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

 

  Get this as a Microsoft Word document