COODE ISLAND
COMMUNITY
CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE
Draft Adopted
Minutes
Thursday, 4th
August, 2005
|
PRESENT |
|
|
Robin CICCC / |
Quentin Cooke: Env. |
|
Ian Thomas: Community |
Margaret Manager |
|
Deborah Community |
Theo Pykoulas City of |
|
Faye Simpson Community |
Geoff Cooke WorkSafe |
|
Michael Community |
Peter Egan MFB Manager |
|
Carlo State |
Andrew MCG Committee |
|
Peter LaRose Operations |
Joan Thomas MCG Committee |
|
George Horman Managing |
Sue Minute Taker |
|
|
|
ITEM 1. WELCOME
BY THE CHAIR
Robin Extended
a special welcome to Marstell Community Group representatives Andrew
Clifton and Joan Thomas.
APOLOGIES
Bro Sheffield-Brotherton, Colleen Hartland
CONFIRMATION
OF DRAFT AGENDA
Adopted
ITEM 2. OPPORTUNITY
FOR MCG COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO RAISE CONCERNS
ABOUT STANDARDS AND REGULATORY TREATMENT OF THE TWO
FACILITIES.
Robin: Carlo had brought to Robin’s attention concerns amongst Marstel
Community Group members regarding
lack of parity with regulatory agencies towards Marstel
and Terminals.
Robin
then invited Marstel community members to air any issues.
George: Stated
that through EIP and lease requirements the elements in the original Works
Approval are being implemented whilst still storing product. Upwards of $15 million
had been spent so far and a lot more was to be spent in upgrading the storage
facility. Terminals to date are far ahead of its obligations to the regulatory
authorities.
Andrew: Raised
concerns as to whether the Terminals facility will be upgraded to the same
standard as Marstel. The site visit was helpful to view the progress so far.
Expressed his concern regarding new tanks being placed on pilings and how can
Terminals be sure that old tanks (30 years old) would stand up to being moved.
Are the agencies imposing the same rules as those given to Marstel. Concerns
are more towards environment and surrounding community. Mentioned that concerns
had been raised by Marstel’s management.
Robin: Then
asked MFB, EPA and WorkSafe to comment on whether the same rules would be applied
to both sites.
George: Emphasized
that the upgrade requirements for Terminals were similar to Marstel and
Terminals was very proud of what they have accomplished to date. George was
not afraid to throw door open to inspections from any section of the community.
Deborah: Asked whether
Andrew had heard concerns from Tim Gunning.
Andrew: Noted
from site visit that Terminals are busy upgrading and was concerned about 2nd
hand tanks that are really past their use by dates. Andrew assumed that
authorities were regulating upgrades. The bunding requirements appear
different to what were imposed on Marstel. The Gravel and oil based sand
method is old technology. Terminals appear very busy but not running up to
scratch.
Deborah: The CICCC
community representatives have spoken about these concerns at previous
meetings.
Andrew: Tim
Gunning should raise them with EPA.
Joan: He
should raise them with Marstel Community Group first.
Andrew: Expressed
further concerns regarding bunding flooring, corrosion protection and leakage
into the water table and proximity of tanks. These concerns were not just
confined to Marstel but the community at large. The aesthetics speak of
neglect which begs the question of neglecting other things as well.
The
community representatives plugged hard to Marstel to make sure they were up to
a standard. Terminals aesthetically appears not as good as Marstel. The
untidy appearance of Terminals reflects on the Footscray community as a whole.
Deborah: Expressed
concerns about Marstel Community Group representatives bringing up issues that
have not been brought up at Marstel committee meetings. Marstel should have
raised them at committee meeting.
Andrew: Terminals
invited Marstel Community members.
Robin: Indicated
he had heard concerns that different standards might have been applied to both
the sites.
Theo: Whole
issue highlights the need of communication between both the groups.
