COODE ISLAND COMMUNITY

CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

 

Adopted Minutes
Meeting on Thursday 14th October 2004

 

 

PRESENT

 

Robin Saunders:

CICCC / Chairperson

Carlo Fasolino:

State Manager, Terminals Pty Ltd

Ian Thomas:

Community Rep. / CICCC Committee

Quentin Cooke:

Env. Protection Authority / Ex Off Comm

Deborah Macfarlane:

Community Rep./Committee

Bronwyn Brookman Smith:

MH Div / WorkSafe/Ex Off Com

Faye Simpson

Community Member

Margaret Donnan

Pacia

Michael Isaachsen:

Community Rep./Committee

Jody West

Minute Taker

Chris Watt

Melbourne Fire Brigade

Theo Pykoulus
City of Maribyrnong

 

Richard Marks
EPA

 

 

ITEM 1.      WELCOME BY THE CHAIR

 

Robin         Welcomed everyone

 

ITEM 2.       APOLOGIES

 

Colleen Hartland, George Horman, Peter LaRose, Peter Brotherton

                   

ITEM 3.       CONFIRMATION OF DRAFT AGENDA

 

                    Adopted

 

ITEM 4.       REPORTS FROM AGENCIES & TERMINALS

 

                    WORKSAFE

                    Presented by: Bronwyn Brookman-Smith          

                   

Bronwyn:   Current activities with Terminals Pty Ltd included the Annual Inspection on 6 & 7 September.

                        Terminals performed very well at the audit. 10 Controls & 3 Safety Management System Elements were tested from the Safety Case. Controls are what prevents hazards from occurring eg: fire systems, maintenance systems etc and how often they are tested and trained.

 

                    Safety Management System Elements are the Maintenance & Inspection Programs eg: Craning, Fire Pumps etc. Worksafe look at the whole regimen to make sure that Terminals are planning & reviewing the results.

 

Robin:        When saying “that Terminals did well” what do you mean?

 

Bronwyn:   That they were mainly fully functional aside from some of the record keeping eg: In the safety case procedure the pipes had to be checked 6 monthly, but it was being done annually. Things like that.

 

                    There are 2 types of grades:

                        “No”: meaning not doing at all or dosen’t exist in procedures

                        “In part”: meaning they’re doing something put not completely like doing something annually but the Safety Case Manual says it should be 6 monthly.

 

                    One problem that was highlighted was that for the shipping discharge plan the two people who had wrote the program, knew the operation, but there was no training for other staff, so if the 2 people are away or new people in the future were required to do it, that they would be able to ensure the functionality continued. Terminals have come back to Worksafe with what they will do to address this issue.

 

                    Worksafe also visited the site on 13 September regarding extending the operation of the East Side past 2004

 

                    To extend the East Side past end of 2004 there needs to be an appropriate maintenance plan to ensure integrity of tanks and this will be supplied by Terminals to Worksafe.

 

                    Health & Safety Week 24-29 October 2004 (see Handouts).

                    2 events by Major Hazards

                        26.10.04 “Community Preparedness” at the Altona Civic Centre

                        27.10.04 “Monitoring Safety Cases” at the Altona Civic Centre

 

Theo:          Worthwhile initiate by Worksafe and is a positive step in recognizing the achievement of the Major Hazard Facilities.

 

Robin:        Does that reflect that the MHFs are doing well?

 

Theo:          Yes. I look forward to what innovative idea’s come out of this.

 

Bronwyn:   A summary of proceedings will be published on the website.

 

Robin:        Acknowledged & thanked Bronwyn for her contribution to the CICCC on behalf of Worksafe and advised that Bronwyn had resigned from her position with Worksafe and is heading off to a new role within the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority (NOPSA).

 

ACTION:     Worksafe to advise on proceedings from the two MHF events at the next meeting.

 

                    TERMINALS PTY LTD

                    Presented by: Carlo Fasolino

 

Carlo:         Successful in Butadiene application at Geelong. Hopefully up and running by end of next year. The Planning Permit went into the City of Greater Geelong.

 

ACTION:    Carlo to advise details of the Planning Permit process at the next meeting, particularly if the planning permit application will be advertised to allow third party appeals.

 

Carlo:        

                    The Marstel facility at Coode Island is not complete. Terminals is running down stock levels now. Tanks need to be gas free by 01.05 as we need 12 months to remediate and get Environmental sign off by the end of Jan 2005.

