|
ITEM
1
|
|
|
Robin
|
|
|
ITEM
2
|
|
|
Robin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Action Item
02/06-3
|
|
|
Action Item 02/06-4
|
|
|
Action Item
02/06-6
|
|
|
Robin
|
|
|
ACTION
|
|
|
Robin
|
|
|
Deborah
|
|
|
Robin
|
|
|
George
|
|
|
Deborah
|
|
|
George
|
|
|
ACTION
|
|
|
Action Item
04/06-4
|
Done.
|
|
Action Item 02/07-1
|
Done.
|
|
Action Item
02/07-2
|
No meeting with Marstel
yet. Carlo to follow up.
|
|
Action Item
02/07-3
|
In Progress.
|
|
Peter
|
Stated that Carlo would
provide an Operations and Occurrence Report for greenhouse gas emissions from
Terminals every 6 months, which would allow time for sufficient data to be
compiled and analysed.
|
|
ITEM 3
|
Reports from Terminals
and Agencies.
|
|
|
Report from EPA.
|
|
Tim
|
Stated that the action
report had been updated. He stated that after EPA trials, the use of the
combustor to destroy liquid wastes from the site has been approved. He stated
that this comes with the proviso that Terminals must only dispose of their
own liquid wastes, and this excludes Class 3 indicators such as Benzene and
MEC.
|
|
Peter
|
Stated that the trials
conducted by EPA were successful, which has enabled Terminals to progress to
the next stage.
|
|
Tim
|
Stated that the approval
has been made in writing, as discussed and reviewed after each stage of the
trial. Raised the issue of the incident report relating to a cotton seed oil spill
that occurred a few weeks ago. He stated that the incident had been dealt
with by Terminals to EPA’s satisfaction. (To be further discussed in the
Terminals report).
|
|
Deborah
|
Asked about contamination
issues relating to Terminals.
|
|
Tim
|
Stated that audits have
been carried out down at Whitehall where there has been historic ground water
contamination.
|
|
ACTION
|
Tim to ask Scott Maloney
to next meeting to give an overview of the corporate focus and objectives of
EPA. Tim to let Robin know of arrangements.
|
|
Peter
|
Stated that the outcomes of
the Maribyrnong audit have been published on the website.
|
|
|
Report from Terminals.
|
|
Peter
|
(Referred to the Coode
Island Terminals Pty Ltd Monthly Operations & Occurrence Report for
Feb/April). Stated that April had
been a standard month in terms of operations.
|
|
Deborah
|
Asked what shipments are
received from the US.
|
|
Peter
|
Stated multiparcels. He
highlighted that there has been a standard number of road tankers for
February, March and April, site visits and other interests. He mentioned the
2 new tanks on Coode Island, which will be discussed later by George.
|
|
Ian
|
Suggested that it might be
useful to report at these forums chemical storage figures and other general
information that the community might find important.
|
|
ACTION
|
Terminals to provide
report on chemical storage figures every 6 months (March and September).
|
|
George
|
Stated that the two new
tanks contain combustible liquid potassium hydroxide. He stated that the site
is segregated between hazardous and non-hazardous materials, (which will be
evident on the aerial photo when provided later in the meeting).
|
|
Peter
|
Referring
under the Safety and Environmental
heading of the Monthly Report, stated that the discovery of asbestos gasket
within the site was properly reported on and addressed, workers and
contractors were informed, and the remains were disposed of. He referred an
incident involving a power outage, which lasted for 1 hour during April. He
stated that the generators and back up systems responded efficiently. He then
referred to the operating security system on the site. A further improvement
has been made to the Terminals electronic control system. Now key staff will
be able to manage the facility remotely from their lap-top computers. Should
an emergency or fault arise at night, a telephone alarm will be sent to the
key staff, who will then be able to take action such as remotely closing
valves to isolate a fault.
|
|
Deborah
|
Asked if this meant that no
one is required to be at Coode Island when the system technology is
activated.
|
|
Peter
|
Agreed by saying that it
relies upon a highly effective automated monitoring system, which allows
Terminals personnel to be contacted at home in the event of a security
threat. He stated that every 3 hours the site is attended by a mobile guard.