George: Responded
on a few of the issues of what Andrew spoke. With regard to the tank spacings,
hazardous chemicals have ½ diameter spacings as per Marstel. Non
flammable chemical spacing is allowed to be closer. Vapour emission does not occur
on these tanks so they vent to atmosphere. You will therefore notice a
difference between the tank spacings.
There
is nothing wrong with mound foundations. Piling is being adopted for the Pye
Gas because Terminals are putting tanks into a position that has not had tanks
on that ground before. Old type foundations are not moving under where tanks
previously situated so therefore are fine.
Foundations
are leak protected with an impermeable liner tell tale drains. A great deal of
effort has been put into new equipment such as installing new pumps, new pipes,
etc. The liners in the bunds cannot be put in until the upgrades on the tanks
have been completed.
Age
of tanks – if steel is the same thickness as new and welds extensively
tested and okay then the old tanks are up to the standards required and at the
time when the tanks were built they were built to a more stringent design
classification then those required under the API codes of today.
Geoff: As
part of the requirements of the Safety Case Terminals must demonstrate the
integrity and adequacy of the old tanks in preventing or controlling the
potential for a major incident.
George: The
Pye Gas will operate at a higher pressure than those at Marstel.
Quentin: Where
we have community involvement with both sites the Marstel peoples role is to
oversee what is happening with the construction of the new tanks whereas CICCC
are more involved with upgrading.
The
EPA does not feel comfortable going to MCG and talking about Terminals site.
Was happy that Marstel Community Group representatives attended CICCC and aired
their concerns.
EPA
has spent a lot of time going through Terminals program which is now in 2nd
stage of EIP and likely to be a 3rd stage. It is likely going to be
a 10 year program to bring Terminals site up to a standard equivalent to
Marstel. Terminals has come from a standard inferior to Marstel as Terminals
is a working site. There is a lot of work going on the activity level is very
high. The standard between current and past is like chalk and cheese. What is
being put in at Terminals site now is the same quality as what is featured on
Marstel site. Program to upgrade integrity of tanks and change to cone down
tank bottom, combustor installation, carbon beds to ensure emissions are
minimized, are all progressing. Not going to happen overnight but it will in
the near future get to the same level as Marstel.
Michael: Terminals
have spent a lot of money upgrading their facility since 1992 whereas a new
facility has the ability to be build from ground up to highest standards.
Andrew: Standards
should be met whether old or new.
Robin: Reminded
attendees that a significant issue for Terminals was the absence of long-term
leases. Until these were granted by Government in 2001, Terminals were not in a
position to undertake major upgrades.
Ian: Must
not forget fact that millions of dollars was put into the plant when after the 1991
fire state of the art fire upgrades were put into place.
Quentin: Terminals
will be upgraded over 10 years. EIP process, improvement action plan, documentary
tool used to monitor site being one of the corner stones of license. Terminals
have demonstrated responsible attitude to the environment and have been
accredited for 3 years now.
If
works deemed not significant a works approval not required. Marstel do not
have an accredited license so therefore any improvements require a works
approval. When asked to clarify this point Quentin gave an example between
Shell Refinery in Geelong which is not accredited and Mobil in Altona which is
accredited.
Peter: Marstel
will end up being accredited down the track after doing the work that Terminals
has done over the years.
Quentin: Marsel
have to prove they are worthy of the accredited licence first which should take
approximately 3 years.
Ian: If
a plant is installed and brand new how can from the moment it starts can it
have an EIP.
Quentin: Have
to demonstrate the ability to minimize waste, annual reporting etc.
Robin: If
you have a brand new plant and compare to an existing plant would you expect the
new plant to be of a higher standard to that of the existing plant.
George: Bargain
struck between the government and MPC upgrades were to be put in place in order
to gain long term leases.
Ian: Fundamental
question are the two companies being treated equally by the regulatory
authorities.
Quentin: Relatively
easy for the newer site but time consuming for existing site but both sites
treated the same. EPA recognizes the time constraints on the existing site
required to upgrade.
