1 Before the development commences, amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the Geelong Bitumen Tank Layout and Loading Point Drawing No. G-AP-DO16_J latest issue dated 28/11/06 Version J and Geelong Bitumen Wharfline Drawing No. G-AP-0017_A dated 27/1/06 Issue A, but modified to show relocation of the southern boundary to north of the Shell outfall creek.

2 Prior to the commencement of the use, a works approval shall be obtained from the Environment Protection Authority pursuant to the Environment Protection Act 1970 for the bitumen storage facility proposal.

3 The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.

4 Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

5 The site including all buildings, works and landscaping shall be maintained in a neat, tidy and safe condition in accordance with the endorsed plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

6 The site shall be drained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and no stormwater, sullage, sewerage or polluted runoff shall drain or be discharged to any adjoining properties.

7 No polluted stormwater runoff shall be permitted to drain or be discharged to Corio Bay or contaminate the local groundwater.

8 The use and development must comply with the requirements of the Dangerous Goods Act, the Dangerous Goods (Storage and Handling) Regulations 2000 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Major Hazard Facility) Regulations 2000.

9 This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a

The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

b

The development is not completed within two years of the date of commencement.

The responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

The decision of the Environment Protection Authority is varied. The EPA is directed to amend Works Approval No. WA60383 issued 17 October 2006 as follows:

1 Item no. 4 Plan of Premises must be substituted with two plans numbered Geelong Bitumen Tank Layout and Loading Point Drawing No.

G-AP-DO16_J latest issue dated 28/11/06 Version J and Geelong Bitumen Wharfline Drawing No. G-AP-0017_A dated 27/1/06 Issue A, which plans must first be modified by relocating the southern boundary north of the Shell outfall creek.

2 Condition 1.1 must be amended by inserting the following after '27 June':

and accompanying Report No. T115/1 by Air Water Noise dated August 2006

2.5

The occupier must install bitumen tanks in a bunded area so that:

a) the bund complies with the EPA Bunding Guidelines AS 1940-2004: The Storage and Handling of Flammable and Combustible Liquids, unless otherwise agreed in writing by EPA; and

b) water from the bund discharges via a pit and pump out system.

For Applicant (P498/2006) and Respondent (P2800/2006)

Mr Chris Wren, senior counsel, with Mr Paul Chiappi, instructed by Deacons Lawyers for Terminals Pty Ltd. Mr Wren called the following expert witnesses to give evidence:

•

Mr Jamie Govenlock, town planning consultant;

•

Mr Frank Fleer, engineering consultant;

•

Mr Steven Cooper, risk engineering consultant.

Mr Terry Demeo, town planning officer, Greater Geelong City Council.

Mr Gerald Purcell of counsel, instructed by Ms Lucy King, EPA Solicitor. Mr Purcell called the following expert witnesses to give evidence:

•

Mr Quentin Cooke, EPA

•

Mr Geoffrey Cooke, Worksafe

•

Ms Julie Eichner, DHS.

Ms Sue McLean appeared for Geelong Community for Good Life Inc, Mr John Wilson and Mr Colin John Edwards. As Ms McLean is a lay person, the Tribunal gave her leave pursuant to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, section 62, to represent Messrs Wilson and Edwards.

Mr Peter Linaker for Geelong Environment Council Inc. As Mr Linaker is a lay person, the Tribunal gave him leave pursuant to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, section 62, to appear as a lay representative.

1 This is an application made by the permit applicant with respect to the responsible authority's failure to determine an application for a planning permit for the construction of four bitumen storage tanks with associated pipe work, gas fired oil heater and a tanker fill stand on land at 40 Wharf Road, Corio.

2 This is an application made by Mr Peter Linaker with respect to a decision by the Environment Protection Authority to issue a works approval for the installation of a butadiene receiving and storage facility for bitumen at

40 Wharf Road, Corio. The proposal although differently described is the same in both cases.

3 This is the third application before this Tribunal for a chemical storage facility on the Terminals site at 40 Wharf Road, Corio. The Tribunal in dealing with the first planning application for a butadiene storage tank on this site - P3601/2004 Terminals Pty Ltd v City of Greater Geelong & Others (22 September 2005) made a number of conclusions with respect to the provisions of the City of Greater Geelong Planning Scheme as it applied to the subject land. In the second planning application for a mono ethylene glycol storage tank on the land - P3092/2005 Terminals Co Limited v City of Greater Geelong & Others (28 March 2006) we adopted the conclusions in the previous hearing with respect to the provisions of the City of Greater Geelong Planning Scheme as it applied to the subject land.

