Geelong Community for Good Life

Sue McLean

Joe Cicero

Geelong Community Forum

Sue Kelly-Turner

Special Monitors of Geelong

Franceska Dezalak

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Group

John Wilson

Terminals Pty Ltd

George Horman (Managing Director)

Geoff Millard (HSE Manager)

Carlo Fasolino (State Manager)

Gary O'Sullivan

Wayne Jarman

Community Representative

Peter Linaker

CFA Geelong

Ian Beswick

Community Representative

Ralph Taylor

Community Representative

Greg Postuma

Geelong Grammar School

Jon Apted (Director of Planning)

Northern Community Consultative Group

Bill Aitken

EPA

Anne Marie McCarthy

Green Party

Catherine Jones

Axiom Energy

Danny Goldman (Managing Director)

David Vinson (Technical Director)

Worksafe

Geoff Cooke

North Shore Residents Group

Margrette Lewis

Geelong Community for Good Life

Gordon Alderson

Friends of Point Lillias and Corio Bay

Col Edwards

Northern Community Consultative Group

Paul Dakin

Item 1

Welcome by Chair

Robin

Welcomed committee to the meeting and mentioned a change to the agenda where item 6 had an additional Item 6(i) Axiom Energy Biodiesel Proposal - presentation and discussion in the light of the recent media releases. Robin introduced Danny Goldman, Managing Director and David Vinson, Technical Director of Axiom Energy.

Item 2

Apologies, confirmation of Draft Agenda

Apologies were received from Margrette Lewis, Col Edwards, Geoff Cooke, Paul Dakin and Gordon Alderson.

Sue Mc

Queried the Chemtrans presentation that had previously been scheduled.

Gary

Explained that Pat Hornbuckle had returned to work and that he would follow up with Pat.

ITEM 3

Confirmation of Draft Minutes

No objections were raised and the minutes from the meeting of 10 April 2006 were adopted.

ITEM 4

Draft EIP (Terminals' outline to be expanded: comment by EPA, Committee)

Carlo

Stated minor changes had been made based on the action items and that he had only received feedback from community member Sue Kelly Turner.

Sue Mc

Suggested putting the EIP on the agenda for the June meeting and the committee to send their comments to Carlo prior to that meeting. A cut off date for comments to be received was agreed at 22 May.

ACTION

Community comment on the Draft Environment Improvement Plan (EIP) to be given to Carlo Fasolino before May 22.

Anne Marie

Stated it was premature to consider the EIP before the license was drawn up. She said the license would be modified now that butadiene was being stored. She said the EIP need not include the license requirements and should be aspirational.

George

Said the community was insistent that the license items should be listed in the EIP so that they could see them.

Sue Mc

Stated the community want to see the Works Approval conditions in the EIP, for example the monitoring requirements.

Anne Marie

Stated that the Works Approval conditions could be viewed in the license but agreed that some of the conditions like the monitoring requirements should be a part of the EIP.

Sue Mc

Asked how long it would be until the license was updated.

Anne Marie

Said she hoped it would be by the end of this year or early next year.

Sue Mc

Stated she would like to see the EIP established prior to that.

Bill

Queried EPA's monitoring strategy.

Anne Marie

Said the EPA have Opsis equipment monitoring other emissions and that odours were often checked as a response to phone reports.

Catherine

Queried how Terminals could smell or hear anything over the noise from Shell.

Franceska

Said the community expect a response from the EPA but that the EPA would not respond unless emissions were reported. She was concerned that this placed the responsibility onto the community.

Anne Marie

Stated the EPA also responds by issuing license regulations, from Companies reporting to them as well as community members reporting to the EPA.

Franceska

Stated that the EPA should have 24 hour monitoring.

Anne Marie

Stated that the EPA cannot be around 24/7 and that they have to rely on the community at times.

Robin

Stated that the community wanted to get on with the EIP. He summarised that the EIP needed to be part aspirational as required by the EPA as well as a repeat of the license requirements so that the community could keep up with those things.

Anne Marie

Agreed that from the VCAT hearing, some of the works approval conditions do belong in the EIP.

Peter

Suggested the EPA start early on a draft EIP to determine which item goes where. He suggested this could run concurrently with the license.

George

Requested that the EIP be at least accepted in part due to the work that had already gone into it.

Anne Marie

Stated that repetitions of the license would not be included in an EIP that the EPA signs off on.

Carlo

Suggested he take some time with Anne Marie to explain the community/Terminals position and how they arrived at the current draft.

ACTION

Carlo and Anne Marie to discuss the EIP in the knowledge of what had been said at the April/May meetings.

Sue Mc

Requested a definition of an EIP from the EPA.

ACTION

The EPA to provide a definition of an EIP.

