TGCCC Adopted Minutes 6 August 2007

Terminals GCCC

(Terminals Geelong Community Consultative Committee)

Adopted Minutes of the Meeting

Held in the Meeting Room, Corio Library, Norlane

Monday 6 August 2007

Present:

Robin Saunders, Chair

Moya Richardson, Minute Taker

Geelong Community for Good Life	Sue McLean
Geelong Community Forum	Sue Kelly Turner
Community Representative	Greg Postuma
Community Representative	Bill Aitken
EPA	Neil McKenzie
CFA	Ian Beswicke
City of Greater Geelong	Lyndon Rae
City of Greater Geelong	Cr. Tom O'Connor
Geelong Grammar School	Jon Apted
Chemtrans	Alan Brooks
Terminals Pty Ltd	Gary O'Sullivan George Horman Geoff Millard

Apologies:

Terminals Pty Ltd	Carlo Fasolino
Community Representative	Catherine Jones
Community Representative	Francesca Dezelak
Community Representative	Gordon Alderson

ITEM 1	Welcome by Chair
Robin	Welcomed Councillor Tom O'Connor and stated that Alan Brooks from Chemtrans is also expected this meeting.
George	Welcomed back Bill to TGCCC after his recent time in hospital.
Bill	Thanked TGCCC members for their good wishes and demonstration of support during this time.
ITEM 2	Apologies, confirmation of Draft Agenda
	Apologies were received from Carlo Fasolino, Gordon Alderson, Catherine Jones and Francesca Dezelak
Robin	Asked for confirmation of the Draft Agenda; agreed.
ITEM 3	Confirmation of the draft minutes of the meeting on 14 June 2007
Robin	Pointed out that there are several minor changes sought by Peter Linaker, Geoff Millard and Lindsay Ward, and suggested that these be left to the Chair to amend
Sue Kelly-Turner	Requested that page 6 of the minutes are amended to read: 'Sue Kelly Turner: Was the Osborne House Master Plan going to include mooring for recreational boating? Tim: No, not yet but it might in the future.'
Sue McLean	Requested that page 5 of the minutes are amended to read: "Sue McLean: Sought clarification that the development plan overlay would remove 3rd party appeal rights and asked why council had responded to a question asked at a Council meeting that they didn't."
Robin	(Brought forward Item 5 while waiting for Alan Brook's arrival)
ITEM 5	Business Arising from Minutes
Action Item 13/6	Being progressed.
Action Item 19/2	Done.
Action Item 20/3	Done.
Action Item 21/2	Done.
Action Item 21/6	Done.
Action Item 22/1	Done.
Action Item 22/4	Done.
Action Item 23/1	On Agenda for tonight as Item 10, "Report by terminals to discuss the new requirements of the EPA Licence", and discussed immediately below.
Geoff	(Referred to handout Amended EPA Discharge Licence) Stated that in April 2007, EPA granted a new 'modern' licence to Terminals and outlined the requirements of the new licence.
George	With regards to the licence conditions for butadiene, stated that during the monitoring process, EPA had pointed out the combustor on site and suggested that Terminals investigate options for other forms of containment and for other methods for emission reductions. Asked Geoff how the investigation into options for treating chemicals with vapour pressure above 1 kPa was going, as the September deadline is imminent. (This relates mainly to vapour return and vapour balancing during ship unloading.)
Geoff	Stated that it was going very well.
Gary	Added that this was ongoing.
Geoff	Stated that the Monitoring Program for discharges and groundwater has been approved by EPA and is being implemented
Sue McLean	Requested a copy of the approved monitoring program.
ACTION	For Carlo to present the approved monitoring program at the next meeting.
Bill	Asked George how the groundwater is monitored on Terminal's property.
Robin	Mentioned that Colin McIntosh from EPA provided a comprehensive report on groundwater contamination levels last meeting. The findings are available to TGCCC members. (A copy of the report was posted to Bill by Neil following the meeting.)
Sue Kelly-Turner	Asked if the Annual Performance Report is a new name for the Environmental Improvement Plan.
Geoff	Stated that a real EIP is one that is completed in consultation with the community and that the Annual Performance Report is independent from public consultation.
Sue McLean	With regards to the programs for butadiene, queried whether the extended length of time in the off loading of butadiene has resulted in the combustor operating for longer than predicted at the time of the Works Approval?. Asked what is coming out and in of the combustor.
George	Stated that stat tests can reveal exactly what is coming out. Stated that nitrogen is used to push out the last of the butadiene from the lines, and additional burning is required for the excess nitrogen.
