TGCCC Adopted Minutes 3 December 2007

Terminals TGCCC

(Terminals Geelong Community Consultative Committee)

Adopted Minutes of the Meeting

Held in the Meeting Room, Corio Library, Norlane

Monday 3 December 2007

Present:

Robin Saunders, Chair

Moya Richardson, Minute Taker

Geelong Community Forum	Suz Kelly-Turner
Geelong Community for Good Life	Sue McLean Joe Cicero
Community Representative	Ralph Taylor Bill Aitken Catherine Jones John Wilson Peter Linaker
Friends of Port Lillias and Corio Bay	Pam Edwards
CFA	Ian Beswicke Bob Smith
Geelong Grammar	Jon Apted
Terminals Pty Ltd	George Horman Geoff Millard Gary O'Sullivan Carlo Fasolino

Apologies:

Community Representative	Greg Postuma Gordon Alderson
CFA	Sharon Rawlings

ITEM 1	Welcome by Chair
Robin	Welcomed all members to the final meeting for 2007. Called for an early start for the meeting so that it can conclude by 8.00pm, which is to be followed by a special supper provided by Terminals.
ITEM 2	Apologies, confirmation of Draft Agenda
	Apologies were received from Greg Postuma, Gordon Alderson and Sharon Rawlings.
Robin	Asked for confirmation of the Draft Agenda; Robin to add item for Bill to present discussion on recycling water as other business.
ITEM 3	Confirmation on the Draft Minutes of the meeting 12 November 2007.
Peter	Sought clarification on page 5 of minutes, which refer to a 'butadiene levy'.
Robin	Clarified that it should read 'Butadiene BLEVE.' Changes adopted.
Peter	Suggested that 'Butadiene' is written in capital letters. Changes adopted.
ITEM 4	Business arising from Minutes
Action Item 27/5 Robin	Raised the issue of meeting times for 2008, stating that it was recorded in the minutes to be the 2nd Monday of the month.
Gary	Stated that he understood that people had expressed that they had wanted meetings to be the 1st Monday of the month.
Ralph	Stated that the October minutes meeting stated that it is to be the 2nd Monday.
Robin	Clarified that the minutes could possibly be incorrect. Asked TGCCC members if they would be happy with the 2nd Monday of the month. (Minutes confirmed as correct-Meetings to continue to be scheduled for the 2nd Monday of the month in 2008). Asked member's opinions on the frequency of the meetings.
Peter	Referred to Carlo's message that suggested bimonthly meetings for 2008, in consultation with the City of Greater Geelong. Stated he disagrees with the notion that fewer attendees to meetings should be the cause for fewer meetings.
Robin	Asked Peter if he would be tranquil about having bimonthly meetings.
Peter	Stated yes, that he would be.
Sue Mclean	Stated that the planning permit states that meetings must occur at least bimonthly. Agreed with the proposal for bimonthly meetings, stating that there is sufficient business to be ongoing during the interim between meetings and that she was confident that Terminals would call for an extra meeting should the need arise.
Sue Kelly-Turner	Stated that she would be happy for bimonthly meetings but she had doubt whether we are on top of the workload.
Gary	Stated that more public holidays fall on the 2nd Monday of the month.
George	Stated that bimonthly meetings can allow for greater flexibility with public holidays.
Bill	Stated that be believed that we have lots of business to discuss and issues to deal will and due to this, proposed that for the 1st 6 months of 2008 TGCCC meet monthly to deal with the issues, and then this can become bimonthly if needed.
Ralph	Acknowledged the good effort that Terminals puts in with the involvement from 4 members and questioned if it is necessary to expect 4 members each meeting.
Jon	Stated that he preferred to meet more frequently but with shorter meetings.
Robin	Proposed for a compromise; where meetings are held monthly for the first 6 months of 2008 and every second month thereafter.
Ralph	Added if it could be reviewed at the end of the first 6 months.
MOTION	Monthly meetings to be held until June 2008, then for a review to determine if meetings should be every second month.
Action Item 13/6	Done.
Action Item 25/2	Done.
Action Item 25/3	On Agenda for February meeting.
Robin	Asked Geoff Millard to provide explanation for the difference in safety distances in WorkSafe and VCAT data for Sue McLean's benefit.
Geoff	Stated that the first figure relates to the hazard range for butadiene and the second relates to the range for VCM.
Sue McLean	Confirmed that the 650m range relates to butadiene but wasn't certain about the 730m figure. Stated that she will clarify this.
