TGCCC Adopted Minutes 8 October 2007

Terminals GCCC

(Terminals Geelong Community Consultative Committee)

Web site http://www.tgccc.org

Adopted Minutes of the Meeting

Held in the Meeting Room, Corio Library, Norlane

Monday 8 October 2007

Present:

Robin Saunders, Chair

Moya Richardson, Minute Taker

Geelong Community Forum	Suz Kelly-Turner
Community Representative	Ralph Taylor Catherine Jones Gordon Alderson
Friends of Port Lillias and Corio Bay	Pam Edwards
EPA	Neil McKenzie
CFA	Bob Smith
Geelong Grammar	Jon Apted
City of Greater Geelong	Lyndon Rae
Terminals Pty Ltd	George Horman Gary O'Sullivan Carlo Fasolino

Apologies:

Terminals Pty Ltd	Geoff Millard
Community Representative	Francesca Dezelak John Wilson
Geelong Community for Good Life	Sue McLean
CFA	Andrew Andreou

ITEM 1	Welcome by Chair
Robin	Welcomed all members.
ITEM 2	Apologies, confirmation of Draft Agenda
	Apologies were received from Geoff Millard, Francesca Dezelak, John Wilson and Sue McLean
Robin	Asked for confirmation of the Draft Agenda; agreed.
ITEM 3	Confirmation on the Draft Minutes of the meeting 10 September 2007.
	The draft minutes were adopted without change.
ITEM 4	Business arising from Minutes
Robin	Pointed out that many issues had been dealt with but there were some that needed more progress.
Action Item 13/6	Logo design by school children: being progressed.
Robin	Suggested that the venture to liase with Geelong Grammar to submit student designs to Terminals is abandoned, as it has been an ongoing issue for some time.
Ralph	Suggested that Terminals give GG until the end of the year and if nothing is submitted by then, for it to be then abandoned.
	(Jon Apted from GG arrives).
Carlo	Provided Jon with Karen Sherlock's contact number to encourage further action on the issue.
Action Item 23/1	Terminals to discuss the new requirements of the EPA Licence at the June meeting. Done.
Action Item 23/2	Following receipt of papers to be forwarded through the Chair by Sue McLean, EPA to provide further advice on the likely decay of butadiene in samples prior to testing. See page 5.
Action Item 25/1	Terminals to present the approved monitoring program at the next meeting.
	(Bob Smith from CFA arrives)
Carlo	Referred to the hand out: Table 1 Waste Emission Monitoring Program
Robin	Asked how many ambient monitoring had been completed.
Carlo	Stated that they had just completed their third.
Catherine	Asked if TGCCC members are allowed information from the emissions test, as listed in the table.
Carlo	Yes, they had been provided at various stages.
George	(Neil McKenzie from EPA arrives)
Carlo	Clarified that a stormwater sample is inspected visually and that every time there is a discharge detected from the bunds, a sample is taken to an outside NATA accredited laboratory. Made a distinction between stormwater and ground water levels.
Catherine	Asked if the combustor and ambient monitoring had already taken place, if the other tests were still ongoing.
Carlo	Provided handout to members: 1,3 Butadiene Monitoring Programme-Wharf Line Purging May 2007
George	Highlighted that there are 21 monitoring requirements in the programme.
Gordon	Asked whether PSH (Phase Separated Hydrocarbon) is traced back to the source when found in the groundwater.
Carlo	Stated no, not that he was aware of.
Gordon	Stated that it was important to establish these facts and that hard data is needed so that Terminals can protect themselves.
George	Referring to questions surrounding Shell's contamination levels, (with the establishing of another well) stated that Terminals managers are privy to information that can't be divulged in TGCCC meetings due to confidentiality agreements etc. However, stated that with quarterly assessments being made, the understanding is that the contamination in the wells has been decreasing at a favourable trend but couldn't say any more about it.
Suz Kelly-Turner	Asked Neil when was the last time a representative from EPA provided the community with information on the state of the wells.
Neil	Stated that he believed it was when Colin McIntosh gave an update on the Terminals groundwater contamination (June meeting).
Suz Kelly-Turner	Expressed that she did not find the summary informative.
Robin	Summarised that the results obtained by EPA were quite good and that EPA were able to determine that the closer the groundwater was to the bay, the greater decrease there was found to be in contamination. Therefore, once the water had reached the ocean, the levels were close to zero.
Neil	Stated that the trends of the decrease in contamination from Terminals are suggesting that the constraints in place at Shell are effective.
Ralph	Asked what is known about the oil in the bay from Shell.
Neil	Stated that he couldn't answer that. Stated that there is zero level of groundwater contamination entering the bay from Terminals. With regards to the release of monitoring data from Shell, stated that EPA were still waiting for feedback from Shell after their consultation with their stake holders.
Catherine	Asked if the sampling from Shell and Terminals correlated.	G
Gary	Stated yes, they did.
Gordon	Asked who are Shells' stakeholders.
Neil	Stated that it was a good question.
Catherine	Stated that there could be some community interest in who are Shells' stakeholders.