Robin:        What is the “Gap” prospect?

 

Carlo:         Not certain when Marstel will be operational. There are talks to amend the lease so we don’t need environment sign-off.

 

Ian:             Can the committee have an account of the Marstel meeting?

 

Quentin:     Completion of project is indeterminate, and Marstel are nominating a date of November 17 to be finished construction (Practical Completion), then commissioning. Issues with painting of tanks, and some other things now expect Commissioning by 23.11.04.

 

Ian:             Joan advised 23.11.04 might not be met, and Commissioning might go into the Xmas break.

 

Quentin:     Not confident that the completion date will be completed.

 

Bronwyn:   There are processes for Safety Case under review, with a decision to be made next week and the Licence Panel (internal) to consider Safety Case and Licence. The Safety Case has been going for a few months now and the panel sits and determines if the Licence is to be granted. If it is granted then that takes over from Registration. If the decision is not to grant a licence then the company has the right to appeal. The company is advised of this before the registration runs out.

 

Ian:             Is there any indication that they won’t?

 

Bronwyn:   It can’t be granted if you don’t control the site which Marstel doesn’t.

 

Carlo:         Process of East Side Closure. There is a gap now. Plan to amend lease so environmental sign-off is after P&O take the site. This will allow remediation to go further back. .

 

                    12 Months has been allowed to do remediation and get sign-off from external auditor.

 

Bronwyn:   There is a condition in the lease for the sign-off.

 

Ian:             I suggest everything gets put in writing.

 

Carlo:         Acrylonitrile tank cleared and is now storing Mineral Turpentine.

 

                    We have just had the Kaneb key managers meeting.

                   

                    DOW came out for a 2 day site audit.

 

                    Commissioned 8 tanks in Plant B & we have started moving tanks from East Side to Plant C West Side..

 

Bronwyn:   What will they hold?

 

Carlo:         A range of solvents for our Customers.

 

Faye:          How do you check there are no leaks in the tanks?

 

Carlo:         When the tank goes down on the new base, repairs are made, a full check as per10 year inspection is done and the underside is painted. The tank is dropped and then filled full of water and held for 24 hours. Any longer than that and tanks will rust. The tanks hold 860,000 litres of water.

 

Robin:        When the tanks were lifted were there any leaks?

 

Carlo:         Have found no evidence on the 2 tanks we have moved so far

 

Chris:         Can you re-use the water.

 

Carlo:         No, we have tried but is hard to pump water from tank to tank.

 

                    EPA

                    Presented by: Quentin Cooke

 

Quentin:     There are been many interesting things happening with Terminals, which is why I took the opportunity to go to the site and update the improvement action report. Still significant work going on.

 

                    Talk of proposal for relocating Phenol storage tank and considering whether it needs a works approval.

 

                    Proposal for Tank 314 to move to another position, asked opinion and didn’t have an issue with this relocation. It will make further room on West side and the MFB will comment on this.

 

Deborah:   Why are you moving the tank?

 

Carlo:         Need to upgrade the base and re-aligning will make room for other tanks in the future.

 

Deborah:   With Marstel would it mean that ultimately there would be more chemicals stored on the site?

 

Carlo:         No, there will be less because we have reduced our site and Marstel only have 11 tanks.

 

Deborah:   Is what P&O are storing hazardous?

 

Bronwyn:   They handle dangerous goods but they are only in the containers. Ethyl acrylate is now being imported in 20 tonne Isotainers. P&O Ports is not a MHF site, but ias covered by the Dangerous Goods Act.

 

Deborah:   Is that taken into consideration in the review?

 

Bronwyn:   They have their own rules and international rules that they must abide by. Covered by the IMDG when goods leave the port, they go to a warehouse or container park. In the 1994 Risk Assessments, P&O had the same amount of Dangerous Goods as Terminals.

 

Robin:        I always thought that P&O had a small amount they were holding.

 

Bronwyn:   It is considered transient.

 

Deb:           What happens if there is an accident – do they pose a risk to Terminals?

 

Bronwyn:   The potential is limited because the containers come in and go out. There are 3 types of storage: Drums, Isotainers & Tanks.

 

Robin:        How much are brought in Isotainers?

 

Carlo:         12,000 tonnes per year appox.

 

Bronwyn:   They come through other docks such as Patricks at Webb dock & East Swanston and P&O at West Swanston.

