TGCCC Adopted Minutes 18 June 2007
Terminals GCCC
(Terminals Geelong Community Consultative Committee)
Adopted Minutes of the Meeting
Held in the Meeting Room, Corio Library, Norlane
Monday 18 June 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 |
| Geelong Community Forum | Sue Kelly Turner |
| Community Representative | Ralph Taylor |
| Community Representative | Francesca Dezelak |
| Community Representative | Greg Postuma |
| Community Representative | Peter Linaker |
| Community Representative | Margarette Lewis |
| EPA |
Neil McKenzie |
| WorkSafe | Geoff Cooke |
| CFA | Mark Collins |
| City Of Greater Geelong |
Lyndon Rae Terry Demeo Tim Hellsten |
| Geelong Grammar School | Jon Apted |
| General Manager Patrick Ports | Lindsay Ward |
| Department of Infrastructure (Freight, Logistics and Marine Division) | Paul Mayer |
| ITEM 1 | Welcome by Chair | |
| Robin | Welcomed Mark Collins from CFA and Colin Macintosh from EPA. | |
| ITEM 2 | Apologies, confirmation of Draft Agenda | |
| Apologies were received from Gordon Alderson, George Horman, Catherine Jones, and Bill Aitken. | ||
| Robin | Asked for confirmation of the Draft Agenda; agreed. | |
| ITEM 3 | Confirmation of the draft minutes of the meeting on 14 May 2007 | |
| Francesca | Requested that 'sclera derma' is added to page 2 of the minutes in addition to the reference to angio saracoma. Also for the wording on the same para '... that the cause of the condition was believed to have been exposure to the vinyl chloride used in pest strips' be changed to read 'that it could not be ruled out that vinyl chloride may have played a part.' She also mentioned the absence in the minutes (page 4) of her discussion of the possibility of a terrorist attack from the air, following the experience of the recent air shows in the area. Changes adopted. | |
| ITEM 4 | Business Arising from Minutes | |
|
Sue Kelly Turner
|
Proposed that Item 7 is postponed until the next meeting. Agreed. | |
| Action Item 13/6 | Being progressed. | |
| Carlo | Stated that contact contacts had been provided by Karen Sherlock. | |
| Action Item 19/2 | On Agenda for tonight. | |
| Action Item 20/3 | On Agenda for tonight. | |
| Action Item 21/2 | Done. | |
| Action Item 21/6 | Done. | |
| Action Item 22/1 |
Done.
| |
| Geoff | Confirmed that no vinyl chloride has ever been used in Shell's pest strips. | |
| Action Item 22/2 | Done. | |
| Sue McLean | Asked whether the results of the VCAT order for butadiene had been received. | |
| Carlo | Stated that they had not been received yet. | |
| Action Item 22/4 | On Agenda for tonight. | |
| Action Item 23/1 | Deferred to next meeting. | |
| Action Item 23/2 | Awaiting Sue McLean to provide technical papers. Deferred to next meeting. | |
|
Action Item 23/3 Gary |
Done. Stated that there was no DHS officer involved in the Emergency Exercise. | |
| Action Item 23/4 | Deferred to next meeting. | |
| ITEM 5 | Reports from Terminals, EPA(including contamination levels), CFA, City of Greater Geelong. | |
|
|
Terminals' Report | |
| Carlo | (Referred to Monthly Operations Report for April/May 2007). Reported that things had generally been going well. Highlighted the achievement of the 5-year Major Hazard Facility licence. Stated that no conclusion had been reached on the biodiesel proposal. Mentioned that there has been some informal notification that another bitumen site is to be built by another company, with council approval but without the requirement for a Works Approval. Stated that Terminal's own bitumen construction is underway. | |
| ACTION | EPA to advise if a Works Approval was required for the other bitumen facility recently approved in Victoria. | |
| Peter | Asked whether the committee could have access to the plans on the bund. | |
| Robin | Asked Carlo if these plans were available. | |
| ACTION | Carlo to bring a copy of revised overall plan of bund (relating to the bitumen facility) to the next meeting. | |
| Robin | Welcomed Paul Mayer from the Department of Infrastructure. | |
| Gary | Referred to the graph in the report, which indicated that April had been a quiet month for road tanks but this had increased in May. | |
| Robin | Asked what is the size of the butadiene tank. | |
| Gary | Stated that the tank is 4000m3. Referred to the two minor incidents that occurred, one involving the failure of an engine block heater on a fire pump and the other involving an ammonia leak caused by a fault in a small solenoid valve. Both the block heater and the valve were replaced. The solenoid valve was part of the refrigeration facility for cooling the butadiene storage. | |
| Peter | Queried the impact the leak had on the operation of the refrigeration plant. | |
| Gary | Stated that only a tiny amount of refrigerant (ammonia) was emitted, and that did not effect the operation of the refrigeration plant. There was no less of butadiene, and no safety risk. | |
| Francesca | Raised concern over the failure of the solenoid when it was less than six months since the plant was built. | |
