Adopted Minutes

Thursday 11 July 2002


Robin Saunders
CICCC / Chairperson

Allen Hugli
Chief Financial Officer, Burns, Philp & Company Limited/CICCC Committee

Faye Simpson
community rep./ CICCC committee

John Luppino
City of Maribyr, GM City Dev /committee

Carlo Fasolino
Op. Manager Terminals P.Ltd./committee

Deborah Macfarlane
community rep./ committee

Michael Ragen
Cash Controller, Burns, Philp & Co / CICCC Committee

Ian Thomas
community rep./ CICCC committee

Dr Peter Brotherton
Combined Enviro. Groups / committee

Jeff Hibbert
Terminals Pty Ltd

Michael Isaachsen
community rep./ committee

Trevor Perkins
MF&ESB / ex off comm

Geoff Millard
Terminals Nat. Safety & Env. Manager

Jim Clements
Environmental Protection Authority

Wayne Bergin
Environmental Protection Authority

Bronwyn Brookman Smith
MH Div / WorkSafe

Sally Lonsdell
Environmental Protection Authority

Michelle Thomson

Michael Catchpole
Director Public Affairs / PACIA

Zoe Wood
Regulatory Affairs Officer / PACIA

Vanessa Richardson
minute taker




* Robin welcomed the committee members and other people attending the CICCC.



* Apologies were received from George Horman, Cameron Fitzgerald, Bill Horrocks and Quentin Cooke.



* The draft agenda was adopted.



* Wayne said that the EPA received 3 reports from Terminals this month. They are:

• The Environmental Management Plan Amendment

• The Tank Integrity Report

• The Storm Water Management Plan

* Quentin attended the CICCC HSE Subcommittee meeting this month.

* The EPA have made several prosecutions of other companies this month. They include the following-

• On 21 June 2002 the owner of the cargo carrier MV Humboldt Current was convicted and fined $25,000 after pleading guilty to the discharging oil to the Yarra River on 24 October 2000. The ship's master was also fined $15,000 without conviction.

• On 27 June 2002 Western Recycle Pty Ltd was convicted, after pleading guilty to one charge of air pollution in relation to an incident which occurred between 15 September and 6 October 2001. Under alternative sentencing provisions of the Environment Protection Act 1970 the defendant was ordered to pay $35,000 to Brimbank City Council to fund water and air quality monitoring programs. In addition the defendant was ordered to publish a notice of the results of the prosecution in the Age, Herald Sun, Western Times and Financial Review.'

* Bronwyn reported that Terminals submitted their Safety Case to WorkSafe on the 28 June. It is now going through the “serious deficiency” check.. The following organisations with MoU’s with WorkSafe have expressed interested in assessing the plan too - MFESB, EPA, OCEI and OGS.

* Field visits were made to the site on 4 June to review compliance for the Carcinogenic License conditions and on the 2 July to review the action items of the previously held Dangerous Goods Audit.

* Marg Donnan (Operations Manager, Major Hazards) is leaving WorkSafe after spending 26 years with WorkSafe and its predecessor departments. She has accepted a new working position as Regulatory Affairs Manager with PACIA.

ACTION. Robin to write to Marg Donnan on behalf of the CICCC to thank her for her support to the Committee.


* Deborah said that she could not find any reference in the Terminals Safety Case document about the possible consequences of a terrorist attack on Coode Island .

Geoff said it was covered in Section 2 and in the Hazard Register.

* Trevor reported that this month the MF&ESB have been reviewing Safety Cases from various companies including the Terminal’s Safety Case document. They have also been looking at Terminals Emergency Plans.

* Deborah asked if fire-fighting foam was stored and available in the port area.

Carlo said that 22,000 litres is kept in storage at Maribyrnong Berth No1.

Faye asked about the types of interactions that might be expected to occur if during a fire the water and foam used for fighting a fire, interacted with the chemicals stored at the Terminals site?

Trevor said that the responsibility for knowledge about those possible interactions is left with the companies. They ensure that they have internationally acceptable products on site to fight the fires. He said that the MF&ESB use ATC FFF Concentrate which is compatible with many products. This is used in conjunction with back up fire fighting products stored on the sites.