 

Ian:             Would like more explanations on Phenol. Terminals held a special meeting and my recollection was that it had fallen over.

 

Carlo:         Orica has now approached us to store on the East Side.

 

Robin:        Terminals sent a letter to EPA seeking seeking an exemption from requiring a works approval (from Frank Fleer). Copies of the letter were sent to CICCC members by email.

 

Ian:             What have the EPA decided with regard to a Works Approval.

 

Quentin:     A decision has not been made by the EPA, it is likely that it will not be required.

 

Ian:             I would like to know positively.

 

                    MELBOURNE FIRE BRIGADE

                    Presented by Chris Watts

 

Chris:         From an operational perspective there have been no significant changes. Department is doing business with Marstel in regard to advice they seek.

 

                    Items of interest are the discussions with Port of Melbourne (Joe Buffone, the Emergency Management Coordinator). It is significant in that the Emergency Plan was on the CEO’s desk for signing. EPA, WorkSafe and MFB raised points to be covered, notes were made and the document has been returned for a further consultation phase.

 

                    There has been discussion on the road changes, staging area’s and alternative access. Considerations have been taken on board by Port of Melbourne. Discussions held with Worksafe & Terminals and neighboring tenants and it was accepted that the MFB will access and occupy any space they require with the cooperation of the tenants.

 

                    Port of Melbourne have opened up their emergency plan and are in consultation with MFB and a number of other authorities.

 

Theo:          Attended a meeting with other councils and Port of Melbourne to get resources in quickly with council involvement and out into the community.

 

Michael:     How will it be communicated?

 

Theo:          2/3rds of the communications system is set up to alert the community and getting all the major players together.

 

Bronwyn:   The Port of Melbourne have a Community Forum and that is how they will do it.

 

Chris:         Comments going back to the Port of Melbourne, the Port previously existed as an authority and had power within their own right. They’re now sharing resources.

 

                    In discussion about resource sharing the MFB offered to do a foam survey and will report to CICCC the findings.

ACTION      Chris to report on the foam survey when it is completed.

 

Ian:             Is more space between tanks better?

 

Carlo:         No, it is the access to the tanks not the space between the tanks which is the issue.

 

Bronwyn:   Tank layout on an existing site there is a requirement for more controls for mitigation, rather than space as opposed to a new site.

 

Robin:        Moving tank 314 between 2 other tanks will clean up the site and give room for future expansion. In due course you will write to the MFB for their advice.

 

Carlo:         Yes and effect on adjacent tanks will be part of the process.

 

Chris:         The MFB gives advice and the message back to the community would be that the design consultation meets requirements.

 

Robin:        CICCC would like the MFB to let us know.

 

Chris:         It is a business arrangement between Terminals MFB and there is business confidentiality.

 

Bronwyn:   EPA & Worksafe make the Licence a public issue. The MFB comes under the Dangerous Goods Legislation.

 

Michael:     Is the client obligated to seek advice from the MFB.

 

Chris:         Are you inferring that Terminals are not telling the committee the truth?

 

Robin:        If it is tabled and Chris is at the meeting we would like confirmation from the MFB. The CICCC has a very imperfect knowledge and not knowing what is required. We approach an authority to find out the responsibilities of the agency. We want you to tell us the significant things happening at Termnals. Terminals knows what agencies will be saying and what happens.

 

Chris:         MFB is not a regulator and only has a business relationship with the VWA.

 

Robin:        So Terminals will inform the CICCC of any advice from the MFB and the CICCC will give the MFB the opportunity to advise.

 

Chris:         The two NOT NEGOTIABLES are: (1) Firefighter Safety and (2) Breach of Public Safety. Sometimes this costs business more money but we like to all go home and sleep without anxiety.

 

Ian:             The status is the seeking of that advice is no longer a legal obligation.

 

Robin:        What happens if Terminals do not take MFB’s advice.

 

Chris:         It is on record as having received the advice and it is provided to the regulator even though isn’t mandatory.

 

Bronwyn:   MFB make a recommendation and the Company can sometimes give an alternate. Worksafe goes back to MFB to see if they achieve the same outcome.

 

Robin:        Have you ever had an unsatisfactory recommendation?

 

Bronwyn:   MFB advice is sought under the Dangerous Goods legislation and is assessed under that legislation.

 

Robin:        Does the Freedom of Information apply to the MFB?

 

Chris:         It more than like would, I don’t know conclusively.

