Worksafe

Geoff Cooke

Geelong Community for Good Life

Gordon Alderson

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

Bill Aitken

Green Party

Catherine Jones

Terminals Pty Ltd

George Horman (Managing Director)

Carlo Fasolino (State Manager)

Angelo Smarelli

Gary O'Sullivan (Operations Manager, Corio) (second half of meeting)

Community Representative

Peter Linaker

CFA Geelong

Ian Beswick

Community Representative

Ralph Taylor

North Shore Residents Group

Margrette Lewis

Community Member

Kitty Van Wees-Miller

Special Monitors of Geelong

Franceska Dezalak

EPA

Daniel Calderwood

Alexander Jovcic (Manager)

Friends of Point Lilias and Corio Bay

Col Edwards

Terminals Pty Ltd

Geoff Millard (HSE Manager)

Gary O'Sullivan (first half of meeting)

Item 1

Welcome by Chair

Robin

Welcomed committee, discussed the fact that a decision had been made by VCAT.

Franceska

Stated she hated Terminals, George and everyone else. Said she was disappointed and disillusioned with the system. She said she was proud of the people who put in so much to fight (Butadiene). She stated she believed some people at Terminals were on the community's side but still had to pay the bills.

Item 2

Apologies, confirmation of Draft Agenda

Robin

Introduced Kitty Van Wees-Miller who was new to the meeting and a member of the community.

Apologies were received from Col Edwards, Geoff Millard, EPA reps and Gary O'Sullivan for the first half of the meeting.

George

Asked if the EPA had been followed up and stressed that he would like them to be followed up.

Peter

Referred to the VCAT outcome and stressed the importance of crossing bridges to keep people in touch with each other at this meeting. He stated that the EPA's behaviour at the VCAT hearing was deplorable.

Community Reps

The general feeling among the various community reps was a great disappointment in the actions of the EPA at the VCAT hearing especially regarding their accountability, communications and responsibility

Sue Mc

Stated she did not have the same (poor) opinion of Terminals as she did of the EPA and that information requested from the EPA had eventually been obtained from Terminals.

George

Also made reference to the issue of the EPA not giving out information.

Peter

Stated the EPA did not honour their own SEPP.

Bill

Said the 20A Conference was a joke and stated that it was only through the TGCCC meeting that the community had got more information. He stated that information requested from the EPA had been posted out too late.

John

Said he felt the behaviour of the EPA solicitors and Terminals had the effect of treating the community with contempt. He said it was not that the community wanted to stop business coming to Geelong but that they want the safety of the community considered.

Margrette

Congratulated members of the community who attended the hearing. She commented on the rudeness of the solicitor towards Frank Parsons saying he had been treated with contempt. She also commented on the ignorance of the EPA saying they were servants of the community and they displayed ignorance of the issue. She was also offended by the term "rabble" used in the newspapers to describe community members.

Kitty

Stated she lives within one kilometre of the Terminals site. She said she attended the VCAT hearing and was shocked at the part truths. She said the truth was revealed during cross-examination by community reps. She stated she was impressed with the time and involvement of community reps and their commitment.

Joe

Asked if Terminals had reviewed and agreed with what was written in the VCAT order. He said it seemed to be that some things were wrong.

George

Stated he had briefly read the judgement and agreed that there seemed to be some things that were not quite right. He stated he had not yet been through it with a fine-tooth comb but would take the question on notice.

Sue Mc

Raised the issue of a Communication Plan and how conditions of the order would be implemented.

George

Stated Terminals employees would think up ways of communication and suggested it should be worked out or at least fleshed out, at the TGCCC meeting.

Sue Mc

Said she was pleased to hear that and felt a Community and Company plan would be more effective.

George

Hoped it would be a plan everyone was happy with. He suggested Terminals might look at the judgement and make a list of orders and responses.

Sue Mc

Asked if the Communications Plan could be put on the agenda.

Robin

Suggested Terminals respond to the order.

George

Suggested Terminals make an action list from the order.

Bill

Said there were some open ended decisions.

George

Said for each item raised, Terminals would put some response to it.

ACTION

Terminals to prepare a response to the VCAT Order, and commence preparation of a Communication Plan for presentation and discussion at the next meeting.

Robin

Moved the discussion onto the meeting's Agenda asking if the committee was happy with the agenda and it's order of proceeding.

Peter

Said out of courtesy to members Confirmation of Draft Minutes should be done early on the Agenda.

Sue Mc

Agreed.

Jon

Stressed the importance of not spending hours battling over the words in the minutes.

Robin

Said his only qualm was with keeping invited guests waiting too long. He suggested putting them early on the agenda.

Committee

Agreed the order of future Agenda's should be: Attendance, apologies, confirmation of draft minutes, matters arising, reports and invited guests slotted in early if members agree.