Geoff	Stated that Terminals are two-thirds of the way through completing the Annual Performance Report, which is to be submitted in September.
Sue McLean	Asked when Terminals will be able to inform committee members of the calculations that follow the report. Suggested sometime in October.
ACTION	Terminals to quantify the amount of butadiene going into the combustor and the amount going into the environment, for October's meeting (when the Annual Performance Report will be available).
Robin	Welcomed Alan Brooks from Chemtrans and called for a break in the Action Sheet Summary for Alan to present his response.
ITEM 4	Presentation by Alan Brooks of Chemtrans, with positive response on truck hours.
Alan	Stated that Chemtrans has made a significant effort to respond to the letter from the TGCCC regarding the possible change of trucking times to better accommodate the movement of school children. Stated that in its review, changing the afternoon load had been difficult, however the morning loads have been cut back. He stated that for 4 to 5 weeks, the trucks have been departing at 12:30/1pm rather than 8 am. He also stated that the planned replacement of the tankers (scheduled for delivery and operation in late September 2007) will allow for greater flexibility in terms of movements. The amount that can be carried in one load will increase from 17 tonnes to 22 tonnes, which will largely obviate the need for a second load in the afternoon.
Bill	Asked if there was an emergency back up plan for the larger truck, pointing out that in the event of an accident, heavier equipment would be needed to recover the truck and load.
Alan	Stated that there was a vehicle back up and an emergency response plan in place.
Sue McLean	Mentioned the high economic loss that would result if such an event was to occur.
Robin	Thanked Alan for his attendance and very positive response to the TGCCC's concern. Returned the agenda to the Action Sheet Summary.
ITEM 5	Business Arising from Minutes([sigma]Continued)
Action Item 23/2	Being progressed. Sue McLean offered to distribute the receipt of papers to interested TGCCC members. On Agenda for next meeting.
Action Item 23/3	Done.
Action Item 23/4	To be discussed tonight at Agenda Item 7.
Action Item 24/1	To advise if a Works Approval was required for the other bitumen facility recently approved in Victoria-see discussion below
Neil	Stated that he did not understand why the question asking whether Works Approval is required for bitumen facilities has been raised, when the matter had been addressed in a letter by the EPA Chairman to George..
George	Explained that there had been concern raised that a local competitor, Boral, had proposed to set up a bitumen facility and because it was not on a scheduled premise, it had not had the same Works Approval constraints placed upon it. Acknowledged that the process to gain a bitumen licence on a scheduled premise was arduous and was not satisfied that Boral had been subject to the rigours of the assessment like Terminals. Highlighted that there appeared to be an anomaly in EPA policy and this was felt to be unfair by Terminals. Stated that in the Boral case, the approval process involved a Council planning permit, and EPA's involvement depended on a referral of the permit from Council to them.
Neil	Agreed with what George said about EPA's involvement in the Boral case, and that it appears that it is not a level playing field..
Sue McLean	Sought confirmation that EPA can take precautionary action if it is felt a proposal poses high risk, regardless of it being on a scheduled premise or not.
Neil	Stated that they could if a suitable risk was assessed.
Robin	Asked whether there was such risk at Terminals.
Neil	Stated that he could not answer that.
Robin	Asked that if there was, what would Works Approval take into consideration.
Neil	Stated that bitumen is a low risk substance and that the odour it emits is more of a nuisance, rather than as a health risk.
Sue Kelly-Turner	Stated that the problem exists for Terminals in the tendering stage where one company can be disadvantaged and not the other.
Robin	Asked if there has been any suggestion for this unfairness to be eradicated.
George	Stated no, that it was just Terminals' bad luck.
Neil	Stated that as of July 1st 2007, bitumen plant proposals are now scheduled and must have Works Approval. Suggested that members view the Environmental Protection Act on the website and the document that provides the rationale for the change to the Act.
Action Item 24/2	The overall plan of the bunding of the bitumen facility is discussed below.
