COODE  ISLAND  COMMUNITY CONSULTATIVE  COMMITTEE



Adopted Minutes

Thursday 14 February 2002

 

PRESENT

 

Robin
Saunders
 
  Chairperson


Jim
Clements


  Env. Protection Authority/ex off comm

Michael
Ragen


 Cash Controller, Burns, Philp & Company Limited/CICCC Committee

Ian
Thomas
 
 
community rep./ committee

Bill
Horrocks


 
City of Maribyr. Councillor/committee 



Faye
Simpson


 
community rep./ committee


Jarrod
Edwards


 
WorkCover/ ex off comm


Trevor
Perkins


  MF&ESB/ex
off comm

Deborah
Macfarlane
 
  community rep./   CICCC
committee

Carlo
Fasolino


 Op. Manager Terminals / committee

Ted
Towson
 
 
community rep./ committee


Dr
Peter Brotherton


  Combined
Enviro. Groups / committee


George
Horman
 
 
Terminals Pty Ltd / committee

Michael
Isaachsen


  community rep./ committee


Cameron
Fitzgerald
 
 
 Environ.
Protec Auth / ex off comm

Jeff
Hibbert
 
  Engineering
Manager Terminals Pty Ltd


Vanessa
Richardson
 
 
minute taker




ITEM 1. WELCOME
BY THE CHAIR

Robin Saunders welcomed the committee members and other people
attending theCICCC meeting. On behalf of all the CICCC he congratulated Trevor
Perkins who hasbeen awarded the Australian Fire Service Medal.

  

ITEM 2.
APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Allen Hugli and John Luppino.

ITEM 3.
CONFIRMATION OF THE DRAFT AGENDA


The draft agenda was adopted with an extra item added to Other Business
see 13.5‘CICCC comments on the Marstel Works Approval.’

 

ITEM
4.  BRIEF REPORT FROM AGENCIES AND
TERMINALS ON KEY ISSUES

Cameron said that on the 9 Jan 2002 the EPA conducted
a Compliance Assessment at the Terminals P/L site. There were 2 minor
non-compliances only.

He said that the Minister for State & Regional
Development requires that the Marstel proposal and the Terminals P/L
environmental improvements, be of Worlds Best Practice (WBP). As a result the
Terminals license is being amended to incorporate further improvements
including the vapour control system.

Deborah asked which development (Terminals or
Marstel) was the best, if both  had
been required to be Worlds Best Practice.

Cameron said that Terminals have future plans to
reduce their benzene emissions to 90kgs per year (which is WBP for a Terminals
type facility) but Marstel will have lower emissions of benzine (2kg per year)
which is Worlds Best Practise for a brand new ‘state of the art’ facility.

George said that he did not accept that the Marstel proposal was
better. He said that the Terminals system was as good as the 
Marstel proposal.  The Marstel emissions will not be lower because Marstel are planning to fill the ship tanks
with return vapours
from the shore tank.  These ships then go out into the bay and release their vapour to the atmosphere. He said more product would remain in the
ships tanks this way than if the vapours were not returned to the ship.

He said that at least Terminals were going to combust
their benzene emissions in the new VECS reducing the quantity vented in the
bay.

Cameron said that neither system prevented the
possible practise of venting vapours at sea.

Ian Thomas said that WBP is given as a title to what
is absolutely the best in the world at that time.

Cameron said that at the time, these two sites were
WBP compared with what was being done elsewhere in the world in similar
facilities. They did exceed other similar terminals. He said that until a
facility reaches ‘nil’ amounts of emissions, WBP would keep improving year
after year.
 

Jim said that the assessment of the Marstel proposal
has not been completed yet.

Peter asked how a facility could be WBP when it is
hampered by old infrastructure as was the case with the Terminals facility. He
said this was the first time he had been told that the Marstel emissions could
be vented at sea.

Jim said that the Altona facility vents its
emissions.

Robin said he was disappointed that the EPA had told
the CICCC last year that the Terminals proposal was WBP when in fact it
appears that it was not. The Ministers Press Release had said quite clearly
that “the highest possible standard of safety and environmental
responsibility” would be required.