Robin	Summarised that EPA will not be able to obtain a report from Shell until Shell have advised their stakeholders.
Neil	Suggested an example that stakeholders could include DSE, Coastal Management, Vic Roads, service providers, GG, government, Geelong Port etc. Stated that this does include in some ways the broader community but community involvement shouldn't be expected yet.
Suz Kelly-Turner	Asked when the report will be ready.
Robin	Pointed out that Neil has said that EPA has expressed some frustrations with Shell and that EPA are putting as much pressure on Shell to act accordingly. Raised a question about the previous butadiene monitoring programme, asked what has become of the report of the test completed during the period. Suggested that it would be useful to be informed of the test results as they come.
ACTION	Carlo to include the test results from the butadiene monitoring programme in the Monthly Operations Report for Terminals
Action Item 25/2	Terminals to quantify the amount of butadiene going into the combustor and the amount going into the environment, for October's meeting Deferred until November meeting.
Carlo	Stated that he was unsure about Geoff's estimates about the amount of butadiene going into the combustor and what level should be measured as coming out of it.
Gary	Stated that it should be nothing to worry about.
Carlo	Tabled one copy of the Geelong Site Annual Environmental Performance Report for 2006/2007.
Robin	Summarised by saying that the Annual Report had provided details of the butadiene levels and it is understood that the level is under licensing agreement levels. However, the results are based on the minimum guaranteed design efficiency of the combustor (99.6%) while the one measurement of its efficiency that has been made to date showed it to be 99.99996 efficient.
Carlo	Confirmed That the measured efficiency of the combustor is four orders of magnitude better than that used in the predicted butadiene levels shown in the annual report.
Action Item 25/3	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. Deferred until November meeting.
Robin	Stated that he had received an email from Geoff Cooke addressing the issue of the perceived difference between VCAT and Worksafe data in emergency recommendations, but he had mistakenly purged it from his inbox. Recalled that the explanation for the difference was that there were very different criteria involved. He stated that he would request Geoff to resend the information through and for discussion to continue on the matter on a further date. It is anticipated that Geoff Millard can also throw some light on the matter when he returns.
Action Item 25/4	On Agenda tonight as Item 9.
Action Item 25/5	Emergency management communication program. Done.
Action Item 26/1	(Referred to the hand out: Brief Report from the Emergency Communication Sub-Committee 20 September 2007)
Robin	Spoke on the issues that the Sub-committee had discussed under the headings of the context of the specific interests of the TGCCC with respect to emergency communication, and the strategy suggested by CFA. The summary is now before the TGCCC for ratification.
George	Pointed to page 5 of the Sub-Committee minutes as outlining the strategy of how we communicate with community during an incident and that the 5 points listed are the ones that need to be fleshed out.
Gordon	Asked what ESOC stands for.
Bob	Stated Emergency Services Operation Committee
Robin	Congratulated the sub-committee on the scope that has been included and noted that if the committee endorses the strategy, CFA will prepare a report fleshing out the strategy, for discussion at the 12 November TGCCC meeting.
Gordon	Asked why the 800m distance for incident limit
George	Stated that it was upon CFA recommendations. Deferred question to Bob
Bob	Stated that this could be around 800m to 1km. (Apologised for the absence of Andrew Andreou who is suffering from a back injury.
Ralph	Stated that he felt that the issue had gone on for a while. He pointed out that historically, Terminals hasn't had the need for extensive emergency communication although, this isn't to say that it might not be needed. Stated that Shell must have a system in place, as there is perhaps greater need for one than at Terminals. Asked why Terminals should attempt to re-invent the wheel.
Robin	Stated that the Sub-Committee have only met once, and don't plan to meet again as it was a fairly productive meeting.
Ralph	Asked what is Shell's program for the community.
Bob	Stated that he had not been personally exposed to Shell's community program although acknowledged that Shell do not have a forum like the one established at Terminals.
Robin	Stated that it was Terminals who put their hand up to lead a pilot program as the information that was felt to be required by the community was not available. Stated that it will be through CFA and Emergency Services' work that solutions will be found.
Suz	Stated that it wasn't just a matter of providing information as a requirement, it is a matter of seeking a notification system of which there is none. Stated that this was not felt to be only Terminal's responsibility but one that requires broader education.
Neil	Stated that Shell does do more for emergency management than expressed but acknowledged that it was true that there is no good, current local model to allay community concern.
