Adopted Minutes

Thursday 17 May 2007

 

 

PRESENT

 

Robin Saunders:

CICCC / Chairperson

Tim Faragher:

Env. Protection Authority

Bro Sheffield-Brotherton
Community Rep./Committee

George Horman

Managing Director, Terminals Pty Ltd

Ian Thomas:

Community Rep./Committee

Carlo Fasolino

State Manager Victoria, Terminals Pty Ltd

Deborah Macfarlane:

Community Rep./Committee

Peter LaRose,
Operations Manager Victoria, Terminals Pty Ltd

Michael Isaachsen:

Community Rep./Committee

Paul Hayward,
Engineering Manager Victoria, Terminals Pty Ltd

Moya Richardson

Minute Taker

 

 

 

ITEM 1

Welcome by the Chair, Apologies & Confirmation of the Draft Agenda.

Robin

Welcomed all in attendance to meeting. Apologies from Carlo Fasolino, Theo Pykoulas and Mark Dalrymple (who will be represented by Commander Dave Davies in the future).

ITEM 2

Confirmation of Draft Minutes Meeting 22nd February 2007, and Review Action Item List.

Robin

Draft minutes of the 22nd February 2007 confirmed

Action Items

 

Action Item

02/06-3

Updated as 05/07-1

Action Item 02/06-4

Done.

Action Item

02/06-6

Done.

Robin

Highlighted two essential paragraphs in the letter from Theo to Mayor Bruce Espen, which referred to the national issue of community warning and the implementation of a security system.

ACTION

Robin to email a copy of the letter to committee members.

Robin

Asked what use is there in writing to the Federal Government, on a primarily State issue.

Deborah

Suggested that there is relative ease in contacting Federal Ministers.

Robin

Stated that cost and privacy issues are relevant to implementing the telephone warning system. He asked members about what the committee can do in terms of pushing this issue.

George

Stated that the committee essentially needs to lobby local MPs.

Deborah

Suggested that contacting Colleen Hartland might be a suitable possibility.

George

Stated that he expected little interest from local MPs.

ACTION

Robin to draft a letter to MPÕs and George to compile a list of recipients.

Action Item

04/06-4

Done.

Action Item 02/07-1

Done.

 

Action Item

02/07-2

No meeting with Marstel yet. Carlo to follow up.

Action Item

02/07-3

In Progress.

Peter

Stated that Carlo would provide an Operations and Occurrence Report for greenhouse gas emissions from Terminals every 6 months, which would allow time for sufficient data to be compiled and analysed.

ITEM 3

Reports from Terminals and Agencies.

 

Report from EPA.

Tim

Stated that the action report had been updated. He stated that after EPA trials, the use of the combustor to destroy liquid wastes from the site has been approved. He stated that this comes with the proviso that Terminals must only dispose of their own liquid wastes, and this excludes Class 3 indicators such as Benzene and MEC.

Peter

Stated that the trials conducted by EPA were successful, which has enabled Terminals to progress to the next stage.

Tim

Stated that the approval has been made in writing, as discussed and reviewed after each stage of the trial. Raised the issue of the incident report relating to a cotton seed oil spill that occurred a few weeks ago. He stated that the incident had been dealt with by Terminals to EPAÕs satisfaction. (To be further discussed in the Terminals report).

Deborah

Asked about contamination issues relating to Terminals.

Tim

Stated that audits have been carried out down at Whitehall where there has been historic ground water contamination.

ACTION

Tim to ask Scott Maloney to next meeting to give an overview of the corporate focus and objectives of EPA. Tim to let Robin know of arrangements.

Peter

Stated that the outcomes of the Maribyrnong audit have been published on the website.

 

Report from Terminals.

Peter

(Referred to the Coode Island Terminals Pty Ltd Monthly Operations & Occurrence Report for Feb/April). Stated that April had been a standard month in terms of operations.

Deborah

Asked what shipments are received from the US.

Peter

Stated multiparcels. He highlighted that there has been a standard number of road tankers for February, March and April, site visits and other interests. He mentioned the 2 new tanks on Coode Island, which will be discussed later by George.

Ian

Suggested that it might be useful to report at these forums chemical storage figures and other general information that the community might find important.

ACTION

Terminals to provide report on chemical storage figures every 6 months (March and September).

