Geelong Community for Good Life

Sue McLean

Joe Cicero

Geelong Community Forum

Sue Kelly-Turner

Geelong Grammar School

Jon Apted (Director of Planning)

Geelong Environment Council

David Henshaw

Northern Community Consultative Group

Bill Aitken

Paul Dakin

Terminals Pty Ltd

George Horman (Managing Director)

Carlo Fasolino (State Manager)

Geoff Millard (HSE Manager)

Jeff Hibbert

Gary O'Sullivan

Community Representative

Peter Linaker

CFA Geelong

Ian Beswick

Community Representative

Ralph Taylor

Geoff Mays

EPA

Daniel Calderwood

Worksafe

Geoff Cooke

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Group

John Wilson

Geelong Community for Good Life

Gordon Alderson

Special Monitors of Geelong

Franceska Dezalak

Terminals Pty Ltd

Angelo Smarelli

Green Party

Catherine Jones

Item 1

Welcome by Chair

Robin

Welcomed committee to the first meeting of the year and welcomed Geoff Mays who had come to present on the Coode Island fire of 1991.

Item 2

Apologies, confirmation of Draft Agenda

Sue Mc

Apologies were received from Geoff Cooke, John Wilson, Catherine Jones, Angelo Smarelli, Franceska Dezalak and Gordon Alderson.

Requested that get well wishes be passed on to Angelo Smarelli.

The Draft Agenda was accepted with two changes: Presentation by Lindsay Ward from Toll Ports deleted as Lindsay unable to present

ITEM 3

Confirmation of Draft Minutes

No objections were raised and the minutes from the meeting of 12 December 2005 were accepted.

Bill

Raised the NATA accreditation question he had asked at the previous meeting where it was to be checked with John Williamson of the EPA.

Robin

Read from Action Item 10.2 as follows "Robin to find out from John Williamson/ Tim Turnbull if the monitoring equipment at GGS is in compliance with NATA, how frequently does the machine have to be calibrated." Robin responded that his answer had come from Alexander Jovcic and he then read the response he had provided the committee on 20 December 2005.

"I have spoken to Alexander Jovcic today, and enquired the status of NATA accreditation and frequency of the calibration for the EPA monitoring equipment at GGS (the Opsis machine).

Alexander responded that the discussion of this machine at the July meeting of the TGCCC was inappropriate, as it is monitoring Shell emissions, and it has nothing to do with Terminals. Information about the Opsis (including its NATA accreditation and frequency of monitoring) is made available to the community in other forums, and the originator of the request, Bill Aitken, has already received this information.

Alexander declined to provide the requested information to the TGCCC."

Bill

Queried the life on the compliance and whether it was five or ten years. He asked how frequently NATA compliances have to be checked.

Sue Mc

Suggested rephrasing the question.

Discussion arose over asking the EPA to present on NATA's process of accreditation, as Terminals would have monitoring equipment that was NATA accredited. Daniel Calderwood indicated that people in the EPA Science units may have knowledge of the NATA process but Sue McLean requested someone from NATA be asked to present instead.

ACTION 11.1

Robin Saunders to make contact with NATA and request information on the accreditation process of monitoring equipment.

ITEM 4

Presentation by Lindsay Ward on Port Economic Study -- deleted

ITEM 5

Geoff Mays to present on the Coode Island Fire

Geoff introduced himself and stated he had been the former Assistant Chief Fire Office with Aviation Rescue Fire Fighting Services, Air services Australia. He gave a presentation on the Coode Island storage facility fire incident that occurred in 1991. Geoff's presentation included actual security tape footage from the initial explosion that caused the fire as well as film shot from the air of the fire. He described how the situation unfolded and what occurred from a fire fighting perspective over the next two days. Geoff described the type of fire appliances used to control the fire and gave specifics of their capabilities and from where they had been sourced. He stated the concern over the mixture of chemicals released in such situations describing it as a toxic soup where no one was sure what was being produced from the mixture. He also described the difficulties of combining services such as the MFB and Airservices.

George

Stated that the fire had not been too detrimental.

Ian

Stated that services work much closer together now.

Geoff

Commented that overseas, fire services are now made liable for mistakes and so have to review their systems regularly.

George

Commented that when Terminals make a safety case, services budget on what is available at the facility and what the potential incidents might be.

Sue Mc

Asked Ian Beswick for an overview of what response units would attend a fire or other incident at Shell or Terminals.

Ian

Stated that when the alarm at Terminals was raised, the initial response was that an aerial appliance and two pumpers would be sent out and they would determine what more was needed. He described how fire units were mobilised depending on the size of an incident and that for a major incident, units would be pulled from as far away as needed, to attend or to replace units taken from other city stations so that they could attend. He also stated that specific appliances could be cross-used depending on the situation.

Robin

Thanked Geoff Mays for his presentation.