George	Addressing Ralph's questions, stated that he was not aware that Shell has any emergency notification system in place more than a siren and an emergency plan. Stated that Terminals are taking the issue further than this and wish to lead to a meeting of minds with agencies, community, industry etc. Stated that he applauded the initiative that CFA had shown with regards to the issue.
Robin	Provided an example of an incident at the container dock at Coode Island where ethyl acrylate in an isotainer had leaked and residents of Williamstown detected the odour. The police were contacted in an attempt by residents to determine the details, but the Plice at Williamstown Police Station had limited knowledge. This highlighted the issue of community notification during an incident.
George	Stating that the example of an odour could be pushing the limits of practicality and stated that the concern should be with people in immediate danger and then so on. Stated that however, it was important to keep an open mind in the planning process.
Robin	Sought for motion and endorsement from TGCCC for the support of the proposal by the Sub-Committee for Emergency Community Notification, with ongoing cooperation by CFA. Motion carried.
Bob	Said he would report back to the CFA forthwith, and ensure that CFA put in hand the work on the next step.
Neil	Referring to Action Item 23/2, he apologised for his lateness at tonight's meeting. He presented a paper from the NSW EPA showing that there is has been little or no decay detected in butadiene samples over a 10 week period
Suz Kelly-Turner	Asked what are passivated canisters (a term referred to in the NSW EPA report).	Ro
Neil	Stated that they were canisters that are stabilised, or treated so as not to react.
Gordon	Stated that he couldn't challenge what Neil had to say but suggested that Sue McLean might appreciate an opportunity to comment on the results.
ACTION	Robin to scan the document and to send it to Sue McLean for comment for next meeting.
ITEM 5	Reports from Terminals, EPA, WorkCover, CFA, City of Greater Geelong
	Terminals' Report
Gary	Referring to hand out Monthly Operations for Terminals, August 2007, stated that August had been a fairly standard month in shipments but heavy for road transport with the highest number of tankers in 12 months being recorded. Stated that there had been no injuries since February and that a meeting with Geelong City Council was held over the Draft Port Planning Scheme.
Gary	Referred to the first incident on the report, when at the 5th compartment a fatigue crack was found on one of the road tankers and a small discharge of methyl ethyl ketone was detected. Stated that the substance was unloaded and the distribution manager was advised to repair the road tanker.
Suz	Asked how it was ascertained.
Gary	Stated that the monitoring process works through the compartments 1 to 5. An odour was detected and a hairline crack at the tanker was found, which was approximately 10 cm long. Stated that the incident was dealt with well.
Suz	Stated that it would seem that there would be no way of preventing this.
George	Stated that it was very rare for a leakage to occur from a compartment, as opposed to gasket, valve leaks etc.
Catherine	Asked if it was due to the age of the tanker.
Gary	Stated that it could have been.
Robin	Sought to clarify that unloaded meant that it was pumped back into the tank.
Gary	Stated yes. He demonstrated on the board how it occurred, pointing out that the leakage didn't hit the ground as it was contained in the vapour tray at the bottom of the road tanker.
Jon	Asked if the gas detection system would have picked it up.
Gary	Stated that it wouldn't have as it would have been too small.
Jon	Asked what about if it were VCM or Butadiene.
Gary	Stated that you would see it before you smelt it if it were VCM as it would be seen hissing out of the compartment. Referred to the second incident where there was a problem experienced with the gas alarm and they're not sure of the cause or how it was triggered.
George	Stated that currently there is only one gas alarm that has to be activated before the entire system is activated. Stated that Terminals is considering a multiple alarm system (i.e. a system where it takes two or more alarm reports to trigger a response from CFA) in consultation with CFA to avoid the repetition of false alarms.
Carlo	Stated that the distance between alarms is over 200 m.
Gary	Stated that it can take years to find a cause for why an alarm goes off and that it does not take much from other elements; age, dust, dirt etc to cause a false alarm. Referred to final incident on the report, stated that they did not know what caused the VCM occurrent, expecting that it was due to low pressure at some point on the valve.
Gordon	Referred back to the meeting that took place with Geelong Council, as mentioned earlier and asked if anything was discussed about a proposal for a footpath around the foreshore.
Gary	Stated that it is a Maritime Security area.
Gordon	Stated that it was a part of the Port Strategy plan. Stated that he was amazed that the issue had not been raised nor discussed as it had been proposed by the community for a walking/bike track along the foreshore to the city. Stated that it was not a track along Shell Parade, as suggested.
