COODE ISLAND COMMUNITY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Thursday 10 May 2001
Ian Thomas community rep./ committee
Ted Towson community rep./ committee
John Luppino City of Maribyr, GM City Dev /committee
Dr Peter Brotherton Combined Enviro. Groups / committee
George Horman Terminals Pty Ltd / committee
Ian Swann Plastics & Chemicals Ind Ass / committee
Matthew Wylie WorkCover/ex off committee
Michael Isaachsen community rep./committee
Faye Simpson community rep./ committee
Deborah Macfarlane community rep./ committee
Peter Reddie Gen Manager Terminals / committee
Gordon Harrison City of Melbourne / committee
Jim Clements Environ. Protec Auth
Trevor Perkins commander /MF&ESB/ex off comm
Wayne Bergin Environ. Protec Auth
Ross Petersen Dept State & Reg Development
Jodie Georgiou WorkCover
Gabrielle Green Local Resident
Colleen Hartland HazMAG
Vanessa Richardson minute taker
ITEM 1. WELCOME BY THE TEMPORARY REPLACEMENT CHAIR – DR PETER BROTHERTON)
The chairperson welcomed the committee members and others in attendance including Ross Petersen, Colleen Hartland and Jodie Georgiou.
ITEM 2. APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Cameron Fitzgerald and Carlo Fasolino.
ITEM 3. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA
The Draft Agenda was adopted.
ITEM 4. PRESENTATION BY ROSS PETERSEN CONCERNING THE MARSTEL PROPOSAL. HE IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE MAJOR PROJECTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Ross Petersen said he had been invited to the CICCC meeting to report on the Marstel proposal, but was prepared to give a report on overall developments since the Government decision of early 2000.
Ross said that during the last year the following developments had occurred on Coode Island:
- Sewerage Works.City West Water (CWW) agreed with the Department of State and Regional Development (DSRD) to undertake preliminary design and scoping works on the sewerage works. This work was done following agreement that Melbourne Port Corporation would own the sewerage network. EPA has raised a question on the capacity of the planned sewerage system to handle stormwater discharges. A meeting will be held shortly between CWW, EPA and DSRD to discuss this point.
- Maribyrnong No1 Berth. In May 2000 MPC entered into a Grant Agreement with the Minister for State and Regional Development to upgrade Maribyrnong No 1 berth. This agreement covered both the preliminary design (Stage 1), and the construction stage (Stage 2). Tenders have been sought and accepted, and work is or will be soon underway. MPC sought and obtained agreement to an amendment to the originally envisaged scope (as set out in the GHD MacKnight study on Maribyrnong No 1 Berth), to enable future upgrading to occur in a cost efficient manner.
- Underlying Costs on Coode Island.A review of underlying costs at Coode Island for bulk liquid terminalling operations led Ministers to conclude that such costs, particularly land rental costs, were too high. Accordingly, a Ministerial Direction to MPC was given under the Port Services Act to set the level of rents within the consolidated area, with effect from 1 July 2000.
- East Side Leases. Acting within the framework determined by the Government, MPC have entered into a lease with P&O Ports in respect of Terminals’ currently leased areas east of MacKenzie Rd. Ross said that he had been informed that this lease requires cleared remediated land to be passed to P&O Ports from 1 February 2004.
- A Grant Deed between Terminals and the Government.On 17 February 2000 Terminals entered into a Grant Deed with the State (through the Minister for State and Regional Development) in respect of undertaking hazardous liquid chemical redevelopment on Coode Island. This Deed had basically been negotiated between Terminals and the then Department of State Development during 1999.
The Grant Deed enabled payment to Terminals, on a re-imbursement basis, subject to certain requirements and Conditions Precedent. Project milestones were specified, and time limits for the satisfaction of Conditions Precedent.
In particular, the Grant Deed contained a Condition Precedent requiring Terminals to either reach agreement with its major customers for use by them of the “Facility”, or have entered into a pricing framework agreement with the Victorian Chemical Manufacturers Bulk Storage Group (VCMBSG). This Condition Precedent was to be satisfied by 31 May 2000.
