COODE ISLAND COMMUNITY
Thursday, 4th August, 2005
CICCC / Chairperson
Env. Protection Authority / Ex Off Comm
Manager Regulatory Affairs, PACIA
City of Maribyrnong
MFB Manager Community Safety Central Zone
State Manager, Terminals Pty Ltd
MCG Committee Member
Operations Manager, Terminals Pty Ltd
MCG Committee Member
Managing Director, Terminals Pty Ltd
ITEM 1. WELCOME BY THE CHAIR
Robin Extended a special welcome to Marstell Community Group representatives Andrew Clifton and Joan Thomas.
Bro Sheffield-Brotherton, Colleen Hartland
CONFIRMATION OF DRAFT AGENDA
ITEM 2. OPPORTUNITY FOR MCG COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT STANDARDS AND REGULATORY TREATMENT OF THE TWO FACILITIES.
Robin: Carlo had brought to RobinÕs 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 MarstelÕs 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.
- Geoff to find out more information regarding WorkSafeÕs position on carrier
routes, and advise the CICCC of action WorkSafe can take to protect the
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.
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
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
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