Geoff: The
Major Hazard Facility License granted under the Major Hazard Facilities
Regulations, has been in existence now since 2002. The regulations are
performance driven which requires continual improvement of standards. Geoff
then referred to diagram on notes he distributed. Once a year an in depth
inspection takes place which makes sure the site is implementing control
measures and systems, such as procedures that were agreed in the Safety Case.
WorkSafe tailor the inspection to the Safety Case and to what is happening at
the site. WorkSafe monitors the work that is being performed at the site ensuring
the standards are being met such as inspecting tanks and repairs. Just because
the old tanks do not look aesthetically pleasing does not mean they are in any
way less safe than new tanks.
Robin: Thanked
Geoff
Peter: Emphasized
the MFB treated both sites equally through the Dangerous Goods Storage and
Handling regulatory standards. The MFB is bound by legislation to treat both
sites in a fair and equitable way.
Deborah: Asked if MFB
regard the two sites as equally safe.
Peter: Understood
that both sites are of the same Safety Standard.
Ian: Pointed
out that this is CICCC not Terminals CICCC and at the beginning objected to
those members being paid to attend which he thought might sway opinion but has
since proved to not be the case.
Treat
both proposals equally. Ian himself objected formally to VCAT regarding
Terminals and again Marstels proposals. If anyone is of the view that new
facilities are better than older existing plant he gave an example in the UK
where a new plant experienced a disaster. Ian was opposed to the close
proximity of the tanks to the community.
Faye: More
concerned about maintenance schedules, inspections and if maintenance issues
are followed up and whether the same happens with new tanks.
Deborah: Not happy with
old tanks being used and prefers new tanks. Regulatory authorities seem
prepared to accept a lesser level of safety.
George: After
the old tanks have been upgraded are no different to new tanks.
Robin: Made
concluding remarks:
What the CICCC has been doing for last 8 years and in particular 3
years are the same concerns as Marstels community group. The community has
watched as tanks have been inspected and repaired. There is nothing wrong with
reusing materials that are intrinsically sound. The corrosion is the
deleterious effect, and any corrosion has been found during exhaustive
inspections and repaired. Robin referred to the importance of management
systems on site, and that management systems have been put in place to ensure
near misses and accidents do not happen again.
Deborah: Other related accidents have
also been discussed.
Faye: Forklift
driver injured his hand. Number of issues looked at.
Robin: Anything
out of the ordinary is reported. The site is managed in such a way that
long term thinking is applied to incidents, and the lessons learnt are applied
to the management systems to make sure such incidents do not happen
again.
George: Incidents reported and
shared with committee and committee then comment and
cross examine as to what action will be taken.
Robin: Pleased
Marstel Community members attended CICCC. Any other members are
welcome to attend.
Joan: Some
animosity between the two committees feels that Coode Island should be
represented as a whole.
Robin: Option
that should be explored is to have every 3rd meeting merge for a common
forum.
Theo: Suggestion
from the City of Maribyrnong that we ask Marstel to reciprocate to members
of the CICCC to attend a site visit and meeting.
ITEM 3: DRAFT
PORT ENVIRONS PLAN
Theo: Presented
a photocopy of article regarding scrapping of port plan.
George: Heard
there was another committee being formed.
Quentin: New
consultative committee was being formed under MP Bruce Mildenhall to consider
future issue of buffer zones around the Port of Melbourne. All councils with
an interest in Hobsons Bay to be represented with some other groups and
industry representatives being invited. Probably around the middle of this
month (August).
Robin: Asked
what would be the appropriate action of the CICCC to this new committee?
George: Asked
that Robin write to Mildenhall
Robin: What
we are dealing with right now is buffer zones. What do we want to do about the
new committee. How is community going to be involved and is this committee
going to be involved.
Faye: We
need to establish appropriate buffer zones.
