COODE ISLAND
COMMUNITY

CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE

 

Adopted Minutes
Special Meeting

Thursday 06 May 2004

 

 

PRESENT

 

Robin
Saunders
:

CICCC /
Chairperson

George Horman:

Managing
Director, Terminals Pty Ltd

Ian Thomas:

Community
Rep. / CICCC Committee

Carlo Fasolino:

State
Manager, Terminals Pty Ltd

Deborah
Macfarlane
:

Community
Rep./Committee

Peter LaRose

Operations
Manager, Terminals Pty Ltd

Faye Simpson

Community
Member

Paul Haywood
Terminals Pty Ltd

Michael
Isaachsen
:

Community
Rep./Committee

Quentin Cooke:

Env.
Protection Authority / Ex Off Comm

Bro
Sheffield-Brotherton
Combined Enviro.
Groups / Committee

Bronwyn
Brookman
Smith:

MH Div /
WorkSafe/Ex Off Com

Robert
Glavich

Community
Member

Jody West

Minute Taker

Theo Pykoulas

Manager,
Emergency Mgmt, City of Marb’

 

 

 

ITEM 1.      WELCOME BY THE
CHAIR

 

Robin         Welcomed
everyone

 

ITEM 2.       APOLOGIES

 

                    Chris Watts, Colleen Hartland, Margaret Donnan,

 

                   

ITEM 3.       CONFIRMATION
OF DRAFT AGENDA

 

                    Adopted

 

ITEM 4.       TERMINALS
PRESENTATION FOR PHENOL STORAGE

                    (Presented
by Peter LaRose)

                    Please refer Phenol Storage Attachment

Huntsman
Chemical Company is planning to cease production of phenol at their Brooklyn
plant, from which they presently supply the local market (including their own
requirements) of about 12,000 tonnes per year. They will change from being a
small exporter of excess production to being a significant importer. Huntsman
has given Terminals a letter of understanding, and details of requirements and
approval processes are now being worked through.

Terminals are
already licensed to import and export phenol, and have two heated phenol tanks
in the Plant C East, only one of which is in use.

                    The
proposed new site for the two relocated and upgraded phenol tanks is the south
west corner of Plant B West. The tanks will have HDPE under-liners (probably on
concrete bases), and sealed bund floors. They will have a completely sealed
system, including a new, bigger-volume caustic scrubber. The new scrubber will
be 99% efficient, compared to the existing scrubber which is 95% efficient. The
new road tanker loading bay will have a sealed tank vapour return system. The
cost of establishing the facility is anticipated to be $1.7 to $1.8 million.

Wastes from tank
cleaning, line pigging and scrubbing will be disposed of to licensed waste
premises, and it is possible that Huntsman will take them to dispose of in
their biological treatment facility.

 

 

ACTION:     Terminals
to report back how waste product will be dealt with and to which licensed
treatment facilities will the wastes be sent?

 

Questions:    If
there is a spill where does it go?

                    Into
the Bund, tanks will be fully bunded.

 

                    What
other chemicals are close by that could react with Phenol?

                    The
tanks are purpose built, and the only chemical that reacts with it is butadiene
& butadiene is not stored at Melbourne.

 

                    What
are the Safety Risks?

                    It
is a local risk not an off-site risk. It is not flammable but it is toxic if
swallowed and will burn the skin if in contact

 

ITEM 5.       EPA
OUTLINE OF APPROVAL PROCESS

                    (Presented
by Quentin Cook)

                    Quentin listed some other accredited licensees, including Mobil
Refinery, Qenos and BASF.

Although a
facility such as is being proposed for a new material with new technology would
normally need a Works Approval, as Terminals is an accredited licensee, Works
Approval is unlikely to be required. Terminals must now submit a notification
to EPA, setting out reasons why it doesn’t need Works Approval.

 

 

ACTION:     Quentin
to report whether there are any examples of when an Accredited Licensed premises
needed a works approval by next meeting.

 

ACTION:     George
to supply a copy of the submission to the EPA for Phenol Storage.

 

                    Terminals have received their accreditation 06.04.05. This means that they can proceed with certain works
without a works approval. To do this there is a process where Terminals will
provide the EPA with a letter & documentation outlining why Terminals
believes that a works approval is not required.

 

Ian:             In
terms of the granting of accreditation, how do companies eg: Mobil, get away
with sulphur odours?

 

 

Quentin:     EPA
have looked into it and it is not Sulphur it is the bitumen plant & the Water
Treatment Plant. The company is asked to redress the problem & must show
better endeavours to improve otherwise the process begins of review &
withdrawal of accreditation that may include later prosecution.

