaton from Dow had been in telephone and email contact with Robin and requested presenting the information he obtained in person to the committee. Committee agreed he should do so at the August meeting.

3/5 - Re upper limit used in the modelling, Geoff Millard read from an email from Stephen Lewis, Principal Consultant, Qest Consulting:

"In terms of the butadiene dispersion model there are no limits that apply to the case modelled. The model involved failure of the largest nozzle (in our case we modelled 150% of that release rate) dumping into the bund. The size of the release does not exceed the capacity of the model. The dispersion is controlled by the area of the bund and again the model is suitable. The quantity in the tank is not important to this dispersion (only the area of the bund). The quantity in the tank only affects the duration of the gas release.

For the BLEVE we modelled several scenarios including the full case. The model is unlikely to hold up for the volume in this tank. It is likely that beyond 300 tonnes of inventory that it will be increasingly difficult to get sufficient oxygen into the gas cloud for full combustion. It will still all burn but at an increasing height as the unburnt gas is convected upwards. At the increasing height the heat flux seen by the person will decrease."

ACTION/

Agenda

3/6 Qest available and willing to present and Geoff Millard to request Qest present at the August meeting.

3/8 References were provided by Dr Barton and distributed at the last meeting (not everyone got one). Committee members to advise Robin if anything arises from these. Re QRA, Qest to provide information on what Dr Barton said when they present at the August meeting.

ACTION

3/10 Gary attempted to present information on typical calculations for tank filling on the overhead and whiteboard but Sue Kelly Turner suggested Gary provide a hard copy with a summary.

George

Showed on white board how there are no emissions from the dipping process using the valve system.

Bill

Asked what amount is in the vacuum turbulence when filling.

George

Stated there is no turbulence once the volume gets over about one metre. Some swirling occurs but the effect is miniscule (within 1mm after dipping). Stated the dip for customs is done the next day by an independent person. He stated there is 1.5m from the safe dip level to overflow.

Paul

4/1 Paul provided the website from where he had previously quoted as www.aol.com.

ACTION/

Agenda

4/2 Robin to schedule Barry Seaton for the August meeting.

4/3

4/4 Toll Ports

George

Said he, Gary and Carlo had been to see Lindsay Ward at Toll Ports and he agreed to come and address the committee on a particular issue if asked.

Sue KT

Read from Kas's email, which stated Toll would come to the meeting regarding specific issues if asked.

Robin

Stated he had written to Toll with a specific issue and they had not come to the meeting.

Sue Mc

Suggested writing to Toll with a specific issue.

Robin

ACTION

4/5 - Suggested writing to them asking them to share their experience as a land manager for the next or September meeting.

Dirk

Handed out the EPA responses to Action Items.

4/6 [^] 20B Conference reports had been sent to all names listed on 22.6.05

Bill

Stated reports weren't received until the day planning appeal submissions closed on 7.6.05.

Dirk

4/7 [^] Notice of the application was advertised in the Public Notices section of the Herald Sun on 2.2.05, the Geelong Advertiser on 2.2.05, the Geelong Independent on 4.2.05 and the Geelong News on 8.2.05. An EPA media release dated 9.2.05 was issued regarding EPA's receipt of the works approval application and inviting public comment.

Carlo

4/8 [^] Requested amendment to read Section 22 Notices (not 20B document) and stated that they were sent out after the minutes were mailed out.

Sue Mc

Raised the issue of the Terminals notification of Planning Permit sent out to all people living within a 2km radius of Terminals, stating that the notice was in unclear language and difficult to understand. While it was a standard VCAT form and technically legally correct it was not helpful to inform the community. Requested a covering letter accompany such notices in the future.

George

Agreed with Sue's comments and would have liked to put it in a more user-friendly format but was concerned Terminals may be legally compromised.

Jon

Stated that only three copies were received at Geelong Grammar School addressed to the ratepayer and yet there were a great many families living there.

George

Stated the list had been supplied by the City of Greater Geelong (COGG). The court stated the city was to provide addresses for all households living within 2km of the Terminals site. He said it was a COGG issue.

Jon

Stated he was not having a go but thought it would be helpful if a copy came to him and he could dispense it.

Carlo

Stated that for future planning applications it was up to council to send them out.

George

Stated the council database was not up to scratch.

John W

Stated council should be provided with names from a four kilometre radius. He also suggested that lawyers never be asked to write a layperson's document.

Bill

Stated that in the second round of documents, Terminals moved the centre point excluding some who had got the first lot of notices. He said the radius should be from the boundary, not the tank site.

George

Stated it had been done by council.

