TGCCC Adopted Minutes 2 February 2009

Adopted Minutes of the Meeting

Held in the Meeting Room, Corio Library, Norlane

Monday 2nd February, 2009

Present:

Robin Saunders Chair & Minute Taker

Community Representative Ralph Taylor
Franceska Dezelak
Bill Aitkin
Greg Postuma
Joe Cicero
Jon Apted
Pam Edwards
Peter Linaker
John Wilson
Suz Kelly-Turner
CFA Bob Smith
Ian Beswicke
Terminals Pty Ltd Gary O'Sullivan
Geoff Millard
City of Greater Geelong Lyndon Ray
WorkSafe Geoff Cooke

 

Apologies:
Terminals Pty Ltd    George Horman, Carlo Fasolino

 

ITEM 1 Welcome by Chair
Robin Welcomed everyone, noting with pleasure that Geoff Cooke was attending tonight.
ITEM 2 Apologies, confirmation of Draft Agenda

Apologies were received from George Horman and Carlo Fasolino
Robin Asked for confirmation of the Draft Agenda, agreed.
ITEM 3 Confirmation on the Draft Minutes of the meeting 10th November 2008.

Adopted as true records of the meeting without changes.

ITEM 4  Business Arising from Minutes
Action Item 31/5 Advise date on which Port Plan Planning Scheme Amendment will go on exhibition.

Nothing further to report, Lyndon will follow up for next meeting.
Action Item 36/1 Terminals to bring forward a proposal for the boundary for the targeted community for consideration at the February 2009 meeting
Geoff Millard Geoff recalled that Terminals had talked about an 800 metre radius area within which people and companies would be "targeted" for information in accordance with the Terminals Site Emergency Management Plan. Community representatives didn't accept the proposal, and wanted further work done. Geoff set out the five expanding areas where information will be distributed by Terminals. They are:
  • the General community (the community at large throughout Geelong and beyond)
  • an Opt-in list (based on the Targeted area, but including those outside the targeted are who wished to get the same information)
  • the Targeted area, considered to comprise those with an obvious direct interest
  • the Impacted area
  • on-site (where the greatest harm can occur)

Geoff advised that EPA talked in terms of a 1000 metre buffer zone for a facility like Terminals, and a 2000 metre buffer zone for a refinery.

Most of the chemicals stored on-site have a hazard zone of much less than 1000 metres.

In providing further advice on this matter to the TGCCC, Geoff stated that he had had regard to the National Research Council of the United States AEGLs for butadiene, which the safety case work has shown to produce the most credible worst case distances for consideration. The AEGLs are the Acute Emergency Guidelines of the US EPA, where:

  • AEGL-1 is the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/m3) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic non-sensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure.
  • AEGL-2 is the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/m3) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape.
  • AEGL-3 is the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/m3) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience life-threatening health effects or death.

The concentration levels for butadiene for AEGL1 was given as 670 ppm, The worst case exposure conditions for butadiene at 670 ppm was shown by modelling to be experienced at and within 1500 metres from the plant. Geoff used this distance as a conservative basis for proposing the Targeted area for communication, and tabled a plan showing where it extended. The 1500 metre radius circle just touches Station Street, near the St Georges Road intersection.

Bill What is EPA's view?
Action Item 37/1 Robin to request EPA's view on the Terminals proposal of 1500 metres for the Targeted area for communication.
Peter Peter raised the issues of Primary Schools, and queried if the NRC work was up-to-date. It was established that North Shore Primary School was the closest Primary School, being about a further 150 metres south west of the circle, while Corio Primary School was about 300 metres north west of the circle. Geelong Grammar School had its equestrian facility intersected by the 1500 metre circle.
Geoff Millard Advised that the NRC work was from a report dated 2005, as quoted.
Jon Queried whether there was any residential development within the 1500 metres. It was established that the closest residential was a block of flats on the south-west corner of the intersection of Station Street and St Georges Road, just outside the 1500 metre circle.
Bill Railway trains go through the proposed area every hour, full of passengers.
Peter The Targeted area should not be over-estimated. I agree with the boundary. In relation to transient people, the Rail Authority should be advised. The Opt-in people should include sensitive and assembly facilities-the schools should be include in the Opt-in.
John As Shell has an EPA buffer of 2000 metres, we need to look at Shell and Terminals together.
Geoff Millard Shell and Terminals have separate Emergeny Plans. Within the Terminals plan, we have taken account of any knock-on impact from Shell (and they have done vice-versa). Impacts from Shell wont make the critical impact from Terminals worse. The 1500 metre zone represents the best basis for defining the extent of the Targeted area.
John It concerns me that the Government isn't looking at the precinct as a whole.
Franceska I'd like to see the basis of the advice in a written form.