Robin	Stated that his understanding was that they actually were referring to different incidents in different situations.
Sue McLean.	Stated that if this is the case, that WorkSafe hasn't completely answered the question that was asked of them. Stated that what was stated is different and lower in the safety case for the Butadiene BLEVE of first impact.
George	Stated that this issue goes all the way back to March. Suggested that Geoff Cooke is invited to the next meeting as there is not enough information here to discuss the issue.
ACTION	Robin to invite Geoff Cooke to speak on the issue at the February meeting.
Action Item 27/1	Done.
Action Item 27/2	Done.
Action Item 27/3	Awaiting advice from EPA re approval of the EIP
Robin	Acknowledged that EPA hasn't been in attendance at meetings for a while.
Sue McLean	Stated that the last correspondence that she received stated that progress was being made on the EIP approval.
Bill	Suggested that we dot point the details we wish to confirm, to make it more convenient for new EPA staff.
ACTION	Robin to write to EPA: dot point outstanding issues and to invite EPA representative to February meeting.
Action Item 27/4	Done.
Action Item 27/6	(Referring to document Nitrogen Build Up in Butadiene Sphere circulated by Carlo)
Joe	Asked about the Occupational Health and Safety issues with the operation.
Geoff	Stated that Terminal's system is measured and automated, whereas DOW uses a manual system to measure its nitrogen build up.
Steve	Asked why Terminals use the automated system.
Gary	Stated that it is a WorkSafe approved system.
Geoff	Stated that there are no OH&S issues with the Terminals system and that DOW's system is excessive for what's needed.	Georg
George	Stated that he believed Joe had raised a valid point; which was suggesting that what DOW are doing is superior to what Terminals as it poses less threat to the operator. However, DOW purges more nitrogen than is necessary through their system.
Gary	Stated that Engineering authorities agreed that the Terminals system is adequate.	George
George	Stated that with regard to the question if DOW's system is safer, the answer is no. Stated that when you blow through a hose, as in DOW's system, you displace butadiene and the vapour from the leakage is the same, either way.
Joe	Asked how Terminals can conclude that their system is better.	Carlo
Carlo	Stated that they are different methods that are being used to perform the same task.
George	Stated that Terminals is better with relying upon an automated/measured system.
George	Stated that there has not being a coupling failure since testing began of the system.
John	Asked that assuming all systems are safe, how do you avoid nitrogen build up, as referred to in document.
Carlo	Stated that this could be achieved by proposing to burn the top of the sphere.
George	(Demonstrates with a diagram the whiteboard) States that it is the compressed nitrogen in the small space at the top of the sphere, which is then extracted and taken to the combustor.
Jon	Asked what is coming out from the combustor, in relation to oxides of nitrogen?	G
George	Stated that considering 70% of the atmosphere consists of nitrogen, there is little change in the atmosphere when it is released. Oxides of nitrogen are also produced when air is added to the combustor.
Ralph	Referred to the October minutes, asked what is DOW's method of removing the Nitrogen?.
Gary	Stated that it is the purging that produces the Nitrogen.	Carlo
Carlo	Stated that the final point is in the system is the sphere, where all excess nitrogen goes.
Robin	Asked about Terminals connection with DOW.
Carlo	Stated that it was due to the linkage of nitrogen.
Robin	Stated that it had been a useful discussion on the issue.
Sue Mclean	Asked about the frequency for the combustor use.
George	Stated that it could be approximately when every shipment arrives, although less is preferable financially.
Sue McLean	Asked what percentage of additional amounts of nitrogen will be produced.	G
George	Stated that the amounts are well within the license estimates.	Carlo
Carlo	Added that it is difficult to know because Terminals haven't emptied the sphere yet.
Peter	Thanked Carlo for the report.
Sue McLean	Pointed out the Terminals planning permit did not include a combustor.
Carlo	Clarified that the planning permit did include the provision for a vapour combustor.
