TGCCC Adopted Minutes 12 November 2007

Terminals GCCC

(Terminals Geelong Community Consultative Committee)

Adopted Minutes of the Meeting

Held in the Meeting Room, Corio Library, Norlane

Monday 12 November 2007

Present:

Robin Saunders, Chair

Moya Richardson, Minute Taker

Community Representative	Bill Aitken Greg Postuma
CFA	Sharon Rawlings Bob Smith
Geelong Grammar	Jon Apted
City of Greater Geelong	Steve Sodamaco
Terminals Pty Ltd	Geoff Millard Gary O'Sullivan

Apologies:

Terminals Pty Ltd	George Horman Carlo Fasolino
Community Representative	Peter Linaker
Geelong Community for Good Life	Sue McLean
Port Chemicals Action Group	Ralph Taylor
City of Greater Geelong	Kevin Garde
CFA	Ian Beswicke
	Andrew Andreou

ITEM 1	Welcome by Chair
Robin	Welcomed all members. Acknowledged the small turnout and stated that it was good to see two members from the community.
ITEM 2	Apologies, confirmation of Draft Agenda
	Apologies were received from George Horman, Carlo Fasolino, Sue McLean, Peter Linaker, Andrew Andreou, Ian Beswicke and Kevin Garde.
Robin	Proposed Item 6 Emergency Communication - Report by CFA to be brought forward due to the time constraints of CFA representative Sharon Rawlings.
ITEM 6	Emergency Communication - Report by CFA
Sharon	Referred to the distributed document A planning process for community engagement. Stated that the document has been compiled as a response to the emergency communication sub-committee and provides guidelines that have been developed and endorsed by CFA. Stated that these guidelines include the steps for a community engagement plan, which is to provide a clear process for emergency communication. Provided an overview of the guidelines, which included analysing the goals and constraints of the community and Terminals, providing the tools and processes for management and determining where the responsibility ends with Terminals and where is begins with agencies such as CFA.
Steve	Asked how the risks will be managed, and raised concern over the level of community control in taking pre-emptive action in emergency situations.
Sharon	Stated that the engagement process is to increase the understanding of the community and to empower community members to make informed decisions.
Robin	Stated that he believed that CFA had misunderstood what was required by the emergency communication sub-committee. He stated that the expectation of the sub-committee was that CFA would 'put flesh on the bones' that had been established by TGCCC with regards to the process for emergency community communication. Referred to the emergency communication strategy (from Media Release 8 October 2007) and stated that this raised specific questions which had little to do with the engagement process plan.
Sharon	Stated that the strategy devised by the sub-committee in fact has everything to do with the plan. Highlighted that devising the strategy is not the responsibility of CFA but the responsibility of Terminals who are to lead such discussions.
Robin	Stated that TGCCC is in itself a forum for community engagement. Stated that the primary concern of TGCCC members was the issue of community notification and communication in the event of an emergency.
Sharon	Stated that there were many issues that need to be addressed.
Steve	Asked if the plan is a template for industry(?)
Bob	Confirmed that the plan was not duplicating a process. The community engagement will link in with the Emergency Management Plan.
Jon	Stated that he agreed with the argument made by Robin that TGCCC is a forum for community engagement and that they are looking for specific/controlled communication. Also stated the importance for Geelong Grammar to know information about what is involved in an emergency, who are involved etc. Supported Sharon's comments in that different communities require different emergency plans..
Bob	Stated that bushfires can be used as an example where improvements have been made in communication, such as the avoidance of 'scare' techniques.
Robin	Referred to the cover letter from CFA, outlining the development of a Plan that demonstrates the willingness of the TGCCC to work with the community. Asked Terminals about their willingness to engage in the process.
Geoff	Stated that Terminals have expressed a willingness to be involved but have been lead by the expertise of CFA. Stated that for full community engagement, the process would require a range of other stakeholders.
Sharon	Stated that CFA would be happy to support a consultative committee that could lead Terminals through the process.
Robin	Asked Sharon what the first step could be in terms of advancing the process.
Sharon	Stated that resourcing would be the first step, which would be through the employment of a consultant to work in the engagement process.
Bill	Raised concern about the possible spin that could eventuate through CFA taking control over the direction for the process.
Bob	Highlighted that Terminals' MHF licensing ensures that all agencies adhere to the regulation of the licence. The MHF legislation makes Terminals responsible for community engagement.
Gary	Asked where does the responsibility of Terminals end when CFA arrive at an emergency site.
Sharon	Stated that this is an issue that has been articulated in the brief for the Plan.
Geoff	Stated that Terminals has very little involvement in the emergency action as it becomes a matter for the emergency authorities.
Bill	Questioned if the responsibility for incident control all goes back to CFA.
Bob	Stated that the direction that is taken is dependant on what is outlined in the emergency plan.
Steve	Asked if the brief is a blueprint for what is currently in place at other MHF.
Sharon	Stated that they would be similar.
Gary	Stated that the gap between the community and Terminals has been one that has been derived from distrust.