| Carlo | Stated that Terminals was surprised too, but that such a failure can be expected from time to time. It was promptly identified and the solenoid was replaced. | |
| Sue McLean | Asked why the graph showed a decrease in road transport chemicals for April. | |
| Gary | Stated that the plant producing VCMs had shut down for repairs, which had resulted in the decrease in VCM numbers. Stated that the approaching end of the financial year is also a factor. | |
| Sue McLean | Asked what time the truck for butadiene departs and arrives the site. | |
| Gary | Stated that it departs between 8 am and 9 am and returns at 12 pm on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. | |
| Sue McLean | Asked as to whether the departure time can be changed to 9:15-9:30 am instead, or another time that does not coincide with peak traffic times for neighbouring schools. | |
| ACTION | Gary to clarify the times of departure for butadiene trucks for next meeting. | |
| Sue McLean | Asked whether changing the time would have an impact on Terminals operations. | |
| Gary | Stated that it would not pose any problem for Terminals, rather it is an issue for the trucking company Chemtrans for Dow. | |
| Sue McLean | Expressed some concern over the delay in waiting for another month for an answer and suggested that the committee formally write a letter to the company about the times of departure. | |
| Jon | Stated that he had greater concern in the increase in trucks on the roads generally. | |
| (Discussion to be deferred until later in the meeting. Item 7 to be put forward on Agenda) | ||
| ITEM 7 | Paul Mayer (Freight, Logistics and Marine Division) representing DoI, and Tim Hellstem and Terry Demeo from CoGG will briefly present the finding of the Draft PLUS (the DoI/Toll report) and the Draft Geelong Port Structure Plan (the CoGG report), focussing on those aspects that affect the Terminals site and its surrounds. | |
|
|
Paul Mayer from DoI | |
| Paul | (Referred to PowerPoint presentation Port of Geelong: Draft Port Land Use Strategy (PLUS). Stated that the PLUS provides overarching policies for 4 commercial ports in Melbourne. Following on from community concerns in 2004/2005 of the environmental and social issues relating to port development, port land use strategies have been drafted. For Geelong, the PLUS has several critical aims (as listed slide 4 of presentation) and has highlighted key strategies to address (listed slide 5 of presentation). He discussed the four precincts that are grouped around the main trades in Geelong, particularly the liquid bulk precinct that includes Terminals. The PLUS for the liquid bulk precinct is for buffers to be maintained and enhanced and for road access to be improved. He stated that the PLUS has allowed for 6 weeks for public comment, with the comment period closing on 17 July 2007. | |
| Peter | Referring to the improvements to road access, he questioned whether the same had been considered for rail access? | |
| Paul | Stated that for the purpose of time saving, improvements to access via rail had not been included in the presentation. | |
| Tim Hellsten and Terry Demeo from the City of Greater Geelong | ||
| Tim | (Referred to Geelong Port Structure Plan briefing notes) Discussed the purpose, vision and key planning themes of the Geelong Port Structure Plan. Noted that a key difference from the PLUS is that the Port Structure Plan will be part of the Planning Scheme and will guide planning decisions. Also noted that different definitions are used for bulk chemicals in the two plans. Proceeded to discuss the four-precinct format, and in particular the Refinery precinct. Stated that the refinery precinct is a valid and viable part of the existing port. Clarified that all parties involved in the plan are working towards the same objective of limiting the expansion of chemical storage while not trying to constrain legitimate activities. He stated that the plan includes two special use zones, one that outlines the area in which liquid chemicals can be stored and the other where activity such as the bio-diesel plant can occur. He discussed the development plan overlay, which sets out matters that must be taken into account in making the Development Plan. These include community engagement in the formative stages of the development process, which assist in limiting delays and minimising conflicts in the approval stages. He stated that the CoGG with Terminals will develop a Development Plan, and that CoGG is open to the suggestions and ideas of the TGCCC. He referred to the summary of the zone changes, as having larger boundaries than the PLUS. He stated that the plan was currently in the middle of the public consultation process and the public viewing of the plans had raised a good level of interest. He stated that other community and industry groups are to be involved in this process also. | |