Another Condition Precedent required Terminals to obtain approval for the Facility and for its operation, on terms and conditions acceptable to the company, from the EPA, VWA, MFESB and all other relevant authorities. This condition was to be met by 30 November 2000.
In late March 2000 Terminals requested an extension of the 31 May timeframe by one month as a consequence of the need to consult with the community prior to lodging its application for Works Approval. This request was supported by the VCMBSG and approved by the Minister.
In mid June 2000 the VCMBSG advised that negotiations on establishing a pricing framework agreement would not be concluded by 31 June, and requested an extension of the timeframe. Terminals supported the VCMBSG request and the then Acting Minister approved a two month extension, to 31 August 2000.
On 31 August, the Minister extended the timeframe again, by one month, on advice from the Department. The Minister wrote to both Terminals and the VCMBSG setting out his expectation that agreement on pricing could be achieved.
While the timeframe expired on 30 September, a provision in the Grant Deed provided that it remained in force until action was taken by either party to terminate it. The Minister terminated the Grant Deed on 19 October 2000, at the same time writing to Terminals stating his belief that Terminals should have a further opportunity to complete the approval process, reach a commercially acceptable outcome and agree with the State on a replacement to the Grant Deed. The Minister stated that such an outcome should be able to be agreed and in place by 28 February 2001.
Ross stated that he understands that some time in mid to late December 2000 the VCMBSG approached a number of other terminalling companies regarding their interest in developing a facility on Coode Island.
He also said that, when Marstel Terminals contacted him in mid February 2001, he informed them that he would not discuss matters with other companies until after the 28 February date that the Minister had given to Terminals had passed (with no result).
Around the end of February Terminals advised DSRD that they were recasting their development plans to accommodate acrylate storage in their leased areas on the west of Coode Island.
Following expiry of the 28 February timeframe, Ross visited, individually, each of the VCMBSG members, plus CSR (all Terminals’ main customers). He also met with Terminals, and separately with Marstel.
On 28 March Marstel submitted a proposal to the Government.
On 11 April Terminals was asked to submit a proposal to the Government by 20 April. This proposal was submitted on 20 April.
Discussions between Departments and MPC have led to analysis and recommendations, which are currently being considered by Ministers.
Ian Thomas asked if the Minister had been made aware of the increased risk of moving the propylene oxide storage further west as planned by Terminals.
Ross answered that the Ministers have been advised that some people believe there is an increased risk associated with a move further west.
Colleen said she thought that never at any stage had appropriate consultation with the community been achieved.
Peter Brotherton asked now that all the proposed timelines were stalled, when could the community expect a Government decision about the continuation of the redevelopment on Coode Island?
Ross said that the Ministers were aware of the urgency of the situation, especially given the MPC site lease with P&O Ports which is to commence in February 2004.
Michael asked why the Government had given this firm deadline to P&O Ports?
Ross said that the MPC action in signing a lease was entirely consistent with the Government-determined framework for consolidation of the chemical storage facilities, and that the date of February 2004 was set by the current Terminals’ lease of that site.
Faye asked if other companies were interested in the site?
Ross said it was the VCMBSG who had asked for expressions of interest in the site, and not the Government. One other company had showed some degree of interest, but Marstel had pursued the opportunity vigorously and was preferred by the VCMBSG.
Faye asked if any non-terminalling companies had shown interest?
Ross replied that the decision by the previous Government, endorsed by the current Government, was that land within the consolidated site was allocated for bulk liquid terminalling. This precluded use of the land for incorporation in P&O Ports’ container terminal. If non-terminalling companies had interest in taking on the land for hazardous chemical terminalling, then there would be significant concerns about the expertise of such a company, or lack thereof. The VCMBSG companies and others have expressed confidence in Marstel’s technical ability to run a facility such as proposed.
Faye asked if the site had to be used for terminalling?