Robin	Clarified that the present task was more specifically a concern about the lack of communication surrounding emergency situations.
Gary	Stated that the main area of difficulty was the time between being notified of an incident and how to act through the duration of the incident.
Jon	Asked exactly how the necessary communications be made. Referred to previous discussions that suggested telephone systems etc.
Robin	Asked if the information plan is the same as a communication plan.
Sharon	Stated no, that it wasn't. Stated that there is considerable community engagement through the TGCCC but this is to a much lesser extent than what has been outlined in the brief.
Bob	Acknowledged that it is unfortunate that Terminals may receive blame from the community with regard to emergency communication when it is in fact a bigger issue.
Sharon	Suggested that the community engagement plan could perhaps provide a good opportunity to clarify the expectations of the community.
Steve	Asked if it would be possible to term the Plan as a pilot program, one which can allow for the community to trust the referral of Terminals' responsibility to the correct authority and for the correct action to take place.
Sharon	Clarified that the Plan will outline specifically what can be expected.
Greg	Provided the Anekie bushfires as an example of an effective evacuation process.
Robin	Asked is the next step the appointment of a consultant by Terminals and how long could it be expected to take for a consultant to work on.
Sharon	Stated that it could take a consultant from 2 to 3 months part-time, depending on the terms of reference.
Robin	Asked what are the terms of reference.
Sharon	Stated that she couldn't list them but she could help to provide some information on the Terms of Reference.
ACTION	Sharon to provide draft information for the Terms of Reference for a consultant to Terminals, and advise the likely cost of the requested consultancy.
Sharon	Stated that CFA would be keen to receive some commitment and enthusiasm from Terminals.
Gary	Stated he considered it to be good that the information could be made available to the community, and would allow the issue to be put finally to rest.
Bob	Stated that apart of the process is to clarify for the community the difference between risk and perceived risk.
Steve	Asked whether the consultation would involve the full community, or community representatives.
Sharon	Stated that TGCCC community representatives would provide the expertise on the issue, and there would be a need for separate meetings of the community.
Bill	Stated that it would be preferable if all players were involved.
Greg	Agreed with the idea of a pilot program but recognise that problems aren't exclusive to Terminals, and once established, the pilot program could have broader application.
Bill	Suggested that it may be more practical to involve other industry, in terms of resourcing.
Robin	Stated that greater industry involvement could come later.
Geoff	Raised concern over the cost of a consultant.
Steve	Stated that there is considerable money around in strengthening the department of communities, which may be a possibility for funding.
Robin	Acknowledged that the level of community engagement in TGCCC has improved over the years.
Gary	Stated that it would be a matter for George to consider...
Robin	Summarised that Sharon's community engagement plan has been received by the community. The first step involves Terminals acquiring a consultant. Terminals now need to assess their intention to proceed. If they decide to proceed, they are to be in touch with Sharon, who will then provide drafts for the Terms of Reference.
ACTION	Terminals to advise CFA of their intention to proceed with the community engagement program lead by a consultant.
Jon	Asked if it is up to Terminals to provide the funding.
Sharon	Stated that in her previous experience of working within community strengthening programs, it is unlikely that money will be received from council for this issue as it may be considered to be outside their agenda. Community strengthening can be regarded perhaps more as an end point from the Plan. Stated that Terminals would therefore be required to produce the money.
Bill	Provided the example of children who suffered from lead poisoning in South Australia.
Gary	Stated that no ill effects have been caused from specific chemicals stored by Terminals.
	(Sharon excused herself and left. Robin thanked her on behalf of TGCCC for her contribution)
ITEM 3	Confirmation on the Draft Minutes of the meeting 12 October 2007.
	The draft minutes were adopted without change.
ITEM 4	Business arising from Minutes
Action Item 13/6	Done.
Gary	Stated that designs from students at Geelong Grammar have been received and demonstrate a good effort on behalf of the kids. Stated approximately 12 designs will be alternated on the website, namely the homepage.
Robin	Suggested that the designs are accompanied with the description: 'Logo designed by students of Geelong Grammar'.
Jon	Suggested that names of the students are also included.
Bill	Asked about the placing of the entrants.
Gary	Stated that they avoided judging the entrants and decided that as consolation for not having a winner, they can all be posted on the website.
Robin	Suggested for some explanation to be included: 'Home page background design by (student)' with their year level.
	Robin asked for support for the proposal. Support was received from members.
Action Item 23/2	Done.
Action Item 25/1	Done.
Action Item 25/2	(To be done by Geoff in Carlo's absence)