| Peter | Raised again the issue of the absence in the plan discussion surrounding the rail connection between Heales Road and the Port. | |
| Lindsay | Stated that there is a Vic Roads study being carried out at the moment on that road connection. He stated that it is not of economic interest to pursue the rail connection, as it is so short. He stated that the former Ford site is planned for industrial expansion. | |
| Tim | Stated that the CoGG is looking at the intermodal freight hub on the Heales Road estate. Another option is at Golden Plains. | |
| Terry | Stated that options were being investigated. | |
| Jon | Asked about the level of discussion that has occurred between the two plans discussed tonight. He recognised that they both held very fixed positions on road traffic and argued that ideally, the Vic Roads report on the road connections should have been out before the plans were made. | |
| Lindsay | Stated that the PLUS development process has been ongoing for some time. He also stated that he had made the CEO of Vic Roads aware of the issue in 2005. | |
| Jon | Admitted that in Vic Road's defence, they were not aware of the intermodal hub either. | |
| Terry | Stated that it would not have been pragmatic to have had all relevant information at one time. | |
| Lindsay | Clarified that that the intermodal hub is independent from the issue discussed (the connection to Geelong Port by road or rail), as the hub only involves the movement of containers, and they arrive from the Melbourne Port. | |
| Margarette | Stated that as a residential member of the northshore, she had not been aware of forms of consultation with the CoGG and expressed concern over the impact of rezoning under the plan on the residents of the northshore. | |
| Tim |
Indicated that there are 3 industrial zones provided in the Victorian planning provisions: Industrial 1 (IND1) where no planning permit is required for specified uses; Industrial 2 (IND2) for heavy industry; Industrial 3 to provide a buffer between IND1 and IND2 and a residential zone. The Structure Plan (Map No 8) proposes IND 1 and IND3 zones, together with Special Use Zones. | |
| Margarette | Raised concern about the potential for the new ring road to block assess in the event of an emergency. | |
| Tim | Stated that he accepted some moderate development would occur following the implementation of the plans | |
Sue McLean |
Congratulated both the CoGG and the DoI for their efforts in engaging the community in the consultative process, however, admitted serious concerns regarding the elimination of 3rd party appeal rights in the Development Plan. Suggested an Information Sheet looking at the balance between community input and the removal of third party notification for proposals conforming to the Development Plan. Sue sought clarification that the Development Plan Overlay would remove third party rights, and asked why Council had responded to a question asked at a Council Meeting that they didn't. | |
| Lindsay | Stated that the intent underlying the document was to provide direction in the planning process. | |
| Terry | Stated that the period of 8 weeks in which the plans are exhibited to the public is not a statutory process and assists in informing the council position on the issue. Terry welcomed submissions on the issue raised by Sue McLean. | |
| Peter | Stated that the lack of an implementation plan was a weakness of the draft PLUS. Asked if the implementation of PLUS is made through Council? | |
| Paul | Stated yes, that PLUS does rely somewhat on council. | |
| Lindsay | Added that the primary role of PLUS is as a key reference document. | |
| Jon | Expressed interest in the access for transportation in the plan. | |
| Lindsay | Referred again to the independence of the intermodal hub from port traffic. | |
| Jon | Raised the question of the adequacy of the roads given the increase in trucking, and the proposed buffer zone extensions. | |
| Lindsay | Stated that the extensions do not breach EPA restrictions. | |
| Francesca | Expressed frustration in the consultative process between council and the community, arguing that the community's voice on the issue has been undermined. Provided the Mill Markets as an example. | |
Lindsay |
Stated that the document has been developed since 2004 and remains independent from big business interest. Stated that the port is zoned to allow for the presence of chemicals, within certain limits and safety measures, but acknowledged that there is natural growth in the area. Lindsay advised that he anticipated the import of chemicals to grow over time. While he did not advocate limiting the growth of the chemical industry, the plan would restrict imports and storage to one precinct, which had adequate buffer distances. Recognised what the industry provides in terms of employment and the role it plays in the local economy. Referring to the sale of the Mill Markets, he stated that it was in the heart of Industrial 2 zoning and the positioning of the markets was considered not only a threat to public safety but in compromising industrial operation. He advised that VCAT has made that decision. Stated that he was open to further suggestions after people had read the draft PLUS. | |