Michael stated that Worlds Best Practice depended in
part on the complexity of the plant.

Cameron stated that different facilities would have
World’s Best Practice in different areas (eg. emissions, run-off management
etc.).

Jim said that the State Environment Protection Policy
would be met. He also indicated that an ‘Ecological Footprint’ was being
currently considered by EPA as a means of identifying waste management
practices in the future.

Peter suggested that the State Environment Protection
Policies were not World’s Best Practice.
 

ACTION.
The EPA will provide the CICCC with more information about the 
percentage of emissions from both sites showing the volumes of benzine
and how they are divided into the amounts that 1) are returned to ships, and
2) are treated by the VECS. The CICCC also requested further information about
the management of all wastes on and off the sites, including when venting
occurs; washing tanks and lines and other EPA control requirements.

Peter said that WBP needs to be described in relation
to specific criteria.

Deborah said that she would like to have the full
picture including the limitations when WBP is used to describe a facility.

Ian asked about Marstel’s proposal for vapour
returning from road tankers. This will be raised at Tuesdays meeting with Tim
Gunning. He said that on pp 76 of the Marstel Works Approval document the
‘in confidence report’ of fundamental information was inappropriate
because the information needs to be assessed by the community. This matter
will also be raised with Tim on Tuesday.

ACTION.
Jim took a question on notice about the competency of the report in the above
regard.

Ian said that pp 65 of the Marstel WA discussed an
overseas example of a vapour return system, for benzene at Houston, and
questioned what was World’s Best Practice

ACTION.
Jim took the above question on notice for the next meeting.

Faye asked Jim about any ash remaining in a VECS
burner, and if so was it incorporating in manufacturer garden/environment type
bricks.

Jim
said that ash came from the burning of solid materials and not from the
burning of gaseous material as was the case with the VECS.

ACTION.
Cameron will have results for the Air Monitoring Project at the next CICCC
meeting.

Jarrod said that WorkCover had made several visits to
the Terminal’s facility since the last CICCC meeting in December 2001. They
included

   
1. A follow up on the recent Improvement Notice,

   
2. An assessment of a degreasing bath, where a risk assessment has now
been requested of
        Terminals, and

   
3. The prohibition for the usage of one tank, following an incident
(see the last paragraphs of Section 

   
4.  WorkCover have given feedback about the Corio Safety
Case Pilot Study.

   
The regular 6 monthly audit of the Coode Island site will commence in
Feb 2002.


ACTION.
On completion, a WorkCover officer will brief the CICCC about the audit.

Ian asked if there would be any changes to the
Marstel Works Approval process of assessing safety. Cameron said that the
process would be the same as that followed for the Terminals WA.

 

Trevor said that the Metropolitan Fire & ESB had
not had any reason to have dealings with Terminals over the Xmas, New Year
period.

In regard to the Emergency Management Project, Theo
has generated a report from the results of a public research project that was
undertaken recently.

Peter asked Trevor for his thoughts about the ABC TV
Four Corners Report on the chemical site fire in WA. He asked Trevor what he
thought about the reported incidents of firemen walking over incinerated drums
of dangerous chemicals?

Trevor said he has not seen the program but that WA
has had safe processes for about 15 years.
 

Faye reminded the CICCC that the Health Department had not raised any
of theconcerns she had discussed with them during the Terminal’s WA
process. It would appear that relevant health information and long term health
risks associated with many chemicals is simply not on anyone’s agenda when
considering Works Approvals.

George said that construction of the new Terminals VECS system is
imminent and that they are just finalising the contracts and finalising the
EPA license amendment.
 

Before Xmas they signed a 20-year lease with the
Melbourne Port Corporation for the B-West and C-West sites. On the basis of
the security they now have over the site, Terminals now propose to upgrade the
plant, consistent with EPA and WorkSafe requirements. The upgrade will
include: 


1.     
The new
VECS system

2.     
Acrylate
tanks

3.     
Other
flammable tanks

4.     
Exchange
systems

5.     
Liners
to bunds

6.     
Clay
liners throughout the terminal

The new VECS system (combustors 
and ducting) will cost $4.3 million.
 