4 In the present application it was clear to us from the submissions made on behalf of the City of Greater Geelong and from the planing evidence presented to us by Mr Jamie Govenlock on behalf of Terminals Co Limited that the only change that has occurred in the interim is that the draft strategic plan has changed its title from SLUP (Strategic Land Use Plan) to the somewhat more attractive acronym of PLUS (Port Land Use Strategy). The plan itself however is no closer to being adopted. It was our view in the previous planning appeals and is our view now that the adoption of the plan is unlikely to result in a major change in policy direction with respect to the Port.

5 Under the provisions of the planning scheme a permit is only required for development as the site has existing use rights as a chemical storage facility.

6 Subsequent to the lodging of the planning appeal with the Tribunal the responsible authority resolved that, had they been in a position to do so, they would have issued a notice of decision to grant a permit subject to conditions. The responsible authority in coming to this conclusion had regard to the previous decisions of the Tribunal and the state and local planning context. It was the council's conclusion that it was comfortable in leaving the environmental issues as such to be addressed as part of the works approval application.

7 Ms McLean in her submission was critical of the City of Greater Geelong's position with respect to the application which in her view was abrogation of their responsibility in the matter. She drew the Tribunal's attention to the City of Greater Geelong's Environment Management Strategy 2006-2011 - Geelong's Pathway to a Sustainable Future Local Agenda 21 which she informed the Tribunal advocated no additional chemical storage for the City of Greater Geelong.

8 The strategy is not a reference document in the planning scheme and we are of the view that the strong planning support for the location of storage facilities in the Port of Geelong outweighs anything contained within it. In our view no strong argument was made by the objectors on the planning merits of the proposal, nor was any evidence called in this regard.

9 We do however accept that we need to be satisfied that the proposal does not pose a health risk to residents in the area nor have any adverse amenity impacts on them. These matters will be dealt with later in this determination.

10 The works approval appeal by Mr Linaker was issued under section 33B of the Environment Protection Act. The Act states as follows:

(1)

If the Authority or a delegated agency -

a person whose interests are affected by the decision (other than the applicant or licence holder) may apply to the Tribunal, within 21 days after the decision is made, for review of the decision.

(2) ... ... ... an application for review under sub-section (1)(a) is to be based on either or both of the following grounds -

(a) that if the works are completed in accordance with the works approval, the use of the works will result in a discharge, emission or deposit of waste which will unreasonably and adversely affect the interests, whether wholly or partly of that person;

(b) that if the works are completed in accordance with the works approval, the use of the works will result in a discharge, emission or deposit of waste which -

(i) will be inconsistent with State environment protection policy established for the area in which the discharge, emission or deposit will occur; or

(ii) where there is no State environment protection policy established for the area, would cause pollution

11 As we noted in the earlier butadiene appeal this clause sets the hurdle very high requiring the objector to establish that the use of the works if constructed in accordance with the works approval will result in discharge emission or deposition of waste that will unreasonably and adversely affect the interest of that person or will be inconsistent with the State Environment Protection Policy. As Mr Linaker lives in Ocean Grove it seems to us that the case he needed to establish was that the proposal will be inconsistent with the State Environment Protection Policy.

12 Ms McLean on behalf of the Geelong Community for Good Life Inc ('GCGL') raised a number of deficiencies in the planning application documents including the failure of Terminals to notify GCGL of their application to VCAT regarding the failure of the responsible authority to determine the planning application within the required time and the late receipt of the witness statement of Mr Steven Cooper.

13 We find that although Ms McLean may not have been notified of the lodgement of the appeal by Terminals she was not disadvantaged in that she was aware of the application in the early part of 2006. With respect to the receipt of the report of Mr Cooper we are satisfied that the document forwarded to Ms McLean at her request was not Mr Cooper's witness statement which had been sent out in adequate time, but a copy of an earlier report written by him for the 20B Conference.

14 Among the deficiencies identified in the planning application documents were the location of the combustor, the hot oil heating unit and the necessary piping. It is noted here that the combustor was part of the butadiene application and is now intended to serve the dual purpose of combusting the vapour from the head space of the tanks during filling and from the occasional truck that does not have a vapour return facility.