Joe

Asked George if it was a triparty EIP. He stated that behind the scenes it was the EPA and Terminals discussing the EIP and asked when the community could be a part of it.

George

Stated Terminals had been working on the EIP for several months and that the community had made suggestions over that time that had been included in the draft.

John

Stated that members were concerned that EPA was stating what could and could not be a part of the EIP. He said the EIP involved all chemicals stored at the Terminals site not just butadiene. He stated the EPA must address the community concerns.

George

Pointed out that anyone from the committee could go and speak to Anne Marie regarding the EIP.

Bill

Said the EIP was different to an Environment Management Plan

George

Urged the EPA not to re-invent the EIP but to work with what had already been established.

ITEM 5

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 a future meeting to show the committee. (Deferred pending further advice from Ian.)

10/6 Geoff Millard to present at this meeting.

11/2 Geoff Millard on QEST information - to be discussed - in the event this was deferred to June.

11/5 Verification of changes of HAZOP dates - done, Terminals in touch directly with members for future HAZOPS.

12/2 Extended until 22.5.06 - see new action item 14/1

12/4 Steve absent, defer until June

12/5 George to invite Kevin Garde.

12/7 Will not be implemented at this stage, in line with decision to first run the Emergency Management meeting in-house as a trial.

12/13 The contract has been signed with Sourcing Solutions.

George

Said samples had been taken and modelling was now being done. George said he was surprised to find high sulphur levels in bitumen. He suggested deferring a briefing until the next meeting.

Sue Mc

Asked if a comparison was being done of the grades Terminals would be storing in Geelong.

George

Said the modelling was being done on Australian produced bitumen and they would simulate what vapours would be produced during the ship discharge. He said the odour could go over the boundary. He said the modelling would be done on the worst-case scenario of vapours. He said two grades would be stored at Terminals and that he would present at the next meeting.

Sue Mc

Said that the imported bitumen that Terminals would be storing may be different to Australian grades and suggested that given what Mobil go through, it was not feasible that the results would be accurate.

John

Asked what made the difference in the two grades Terminals would be storing.

George

Said the viscosity would be different but he would need to ask Lloyd that question.

Joe

Asked if George was considering vapour abatement technology if it were required.

George

Said yes.

13/1 Garry to follow up with Pat Hornbuckle - deferred until June

13/2 Defer until June

13/3 Defer until June

13/4 Site tour conducted prior to this meeting.

13/5 Done, Terminals to communicate directly with community members re HAZOP dates.

13/6 Gary stated he had spoken to Karen Sherlock and that three local primary schools closest to Terminals would be approached for the competition and that a computer would be donated to the winning school as a prize.

ITEM 6 (i)

Axiom Energy Biodiesel Proposal - Presentation and discussion (if desired by the Committee)

Danny and David

Presented the committee members with a booklet that they referred to when speaking. They detailed how palm oil and tallow (beef fat) would be stored at the Terminals site and then used to make the biodiesel product at the Axiom site next door. The finished product would then be stored at the Terminals site. It was estimated it would involve the movement of 17-20 trucks per day. They stated the plant would give off no atmospheric emissions and that alcohol would be the only volatile product stored. There would be a recycling plant set up to recycle about 80% of the water used in production and that they may use water caught from the rooves of Cheetham Salt and Toll.

Peter

Asked if biodiesel burned cleaner than diesel.

David

Said biodiesel has oxygen in it and the oxygenation makes it a cleaner burn.

Bill

Asked what technologies Axiom would bring to Victoria and what gave them the edge to make a better product than has been made in the past.

David

Referred to Safer Energy and said the plant was in modules that would be assembled on site. It would take up 30m x 30m and less space than a two-storey building. It had been patented. He said that any oil could be used to make fuel but that the process had been moved from a back-yard industry to an up-to-date manufacturing process and this is what gave Axiom an edge.

Jon

Asked if there was a shortage of land for a port development.

David

Said Axiom would lease a small piece of land from Toll.

Ralph

Asked if Axiom would be conducting the recycling of plastic at the site.

Danny

Said this would not be done at the Geelong site.

Joe

Asked if the biodiesel was being produced for local consumption or export.

Danny

Said their preference was for all local consumption but they would have to build the market. They may have to export some until this market was established. He said there had been a good market reaction to imported biodiesel and that Axiom's focus was to sell as much of their product to the Victorian market as possible. He said they could satisfy the Victorian market for the blend.

Peter

Asked what price per litre the biodiesel would sell at and if it would be profitable for Axiom.

Danny

Stated Axiom would sell the fuel to a fuel distributor at a discount but it was up to the distributor as to the price it was on-sold. He said it would be profitable for Axiom shareholders.

Robin

Asked if there was a government subsidy.