 

Ian:             Don’t believe that this sort of thing would really happen. Sites are now well controlled, maybe it will show weaknesses of the smaller organisations.

 

Robin:        Does it happen that you give advice and the smaller companies don’t take it?

 

Chris:         Yes. The MFB do not have the capacity to train our staff to be a site inspector. The building code is a life safety code. It is fraught with dangers, eg: recent school fires, where they have lost money and treasures, however the building code was about life safety, maybe in the future the VWA will come back to life and property.

 

                    MARIBYRNONG CITY COUNCIL

                    Presented by: Theo Pykoulos

 

Theo:          Emergency Communications Victoria approached the City of Maribyrnong to assist in improving response times for getting to incidents.. We are looking at standard forms of coding so that there is a data base (e.g: placarding, reading reference and guide etc) of access points and other information.

 

                    Places like Vic Uni, Highpoint have a number of entry points, and the location of the best access point can be confusing if specific information about an emergency is not given.

 

                    Last month in relation to the development at 99 Moreland, Council arranged for late objections to be heard by VCAT. Mediation set down for 29.10.2004, as a preliminary to the Hearing.

 

ITEM 5.       REVIEW OF IMPROVEMENT ACTION REPORT

 

Refer handout.

 

Carlo:         Suggest due to timing that we go through the incomplete items and then any questions.

 

Robin:        Draw the committee’s attention to the heading to include Terminals content updated and the bottom of Page 7. If you recall it now gives it a form of identification. The committee was given a moment to review and comment.

 

Chris:         Remove MFB as a regulator.

 

Robin:        Is the committee happy with this wording?

 

Chris:         Will the next report delete completed actions.

 

Robin:        No, all actions will remain for an overall picture.

 

Robin:        Committee decided that MFB not required.

 

ACTION:     Carlo to amend:

                    Page 3 and make Status & Regulatory Sign-off clearer & separate.

                    Page 4 Update Sediment & Litter Traps

                    Page 5 ensure that there are no abbreviations eg: TOC, TDI & EMP

                    Page 6 Amend status of Combustion Heat Recovery Feasibility Study to include “Report received by EPA”.

 

ACTION:     Quentin to advise on the Report Received for Combustion Heat Recovery Feasibility Study.

 

ACTION:     Robin to include report in the Press Release.

 

ITEM 6.       TARGETS/OBJECTIVES FOR THE 2ND EIP 2005-2007

 

Carlo:         Due to time, handout given and to be discussed further at next meeting.

 

ACTION:     Carlo to send a copy of Summary Targets to Robin via email

ACTION:     Carlo to give background of form and advise at next meeting.

 

ITEM 7.       ACTION ITEMS

 

REPORT ON INVESTIGATIONS INTO COMBUSTOR & COMPRESSED AIR ALARMS (TERMINALS)

Carlo:         Installed pressure transmitters, connected to computer control system, if air pressure drops it sets off an alarm.

 

REDUCED RISK CONTOURS FOLLOWING CESSATION OF ACRYLONITRILE (TERMINALS)

 

 

Robin:        Will there be a subsequent QRA done

 

Carlo:         Maybe reconsider after the remediation but nothing in the pipeline.

 

Ian:             Propylene Oxide risk assessement was done and not a risk. Suggest that if this is qualified then it is not required.

 

Robin:        Nearside risk didn’t decrease because Acryonitrile was still there.

 

Ian:             No distant effect because Propylene Oxde is so dangerous it was capable of a offsite event.

 

Robin:        What is left at the Terminals site to have a major risk profile?

 

Carlo:         Nothing

 

Robin:        Terminals risk is significantly less because danger is removed. Community should know this.

 

Carlo:         Maybe toward next year, but not high on the agenda, as we have other priorities.

 

Ian:             Talking Marstel as brown field site, its tanks are closer to Footscray, than Terminals would be. Suggest a QRA would only be of use to public if it was Terminals & Marstel combined with the two companies doing it together.

 

Carlo:         No – confidentiality issues to be sorted out.

 

Michael:     If it is just done by Terminals then it is public knowledge anyway.

 

Bronwyn:   No-one can work out how to put it together without the background.

 

Faye:          Request Worksafe to release an updated risk profile for the island.

 

Bronwyn:   There is a Port Buffer study being done by the Port of Melbourne.

 

Deborah:   What about an independent report?

