COODE  ISLAND  COMMUNITY CONSULTATIVE  COMMITTEE

Adopted Minutes

Thursday 9 May 2002

PRESENT

Robin Saunders
CICCC / Chairperson


Carlo Fasolino
Op. Manager Terminals P.Ltd./committee


Deborah Macfarlane
Acting Chairperson


Allen Hugli
Chief Financial Officer,
Burns, Philp & Company Limited/CICCC Committee


Michael Ragen

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

Ian Thomas
community rep./ committee


Bill Horrocks
Mayor / City of Maribyr./
committee


Dr Peter Brotherton
Combined Enviro. Groups /
committee


George Horman
State Man./Terminals
Pty Ltd / committee


Michael Isaachsen
community rep./ committee


Trevor Perkins
MF&ESB/ex off comm


Wayne Bergin
Environmental Protection
Authority


Quentin
Cooke
Env. Protection
Authority


Marg Donnan
MH Div
/
WorkSafe


Peter Taylor
Mooney Valley LEADER newspaper


Tim Noisette
Western Times newspaper


Vanessa Richardson
minute taker


 

ITEM 1. WELCOME BY THE CHAIR

* Robin welcomed the committee
members and other people attending the CICCC meeting including the members
of the press.

 

ITEM 2. A MOMENT FOR TED

* Robin said that the CICCC were
sad to hear of the death of their fellow CICCC member Ted Towson. Everyone
agreed that he had been a great contributor to the work of the CICCC
especially at the regular Terminals/WorkCover audits. He will be greatly
missed by this committee.

 

ITEM 3. APOLOGIES

* Apologies were received from
Cameron Fitzgerald, Jim Clements, John Luppino, Martin Jones, Faye Simpson
and Bronwyn Brookman Smith.

 

ITEM 4. CONFIRMATION OF THE DRAFT
AGENDA

* The draft agenda was adopted.

 

ITEM 5. STATEMENT BY ALLEN HUGLI ON
BURNS PHILP PROPOSED SALE OF TERMINALS P/L


* Allan said that as yet there is no
purchaser for Terminals P/L. In answer to Ian’s question he said that they
would prefer to sell the company without splitting it into smaller sections.
He said it is doubtful that Burns Philp would wish to sell parts of the
business to different buyers. There has been interest shown by sixteen
prospective buyers. Target sale date was end June 2002. The prospective buyers
are terminalling companies, strategic and financial buyers and some are
overseas companies.

* Tim asked about the company’s
good selling points and whether the proposed future development would be a
stumbling block to the possible sale. Allen said that it is a business with a
stable cash flow and that because the upgrade plans have already been agreed
to with the authorities, the future upgrade would not be seen as a problem.

 


ITEM 6. BRIEF REPORT FROM AGENCIES
AND TERMINALS ON KEY ISSUES


* Quentin said that the appeal lodged
at VCAT against the Marstel Works Approval plan will be called in by the
Government ( Minister of Planning), meaning that the issues raised in the
appeal will be considered by the government rather than by VCAT.

* The EPA have been investigating
7-12 potential sources of the elevated readings of methyl bromide recently
detected in air samples in the Coode Island area. Quentin said that the EPA
expected that it is emanating from sites that are licensed to quarantine
imported goods. They use methyl bromide as a fumigant. It is an ozone
depleting chemical, so the EPA are hoping that in future it can be recovered
rather than being released to the atmosphere as is happening currently. (See
April 2002 minutes for details of the air quality monitoring).

Peter said that the use of methyl
bromide was being phased out.

Quentin said that nothing works as
reliably as the methyl bromide so it is difficult to find a substitute. It is
used to fumigate grains and container goods in the dock area.

Ian questioned if the EPA were doing
their job satisfactorily given these emissions were occurring. He said that
there was no longer a demand for using methyl bromide by grape growers in
northern Victoria. He said it is a Class 2.3 Dangerous Goods.

* Michael asked about the effect of
the time delays caused as a result of the appeal for the Marstel Works
Approval.

Ian Thomas said that he would have
preferred that delays had not occurred. He said the delays were caused because
the grounds of the appeal could not be lodged until the Chairman’s report of
the 20B Conference was available. He said he did everything required of him by
VCAT. He said that the delay had been caused by VCAT because they do not have
staff of suitable experience to hear such an appeal and they had caused
otherwise unnecessary process delays..