ITEM 6

Business Arising from Minutes

The committee went through each of the Action items from the summary:

ACTION 11.2

Geoff Millard to address the concerns listed by Sue and Joe about the information QEST used in writing their report. (provided to Terminals on 12 February 2006, a copy with the minutes). Item 8/3 closed.

8/4 Carlo had emailed and phoned Toll re checking the integrity of Refinery Pier but still has not seen anything.

Sue Mc

Recommended the committee write to Toll.

ACTION 11.3

Robin Saunders to write to Toll concerning the integrity of Refinery Pier.

8/7 - Received 13 February by email - a copy attached with the minutes. While Geoff also emailed the Guide to Incident Notification, it was requested that Geoff provide this at the next meeting and also explain the definition.

ACTION 11.4

Geoff Cooke to provide copies of the Guide to Incident Notification to the committee and explain the definition of an incident.

Sue Mc

8/9 The draft EIP to be discussed at this meeting.

Stated she had not received a copy of the draft EIP. Other members stated they had not received it. It appeared to have not been part of the mailed out documents. To be provided again with the minutes.

8/10 Chemtrans to present at the March Meeting.

9/3 Jeff Hibbert provided the schedule for the HAZOP's etc to the committee. Peter Linaker indicated he would not be available to go to North Melbourne.

ACTION 11.5

Community representatives to decide which of the six would attend the HAZOP process (one or two at a time).

9/4 As there are some work bans at the moment, Ian Beswick to advise if this would go ahead in March or April.

9/5 Geoff Mays presented at this meeting.

ACTION 11.6

Robin Saunders to send a thankyou to Geoff Mays

9/9 The website had been approved. It will be established and maintained by Robert Black from Northcote in Melbourne. It will be paid for by Terminals and will be under the direction of Robin Saunders.

George

Requested the photos for the website be supplied by G. Tumblety of Terminals.

George, Gary and the committee discussed the photo-taking incident that took place at Terminals and appeared both on the news and in newspapers.

George

Stated it was a Terminals operator involved with the photographers. They had told Channel Ten it was Terminals but they went ahead referring to Shell. George stated that under Port security rules, Terminals have to contact the Police regarding suspicious incidents.

Bill

Said that Customs now control the foreshore etc. with security.

Paul

Suggested Robin write to the Police asking them to explain.

Gary

Stated that he had acted under Port security rules that state people are not allowed to take photos of sensitive sites.

Carlo

Said that all ports in Australia have to have their own security plans.

Paul

Withdrew his request to write to the Police after a discussion about the type of reply he might get back being sketchy anyway.

George

Said the issue of security was of concern to this committee and that the committee should be expecting good security.

Gary

Explained that while the Terminals facility was involved in tankering operations after hours, there were a minimum of two operators present. If there was no tankering taking place after hours, there was always a security guard present.

9/12 George stated that Shell want the request for information on their Emergency Communications procedures in writing. Deferred until next meeting.

10/1 Completed - Chemtrans will be at the March meeting.

10/2 Not happening, new action item arose, see Action item 2/06.1

10/3 Answer provided by Geoff Cooke

10/4 Same as 10/1

10/5 Done

10/6 Scheduled

10/7 March meeting

10/8 Provided at this meeting.

10/9 Letter sent to COGG; no reply, no rep present. Robin suggested this item be finished and that Sue Mc may follow the matter up with the COGG if she wished.

10/10 Discussion of draft EIP occurring at this meeting.

ITEM 7

Report from Terminals

Gary

VCAT Hearing of the MEG application scheduled for 22 and 24 March 2006.

Gary

Mentioned that contractors were now fitting high-level indicators to tanks 2-6 and 2-7.

George

Stated high level alarms would be on all hazardous liquid tanks by the end of the year.

Joe

Asked if community reps could oversee the quality audits.

George

Replied that community people can oversee some things and that he had no problem with external audits but it would be the decision of the Audits Inspector.

ACTION 11.7

Terminals to advise the committee of the dates of the annual audit and three year audit and ask the auditor in advance if he is happy for a community member to be present.

Bill

Raised the issue that at the VCAT hearing, it was stated that if there was a VCM ship at berth, there was not to be another ship at the Shell berth at the same time.

A discussion arose over this issue, who had said it, the transcripts from VCAT and the accuracy of the statement Bill had given.

ACTION 11.8

Sue McLean to try to provide a short excerpt of the transcript from the VCAT second hearing in relation to two ships being at berth at the same time.

Gary

Provided copies of the January Operations Report and began discussing it from an overhead. A copy of the report will go out with the minutes, as many committee members were not present.

George

Stated that Terminals, since August last year, was in the process of being sold. He said the buyer was from the US and would create an Australian spin off company called ANZ Terminals. George then gave a briefing about this. Ed Doherty (the former CEO of Caneb) will be an equity partner with the Chan Family.