Ross said this matter had been looked at a number of years ago by the Coode Island Task Force. When it had been decided not to use the Point Lillias site, the long term land needs of bulk liquid terminalling on Coode Island were considered. The area bounded by McKenzie Road and the southern edge of the then Cummins Street was seen as being sufficient for the purpose of bulk liquid storage. This area then became known as the consolidated area, and tankage outside that area would have to be relocated to within it. The Marstel proposal was to use the ex-BP site within the consolidated area to construct a facility based on the storage needs of Huntsman and Dow, whose chemicals (benzene and propylene oxide) are presently stored on the east side of McKenzie Road. The east side area thus vacated goes to P&O Ports. Storage for benzene and propylene oxide has to be made available on the west side, in the ex-BP site. A decision has to made about which company will do that.
Faye asked if Marstel would expand their storage capability if they went to the ex-BP site?
Ross said that Marstel have an existing terminalling site at Altona which does not have a water frontage. Whichever decision the Government make on the company to be given the lease to the ex-BP site, that decision will not expand the area for bulk liquid terminalling, as the ex-BP site is within the already designated consolidated area.
Colleen said that about 4 weeks ago Marstel had expressed interest to consult with the community about their proposal on Coode Island. She said she requested basic information from them, but they did not provide the information. She asked if the community were going to be kept in the dark about this proposal until after the Ministers have made a decision?
Peter Brotherton said he had been advised that Marstel have been told to say nothing publicly until a government decision was made.
Ross said that his Department had not and would not be advising a company to avoid consultation with the community.
Ian Swann said that Marstel were not a member of PACIA but said he will find out what information Marstel have released to the community.
ACTION. Ian Swann to find out what information Marstel have released to the community before the next CICCC meeting.
Peter Reddie asked about the ramifications of Marstel being successful in their proposal bid?
Ross said he could not make comments about this tonight.
Deborah said that the community have been previously given quality guarantees by the Government about the upgrade. Ross said that all regulatory authorities would continue to regulate any upgrade to their required standards.
Colleen said that the required standards are not presently being met, and have not been met for many years. She said that people living in the area have been complaining to her about some incidents that are affecting their daily lives. She said that if 2 companies were to compete in future about prices for chemical storage, the maintenance standards for the storage facilities would suffer in a bid to keep prices low. She said the community want information about the Marstel proposal before the government make decisions.
Ross said that it is not up to the Government to release commercial proposals that are put to it. It is up to the companies to decide whether or not to do this in each specific instance.
Peter Reddie said there could also be a substantial delay if the Marstel proposal goes ahead.
Ian Thomas said that he personally believed that there are 14 weaknesses in the proposal to move propylene oxide to the west side of McKenzie Road. He said the Coode Island Task Force in the appendix of their report say the same thing. He is worried that the government do not appreciate the importance of this point.
Peter Brotherton said that the purpose of tonight’s discussion was to get new information from Ross and decide what actions the CICCC would take in response to the new information.
Ian asked if Ross could tell the CICCC the site lease agreement details MPC have with P&O Ports on the east side leases. In particular could those details ever be changed or does the previous signing of contracts make this difficult?
Ross said that the VCMBSG made the point strongly from the beginning that there should be no movement from east to west. They said that the propylene oxide tankage is in good condition, while acknowledging that the benzene storage required some upgrading. The issues were understood by Ministers when taking their decisions on Coode Island. In the end a decision was taken that balanced the needs of everyone involved on Coode Island. In this context a Government decision was made to assist with the costs of redevelopment and relocation. A lease has been signed to allow P&O Ports access to the east side area from Feb 2004.
Faye asked if there were any lease conditions that might further delay action past 2004.
Ross said he could pass on a request to MPC that the details of the lease to P&O Ports be made public but he could not guarantee that it would occur.
Ian Thomas said he was delighted to hear that the VCMBSG wanted the tanks to stay in their present position on the east side of McKenzie Road.
Deborah asked which chemicals Marstel proposed to store on the BP site, in particular did they plan to store acrylonitrile there?
Ross said that propylene oxide and benzene would be stored there, but not acrylonitrile. Marstel would have to be asked about what else they proposed to store on the site. He said he thought which chemicals would be stored there would be based on the outcome of commercial negotiations between the companies concerned and both Terminals and Marstel. Ross said that, if Marstel’s proposal was accepted, Marstel would need to get a Works Approval from the EPA before doing any work and storing any chemicals.