Dirk

Suggested that the guidelines didn't nail down where the centre point should be either.

Robin

Stated that the committee decided to measure from the boundary.

George

Stated he did not know what the case was and didn't know how the council had calculated it.

Robin

Stated there was confusion about what the COGG used as a basis for the measurements.

Dirk

4/9 [^] Re Distances: Geelong Grammar was 1760m (as measured from Map 432, Melways 31^st Edition)

Avalon College was 2720m (as measured from South Western Key Map, Page 11, Melways 31^st Edition).

Corio Bay Motel was 1320m (as measured from Map 432, Melways 31^st Edition).

Jon

Asked from what point at Geelong Grammar the measurement was taken.

Dirk

Stated it was measured from the Barwon boarding house.

Jon

Stated there were residential houses on Biddlecombe Avenue, opposite Barwon House and about 50m closer to the Terminals site.

Dirk

Confirmed using the measurement of Geelong Grammar as 1710m (Instead of 1760m).

Gordon

Asked if it made a difference that one distance was over water, not houses and buildings.

Dirk

Said to his knowledge, it made no difference.

Bill

Stated the Gateway Motel was closer than the Corio Bay Motel.

Dirk/Paul

Measured on a map and confirmed the Gateway was 100m further away at 1420m.

Jon

Stated the nearest residential site was at the corner of St Georges Road and Station St at 1080m.

Gary

4/10 [^] Confirmed the operating rules for disconnecting during a tempest were the same as those of Shell formulated at a meeting with Toll in 1995, where disconnection occurred at 35 knots. He stated the international standard for oil companies is disconnect at 65 knots.

George

Compared Melbourne's rules, which are stop pumping at 35 knots and disconnect at 45 knots. Sydney is stop pumping at 35 knots and disconnect at 40 knots.

Bill

Suggested the oil company rule of disconnect at 65 knots applied to off shore rigs and that there was a variation between land and off shore berthing.

ACTION

Gary to find out what the difference is between land and off shore berthing.

Gordon

Raised the issue of the design parameters regarding flexible or fixed arm connections.

George

Stated Terminals did not believe hard arm connections were more advantageous than flexible hose. He said the hoses are not used all the time and can be taken down and looked after in the store and not left out in the weather. He said there was little difference in comparisons of failures etc between the two.

Gary

Showed on the whiteboard the VCM disconnection at the end of a discharge detailing how the residual liquid is vaporised. How the vapour pressure is isolated and vented back to the ship's tanks.

Gordon

Asked how long it takes to disconnect the ship from the shore.

Gary

Replied an emergency disconnection can be done in 15 minutes.

John W

Said he was under the impression there would be three ships per year and yet four had been mentioned.

George

Said it would be three per year but some years there could be four.

Sue Mc

Asked what the process on the ship was for purging.

Gary

Explained that when pumping was finished the aim was to have the ship's tanks at 25 kpa and then they were taken down to a very low pressure, close to 0. Nitrogen was used for purging so there was no explosion risk. He stated the ship's tanks are only used for one product.

Bill

Asked what the difference was between the terms vaporised and evaporation.

George

Said it was hard to explain to people who have not seen the valves. He said he was willing to have one or two people come and watch discharge at some time.

Bill

Suggested inviting the EPA rep to see the coupling.

George

Said EPA reps can watch anytime they like.

Robin

Suggested the community reps nominate two people to go and watch.

Gordon

Asked if it was any less safe on Coode Island than on the end of Terminals' wharf.

Gary

Said the same standards and procedures were used as on Coode Island, that it was just as safe.

George

Stated it was more safe at Geelong as there was greater separation distance to sensitive uses.

Joe

Asked if ships would be empty once butadiene had been unloaded.

George

Said the quantity loaded would be taken off at the wharf but he did not know if the ship would have more product to be taken elsewhere. He said the Terminals parcel would be separate from the rest.

Joe

Queried the state the product would be in when received, given different circumstances may occur during shipping. Would the integrity of the product be compromised from a safety point of view and how would Terminals ensure the product was not from some cheap supplier.

George/

Geoff M

Stated the product must meet the test criteria, that it wouldn't be unsafe. That liquids can become contaminated so testing would be done and quality certificates issued to show it was within specifications. Terminals could be blamed for contaminating product so it would be in their best interests to ensure it was received uncontaminated. This would be dealt with in the Haz op process and community reps could be involved in this too.

Robin

Discussion truncated but could be raised at a later stage.

