Geelong Community for Good Life

Joe Cicero

Sue McLean

Geelong Community Forum

Sue Kelly-Turner

Terminals Pty Ltd

George Horman

Gary O'Sullivan

Carlo Fasolino (State Manager)

Geoff Millard

Community Representative

Peter Linaker

Community Representative

Greg Postuma

Northern Community Consultative Group

Bill Aitken

EPA

Jim Clements

Green Party

Catherine Jones

City of Greater Geelong

Stuart Walker

Community Representative

Ralph Taylor

WorkCover

Geoff Cooke

Northern Community Consultative Group

Paul Dakin

Special Monitors of Geelong

Franceska Desalak

Geelong Community for Good Life

Gordon Alderson

Friends of Port Lillias and Corio Bay

John Wilson

North Shore Residents Group

Margrette Lewis

ITEM 1

Welcome by Chair

Robin

Welcomed Stuart Walker from the City of Greater Geelong and Jim Clements from the EPA.

ITEM 2

Apologies, confirmation of Draft Agenda

Apologies were received from Gordon Alderson, John Wilson and Margrette Lewis.

Robin

Asked for confirmation of the Draft Agenda; no one raised any objections.

Peter

Stated the last meeting had been rushed at the end and he had not had the opportunity to raise two points of business. Firstly that he felt pictures displayed on the TGCCC Website required a caption with them. Secondly he drew to the committee's attention his concern that in agreeing with the chair's proposal at the July meeting to put 17 items up on the web, this was unfair to the committee as they had not seen the detail of the reports.

Robin

Requested that Peter's concern be noted in the minutes and agreed that the pictures on the website should have captions and stated this would not be a problem to organise.

ITEM 3

Presentation from Stuart Walker COGG - Overview of Council's strategic direction in land and port planning.

Stuart

Presented the committee with notes detailing the Council's Strategic Direction in Land and Port Planning making particular reference to the fact that the council is trying to shrink the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) to make it more user friendly and that work on this is currently underway. He said a number of strategies and structure plans would be referred to but would not be included in the MSS. They would come with it instead.

Franceska

Asked if the draft MSS would come out before the election.

Stuart

Said he was not sure.

Bill

Asked what the CoGG's definition of open space was. He asked if it would come under the charter of the MSS or something else.

Stuart

Said the definition would be somewhere in the 1300 pages but he would have to come back to Bill with a definition of open space.

ACTION

Stuart to provide the committee with the CoGG's definition of open space.

Sue Mc

Asked regarding the 120 reviews of planning permits received by the CoGG in the 2004/2005 year lodged at VCAT, how that number compared to the number of reviews lodged at VCAT by other councils.

Stuart

Said the number was about average compared with other councils.

Sue Mc

Noted that at the Community Voice Forum, Dr David Dunt had pointed to problems with the planning process, and the failure to integrate the issue of community health and safety risk assessment with the overall assessment of proposals. Sue asked where the issue fitted in with the MSS review.

Robin

Said he had a copy of the slides from David Dunt and would forward them to Stuart for those involved with the MSS to look at.

ACTION

Robin to email David Dunt's overheads to Stuart.

Stuart

Said the council would struggle to get the Port Structure plan into the MSS and would have to do a separate planning scheme amendment to incorporate it.

George

Asked if the MSS included the Port.

Stuart

Said it did in general terms but was trying to get away from site specifics.

Peter

Asked if there had been any trouble with retrospective VPP's?

Stuart

Advised that retrospectivity in planning was very unusual, but noted the government's prerogative in light of it being their planning scheme.

Stuart

Stated two councillors, Crs Lou Brazier and Tom O'Conner had indicated a willingness to attend the occasional meeting and also be included on the mailing list to receive copies of the minutes.

Robin

Suggested extending an invitation to these two councillors to attend one or more meetings.

Peter

Noted that councillors may not be aware of the TGCCC website and suggested informing them.

Robin

Said he would include it with the invitation to the two councillors and they could pass it on to others.

Bill

Asked if Stuart could understand it was better to have an officer to come to meetings regularly rather than a councillor now and again.

Stuart

Informed the committee there were 200 committee meetings operating around Geelong and it was very hard to get councillors to attend them all.