Deborah said it was sounding like the redevelopment was going to be further delayed if the Marstel proposal were successful. She said that in contrast the Terminals’ Works Approval was nearly ready.
Jim said that there was a possibility that the upgrade could still be completed quickly and that the CICCC should ask Marstel about these details. He added that he was surprised the CICCC had decided not to meet for discussions with Marstel.
Peter Brotherton said that the CICCC would not meet with them as a committee, but that individual members of the CICCC said that they would meet with Marstel in future if such a meeting were organised by Marstel.
Faye asked if the government could guarantee that there would be community consultation about the Marstel proposal.
Jim said that the Work Approval process provided for public consultation. He said that Terminals had made much of their specific information available to the CICCC before the Work Approval process. He added that he hoped Marstel would do the same.
Faye said that it would be more appropriate for Marstel to form their own separate committee rather than using the CICCC which is funded by Terminals.
Ross said that the local Councils could be starting the community consultation process, as they did previously with Terminals.
Faye suggested that the Government could be more prescriptive in their role about public consultation.
Ross said he will report to Ministers the results of this meeting and asked if the CICCC thought he should be contacting Marstel regarding the need for public consultation?
Peter Brotherton said the CICCC made decisions at the last meeting about how to go forward on this matter, but he said it would be useful if Marstel were encouraged to consult from a number of sources including the Government.
Michael asked if the P&O lease on the east side area could be terminated.
Ross said that all contracts could be broken at a cost, but that this matter lay at the heart of the Coode Island settlement and things had moved on since this was an open question.
Matthew said that the Major Hazardous Regulations also had a requirement for information to be made public.
Peter Brotherton reminded the meeting that other processes like the Planning Process did not allow adequately for public consultation to occur.
Jim said that EPA could require Marstels to participate in a consultative process under Section 20B of the Act that could include consultation prior to the lodgement of the Coode Approval.
Colleen asked if the Emergency Planning Process (including the evacuation plan) for the area was going to be postponed until 2003?
Matthew said that any new facility has to consult with the public prior to application for a license to operate. In Marstel’s case this would have to be done before they started to operate (eg by July 2002). However all existing facilities have to have a plan up and running by Jan 2003. This includes Terminals.
Colleen said she was surprised to know that it could be another 2 years before a community evacuation plan is in operation.
Colleen suggested that the CICCC write to the Minister requesting a copy of the lease agreement with P&O Ports for the east side areas.
Ross said that the lease was an MPC lease and he doubted the MPC would make it available. In answer to Colleen’s question about a previous court case between P&O and the Government, he said he did not believe there had been any terms of settlement for that case that included trade-offs regarding this site.
ACTION. The CICCC asked Ross to make an informal request for information about the lease details and about any options for rescinding the lease.
Ted said that the Melbourne Harbour Trust Charter stated that it operated
‘for and on behalf of all people in the state of Victoria’
He asked if this charter still existed?
Ross said that the Melbourne Port Corporation was a statutory body established under the ‘Port Services Act’, which sets out a charter and mechanisms for its operation. He said that probably some elements of the objectives from preceding port management bodies have flowed through to the present charter, but he was not in a position to give a definitive answer.
Peter Brotherton asked Ross if the decision was a Ministerial or Cabinet one? Ross said that any Government decision was enacted by the relevant Minister, and it was an internal matter for Ministers and the Government as to whether they needed a collective, Cabinet decision on any matter in question.
Peter Reddie asked if the matter would go back to Cabinet if there were proposals to change the existing framework?
Ross answered it would be for Ministers to determine whether the decision which they wished to take would need to be endorsed by Cabinet.
Deborah said that the Task Force had recommended community consultation.
Ross said that Marstel would need to be subjected to the same requirements as applied to Terminals, if their submission was successful.
Deborah suggested that the press release should state that Marstel had not consulted as they said they would.
Jim said that by this stage Terminals had received more of a green light from Government for their proposal than Marstel have received to this point. However he said Marstel could still do some community consulting.
Peter Brotherton said that the CICCC have written to Marstel in recent weeks but have not had a response to the correspondence.
