COODE ISLAND COMMUNITY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Thursday 14 September 2000
Robin Saunders CICCC chair person
John Luppino City of Maribyr, GM City Dev /committee
Deborah Macfarlane community rep./ CICCC committee
Ian Thomas community rep./ committee
Ted Towson community rep./ committee
Faye Simpson community rep./ committee
George Horman State Manger Terminals / committee / Minute Taker
Marilyn Olliff EPA
Peter Reddie Manager Terminals / committee
Michael Isaachsen community member
Greg Twitt Environ. Protec Authy / ex off committee
Matthew Wylie WorkCover / ex off committee
Trevor Perkins Commander /Metro Fire & Emerg Ser.
Gordon Harrison City of Melbourne
Garry Kenney Major Haz Uni,/WorkCov
Gerard Roth Resident
Keith Smithers EPA
ITEM 1 WELCOME BY THE CHAIR
ITEM 2 APOLOGIES
Ian Swann- Plastics & Chemicals Ind Ass / committee
Carlo Fasolino – Op Manager Terminals P/L / committee
Murray Frank – Dept Human Serv / EO / committee
Vanessa Richardson – Minute Taker
Robert Clarke – Operator Terminals P/L
Peter Brotherton – Combined Environment Groups / committee
Cathy Aktypis – Community representative / committee
ITEM 3 DRAFT AGENDA CONFIRMED
Draft agenda was adopted.
ITEM 4 DRAFT CICCC SUBMISSION ON TPL WORKS APPROVAL APPLICATION
– Was tabled by Robin and circulated
– Ted Towson was thanked for his contribution, as were Peter Brotherton, Faye Simpson, Cathy Aktypis and Ian Thomas.
– Robin received a submission 13/9 from Ian T (not in the minutes) – submitted directly to the EPA.
– Robin spoke to clarify issue of various possible failure modes/problems with PO
– DNV study included various failure modes for PO – was confirmed by Peter R and will be clarified at a subsequent meeting.
– Ted provided text re waste trail auditing and Robin will include in the text in the submission to the EPA.
– Ted raised lifting mechanisms for hose handling at the wharf – George said nearly all ships have their own cranes. George said hope can put additional lifting equipment eg. Derrick onto the berth subject to MPC/ Wharf strength to promote safer working/handling systems for operators manipulating hoses
– Would rail transport be more environmentally friendly than road transport?
– Robin suggested deal under Item 11 and that Michael had time to make an independent submission to the EPA.
Faye – will write a paragraph on morbidity. Robin will incorporate into the CICCC submission
Ian – Asked the committee to endorse his submission to give his submission more clout. Robin will circulate Ian’s submission and ring the community representatives on Monday, after they have been emailed, and canvass their opinion re this. Ian requested that at the least the CICCC might give support to the technical issues he had raised. Ian was urged to maintain the status of his submission as one made directly to EPA.
The committee supported the draft submission and will submit by the due date.
Greg mentioned in regards to Faye’s paragraph that health issues will be dealt with by Dept Human Services as part of the Works Approval process.
Matthew – Explained that there was an inter- governmental working group consisting of EPA, DHS, VWA, DI and MEFSB. They will consider all issues.
Greg also mentioned that the EPA – Section 20B conference would be held on the 3/10/00 (12 point)
Ian – Raised concerns the public does not know that it can make submissions on issues of safety as well as environmental (ref MW)
Greg continued that the EPA has no submission yet but was expecting 3-4 submissions
Ian – explained that he cannot make 3/10, RS would like EPA to consider shifting a day.
Marilyn – EPA very difficult to move owing to time constraints and would prefer not to move date.
Robin – Asked that it be considered to move to the 5th. Mentioned that the only people making submissions, are the people here.
Marilyn – Said also the government agencies and the company.
Robin – pointed out that the 20B process does not seem to include debate between the parties, just presentations.