 

Bronwyn:   Port of Melbourne are now taking more responsibility and they are doing the Buffer study.

 

Deborah:   It is a Worksafe matter to me.

 

Carlo:         The previous ones were done under other reasons.

 

Ian:             This committee requests that Terminals communicate with Marstel. An answer of No is not of any use and increase the antagonism of our committee.

 

Faye:          Can Workcover do it?

 

Ian:             It is not reasonable for us to request Worksafe, it is reasonable for us as a committee that Worksafe return that information under the MHF guidelines.

 

Robin:        Rather than make a decision, Terminals will have a reflection of this and maybe move towards what Ian is supporting.

 

Theo:          Council Planners are not involved. Council has no authority to do it.

 

Bronwyn:   Technically with changes at Terminals, there is nothing in Plant B that can impact with Marstel site. It will not be warranted unless the 2 sites have an impact on each other.

 

Carlo:         If we do a QRA and we have anything that will affect Marstel we will consult with Marstel.

 

Bronwyn:   The Buffer study is underway. Stage 1 is completed.

 

Ian:             Has the study been submitted to CICCC

 

Robin:        No, there is not good communication from the Port of Melbourne.

 

Ian:             Can we ask for a presentation and seek a further Q&A. Any study done by the Port of Melbourne would be an absolute farce. What they have done is allow dangerous things to be permitted.

 

 

ITEM 8.       REVIEW OF MEETING FREQUENCY

 

Deborah:   I think that 3 months is too long. If someone misses a meeting then it is too long between.

 

Carlo:         Can’t comment, need to review costs.

 

Robin:        Terminals worked with committee to match budget, there is some flexibility in it.

 

Ian:             Kaneb have enormous reserves and to think that a few extra thousand dollars will make an impact is daft. We need to ask Kaneb to increase the budget.

 

Carlo:         Well if the committee wants to have more meetings within the budget requirements that is fine by Terminals.

 

Deborah:   $2000 is not worth quibbling over considering the time between meetings is too long.

 

Robin:        Important that Terminals be given the opportunity to consider that with 5 meetings the committee is dissatisfied and does not think that is good enough.

 

Deborah:   It’s funny how when Kaneb want something done the money is there and then when it suits Kaneb it’s not.

 

Robin:        We have in fact had 7 meetings this year. There has been a squeeze on the finances and the committee would like it reconsidered.

 

ACTION:     Terminal to review and report back at next meeting

 

 

ITEM 9.       REPORT FROM COUNCIL – TRUCK IMPACTS OF LOCAL STREETS

 

Theo:          It’s unfortunate that our Manager is not aware of all the details and we would refer the CICCC to the Department of Infrastructure because of internal issues being raised. The Council is looking at the issue from a planning perspective.

 

Robin:        The Committee was advised by the City of Maribyrnong that they would keep the Committee advised and now a black hole has occurred. We would like to know about the impact of truck movements.

 

Theo:          There is a committee that has been set up called The Docks, Rail & Markets Precinct Working Group, who have set down a tentative meeting and issues are being brought to the table. I can find out from John Lippino, and pass on the details. Council is not a main player in this.

 

Robin:        We would like a report from the City of Maribyrnong on what studies are being conducted.

 

Theo:          I will take notice and get back to the CICCC with factual information and perhaps send an email prior to the next meeting.

 

Quentin:     There was a report from the Yarraville Transport Group chaired by Bruce Mildenhall and the concern is trucking through the Yarraville area. The Group is trying to reduce that traffic flow through the area. You can refer to the DOCKS website.

 

ITEM 10.    CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED

 

Robin:        Tim Holding MP, Minister for Manufacturing and Export (with responsibility for Coode Island) responded to the Committee’s letter concerning butadiene storage at Coode Island. The Minister’s letter set out the approval processes should the butadiene proposal be pursued at Coode Island.

                    Following the CICCC further advice on the Maxwell Review, Bob Stensholt MP sent a standard letter of acknowledgement to the CICCC.

 

ITEM 11.    DRAFT MINUTES

 

                    Adopted with one minor editing change.

 

ITEM 12.    NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING

 

                    9th December 2004

 

                    PROPOSED 2005 DATES:

 

                    24th February 2005 / 12th May 2005 / 28th July 2005 /13th October 2005 /

                    8th December 2005

 

ACTION:     Terminals to review the number of meetings and report back at the next meeting

 

MEETING CLOSED: 9.50pm