ACTION. Ian Swann said that some of PACIA members are potential customers for Marstel . Ian will discuss the matter of Marstel consulting with the community, with their members.
Peter Reddie said that Terminals have submitted their proposal 2 weeks ago. Unexpectedly they have not been asked anything about the details in their proposal.
Ross said the Department were presently considering a number of issues regarding that site.
ACTION. Peter Brotherton will contact Marstel to say that the CICCC expected Marstel to respond to the correspondence sent to them on 9 April 2001. Peter will provide them with the contact details of the CICCC members.
ACTION. Peter Brotherton will write a Press Release stating the CICCC’s 0disappointment that Marstel have not contacted members of the CICCC when invited to do so.
ITEM 5. BRIEF REPORT FROM AGENCIES AND TERMINALS ON KEY ISSUES
5.1 See Attachment 1 and Attachment 2
Jim tabled a graph which illustrated the number of recent complaints the EPA have received about alleged incidents from the Terminals site.
He said the Terminals licence has been amended and contains 15 new conditions.
Deborah said it would be a concern for the community if the upgrade were delayed by a further 2 years.
Jim said there is an official 4 month delay (which may be added to if further information is required by the EPA) he said Terminals were actually ahead of the time schedule because they did their community consultation sessions earlier on.
He added that if Marstel’s proposal is approve, the current management practises for acrylates will need to be improved.
Deborah reminded the CICCC that it was 10 years since the fire on Coode Island and this could be further extended by 2 years if Marstel’s proposal is approved.
Colleen said that she has received numerous complaints about Terminals incidents from dock workers, P&O Ports workers and employees at The Lonely Planet.
Gabrielle said that the employees from the Lonely Planet had to wait for 2 days before they received a response to their complaint to the EPA.
ACTION. Jim said he will look into the above complaint about the 2 day wait for a response from the EPA.
Peter Reddie said he was not aware that complaints had been made by the Lonely Planet.
Gabrielle said their complaints had been the same as those made by some dock workers and the Department of Community Service workers. She said the symptoms were associated with acrylate emissions.
George said that Terminals are now using only one acrylate tank. They have closeddown the 2nd tank which was very close to the Terminals boundary fence with P&O.
Peter Reddie said that since this change there has been a reduction in the number of complaints.
Colleen said that despite the decrease in incidents it is still a real concern that so many people are affected by these incidents.
Peter Reddie said that up to 44 people required first aid treatment and some needed more than first aid treatment.
Colleen said that the regulatory authorities told the public that Coode Island was safe. On this authority the building occupied by Lonely Planet was developed, and now find they are faced with emissions from Coode Island and some associated health effects.
Ian Thomas said nothing is stopping Terminals from fixing the problem, and it is doing this.
Ted added that the EPA’s benzene readings on the Terminals site were good so the picture is not all ‘gloom and doom’.
Colleen said the complaints concerned emissions to air of the chemical ethyl acrylate and not benzene.
5.2 Matthew said that the WorkCover 6 monthly audit of the Terminals site was due next month. He will report back to the CICCC regarding the results of the audit.
ACTION. Ted will make arrangements with George and attend the audit.
5.3 Trevor said that the MF&ESB were working with Melbourne Ports to developroad barrier improvements and so ensure good access to the port facilities in the case of an emergency.
5.4 Peter Reddie said that there had been 33 odour complaints in March, mostly reported to be associated with acrylate type odours. Complaints were filed exclusively by Workers on the adjacent P&O container terminal. Typically over previous months there were one or two odour complaints per month.
He said that Terminals monitor all their workers to make sure that in the case of the most odorous acrylate, ethylacrylate that their employees are not exposed to any more than 20 milligrams per cubic metre, the WorkSafe exposure limit. He said that ethyl acrylate can be smelt at 0.001milligrams per cubic metre. The exposure standard is twenty thousand times the odour detection threshold. He said the equipment and method used during the monitoring program was able to measure down to .0.2 to 0.5 milligram per cubic metre.