The Agenda for this meeting was changed so that Item 9 (Confirmation of Draft Minutes) was moved to Item 3, followed by Item 10 (Matters arising) moved to Item 4 and then back to Item 3 (now Item 5) onwards. Agenda confirmed. (Adopted draft Agenda to be included with draft minutes)

ACTION

Future meeting agendas to adopt the following order of items:

Attendance, apologies, confirmation of draft minutes, matters arising, reports and invited guests slotted in early if members agree.

ITEM 3

Confirmation of Draft Minutes

Peter

Requested the wording on page 2, under Item 3, be changed to "the illness of a member and attending the VCAT hearing" as not all members working on the draft were ill.

Minutes adopted by the committee.

ITEM 4

Business Arising from the Minutes

Sue Mc

Raised the point that the Terminals expert had said that the QRA did not cover all incidents.

Carlo

Clarified this point by saying that in relation to Terminals' Butadiene QRA, many but not all scenarios were covered.

Committee

Reviewed Action Summary List as follows:

2/2 Paul away [^] still to be rescheduled

5/6 Agenda Item 7 for this meeting

5/7 Members who are going to, have been deemed to have viewed the website.

6/5 Paul away [^] defer

6/9 November Meeting

6/10 Item 7 of this meeting's Agenda

7/1 Feedback from QEST report. Committee decided to deal with this item then and there.

Sue Mc

Said she had specific questions arising from the report.

Robin

Asked Sue to put her questions in writing to him and these would then be circulated.

ACTION

Sue and Joe to provide written comment on the QEST report for subsequent discussion at the November meeting.

Committee

Action Summary List Review (continued):

7/2 Agenda Item 7 on tonight's agenda

7/3 Deferred until Gary arrived at meeting

George

Stated no one at Terminals was qualified to say if the pier was sound or not. He said it was up to Toll.

Carlo

Stated the pier was constructed of steel and wood, not concrete. The concrete was only the top surface.

Robin

Suggested Terminals research the issue.

John

Stated concrete cancer was caused by the reinforcing rods rusting thus causing expansion and resulting in the concrete cracking. He said it was an expensive asset used by Terminals and should be monitored.

George

Said the piles that support the whole thing are timber, that the structure was predominantly timber with a concrete roadway.

John

Said the pier was thought to be the same age as another pier that has extensive concrete cancer.

George

Stated that Toll had said the pier was OK. He suggested he could contact Toll to ask what surveys have been done on the pier.

ACTION

Terminals to approach Toll to check the integrity of Refinery Pier.

Joe

Said he visited Refinery Pier in June and Toll were there doing work.

Bill

Asked Geoff Cooke if there was any information on the piles from Worksafe's Audit in 2004.

Geoff

Said Worksafe had looked at the pipeline not the pier. He said there should be an Audit if Shell are doing what they say they are doing.

Committee

7/4 Robin got on to Lindsay Ward and he said he would re do the maps to make it clear as to what Toll owns. Robin to follow up.

7/5 Robin had not heard from Barry Seaton on this point. Sue Mc said she didn't feel the committee should allow Barry to get away with not answering. She said that is not what PACIA is about.

ACTION

Robin to write to Barry and ask for specific Australian data on this issue.

Sue Mc

Asked if Dow have an application in for a tank for Butadiene.

George

Said he had heard they had ideas but had not decided. He said Terminals were building a tank in Melbourne at Coode Island for latex, to be in place by December.

Geoff

Said Dow's proposals would be put to the Altona meeting.

Sue Mc

Said regarding the storage, that the issue was the transport of Butadiene on roads if Dow does store it. She said it was relevant to this community as it was indirectly effected.

Sue KT

Asked Geoff if he could report to this meeting after it had been released to the Altona Group.

ACTION

WorkCover to report to TGCCC about Dow's proposals for butadiene storage after the proposals have been made public.

Committee

7/6 File kept by Katie

7/7 Included with Minutes

7/8 George to provide an explanation and formal response at the next meeting on the contradiction of incident information in the 16 August letter, and a definition of [OE]incident'

Sue Mc

Said the letter had stated Terminals had handled MEG without incident but a spill was noted in the report.

George

Stated an incident was something that would have endangered someone's health/life or was a breach of containment off site. Something reported to the EPA. He said an incident and non-conformance report would be written and the incident would be investigated to find the main cause. Preventative actions would then be given. Some incidents are reportable to the EPA and Workcover.

Robin

Asked what Workcover called an incident.

Geoff

Stated an incident would include an injury or dangerous occurrence or would have the potential to cause injury.

ACTION

Robin to ask the EPA for a definition of Incident.

Sue Mc

Asked if a definition is included in the legislation.

Geoff

Said there is a definition but suggested it wouldn't be of help.

