Geelong Community for Good Life

Sue McLean

Joe Cicero

Geelong Community Forum

Sue Kelly-Turner

Green Party

Catherine Jones

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Group

John Wilson

Terminals Pty Ltd

George Horman (Managing Director)

Jeff Hibbert

Gary O'Sullivan

Community Representative

Peter Linaker

CFA Geelong

Ian Beswick

Community Representative

Ralph Taylor

Community Representative

Greg Postuma

City of Greater Geelong

Steve Sodamaco

Worksafe

Geoff Cooke

Northern Community Consultative Group

Paul Dakin

Terminals Pty Ltd

Geoff Millard (HSE Manager)

Carlo Fasolino (State Manager)

EPA

Daniel Calderwood

Geelong Grammar School

Jon Apted (Director of Planning)

Item 1

Welcome by Chair

Robin

Welcomed committee to the meeting.

Item 2

Apologies, confirmation of Draft Agenda

Apologies were received from the EPA, Jon Apted, Geoff Millard, Carlo Fasolino and Paul Dakin.

The Draft Agenda was accepted.

ITEM 3

Confirmation of Draft Minutes

No objections were raised and the minutes from the meeting of 13 February 2006 were accepted.

ITEM 4

Pat Hornbuckle of Chemtrans to discuss transport routes

Pat Hornbuckle did not arrive at the meeting.

ITEM 5

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

Joe

Asked if the EPA had commented on the Draft EIP yet.

George

Said the EPA had seen it and knew of the draft.

Peter

Raised some queries over butadiene issues not covered in the draft EIP and whether information had come from qualified persons.

George

Stated that the draft did not address the butadiene project in any way. He said that the conditions put on construction for the butadiene project were being followed and when the construction was finished and a new licence had been granted with amendments, the EIP would be updated.

Robin

Enquired about the document Carlo submitted to the EPA regarding the conditions of construction for the butadiene project.

George

Stated that the document could be made available to the committee.

ACTION

Terminals to make available to the committee, the document submitted to the EPA regarding the conditions of construction for the butadiene project.

Ralph

Asked when the VCM inspection was due.

Gary

Said it was due in 2007 and would be done by AMEC on sphere 2100.

Ralph

Asked what stage Terminals was at with the action plan listed and what dates the actions would take place.

Gary

Suggested they would know dates by August.

George

Stated target dates could be listed on the EIP.

Joe

Asked regarding the butadiene project, why the licence would drive the EIP, when the EIP should be independent for the committee and the EPA.

George

Said there was a Works Approval for the butadiene project that covered many issues. He said the draft EIP did not need to cover the butadiene project, as it was a broader document.

Robin

Stated the scope of an EIP could be different things to different people; it was flexible.

Joe

Said he thought Carlo had put it together for the committee's response.

George

Stated that if the committee wanted to suggest other things to go into the EIP that they could do so and then the draft would be fleshed out and presented again. He asked what additional detail the committee wanted and stated the EPA had to be happy with it too. He said the EIP was for a one-year period.

Steve

Suggested changing the terminology to Environmental Management Plan and tagging two separate things: improvement and compliance, as the plan would be on going and improvements would be added.

Sue K-T

Asked if it was a tripartite plan between the EPA, the community and Terminals. She stated there were more parties than the EPA to consider.

George

Said he had no objections to including the community but said the plan could not be in conflict with what the EPA wanted.

Sue KT

Confirmed the community could put their requirements onto the EIP.

Robin

Suggested restructuring the EIP to show the EPA their requirements and the community theirs.

John

Stated the EIP seemed to be what had happened rather than what was planned. He went on to state his concern over the unconsolidated soils at the Terminals site saying that each new tank added another load to the soil.

Jeff

Said a geotechnical analysis had been done on the site and from that a civil engineer had done the site design and the footings had been approved. He said the required loading for earthquake risk had been undertaken.

George

Said guidelines for earthquakes in this region would have been followed.

Jeff

Said the first piles had been tested to 170 tonnes, when the required load was only 140 tonnes. Footings would go into natural sediments.

John

Asked if Terminals had considered the implications of all additions impacting on the block.

Peter

Queried the consulting firm's calculations for loadings and suggested contacting them. He also suggested writing on twelve months' validity.

Sue Mc

Asked regarding seismic activity if a report had been submitted to council.

George

Stated reports had been submitted and could be circulated.

Sue Mc

Asked regarding the 12-month period for the EIP, if that was an arbitrary figure or if the licence requirement was for a twelve-month period if it had to be submitted or re done.