 

Faye:          How
many violations must there be before an Accreditation is withdrawn?

 

Quentin:     It
depends on whether the company is using its best endeavours to resolve the
problem. If it is not, then the accreditation may be ultimately withdrawn.

 

George:     An
Accredited Licence is a rigor. The licence means we must demonstrate that our
practices are up to standard. We are continually audited & checked by our
EPA accredited auditor. It is in our EIP & Environmental Manuals.

 

Robin:        Perhaps
at some point the EPA Auditor could do a presentation on the process of these
demonstrations of compliance.

 

George:     Noted.

                    In
response to a comment that standards could slip under an accredited licence – To
put this back to the beginning back in 1998 there was no long term tenure and
the EPA were fed up with Terminals because of the emissions of odours. It was
apparent that money was urgently need to upgrade the system. There were
various penalties at that time with prosecutions, Pin notices & the threat
of $120,000 per day daily fines for continual emissions of odours.

 

                    Terminals
took action by removing Benzene & making the Acrylate users accountable for
their chemicals. With this action and subsequent upgrade Terminals were able
to facilitate improvements to the facility which underpin the current high
level performance. Terminals will not return to the problem it had in the past.

 

Robin:        Will
the EPA take firm action with Accredited Licensees?

 

Quentin:     The
expectation that Licensees will continue to improve & that they demonstrate
this. They are expected to maintain this capacity & their commitment. The
companies are required to submit an annual report, and Accreditation is
reviewed every 5 years.

 

Robin/

Michael:     How
is it determined when a Works Approval is required & what is required from
the company?

 

Quentin:     The
company details its proposals in a scope document to the EPA. The EPA then
looks at what the existing Licence covers, and whether it needs to be amended.
A company with an Accredited Licence is aware of the obligations to have the
works properly completed. The works approval requirement by the EPA is based
on these factors.

 

Robin:        In
summary: An Accredited Licence is granted, further works are submitted via a
scope document, the EPA then determines whether approval is required, if it is
not then it is managed through Quality Audit Systems.

 

Robin:        The
Committee would like all communications tabled at the meeting with regard to
the Phenol submissions.

 

Robin:        Government
has confirmed that they will continue to control planning permits for the
ports.

 

Robin:        Do
Terminals plan to be upfront with Phenol.

 

George:     Yes

 

Robin:        Suggest
a Media Release and an invitation to the media & community for a
representative of Terminals be available to discuss this further, so the
situation is transparent.

 

Michael:     It
is possible to argue that this new system is safer than the old one and that
Terminals is moving in the right direction.

 

Robin:        Will
this get into Terminals EIP?

 

Quentin:     The
current is due for renewal – would appear in that

 

Robin:        Could
then appear in the Current Improvement Action Report.

 

Quentin:     Would
be appropriate & EPA would require this.

 

PUBLICITY: Discussion was held as to how to
inform the public. Given this is a “low hazard” material, it was
thought that the media release highlight the next Phenol project meeting and
that would be appropriate.

 

ITEM 6:       WORKSAFE

                    (Presented
by Bronwyn Brookman-Smith)

 

§      
Phenol already covered, not new to the site

§      
Terminals have been required to review the Risk
Assessment

§      
Advised that HAZOP Workshops will have to be
done

§      
Revisions to be forwarded to Worksafe

§      
Can introduce the tanks because the existing
Licence includes phenol storage

§      
Terminals have been advised that Worksafe will
be present at construction

§      
Under the Dangerous Goods Legislation Terminals
is required to get written authority from Fire Authority

§      
New activities on site

§      
New location

§      
New conditions to storage

 

Theo:          From
a planning point of view, could Terminals inform the council when the
application is lodged.

 

George:     Yes

 

ACTION:     George
to notify council when the planning application is submitted & a copy of
the planning application will be supplied to council (and to CICCC).

 

ITEM 7:       QUESTIONS
& DISCUSSION

 

Robin:        Committee
has invited Mr Stensholt MP to the next meeting, and he has accepted.

 

Robin:        Death
of EPA Past Chairman Brian Robinson acknowledged.

 

George:     Committee
asked to look at what has been presented and if they have any queries or
suggestions, or would like anything clarified please email these to ghorman@terminalspl.com.au

 

Robin:        Confirmation
that next special meeting will take place on 10 June 04, followed by the next
scheduled meeting on 15 July 2004.

 

 

Meeting Closed 8.20pm