George	Stated a bund is a 2nd container around a tank that collects liquid if leakage occurs. Highlighted that it is illogical (and unusual) to have one around a bitumen tank, as bitumen would only harden and become solid when exposed to the atmosphere, and if this occurred around the base of the tank it could cause damage to valves and other control equipment. What Terminals had was an agreement with EPA to a 500 cubic metre containment tank. VCAT required that AS1490 be applied, requiring bunding for the entire tank volume. Terminals has considered the layout of the bitumen tanks, and the slope of the ground. Terminals is proposing a low wall to the south, approximately 750mm high, with return walls on the east and west sides that taper out as the ground rises. The southern wall would run along the side of Shell's cooling water channel. George stated that if Terminals lost the bitumen and it didn't go hard, then they would be able to contain it. He raised the conflict between EPA guidelines and AS1940, stating that EPA bunding guidelines didn't apply for bitumen.
Sue McLean	Sought clarification that the proposed mound complies with EPA.
Neil	Stated yes, the VCAT amended what EPA believed to be an issue of concern.
Sue McLean	Asked if there was any risk to the fence side of the property if the tank burst.
George	George led some discussion about a possible tank burst, and the concept of a stream of bitumen spurting out from the side of the tank. He stated that such a spurt of bitumen would be contained in between the metal tank and the tank insulation, allowing for the bitumen to trickle down the side of the tank.
Neil	Stated that the general maximum pressure of a tank can be measured at the half-way point on the tank, which is where a tank breech would cause the greatest spurting effect. The EPA bunding guidelines require 100% of the volume of the largest tank, plus 10% of the next largest tank.
Ian	Asked about the access around the property near the proposed mound.
George	Stated that it would be unduly obstructive in terms of access, and where it crossed the internal access road, it would be mounded to allow trucks to cross it.
Action Item 24/5 ITEM 9	Report by Terminals on the Safety Case update and approval (Geoff Millard)
Geoff	(Refer to notes Presentation of Geelong Second Round Safety Case August 2007). Stated that the regulations require continual improvement in Terminals practices and the reduction of risk to what is practicable. Stated that the regulations and achieving the aim outlined were very onerous.
Sue McLean	Highlighted that there appeared to be some inconsistencies between the figures discussed in the butadiene hearing and what has been described in the safety case.
Geoff	Stated that this varies on the criteria by which they are assessed. The figures used in the presentation have been collated and estimate by toxicologists.
Sue McLean	Stated that she was puzzled to think that there were different figures considering that it was a risk assessment in a safety case.
George	Stated that the differences in figures occur when they are provided from different regulatory authorities.
Sue McLean	Raised concern about having two different responses on safety.
ACTION	Ask WorkSafe to clarify why data described in safety case (namely the 650/730m hazard range for serious injury in the event of a fireball) seemed to differ from the VCAT data.
Bill	Sought to clarify that salt water is no longer used at Shell as part of their fire system, due to rusting that had occurred in the piping.
Gary	Stated that the piping system has been replaced and fresh water is now used.
George	Stated that the fire system at Terminals is strong enough to extend to the berth, which requires consultation with Shell.
Gary	Stated that yes, progress has been made with regards to this.
George	Stated that the idea of mutual aid between Terminals and Shell allows for Shell to provide back up to Terminals and although Terminals could do the same for Shell, Shell probably wouldn't require it.
Jon	Asked at what point Geelong Grammar would be notified of any potential risks, as it is not within the 700m proximity to Terminals.
Geoff	Stated that Geelong Grammar would be the first cab off the rank in terms of notification.
Robin	Referring to page 5 of the report, asked what is the threshold for chemical storage volumes to trigger a facility being assessed as a Major Hazard Facility?
Geoff	Stated that the first three chemicals on the list (VCM, Butadiene and Flammable Liquid, Packaging Group 1) tip the threshold. The threshold for Butadiene and VCM is 200 tonnes.
Robin	Referring to page 11 of the report, asked whether they should be included on the EIP as safety improvements not from EPA, but from WorkSafe.