Dirk

4/12 - Re the works on the jetty being included in the Works Approval, the EPA response as follows from the response sheet handed out: "Works on the jetty were included in the works approval. The drawing does not limit their ambit. Nevertheless, and only within the context of the upcoming VCAT hearing, EPA is willing to amend the works approval so as to include a plan of premises which includes the jetty."

4/13 [^] EPA response: "The response from DHS to EPA's letter of 26 April was provided by DHS to the committee at the 7 June meeting. The DHS response clearly reflected the intent of EPA's letter, which was to ask whether or not DHS was objecting to the issue of the works approval.

EPA's letter of 26 April will not be made available to the committee."

Robin

Reiterated the answer was a qualified "no" but asked Dirk if he could see that the response sounded a bit evasive.

Dirk

Stated it was not the standard practice of the EPA to hand out copies of letters to public meetings.

Robin

Said it seemed the EPA was putting up a barrier to community reps by not tabling the letter.

John

Williamson

(EPA)

Stated the DHS letter was tabled and that the EPA would take the question on board.

Robin

Suggested that if the letter was innocuous, it be tabled and the matter settled.

Sue Mc

Stated it would be counter productive if not settled soon as she would go to VCAT and request it. She stated she would like it before Friday.

Robin

Asked if the EPA could review its decision before Friday.

ITEM 4

Confirmation of Draft Minutes of 11 April 2005 meeting

Robin

Asked for any amendments. None forthcoming so minutes confirmed.

ITEM 5

Confirmation of Draft Minutes of 9 May 2005 meeting.

Robin

Amendments from the following people:

Quentin Cooke, EPA [^] page 8, midway down, change wording from "combustors serve a number of sites" to "number of tanks".

Geoff Cooke, WorkSafe [^] page 11 word changes:

From "Terminals are also considering an alarm." to "Terminals have committed to installing an alarm."

From : "Geoff went on to say that the EPA had formed[sigma]" to " Geoff went on to say that WorkSafe had formed [sigma]"

From " the EPA can prosecute them" to "WorkSafe may consider prosecution."

From " the practicability of it also had to be considered." To " the practicability of timing had to be considered."

Peter Linaker requested the following amendments:

Correct the spelling of QEST

Page 1 - Peter Linaker of "Ports Chemical Action Group"

Page 4 - Change wording from "Moved to reject the presentation..." to "Moved to reject the statements [sigma]"

Page 5 - Change wording from " the .37 ambient level." To " the 0.037 ambient level."

Page 11 - Change wording from "so ships stop pumping if the alarm goes off." To "so ships stop pumping if the signal stops."

Robin

Amendments noted, minutes confirmed.

ITEM 6

Confirmation of Draft Minutes of 7 June 2005 meeting.

Robin

Read out the amendments emailed by Julie Eichner as follows:

I have noticed a few minor misinterpretations of my advice, in the minutes
you have distributed.  Please amend as follows:

   Page 11(middle of my first statement):  "........Some of the broader
   issues were incorporated into the recommendations."

   Page 11 (second statement):  "....EPA asked if DHS were objecting or not
   objecting...."

   Page 12 (my first statement):  change second sentence to: "She said
   predicted levels of emissions are seven times lower than the acceptable
   limits in the SEPP (AQM) policy".

   Page 12 (my last statement):  replace whole statement with the
   following:  " Overall, this specific WA process has highlighted
   difficulties when issues external to the WA applications need to be
   considered (i.e. planning and Workcover issues) or there is significant
   community concern.  The possibility of an EES process being applied to
   applications of this nature should be considered so that the community
   is engaged appropriately."

Amendment by Carlo Fasolino:

Page 8 [^] Four lines down, from "20B notices " to "Section 22 notices"

NOTE, same change for Action Summary.

Amendments noted, minutes confirmed. Katie will prepare Adopted Minutes for each meeting, and send a copy to Robin.

ITEM 7

Committee Terms of Reference

Peter

Asked what Council's role was and was adamant that a council representative should be present at each meeting.

Catherine

Requested that it be recorded in the minutes that an officer of the COGG should be present at each meeting.

ACTION 5/1

Robin to phone Steve Sodemaco.

George

Requested an email reminder to those on email list Wednesday prior to upcoming meetings.

ACTION 5/2

Katie to email reminder Wednesday prior to all upcoming meetings.

Paul

Raised the issue of the council appearing under the Auspice section of the Draft Terms of Reference.

Robin

Explained that the word "auspice" was used to say that Terminals and the COGG had something to do with setting up the committee.

George

Referred to the council meeting where this was raised.

ACTION 5/3

George to copy wording of the council meeting to be circulated with the minutes.

George

Stated COGG is a big part of this meeting at arms length.