Marilyn – Usual procedures to make presentation in line with the submission, number of other people there that would not have seen the submission and the EPA will take this into consideration in its deliberation and require the company to respond to the issues raised.
Robin – Expressed a lack of enthusiasm re this aspect of the conference.
Marilyn – Asked would there be any response at the conference ie answers to the submissions ie circulate the submission first?
Greg – Explained that process not designed that responses can be given. Chair of the conference will prepare a report – will be considered by the EPA.
Robin – Suggested that EPA and Terminals respond to the submission prior to the conference, in order to expeditiously manage the approval process. The idea was left with the EPA
ITEM 5 -Confirmation of the minutes of the last meeting 10/8/2000
Greg made a reference to the term ‘compulsory conference’ with a request that it be removed.
Page 4, last paragraph—change “has to” to “will”.
Page 4, Item 6, third paragraph—correct spelling of “Horsman”.
Page 6 under 7.5— replace sentence commencing with “postcode” with the following text “Percentage data relating to prevalence of illness is presented. Postcode relevant information is not made available which could have been of use for the CICCC.”
Page 9, third paragraph—change “major hazard materials” to “dangerous goods”.
ITEM 6 ACTION ITEMS
- Letters to Maribyrnong and Melbourne City Councils – Gordon Harrison explained Councils are submitting a joint submission on the EPA works approval through Minharts Consulting at a cost of $10K.
- Effectiveness review – a document was handed out for review the suggestion that the author address the committee at the next meeting. A copy of the effectiveness review was circulated ACTION The committee members are asked to read the report and comment on it at the next meeting.
- Tools for communications deferred as Ian Swann not present
- Study Chemical Effects – deferred as M Franks not present
- Operator checking – PR said that TPL had undertaken to look into the question and report back at some time in the future – will time it to next meeting
- Web site update – Number of weekly hits 91,116, 69, 48, 85 for the last five weeks.
- TPL web site visited 72 times, probably about half the hits are outside. Some members of the community have visited the site.
- EPA web site has had 85 down loads of the summary document.
- PR mentioned that after criticism of the EPA paper advertisement, Terminals placed a large advertisement in all the western major papers and placed copies of the Works Approval in the council libraries.
ITEM 7 CORRESPONDENCE OUT
Letters dated 13 August 2000 to EPA and the Cities of Maribyrnong and Melbourne, seeking a contribution to the cost of preparing the Committee’s response to Terminals’ Works Approval application.
ITEM 8 CORRESPONDENCE IN
From Kay Rundle, CEO Maribyrnong City Council, advising that the City is not in a position
From David Horsman, Director Operations, EPA dated 23 August 2000, advising that it would not be appropriate for EPA to provide funding to one particular group for the preparation of a submission on a Works Approval application.
From WorkCover dated 23 August 2000 providing copies of the Dangerous Goods (Storage and handling) draft Regulations 2000, Draft Code of Practice, and Regulatory Impact Statement.
From WorkCover (email dated 6 September) advising of another public information session on the Dangerous Goods (Storage and handling) draft Regulations 2000 to be held on the afternoon of Thursday 14 September 2000
From EPA dated 7 September 2000 advising an extension of time to 20 September 2000, and advice that a conference on the application will be held on 3 October 2000.
ITEM 9 PO STORAGE ISSUES
Peter R explained the difficulties of formulating a convincing argument using risk contours due to the lack of confidence in that discipline. The issue is that PO is required to move and that the land available is that determined by the Task force. Given that the real issue is how safe the new facility will be.
Ian reply was that while TPL is required to relocate the PO, the EPA could reject the proposal then open the question ie Corio.
Robin pointed out EPA were part of the task force that recommended this. (As were VWA.)
Robin asked Matthew – will the VWA review the QRA? MW said will/are reviewing and will become assured of the veracity of the QRA. VWA will respond to the CICCC prior to issuing the Dangerous Goods Licence their decision processes. Approval will be available by some time in November. Will not approve until spoken with the CICCC.