The Remediation Action
Plan has been given to the EPA for consideration. Terminals are conducting a
pilot test to remediate the soil in that area in a bio pile. This method uses
naturally occurring microbes to decontaminate the area of lube oil
contamination. The trial is under way and there are no odours.
 

Terminals have commenced the development of the
Safety Case for their Coode Island facility. They propose to submit the report
in June 2002.
 

There was one incident recently on site, where a
styrene leak occurred in a 2mm hole in the floor of a tank. They transferred
the product to another tank and notified the authorities of the leak. About
1,000 litres of material was leaked. 1-2 tons have been successfully
recovered. The styrene did not reach the water table. A natural clay layer of
300mm below the surface acts as a natural barrier to any leak. In the future,
a polythene layer will be installed under all the tanks on the site and in
between the tanks a clay layer will be installed.

Deborah asked about the effects if the styrene
reached the water table.

George said that it would float on the water.

Carlo said that the sparge process stops the movement
of volatile contaminants from spreading in the ground water.
 

George said that the tank will be repaired. This tank
will not be lifted and upgraded yet but the base will be scanned and repaired
at this stage.

Ted said that the testing used is NDT (Non
Destructive Testing)
 

 

ITEM
5. CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING 8 NOV 2001.
 

   
The minutes were adopted with the following alterations
 

1. Michael Ragen’s name to be added to the list of those present for
the meeting.
 

2. The correction to the November minutes (where the authorship of one
remark was clarified by spelling out who “he”
referred to) will be corrected in the Adopted Minutes on the web site.

 

ITEM
6.  ACTION ITEMS FROM THE PREVIOUS
MEETING

 

   
6.1 Follow up action on the Newsletter (Deborah)

Deborah has met with teachers from a local primary
and secondary schools. They are drawing up a list of information that could be
used by teachers. The teachers liked the web site and they are developing a
list of questions for the children to answer, based around the contents of the
CICCC web site.
 

Robin said that the CICCC web site had not been
upgraded for 2 years and it might need some attention.
 

Ted suggested that an ongoing audit of CICCC
activities be added to the web site so that journalists could use it as an
information source in the future.
 

Deborah asked if there were any newspaper articles
archived somewhere.
 

ACTION.
Robin to follow up the above inquiry with PACIA.
 

Michael said that Marstel’s 2nd newsletter will be
completed soon and the committee members will do a local letterbox drop of the
newsletter.
 

   
Ian said he thought that Terminals should have their own newsletter.

   
Robin said that as the Committee had previously decided not to have a
newsletter, theCICCC
web site will be the best way of keeping the community updated withinformation.

 

6.2 Possible
public forum
 

Robin suggested that a forum was required in the next
few months so that the community can be updated on CI activities.

George suggested that Marstel combine with Terminals
to present the forum as their new site will be under construction by then.

Faye suggested that P&O and the matter of future
railroad use (Toll & Lang proposal) be included for discussion.

Robin suggested that other interested groups and
businesses will probably send representatives to the forum.

 

ACTION.
Robin will follow up this matter with the Marstel committee.
 

Ted asked about the Marstel and CICC committees
amalgamating and going forward.

Robin said that the CICCC supported the concept of
having one Committee in the future, but at this stage cooperation through
small steps would be appropriate.
 

 

6.3 Review of
sitting fees

See e-mail sent
13 Dec 2002.

The proposed increase represents rises in the CPI in recent years and
is equivalent to arise
of 9.3%. ($137.50 to $150.30)

Ian said he thought it inappropriate that CICCC members received
sitting fees and that he couldn’t see why it was necessary to invoice Terminals for the
payment each month.

Peter said he disagreed with Ian’s comments because it was normal
practise on other committees
that sitting fees be paid on receipt of an Invoice for the amount. This
had been
the case since the advent of GST last year.

Robin clarified that invoices were only required for GST purposes, and
that they were not
required for all Committee Members.
 