15 The need for these additional details was acknowledged by the applicant and it was agreed that amended plans would be provided. The amended plans were received by the Tribunal on day 3 of the hearing. These plans dated 28/11/2006 comprise a Tank Layout and Loading Point plan Rev. J and a Geelong Bitumen Wharfline plan Rev. A. Mr Purcell on behalf of the EPA raised an issue with respect to the boundary of the site as shown on these plans which extends the site boundary to the south of the Shell outfall creek whereas the land unit that is the subject of the application terminates north of the creek. We were satisfied that this matter could be dealt with by a requirement for amended plans on the conditions attached to both the planning permit and the works approval.

16 Ms McLean was also critical of the delays in bringing the matter to appeal. We are satisfied that the delays in the progress of the matter were related to uncertainties as to whether a works approval from the EPA was required for the proposed storage tanks.

17 Mr Linaker raised as a preliminary matter perceived deficiencies in the works approval application, in particular with respect to the hot oil heating unit. It was his contention that insufficient details were provided with respect to how the system would operate, including the nature of the oil to be used and the piping details to enable him to make a proper assessment of the proposal. The applicant on the other hand contended that the oil heater was a standard piece of equipment and the specific details of its operation could be dealt with at a later stage. In any event during the course of the hearing we were provided with additional information with respect to the piping and the nature and means by which the oil would be used to maintain the temperature of the bitumen tanks. We were satisfied that the information provided was sufficient for our purposes.

18 We also accept that a number of the deficiencies in the plans were associated with uncertainty as to whether there was a need for a works approval for the proposed facility. There are a number of bitumen storage tanks in Victoria which do not have works approval and the sole reason why a works approval is needed in the present case is a consequence of the EPA's requirement that any vapours associated with the filling of the bitumen tanks go to combustion. This requirement was made on the part of the EPA as a consequence of a number of odour problems they have had with other bitumen storage facilities in the State.

19 Ms McLean raised, during the course of her submission, a concern that the butadiene facility was being used prior to the issuing of a licence by the EPA. Mr Purcell provided the Tribunal with a letter dated 21 September 2006 which was attached to a 30A approval for the use of the butadiene tank. Section 30A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 allows for the operation of a facility for testing and commissioning purposes. We accept that this is a legitimate and necessary procedure that necessarily must precede the issue of a licence. We also accept that although the termination of the approval date for the 30A submission has passed an application has been made and granted for an extension of time.

20 The subject site is located to the south of Wharf Road in Corio. The site at present houses the Terminals Australia bulk liquid storage facility which includes pressurised spheres containing vinyl chloride monomer and butadiene and non-pressurised storage tanks including the mono ethylene glycol storage approved by the Tribunal in March of this year.

21 The planning permit and works approval granted for the butadiene facility included a combustor. Its primary purpose is to burn off butadiene purged from the delivery lines during transfer of this material from ship to tank. Unloading is expected to occur on approximately three occasions in any one year. The combustor also serves a secondary function if there is a need to burn off butadiene at any time as a result of an inadvertent increase in pressure in the storage tank. It is this combustor that will be used to burn off the headspace vapour during the unloading of bitumen from the wharf.

22 The site has an area of some 7.78 hectares with a 200 metre frontage to Wharf Road. The land is abutted to the north, on the opposite side of Wharf Road, by the Shell Refinery. Further north again is the Geelong Grammar School. To the east of the site is Refinery Pier and Corio Bay, and to the west the Pivot Fertiliser Storage and Distribution Centre, Cheetham Salt and the railway line. Land to the south includes Incitec Fertilisers, OMYA, and the BHP Wire and Rod Mill. Land further to the south is currently vacant however there is a proposal for a bio-diesel refining plant on this land.

23 The proposal is for the installation of four bitumen storage tanks. These tanks are to be located in the area between the recently established butadiene storage sphere to the east and the vinyl chloride monomer sphere to the west. The four tanks proposed comprise two large tanks at a height of 17 metres and a diameter of 22.4 metres with a volume capacity of 6,500 cubic metres, and two smaller tanks with a height of 11.4 metres a diameter of 7.6 metres and a volume capacity of 500 cubic metres. The Tribunal was informed that the tanks would be situated within their own bund and would be serviced by way of a dedicated pipeline from Refinery Pier.

24 The proposal also includes a hot oil heater and a hot oil recirculating system for heating the bitumen in the pipework and the tanks.

25 Bitumen will be brought into the site by sea. There would be two shipments per annum of 10,000 tonnes each and that the duration of the pumping from ship to tank would occupy two days in each instance. The bitumen will be taken from the site to the end user in special tankers. We were informed that it would take sixty minutes to fill one tanker and there would be on average 15 truck movements from the site per week. Truck filling would be spread over a twenty-four hour period on 365 days in the year.