The monitoring program analyzed for all volatile products stored on the Terminals site and established that the level of these products in the atmosphere was below detectable limits.. He said that in the case of ethyl acrylate at 20mg/m³ very few people would experience any adverse symptoms such as breathing problems or sore throats. However if other materials were present this could have a compounding effect.
Faye said that the use of alcohol and cigarettes can cause compounding effects.
Peter Reddie said he doesn’t know about the degree of sensitivity of the P&O staff but he said Terminals monitoring of their site is not showing any one material as the main cause. He agreed that there were odours. He said that Terminals would like to make a presentation to the staff at P&O about the Terminals’ monitoring findings and so try to understand what else may be the cause of the reported problems.
Peter Reddie said that Condition 1.1 of the sites EPA licence states that Terminals are not allowed to release any offensive odours past their site boundary. As their Works Approval is ‘now dead’ they have put an alternative plan to the authorities to address this problem. He said it is alarming that suddenly in March when the Works Approval was cancelled, they got 30+ complaints about emissions from their site.
He said that the temperature changes in March could contributed to the release of more odorous vapour and places a heavier load on the plants vapour emission control systems. He said that Terminals routinely monitor the performance of the vapour emission control systems and cannot understand why the health effects amount to those levels currently reported. He said that if he were a worker at the P&O site and he’d heard that the Works Approval for the improvements to the odour problems had been cancelled, he would start making complaints too because he would not want to have to keep tolerating the odours.
George said that people can be concerned and fearful of strong odours.
Peter Reddie said that one of the important features of the P&O site with respect to the odour problem is the straddle truck drivers are situated about 10 metres above the ground.. This potentially exposes the drivers to higher concentrations than if they were at ground level.
He said they were not engaging in developing conspiracy theories and they were making improvements at all the possible emission sources. A new scrubber was installed last year and is known to reduce emissions of acrylates from previously.
George reminded the committee that Terminals spent $400,000 on improvements in 1999. He said they have been adequate for 2 years following the recent spate of odour complaints more needed to be done. He said they have been monitoring the whole site far more rigorously than in 1999. He said they have also been monitoring the P&O site during the past 2 weeks and while they have detected odours, they have not detected any chemicals above the level that measuring equipment used and well below Work Safe exposure guidelines.
Faye asked that as there was an increase in frequency and magnitude of releases was this pointing to the possibility that there could be a very major breach in the future? Have Terminals made very careful safety assessments of their facilities?
Peter Reddie said that routine inspections were made and the integrity of their facilities were regularly checked and repaired where necessary. He said they do not have detectors and alarms to notify of dampness. He said that drips occur first when a leak is occurring. He said that only one drop of ethyl acrylate is very odorous.
George said that the odour is not dangerous.
Jim said that the EPA have not detected any evidence of equipment failures at the Terminals site and that by 19 May there will be vast improvements to the scrubbing mechanism and the continuous monitoring on site.
Ian Thomas questioned the detection limit figures used by Peter Reddie. He suggested that Terminals start to use odour detectors on their site.
George said that they could not find any suitable equipment.
ITEM 6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING OF 5 APRIL 2001
6.1 Peter Reddie said that ITEM 4 had not noted a conclusion to the discussion. An additional statement that the CICCC did not reach a conclusion on the discussion willbe added to the minutes.
6.2 Jim tabled some minor changes which will be accepted if they do not make anyeditorial changes to the content of meeting. ITEM 5 will read
Jim reported that in March, P&O Ports made 33 complaints about Terminals operations to the EPA. Two of these investigations resulted in EPA serving $5000 penalty infringement notices on Terminals for discharge of offensive odours beyond the boundary. A Minor Works Pollution Abatement Notice was also issued on 23 March, requiring an audit report before 30 March. This report has been received and the EPA has met with Terminals to discuss the required improvements that have been directed by the EPA .
In particular improvements are needed in the handling of ethyl acrylate. The EPA has also conducted a joint meeting with WorkCover to determine the cause of the escalation of reported incidents. Others involved in meetings with the EPA include P&O Ports and the unions, especially the VRTA & MUA.