Joe	Proposed that Terminals speak to DOW about the amount of butadiene going into Terminals.	Carlo
Carlo	Stated that he has asked DOW in the past but they have been unable to answer as it's too hard to measure and that butadiene is bought for the whole site.
Catherine	Asked how many times the combustor is being used and stated that she believed that there was a time when it wasn't to be built.	Carlo
Carlo	Clarified that the combustor was always going to be built.
Robin	Summarised that the issue of extra emissions due to the usage of the combustor are likely to be extremely small.
George	Stated that testing has been limited in the area as Terminals are still in the learning commission phase. Terminals will continue to monitor and report on Butadiene burning in the combustor.
ACTION	Terminals to continue monitoring the combustor performance and to include results in the monthly reports.
Action Item 27/4	Additional discussion on Web Site
Peter	Stated that he had found some discrepancies in the Terminals website; one being that there appeared to be some information missing at the end of the Terms of Reference; and two being that there is no caption or date to the picture on the front page and insisted on one being added.
Robin	Stated that he had concluded with Carlo and Gary that it's clear enough.
ACTION	Robin to correct the Web Site (Terms of Reference last point, and caption on Home page photo)
Action Item 28/1	On Agenda tonight.
Action Item 28/2	On Agenda tonight.
Action Item 28/3	Done.
ACTION	Amend the wording to the Terminals Monthly Report to read: 'Number of Lost Time injuries in 12 months-1. Number of Work Injuries in 12 months (excluding Lost Time injuries)-0'.
Action Item 28/4	George to provide details of his media release to Robin.
Robin	Asked Terminals to put it in writing for committee members.
ACTION	Terminals to put in writing the details of the TyCo event and for it to be circulated to members.
Gary	Clarified that it's not 'Thai Co' but TyCo. (Changes adopted)
Action Item 28/5	Deferred until February meeting.
Sue McLean	Stated that the CoGG has put out the plan for the Port Plan on the website, which has significant changes to it from the Department of Infrastructure. This includes the the deletion of the proposed overlay, maintaining third party appeal rights. Stated that the issue is still very much unresolved as it has been felt that the report went through council very discreetly.
Suz	Added that the Geelong Port will receive its briefing on the plan next week.
Carlo	Stated that he had been informed of the planning scheme amendment.	Ro
ITEM 5	Emergency Communication
George	Stated that due to his absence, he required some debriefing.
Suz	Expressed frustration at where we had started and what we are getting as a response.
George	Stated that it was good to see CFA's involvement in the process but admitted that there are certainly a lot of people involved and that he didn't expect a new person at the meeting last month. (Referred to the Draft Emergency Communication plan by Terminals). Stated that it was Terminals' intention that what was outlined in the draft was what was to be 'fleshed out' by CFA. Stated that the draft by Terminals is looking to do more within our MHF licence. Stated that WorkSafe are ultimately responsible for the way in which industries conduct themselves. However, as he understands, CFA are suggesting that Terminals work with emergency communication from a smaller scale; from within their own company first. Stated that considering this, what CFA are proposing for Terminals was sound.
Bob	Stated that Sharon used the EPA framework for CFA's proposal and unfortunately key players were away last meeting to participate in the discussion. Stated that we are not going backwards and that now the priority is to assist Terminals to prepare their communication strategy to move forward.
John	Stated that he had sent an email to Robin about a disaster plan with communication, highlighting the need to look at the whole precinct. Stated that we must consider what would happen in the event of the power grid at Shell dropping out. Stated that failure in a disaster should automatically revert to an alternate power source. Emphasised the need for a broader plan, and acknowledged that it was no criticism of CFA as they have their hands tied due to constraints upon them.
