Adopted Minutes

Thursday 14 February 2002




Deborah Macfarlane 
  Acting Chairperson
Martin Jones
  CEO / PACIA / committee
Allen Hugli
  Chief Financial Officer, Burns, Philp & Company Limited/CICCC Committee
John Luppino 
  City of Maribyr, GM City Dev /committee
Michael Ragen
  Cash Controller, Burns, Philp & Co Limited / CICCC Committee
Ian Thomas 
  community rep./ committee
Bill Horrocks 
  Mayor / City of Maribyr./ committee 
Faye Simpson
  community rep./ committee
Ted Towson 
  community rep./ 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
Cameron Fitzgerald
  Environ. Protec Auth / ex off comm
Quentin Cook
  Env. Protection Authority 
Bronwyn Brookman Smith 
  MH Div / WorkSafe
Theo Pykoulas
  City of Maribyrnong
Robyn Betts
  Office of the Emerg. Services Commiss.
Andrew Clifton
  Marstel P/ L Commun. Group
Vanessa Richardson 
  minute taker


Deborah welcomed the committee members and other people attending the CICCC meeting.


Apologies were received from Carlo Fasolino and Robin Saunders.



The draft agenda was adopted.

ACTION. Item 10 will be deferred to another meeting as WorkSafe still require further information from Terminals.




See Attachment 1

Robyn said that in this presentation she would cover the activities that have been conducted by the Emergency Alert Project since her last presentation at the CICCC last year and summarise the results from the community survey. She said that she welcomed any feedback from the CICCC.

The review of services will be completed before Christmas. It will go to Ministers Brumby and Broad and then to other interested parties including the CICCC. In the meantime, other activities will continue including the community consultation.

Robyn said the survey of a sector of homes and businesses in the local community resulted in a response rate of 14% - 15%. That is a good result for such a survey. There were 696 responses to 5,000 distributed surveys. Some of the interim findings from the survey include

• 86% of respondents are English speaking. (A specific survey of non-English speaking groups will be undertaken soon.)

• 46% had resided in the area for less than 6 years. So they had not experienced the Terminals P/L Coode Island fire in 1991

• 42% are in this area for most days of the week

• Interactions with neighbours are important to this group

• They do not like the trucks in the area.

• They do not like living close to industrial sites

• They like information in a variety of forms, including brochures and web sites

• They are most concerned about burglaries and chemical odours in the area and they say that they are aware of what can happen if there is an emergency in the area. ( A list of 44 options about ‘risks to homes and personal safety’ was presented to chose from. They were asked to tick which of the options they thought would be ‘possible’ or ‘highly possible’.)

• They were also concerned about any possible future evacuations of their homes and workplaces and concerned about the prospect of staying indoors if directed to do so during an emergency

• Collecting and protecting children during an emergency was also a highly rated concern.

• A significant number of people said they wanted more information about Coode Island.

Robyn said the results of the survey will be useful for the next 2 stages of the project

1. the focus groups

2. individual interviews.

Peter noted that of the questions about ‘perceived risk to person and property’, 3 of the first 5 questions listed involved chemical incidents. When the chemical incidents options were totaled together, he wondered if they rated as more significant then burglary

Robyn said that she had listed them this way so that she could get an indication of whether things like chemical odours were of more or less concern than other chemical hazard issues.

Ian said he thought that another method of questioning was preferable to the tick boxes (and options) used.

George asked if the survey had asked the community about its knowledge of other dangerous goods industry sites (not necessarily positioned on Coode Island) in the area. He cited Orica as an example.

Robyn said that some residents expressed concern about the Mobil facility. She said that people tended to know about and have information about Coode Island when in fact the sirens they hear in the area usually emanate from sites other than those on Coode Island. She said that there are numerous industries in the area that store major hazard goods and that the focus is not the Coode Island industries but all those relevant industries in the area that store major hazard goods.

Robyn said that very few people identified local community radio as an information source about emergencies in the area.

Michael said that Terminals had developed the radio strategy but it was in its early stages of development when the OESC program commenced and consequently the community education process had not been implemented as planned. This had been postponed pending the results of the OESC program. Therefore it is not surprising that only a few people knew of the role of local radio in an emergency.

Robyn said that the survey indicated that people want a warning message and access to ongoing information from a variety of sources/experts to assist them to make the best management choices for themselves in an emergency. They listed services like police and the 000 emergency phone number. She said that the 000-phone number is not suitable and that this issue must be addressed when looking at the plans for a chain of information (formal and informal) that will be required.

Robyn said that the response to the survey had provided good information to start the consultative process. This number of responses about this sort of issue had not occurred previously.