(Note, the Chair undertook to include in the draft minutes a full account of the basis of the advice from Geoff, and this has been done.)

Action Item 37/2 Chair to arrange for the GHD Report on the Site Emergency Plan to be sent in hard copy form to Franceska, if it has not already been done.
Greg If there are two ships at Refinery Pier, and one has a disaster, perhaps affecting the other, whose problem is it?
Ian Refinery Pier is owned and managed by Toll Ports, so it is their responsibility. In an emergency the responsibility would quickly devolve to us.
Geoff Cooke I believe there is some confusion between emergency response and the issue of communication, leading to discussion at cross-purposes. The present task is about a boundary for the Targetted area for emergency communication purposes only.
Geoff Millard Referred to the GHD Report nominating communication needs before (i.e. general information), during and after an emergency.
Bill The proposal should be accepted.
Suz 1500 metres is sufficient, given the provision for others to Opt-in.
John I don't agree we are at cross-purposes. The Emergency Plan should be beyond a single site.

The Committee agreed with the Terminals proposal.
Action Item 36/3 On EPA approval of the 30A application re the butadiene isotainer, Terminals to advise the committee.
Gary Nothing has happened yet, the isotainer has not been transported to Terminals, and BASF has been asked to provide some further information.
Geoff Cooke The isotainer is in a site in Melbourne. A WorkSafe inspector visited it in October 2008, and it appears correctly stored and placarded. WorkSafe has been advised that it has been in its present location since September 2006.

There was a meeting on the matter at the EPA offices on 11 December 2008, attended by representatives of Terminals, BASF and WorkSafe. WorkSafe's interest in the 30A application to EPA is:

(a) is the isotainer safe to move? We were assured it was safe to move, and under pressure (i.e. safe from the potential for oxygen to get in).

(b) when moved, operations by Gary and his team will be safe, under a "management of change" process. (This process is like a mini- HAZOP.) Terminals advised that only standard operations would be undertaken, and that they will undertake the "management of change" process.

John Advised that he understands that even stainless steel containers can cause 'popcorn'. He also thought it would be better to burn off the butadiene at Altona.
Gary/ Geoff Explained that only Terminals Geelong had the specialist connections required to vent the butadiene to a combustor.
Geoff Cooke It's an approved container, and we are waiting for BASF to provide advice on the safety of the product to be transported.
Franceska Since when have we been using Terminals combustor to burn off other peoples waste?
Gary No other people's waste is burned off in the Terminals Geelong combustor. As well as being the owner of the butadiene in the isotainer, BASF, along with Dow, are the owners of the butadiene stored at Terminals Geelong.
Joe Why hasn't BASF done a sample from the vapour line.
Gary It's what might be at the bottom of the tank that's of concern, the peroxides-it was all discussed at the EPA meeting.
Jon We lay people worry more when the butadiene might be degraded. It may be a one-off occurrence of material being brought in to be burned off in the combustor, but it sets a precedent.
Gary Peroxides are only dangerous when exposed to air. In this case the vessel is still pressurised and the ingress of air is almost impossible.
Jon As could happen in a road accident.
John At VCAT assurances were given that the combustor would only be used for butadiene ship parcels.
Ralph The existing licence limits for the combustor should not be exceeded through the proposal for the isotainer.
Gary This was brought up at the EPA meeting.
Geoff Millard There won't be any exceedance, only about one kilogram of emissions will be produced from the isotainer, given the efficiency of the combustor.
Gary/Geoff The removal of butadiene vapours will be accompanied by up five or seven stages of introducing nitrogen to the vapour space, progressively replacing the butadiene vapour with a nitrogen rich vapour. When there is the possibility of peroxide in the exhausted isotainer, and it is returned to BASF, BASF will introduce water into the isotainer through the vapour line, and the peroxides will be flooded with water and progressively dissolved and rendered harmless.
Pam I don't think I've heard before that this isotainer has been properly stored. I understand it was stored outside.
Geoff Yes it has been stored outside, in an approved storage area. That won't affect the formation of popcorn.
Bill Why is it taking so long to find out what's in the isotainer?
Geoff Cooke BASF has been asked to advise the date when the isotainer was filled.
Gary In relation to the frequency of use of the combustor (three times per year envisaged at VCAT), in practice the 2000 tonne parcels envisaged have been reduced to 1500 tonnes, requiring four shipments, and four uses of the combustor.
ITEM 5 REPORTS Terminals

Gary presented the Terminals Monthly Operations Report, and took members through the shipping, road transport and safety issues in some detail. Seven incidents were reported, five at Severity Level 1 (least severe), one at Severity Level 2, and one at Severity Level 3 (most severe).