Geoff	Referred to the handout-Butadiene Emissions to Combustor and Atmosphere and confirmed that remarkable results had been obtained. Based on the single test result to-date, the combustor efficiency was 99.99996% (10,000 time greater than the guaranteed design level), resulting in a total release of only 0.01 Kg of butadiene. Stated that the flow rate at this time of year has been low. Stated that there might be the opportunity to decrease the temperature in the combustor, which would therefore help to minimise green house emissions.
Bill	Asked what the temperature is within the combustor.
Geoff	Stated that the temperature is at ambient temperature of 15-20°C.
Gary	Stated that the burn temperature stays consistent.
Robin	Asked if the only emissions from the combustor are from degassing and offloading.
Gary	Stated yes, as it is otherwise sealed.
Geoff	Stated that it is hoped that in the future there can be greater green house emission reduction from the Terminals plant.
Robin	Provided the example of the combustor temperature being reduced at Terminals Coode Island facility, with EPA approval.
Action Item 25/3	Deferred until December meeting.
Robin	Stated that it was his understanding that the discrepancies in the reports is due to different hazards being described.
Geoff	Clarified that the '650m'refers to a VCM fireball and the '730m' refers to a butadiene BLEVE. Stated that these distances are there as a guideline.
Robin	Stated that has nonetheless been a cause for community concern and it would be preferable to pend discussion until Sue Mclean is able to make a contribution to discussion.
Action Item 25/4	Done.
Action Item 26/1	Done
Action Item 27/1	On Agenda tonight. Done.
Action Item 27/2	Done.
Action Item 27/3	Deferred until December meeting.
Action Item 27/4	Done.
Action Item 27/5	Robin to talk to Carlo to clarify whether 2008 meetings are for the 1st or 2nd Monday of the month.
Action Item 27/6	Deferred until December meeting. Gary to put the report on nitrogen build up in the spheres and combustor performance in writing to be circulated prior to December meeting.
ITEM 7	Reports from Terminals, EPA, WorkCover, CFA, City of Greater Geelong
	Terminals' Report
Gary	Referred to Terminals' Monthly Operations Report September 2007. Stated that September had been busy for shipping, but not busy in trucking as there had been a decrease in VCM loads. With regard to safety, stated that there has been no lost time or work injuries for the month.
Robin	Asked what is the difference between lost time injuries and work injuries.
Gary	Stated that lost time injuries refer to when a worker has lost a full day of work from their injury and their treatment is reportable to WorkCover.
Robin	Expressed confusion over why there has been 1 lost time injury in the last 12 months but no listed work injuries, especially when a work injury is less critical than a lost time injury.
ACTION	Gary to clarify with Carlo on the injury classification
Gary	Stated that Terminals are waiting for a reply from EPA on the proposal for a VCM Sphere 2100 10 year inspection, which requires the product to be removed and internal access for inspection, following a meeting in September. The proposal uses the water evacuation method to reduce the concentration of VCM vapour in the tank.. The water is then to be treated as contaminated liquid. The intention is to have less than 15 kg of VCM remaining in the tank and a concentration level less than 20ppm in the vapour. At this level, the tank would be safely vented to the atmosphere. This is to allow for a 10 year inspection, which costs around $300,000 plus refurbishment.
Jon	Asked why not vent the VCM through the combustor
Gary	Stated that it can't be burned, as it would produce dioxins.
Robin	Clarified that contaminated water would go by road tanker to disposal.
Bill	Referred to the 'unusual and dangerous' incident described in the report from a power shortage.
Gary	Stated that the gas detection dipped, which spiked the system, activated the alarm and CFA were called in. Stated that because it involved a critical control device, Terminals must follow an incident report. Stated that the system is very sensitive to electrical interference. Expressed that the process is time consuming to say the least. Stated that CFA is helping to zone the alarm system, with the requirement that two separate alarms will need to trip before the SFA is called out. Of course, if even one alarm is tripped, Terminals site staff will investigate.. Stated that the approval for the proposal has been from CFA and not from WorkSafe.
Robin	Asked about progress with regard to biodiesel.
Geoff	Stated that there has been none, mentioning that the media had said that funding would be available in October but this hasn't been eventuated.
Gary	Referred to an email concerning Tyco and the installation of bitumen tanks. Stated that a Tyco clip lock system had been applied. Stated that 120 workers participated in a rally against the employment of Indian workers by Tyco. The unions reached a compromise with Tyco for the Indian technology to be used by the Indian specialists, and for Australian workers to be trained for the future. Stated that he was happy that the system has proved effective.
ACTION	George to provide some detail for the media release.
Gary	Stated that the first shipment is to arrive in January when the oil heaters and pumps are commissioned.
	City of Greater Geelong Report
Steve	Stated that he had nothing further to add.
Robin	Asked about progress with the various planning proposals for the Port.
Steve	Stated that the exhibition time is over and that planning may have been finally approved.
Gary	Stated that Tim had emailed Carlo some of the amendments to the plan.
ACTION	Steve to advise Robin on progress on the Port plan.
	CFA
Bob	Stated that he had nothing further to add.
Robin	Asked for any other business. (None received). Declared meeting closed at 8:15pm
	The next meeting will take place on Monday 3 December in the Meeting Room of Corio Library, Cox Road, Norlane at 6.00 for 6.30pm