George

Said that regarding the bitumen proposal, the negotiations with Sourcing Solutions were not yet complete, though it was 95% likely to go ahead. The Council exhibition was now complete.

Daniel

Said there had been a submission extension for the EPA report. The EPA had not yet made a formal decision as to whether a works approval was needed.

Joe

Asked if the proposed infrastructure for the butadiene facility would be used for the bitumen proposal, for example the combustor.

George

Said Terminals had not gone through the detailed design yet but that odour control was not usually required.

Gary

Referred to his trip to Perth to inspect a bitumen storage site and said that even when truck loading, odour had not been a big issue.

Sue Mc

Said that Shell have problems with odour when loading.

George

Said the product Terminals would be storing would not be cut back and thus would not have the odour problem. He said he could not see the point in running the combustor to control odour. He said the boiler would be used to draw and destroy smells.

Bill

Referred to the Boral site behind the North Geelong railway saying residents there complain about the smells.

George

Said at the site was an asphalt plant: the bitumen has chemicals with it. He said Terminals would not be making asphalt so the bitumen stored would be neat.

Robin

Suggested an information session was needed.

ACTION

11.9

Terminals to provide a briefing of the bitumen proposal.

Joe

Raised the problems of some international bitumen storage facilities. European Union websites talk about destruction of bitumen storage odours.

George

Said Terminals was trying to avoid the problems some other sites have had. The key issues were burns and the product going solid. He said Terminals want to know how to protect workers, truck drivers etc.

Carlo

Said the site he saw in Adelaide was less than two years old and operated the way Terminals would like to.

Daniel

Said further information is required for the Planning Permit to be issued. The EPA required modelled emission numbers from the tank over one year.

Sue Mc

Said some of the guidelines are old and out of date. She suggested the policy might not be the best practice.

George

Said he doubted a Works Approval would be needed to store bitumen. He said it was likely the modelled figures would reveal minimal emissions, as the bitumen stored would be the same as that which lies on most roads now.

Joe

Said the modelled figures assumed the tank had been decided.

Sue

Said the community had the right to accurate information if a planning permit had been lodged. She was concerned that otherwise it would be too late to do anything about it.

Joe

Asked that the tentative boiler size be included as part of the briefing of the bitumen proposal.

Jeff

Said it would be two megawatt. (2MW)

Bill

Asked if Terminals consulted with the CFA regarding where tanks are located so that fire appliances can get in and move around if needed.

Jeff

Said a preliminary fire safety study had been done and would be presented to the CFA and was always updated with each expansion.

Ian

Said that the CFA would tell Terminals if something was missing.

ITEM 7

Report from the EPA

Daniel

Said he had received the Works Approval requirements on alternatives to sphere purging.

George

Said they would be released to the committee after the EPA had given feedback and made comments.

ITEM 7

No CFA report

ITEM 8

Housekeeping - Website

Robin

The website had been approved by Terminals as far as funds were concerned. Robin would liase with Robert Black and he hoped the website would be operational by the next meeting.

A query was raised over the logo. A suggestion was made that a competition be set up for primary school students to design a logo with a prize for the winner.

ACTION 11.10

Gary to discuss a logo competition with Karen Sherlock.

ITEM 8

Housekeeping - Media Release

It was agreed to wait until the website was up and running and discuss this at the next meeting.

Ralph

Suggested including the committee's Vision in the Media Release. He read his version of a vision;

"To work to create the environment whereby Terminals and the TGCCC work harmoniously together to enable Terminals to improve their safety and environmental performance."

Or something similar to 1.1 in the Terms of Reference

ACTION

11.11

Robin to condense 1.1 in the Terms of Reference to be included in the Media Release.

ITEM 9

Draft EIP (review Terminals' outline: comment by EPA, Committee)

It was suggested that since some people had not yet seen the draft EIP that the discussion be deferred until the next meeting and placed early on the agenda around Item 5.

Sue Mc

Asked if the EPA had received Terminals annual report.

Daniel

Said that it had been received.

Geoff Millard

Said it covered the financial year and had been sent prior to September 1st.

Sue Mc

Requested Terminals provide the report to the committee.

ACTION

2/06.12

George to provide the committee with Terminals' Annual Report once the EPA has looked over it.

A discussion followed about the draft EIP presented by Terminals. Queries arose over whether the EIP was in line with Terminals licence and whether things outstanding from the last EIP would be included in this next one. The discussion included whether the EIP covered compliance areas based on the licence and also had aspirational qualities.

Sue Mc

Said Terminals had to supply the EPA with a Class 3 Reduction Plan and a Greenhouse Emissions Plan. She requested to see them.

Sue KT

Suggested putting a time limit on the Chemtrans presentation and questions at the next meeting.

Robin

Declared the meeting closed at 10.10pm.

The next meeting will take place on Monday 20 March 2006 at 6.30pm.