ACTION	Carlo to provide a time-frame for implementing improvements required by WorkSafe in the amended MHF Licence (including improvement from page 11 of Geoff's report and any others).
Robin	Thanked Geoff for his presentation and asked if the report could be made available on the website.
Geoff	Stated that it would be a matter that Terminals would consider, with concerns of security etc.
Sue	Suggested that the public would be better served if the report contained hazards, rather than volumes, distances etc.
	(Short break at 8:30pm)
ITEM 11	The ABM (Association of Bayside Municipalities) and the TGCCC's relationship with the ABM (short introduction by Cr Tom O'Connor)
Tom	Stated that the ABM sees itself with a shared guardianship of the bay. ABM aims to link companies together through dealing with shared issues such as water quality, beach renourishment, climate change and channel deepening. Stated that ABM wants to get industrial and commercial users of the bay involved in ABM as ABM believes that it is everyone's moral responsibility to look after the bay. Stated that he was keen to establish a group here at Terminals with the hope that it will encourage other companies, such as Ford and Shell to do the same.
Sue Kelly-Turner	Asked how other companies can be influenced.
Tom	Stated that providing information and education, through 'door-knocking' methods can help to influence other companies.
Robin	Stated that the TGCCC has a role in informing the community about the protection of residents and the environment and that this remains central to the interest of the TGCCC community representatives.
Bill	Asked what influence ABM has in making decisions and what level of authority they have.
Tom	Stated that ABM is more about creating awareness.
Sue Mclean	Raised the issue of community events, and asked if any were planned?
Tom	Stated ABM plan to host a roadshow, which will allow their message to penetrate companies.
Sue Kelly-Turner	Asked how TGCCC can place input into ABM.
Tom	Stated that there is no mechanism and rather, it is all about linking industries etc.
Sue Kelly-Turner	Asked how many councils are involved in ABM.
Tom	Stated there are 11.
Bill	Stated that ABM is involved in many forums and therefore needs to strengthen its decision making power in order to affect some form of change.
Robin	Thanked Tom for his contribution.
ITEM 9	Reports from Terminals, EPA, WorkCover, CFA, City of Greater Geelong
	EPA Report.
Neil	Stated that there was nothing to report on directly affecting Terminals. Big changes in legislation concerning scheduled premises were introduced on 1 July 2007. Stated that the licence mechanism has reached its peak of effectiveness. New energy and water resource efficiency measures will apply over the next 18 months, as legislation and regulations are developed. Excessive users of water and energy will have to comply with reduction programs and meet resource efficiency regulations. In terms to staffing, EPA has a new acting manager (Peter Jackson) who will be on board for 3 months and senior and junior positions have been advertised.
Robin	Mentioned that Scott Maloney of EPA had attended the CICCC and made a detailed presentation on the new directions for EPA
Sue McLean	Asked if EPA can submit greenhouse gas considerations in planning frameworks. (such as the Port Structure Plan)
Neil	Responded that Sue makes a very good point, which will be taken on notice. EPA aims to influence other parts of government through quiet advocacy.
	CFA Report
Ian	Stated that there was nothing to report on other than the false alarms that have been sounded, which Terminals have been trying to get to the bottom of.
George	Stated that this demonstrates that if something is sensed to be wrong, the system in place responds immediately.
	City of Greater Geelong Report
Lyndon	Stated that there was nothing to report.
Sue McLean	Asked if Lyndon could take back the issue of greenhouse gases and climate change to council and concerns of EPA of state wide water reductions.
Lyndon	Stated that he would.
	Terminals Report
Gary	Referred to the accident that occurred last month in which one of the Brockman contractors fell 1m metre from one level of scaffolding onto another level of scaffolding, while being 15 metres above a concrete tank floor. The contractor experienced pins and needles, a sore neck, suspected broken ribs and demonstrated signs of shock. An ambulance was called but it took CFA rescuers in a helicopter to lift him out, which took over 2 hours. WorkCover investigated the incident and evacuated the area. A suggestion has been made to barricade scaffolding levels and all other measures were deemed adequate. The contractor has recovered well. The PLC (Program Logic Control computer) for Butadiene crashed, believed to have been caused by a power spike which affected the memory and meant that everything was lost.