Carlo said that Terminals use ATC FFF and it is also used at the Maribyrnong No1 Berth.

* Allen said that 16 parties have shown interest in the sale of Terminals P/L. Some have done due diligence assessments. The due diligence tests involve detailed assessment of the legal, financial and environmental perspectives of the company. They are now negotiating prices, warranties, indemnities, etc. In answer to Robin’s question Allen said that the reserve price has been exceeded but that it may take a further 30-60 days to finalise a sale.

* See Attachment 1.

Carlo tabled the monthly Operations & Occurrence Report for June 2002. He said that the Benzene emission levels were good because the carbon Beds were being changed monthly at a cost of $20 - $24 thousand per month.

Ian said that he wondered if the improvements warranted the huge financial costs.

Deborah said that as a resident in the area she was happy to see that the benzene emissions had been lowered since the carbon beds have been changed each month.

Faye said it has been an improvement for the health of everyone in the state.



* Robin said that all CICCC members have seen a copy of the EIP plan drawn up by Terminals. He said that its purpose is to be used as a tool to track the ongoing health and safety of the community. It provides an agreed list of what needs to be improved on the Terminals site and it provides a timetable showing the dates by which the improvements will be achieved. At any point in time it will show how any one particular item might be contributing to a health risk. Robin said that he has asked George to change the layout of the plan so that additional columns were shown (similar to an EMP) detailing the parameter(s) that will be monitored, the present level, the level anticipated after the improvement, and the monitoring frequency.

ACTION. CICCC members will read the document in detail for discussion at the next meeting.

* Ian said that the document should have been discussed by the CICCC and then drafted over a period of 6 months and not have been initially drafted just by Terminals as was the case with this current draft.

Robin said that the EPA requested Terminals submit it by 30 June 2002 in accordance with their Licence.. The EPA is treating the document as a draft only, until the CICCC have had input into its development and signed off with Terminals.

Peter said it is an important document that will require 6 months work to complete properly.

Jim agreed and said that these document have sometimes taken up to 3 years to complete. He said that there are 12,000 EPA licensed sites in the State and about 50 are developing EIP’s which are counter signed by the community.

ACTION. Jim will forward the EIP Information Bulletin to Vanessa for circulation as an attachment to the minutes.

*Robin asked if the prospective buyers would be obliged to uphold the content of the Terminals EIP?

Allen said that all the prospective buyers have seen the EIP and they are bound by it.

Jim said he has found that most companies are committed to environmental issues. Following the sale of Terminals the EPA will work with the new owners to further develop the EIP.

* Faye said that the copy she read was formally signed and she asked if the signatures indicated that the plan was in fact a final document.

Carlo said that the signatures were Terminals staff signatures only.

Jim said that the EPA would not approve it as a final document until the community have discussed and added to it. It will not have any standing until that time.

Deborah said she felt uneasy because the new owners were not bound in any way to proceed with the EIP.

Ian suggested that the document title be changed to ‘Draft’ EIP.

Robin suggested that the CICCC discuss the EIP in about 6 detailed chunks, starting this process at the next meeting in August.

Allen said that the process could be restarted from scratch (as suggested by Ian). Ian disagreed and said that as a draft exists, it would be best to use it as a starting point rather than starting from scratch which would have been more ideal.

ACTION. Carlo and George will divide the EIP into workable sections and they will present the first section for discussion at the next CICCC meeting. A suggested list of workable sections, and a discussion paper for the first section will be circulated 2 weeks before the next CICCC meeting.

ACTION. Jim said that the EPA will write a letter to Terminals, thanking them for the EIP and stating that they expect community consultation to commence once the new owners are decided. The joint signatures of the company and the community are to appear on the final document.




Report By Terminals Including Combustors (Geoff Millard)

See Attachment 2.

* Geoff said that the Safety Case was submitted to WorkSafe on 28 June 2002. It consists of 500 pages in 2 volumes with a CD-rom containing a Hazard Register of 243 items. A stored item is deemed a Major Hazard when it exceeds a tonnage threshold. There are 49 major hazard facilities in Victoria. The largest tanks on the Terminals site at Coode Island can hold 6.5 thousand cubic metres of product.