ACTION

Geoff to email Robin the wording of the definition of an incident and bring the book containing the definition to the next meeting.

Franceska

Stated she was still confused about how the community would know what sort of incident had occurred.

George

Stated that regarding notifying the community of an incident, it was up to the fire brigade and emergency services to do that. When to notify was a complex issue and Terminals are as interested as the community is.

Bill

Said he was concerned as he thought it was Terminals responsibility to notify the CFA even if it was a minor incident.

Robin

Suggested this issue would be covered in Agenda Item 9.3.

ITEM 5

Geoff Millard's discussion on emergency procedures at Terminals scheduled for November Meeting.

ITEM 6

Environment Improvement Plan

George

Said he had a problem discussing this without the EPA present.

Robin

Suggested a preliminary discussion.

Catherine

Stated her disappointment at the EPA not being present at the meeting and also the City of Greater Geelong rep also not being present.

Sue KT

Stated that Alex Jovcic had indicated there were problems with a shortage of staff and that he may not be able to attend the meeting.

ACTION

Robin to ring COGG and EPA and enquire as to why they had not attended the meeting.

Bill

Suggested they could send deputies along.

Sue Mc

Noted that she did want to discuss the EIP. She stated to George that the EIP is a requirement of the EPA licence. She asked when Terminals was looking at reviewing the EIP, what the process would be and what involvement this community group would have.

Carlo

Said the EIP was a licence requirement and needed EPA involvement.

Sue

Asked what Terminals commitment was to the community.

Carlo

Said the EIP in Melbourne had been a long process. Terminals had looked at what they did currently and how to improve it. He said it would be a few months away while they came up with ideas.

Sue Mc

Asked Terminals to get their heads around it so that the committee could discuss what could be improved on.

George

Asked what Sue had in mind.

Sue Mc

Suggested such things as using technologies to reduce: emissions, water usage on site, greenhouse gas emissions. To improve the site by planting trees/bushes. Sue suggested that Terminals could ask the staff what improvements they could see.

Robin

Suggested Terminals have a think about the EIP that will satisfy butadiene requirements as well as the community. Suggested the EIP for the site cover a list of improvements that management, regulatory groups and the community think are a good idea.

Gordon

Advised Terminals to run with the gauntlet as if the community is involved with the EIP, Terminals would end up with something they don't want.

George

Said Terminals would have to justify the EIP and be happy with what was being proposed. He was trying to understand what elements were in the community's minds.

Sue Mc

Said that in terms of structure, Shell's EIP was a good one. She said a high level alarm introduced after a spill was an environmental improvement.

George

Said he was trying to gauge what the community wanted.

Robin

Suggested Terminals put up what they thought was a fair thing and then let the community discuss or add to it.

Carlo

Suggested putting something together for the December meeting.

ACTION

Terminals to draft ideas for the EIP to be discussed at the December meeting.

ITEM 7

Reports

Gary

Showed on overheads the August Monthly Report and discussed.

Committee

Requested the report show details of products and quantities.

Sue Mc

Asked if the export of gas condensate to Shell would happen more often.

Gary

Said there had been a scheduling problem for the unloading gantry. He said there was one pipeline from Terminals to Shell and that it was a 20-24 hour transfer operation. He said another condensate transfer would take place but it would have methanol in it.

Catherine

Requested more detail in the graphs.

George

Suggested a segmented bar graph that was also colour coded to show the various chemicals.

Sue Mc

Asked what requests Terminals give their client's trucking contractors with respect to what transport routes to take.

George

Replied none.

Sue Mc

Said Terminals have an obligation regarding safety under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. She stated that under the butadiene decision, Terminals are asked to request advisory truck routes.

Sue KT

Asked if in Geoff's observation, truckies follow advised routes.

Geoff

Stated that Worksafe approve the tankers, licence the drivers, prohibit certain routes (and that is gazetted) but it is the duty of the contract company to prescribe the preferred route and Worksafe do not check this but do have the ability to intervene.

Sue KT

Noted that George does have a fair idea of the routes.

George

Stated the committee can be involved as truck routes can be designated in the contract. He said Chemtrans should be able to give out a copy of advisory routes.

Sue Mc

Suggested it is part of PACIA for trucks to follow advisory routes.

John

Said RTA and Vic Roads control designated truck routes.

Robin

Stated in his experience at the CICCC, a company could give considerations to the route if asked by the community.

ACTION

Robin to schedule Chemtrans to talk at a TGCCC meeting about transport routes.

Bill

Stated that Municipal government can put time frames on routes.

Sue Mc

Asked Geoff who the appropriate Worksafe person was who monitors the advisory truck routes and if the community is protected.

Geoff

Stated regarding monitoring on the roads, there is no one but there is a Dangerous Goods branch.