Robin

Stressed that the term auspiced did not mean that either body was running the agenda.

George

Confirmed that auspiced meant help set the committee up but wanted to discuss what the COGG's role was on this committee.

Franceska

Stressed that she did not want rates to fund Terminal's meeting.

Gordon

Said it was common for meetings to be chaired in rotation for example the community, EPA and Council rotate the chair but if the COGG did not attend the committee meetings they would not be included in the rotation.

Paul

Suggested the Auspice section should include the wording "and a number of local community groups."

Robin

Suggested striking out the Auspice section altogether.

Peter

Stated the reason against that was if Auspice was taken out, the meeting would not be constituted by anybody.

Robin

Suggested that the chair would lead the discussion in the event of a dispute.

Peter

Suggested wording that in.

Franceska

Thought that the EPA had stated that Terminals should have a CCC because of the new product.

Dirk

Stated it was voluntary.

Sue Mc

Stated there was a history of council involvement and that the council had wanted the committee set up.

George

Stated the council had wanted the committee regardless of what happened with butadiene so the community and Terminals could get along. Council had been a driver of the committee as they represented the whole of the community.

Robin

Raised the issue of the review (After 12 month's operation, the Committee's effectiveness should be reviewed to determine whether it should proceed and in what form. The review should be made against the performance criteria determined by the Committee.) and how the committee would go in terms of the review if the Auspice section were to go. Stated his view that in any event, whether reference to the auspicing remains or not, it would be the Committee (and in particular the community representatives) who would undertake the review.

Paul

Suggested he, Peter and George sit down together and work out a proposal for the Auspice and for the community representation and bring it back to the committee.

ACTION

5/4

Paul, Peter and George form a subcommittee to work out a proposal/wording for the Auspice and for the community representation and provide it one week prior to the next meeting for circulation.

Bill

Stated that with committee members who are permanent, organization changes can be made at any time.

Peter

Said a section on Procedure was missing, that the committee could determine its own procedure from time to time. Suggested this be included after Membership.

Robin

Suggested Paul, Peter and George look at the wording.

George

Said there was an issue of getting information to those who the committee thought needed to know.

Robin

Asked what the responsibility of the community reps was.

John W

Objected to limiting the number of community reps. Stated his concern that no Council rep was present to hear the community concerns and take it back to council. He stated the meeting should be open to the general public to express concerns.

Robin

Suggested adopting the changes that appeared in italics in the Version 3 Draft. That regarding the Auspice and Memberships, that Peter, Paul and George would come back to the committee with revised wording prior to the next meeting.

Sue Mc

Sought clarification on page 2, Role of the Committee Members, second last dot point and asked if it could be rephrased.

to contribute to and support the planning processes for the operation and development of the Geelong plant

George

Explained the idea was for the community to have input into the processes and operations, to oversee or be involved in design processes and to ensure everything was being done properly.

Robin

Suggested taking out the words "and support". To contribute to the planning processes (day to day planning) for the operation and development of the Geelong plant.

Sue KT

Referred to Objective 3

To provide information to the community about Geelong, its operation, the hazards and risk it poses, emergency management procedures and any significant changes proposed to the facility.

And suggested adding the words: "To provide information to the community about Terminals Geelong Facility, its[sigma]"

John Williamson

Requested moving the EPA report on the Agenda forward as the EPA reps had to leave at 9.30. He said the EPA had nothing to report but would be happy to answer questions.

Robin

Suggested there were other important issues on the agenda and requested that the committee continue with these issues before hearing from the EPA.

Committee

Wanted to hear from the EPA first.

Sue Mc

Expressed concern at the fact that the EPA had nothing to report, in particular the upcoming directions hearing with VCAT that Friday.

Dirk

Stated that the EPA's solicitors had requested a directions hearing with VCAT this Friday 15 July but Dirk had not had confirmation of this. He said it was a legal process to go through to set boundaries for the EPA.

Sue Mc

Suggested it could potentially be a very important hearing.

Robin

Said regarding the hearing on Friday in Melbourne, that he was concerned it was very short notice.

Peter

Raised the issue of Quentin's remark on buffer separations at the last meeting (1000m rule on buffer separations) and stated that conditions were being investigated to see if buffers could be increased. He asked the EPA what conditions would require greater buffers.

John

Williamson

Stated the buffers were the current recommended buffers.

Gordon

Asked what the most dangerous high pressure, high temperature piece of equipment would be in Victoria. He asked if it would be the Shell cracker. He said the potential was there for the cracker to blow up and affect the proposed site at Terminals.

Dirk

Referred the question to Workcover.