Robin said that there has been a
recent Supreme Court ruling against VCAT for not appointing a person
experienced in Planning to hear a planning appeal. So in future VCAT will have
to appoint a planner to hear planning appeals. Delays are being experienced.

Ian Thomas said that in 2001 during
the hearing of the appeal against the Terminals Works Approval plan the VCAT
lawyer who heard the appeal showed a preference for legal arguments (provided
by the Terminals legal representative) in preference to his information which
included other relevant details.

* Margaret said that at WorkSafe the
following activities have occurred this month

· Terminals Dangerous Goods
re-licensing.

· Notice to Terminals under the
Hazardous Substances Regulations to provide a detailed assessment of risk.

· Safety Case work is continuing
to be developed by Terminals and is due to be submitted later in June. A
workshop was run by Terminals

 


* Trevor said that the MF&ESB
have been notified that Terminals are lifting their tanks for inspection and
repairs as necessary. Terminals have been advised to adjust their emergency
plans where required, to allow for this work.

Ian said that WorkSafe (in
consultation with the MF&ESB) has an updated format for the ‘Emergency
Information Book’ that is used on sites storing Dangerous Goods. It contains
specific site information for the emergency service staff who attend
emergencies on specific sites. The MF&ESB had recently worked with
WorkSafe to improve this resource. Ian recommends this updated version at a
cost of $27.50.

Trevor said that in particular the
Storage Regulations 2002 requirements have been included in this latest
version of the ‘Emergency Information Book’.

Carlo said that Terminals have always
used this resource and they updated it as required. He will get a copy of the
new one.



ACTION. Trevor will provide a copy of
the above book to the CICCC at the next meeting.

* George said that this month he
attended an auction for the sale of Tallow Master P/L. The auctioneer
started the bidding at $1 million, but there were no bids.

He said that three of the Terminals
acrylate tanks have been refurbished. The CICCC Health and Safety
subcommittee recently inspected them.

Terminals have received their
planning permit for the combustor system.

They have recently spent 1-2 days
on the HAZID review with WorkSafe. This review considers all aspects of the
operation on the site. A Provisional Improvement Notice (PIN) has been made
by a Terminals OH&S rep, concerning a lifting issue associated with
unloading empty drums from trucks. Terminals have complied with the PIN, by
providing a ramp for future drum unloading.

The HAZOP on the combustion system
will be done next Thursday.

Margaret said that the Health &
Safety representatives on site have the power to issue a PIN notice when
there has not been a compliance with a regulation. A company can appeal such
a notice. The PIN may be upgraded to an ‘Inspectors Notice’ by WorkSafe.
It is an offence if the company does not take action.

George said Terminals are
continuing to work with WorkSafe to ensure that the risk assessment of all
aspects is working well. He said that at present there are many changes
required by the regulators which Terminals are working hard to meet.

* George said that Terminals phone
numbers will change soon. The changes have been e-mailed to everyone on the
mailing list.

* Deborah asked if the potential
new buyers of Terminals would continue to adhere to improvements and license
conditions Terminals have agreed to.

George said that all the different
agreements with the regulating bodies will keep things basically as they
are. For instance there is a very specific lease with Melbourne Ports and a
licence with the EPA. He said he doubts that the regulating bodies are going
to allow any slip in the level of operational standards on the site. For
instance, it would take a change to the Worksafe Dangerous Goods Licence for
a new product to be stored on the site.

Margaret said that WorkSafe require
Terminals to assess the potential risks associated with the storage of a new
product and have the necessary controls in place, before the company could
amend its licence. It would look at the operational infrastructure for
handling any proposed new dangerous good on the site.

* Allen said that he had had
discussions with the Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional
Development (DIRD) re ‘the gap’. Huntsman
and Dow want Terminals to continue operations on the east side of McKenzie
Road until Marstel commence operations. This would ensure supply of
propylene oxide, benzene, crude benzene, styrene and acetone. Terminals are
looking at options suggested by DIIRD & EPA for extending their
operations on the East Side. This will include consideration of the need to
remediate the soil in that area. George advised that the EPA have concerns
that Terminal’s plan for the remediation of soil may cause an odour
problem for their neighbours. Allen said that Terminals do not want to spend
more money on the east side. Terminals are considering, with EPA,
alternative site remediation measures that would allow Terminals to stay in
operation on the East side of Mackenzie Road until the end of 2003, at which
stage Marstel should be operating their development. Allowing for a year for
degassing, demolition and site remediation, MPC are considering extending
Terminals lease to January 2005.