Gary

Said the licence would have to be redone with the bitumen proposal.

Robin

Asked with the EIP if Carlo was looking at license conditions and also queried long-term improvements.

George

Said Terminals had to work out ways of operating and minimising emissions.

Sue KT

Asked George if he thought the EIP was for the EPA or for the community. She requested dates for the Soil and Groundwater contamination action plan, for example when Terminals would be liaising with Shell. She stated the Draft EIP was not good enough.

Gary

Said the community's comments would be taken on board and the draft fleshed out from there.

George

Stated that in this context the EIP was for the community as the community had asked for it.

Sue KT

Said she was frustrated that the EPA was not present at the meeting to discuss the EIP, as Terminals would then have to discuss it with the EPA behind closed doors.

Robin

Requested the butadiene project be included in the EIP.

Sue Mc

Requested the EIP include the introduction of high-level alarms, as that was not clear enough in the draft. She requested the EIP use language the community understands. She requested vegetation around the Terminals site be included in the plan as a landscaping/aesthetic issue as well as safety around the site.

Peter

Queried the wording "firewater".

George

Said although it meant water to prevent a fire it could read "water" instead.

Steve

Stated there was a need for an on going "live-ness" to the plan. He suggested tagging on-going improvements and compliance issues. He suggested a management plan to be on going.

John

Stated that the community was looking for time frames for the different actions. He suggested the biggest problem was liaising with Shell and asked how would Shell cooperate with Terminals.

Ralph

Asked what contribution Terminals wanted from the community.

George

Suggested Terminals would flesh out the Draft EIP and re-submit it to the community again.

Robin

Suggested the community detail their comments and email them to George.

ACTION

Community members to email additions for the Draft Environment Improvement Plan to George Horman, and Terminals to revise the draft EIP to cover the issues raised at the meeting, including:

the scope of the EIP should satisfy both EPA and the community;

if necessary matters to meet these different objectives could be listed separately;

target dates for all items to be added;

other matters advised to George by community members;

the butadiene plant to be added in;

clarification of the EIP duration, 1 year or 3? The committee noted that long term environmental improvements were important;

suggestion that improvement and compliance be separately addressed in the plan.

ITEM 6

Business Arising from Minutes

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

9/4 CFA to bring Chemical Biological Radiological detection equipment used for hazardous chemical spills to the March meeting to show the committee - Dispute still in progress, reschedule item for later meeting.

George

(9/12) Stated Shell do not want to give Terminals details of their Emergency Communications Procedures as they do not want Terminals to give it to this committee.

Sue Mc

Stated it was given to community reps under the community right to know policy. She said she was happy to bring the document to the next meeting.

ACTION

Sue McLean to email Shell's Emergency Response Procedures to Katie to be circulated prior to the next meeting.

10/6 Geoff Millard to present in April on the process for reviewing incidents and will include one or two actual incidents in his presentation.

John

Stated that the community want detail when they are notified of an incident.

George

Said Terminals would continue to discuss things openly with the community.

John

Said that being open allows the community to contribute to avoid recurrence of incidents.

Ralph

Asked why it was so difficult to get information from Shell. He said the City of Greater Geelong should have that type of information (Emergency Response Procedures).

Steve

Said the City is investigating the "auto trigger" for landline and mobile phones in an emergency. He said he would ask the Emergency Response group why Shell wouldn't release their procedures.

ACTION

Steve to ask the Municipal Emergency Management group why Shell will not release their Emergency Response information.

Sue Mc

Suggested businesses need to deal with emergencies in unison.

A general discussion arose with a suggestion put forward that a special meeting be devoted to emergency management procedures. It was suggested the 5 June TGCCC meeting be taken over for that purpose. It was proposed that the CFA, Council, Marine Safety and Emergency Services be invited to attend.

ACTION

Steve Sodamaco to invite Kevin Garde from the Municipal Emergency Management committee to attend (and present at) the Emergency Management Procedures meeting on June 5 2006.

ACTION

Robin Saunders to draft and circulate an agenda for the Emergency Management Procedures meeting on June 5 2006.

ACTION

Terminals to advertise by newspaper and radio the Emergency Management Procedures meeting on June 5 2006.

10/6 April Meeting.

10/7 Discussed at this meeting.

10/10 Discussion of EIP at this meeting.

11/1 NATA advice circulated

11/2 Response distributed, to be discussed at April Meeting

11/3 Refinery Pier - response received.

11/4 April Meeting

11/5 Joe Cicero and Ralph Taylor attended HAZOP. Report provided (to be attached to minutes.)