26 The proposal includes the use of vapour return lines between the truck filling facility and the smaller tanks and between the smaller and the larger tanks. We were informed that it is not possible to operate a vapour return facility from the large tanks to the tanker, the great majority of tankers not being equipped to accommodate such an activity. The vapour that is displaced from the larger tanks during the filling process therefore is to be directed to the existing combustor. This combustor operates on natural gas and has a minimum combustion chamber temperature of 982oC and a residence time of one second.

27 Evidence was put to us that two grades of bitumen would be imported via this facility from Singapore. The material is identified as Classes 170 and 320, the classification being under the Australian Standard 2341 and being related to the physical properties of the material including its viscosity. We were informed that both classes fell in the mid point of the viscosity range and were to be used for road paving purposes.

28 It was Mr Fleer's evidence that the proposal incorporated a number of best practice features including the use of vapour return and combustor together with the insulation of the storage and day tanks.

29 Bitumen is a complex black organic solid comprising high molecular weight carbons predominantly C25 and above as the bottom product of the distillation of crude oil. The material however contains trace amounts of lighter organics and also sulphur compounds including hydrogen sulphide. These are the compounds that are found in the vapour above the bitumen in the storage tanks.

30 Bitumen has a boiling point of around 250oC and a flash point of greater than 250oC. The flash point is the temperature above which a vapour will ignite in the presence of a naked flame. The material will be kept and transported at a temperature of around the 100oC, the heating of the material being carried out by way of two hot oil heaters, one to maintain the smaller tanks in a liquid state and the other to control the temperature at the bottom or exit end of the larger tanks.

31 The Tribunal was informed that the oil used in the oil heaters would be a non-reactive oil with a maximum temperature achievable of 216oC which is not high enough to be able to ignite bitumen.

32 It was the evidence of Mr Quentin Cooke and Mr Steven Cooper, witnesses for Terminals, that bitumen is a Class 9 Miscellaneous Dangerous Good as defined in the Dangerous Goods Act 1985, the reason for the classification being the risks due to the thermal energy of the material at the temperature at which it is stored and transported to any persons handling it. It should specifically be noted that the material is not considered to be a dangerous good because of its chemical composition or its combustibility.

33 We were told by Mr Quentin Cooke that liquid bitumen fell into the definition of a Class C2 Combustible Liquid, ie one that has a flash point of greater than 150oC as defined in the Australian Standard AS 1940: 2004 'The Storage and Handling of Flammable and Combustible Liquids'. It was however Mr Steven Cooper's evidence that bitumen was neither a C1 nor a C2 combustible liquid as its flash point was greater than its boiling point. It was however his evidence that the material would support combustion and its significant fire.

34 The Tribunal found in its previous determination with respect to the butadiene tank on this site that storage of chemicals on the land was consistent with the definition of a warehouse. 'Warehouse' requires a permit within the Special Use zone schedule 6 containing the subject site under the provisions of clause 52.10. The use however has existing use rights and a permit is only required under the existing use rights provisions at clause 63.05 for buildings and works. A permit is also required under the provisions of the Special Use zone, again for buildings and works.

35 The application for works approval was accepted by the EPA on 15 August 2006. As has already been mentioned, the permit applicant sought exemption from the works approval provisions under section 19A(5) of the Environment Protection Act 1970. This application was refused by the authority.

36 The proposal was advertised in the Herald Sun and the Geelong Advertiser and, as required by the Act, to the Department of Human Services, WorkSafe Victoria and the City of Greater Geelong.

37 WorkSafe informed the authority that in their view bitumen is not a dangerous good and that they consequently had no objection to the proposed works. The Department of Human Services similarly advised it had no objection to the application provided the works approval required compliance with the State Environment Planning Policies.

38 The authority received three objections from community members, one of which was out of time. They also received a letter from VicRoads enthusiastically supporting the proposed works. The authority convened a section 20B conference as required by the Act. The authority subsequently resolved to issue a works approval conditional upon Terminals obtaining a planning permit from the City of Greater Geelong.

39 On the basis of the submission made to us and the evidence presented, we are of the view that the following questions arise.

•

Is the proposal consistent with State Environment Protection Policies?

•

Will the proposal represent a health risk?

•

Will the proposal add to the level of risk that the Terminals facility represents?

•

Will the proposal add to the level of risk to the environment?