Ian: Committee
as a committee did not make any objection earlier about buffer zones or
spacings of tanks.
Robin: Diminishing
of buffer zone by sensitive uses.
George: Buffer
is more than just safety. It is also to do with amenity of the port such as
smells, noise, activity etc. Look at what population density we want in the
buffer.
Robin: Asked
the committee what view do we espouse as a committee regarding the issue of
buffer zones – safety, good planning etc. Believes it is hard for us to
go beyond that. Any increase of population and concentrations of people close
to the port would equate to more people being at risk therefore buffer zones
need to be set.
Quentin: Issue
of Coode Island and the use of the land around Coode Island is ultimately going
to be the decision of Maribyrnong and the Port of Melbourne.
Robin: Keeping
issues open regarding decision making but ultimately our group does not have a
big say in the matter.
George: Probably
determined by who gets the rates.
Ian: Thinks
that although there is a bias it is fundamentally a planning issue.
George: If
another cloud descends over Coode then investments and confidence will
diminish.
Theo: 99
Moreland Street was the last area zoned mixed use. The application for a
proposed 3 level commercial development at 106 Maribyrnong Street has been
cancelled but application for 2 storey office development on the site still
stands.
ACTION Robin to write to Bruce Mildenhall and seek
the involvement of the CICCC in the new committee.
ITEM 4: NOMINATION
OF MAYADA DIB AS A COMMUNITY MEMBER OF CICCC
Robin: Received
an email from Mayada indicating she had reviewed her circumstances and declined
her nomination.
ACTION Robin will email Mayada and tell her how
sorry we are to hear of her decision and welcome her to attend meetings and
maybe reconsider at a later stage.
ITEM 5: TERMINALS
NEW PYE GAS BUSINESS
Quentin: Received
notification of Pye Gas and Latex storage at Terminals Coode Island site.
Information regarding level of emissions and various other details of the
products has been received. Details of proposal regarding recycling of
pressure tanks for the storage of Pye Gas was acceptable. The use of vapour
balancing for transfers indicated very low emission level with virtually nil
venting into the atmosphere from the tanks.
Carlo: Pye
Gas is a hydro carbon liquid – Flammable Class 3 – known human
carcinogen. The customer is Quenos and Carlo used a diagram to describe the
Quenos Altona manufacturing process. The EPA has indicated there is no need
for a works approval as Terminals are already licensed to store Benzene.
Diagrams showing proposed tank layout, details about the storage tanks to be
used and their features together with the environmental improvements to the
tanks. The regulatory process through WorkSafe was also explained.
Robin: Asked
WorkSafe if they regulate which routes the transport company are to take.
Geoff: WorkSafe
do prohibit some routes
George: Will
talk to Quenos regarding what route they intend carrier to use.
Action:
Geoge to communicate with Quenos and pass on the concerns of the CICCC.
Robin: Will
WorkSafe be working to restrict the use of the route in Maribyrnong to a
preferred route on Bolte bridge.
Theo: Community
would appreciate some consideration being given to the route.
Ian: NBTA
have preferred routes.
George: Asked
Geoff with regard to transportation of VCM in Geelong is there some regulation
with regard to routes.
Action
– Geoff to find out more information regarding WorkSafe’s position on carrier
routes, and advise the CICCC of action WorkSafe can take to protect the
Footscray community..
Ian: Raised
his concerns about the narrowness of bunds during the site visit.
Robin: Noticed
weeds growing between bunds and aesthetics, rubble etc in relation to bunds and
said it would be terrific to see bunds properly cleaned up.
George: Explained
that the bunds are going to be made wider at the top and once all the upgrades
to the tanks were complete the bunds would be cleaned up at the finish.
Deborah: Asked about the
Carcinogenic Licence and that she would like to have a look at the document.
Asked that it be put on the Agenda for next meeting.
ACTION Robin to include an agenda item on the
Carcinogenic Licence on the September meeting agenda.