* The Safety Case looks at the possible ‘serious irreversible incidents’ (low frequency occurrences like loss of life or loss of limbs) and the possible ‘immediate effects’ (short term). The regulations ‘are very onerous, so we have left no stone unturned,’ he said.

A mixed group spent 12 days workshopping to draw up a list of

• the potential hazards

• how the hazards are best detected

• how to best mitigate the hazard which includes assessing the controls already in place and adding to them if necessary.

The group included representatives from Terminals staff, Terminals customers and DNV as the independent risk professionals. WorkSafe representatives observed several of the workshops.

Deborah asked if consideration had been given to the consequences for the Terminals site if an incident originated on a neighbouring site. Could any knock on effects become ‘serious irreversible incidents’ on the Terminals site?

Geoff said that possibility had been considered by the workshop group but further

work is needed on that section of the report. Further discussions about this possibility will be conducted at the Coode Island Users Group with Marstel P/L and P&O Ports P/L and all the other Coode Island neighbours as required.

* Ian said that he is sceptical that DNV were included as the independent risk assessors in the work shop group. He said it was DNV who 2 years ago were employed by Terminals to make a risk assessment of the new design plan for the Terminals site. They concluded that there would be no increased risk to the community, with the propylene tanks were either on or off the Terminals site. Ian said that ever since he has been disagreeing strongly with that assessment.

Robin said that following further discussions with DNV Peter Reddie was happy with the DNV’s assessment. WorkSafe have also accepted DNV’s assessment.

* Deborah said that since the September 11 incident in New York the threat of terrorist attack is something that the community is concerned about. She asked if the workshop group had considered the possibility of terrorist activity resulting in the contamination of the river (from the storage tanks on the Terminals site)?

Geoff said that the issue had been considered as a loss of containment problem. How that was assessed was by considering the following key points

• how to eliminate the incident occurrence

• how to prevent the incident

• how to detect that an incident has occurred

• how to reduce the consequences and possible harm associated with such an incident.

He said that there are a few levels of control in place before a possible contaminant can reach the water. Therefore the possibility that the loss of tank contents might reach to the river had not needed to be assessed. Some of the levels of control include

• security guard restricted public access to Coode Island

• fencing around the perimeter of the Terminals site

• locks on tank valves

• guard patrols on the site

• bunds which contain any leaks and spillages, etc.

In answer to Robin’s question Geoff said that the greatest terrorist risk that the group had considered was that of trespassers themselves being hurt on the Terminals site. Geoff suggested that a terrorist is more likely to attack another site in the state - one where a large number of people might be adversely affected (like a train station).

In answer to Deborah’s question about the consequences for the community if an aeroplane were to be crashed into the Terminal’s site Geoff said that the risk of such an incident occurring has been considered.

Robin asked about the size of the area that might be incinerated should such an incident occur. Geoff said it would include the berth area. General discussion on the potential impacts of such an incident followed, which may be significantly greater or may be similar to the impacts already considered in the draft Safety Case. In any event, the terrorist aircraft scenario will be investigated by Terminals.

Trevor said that the area, which could be exposed to moderate danger if such an incident were to occur, was to a distance of 1350metres around the Terminals site.

Peter asked what would happen if the bunds lost their capacity to contain the leaking contaminants?

Geoff said that the critical control is the integrity of the bunds, but should they fail then the site also has sub bunds and perimeter bunds.

* Ian said that possible shipping incidents should have been included in the report.

In answer Geoff said that only the major incidents resulting in an immediate and substantial consequential threat to life and health had to be covered in this document. They also looked at other contributing factors should an incident occur, like the differences in weather conditions.

* Faye observed that the working group had considered 3 scenarios in detail. Faye and Peter asked why an upstream scenario had not been considered as it is considered in the industry as a standard hazard that can occur?

Geoff said that the consequences for 243 possible on site hazards had been considered by the Safety Case working group. WorkSafe had then asked the working group to pick a small group of them only as detailed working examples that WorkSafe can then use as a check for all the other identified hazards.

* Geoff suggested that the CICCC HSE sub committee might look in detail at the possible hazards posed by trespassers on the Terminals site.

