TGCCC Adopted Minutes 2 April 2007

Terminals GCCC

(Terminals Geelong Community Consultative Committee)

Adopted Minutes of the Meeting

Held in the Meeting Room, Corio Library, Norlane

Monday 2 April 2007

Present:

Robin Saunders, Chair

Moya Richardson, Minute Taker

Geelong Community for Good Life	Sue McLean
Terminals Pty Ltd	Gary O'Sullivan Carlo Fasolino Geoff Millard George Horman
Geelong Community Forum	Sue Kelly Turner
Northern Community Consultative Group	Bill Aitken
Community Representative	Ralph Taylor
Community Representative	Francesca Dezelak
EPA	Neil McKenzie
Worksafe	Geoff Cooke
CFA	Ian Beswicke
City Of Greater Geelong	Lyndon Rae

Apologies:

Friends of Port Lillias and Corio Bay	John Wilson
EPA	Anne Marie McCarthy
Community Representative	Greg Postuma

ITEM 1	Welcome by Chair
Robin	Welcomed Neil McKenzie from EPA and Geoff Cook from WorkSafe, who began an audit for Terminals today, 2nd April.
ITEM 2	Apologies, confirmation of Draft Agenda
	Apologies were received from John Wilson, Anne Marie McCarthy, Greg Postuma. (Sue MacLean to get contact details for Greg Postuma)
Robin	Asked for confirmation of the Draft Agenda; no one raised any objections.
ITEM 3	Confirmation of the draft minutes of the meeting on 5 March 2007
	The draft minutes were adopted without change.
ITEM 4	Business Arising from Minutes
Action Item 13/6	Done- Geelong Grammar as school selected for submission of designs to Terminals as no other school showed interest.
Action Item 17/9	Done
Action Item 19/2	Deferred to next meeting May 2007 with EPA presentation.
Neil	Acknowledged that the majority of contamination issues were from the Shell refinery and he stated that he would bring in a graph that depicts the levels of contamination next meeting.
Action Item 21/3	Report on the leak detection regime- On Agenda tonight
Action Item 18/5	Draft for Strategic Port Plan still ongoing
Sue McLean	Stated that answer from the State Government will be reached within next few weeks for the draft strategic plan.
Carlo	Clarified that PLUS is a study, which describes what the Government thinks should happen in Geelong, and acts as a guide for the councils to follow.
Sue Kelly Turner	Expressed concern over the little consultation that has occurred between the council and Toll.
Sue McL	Acknowledged that there had been cancellations of recent meetings with the City of Greater Geelong and therefore, felt that the normal consultation process has been undermined
Francesca	Asked Lyndon as to what was happening in terms of progress for the draft.
ACTION	Lyndon to report back and update council's progress on draft structure plan for Geelong Port for next meeting May 2007.
Action Item 20/4	Done
Action Item 20/5	Done- has been posted on the web.
Action Item 21/1	Done
Action Item 20/2 Carlo	Stated that Terminals had still not received planning permit for biodiesel.
ACTION	Carlo to report back and update committee on the permit, to email members and to follow up.
Action Item 21/2	Gary demonstrated the monitors worn by workers on site. He stated that they are worn for 12 hours, removed, packed up and sealed then sent to an accredited laboratory for analysis. The reports are received in a comprehensive document which states the verification, criteria etc. He stated that they occasionally find results higher than the standard, which are recognised as being incidents. He stated the monitoring of the operator during the day is done by personnel from the firm Noel Arnold and that the results of the monitor analysis are received in a month.
Francesca	Expressed concern over the accumulation of VCM's within the body which may go undetected by such monitoring.
George	Clarified that the sites where workers are exposed to higher levels of VCM's, such as at hoses, where workers are required to wear masks, protective gear etc.
Geoff M	Stated that occupational health and hygiene set the standard so that the maximum exposure level for VCM's is 5 ppm. He acknowledged that the average level for VCM's on the Terminals site is less than 1 ppm
Francesca	Referring to the incident that occurred 2 years ago with Norwegian equipment when there was a leak, asked what safety measures had been taken following the incident.
Gary	Stated that the leak was contained, only involved 4 people who were at the site of the leak at the time. He said they got the PID out and measured 20 - 30 ppm at the site, and at the boundary 20 metres away, the leak was undetectable.
Francesca	Raised concern over the long term effects of such exposure.
Robin	Pointed out that accidents, such as the incident referred to 2 years ago, was an isolated case that was localised and would therefore, not be detrimental to the long term health of workers.
George	Stated that 80 to 100 % of workers that receive compensation are for back injuries. He stated that no one, to his knowledge, has contracted problems associated to chemical exposure.
Ralph	Provided a brief history of health problems associated with VCM. He stated that in the US there have been 20 known cases in which people have had cancer develop in their fingers from exposure to VCM, from working in autoclaves for 8 hours at an exposure level of 2 - 5% VCM. He said that during the mid 1970s the standard exposure level was reduced to 5 ppm. He stated that since then there have been no known recorded cases of angio sarcoma as a result of exposure to vinyl chloride in Australia. He said that vinyl chloride was considered as an alternative to chloroform for anaesthetic purposes, but was not chosen as highly flammable. This effect created problems for workers as it could potentially put workers to sleep within confined spaces.