Ian said that if safety
considerations are paramount then it would be best for the community if
Marstel P/L were to buy and operate the east side.

Allen said that this option had
been assessed but the site would not be available in future for Marstel to
purchase.

* Robin said that last year the
CICCC had correctly forecast a possible time gap for the storage of
propylene oxide from Terminals to the new Marstel site. However the
government claimed that there would not be a time gap. It is now clear they
were wrong in their assessment of the time lines required. He asked how the
government’s ‘unbreakable lease’ for the East Side might in future be
extended.

Allen said there were no answers to
that question at this stage and that he was not sure yet, just how much
extra time might be needed. In answer to a question from the press
representative he said that Terminals were negotiating on the basis that
Terminals will not be spending more money than they otherwise would have. He
said that they do not want to shut DOW and Huntsman down but that they
should be compensated for factors outside Terminals control. He said the
costs associated with the alternative remediation process of “dig and
recycle off site” would most likely ensure continuous supply until Marstel
come on stream are in the $5 million price range. This is at the top end of
estimates.

Ian said that because the
government were unprepared for ‘the gap’, the taxpayer will probably
have to find the money to cover Terminals extra costs.

Allen said the taxpayer and/or the
customers could possibly meet the costs.

George said that because of the
additional year of operation proposed for the east side, Terminals may need
to run the Vapour Emission Control carbon beds and the combustor systems
together next year as the new combustion system was not designed for both
east and west sides of the Terminal.

Robin asked if this would result in
a longer period of environmental pollution. George said that some products
work very well with the carbon beds so additional pollution does not occur.

Allen added that it was only this
morning that he had meetings with the government about this and Terminals
have not had time to fully address this matter at this stage.

Ian said that the planned reduction
of vapour emissions by using the combustor would be a major improvement, but
that in his view the use of a combustor to do this is fundamentally
dangerous

 

ITEM 7. CONFIRMATION OF THE
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING 11 APRIL 2002.



* The
draft minutes were accepted with some minor changes that Margaret will give
to Robin (see the Adopted Minutes on the web site www.ciccc.org).

 

 


ITEM 8. ACTION ITEMS FROM THE
PREVIOUS MEETING

8.1 Article by Deborah Macfarlane

* Robin said that this article was
excellent. The Committee agreed that it be posted on the CICCC website.
Robin recommended it to the members of the press present at the meeting.

8.2 Further advice from Robyn Betts

• Robyn to forward the paper
about the Industry Emergency System. Robin has e- mailed this to all on the
CICCC mailing list.

• Further discussion with Faye
about morbidity. Robyn has said that she would like firstly to talk with the
Department of Human Services before speaking further with Faye about this
matter.

• Future brief to CICCC on
regulations covering the management of industry accidents. In a phone call
from the Chair, Robyn suggested that industry accidents were outside her
brief. The Committee clarified that they wanted Robyn’s work to review the
adequacy of regulations covering emergency management of both Dangerous
Goods and Hazardous Substances .


ACTION. Robin will write to Robyn
Betts to
clarify the
Committee’s request.


• Deborah to write to Robyn to
ensure that other companies storing dangerous goods are included in the
Emergency Alert project. Deborah said that this has almost been completed.

8.3 Quentin to e-mail US Marine
Standard to Robin.

* This information has been e-mailed
to everyone. Quentin said that this e-mail site is specific to the Coast Guard
regulations which cover associated activities like the loading of ships and
terminalling processes. Therefore it is relevant to the Marstel Works Approval
but it does not cover all regulations for the processes associated with the
use of combustors.

ACTION. The EPA will follow up on the
issue of relevant regulations for the use of combustors on a site like
Terminals.

ACTION. Quentin to present a paper
about the best environmental and safety standards for the types of combustors
as covered in the Terminals Works Approval.