Robyn said that Louise Atherton was employed in Jan 2002 as the Community Education Officer (OESC). Her role is to consult directly with relevant individuals, groups and industries and develop an interface between industry and the community. She reports to Theo and Robyn.

Industry forums have been conducted. They are working on the development of ‘a chain of communication’.

A collaborative Planning Day to develop a strategy that will suit all parties is imminent.

A forum to develop an Education Strategy is planned for June.

An industry Emergency System will be in place in a few months time.

ACTION. Robyn will forward a paper about this system to the CICCC Chair for distribution to the CICCC.

Peter said that the Coode Island Review Panel Report (1992) identified a need to provide appropriate information assistance to the carers for the very young and old (as in schools and hospitals, etc). It is necessary that carers for those groups receive timely and accurate advice as they are often passing on information about the emergency to concerned relatives and friends of those young and old people very quickly if an emergency is perceived.

Robyn agreed that potentially vulnerable groups need to be identified and they must receive accurate information during possible emergencies. She said it is important that they maintain the trust of their constituents. She said that in some ways these larger groups can be easier to manage than individuals who may not do as the authorities have asked them.

Faye asked about the possible background of those facilitating discussion on health issues at the public forums.

Robyn said she will probably use social work students for the role of facilitators and give them a structure to work through.

Faye asked Robyn if she had looked at the Victorian Burden of Disease Studies which gave all the statistics about the health of Victorians. She said that she and Robin Saunders had met previously with staff from the Health Department to discuss relevant issues.

Robyn said she would talk about public health concerns with Dr Paul Van Hindim and others in the Health Department.

Deborah asked if Robyn had said previously that she would cover matters of morbidity in her report.

Robyn said that it could not be ignored.

ACTION. Robyn will have further discussion with Faye about the above issues.

Ian said he thought the survey was excellent.

Robyn said that this program was designed to be ‘bottom up’ in its approach. She said that programs often fail when they are ‘top down’ because it is essential to know what a community wants if a program is to be used optimally by that community. A community will not use what they do not want.

Ian said that industry systems for emergency management must be regulated.

Deborah asked if Robyn would be recommending that they be regulated?

Robyn said she did not have an answer and that it was another major issue.

Theo said that there are enough regulations already and that the OESC have enough to do already.

ACTION. Robyn said she would talk to the CICCC about this issue in the future.

Faye asked about community education on TV like that used by the CFA and Police Departments. She said that they are designed to stimulate public discussion of issues and to change behaviour. She asked if something similar could be actioned quickly for the community.

Robyn said that the elements were already included in Municipal Planning regimes.

Bronwyn said that the Major Hazard Regulations require industries to prepare Emergency Response Plans (ESP) in conjunction with Local Government/s and the Emergency Services. If industry fails to meet the requirements of the regulations they may not get a Major Hazard Facility licence.

Deborah said it was of concern that the regulations said nothing about the need to communicate with the community in the event of an industrial emergency (see Regulation 505 of the MHF Regs).

Trevor said that the Metropolitan Fire & Emergency Services Board were presently further developing an existing system by providing specific information to be used by the Police Advice Lines during such an emergency.

Ian said that if an emergency arises companies want to hide from the public the fact that a possible emergency has occurred. Regulations would ensure that they communicate appropriately with the community.

Robyn thanked the CICCC for its input to the development of the OESC plan.

Deborah thanked Robyn for her presentation to the CICCC.




See Attachment 2.

Cameron gave a presentation of results from the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program.

AWN was contracted by the EPA to do the air monitoring. However, the data on pp 2.11 is a combination of data collected from this study and similar earlier separate studies.

The study found that there were elevated levels of some chemicals in the samples taken. However, when prevailing wind directions were included in the analysis of the data it was shown that Terminals P/L on Coode Island are not contributing to any elevated levels of dangerous chemicals to air emissions at the sampling sites.

George said that Terminals do not store (on Coode Island) many of the chemicals that were tested for in this study.

Some air contaminants do not have EPA set Elevation Levels. Elevated levels of 1.7 ppm of toluene and benzene were recorded but the source is unknown and is presently being investigated by the EPA. They are usually due to vehicle emissions but that is not the case with these readings.

Peter suggested that it might be a result of illegal fuelling operations where toluene (which does not attract a government excise tax) is mixed with petrol.

Faye asked if the information from this report was shared with other government departments.

Cameron said it would be passed onto the interdepartmental working group which manages these matters (with members from EPA, WorkCover, MFESB et al)

Bronwyn said that WorkSafe meets regularly with other agencies re Major Hazards facilities in the state to pass on information.

Cameron said that no acrylates were detected in the samples. Overall levels of benzene, toluene and xylene were well below the set Intervention Levels.