Francesca	Stated that she was aware of several young girls who had developed scleura derma from exposure to VCM on pest strips.
Gary	Stated that these strips were manufactured by Shell and that VCM is not used in Terminals strips.
ACTION	For Geoff Millard to investigate the toxicity of Shell's pest strips and report back to the committee.
Sue McL	Asked WorkSafe whether they can suitably cover risks through the monitoring system,(eg: someone who works a 12 hour shift but the monitoring only takes into account 8 hours[sigma]etc) and who determines the yearly program for Terminals.
Carlo	Stated that it is based on 8 hours, and a formula that takes that into account. He said that Noel Arnold agrees to the program.
Geoff M	Stated that Terminals look at the results from previous years and review the overall monitoring process.
Gary	Stated that there is ongoing monitoring analysis on ships which search for connection integrity between equipment, as similar to VCM procedures.
Geoff M	Stated that Butadiene exposure standard is 10 ppm. He said that Terminals' exposure levels are less than 1 ppm.
Sue Mc	Asked in terms of the future, how can the program accommodate for change in butadiene levels and the need for revision.
Geoff M	Said that there are no problems at present, and that such problems would be dealt with by relevant experienced occupational/ health regulators.
George	Stated that there are a range of methods to reduce exposure levels and the mechanism within the company to make adjustments. This included being able to talk to clients to put in more equipment to lower levels (with contracts with the clients).
Ralph	Asked how many VCM tests are there for workers.
Gary	Said there is 1 per week done by AVC, on an operator. He added that there is a Noel Arnold assessment of up 140-170 samples including boundary. He stated that monitoring serves another important purpose to help make improvements concerning the effectiveness of equipment operation etc.
Action Item 21/4	Geoff Cook to speak from WorkCover- On Agenda tonight.
Action Item 21/5	Done
Action Item 21/6	Ian to speak from CFA- On Agenda tonight.
Action Item 21/7	On Agenda tonight
Action Item 21/8	Done.
ITEM 5	Reports from Terminals, EPA (including contamination levels), WorkCover, CFA, City of Greater Geelong
	Terminals' Report
Gary	(Referred to monthly Operations Report in February 2007)
Sue	Questioned whether Terminals were over their maximum already for loads of butadiene.
Gary	Replied by saying that volume varies between shipments of butadiene, and that they had in fact adhered to the requirements. He then referred to the injury that occurred 5 weeks ago, the first in 10 years, by saying that it came about from a worker taking a short cut at the plant.
Robin	Asked what is happening with the biodiesel project.
George	Stated that it had taken off overseas, but Australian plants have been struggling as there is no market here. He said that Axiom is on the verge of signing a deal and sealing a 60 day extension but it will be a matter of waiting to see what happens. He said that bitumen tanks were well under construction within a month for October/November commission.
Ralph	Stated that he had received invitations from HAZOP and on both occasions, had only been notified the day before.
Carlo	Acknowledged that shipping requirements make it difficult, however, would keep that in mind in the future to give greater notice.
	EPA Report
Neil	Stated that there was nothing to report back to the committee.
Robyn	Asked whether the staffing issues raised at last meeting had been addressed
Neil	Stated that the situation was positive with positions being offered to 3 people
Francesca	Expressed that she hadn't seen Neil for a while, and asked what his role currently was with EPA.
Neil	Stated that he was working as enforcement coordinator in the region with a range of clients, including Shell.
	WorkCover
Geoff C	Stated that the hazards management division was up to round 2 of MHF licensing and that Terminals today commenced its safety assessment.
Ralph	Asked if this is a public document when finished.
Geoff C	Said no, that Terminals must comply with assessment for licence.
ACTION	Geoff to overview the summary of process and findings of WorkSafe in July
Geoff C	Stated that the field officer Neil Ware has conducted an audit on carcinogens
	CFA
Ian	Stated that CFA were continuing their inspection of safety requirements in the Terminals plant tomorrow and that there will be an update on this when completed.
	Meeting stopped for short break at 8:00, resumed at 8:15.
ITEM 6	Leak detection regime - presentation by Gary O' Sullivan.