Sue KT

Requested that when she indicated she was interested in something, she be notified in the future.

Joe

Submitted a report on the HAZOP to Jeff Hibbert who circulated it internally.

Jeff

Stated he was happy with the community input.

11/6 Thankyou to Geoff Mays done.

11/7 Terminals advised the three-year audit is due in 2008. The annual audit is in October.

George

Advised he did not know the auditor but took it as given that a community rep would be present.

11/8 Sue Mc advised the cost of transcripts is expensive and suggested obtaining a copy of the tape from VCAT to clarify the matter. Await cost of tapes.

ACTION

George Horman to follow up with VCAT to obtain tapes from the hearing if possible (in relation to two ships at berth at the same time).

11/9 On the Agenda for this meeting

George

Notified the meeting that the EPA now required a Works Approval for the bitumen storage project. He suggested Terminals would prepare the Works Approval application and present it at the next meeting.

Peter

Stated that the EPA should be present at the next meeting.

Sue

Interrupted the discussion to read from page 137 of the VCAT decision of 25 September 2005 regarding the Terminals butadiene project:

"The objectors also had concerns with respect to the location of the butadiene supply line on the wharf alongside other delivery pipelines. The Tribunal was informed that it was not intended that more than one ship would be unloading at any one time thereby significantly removing any risk of interaction between pipelines which in any event should be sealed and self contained and notes that for the great majority of the time the butadiene supply line will be empty."

11/11 Media Release sent out revised and distributed for comment.

Peter

Objected, as all versions of the Vision are different. He said it did not work. He suggested saying the vision was covered in the Terms of Reference.

Robin

Said it was not time effective to spend so much time refining the Terms of Reference and the Media Release. He was concerned that the committee move forward.

Sue Mc

Noted that the December and November minutes on the website are the same. She also suggested that on the website there is the ability to click on the Terms of Reference and so suggested putting in the Media Release the words "See Terms of Reference" after the vision section.

Peter

Agreed to that inclusion.

11/12 Terminals Annual Report provided for the committee by email and hard copy.

ITEM 7

Report from Terminals

Gary

Presented the Terminals Operations Report for February 2006.

Sue Mc

Asked what the truck movements had been for that period.

Gary

Stated there had not been a great influx of trucks around Geelong Grammar School. Two over a two-hour period. He said there would be a greater influx if two ships unloaded in a month, then there would be one truck every hour.

John

Queried caustic soda use.

Gary

Said dairies and canneries used it.

Sue Mc

Requested that truck movements be reported as part of the Operations Report.

ACTION

Gary to provide details of truck movements in the March Operations Report as a one off to show movements during the day.

Catherine

Asked when the (Bitumen) Works Approval would be advertised.

Peter

Said the EPA notified the COGG of the requirement of the Works Approval on March 2nd.

George

Said Terminals have not submitted a Works Approval yet but would present it at a future meeting if it had not been lodged.

Sue Mc

Stated it was a requirement for known carcinogens to have a Worksafe licence.

George

Said Terminals would have to have their licence amended for butadiene to be stored.

Gary

Said tanks 2/6 and 2/7 have had high level alarms installed.

George

Said hopefully the rest of the tanks would have these alarms installed by the end of the year once the sale of the company went through. He said the owning company would be ANZ Terminals but Terminals would continue to trade under the same name.

ITEM 7

Report from the CFA

Ian

Stated CFA had nothing to report but said he would be on leave at the next meeting and would advise his replacement.

ITEM 7

Report from COGG

Steve

Stated there was nothing to report.

Robin

Advised Steve that he had still had no response to his letter of December 2005 to the COGG.

Steve

Said the COGG was struggling to get people on board at the moment.

Robin

Thanked Steve for his attendance.

Sue Mc

Notified the committee that Terminals bitumen storage proposal would be dealt with by the COGG at their next meeting on Tuesday 28 March.

ITEM 8

Housekeeping - Website

Robin

Asked all committee members if they were prepared to have their names, email addresses and phone numbers listed on the website.

Ian

Said there would need to be a record that each person had signed a written agreement for this information to appear on the website.

ACTION

Katie to prepare an agreement form for information to be displayed on the website. To be circulated with the minutes.

Sue Mc

Suggested including the suburb of residence for each committee member in case community members would like a point of contact for their area.

Sue Mc

Asked if the photos for the website were ready and when a permanent site would be established.

Robin

Said he would follow up the photos and try to give Sue an answer at the next meeting.

Peter

Suggested putting the industries and agencies on a different list to the community representatives.