Robin: Thanked
Carlo
ITEM 6: REPORTS
FROM AGENCIES
ENVIRONMENT
PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Presented
by Quentin Cooke
Quentin: Quentin
stated that he had delivered most of his report under the discussions
regarding the Pye Gas (Item 5). Also involved with Corio site and the proposed
Butadiene storage. The proposal was currently before VCAT with the local
council appealing the Works Approval.
WORKSAFE
Presented
by Geoff Cooke – Safety Case Officer for Terminals – Major Hazard
Site.
Geoff: Advised
committee of new Director Hazards Management – Pieter Rienks and indicated
Pieter may come along to the next meeting.
Robin: Extended
an invitation for Pieter to attend next meeting.
Geoff: WorkSafe
visited Coode Island site 21/6/05 which was mainly concerned with viewing the
remedial work, decommissioning, control management in place and the handling of
the residual flammable materials. It was a positive visit with no issues
raised.
TERMINALS
PTY LTD
Presented
by Carlo Fasolino
George: Indicated
in previous meeting that a proposed merger was likely. That merger between
Kaneb and Valero LP happened on 1/7/05 with the parent company now Valero. The
company is 30% owned by Valero Energy with the remaining 70% publicly owned.
Valero Energy is the largest refinery owner in the USA and is a huge
organization compared to Kaneb.
Ian: Asked
what their attitude was toward community consultation.
George: Indicated
that Terminals was only a very small concern of Valero.
Carlo: Presented
the monthly operations and occurrence report. Discussed Safety, Environmental
Audit, demolition progress, continuing remediation and shared the news of
Terminals receiving 2nd place in annual PACIA environment award for
2005.
Robin: Thanked
Carlo
ITEM 7: ANALGAMATED
IMPROVEMENT ACTION REPORT
Carlo: 2nd
EIP approved. Will bring back to next meeting.
Robin: Have
put 1st EIP on website and periodically revisits to see what actions
have been completed.
ITEM 8: CONFIRM
DRAFT MINUTES FOR THE MEETING ON 19 MAY 2005
Confirmed.
ITEM 9: ACTION
ITEMS FROM MAY MEETING
Better integration of CICCC and
MCG
Robin: Emailed
everyone the old report with recommendations that we look for a way in which we
could get the two committees together. Possibly every 3rd meeting
could be a combined committee meeting.
Action:
Robin to send report to Marstell committee again.
Theo: If
Terminals were to commit to a Community Newsletter they might of won the
PACIA award.
Carlo: Will
include as an action item in EIP to give annual report to community.
Robin: Will
put on Agenda for next meeting – Newsletter – to talk at length at
next meeting.
Annual Environment Improvement
Report for 2004 – Presented by Geoff Millard, National Safety and
Environment Manager, Terminals Pty Ltd.
Geoff: AEIP
2004 – first time Terminals has done this report as part of EPA licence
requirement and was presented to EPA April this year. The focus was on 2004.
The AEIP 2004 report detailed community complaints, environmental incidents,
waste, and emissions. The use of graphs with data gathered over a four year
period was presented to the committee.
Robin: Asked
if details on Page 9 of report regarding Phenol were still within EPA licence
limits. Asked that Geoff email latest version as the one sent is superseded by
the latest version.
Robin: Thanked
Geoff and asked that the appendix that includes the Waste Table be emailed to
him so it can be put on the website.
Ian: Submission
by Geoff excellent and urged him to come again.
ITEM 10: OTHER
BUSINESS
None
ITEM 11: NEXT
SCHEDULED MEETINGS
NEXT MEETING: 13th
October, 2005, 8th December, 205
Suggested
meeting dates for 2006 – 16th February, 13th April,
15th June,
10 August, 12 October, 14th December 2006.
Minor changes are to be made to
meeting dates and will be confirmed next meeting.
MEETING CLOSED: 10:00 pm