ACTION.
On behalf of Terminals Pty Ltd, Michael Ragen approved the above increase in
sitting fees.


 

6.4 Discussion
on the Community Information/Alert Project broadsheet

 

ACTION.
Robin will write and invite Robyn Betts from
the Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner to present the findings of
the community survey to the CICCC.

 

 

6.5 Transcript
of two ABC radio programs on the new major hazards regulations

 

ACTION 
Robin  will e-mail the
document and Vanessa will  post it out to those with out e-mail.

 
 

 
6.6 Meeting
convened by EPA for CICCC community & environment representatives to input
to the Marstel Woks Approval process

Robin said that most of the CICCC representatives had attended.

Ian said it was an excellent and well presented meeting. Opportunities
to contributehad
almost been lost. He said that involvement would have occurred earlier
ifparticipants had been compensated to do so.

 

ITEM
7. CORRESPONDENCE OUT

See
e-mail dated 6 December 2001 with attached letter re Bronwyn Pike.

After the receipt of the letter, the Maribyrnong City Council has
advised thatthe proposed meeting is not imminent.

 

ACTION.
The City of  Maribyrnong will be
asked to update the CICCC on this matter.

 

ITEM
8. CORRESPONDENCE IN

 

No correspondence received.

 

 

ITEM
9. TERMINALS (LICENCE AMENDMENT) DESIGN FOR VAPOUR

EMISSIONS
CONTROL SYSTEMS  (VECS)

See
Attachment 3
 

The VECS will pick up all the small emissions from
around the site in an air sweep and take them to the combustor.

The combustors are situated in the non-hazardous area
of the site.

Everything will be connected to the operational VECS
in May 2003.

George said that $1.2 million will be spent on the
combustors, while the overall new VECS System will cost about $4.3 million..

 

ITEM
10. TERMINALS ACRYLATE TANKAGE UPGRADE PROGRAM (GEORGE HORMAN)

See
Attachment 4
 

The acrylate tanks will be lifted and the floors
repaired as necessary. They will be modified so that tank pressures can be
adjusted from 2.5 to 5 kpa. There is no vapour return to the VECS for theses
tanks. They will have a nitrogen blanket which they do not have at present.
Further details are in the Works Approval document.

There is a budget of $3.5 million to do eleven tanks.

 
 

ITEM
11. SAFETY CASE REGULATORY REGIME REVIEW (DNV)

See
attachment 5
 

Robin reported that he spoke to DNV today and he said
that they believed that this issue is of limited value to the CICCC.
 

ACTION
The DNV Briefing Paper will be circulated as an attachment, and the Committee
will decide at its next meeting whether to ask for a briefing from DNV.
 

 

 

ITEM
12. AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING (14 MARCH 2002)

 

See the above ACTION  ITEMS.

 

 

ITEM
13. OTHER BUSINESS



13.1
Chair to be absent on 11 April 2002

ACTION.
It was suggested that Deborah chairs the next meeting and that Faye will chair
the following one when necessary.

13.2
Approach to chair by Paul Conroy of the Sunday Age re Emergency

Management (article in the Sunday Age 10/2/02)


See
Attachment 1

          Robin
said he spent time briefing Paul and giving him the contact details of others
like HazMAG, the Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner, Maribyrnong
City Council, and individual CICCC community and environmental
representatives. He said he advised Paul that it is his practise to consult
with the CICCC members before making public comments about the CICCC. For that
reason he declined to make comment when asked. John Luppino’s comments to
Robin were that the article was so inaccurate that it did not warrant a
response.

Others
agreed.

Other
CICCC members stated their surprise at the extent of the inaccuracies. The
following comments were made

• extraordinary ‘beat up’

• it was disappointing that there was nothing reported about the
communities concerns about sirens in the area

• the article did not differentiate between key points being 1) the
safety of  

          
  Coode Island and 2)
the Emergency Safety procedures & developments

• Paul only had a basic understanding

• there was no mention of the Marstel project

• Paul asked me about possible terrorist attaches

• Paul was inaccurate when he said this committee has had divergent
views

            
about the Emergency Management Plan

• I told Paul that the CICCC has shown leadership in the debate about
what 

  is needed for
community safety management but he did not print that

 

The CICCC discussed how it might take advantage of this opportunity
to further publicise the issues in a more accurate way.