Franceska

Stated it was most important for councillors to attend meetings of industry because of the associated health issues.

Sue Mc

Stated Council has an accountability to attend this meeting as Terminals is a major hazard facility.

Stuart

Explained he has to spread his team over a large range of committees and that many councillors agonise over their inability to do all that is expected of them. He said they were kept well informed of this meeting by the minutes and by the Chair but it could not be physically done to have someone attend every meeting.

Robin

Suggested if it was important to have a council representative for a certain issue that the committee could contact Stuart directly.

Stuart

Felt that issues such as planning issues needed someone with a planning background.

Ralph

Stated that he would accept that two sets of minutes would go to the COGG Health and Planning departments.

ACTION

Robin to extend an invitation to Crs Lou Brazier and Tom O'Conner to attend one or more TGCCC meetings, informing them of the TGCCC website in the invitation and ensure minutes of each meeting were sent to them.

Franceska

Asked if the committee were aware that Stuart would be leaving the CoGG at Christmas.

Peter and the Committee

Thanked Stuart for attending the TGCCC meeting and expressed their appreciation.

ITEM 4

Confirmation of the Draft Minutes of the meeting on 9 September

Sue Mc

Queried the statement on page 4 "15.3 Hazop minutes provided - Done." Sue objected to the word "provided" and requested it be changed to "made available".

Joe

Requested the minutes show that Item 15/6 ("Gary to liaise between Frank Fleer, Sue McLean and Carlo to determine when the background butadiene testing would occur and how the community could be involved. Carlo to contact Sue McLean re notification difficulties.") was refreshed.

The minutes of the September 9 meeting were accepted by the committee with these changes.

Robin

Requested confirmation from the committee of the draft notes from the Special Meeting on Emergency Procedures.

The notes were accepted by the committee.

Sue Mc

Asked what the results were of the butadiene background monitoring. She pointed out that the VCAT order said the results had to be presented at the TGCCC meeting.

Carlo

Stated he had not yet received the results from Frank Fleer.

ACTION

Carlo to follow up with Frank Fleer to see when the results of the butadiene background monitoring will be expected.

ITEM 5

Draft EIP Final sign off by Committee.

Sue Mc

Requested clarification on the issue of monitoring on fence lines at the Terminals site.

George

Stated this had been dealt with in the lead up to the final version of the EIP.

Robin

Stated monitoring issues had been dealt with in previous action items and that a deadline had been put in place for comment on the final version of the EIP and this deadline had passed.

Franceska

Said the EIP stated VCM spheres are 30 years old and there would not be as much maintenance. She stated her concern at this given the age of the sphere and felt more maintenance would be needed.

George

Stated each time a sphere is taken out of service for maintenance there was a risk of emission. He said there was a requirement that spheres be taken out of service between 9-11 years and inspected internally. Instead of emptying a sphere to check welds etc inside, this can now be done externally. Pointed out the EIP states the maintenance system will be reviewed, but no change will be made until a study is done in the future to find a better way of maintaining spheres.

Catherine

Stated she felt even a ten year check was too long for a 30 year old sphere.

Carlo

Pointed out that 30 years of sphere history was a benefit.

Ralph

Stated environment management strategies are continuous measures. He said normal maintenance was not an EIP.

Robin

Stated the EIP item under discussion was not about maintenance, it was about the review of maintenance.

Bill

Pointed out in his view maintenance matters should not form part of the EIP.

Peter

Stated his reservation that for those community members signing the EIP, their signature signified something. Instead it should reflect that this EIP was approved by the committee and signed by the Chair in witness of the members.

Robin

Asked Sue KT for her sense of what she was signing.

Sue KT

Said by signing she agreed with the actions Terminals have agreed they will do in the period the EIP is valid for. Sue read the wording on the EIP pertinent for signatories.

Robin

Stated Sue Kelly Turner and Jon Apted were the only Committee members willing to sign.

Sue KT

Stated she was signing on behalf of herself, not the committee. She said she would sign it as it would be an environment improvement if Terminals undertake what is listed in the EIP.

George

Acknowledged all those who contributed to the forming of the EIP.