George

Stated that the two new tanks contain combustible liquid potassium hydroxide. He stated that the site is segregated between hazardous and non-hazardous materials, (which will be evident on the aerial photo when provided later in the meeting).

Peter

Referring under the Safety and Environmental heading of the Monthly Report, stated that the discovery of asbestos gasket within the site was properly reported on and addressed, workers and contractors were informed, and the remains were disposed of. He referred an incident involving a power outage, which lasted for 1 hour during April. He stated that the generators and back up systems responded efficiently. He then referred to the operating security system on the site. A further improvement has been made to the Terminals electronic control system. Now key staff will be able to manage the facility remotely from their lap-top computers. Should an emergency or fault arise at night, a telephone alarm will be sent to the key staff, who will then be able to take action such as remotely closing valves to isolate a fault.

 

Deborah

Asked if this meant that no one is required to be at Coode Island when the system technology is activated.

Peter

Agreed by saying that it relies upon a highly effective automated monitoring system, which allows Terminals personnel to be contacted at home in the event of a security threat. He stated that every 3 hours the site is attended by a mobile guard.

ACTION

Paul to bring in laptop to demonstrate the system on site at next meeting.

George

(Referred to aerial map of Coode Island site) Explained that the incident involving the spillage of Cotton seed occurred when a ship arrived carrying in excess of the 1700 tonnes of cotton seed oil that can be stored on the site. He stated that the customer had ordered 4000 tonnes, which had to be moved on the arrival of the ship. He stated that that night, 57 road tanker trips were made to Plant B to offload the oil. He stated that as the oil was discharged at such a slow rate, one operator decided to fill through the manifold, but miscalculated the effect of the increase in flow to the tank when road tanker filling ceased. He pointed out that using a manifold is not normal procedure in Terminals operations. He acknowledged that factors such as the lack of staff supervision on that night contributed towards the incident occurring and the fact that it was a cheap, non-hazardous material meant that it was not as attended to as well as it should have been. He stated that staff has been consulted since the incident.

Robin

Asked whether alarms are fitted on the tanks in the event of overfilling.

George

Stated that alarms are only on the tanks of hazardous materials. He stated that the cost of the incident was approximately $ 60,000, which included the clean up and disposal of the material and compensating the customer.

Ian

Referred to the Buncefield Petrol disaster and stated that chemical hazard indicators showed the same levels, right up until the moment of the disaster.

George

Expressed concern over relying on technology for knowing levels and expressed preference for allowing the human component to test levels, such as through the dipping method.

Peter

Stated that the tank containing phenyl is the only tank not dipped as it is too hazardous for workers to come into contact with. He stated that a very accurate radar system is used instead.

George

Terminals have amended their operating procedures so that manifolds are no longer used in such cases, dipping frequencies have been shortened, and high level alarms will be fitted to similar non-hazardous tanks. The lessons learned from the spill have been applied at Terminals facilities throughout Australia.

 

Ian

Complimented Terminals on the full report of this incident and the CompanyÕs openness

George

With reference to the aerial photo, he stated that the tank for combustible liquid on Plant B is not installed yet and that areas containing non-hazardous and flammable chemicals are to be separated.

Deborah

Expressed concern that the site doesnÕt appear to be all that accessible.

George

Stated that greater access is to be made in the top area near the entrance to the site.

ITEM 4

Briefing on National Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme by Bro Sheffield-Brotherton

Bro

Began his presentation by saying that the responsibility for chemical regulation rests with the State and Territory jurisdictions and is managed by a range of agencies. He stated that up to 1990, there was virtually no Commonwealth involvement in chemical regulation. He stated that a national scheme was later adopted where industrial bodies gave commonwealth the role to assess industrial chemicals. NICNAS (National Industrial Chemical Notification and Assessment Scheme) has a primary role in determining which chemicals may or may not be used in Australian industries.

 

He stated that after 1991, the Commonwealth placed on companies the obligation to notify chemicals, and for them to be assessed and published. He stated that the problem is that the Commonwealth has no power to act on the matter as each sate has different jurisdiction and approaches to chemicals. He stated that there are up to 38,000 chemicals identified within Australia and only 120 to 150 of these have been assessed, which leave significant data gaps. He stated that historically, there has been little Commonwealth interest in NICNAS as it is fully self-funded under original act (which as since been amended) which underlines a very formal arrangement between industry and Government groups.