ACTION.
Deborah will write a factual account of the risks on Coode Island and the
Emergency Safety Plans & measures for the community to date. Robin will
edit the draft (Trevor and Peter will also assist as necessary) and send it to
The Age.. The draft will be ready by Thursday 21 February 2002.

   


13.3
Offer by Tim Gunning to brief community members on the WA Application(& reminder to advise EPA of intended submissions)

John Luppino will e-mail the Meinhardt Report on the Marstel Works
Approval application (commissioned by the Cities of Maribyrnong and Melbourne)
to Robin for circulation to Committee Members prior to this proposed meeting with
Tim Gunning.

       
Bill said that the reports were available in the local library.

ACTION.
Bill will e-mail the report to Robin.
   


Ian said that at this stage he feels less confident about commenting on
the Marstel WA      than he felt about commenting at the same
time on the Terminals WA. He said thiswas because Terminals had conducted special meetings to fully inform
CICCCcommunity members  of their
proposal and Marstel have not made the same offer.

ACTION.
A meeting of CICCC Community and Environmental representatives with Tim
Gunning will be held on Tuesday 19 Feb 2002 at 6.30pm. Bill will organise a
meeting room. It will not be a CICCC meeting.

 

   
Items for discussion at the above meeting might include:

Vapour return to ship during discharge.

Vapour return to tanks during road tanker loading.

Modelling of vapour emissions (Report noted as “Confidential” in
WAApplication)

Emissions from ships in Bay and elsewhere (venting and washing tanks).

Proximity of PO tanks to Terminals Pty Ltd tanks.

The recommendations of the Meinhardt report.

The EPA’s response and questions of the Meinhardt Report

   

 

    13.4
Exchange of information with the Marstel Community Group.

Robin has had some recent discussions with Cheryl
Batagol who chairs the Marstel Community group. She agrees that it is useful
to have separate committees at this stage but suggests that the two committees
merge when the Safety Case is developed. At this stage she would like to share
appropriate material between committees ie Robin will circulate to her all
items that he circulates to the CICCC members, and she will circulate MCG
material to Robin.

ACTION.
All the CICCC members supported the proposal to exchange material.

The Safety Case will probably be developed in about Feb 2003.

 

13.5
CICCC comments on the Marstel Works Approval.

George said that Terminals might be making a
submission based on the proposed close proximity of the propylene oxide tanks.
They are having discussions at the moment in an attempt to resolve this
matter.
 

Bill said that Maribyrnong City Council are using the
Meinhardt Report as their submission.
 

Michael said that one or two individual community
reps on the Marstel CC might write a submission.
 

The CICCC will
not make a submission. Individual Community and Environmental representatives,
alone or in concert, may decide to make submissions.

 

CLOSE.
 

   
Time 9.55 pm

  

NEXT MEETINGS  


  
Thursday 14 March 2002

  
Thursday 11 April 2002

 

 

 

CICCC
ATTACHMENTS TO DRAFT MINUTES

 

14 February
2002
  

Attachment   
1
   
Article – ‘The Age’ 10/02/02

Attachment   
2   
Terminals
P/L Monthly Operations & Occurrence Reports for Nov 2001, Dec 2001 & Jan 2002.

Attachment   
3   
CICCC
New VECS Proposal

Attachment   
4   
CICCC
Acrylate Tank Upgrade

Attachment   
5   
DNV
Report from Alan Ross

Items posted to those without e-mail facilities
include


ABC Background Briefing Transcript 9 Dec 2001

e-mail      
Peter Brotherton 2/1/02 & Cameron 4/1/02

e-mail     
14/12/01 Tim Gunning

e-mail      
City Maribyrnong / Jim Clements correspondence.

e-mail     
John Luppino 14/12

e-mail      
Peter Brotherton – sitting fees 13 Feb 02