Sue Mc

Said she liked the idea that George acknowledged the contributions of members of the committee but said that someone had been approached to be a signatory to the document.

Sue KT

Stated at no time had she been approached by Terminals to sign the EIP.

George

Signed the EIP. Thanked everybody who had contributed and acknowledged it was controversial for members of the committee to sign but said thanks to community contributions to the EIP Terminals was now doing more than they had planned but it would improve the environment quicker and better due to the contributions of the committee members. He understood signing the EIP was like supporting Terminals but he said he did not see it that way. He said it was not aligning oneself with Terminals but just saying that you have agreed with Terminals and the EPA to move forward with this plan. He said Terminals was grateful for all contributions, hold them highly and appreciate member's efforts to take the time to look and contribute to the EIP.

ITEM 8

Reports from Terminals, EPA, WorkCover, CFA, City of Greater Geelong

Terminals Report

George

Stated Terminals have reviewed and revised the butadiene Safety Case. The annual EPA performance report on air/water/subsurface matters had been submitted to the EPA. The EPA 20B conference on bitumen storage had been held Thursday 28 September.

Sue Mc

Reported she felt the community had been heard at the 20B conference.

Gary

Presented the Operations Report for September, detailing the non-conformance issues of which there were more in September due to the testing Terminals had been undertaking on their equipment.

Sue Mc

Asked how often the fire water spray nozzles on tanks become blocked.

Gary

Stated it occurs about once per year but they are checked twice monthly.

Geoff C

Stated the non-conformance issues are positive indicators to show the tests Terminals do on their equipment are working.

WorkSafe Report

Geoff C

Presented an overhead on the renewal of the Major Hazard Facility licence for Terminals Corio, focusing on the process and timelines for licence renewal.

Sue Mc

Thanked Geoff for attending the 20B conference on bitumen storage. She asked Geoff at what stage WorkSafe say the risk to workers at a site is too high.

Geoff C

Stated Terminals is a purpose built dangerous goods site. He said the most important control is the prevention of material escaping [^] to ensure it is not released in large quantities to harm workers or the community. WorkSafe ensure the risks are controlled so far as is reasonably practicable. He said the 10^-5 criteria is the risk at the site boundary not specific to workers but to the community. He said WorkSafe looked more at bad practices and systems etc.

Robin

Asked if there is a standard for workers.

Geoff

Said in Victoria there is not a standard listed. The 10^-4 criteria is for off-shore platforms. There is no on-site criteria that is fully accepted in Victoria.

Robin

Stated Terminals is then not over its standard for workers.

George

Asked if there is no criteria, how do WorkSafe measure.

Geoff

Said Terminals' testing is picking up defects in systems that are positive indicators to show the testing is working. WorkSafe is trying to show the MHF regime is making a difference.

Robin

Asked Geoff if he would say Terminals Geelong facility is safer this year than last.

Geoff

Said he thought so, he has seen improvements in what Terminals are doing and Terminals are doing what they say will do but it is difficult to measure.

George

Rigorous training schemes etc have been undertaken and the chances of a major on-site incident have been reduced. There has been a risk reduction.

Joe

Asked if subsequent to the butadiene HAZOP, WorkSafe had reviewed the minutes to check if there were any items outstanding.

Geoff C

Said nothing came to mind.

Geoff M

Stated 80-90% of items had been closed out at this stage.

Joe

Stated his concern that there had been no feedback to the committee on this.

George

Stated that Jeff Hibbert had resigned from Terminals and will join Marstel. He said Paul Hayward would be taking over the project.

Joe

Said he felt it appropriate that the committee be informed on a regular basis about the project.

ACTION

A presentation from Paul Hayward be put on the Agenda for the December meeting.

Sue Mc

Requested information prior to the December meeting.

George

Stated butadiene would not be brought to the Corio site in isotainers. When the butadiene sphere is commissioned a ship would have to sit there and it would be a long process. He hoped this would occur well before Christmas. He said Terminals will not tell people when the sphere will be commissioned as they do not want to draw unwanted attention as this is a controversial project.

BREAK

George

Informed the committee that the COGG was running behind with the biodiesel Planning Application. He said two applications had been lodged, one from Axiom for the processing plant and one from Terminals for the storage of biodiesel.