Sue McLean	Asked if this was a piece of new equipment.
Gary	Stated it was the most robust industrial PLC and if it is found to be faulty, it is replaced. Stated that the PLC was out for 17 hours.
George	Stated that progress with the Biodiesel permit was still ongoing.
ITEM 7	Emergency Management and communication: short paper to be developed by George, Sue Kelly Turner and Sue McLean, and presented for discussion.
George	(Referred to notes: TGCCC Emergency Communication Issues)
	Stated that notification must occur quickly and effectively. Highlighted the importance of intercompany relations in Geelong for this to occur. For example, if something happens at Terminals, Shell is notified and vice versa. However, admitted that the relationship could be more robust. Highlighted the difficulty with mass notification and raised one strategy that attempts to address the issue, through broadcasting on local radio and proving the community with fridge magnets as reminders. A successful trial was conducted in the Maribyrnong area with mass phone calls alerting the community and 100 or so others in the Footscray area to flooding. But since the trial, the issue of emergency management has been dealt with as a federal matter and local communities are back to square one. Currently, it is left to the responsibility of CFA with the police to evacuate and organise an emergency response.
Robin	Stated that implementing the telephone messaging system has been considered too difficult in terms of funding and resourcing. The issue requires serious money and has been put on the COAG agenda by the Victorian Government.
George	Stated that recent terrorist concerns have been taken into consideration.
Ian	Added that there can be security problems with mass phone communication.
George	Acknowledged that notification via sms messaging could be achieved very quickly.
Robin	Suggested that the matter is dealt with on its own for a future meeting.
Sue Kelly-Turner	Sue outlined that in discussions with Sue McLean and George, they wanted to work towards: 1) an emergency communication program with the Port of Geelong; 2) government funding for a pilot study in the Port of Geelong by the Emergency Services commissioner, like the one at Maribyrnong. We'd also like to approach the Minister of Ports Tim Pallas, to get his support for funding It is all very well to plan strategically for the port and emergencies, but the community wants to know if there is an emergency. We need to seek support from all agencies, not just with Terminals but also Geelong Port, DoI, MHF's, other industry, CoGG, WorkSafe etc..
Lyndon	Stated that in his attendance at emergency management meetings, he can share communication concerns.
Gary	Stated that in the event of an emergency, the fact of the matter is that once the emergency services arrive, the management of the emergency is within their jurisdiction. Raised the issue of the public 'stick beaking' and concerning themselves with incidents. Stated that you cannot account for everything.
Sue McLean	Raised issue of the community concern of their inability to contact emergency services to clarify what is going on.
Greg	Stated that he recently heard a siren sounding at 2:30 am and he found that this didn't seem to affect the community.
Sue Kelly-Turner	Stated that it would be desirable to seek funding to develop a plan and to take the next step, rather than wait.
Robin	Asked Sue Kelly-Turner, Sue McLean and George if they could provide a draft program for the next meeting.
George	Suggested that the City of Greater Geelong take a role like Maribyrnong Council
Lyndon	Stated that the phone system was a funding issue but he would be happy to take the issue back to council to discuss with other agencies etc.
ACTION	Draft program for emergency management by Sue Kelly-Turner, Sue McLean and George Horman to be first item on the agenda for next meeting
Lyndon	Stated that there would be an emergency management meeting this Thursday, if any committee members were interested in attending.
Robin	Stated that Sue McLean's discussion of the findings from the World Health Organisation be deferred until next meeting. Declared the meeting closed at 9:50pm.
	The next meeting will take place on Monday 10 September in the Meeting Room of Corio Library, Cox Road, Norlane at 6.00 for 6.30pm.