Geoff C

Said he was not prepared to talk at the meeting about Shell without its operator present. He referred to the consequence if this were to happen but stressed he was talking about a low frequency event.

Gordon

Remarked that it would be an event that would only happen once. He said he was concerned that there were not adequate buffers between the cracker and Terminals butadiene site.

Robin

Asked if WorkSafe had looked at the interaction of the cracker and the butadiene site with regards to the outcome of an incident.

Geoff C

Stated that a blast in the Shell refinery would have low impact on other pressure vessels at Terminals.

Gordon

Asked if a QRA had been done re the potential for the cracker to blow up and have a knock on effect.

Geoff C

Stated that Shell and Terminals had to share risk information with each other to see how each would affect the other. He said that had been done and the information had been exchanged.

Gordon

Asked if a Safety Case would be undertaken before the works approval was granted.

Geoff C

Said Shell and Terminals had commissioned a risk professional to undertake independent safety studies.

Gordon

Asked if the committee could see the results.

Geoff C

Said he could show Terminals' but not Shell's.

Sue Mc

Asked if there were any international boundaries that covered this issue.

Geoff C

Stated that separation distances were set in Standards (Australian or International). He said the explosive risk could be predicted more easily than the chemical risk. He said companies have to exchange information regarding impacts and that experts have to decide what is safe.

Robin

Asked if the information was then compared with criteria for individual and societal risk?

Geoff C

Stated there was a 10?? risk of fatality.

Robin

Asked in case by case what criteria was used.

Geoff C

Said the Safety Case identified hazards i.e. design, aircraft crash, adjacent facilities exploding. There was a 10?? risk to the site boundary and a 10?? risk to the nearest residential site. He stressed these were only guidelines.

Sue Mc

Said there had been one minor explosion of the cracker in the last few years.

John W

Stated there would not be one bleve but several because of the unpressurised storage facilities. He stated that Shell is an aging facility and that a bleve would involve shrapnel. He said it looked like the cracker was only 500m or less from the Terminals site.

Robin

Suggested Terminals make available their side of the study.

Geoff C

Said most members at the meeting would have a copy of the QRA.

Sue Mc

Said the DMV study was referred to in the QEST QRA. She said it did not give information on how the process is updated with new information.

Geoff C

Stated that the Safety Case explained what substances could be stored on site and that the licence came from there. The licence is for VCM and since it is the same class as butadiene, no amendment to the licence would be required. He said there was a requirement for Terminals to review and revise the safety case. They would then have to submit it to WorkSafe, ideally before they operate the facility. It would be assessed by WorkSafe and WorkSafe could intervene if any safety issues are identified. He stated that the licence expires on July 15 2007 and at that point, if the safety case has not met the requirements of the Major Hazard Facility Regulation, the operational licence would not be re-issued and Terminals would have to cease operation. Terminals would have to demonstrate and provide information to Workcover's satisfaction.

ACTION

5/5

George said he would see if an extract of the QRA could be summarised for the Committee.

ITEM 8

Major Tasks of the Committee

Robin

ACTION

5/6

Asked the community reps, agencies and Terminals to put into words what each think are the main tasks of the committee. This is to be sent to Katie one week prior to the next meeting for circulation.

ITEM 9

Housekeeping

Robin

Regarding the proposed Terminals GCCC Website, Robin requested that all committee members view the Coode Island CCC website at www.ciccc.org. Robin detailed what could be found on the website including a short media release written by the Chair and checked by reps and agencies as a record of the main issues discussed at each meeting.

ACTION

5/7

All committee members to view the Coode Island CCC website www.ciccc.org before the next meeting to decide if a Terminals GCCC website is wanted and if so in what format.

Robin

Went on to discuss media protocol stating that if members of the media wanted to attend meetings they would have to announce themselves and they could be requested to leave if something confidential was to be discussed by the committee. Robin said Coode Island media releases were emailed to newspapers and radio but were seldom picked up and used.

John W

Raised the issued of the difficulties some were having hearing what was being said at the meeting and asked if it was possible to have a microphone for future meetings.

Robin

Asked Terminals if a microphone could be placed on the table.

ACTION

5/8

Terminals to provide a microphone for the next meeting.

Ralph

Stated that he would appreciate a visit to the Terminals site.

George

Said it could be arranged by phoning Gary.

Ralph

Suggested it would be better if he went with others who were interested.

Robin

Suggested making the visit an agenda item.

Robin

Declared the meeting closed at 10pm

Next meeting to be held on Monday 8 August 2005 in the Corio Library Meeting Room at 6.30pm.