Sue Mc

Asked about the pipes between the processing plant and the storage site at Terminals.

Carlo

Stated he hoped the pipes would run above ground for environmental reasons.

George

Said there would be four small pipes hopefully above ground so the pipes could be inspected.

EPA Report

Jim

Said the EPA had not received any community complaints about site operations. Regarding the Terminals Bitumen Works Approval application, he said there had been four submissions, three were community concerns and one was a Vic Roads supported proposal. He referred to community reps being dissatisfied that issues had not been addressed at the community meeting held by Terminals and informed the committee that Peter Davies had held a special 20B Conference to cover these issues. The EPA was awaiting a report from Peter Davies and would then make a decision.

The EPA was also continuing to assess the Accredited Licence Application from Terminals.

The Terminals Annual Report had been submitted to the EPA.

Further to the Terminals EIP, Jim commented that some organisations have a subcommittee drawing up their EIP's. Some organisations build in a change mechanism. Jim said he was pleased to see the process of the EIP had drawn to a close and recognised the good suggestions made by the community and taken up by Terminals.

Peter

Asked if the EPA had made any requests to Terminals for additional information in the Bitumen Works Approval Application under Section 22.

Jim

Said no requests had been made for more information under Section 22 but more information on greenhouse emissions had been requested. He said the vapour return system hadn't been compared to the combustor system so credit couldn't be given for good practice.

He said the Accredited Licence decision could be expected in the next 2-4 weeks.

Joe

Said at the last meeting he had asked item 17/6 (EPA to find out if the 30A Commissioning process is open to members of the community. Committee participation possibility - to attend and ensure everything closed out appropriately. Is it up to Terminals what extent they want committee members involved?) and requested a response.

Jim

Stated it was up to Terminals to decide if the community could be involved. He said the EPA had given commissioning approval but was silent on community involvement.

George

Said the commissioning was not a time for spectators due to security risks.

Joe

Stated he believed there were still unresolved issues from the HAZOP and queried how the community would ascertain whether actions had been carried out. He said WorkSafe had not been in attendance at the HAZOP meetings.

Geoff M

Said part of the commissioning protocol was to ensure all issues had been closed out.

George

Stated WorkSafe would do the verification process.

Geoff M

Said the onus was on the company to ensure everything is safe prior to commissioning.

George

Stated that WorkSafe could stop the process if they were not satisfied.

Robin

Suggested Joe needed assurance on his issues. However this was unresolved.

George

Stated he didn't think the project had changed substantially.

Joe

Stated the way butadiene would be received at the Terminals site had been changed in that it would now be received at ambient temperature instead of being refrigerated. This would result in the product not being discharged at a regular time. He said the density of the butadiene at ambient temperature would exceed 90%.

George

Stated the pressure rating of the butadiene sphere did not require butadiene to be refrigerated at unloading.

Joe

Asked who would do the sampling and if inhibitor would be added to the product.

George

Said inhibitor never had to be added to VCM. He said before Terminals discharge the ship they have to know if the inhibitor levels are right. He said the product would not be discharged until the level was right. He said he did not know about sample points on the ship as that was not his business.

Sue Mc

Stated that it was EPA's responsibility to monitor the commissioning of the butadiene sphere. As provided as an outcome of the Works Approval, Terminals had to provide the EPA with a copy of the fire safety study, the leak detection and repair program, the HAZOP, and the final piping and instrument drawings, for EPA approval.

Jim

Said the EPA had received the Fire Safety Study and the HAZOP. The leak detection and repair plan was outstanding.

ACTION

Jim to report to the TGCCC on the butadiene sphere commissioning process and proposed licence changes.

Ralph

Asked if Terminals had worked through the HAZOP study with the EPA. He asked how the committee would assess the HAZOP result. He suggested a subcommittee sign the confidentiality agreement and work on this. A discussion ensured between a couple of members of the committee but was unresolved.

Robin

Declared the meeting closed at 9.40pm.

The next meeting will take place on Monday 4 December in the Meeting Room of Corio Library, Cox Road, Norlane at 6.00 for 6.30pm.