Suz	Agreed with John but stated that it was a long haul. Asked why California can look after its people through the implementation of a successful notification system but there is no system in place here in Victoria. Stated that the people want an early warning system in Corio.
Bob	Stated that it is essential to assess and understanding the difference between risk and perceived risk within the community. Provided the example of a safe distance outlined in the safety case as being from an 800m radius and stated that everyone wants to be given some kind of boundary, but how far do we want this to go.
Robin	Asked CFA what they are suggesting for the next step.
George	Stated that the relevant expertise and authorities are required first to look at Terminals to draw conclusions of the current situation and necessities.
Robin	Expressed confusion about what is outlined in the document in terms of community consultation and input.
Bob	Stated that it refers to the Terminals community; residents who are affected by Terminals.
Robin	Stated yes, but does it require going into the community or for a facilitator to be brought in a community forum, much like the TGCCC.
Bob	Stated yes, that it wouldn't be too different from putting the safety cases out there into the community for residents to be made aware, and then to proceed.
Bill	Expressed frustration at the level of inaction that has gone one. Stated there are a significant number of people within the area who are looking for some general form of notification. Suggested a public meeting to engage the community in a meaningful way.
Sue Mclean	Conceded disappointment also, as a northern suburbs resident, not in the completion stages but in the slowness of the project. Stated that they are talking about an early warning system, that doesn't only have to be for chemical emergencies but emergencies relating to climate change, due to the close proximately to Port residents etc.
Peter	Stated that the technical risk of butadiene is individual risk but there is also social risk associated with the reaction of the community. Stated that if the Terms of Reference are unclear, there will be an unwanted response from the public. Suggested a positive approach and then to determine if the crucial community element has been picked up on.
George	Conceded that he has been disappointed too and that there is a need for an overall system in this day and age. Stated that he regarded CFA as an ally in this process. Highlighted that other companies have more volatile substances than Terminals, but at this stage, stated that he supported a microcosm system here with a facilitator in 2008. Stated that he would receive recommendations on facilitation mid February.
Sue Mclean	Stated that she was pleased to hear a good message to the community.
John	Stated that in terms of efficiency and to establish risk assessment, a strategy aimed at the top, such as government would be desirable.
Robin	Stated that this has been discussed and while it is understood that ideally an overall system would be the outcome, clearly it is not going to happen. Stated that George has agreed to a microcosm system and that the positive in taking this direction, in terms of influencing greater change, is that the Terminals plan can be used as a model for other companies.
Suz	Stated that she was not despondent and had found the discussion fascinating. Highlighted the importance of community education to be included in the planning. Stated that it was all a good start and thanked CFA for their work.
Action Item 28/2	(To be continued in 2008)
ACTION	Bob and George to continue in consultation, for outcomes to be tabled and for committee to be advised on the progress at February meeting.
ITEM 6	Reports from Terminals- Deferred until February meeting.
ITEM 7	Health impacts of chemicals (Sue Mclean) -Deferred until February meeting.
ITEM 8	Other business -Deferred until February.
Robin	Asked Bill about his issue of recycling water.
Bill	Stated that he would be interested to know what Terminals have as strategies to minimise water consumption from Barwon Heads.
Sue McLean	Asked if she could add to that how energy levels could be lowered. Suggested that an E representative is invited to respond.
ACTION	Terminals to present strategies used to minimise water consumption and to lower energy levels at February meeting.
Robin	Declared meeting closed at 8:10pm
	The next meeting will take place on Monday 11 February 2008 in the Meeting Room of Corio Library, Cox Road, Norlane at 6.00 for 6.30pm