 

He stated that 3 years ago, the community committee group was formed and set up two major pieces of work, one of which was to engage the community in a charter to cover all of NICNASÕs public processes. He stated that Commonwealth power over the area would allow for the streamlining of procedures and NICNASÕs capacity to ban chemicals has been debated. He stated that some environmental agencies recognised that the States/Territories could concede some power to the Commonwealth. He suggested that this can be read in more detail on the NICNAS website.

 

He highlighted the problem of fair trade between State and Territories and referred to productivity and COAG reviews, and now a new advisory committee that is examining developments in nano-technology. He stated chemicals have to-date been assessed based upon their chemical properties and not on their physical properties. He stated that NICNAS is aware of the implications of nano-molecules within these chemicals and are committed to run strong consultative processes which will deal with broader public policy issues. He stated that the Commonwealth Government has announced funding for nano-technology before the election.

Geoff

Added that each chemical assessment result in an incredibly detailed, thorough and lengthy document. He commended NICNAS for its regular liason with the committees and for the presentation.

Deborah

Asked if any new chemicals had been discovered.

Bro

Stated that there had been 150 or less over the last decade.

Robin

Thanked Bro for the interesting and informative presentation.

ITEM 5

Newsletter and Open Day—report and review

George

(Referred to draft copies circulating committee. Final edition to be released in September).Stated that comments could be directed to Carlo.

Robin

Expressed some difficulty in reading the paragraph in the newsletter that outlines the objectives of the CICCC.

George

Stated that this shouldnÕt be a problem when printed in colour.

Geoff

Stated that more visuals are to be included.

Deborah

Made some grammatical corrections. She asked Robin if a letter had been drafted to Quentin from the committee.

Tim

Stated that Quentin is presently working on other projects he will be returning in the near future.

Robin

Stated that he will write a letter of appreciation to Quentin on behalf of the Committee.

ITEM 6

Improvement Action Report

(Referring to handout Report (2nd EIP) Updated May 2007)

Robin

Raised some questions over the level of detail given in the report, such as noticing that the 2005 report was mentioned, but not the 2006 report.

George

Stated in some cases Terminals were awaiting responses and that itÕs a matter that they will look into.

ACTION

Robin to discuss with Carlo the details of the report ( in consultation with Tim from EPA)

ITEM 7

Geoff Millard Safety Case Presentation

 

(Referred to handout Second Round Safety Case)

Robin

Expressed desirability for there to be greater consistency in terms used in classifying chemicals under different Acts and asked if there is any way that the committee can be better informed about how they relate to each other?

ACTION

Geoff to put out a sheet of different systems and how Terminals uses the different systems. Carlo to make a table of the chemicals used and how they are to be classified, with a short definition of what they are. Both to be made available to committee members.

George

Stated that he expects there to be fewer problems this year as there is less hazardous material to be dealt with. He stated that process involved in obtaining the licence, which was renewed this year, is not unlike HAZOP as it requires a thorough safety case structure. He stated that the figures for major incident have come down noticeably and that there is a significant reduction in the level in danger at Terminals. In referring to a map of the Coode Island site and the wider docklands area, he pointed to the red hazard contour and the consequence contour. He stated that Terminals was not considered to be in the top 20 most dangerous sites in the area.

Robin

Commented on the lack of a clear legend on the map.

Ian

Stated that the best way for the community to form a view on the map is if comparisons can be made. He suggested that the map includes contours that cover existing risks as well as potential risks.

Geoff

Stated that measuring the range of risks is a very expensive exercise.

Bro

Agreed by saying that a map that includes these features, as well as contour lines that show the worst case scenario, provide a valuable visual for the community.

Robin

Asked what does WorkSafe require, in terms of visual representation of risks etc.

Geoff

Stated that they do not require it.

Ian

Highlighted the importance for risks to be measured for the community.

ACTION

Geoff to produce consequence contours for the facility as it was before the consolidation on the West side, for comparison purposes.

Geoff

Acknowledged and thanked the participation of Terminals representatives in a variety of workshops held recently.

Robin

Thanked Geoff for the presentation and members for their attendance.

Meeting declared closed at 9:25pm.

 

 

 

NEXT SCHEDULE MEETINGS: 19th July, 2007

Meeting dates for 2007 –20th September, 22nd November, 2007.