|
|
ACTION
|
Paul to bring in laptop
to demonstrate the system on site at next meeting.
|
|
George
|
(Referred to aerial map
of Coode Island site) Explained
that the incident involving the spillage of Cotton seed occurred when a ship
arrived carrying in excess of the 1700 tonnes of cotton seed oil that can be
stored on the site. He stated that the customer had ordered 4000 tonnes,
which had to be moved on the arrival of the ship. He stated that that night,
57 road tanker trips were made to Plant B to offload the oil. He stated that
as the oil was discharged at such a slow rate, one operator decided to fill
through the manifold, but miscalculated the effect of the increase in flow to
the tank when road tanker filling ceased. He pointed out that using a
manifold is not normal procedure in Terminals operations. He acknowledged
that factors such as the lack of staff supervision on that night contributed
towards the incident occurring and the fact that it was a cheap,
non-hazardous material meant that it was not as attended to as well as it
should have been. He stated that staff has been consulted since the
incident.
|
|
Robin
|
Asked whether alarms are
fitted on the tanks in the event of overfilling.
|
|
George
|
Stated that alarms are only
on the tanks of hazardous materials. He stated that the cost of the incident
was approximately $ 60,000, which included the clean up and disposal of the
material and compensating the customer.
|
|
Ian
|
Referred to the Buncefield
Petrol disaster and stated that chemical hazard indicators showed the same
levels, right up until the moment of the disaster.
|
|
George
|
Expressed concern over
relying on technology for knowing levels and expressed preference for
allowing the human component to test levels, such as through the dipping
method.
|
|
Peter
|
Stated that the tank
containing phenyl is the only tank not dipped as it is too hazardous for
workers to come into contact with. He stated that a very accurate radar
system is used instead.
|
|
George
|
Terminals have amended
their operating procedures so that manifolds are no longer used in such
cases, dipping frequencies have been shortened, and high level alarms will be
fitted to similar non-hazardous tanks. The lessons learned from the spill
have been applied at Terminals facilities throughout Australia.
|
|
Ian
|
Complimented Terminals on
the full report of this incident and the Company’s openness
|
|
George
|
With reference to the
aerial photo, he stated that the tank for combustible liquid on Plant B is
not installed yet and that areas containing non-hazardous and flammable
chemicals are to be separated.
|
|
Deborah
|
Expressed concern that the
site doesn’t appear to be all that accessible.
|
|
George
|
Stated that greater access
is to be made in the top area near the entrance to the site.
|
|
ITEM 4
|
Briefing on National
Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme by Bro Sheffield-Brotherton
|
|
Bro
|
Began his presentation by
saying that the responsibility for chemical regulation rests with the State
and Territory jurisdictions and is managed by a range of agencies. He stated
that up to 1990, there was virtually no Commonwealth involvement in chemical
regulation. He stated that a national scheme was later adopted where
industrial bodies gave commonwealth the role to assess industrial chemicals.
NICNAS (National Industrial Chemical Notification and Assessment Scheme) has
a primary role in determining which chemicals may or may not be used in
Australian industries.
He stated that after 1991,
the Commonwealth placed on companies the obligation to notify chemicals, and
for them to be assessed and published. He stated that the problem is that the
Commonwealth has no power to act on the matter as each sate has different
jurisdiction and approaches to chemicals. He stated that there are up to
38,000 chemicals identified within Australia and only 120 to 150 of these
have been assessed, which leave significant data gaps. He stated that
historically, there has been little Commonwealth interest in NICNAS as it is
fully self-funded under original act (which as since been amended) which
underlines a very formal arrangement between industry and Government groups.
He stated that 3 years ago,
the community committee group was formed and set up two major pieces of work,
one of which was to engage the community in a charter to cover all of
NICNAS’s public processes. He stated that Commonwealth power over the area
would allow for the streamlining of procedures and NICNAS’s capacity to ban
chemicals has been debated. He stated that some environmental agencies
recognised that the States/Territories could concede some power to the
Commonwealth. He suggested that this can be read in more detail on the NICNAS
website.