Gary

Said the terminal is operated outside high traffic flow times [^] from 6pm Saturday night.

Ralph

Suggested the committee not overlook the fact that the owner of the cargo is responsible about their concern of the product. He said they are involved in the technical input during an incident and that there have been only two carriers of VCM in 30 years. The first carrier lost the contract because of a misdemeanour of the driver. He said there had not been one highway incident of any concern.

Joe

Asked how many dedicated VCM tankers there are now and how many dedicated butadiene tankers there would be.

George

Said there are 5 VCM tankers and would probably only be one Butadiene tanker.

Sue Mc

Asked how Terminals cater for an overfill situation.

George

Stated it was a propane designed tanker [^] a standard LPG truck

Gary

Said overfill from the ship would not happen as they never fill over the safe fill level. He said it is cheaper to part discharge a ship and let it sit in the bay and finish unloading it later.

Sue KT

Asked once the butadiene had been loaded onto the tanker, who was responsible?

George

Said it was to do with the contract between the owner and the carrier. Regarding misconduct, the carrier has insurance.

Sue Mc

Asked who was responsible for a road accident.

Gary

Said the causer and the truck company.

Workcover

Report

Geoff said Worksafe had not visited the Terminals site since the last meeting. He offered to do a 20 minute presentation on the findings of the Annual Inspection at a future meeting.

ACTION

Geoff to do a 20-minute (maximum) presentation on the findings of the Annual Inspection at the December meeting.

CFA Report

Ian stated he had nothing to report.    

ITEM 8

Hazards Presentation by Terminals (handout shown on an overhead)

Carlo

Stated the handout would be circulated with the minutes.

Bill

Asked regarding the critical control measures, how often the vents are checked to see if they are working.

Gary

Replied that every five years the vents are overhauled.

Jon

Asked where the emergency relief vents vent to.

Gary

Replied to the atmosphere.

Sue Mc

Asked if the emergency relief valves had ever been lifted.

George

Replied never.

Gordon

Suggested a site inspection after the structure of the EIP had been set up.

Robin

Suggested two site inspections, one before and one after.

George

Stated only 1-2 people could be present during a ship filling.

Sue KT

Said she was interested in the ship discharge and movements.

ACTION

Gary to be in touch with Sue Kelly-Turner when there is to be a ship discharge so she can come and watch the process.

John

Said if too many people turn up at once, Terminals would not be able to handle it and information flow to the committee would be restricted.

George

Stated two people only out to the berth. He suggested registering interest with Gary.

Angelo

Suggested grouping into areas of interest and exchanging notes later.

Sue Mc

Suggested a tri-partisan checklist.

Gary

Said originally there was Toll, the Terminal company and the ship but now Toll is no longer involved. Toll tie the ship and secure.

George

Said Shell supply the fire systems and security. Terminals have an agreement with Shell for these.

Sue Mc

Asked that given the contract with Shell and knowing the history of Shell and fire safety, what does Terminals do to assure the contract with Shell will cover any potential emergency?

Gary

Said Shell notify Terminals if equipment is faulty. The ships also have fire fighting equipment.

George

Said Shell give Terminals a certificate of readiness and there is not much more Terminals can do.

Sue Mc

Asked if Terminals have a contract with Shell, what happens if Shell's gear is not up to scratch and Terminals don't know about it.

Gordon

Mentioned that Gary had taken a group (including himself) along the jetty and pointed out the quality of Terminals pipe works. Gordon said the standard of Terminals pipes was far greater than others on the jetty. He stressed that it must be hard for Terminals to rely on another facility for fire systems knowing that their standards are not as high as Terminals.

Sue KT

Asked Geoff if he found a problem with Shell's fire equipment would he notify Terminals.

Geoff.

Replied no. If Shell was aware of dodgy equipment they have a duty of care to advise others who would be effected.

Sue Mc

Asked if every time Terminals got a ship in did they ask Shell if their fire equipment was working.

Gary

Replied that for gas ships they asked for every ship.

ITEM 9

Committee Terms of Reference

Robin

Asked if there were any concerns with the latest draft Terms of Reference.

Franceska

Said she had issues with some words.

Bill

Stated expulsion of membership was his concern.

Ralph

Stated on page 3, clauses relating to membership of Individuals and Formal Membership and requiring a consensus on membership, were his concerns.

Peter

Said originally the wording was inconsistent and he had notified Robin. Peter had tried to take out a lot of the inconsistencies.

Robin

Noted that many members were tired and asked the committee if they were prepared to put the time into discussing the Terms of Reference.

Committee

Decided that since it was 9.30pm that this agenda item would be carried over to the next meeting.

Robin

Declared the meeting closed at 9.30pm

The next meeting will be held on Monday 14 November 2005 at 6.30pm. Same Venue.