Danny

Said there would be a 38c/litre offset from the government until 2010. He said there was government support to help the move out of fossil fuels.

Greg

Asked whom the fuel would be marketed to.

Danny

Said it would be marketed to trucking companies and independent fuel wholesalers. He said the market started slowly in Europe but is now a big business. Biodiesel was also being considered for bunker fuels in ships as if there is a spill it is totally biodegradable.

Robin

Thanked David and Danny for their presentation.

ITEM 6 (ii)

Report from Terminals

Sue Mc

Said regarding the VCAT hearing on the Planning Application for the bitumen storage that the notification period for objections had been extended as the application had an error stating the tanks were for MEG and not bitumen.

Robin

Suggested this was a good point to discuss Item 10 as George had requested a change to the date of the Emergency Communication meeting.

Item 10

Emergency communication (arrangements for Special Meeting 10 July 2006).

Carlo

Suggested that the meeting be postponed until 10 July then presented a proposed summary of those involved in the presentation.

The committee discussed the advertising for the event. George and Carlo suggested newspaper advertising ten days prior and then one week prior but the rest of the committee seemed to think it would be more appropriate to have advertisements two week prior then one week prior.

George

Suggested putting the website address on the advertisement referring to the website for more details.

Sue Mc

Asked why the SES was not involved.

Ian

Stated that the SES may be involved if a mass evacuation occurred but it was unlikely.

ACTION

Ian and Terminals to decide if the SES is to attend the Emergency Communication meeting.

Bill

Suggested schools send out information in their school newsletter as a way of advertising the meeting.

John

Suggested involving those who are not mobile such as the disabled or elderly and inviting some members of those communities.

Ian

Stated that a desktop exercise of this type was not like going to a call out. He said the procedures set down would not mean anything to the community and that it would all be hypothetical.

Peter

Suggested the facilitator would be the heart of the whole action and suggested Kevin Garde from the City of Greater Geelong may help find a facilitator.

George

Said he had a few people in mind to facilitate.

Ralph

Said to expect the community to ask about the worst-case scenario.

Robin

Explained that the scenario was a vehicle for emergency services to explain how they carry through.

It was suggested if the general public were brought to such a meeting it would be hard to control because of hecklers.

Sue Mc

Said there was concern from the broader community and that was why such a meeting was necessary.

Bill

Stated Barwon Health was a major player and questioned whether they would have the resources available to treat those effected by an incident.

John

Suggested it be presented in a language everyone in the public could understand.

Sue KT

Said there could be problems if the wider community were invited and suggested confining such a meeting to the Terminals committee with selected invitations. She did not believe any services would come if the general public were present.

Peter

Suggested the participants may be torn to pieces and questioned the purpose of the meeting.

Franceska

Stated the public needed to know the process and be empowered.

George

Ran through his proposed structure of the meeting with the experience he had gained from attending another similar meeting that had been very successful.

George

Suggested that the consensus of the meeting was to keep it in house for July as a dry run with a view to open it to the public if successful.

Ralph

Queried whether a small component of the community could be invited.

Robin

Pointed out that the TGCCC meetings were open to the public.

George

Said it was worthwhile for the community and the agencies to get a view of how the other was thinking.

Robin

Suggested the committee leave George to decide the running of the meeting with a view to all that had been discussed at this meeting.

George

Went on with the Terminals report to state that the Butadiene sphere was on site and being put into place. He said the new owner of Terminals had now gone back to the USA.

EPA Report

Anne Marie

Said she had been brought up to speed by Gary since Daniel's resignation and had been out to the Terminals site with Gary regarding the license requirements. She said she was the replacement for Daniel for another 6-8 weeks until he is formally replaced.

CFA Report

Ian

Nothing to report.

ITEM 9

Housekeeping - Website

ACTION

Committee members put forward to Robin the reports they would like to see put on the website.

ITEM 7

Geoff Millard's presentation on the process for reviewing incidents (with examples).

Geoff

Presented to the committee using an Incident and Non Conformance Report of an incident that occurred in June 2005 as an example that the committee could read through.

Sue Mc

Suggested that safety and environmental ratings may be different.

ACTION

Geoff to address Sue's concern that the severity ratings need to relate to both human injury and environmental impact. These may have different ratings.

Peter

Stated he was disappointed that in the actions raised from the case Geoff discussed (where two drivers did not shut down their loading operations on hearing the siren (alarm)), that induction & training procedures were not checked for all operators in that scenario to see if training was effective. He was concerned and stated that where performance fails, there can be various reasons, one of which is to check and query the practical effectiveness of Terminals' training.

Robin

Declared the meeting closed at 9.30pm

The next meeting will take place on Monday 5 June 2006 at 6.30pm at the Corio Library meeting room, Cox Rd Norlane.