 


8.4 Robin to ask P&O Ports if
there has been any reports on the spillage of quinine on board ship in port.

* Robin said there has been no
response yet from P&O Ports to his phone messages.

 

 


ITEM 9. CORRESPONDENCE OUT


None

 

 

ITEM 10. CORRESPONDENCE IN


None

 

 

ITEM 11. THE TERMINALS PTY LTD
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (EIP)

See attachment 1

 


* George said that the
Terminals lease for the site includes the requirement for a 12- year plan
for upgrades on the site. The plan he is presenting tonight covers only the
first 3 years of the 12 years lease period, but it does foreshadow some
longer-term targets for improvements to the site. He made the following
points about each element (see Attachment I)

1. VECS System

* He has previously given the CICCC a
presentation on this element.

2. Acrylate Tankage.

* This is a big job which has been
explained in full to the CICCC previously.

3. Six General Flammable Materials
Tanks.

* Six more tanks will be lifted and
revamped if necessary.

4. Tank Integrity.

* The new inspection procedures to
fully assess the condition of the tanks have been developed and all the tanks
would be inspected over the next 2 years to confirm their integrity and
identify maintenance requirements.

The regulated standard states that
the tanks on the site have to be checked every ten years.

Ian said that the Dangerous Goods
Regulations state that dangerous goods tanks have to be in good condition all
the time.

George said that some of the tanks on
the Terminals site were 40 years old.

5. Internal Tank Pipework to Minimise
Waste.

* Peter asked what a new owner might
do, as some of these proposed plans are not included in their licence.

George said that the new owner will
inherit Terminal’s EIP (if it is completed by June 2002). They are all
consistent with the Works Approval which the new buyer will inherit.

Robin asked about commitments made by
Terminals, and whether they are binding on a new owner.

George said that exactly what is
transferable is a bit ‘grey’.



ACTION George and EPA will further
consider this issue and provide advice at the June meeting.

6. Groundwater Protection.

* The Sparge curtain will be in the
areas that require it. It will stop any contaminated groundwater from
leaving the site. Compressed air is piped in and then forced into the soil.
The air bubbles carry the contaminated water to the surface where it is
collected and processed.

7. Segregate Site Stormwater and
Operational Area.

* Terminals and the Coode Island
Users Group are disappointed that the Melbourne Port Corporation (MPC) and
City West Water have in their control the allocated funds to improve the
sewerage operation but they have not made the necessary decisions to
implement the improvements. He said they have a design but they have not yet
decided on a tender for the job.

ACTION. Robin will liase with the
City of Maribyrnong and MPC about the status of the sewerage improvement
project.

8. (No extra comments).

 

9. (No extra comments).

 

10. (No extra comments).


11. Shipping Emergency
Shutdown.

* George said that all the
supervisors on the site will have hand held radios that an emergency signal
could be beeped through regardless of the volume setting so that operations
like a transfer of material in a pipeline can be halted quickly, should a
problem occur during the transfer. A signal would be triggered by something
like a tank level alarm, etc.

 

13. Bund Report.

* Robin said that on sites B &
C the tanks were placed back to back, with less road access than that
proposed for the BP site.

George said that the current
placement of the tanks on the B & C sites did not pose any significant
safety problem. He said they are predominantly generously spaced – well in
excess of the standard and fitted with deluge sprays. They have passed a
fire safety audit. He said that it was not of benefit to reconfigure the
bunds.

Deborah asked Trevor whether he was
happy with the plans.

Trevor said that there is always
room for improvement over time.

* Deborah asked whether Terminals
might have upgraded the site to a higher standard if Marstel had not been
granted the rights to the BP site?

George said that Terminals were
expecting the government to give them $25 million towards the upgrade
following the Coode Island Task Force Review.
They provided a lesser amount of $11million, and this money has now been
allocated to Marstel. The government’s intention was to ‘revamp’
rather than ‘renew’. As a result Terminals are left with a set amount of
land to design and make economically viable. However there are many ways to
ensure safety other than the amount of space between tanks as on the B &
C sites. For instance Terminals are nitrogen blanketing some tanks which
works very well as described at other CICCC meetings. In answer to Ian’s
question George said that they are complying with safety standards by using
bunds. The bunds are high, and they may be lowered a little in the future to
allow personnel to move more easily between tanks. The EPA have requested
that in the future Terminals present a paper for comment to the CICCC
outlining our proposals for improvements to sites B & C.