Deborah– Asked Ian – “Would you then be satisfied with the risk assessment review? Ian replied “Long and short, no” although acknowledged VWA were independent of Terminals.
Ian – suggested that distance was the most important factor in risk reduction.
Faye – Said if relocated to the site in Corio, then the risk contour would not change at all ie be transported to Corio. Less people would be inside the contour due to lower population.
Matthew – Responded siting that societal risk had to be acceptable in any location as could be read on the QRA FN curve.
There was much discussion re this attempt to understand the risk assessment studies with limited success.
Faye – Asked what is the worst scenario that would kill the most people.
MW replied re the science of consequence modelling. It is similar to EPA ausplume modelling.
Robin – Clarified what is the worst case affect of a problem on the PO tanks ie would it melt the town hall?
Ian clarified that (while not necessary agreeing) PO is likely to burn quickly and have a localised major effect but less away and that why DNV have shown the contours in close.
Robin – Expressed that the consequence analysis must have been done to produce the risk contour profiles seen previously and that he had expected that further explanation would have been made by PR at this meeting.
Peter R – offered to clarify at a subsequent meeting.
The consensus at this time is that no meaningful information has been provided re this issue and that Terminals will respond further.
Peter R closed with the advantage that the PO being relocated would result in the facility being given that best upgrade possible.
ITEM 10 UPDATED DG HANDLING REGULATION
RS concluded that CICCC’s input to VWA on various issues is generally not being properly considered or taken into account ie never seems to change anything. The current process for Major Hazard Facility notification and approval and Dangerous Good licences and notification does not include public comment.
Matthew – Stated that the correct process is to submit details on the proposed changes to the DG Regulations by 20.9.00 but also undertook to ensure items previously raised were taken account in the process.
IT expressed opposition to performance based regulation in favour of the current prescriptive regime.
ITEM 11 TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS BY RAIL
Refer to letter referred to in previous minutes of 23.3.00 given out at 30.3.00 meeting .
Michael gave a presentation on the use of rail instead of truck transport – briefly summarised as follows
Coode would remain the same size to suit shipping but then transhipped by rail to green field (Tank Park) located away (say between Footscray and Werribee) thus achieving a quicker reduction in inventory at the Port between ships. Then this would be transhipped to the end user by rail or rail/road.
Would TPL consider a request to include rail.
Peter R said possibly feasible if the infrastructure (sidings, track) were provided. Economics of rolling stock costs, interim storage would also need to be considered.
CICCC to write to MPC highlighting concern of road and desirability of future use of rail should it become available.
ITEM 12 REPORT TO SUBCOMMITTEE
Ian – HS&E committee – pending minutes/meeting held 3 weeks ago
– Considered Environmental & Incident report – incident reports for April to current
– Risk Matrix – required/further development debated.
– Worst Case Scenario still needed to be actioned.
TPL to propose worst case scenarios to HS&E/Sub committee to further actions
Agenda will include
- Effectiveness Review (author to present) PO Consequences
- HS&E Worst Case Scenario
- Tools used by industry to communicate with neighbouring communities (Ian Swann)
• Study on the effects of chemicals on the Altona community (Murray Franks, Ian Swann)
• Procedure for checking operators (cognitive ability) who have been exposed to dangerous vapours (Peter Reddie)
Next meeting – Thursday 12 October
– George pointed out that there will be a Port Emergency Exercise on October 18
– Robin to contact Kevin Shea of the CI Users Group advising that four members of CICCC wish to attend and observe on 18 October.
– TPL has commissioned Fire Safety Study and will be conducting the Hazops on the last week of September
– Robin submitted article for the North Melbourne news and said was due to be published today.
– Robin basis for press release will be the CICCC submission on the Works Approval application
– Peter R announced that an odour incident (ethyl acrylate) on the 27/7/00 has resulted in an EPA infringement notice – $5,000 penalty.
– Faye Simpson is an apology for 12 October
MEETING CLOSED 10.30pm