Robin reminded the committee of the Worst Case Scenario work that has been put on hold because of the uncertainty about product responsibilities arising from the Marstel proposal. He suggested that it might be a good time to finish that work now.

Faye suggested that the ‘off site consequences section’ might cover the possible upstream incidents.

ACTION. At the next meeting Terminals will report on the possible consequences of the crashing of a 747 aeroplane on the Coode Island Terminals site.

Robin asked if there would be off site toxic gas effects to 1350 metres from an acrylonitrile incident?

Geoff said that there would be respiratory difficulties at that distance.

Ian pointed out that the community is 800 metres from the Terminals site which indicates that they are potentially under threat of such an incident.

190 actions (including documentation) were identified as improvements that would further reduce the overall risk at the facility, including 7 capital improvements that would cost approximately $250,000 in total in addition to the new Vapour control system currently being installed at a cost of $4.4 million.

ACTION. Terminals will table a report showing which of the regulatory plans contains each of the 7 major capital improvements. This list will be included in the EIP so that one document includes all the planned changes.

* Peter suggested that a better way to develop a Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) is not to confine contributions just from technical experts (as in this case) but rather include a broader spectrum of people with different expertise to discuss what’s needed.

Geoff said that the working group had integrated the following areas into one system

• Environmental management system

• Quality management system

• Safety management system

* He added that a community information pamphlet is also being developed for discussion by the CICCC.

* Faye said that the conceptual plan for the Safety Case Review was logical and well developed but that it was not looking at the scenarios from the point of view of an outsider intruding on the integrity of the site. The human factors and contractor safety were well covered. She suggested that Appendices and Tables be added for reference. She said that the use of ‘contract workers’ was a factor in the experience of overseas human error incidents.

In answer to Faye’s suggestion Geoff said that the possibility of Operator Error (sick or impaired) was included on the CD rom. Terminals are planning to upgrade these crucial requirements in the future.

Carlo said that training of operators has been implemented for some time with new things being added to the training as required over time. They expect to have trained and assessed all 14 operators in levels 1 to 6 (which is the highest) by 2004. WorkSafe agreements include minimum standards of operational skill required by all the 25 staff employed by Terminals. Staff numbers have been very consistent with only 2 new staff members being employed in the past 9 years. Only one casual is employed and he has also been trained and assessed.

Bronwyn said that Terminals staff have to be trained before they can undertake certain tasks. WorkSafe does not check compliance with this requirement on any given day. She reminded the committee that the Longford fire incident showed that experience does not necessarily reduce the human error factor.

Ian said he has been concerned that management staff have left over the years. He said that Geoff was the only remaining member of the Terminals management staff since the Coode Island fire in 1991.

Bronwyn said that WorkSafe require Safety Case plans because staff do change quickly in industries these days and the plan assists continuity in quality management of the sites.

* Geoff said that they looked at the effects of the combustors. They are potential ignition sources for the site. Lots of checks and controls have been included in the design of their installation. A consequence analysis was done for these rather than quantifying the risk.

* Michael asked how Terminals proposed to inform the community should an incident occur.

Geoff said that the CICCC input is needed for this section of the Emergency Response Plan.

Robin said that responsibility for these decisions had been handed over to the Office of Emergency Services Committee who were developing a plan for a workable system which would tie in with Terminals needs for a suitable communication system.

* Michael asked Geoff how the overall safety of the site would be affected, if the main storage areas for the materials on the island were positioned elsewhere with a rail connection from Coode Island?

Geoff said that it was a complicated question. He said that intrinsically risk is reduced when inventories are reduced, but the further movement of goods in itself posed possible opportunities for further hazardous incidents. A full risk study would be needed to quantify the risk levels.

Robin thanked Geoff for the presentation.

The WorkSafe Process (Bronwyn Brookman-Smith)

* See attachment 3.

Bronwyn said that WorkSafe initially decided on what they would expect to see in the Terminals Safety Case. She said that five Safety Case approved licences have been granted to-date (Melbourne Water- Christmas Hills, Australian Vinyls, New Farm- Laverton, Orica Warehouse- Laverton and Australia Paper- Maryvale). Marstel is refining its Safety Case outline.

Three sites in the state are below the required threshold storage amount but WorkSafe has designated them as a Major Hazard Facilities as they are considered to be a significant hazard.