He highlighted the problem
of fair trade between State and Territories and referred to productivity and
COAG reviews, and now a new advisory committee that is examining developments
in nano-technology. He stated chemicals have to-date been assessed based upon
their chemical properties and not on their physical properties. He stated
that NICNAS is aware of the implications of nano-molecules within these
chemicals and are committed to run strong consultative processes which will
deal with broader public policy issues. He stated that the Commonwealth
Government has announced funding for nano-technology before the election.
|
|
Geoff
|
Added that each chemical
assessment result in an incredibly detailed, thorough and lengthy document.
He commended NICNAS for its regular liason with the committees and for the
presentation.
|
|
Deborah
|
Asked if any new chemicals
had been discovered.
|
|
Bro
|
Stated that there had been
150 or less over the last decade.
|
|
Robin
|
Thanked Bro for the interesting
and informative presentation.
|
|
ITEM 5
|
Newsletter and Open
Day—report and review
|
|
George
|
(Referred to draft copies circulating committee.
Final edition to be released in September).Stated that comments could be
directed to Carlo.
|
|
Robin
|
Expressed some difficulty
in reading the paragraph in the newsletter that outlines the objectives of
the CICCC.
|
|
George
|
Stated that this shouldn’t
be a problem when printed in colour.
|
|
Geoff
|
Stated that more visuals
are to be included.
|
|
Deborah
|
Made some grammatical
corrections. She asked Robin if a letter had been drafted to Quentin from the
committee.
|
|
Tim
|
Stated that Quentin is presently
working on other projects he will be returning in the near future.
|
|
Robin
|
Stated that he will write a
letter of appreciation to Quentin on behalf of the Committee.
|
|
ITEM 6
|
Improvement Action
Report
(Referring to handout Report
(2nd EIP) Updated May 2007)
|
|
Robin
|
Raised
some questions over the level of detail given in the report, such as noticing
that the 2005 report was mentioned, but not the 2006 report.
|
|
George
|
Stated
in some cases Terminals were awaiting responses and that it’s a matter that
they will look into.
|
|
ACTION
|
Robin
to discuss with Carlo the details of the report ( in consultation with Tim
from EPA)
|
|
ITEM 7
|
Geoff
Millard Safety Case Presentation
|
|
|
(Referred
to handout Second Round Safety Case)
|
|
Robin
|
Expressed
desirability for there to be greater consistency in terms used in classifying
chemicals under different Acts and asked if there is any way that the
committee can be better informed about how they relate to each other?
|
|
ACTION
|
Geoff
to put out a sheet of different systems and how Terminals uses the different
systems. Carlo to make a table of the chemicals used and how they are to be
classified, with a short definition of what they are. Both to be made
available to committee members.
|
|
George
|
Stated
that he expects there to be fewer problems this year as there is less
hazardous material to be dealt with. He stated that process involved in
obtaining the licence, which was renewed this year, is not unlike HAZOP as it
requires a thorough safety case structure. He stated that the figures for
major incident have come down noticeably and that there is a significant
reduction in the level in danger at Terminals. In referring to a map of the
Coode Island site and the wider docklands area, he pointed to the red hazard
contour and the consequence contour. He stated that Terminals was not considered
to be in the top 20 most dangerous sites in the area.
|
|
Robin
|
Commented
on the lack of a clear legend on the map.
|
|
Ian
|
Stated
that the best way for the community to form a view on the map is if
comparisons can be made. He suggested that the map includes contours that
cover existing risks as well as potential risks.
|
|
Geoff
|
Stated
that measuring the range of risks is a very expensive exercise.
|
|
Bro
|
Agreed
by saying that a map that includes these features, as well as contour lines
that show the worst case scenario, provide a valuable visual for the
community.
|
|
Robin
|
Asked
what does WorkSafe require, in terms of visual representation of risks etc.
|
|
Geoff
|
Stated
that they do not require it.
|
|
Ian
|
Highlighted
the importance for risks to be measured for the community.
|
|
ACTION
|
Geoff
to produce consequence contours for the facility as it was before the
consolidation on the West side, for comparison purposes.
|
|
Geoff
|
Acknowledged
and thanked the participation of Terminals representatives in a variety of
workshops held recently.
|
|
Robin
|
Thanked
Geoff for the presentation and members for their attendance.
Meeting
declared closed at 9:25pm.
|