The EPA had EPA officers ‘on site’ to monitor the situation at P&O Ports from 9.00 am to 5:00 pm daily for two weeks, and established an after hours ‘call-out’ service during those two weeks. The EPA also laid charges against Terminals for an air pollution infringement on the 28 December 2000
Jim said the EPA believes that Terminals have planned to make the necessary positive changes to remedy this problem in the future.
Peter Brotherton noted that prior to March 2001there had been very few incident reports since 1991.
Jim said that since 1996 when the Complaints Register was initiated, there had been anything from 0-3 incidents in most months. Then there were 33 in March 2001. In Feb 99 a similar increase in complaints occurred.
Jim said that the P&O employees made the complaints and he said the EPA staff had also experienced the nauseous effects of the vapours.
Peter Reddie said that Terminals engaged an auditor to make a detailed report about the problem. This will be tabled and discussed at the next meeting of the CICCC. Ethyl acrylate has a high PI factor (500,000) which means neighbours can experience odours more than other materials with lower PI factors. For example, at lower concentrations methyl methacrylate has a PI factor of 2,000. The ethyl acrylate tank from which the problems arose is in Plant C. The discharge point for this tank is on the boundary with the P&O site.
The minutes were confirmed and adopted. Moved Ted and seconded Ian Thomas.
ITEM 7. ACTION ITEMS FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS
7.1 Tools used by industry to communicate with neighbouring communities (Ian Swann)
Presentation deferred to the next meeting
7.2 Media Release.
ACTION. Peter Brotherton will write a draft Press Release and send it to Deborah and Ian Thomas for comment on the weekend.
7.3 Safety Case ( Terminals proposed public consultation on acrylonitrile and propylene oxide)
ACTION. Geoff Millard will be asked to circulate a written report to all the CICCC members for discussion at the next meeting.
7.4 Worst Case Scenario. Update from HSE sub-committee on the Consultant Brief
Ian Thomas said the brief had been sent out 2 weeks ago to 6 parties and he was waiting responses. No deadlines were given.
ACTION. Ian Thomas will contact all parties and give them a timeline date of the 25 May 2001 for their proposals .
7.5 Outcome of the VCAT Directions hearing on appeal against the Terminals’ Works Approval
Ian Thomas said he has not received a final written response from VCAT but expects one in 2 to 3 weeks time.
George said that the hearing took 2 hours. Ian had submitted his appeal too late (Feb 2001) and his letter of 18 Dec 2000 had not included valid reasons for an appeal. Terminals offered to pay costs.
Ian said it had not been easy to work with the Terminals barrister. There was quite a difficult discussion about whether or not Terminals had a lease on the site in question. All the details of the case are written on affidavit.
Letter to Ross Petersen, DSRD
Letter to Marstel
ITEM 9. GROUNDWATER AND SITE SOIL SURVEY (EPA AND TERMINALS)
ITEM 10. MONTHLY REPORT FROM TERMINALS
ITEM 11. MONTHLY REPORT FROM HS&E SUB-COMMITTEE
There are no written notes of the meeting of 2 weeks ago.
Ted said that during the HS&E sub-committee meeting (at the Terminals site) there was an incident report. The meeting participants could not smell any odours as apart from truck fumes, despite walking 20 metres on the site.
ITEM 12. ACTIONS PRIOR TO NEXT MEETING
ACTION. See all listings of ACTION items in the minuted notes.
ITEM 13. AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING 14 JUNE 2001
- Ian Swann presentation se Item 7.1.
- Geoff Millard Report see Item 7.3
- Item 9Groundwater And Site Soil Survey (EPA and Terminals)
- See Item 4.
- See Attachment 3.
Jim will talk about EPA recent directions to the Melbourne Port Corporation.
ITEM 14. OTHER BUSINESS
Thursday 14 June 2001
Thursday 12 July 2001
CICCC ATTACHMENTS TO DRAFT MINUTES
10 May 2001
Attachment 1 EPA notes on ‘Summary of Events at the Terminals site in the Last Two Months’.
Attachment 2 EPA Notice to Amend Terminals License
Attachment 3 EPA Notice to comply sent to the Melbourne Port Corporation.