Gary	(Written report to come) Stated that over an 8 week program, there is at least one check list a week that is carried out. He said that each sphere has a different document, which includes 4 VCM spheres, 1 butadiene sphere and pipe work in between including pipe tracks. He said that every piece of equipment with joins are tested with analyser. He said that if a leak is found, it is tested at a 5 cm distance, and if it is more than 15 ppm at 15 cm then it is treated as an incident. If high levels are found to be produced by a piece of equipment, then they can be decommissioned and replaced. He said that there are approximately more than 4000 checks per annum, which have discovered 6 leaks within the last 3 years. He said that there are 32 fixed gas detectors on site, 24 for VCM. These detectors are placed at critical areas of the plant where there is more chance of a leak and added that there had been no detection within the last 5 years of VCM more than 1 ppm. He said Terminals were producing levels that were below the EPA requirements, at 0.017 ppm.
ITEM 7	Presentation by Geoff Cook, WorkCover on the Carcinogenic Licence
Geoff C	(Referred to notes on Carcinogenic Licence) Stated that the regulation book 1999 refers to the national standards which are not set by WorkSafe, but by National Occupational Health and Safety Comission. He outlined the duties of Terminals to ensure worker safety. He then addressed the question as to what carcinogens are and described the difference between certain hazardous chemicals which have a threshold that must be reached for any effects to occur, and carcinogens which have no known trigger point, or safe level. He said that exposure increases the probability for problems and that the level of carcinogens must be kept as low as practicable.
Carlo	Recognised that low levels of VCM's had resulted in no cancers being reported amongst workers and therefore, questioned the idea of no threshold applying to carcinogens.
Geoff C	Reiterated previous comment and reemphasised the need to get exposure levels as low as practicable, preferably to the point where no signs can be measured, with the maximum being 1 ppm.
Francesca	Again raised concern over the gradual accumulation of chemicals.
Neil	Agreed with Geoff by saying that the levels that are set by the regulators are accepted by the population and remain consistent with recommendations and research.
Geoff	Stated that there are two kinds of carcinogens, schedule 1 (which must be eliminated in the workplace) and schedule 2 (which include materials that require a licence from WorkSafe). He said that in terms of a licence, the details of the workplace are needed including the control measures used and a verification audit needs to be carried out by WorkSafe. He said that an audit carried out at Terminals by Neil in February 2007 revealed that everything was satisfactory, and the only issues were with voluntary compliance with workers.
Gary	Stated that Terminals have to amend control checks and additional training/competency assessments.
Geoff C	He said there was more information on the website.
Sue Mcl	Asked how often schedule 2 chemicals are reviewed.
Geoff C	Stated that he was not qualified to answer that.
Robyn	Thanked Geoff for speaking and asked committee is there were any questions.
Bill	Stated that troubles in the 1980s and 1990s with companies using trade names for chemicals and changing these names meant that there could be confusion surrounding what components were involved in chemicals used.
Geoff	Stated that it should be the duty of the supplier and user to clearly inform people as to what the chemicals are and there use.
ITEM 8	VCAT order - further discussion of items as necessary.
Sue Mcl	Asked when is the next monitoring for Butadiene. (Answer was given that there would be no more community monitoring, following VCAT order.) But she pointed out that the requirements, as she read them from a VCAT statement, meant that the monitoring was still outstanding. She read aloud from the statement condition 3.11 that monitoring is to be continued 'until such time as EPA licence is amended.' She then said that monitoring hasn't been completed to satisfaction and therefore should be ongoing.
ACTION	EPA to consider issue raised by Sue about butadiene order, anticipated to have definitive answer within 2 weeks.
Sue Mcl	Raised the issue again about the decay of the butadiene in the sample container as it is transported to the testing laboratory. Carlo to find out and inform Sue. Also asked about the emergency response plan and sought clarification for what the plan exactly is.
George	Stated that a community plan with 'fridge magnet simplicity' is what is best for the community, as information that can be distributed with VCAT communication amongst the community
ACTION	Carlo to e-mail copy of the brochure 'Chemical and Community' to Robin to put on the Terminals website.
George	Said that ideally, Shell and Terminals should provide a combined message for an emergency response.
Robin	Raised concern over the issue of Shell and Terminals sending out separate emergency messages.
Ralph	Suggested that Terminals are responsible for their own part of the community.
Francesca	For Agenda for May meeting: Francesca raised the question about why it is that she continues to come to these committee meetings when there is the special use zome around the Geelong foreshore. This was directed at City of Greater Geelong, EPA, Terminals and Toll.
ACTION	To investigate the issue of zone 6 along the Geelong foreshore. (Lyndon Rae)
Robin	Said that there would be no media release this month as he will be away overseas, but after May meeting, he said it will become routine. He thanked the speakers for their contributions and announced that the meeting was closed at 9:30
	The next meeting will take place on Monday 14 May in the Meeting Room of Corio Library, Cox Road, Norlane at 6.00 for 6.30pm.