Consistency with State Environment Protection Policy and Health Risk Potential

40 The Terminals premises is a 'Schedule One Premises' under the provisions of the Environment Protection Act 1970 ('the Act') and as such is subject to works approval and licensing requirements. Under section 19A(1)(a)(iv) of the Act the occupier of a schedule 1 premises:

shall not install, alter or replace any fuel burning equipment or industrial plant on those premises or carry out any work on those premises which is the commencement of or any subsequent step in relation thereto ... ... ... on that premises, replace any fuel burning equipment or industrial plant on that premises ... ... ... where to do so is likely to cause a discharge or emission of waste to the atmosphere or result in an increase or alteration to the waste discharged or emitted to the atmosphere ... ... ... except in accordance with the works approval or license requirements specified in a notice given by the authority ... ... ... unless such work is only in the course of and for the purpose of general maintenance.

41 The proposed works involve the installation of fuel burning equipment which in the authority's view was likely to result in an increase or alteration of the waste discharged to the atmosphere and as such a works approval is required.

42 The State Environment Protection Policy of most relevance to the proposal is the Air Quality Management Policy. Mr Frank Fleer gave evidence regarding the degree of compliance of the proposed development with the State Environment Protection Policy - Air Quality Management ('SEPP AQM'). Mr Fleer reported the results of tests conducted on the head space vapour of a heated tank containing bitumen Class 170. The species analysed were hydrogen sulphide, sulphur dioxide as well as a number of poly-aromatic hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds.

43 The concentrations of poly-aromatic hydrocarbons were converted to a benzo-a-pyrenne equivalent effectively giving a zero result. These materials were not considered further. The comparison of the concentration of the predominant volatile organic species with the design criteria contained in schedule A of the SEPP AQM clearly showed that benzene was the worst case emission. As a consequence benzene was chosen as the representative volatile organic species. Modelling was undertaken using AUSPLUME Version 6 to estimate the maximum predicted ground level concentrations of the species chosen namely, odour, hydrogen sulphide, benzene and sulphur dioxide. The results are given in the following table:

46 The maximum predicted concentrations are at the 99.9 percentile level and the worst case values in the table occurred at discrete receptors along Station Street, School Road and the Princes Highway. The discrete receptors were the approximate locations of the nearest residential premises to the storage tanks. It is clear from the table that the maximum predicted ground level concentrations for the species chosen were between 8 and 540,000 times lower than the respective design criteria contained in the State Environment Protection Policy and that the values at the discrete receptor points were some 56 to 3.5 million times lower than the criteria.

47 Two criticisms were levelled at the model results by the objectors. Firstly, that the background concentrations had not been taken into account and secondly, that the choice of species was deficient in not including particulates.

48 Mr Fleer's response with respect to the background concentrations was that the background data for odour and hydrogen sulphide was not available and the background for benzene and sulphur dioxide was not considered because the increase represented by the proposal was negligible in comparison with existing ground level concentrations. It was further his contention that the one typically did not take account of background concentrations for odour given the range of variability and the nature of different odours according to source.

49 It is our view that Mr Linaker's concerns about the failure of the applicant to calculate the ground level concentrations of particulates was misconceived.

50 It was Mr Fleer's evidence, which the Tribunal accepts, that the products of the combustion at the temperature of the combustor would not include any particulate matter and as noted above, the level of poly-aromatic hydrocarbons of concern in the headspace vapour was below the detectable limit.

51 The concern of the objectors with respect to the failure to consider the background concentrations centred on benzene as an emission, a chemical of ongoing concern to local residents. We however accept that in the worst case the maximum predicted ground level concentrations of this species is so low that it would have no impact on the existing ground level concentrations. It is our view that the emissions need to be viewed in the perspective of emissions from the combustor associated with this proposal occurring on only four days in any one year. In our view, the limited time in which a potential impact is expected to occur and the minimal magnitude of that impact will serve to ensure there is no possible health impact as a result of the proposed development.

52 Mr Linaker was of the view that the applicant should have looked at other ways of dealing with the emission associated with the delivery of bitumen to the site including vapour return to the ship and cryogenic and absorption methods.

53 We accept that it is very unlikely that any ships carrying bitumen will have the capacity to accommodate vapour return. We further accept that Mr Linaker's alternatives still have the inherent problem that they will collect material which will still have to be disposed of in some way.

54 The SEPP Air Quality Management requires generators of emissions of greenhouse gases to manage those emissions in accordance with best practice. Carbon dioxide is the only greenhouse emission that will result from the proposed operation on site. Air, Water, Noise Consultants acting on behalf of the applicant calculated the emissions of carbon dioxide resulting from the operating of the combustor, the hot oil heater and the electricity used to operate the unloading and loading pumps. The results of the calculations showed the hot oil heater as the main source of emission resulting in a total of some 890 tonnes with a total tonnage from all three carbon dioxide producing activities being just under 915 tonnes. This represents an increase of 93 percent on the present carbon dioxide emissions from the site. The reason for the large increase is the present low base value of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the site.