* Robin commented that the EPA uses
the term Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) in almost the same way the
term Environmental Management Plan is used by the wider community. An EMP
sets out the following

• commitments of proponents;

• requirements of regulators
and approval authorities;
• environmental requirements;
• safety and risk requirements;


social
and community requirements.


Standards, levels, monitoring
requirements, timetables and responsibilities are usually set out in an
EMP.

He reminded the meeting of
a presentation Ian Thomas had made where he described the Manchester
Pipeline Project (U.K.) Agreement as an example of how an EIP could be
applied to Terminals site.

Robin said that the content of
George’s presentation was very good, but that he expected that the
Terminals EIP would include things like ‘Hazard Communications’.

George said that the presentation
he made tonight was a draft document. The final document had to be completed
by 1 June 2002. Tonight’s draft covered the management of the day to day
emissions off the site. He said that the rest of the document does include
things like ‘Hazard Communications’.

Peter said that CICCC should see
the final document before it is signed off.

Wayne said that the EPA sees this
as an important document that should include community input.

Allen said Jim Clements saw the EIP
as a ‘living document’ that would continue to develop after the deadline
submission date of 1 June 2002.

Ian said that the Manchester
Agreement had not been generated by the government authorities but was
developed as a result of 12 months work between the company and a community
action group.

George said the first page of the
EIP document includes the names of the CICCC and the EPA would like the
CICCC to sign off the document.

Peter said that more time for
internal ownership of the content of the document would be required before
the CICCC would sign off on it.

In the meantime it was agreed that
Terminals could start to action some of the improvements listed in the Draft
EIP before the final signing off by the CICCC in the future.

ACTION. George will distribute the
entire Draft EIP to the CICCC members before the next CICCC meeting, where it
will be agended for further discussion.


* Deborah asked if the new
buyer for Terminals would be bound by the EIP agreement with the community.

Allen said it would be seen as the
minimum standard that could be continually improved on by a new owner.

* Ian thanked George for his ‘open
and fair’ presentation of the Draft EIP.

 

ITEM 12. WORKSAFE SIX MONTHLY AUDIT
REPORT


Defer

 

 

ITEM 13. SOIL REMEDIATION TEST
RESULTS (TERMINALS)


* George said that the remediation
trial had been in operation for 3 months. He would like to defer the
presentation to the next meeting when he will have more results to present.

* Ian said that he saw the pile
recently and he commented that it was ‘good’ and on a smaller scale than
he expected. It consists of a surface area of about 3 meters square of the
contaminated soil which has been dug out to a depth of about 1 meter. That
soil has been put in a bin and layered with pipes, gravel and woodchips to
allow air circulation and the subsequent breakdown of the contaminants
throughout the pile.

 

ITEM 14. AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING
(13 JUNE 2002)

See the above ACTION ITEMS.

 

ITEM 15. OTHER BUSINESS

15.1


* Schedule of future meetings will
be 13 June, 11 July, 8 August, 12 September, 10 October, 14 November, 12
December, 13 February 2003, 13 March, 10 April, 8 May.

ACTION. Robin to check that the above
April date does not fall during Easter. He will pass on the scheduled dates to
the City of Maribyrnong for catering purposes.

15.2

* Ian
said that CICCC and the HSE sub committee need another community
representative.

ACTION. Deborah volunteered to join
the HSE. This was adopted by the CICCC.

ACTION. The matter of a new community
representative for the CICCC will be discussed at the next meeting along with
the state of plans for the proposed merging of the Marstel and CICCC
committees.

 

CLOSE.

Time 9.50pm

 

 

NEXT MEETINGS

Thursday 13 June 2002

Thursday 11 July 2002

 

CICCC ATTACHMENTS TO
DRAFT MINUTES

 

9 May 2002

 

Attachment 1
Terminals Draft Environmental Plan Framework

 

 

Items posted to those without e-mail
facilities include

HAZMAT conference Brochure 12/4/02

Web site details for the US Coast
Guard Regulations

Burns Phillip re article19/04/02

Stock exchange announcement18/04/02