Robin thanked Bronwyn for her presentation, which included appeal provisions for stakeholders. He asked her who WorkSafe saw as the stakeholders? She said that it depends on the grounds of the decision. A company can appeal a negative decision at VCAT however the community cannot appeal a decision it does not agree with.

* Deborah asked Bronwyn if updates and amendments to company Safety Cases were also amended on the copy held at the relevant industrial site?

Bronwyn said that the Safety Case document is an umbrella plan that allows a company to change its systems of operating. However if the changes affect the Safety Case then a revised Safety Case would need to be submitted to WorkSafe.

ACTION. The WorkSafe assessor for the Terminals Safety Case will periodically update the CICCC throughout the assessment process.


Report from HSE Sub Committee (Ian Thomas)

* Ian said that the CICCC HSE Sub Committee met and were given copies of the Safety Case which was discussed briefly. A further meeting is planned to discuss it more fully when everyone has time to read the document.




13 JUNE 2002.

* The draft minutes were accepted with the following changes.

WorkSafe changes include minor wording changes to Item 4 and 5 (pages 2, 3and 6)

Michael’s changes include pp5 and pp10

John’s changes pp2

Spelling of Schedden corrected (page 4), Whitaker (page 10)

The adopted Minutes may be found on the web site.




8.1 Questions on the Terminals monthly reports (Attachments to last meeting’s minutes)



8.2 Robin to invite Ian Munro, General Manager, Department of Innovation, Industry and regional Development to brief the Committee.

* He was unavailable to attend tonight’s meeting but has agreed to attend the next CICCC meeting in August.

8.3 Trevor to provide a copy of the latest ‘Emergency Information Booklet’

* Trevor tabled an example of a booklet. He said that the on-site diagrams now required are far more detailed. Complex sites included overlayed plans for all the different utilities like gas, electricity, etc. The booklet also includes the details for how to alert the local community of an incident.

8.4 Briefing by Treasury and Finance on review of the Safety Case Regimes (chair)

* Ian commended Robin for raising the points he did.

8.5 Web site update (Chair)

See Attachment 5.

* The updated CICCC History that Robin has completed is to go onto the CICCC web page.

ACTION. Robin will add some information about the Safety Case which Carlo will write.

Deborah said the update was very good.



Deferred to next meeting.



24/6/02 invitation to Ian Munro



See Attachment 6.

Melbourne Port Corporation re the MPV Stakeholder Survey 2002 (dated 5 July 2002)

ACTION. Robin will ring MPC to confirm the CICCC’s interest in this survey.



ACTION. Robin will do some further work on this for discussion at the next meeting.

Robin congratulated John and Peter for the work they have done on this document.



See the overhead notes in the Attachments with the CICCC June minutes.






See the above ACTION ITEMS.




16.1 Re Ian’s Appeal to VCAT about the Marstel Works Approval

* Ian reported that he and his wife had met with Paul Jerome, Executive Director Planning, at the Department of Infrastructure who was handling the “call-in” of the appeal to the Marstel Works Approval for the Minister for Planning. Ian said that the meeting was very purposeful. He said that Paul showed concern when told that the EPA buffer zones were breached on occasions.


16.2 Attendance at the next CICCC meeting.

* Ian reported that a former work colleague of Ted Towson at the Port Emergency Service could potentially be interested in the Committee. Robin suggested that Ian encourage him to attend CICCC meetings as an observer in the first instance.



Time 10.25pm




Thursday 8 August 2002

Thursday 12 September 2002




11 July 2002


Attachment 1 Terminals Monthly Report - June 2002

Attachment 2 Terminals Safety Case Assessment report overheads

Attachment 3 WorkSafe Safety Case Assessment report overheads

Attachment 4 ‘Emergency Information Booklet’ text

Attachment 5 CICCC Web Page usage for the past 12 months.

Attachment 6 Correspondence received from MPC, 5 July 2002.



Items posted to those without e-mail facilities include

New director WorkSafe

CICCC Media Release 13 June

Update of CICCC history for web page

Report to Dept of Treasury and Finance 24 June 2002

  Get this as a Microsoft Word document