He said that there was a reading of methyl bromide that exceeded the intervention level by a large amount on one day. He said this chemical is used for fumigating and is ozone depleting. This was therefore viewed very seriously, but it should be noted that Terminals do not store this chemical on Coode Island.)

Faye thanked the EPA for investigating the source for the methyl bromide as it is a carcinogen.

Faye asked if the positioning of the OPSIS in an east west direction had been an ideal positioning for monitoring possible Terminals emissions?

Cameron said that it was ideal given the wind directions in the area.

Bronwyn said that Operational Health & Safety officers at WorkSafe recently carried out a routine inspection of the Terminals site. They will finalise their report on receiving some further detailed information from Terminals re the number of tanks currently fitted with remote operated valves.

WorkSafe have recently observed some safety case workshops held by Terminals re their Safety Case.

Bronwyn said that the Department of Treasury and are finalising a draft report in the coming months. They have given a commitment to go back to the stakeholders before finalising the report. This study is looking at the safety cases of different industries throughout Australia.

Trevor said that they met with Terminals this month to discuss the upgrade changes to the storage of products on Coode Island. In particular they were looking at access to the sites and access to the No 1 Maribyrnong berth.

Future emergency plans for the combustors were also discussed.

Ian asked Trevor if his department accepted the proposed positioning of the combustors.

Trevor said that at this stage they had only asked for formal information without a lot of detail. When all the information is assessed the MF&ESB will make responses to Terminals in writing.

In answer to Ian’s question he explained that detonation arresters were used as a safety measure to block flames should they occur in a feeding pipe associated with the combustor.

Faye asked if there were any situations where the combustor might leave a solid waste.

George said it would not happen because the combustors were designed to receive gas vapours. They cannot accept solid or liquid wastes. They will be set to burn optimally at all times. He said that solids would not be produced as these combustors were burning gas vapours only. Incinerators that were built to receive liquid or solid wastes would generate solid residues.

Ted asked if there was an Australian Standard for combustors.

Quentin said that the Gas Safety Standards would cover gas combustors like those planned for Coode Island. There is no Australian standard - the US Marine Standard is used.

Ian said that the Gas Safety Standards only cover safety issues and not environmental issues. He said that combustors designed to burn gas and vapour (like the proposed Terminals combustor) could be modified to burn solids and liquids. He asked if there was anything in the Gas safety Standards stipulating that for example, a particular combustor was only to burn vapours?

Cameron said that the detail of what was to be burnt would be included in the detail of all applications for a licence to operate. A new Works Approval would be required before changes could be made to what was being burnt. He said it would be very hard for companies to get a Works Approval to burn solid wastes in a combustor.

Andrew said that the Marstel Community Consultative Group has asked the same questions about the Marstel combustor as they too wanted the same sort of reassurance.

Faye asked if government agencies were providing incentives to companies to build up carbon credits.

Cameron said there were no policies at this stage but it would be looked at in the future.

Ted asked where he might obtain copies of the US Marine Standard.

ACTION. Quentin will e-mail the web address for the above standard to Robin.

Ian said he was concerned that the EPA did not call a 20B Conference to discuss the changes to the east side of McKenzie Road improvements at Terminals. As a result the community were not sufficiently aware of the detail of the proposed changes to lodge submissions if they wished to.

Cameron said that in that case the EPA had directed Terminals to make changes and that they reflected previous discussions about their Works Approval and license amendment. He said the EPA had also consulted the CICCC about the new proposals for the eastern side development and had decided to do this instead of holding a 20B Conference.

John said that there was not a lot to report from the City of Maribyrnong (CM). They have given Louise (OESC) office space and she reports to Theo (an employee of the CM) and to Robyn Betts. Theo and others in the CM office are also working on the OESC project.

In answer to Ian’s question John said that the CM were disappointed that the EPA had not given them prior notification that the Marstel Works Approval had been granted. It was somewhat difficult for the CM staff to manage the media enquires without prior knowledge/preparation of the announcement.

Cameron said that the Marstel C G were notified that it was about to be granted at a previous meeting that Theo Pykoulas, the MERO at CM was present at that meeting. He assumed that the information would be passed on. Cameron said that he e-mailed the information to Robin (CICCC) who was away on holidays, and later to the individual members of the CICCC.

John said that in the circumstances formal notification to himself or the Mayor would have been more appropriate.

Ian questioned the process followed by the EPA for the granting of the Marstel Works Approval (WA). He said he was concerned that the public did not get ample opportunity to avail themselves of the Marstel proposal information. Therefore they could not comment effectively. He said it would have also been useful to have the 20B Conference Chairman’s Report and the Works Approval documents in the 23-day period following the granting of the WA. This would have enabled the public time to fully consider any possible appeals against the WA.