| Greg | Referred to '...consultation with CFS'. | |
| Tim | Stated that it should read CFA. | |
| Robin | Suggested that a short break would be held at the completion of the item. Asked for any further questions. | |
| Sue McLean | Sought for clarity for the zoning. | |
| Tim, Terry and Lindsay | (Demonstrated with aerial photo photo of the area) | |
| Sue McLean | Asked how far the edge of the buffer zone is to the nearest resident. | |
| Lindsay | Stated approximately 1000 metres but acknowledged that distances varied dependent on the chemicals being used or the industrial activity being undertaken. | |
| Peter | Stated that 'buffering' when used as a generic term includes environmental buffering but highlighted that this has appears to have not been mentioned in the plan. Drew attention to the long history of discharge of pollution from the land to the bay. | |
| Paul | Stated that this is the responsibility of other agencies with the expertise. Buffering of Corio Bay is an EPA issue. | |
| Robin | Asked how the issue of interfacing the plan applies. | |
| Terry | Referred to the geo-physical and the geo-technical aspects and ground water contamination issues. | |
| Paul | Mentioned the history of contamination at Corio Bay. | |
| Lindsay | Stated that the report was about port land use and that contamination issues were not within the scope of the document. | |
| Sue Kelly-Turner | Asked whether Corio Bay was an assessed recreational boating area, and potential conflict of marina uses with shipping channels. Was Osborne House Master Plan going to have moorings for residents? | |
| Terry | Stated that the Osborne House Master Plan identifies a potential site for the development of an industrial marina, not a recreational marina. Concerning moorings for residents, no, that was not developed firmly yet, but could happen down the track. | |
| (Short break at 8:50pm) | ||
| Reports City of Greater Geelong | ||
| Lyndon | Stated that there was nothing to report. | |
| Robin | Stated that there was an opportunity for committee members to ask the senior Council planning representatives present questions on planning issues.. | |
| Jon | Asked where the CoGG would like the intermodal hub to be. | |
| Terry | Highlighted that the Toll area is functioning beyond its capacity at the moment to accommodate containers, and that a location for the Intermodal Hub had not yet been developed. | |
| Sue McLean | Asked if further areas of the foreshore would be closed off for security. | |
| Tim | Stated that there are no changes to be made to security on the foreshore. | |
| Jon | Raised the issue of legal obligations in terms of fencing etc. | |
| Terry | Toll bought the land, and have an obligation to secure it. The issue is one outside the responsibility of Local Government. | |
| EPA Report | ||
| Neil | Stated that there have been no complaints from EPA regarding Terminals' operations since last meeting. | |
| Ralph | Asked whether the reissuing of the EPA licence would negate all previous issues. | |
| Sue McLean | Asked whether any residual testing is required. | |
| Neil | Stated yes to both questions. | |
| Robin | Clarified that the new EPA licence can be seen to cover all the areas still relevant from the previous licence, together with new requirements arising from the butadiene storage. | |
| Ralph | Asked if all of the issues raised in the Works appeal are incorporated in the new licence. | |
| Neil | Yes, where they were still relevant. | |
|
Colin (Item 6 on the Agenda- Groundwater contamination) |
(Refer to the letter from Coffey Environments and attached data circulated at the meeting, and the page entitled "Limitations" provided by Colin. The Coffey letter and data forms a report to Shell, of data from bores on the Terminals site. It has been prepared at the request of EPA). Colin highlighted that it is an Interim Report, not definitive. It has not been reviewed by an environmental auditor. It shows a sample of the ground water at Terminals, which is useful for indicating contamination levels. Emphasised the importance of recognising overall trends rather than individual occurrences. Stated that the water quality is based on fresh and salt-water eco systems, not necessarily contamination and pollution levels. Stated that 1-3 metres of material on the site was found to be industrial waste, on reclaimed land. Stated that it is considered rapid if ground water moves a few metres per year, which makes the levels reaching Corio Bay very small. |
|
| Sue McLean | Referring to the tables, asked what the recharge rate is. | |
| Colin | Raised the issue that the sampling process may result in the bore water not being representative of the ground water. | |
| Jon | Asked at what point does the bore reach the plume. | |