55 It was Mr Quentin Cooke's evidence that the applicant had taken a number of initiatives to minimise the CO2 emissions from their operation. These initiatives included the use of vapour return lines for the truck loading and the transfer from the bulk storage tank to the day tank thereby obviating the need for the use of the combustor, the proposed two tank system on site together with the use of two hot oil heaters which enabled the bitumen to be kept at a lower temperature in the bulk tanks thereby increasing energy efficiency. The proposal also uses a hot box within the bulk tank so that bitumen can be heated to a higher temperature at the exit point to minimise heating demand together with the use of finned heating coils to maximise heat transfer, heat exchanges in the pipework, insulation on all tanks and pipework aside from the dock line which is not heated because of the necessity to frequently inspect the piping. We are satisfied that the CO2 emissions have been minimised consistent with the best practice requirements of the SEPP.

56 The other major concern of the objectors was the potential risk that the addition of this facility to the existing Terminals operation would pose. The applicant called evidence from Mr Steven Cooper with respect to the potential risks associated with the proposed development. It was Mr Cooper's evidence that the proposed development would not in any way change the individual risk fatality contours for the site. It was Mr Cooper's evidence that the potential for bitumen to ignite was limited to a very small window of opportunity under extreme conditions. Further, in his evidence, there was no probability of ignition of the bitumen from the oil circulating system, the maximum temperature of the oil being less than the ignition temperature for bitumen. As has already been mentioned, the hazard rating of bitumen is associated with the temperature at which it is stored and its potential to cause burns to parties handling the material.

57 Mr Cooper tabled a number of potential hazardous scenarios, none of which had any potential to cause impacts off site. He however did an analysis of the consequences of a bitumen tank fire and a catastrophic failure of the bitumen tank. The results demonstrated that the thermal radiation levels produced would not be capable of creating an incident in adjoining storage spheres. It should also be noted that in his calculations he conservatively used decane, a C10 carbon compound, whereas the carbon chain length in bitumen is C25 or greater. The necessary scenario for a bitumen fire would be a consequence of a 25mm or greater jet fire impacting on a bitumen tank or on a bitumen spill. It was Mr Cooper's evidence that the consequence of such a jet fire, which is itself extremely unlikely, would be much greater than any impact from the combustion of the bitumen.

58 Mr Linaker postulated a potential scenario to Mr Cooper, namely a jet fire leading to the failure of the bitumen tank and the impact of a BLEVE associated with a failure of the VCM or the butadiene storage tank. It was Mr Cooper's evidence that such scenarios were statistically highly improbable and in the circumstances where a BLEVE incident occurred, the most likely impact on the bitumen tank would be an increase in the temperature of the tank. In any event, even if the tank were to fail, the consequences of that failure would be trivial compared to the consequences of the BLEVE.

59 Concerns were expressed with respect to the consequences to the bitumen operation if the combustor was needed for dealing with an incident associated with the butadiene tank. The evidence presented on behalf of the applicant was that this would cause no problems as the unloading facility, which it must be remembered occurs only on two occasions for two days each time per year, could be stopped for whatever length of time was necessary.

60 There was some confusion about the appropriate size for the proposed bunding. It would appear that there is some potential for conflict between the EPA Bunding Guidelines and the Australian Standard 1940-2004 and that the EPA in its conditions in the works approval was attempting to leave some flexibility available. This matter was resolved by a condition on the permit requiring compliance with the standard while allowing for some flexibility should the standards change at some time in the future.

61 In conclusion it is our view that it is appropriate that a planning permit issue for the construction of a bitumen storage facility on the Terminals site subject to conditions. It is our view that the proposed development is consistent with present planning policy and that it is unlikely that there will be any change in policy into the future given the importance of the Port of Geelong to the economy of Victoria.

62 We find that the proposed storage facility will not add to the environmental risk associated with the Terminals site nor would it pose any additional health risks to the closest residential areas.

63 We find that the works approval should be granted in accordance with the amended plans and with some modification of the conditions. It is our view that the proposed development is consistent with the requirements of the State Environment Protection Policies and will have a trivial impact on the ground level concentration of the main emissions from the combustor. It should further be noted that this impact will occur on only four days in any one year.