The Severity Level 1 incidents were:

  • a bitumen leak from a bucket on the loading arm;
  • bitumen spills after a road tanker had left;
  • plant emergency alarm sounded following a leak on a dry break coupling;
  • failure of loading meter for iso-propyl alcohol;
  • damage to insulation coating on Sphere 2500 by birds.
Action Item 37/3 In relation to the bitumen leak, Terminals has resolved to investigate moving the isolation valve closer to the fill arm. The Committee requested that Terminals advise it of the results of that investigation.

The Severity Level 2 incident involved the overfilling of a truck compartment with Methyl Ethyl Ketone, following a failure of the overfill protection (a scully probe).
Action Item 37/4 In relation to the Methyl Ethyl Ketone overfill, Terminals has resolved to carry out random tests of scully probes, and continue to monitoring of the loading system for signs of failure. The Committee requested that Terminals advise it of the results of that investigation.

The Severity Level 3 incident involved a spill of approximately two tonnes of Methyl Ethyl Ketone in an exchange pit when product was pumped down the wrong wharf line. This was a significant incident, resulting from a combination of human error, operating systems and inadequate supervisory actions.

Gary explained that the spill resulted from the wharf line being wrongly connected to a disused tank line, which had been left open following drying.

Terminals has identified the following actions:

  • Counsel all operators on following procedures and on the need to be vigilant.
  • Introduce procedure to verify dockline before starting pumping.
  • Ensure all "Not in Use" pipelines are securely sealed.
  • Review/revise all shipping discharge plans and review dockline labelling at jetty.
Geoff Cooke One of our WorkSafe officers attended the site on the day of the incident (as did CFA). We returned to site afterwards on 6 January 2009, at which time Terminals had identified the above actions, but had not yet implemented them. As the incident was a major one under the Major Hazard Facility regulations, we issued an improvement notice formalising the implementation of such improvements, which may include, but are not limited to:
  • the implementation of an independent verification system that positively verifies correct valve positioning for the transfer lines requiring use for the transfer of product and those that are not required or in use are closed.
  • any unused valves or flanges at the general chemicals exchange pit are locked and/or blanked off.
  • pressure testing of entire transfer line prior to being utilised for the transfer of substances from the ship connection to the terminal inlet valve of the tank designated to receive the substance to ensure correct line is in use.

The timeline for the undertaking these improvements is the end of February 2009.

WorkSafe will be interested in any human factor analysis that may be undertaken.

John Why does EPA have no representative tonight? Such action by EPA does not improve their credibility. While understanding EPA's restructuring and staffing problems, it's withdrawal from consultation is a concern.
Pam Supported John's statement.
Action Item 37/5 Geoff Millard will follow up with EPA to confirm who is now Terminals Geelong case officer, and will advise the Chair by 9 February 2009.
John Complimented Terminals on their openness and the thoroughness of their incident reporting.

REPORTS CFA
Ian Concerning the MEK spill, Terrminals worked to their Emergency Management Plan, and staff worked well with CFA to accomplish the clean up.

REPORTS CoGG
Lyndon Nothing to report. Queried need for Council representation at every meeting.
Various community reps Remarked that Council presence at TGCCC was very important
Robin Suggested that the Council representative could usefully present a short report each meeting on policy and other high level changes which may affect the community, particularly (but not only) in relation to their interest in the good management of industry. Noted that while meetings were previously monthly, there are now only six per year.
Greg Noted that ward boundaries have changed, and that Terminals and Shell are now in Lara Ward.
Action Item 37/6 Lyndon will advise the Chair of Councillors now representing wards including and close to the Terminals facility, and the Councillor who has the Environment portfolio, to enable the Chair to invite them to TGCCC meetings.
Meeting Closed 9:45 pm.

Website by ThereFor Design