| Colin | Stated that bores can detect differences within contamination layers. Stated that the thickness of the petroleum layer on top of the groundwater decreased a few years ago, but has rebounded. | |
| Sue McLean | Referring to the map in the notes, asked if there has been previous bores by Terminals on the foreshore. | |
| Colin | Stated that groundwater measurements on the foreshore are subject to tidal change and that the map provides the general movement of ground water. | |
| Carlo | Stated that half of the site is built upon reclaimed land. | |
| Sue McLean | Asked if there has been any monitoring on the shore. | |
| Colin | Stated that there has been neither need nor concern to have monitoring on the shore. | |
| Robin | Asked if the four propositions of the written report had been supported. | |
| Colin | Stated that he agreed with them. | |
| Francesca | Expressed concern over the level of heavy metals in the report. Asked whether they were the result of the site being upon reclaimed land, or whether Terminals had accumulated those levels over the years. | |
| Colin | Stated that the levels of heavy metals were small and did not believe that they were as a result of Terminals' activity. | |
| Francesca | Asked if there were any suprises encountered in the report. | |
| Colin | Stated that there weren't and highlighted that the report showed some good trends, such as the improvement in the levels of methane produced, which indicate biological processes breaking down the chemicals. | |
| Colin | In response to attention drawn by Peter to the elevated values for cadmium, Colin stated that the results include traces of cadmium, which are consistent with land tips that contain car batteries. | |
| Sue McLean | Asked if there was any indication that an action rather than nature was influencing ground water movement and contamination levels. | |
| Colin | Referred to the role of the tides for flushing out water and for dilution. | |
| Robin | Asked to confirm that the site is not near the intertidal zone. (answer?) | |
| Sue McLean | Stated that there had been community concern over the ground water contamination on the tidal zone near the Corio shore and that it had been an issue that had not been answered up until now. Expressed pleasure that intertidal zone contamination didn't seem to be occurring opposite the Terminals site. | |
| Francesca | Stated that a few years ago there had been some spillage on the rocks in Corio bay and questioned if it had been properly cleaned and if this had affected the level of groundwater contamination. | |
| Neil | Stated no, that it involved surface water which was a different issue. | |
| Jon | Asked what the spikes on the map of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Figure 8) indicate. | |
| Colin | Stated that they indicate a single monitoring event, and can reflect monitoring technique.. | |
| Jon | Proposed to move a vote of thanks for the information provided by Colin. A vote of thanks was extended by the committee. | |
| Peter | Asked if the TGCCC could send a card of well wishes to Bill Aitken. | |
| Robin | Stated that he would. | |
| Sue Kelly-Turner | Asked whether the order of authorities presenting at meetings rotates in future, given the time commitments of some representatives. Agreed. | |
| Report from WorkSafe | ||
Geoff Cooke |
Highlighted achievement of the MHF licence as a milestone. Stated that Terminals had to submit a safety case review as it was up for renewal and reported that the results were very satisfactory. He had reported the results of the review to the Licence Decision Panel last night. The granting of the 5 year MHF licence was approved, with one condition, and that is that the performance monitoring is to be reported annually by Terminals to WorkSafe. |
|
| Margarette | Asked if it was satisfactory for companies to do their own monitoring. | |
| Geoff M. | Stated that this was required practice, and WorkSafe do verification auditing also. | |
| Geoff Cooke | Stated that due to a heavy work load, he would not be attending the meetings regularly but still available to offer advice when needed. | |
| Robin | Referred to the issue raised by Sue earlier in the meeting concerning transport time conflicting with school time. | |
| ACTION | Robin to draft a letter to Kemtrans (who transport butadiene for Dowe) to request that the departure time is changed from 9:00 am to 9:15- 9:30 am. |
|
| Francesca | Suggested that on the agenda for next meeting is a presentation by Terminals on the safety case update. | |
| ACTION | Terminals representatives to provide a presentation on the safety case update for next meeting. |
|
| Robin | Declared the meeting closed at 9:50 pm. | |
| Carlo | The proposed July meeting is only 3 weeks away, proposed its cancellation. Agreed. | |
| The July meeting is CANCELLED. The next meeting will be held on Monday 6th August in the Meeting Room of Corio Library, Cox Road, Norlane at 6.00 for 6.30pm. | ||