Cameron said that all the public input from the 20B Conference was considered by the EPA before the WA was granted. All the information Ian mentioned was available on the EPA web site during that 23-day period.

Ian agreed that it was on the web site but not for the 23 days as required by regulation.

Deborah suggested that next time the EPA should e-mail and phone all relevant interested parties to ensure they are aware of the date that the 23-day period will commence.

Cameron acknowledged that there had been some problems communicating the relevant information.

George said that Terminals have been working on their Safety Case in the past month. A Planning Approval application has been lodged for the combustors. In response to the increased number of improvement works on the site, Terminals have employed extra staff so they can allocate specialist staff to monitor and manage all of the ‘hot work’ (like welding). They are about to conduct HAZOPS for the acrylate project. The staff are carefully screened for relevant experience but are not professional engineers.



George moved that the minutes be adopted with the following alterations, seconded by Faye

• pp 7 should read
George said this was not an issue for the CICCC to address.

• pp 7 should read
This review will report on what is best for Safety Case regimes in Victoria.

• pp 7 should read
Bronwyn said that WorkCover have a representative on a committee that is looking at this DNV review.

pp 10 remove the paragraph Ian Thomas tabled correspondence…..not requiring re-advertising.

Replace with the following
Ian raised concerns that following the submission of the 20B C0nference by Terminals P/L, Marstel responded by proposing to move the location of the two propylene oxide tanks to the north and away from the boundary with Terminals. This then placed them as close to the community as possible (ie adjacent to the river).

He also expressed concerns that this change and a change in the number of tanks proposed, was deemed by the EPA to be a minor variation to the application and did not warrant public input.



7.1 Web site usage.

Deborah said that there were a good number of hits on the CICCC web site and that 126 documents had been down loaded.

Peter said it might be useful to have a time sequence included on the print out record.


7.2 Possible public forum

The CICCC discussed this matter at length. The comments made included the following

• The public already have access to sufficient information via the CICCC web site

• Organising a forum takes considerable effort for very little results (very few people attend).

• Maybe we could pay someone to organise a forum

• It may be more appropriate to have a forum later when we have something more specific to tell the public about.

• There are two conferences coming up that will provide some information. They are

1. PASMAT 2002 on the 29 & 30 April (brochures available from Robin)

2. HAZMAG on the 5 & 6 September (brochures available soon)

• It might be more productive for CICCC members to go out and talk to specific groups in the community

• WorkSafe’s Health and Safety Week is due again in June. The purpose of this week is to promote health and safety issues statewide.

ACTION. WorkSafe’s public affairs department will contact Robin with relevant information about the above activity.

The CICCC should contribute to the other things that are already planned in the coming months rather than run a separate forum of its own.

• Robyn Betts is planning a forum for the OESC.



Defer to the next meeting.



Defer to the next meeting.




ACTION. Geoff Millard will make a presentation to the CICCC at the next meeting re this matter.

Cameron said that input from the CICCC is welcomed.

Peter asked if others in the community could be involved in the future discussions.

Cameron agreed that it would be useful.

Deborah suggested that the CICCC write to Robyn Betts to ask that she ensure that companies in the area which stored dangerous goods but were not MHFs were also included in her Emergency Alert Project.

Bronwyn said that WorkSafe have previously offered OESC the information that WorkSafe have about these installations, and the MHFs and the requirements of Section 505 including what information is require to be given to the public. If they use this information from WorkSafe they will not then have to reinvent the wheel.

ACTION. Deborah will write to Robyn as outlined.



ACTION. The audit report was deferred to the May meeting.




George said that the trial biopile is working well but he does not have any result yet.

The styrene tank that was recently repaired is not back in operation yet. An application to re-licence the tank for DG’s is about to be submitted.


See the above ACTION ITEMS.

Ted asked if there had been any response/report from P&O regarding the previous spillage of quinine on board a ship in the port.

ACTION. Deborah will ask Robin to follow up on this.






Time 10.15pm




Thursday 9 May 2002

Thursday 13 June 2002

Thursday 11 July 2002




11 April 2002


Attachment 1 

Coode Island and Environs -Community Alert and Information System Project , Survey Interim Findings - OESC

Attachment 2 

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring-presentation EPA


Items posted to those without e-mail facilities include

Change of contact for PACIA 5/4

Article by Deb Macfarlane

Marstel works approval doc 4/4

From Marstel comm group 22/3 -March meeting agenda and minutes of meeting

Media Release 14 March

EPA Licence Amendment 14/03/02

  Get this as a Microsoft Word document