Gary	Suggested that it would impinge on foreshore property and that it didn't sound to be practical.
Jon	Stated that Terminals were tenants of Toll, and not owners of the land.
Lyndon	Stated that he had not been personally involved in Council consultation.
Suz	Clarified that through council the issue could be dealt with.
Gary	Stated that there was no way that Terminals could support people walking along Terminals properties, near the high water mark.
Suz	Stated that the submission detoured the area around the refinery.
Robin	Summarised that there was an issue of public access around the pier and that there was concern of lack of discussion with the Council and Terminals. Asked what is being done at present.
Suz Kelly-Turner	Concluded the item by stating that the issue could be expected to arise in due course in the consideration of the Port Plan by the Department of Infrastructure.
George	Referring to the EPA licence, on the treatment of vapours, stated that the cost of implementing the changes has implications for Terminals customers.
Ralph	Sought clarification that what was being referred to was the treatment of vapours from chemical storage tanks, which are non-pressurised, when loading.
Robin	Stated that Terminals are initiating a report and informing customers on the implications of the licence.
Neil	Stated that EPA would be content to wait for the report.
	EPA Report
Neila	Stated that he had nothing further to add.
George	Asked about progress with EPA management.
Neil	Stated that he did not know when this is to be resolved.
	City of Greater Geelong
Lyndon	Stated that he had nothing further to add.
	CFA
Bob	Stated that he had nothing further to add.
ITEM 8	Health impacts of chemicals (Sue McLean) (To be deferred until November meeting)
ITEM 9	Timeframe for implementing improvements required by WorkSafe in the amended MHF Licence (Carlo).
Carlo	Presented table MHF Improvements, which refers to the amended MHF licence. Stated that the improvements made are to keep risks at Terminals as low as practicable. Provided handout of presentation to members.
Gordon	Asked what the date is for the first load of bitumen.
George	Stated that they were hoping for the first of December to receive a load.
Catherine	Asked whether Terminals had to inform EPA of the amendments to the licence, as there would include some changes to procedures.
Robin	Stated that the new licence intended for changes to safety and not for environmental effects, which are the principal concern of EPA. Inquired whether the Safety Improvements could be included on an Improvement Action List for the Geelong Site, similar to the one prepared for Coode Island?
Carlo	Stated that Terminals were still waiting for approval of the EIP submitted to EPA.
Neil	Stated that he would look into it.
ACTION	Neil to advise if the EIP has been approved by EPA.
George	Informed members and welcomed their attendance to the Coode Island Open Day, which is to take place on Saturday the 20th of October from 10 am to 2pm.
Pam	Asked if an RSVP would be required.
George	Stated that it wasn't, that it was open to anyone.
Suz Kelly-Turner	Asked if that the Coode Island news could be linked to the TGCCC website.
Robin	Stated that it could be easily done. Asked TGCCC members if they are aware of the media releases published on the website and stated that he hoped that they are being accessed. (Members stated that generally they were).
Catherine	Suggested that the TGCCC website is listed on the top of the minutes.
ACTION	For the TGCCC website to be included at the top of the Minutes and on the bottom of the Draft Agenda, and for notice of the Terminals Coode Island Open Day to be linked to the TGCCC web site.
	Other Business
Ralph	Stated that he believed that meetings had recently occurred on the 2nd Monday of every month rather than the first. He asked if the dates for meetings in 2008 would be on the first Monday of the month.
Robin	Stated that the dates for meetings are arranged to avoid having them in the same week as Coode Island dates. Asked TGCCC members if they agreed with the proposed dates for next year. (Members stated that the 2nd Monday of the month was preferable)
ACTION	For meeting dates for 2008 to occur on the 2nd Monday in the month.
Ralph	With regard to butadiene, asked Terminals if the build up of nitrogen within the spheres was being avoided through the combustor, and whether this will lead to increased use of the combustor and increase release of butadiene.
George	Stated that that there has been a build up of nitrogen detected. He stated that the figures for this are not immediately available but assured that in terms of total mass per annum, the butadiene(?)level is not exceeding the licensing limit. Stated that it is an issue that Terminals are will discuss with DOW.
ACTION	Terminals to report back on issue of nitrogen building up in spheres and the performance of the combustor for November meeting.
ITEM 12	Date and Draft Agenda for next meeting.
Robin	Asked if members were happy with Monday 3rd Dec for final meeting. (Members expressed that they were). Declared meeting closed at 8:35 pm.
	The next meeting will take place on Monday 12 November in the Meeting Room of Corio Library, Cox Road, Norlane at 6.00 for 6.30pm