Robin

Said the community reps would be listed first with a heavy line between them and the agencies/industries. He said members would need to specify if they wanted to be contacted by having their phone/email listed.

ITEM 9

Emergency communication (community rep response to Slide 9/9 from Geoff Millard)

Item discussed earlier in the meeting.

ITEM 10

Draft action plan responding to VCAT order (for discussion--outline presented by Terminals at November meeting)

Item deferred to next meeting.

ITEM 11

Dow's decision to continue with butadiene project (requested by Sue McLean)

George

Stated he had a contract from Dow and that the butadiene project was to go ahead.

Sue Mc

Asked when the contract had been signed.

George

Said it had been signed late January/early February.

Sue Mc

Asked what Dow are doing in the meantime until Terminals are ready to store butadiene.

George

Stated Dow are bringing in isotainers of latex. He had no information on how much latex Dow are importing but said none was coming in bulk through the terminal in Melbourne.

Gary

Confirmed Dow are importing isotainers of latex, not butadiene but that BASF had brought in a couple of isotainers of butadiene.

Sue and Joe

Stated that documentation from QENOS stated they provided Dow and BASF with 20,000 tonnes of butadiene per annum. A query was raised that if Terminals original application was for 3 shipments or 6000 tonne of butadiene per year, where would Dow and BASF get their 14000 tonne shortfall. They questioned George and Gary asking if Terminals had planned to store more frequent shipments of butadiene at the Geelong site or if the amount being imported would be doubled over time. They said the Works Application mentioned three ships per year but that George had already mentioned at this meeting four shipments per year.

George and Gary

Stated the facilities at Terminals would have to be changed to double the tonnage imported and that there were no plans to increase the amount of butadiene coming in. Gary said it would be nearly impossible to double the tonnage, as 400 road tankers would be needed each month. Gary stated that BASF have an 18 tonne storage capacity.

Robin

Asked Sue what action she was looking for to address the concern that the amount of butadiene imported might significantly increase.

Sue Mc

Requested an undertaking from Terminals that if their importation of butadiene exceeded 6,000 tonnes, they would inform the committee.

Peter

Enquired about the stability of future figures for Terminals imports.

Joe

Said the combustor would be used more than three times per year if more ships came in.

George

Stated that the Quenos figures were ridiculous.

ACTION

George to investigate with Dow and BASF to investigate the Quenos figures.

ACTION

Joe to fax Quenos figures to George.

ITEM 12

Terminals briefing on bitumen proposal

Sue Mc

Requested information about off-site odours.

George

Said that since Terminals have not signed a contract with Sourcing Solutions, they have not done the work on that issue. George stated his request to defer the briefing until the contract had been signed.

Sue

Stated her concern that while Terminals had lodged a planning application, there was not enough information on odour. She said the purpose of this group was to raise concerns, (in this instance) about odour.

George

Said that odour information does not go into a planning permit. He said the EPA required a Works Approval because they are concerned with odour. Terminals thought they would submit the planning application early as they thought it would be knocked back as has happened in the past and they wanted to be moving along with permits etc. by the time the contract was signed. He said by the time it goes to VCAT the odour issue would have been dealt with in the Works Approval.

Sue Mc

Stated it was a requirement for Planning Applications to comply with the SEPP. She said there were issues of concern to be dealt with here in this committee.

George

Stated Terminals did not want to spend money (on odour information) at this stage, as it is a preliminary proposal. As far as he was concerned there was no odour issue.

Sue Mc

Requested George back up the statement that there is no odour issue. She said there was no technical work required as Gary and Jeff could advise what they saw at bitumen storage sites they visited interstate.

Gary

Explained that at the inspection of an interstate bitumen facility, there had been a faint odour at truck loading and that the loading took 25 minutes

Jeff

Stated that he also had inspected the interstate bitumen facility with Gary, and he could not smell an odour at loading which occurred approximately 30-40 metres from the boundary of the site. He said they then stood at the boundary and could not smell anything. He said he could smell the cutback additives but not the bitumen. He said Terminals would only store the bitumen, not the cutback additives. He showed on the whiteboard the storage layout of the site they visited in Western Australia. He also showed the loading site and where he had stood noting again there had been no smell at loading.

ACTION

George to brief the committee on odours when and if the contract is signed with Sourcing Solutions.

ITEM 14

Date and draft agenda for next meeting

Date of the next meeting is 10 April 2006.

ACTION

Robin to contact Pat Hornbuckle re the Chemtrans transport routes.

Robin

Declared the meeting closed at 9.45pm.

The next meeting will take place on Monday 10 April 2006 at 6.30pm.