Adopted Minutes

Thursday 13 June 2002


Robin Saunders
CICCC / Chairperson

Faye Simpson
community rep./ 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 Limited / CICCC Committee

Ian Thomas
Community rep./ committee

Dr Peter Brotherton
Combined Enviro. Groups / committee

George Horman
State Man./Terminals Pty Ltd / committee

Michael Isaachsen
community rep./ committee

Wayne Bergin
Environmental Protection Authority

Bronwyn Brookman Smith
MH Div / WorkSafe

Jim Cyngler
Environmental Protection Authority

Quentin Cooke
Env. Protection Authority

Vanessa Richardson
minute taker


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



* Apologies were received from Cameron Fitzgerald, Allen Hugli, Bill Horrocks and Trevor Perkins.



* The draft agenda was adopted.



* Quentin said that the EPA has been asked to comment about the Marstel Works Approval call in. This matter is currently the responsibility of the Minister for Planning and is being managed by the Department of Infrastructure.

* The EPA has a new Chairman, Mr Mick Bourke who comes from City West Water where he is the Chief Executive Officer.

* Bronwyn said WorkSafe have made three visits to the Terminals site during May and June. They have been discussing changes to the Safety Case for the area east of Mackenzie Road, and for the Safety Case sign off by the CEO if Terminals P/L is sold. The Safety Case was due by the 24 June 2002 but an extension was granted to 28 June in the light of the proposed changes to arrangements east of Mackenzie Road.

The interim director of the Major Hazards Unit - Greg Harvey has been replaced by a new director, Mr Rob Sheers.

ACTION. Bronwyn will forward further background information about the new director to Robin.

* John said that the Maribyrnong City Council (MCC) have been informed that the Government has appointed an interdepartmental committee to look at the issue of the possible relocation of Local Government boundaries. MCC have lobbied government to do this for some time. MCC have been asked to make a submission regarding areas of interest to it. (At the following meeting, John provided a clear description of Maribyrnong Councils preferred boundary as follows: “Council’s preferred boundary option is the incorporation of land south of Childers Street and west of Moonee Ponds Creek, which includes the South Dynon Container Terminal, the Melbourne Wholesale Fruit and Vegetable Market, and the Footscray Docks (including Coode Island.”) He said that MCC have to increase their rates base as they have one of the largest debts, and one of the lowest rates base of any Metropolitan council. There is a meeting next week with Bob Cameron, Minister for Local Government, to further discuss this matter.

* George said that Terminals have been working on the WorkSafe Safety Case for the Melbourne site and which VWA have directed must include the extended use of the east side of the Coode Island Terminals area. He has a very rough draft of the Safety Case, which is not yet ready for presentation to the CICCC.

ACTION. The HSE sub committee will comment on the draft Safety Case Report before next week when it is signed off for presentation to the department. Quentin and George will also attend the HSE sub-committee meeting.

ACTION. Geoff Millard will give an overview of the Safety Case to the next CICCC meeting.

ACTION. Bronwyn will make a presentation which will explain to the CICCC the WorkSafe process of assessment of the Safety Case.

*Bronwyn said that WorkSafe has 6 months to make a decision, and that 4 to 5 months are needed to fully assess a Safety Case. The department is expecting the submission of a further 36 Safety Case plans from other companies in the near future.

* George said that Terminals Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) has been e-mailed to everyone during the past few weeks.

Michael Ragen said that the Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development (DIIRD) are still negotiating an agreement between Huntsman, Dow and Terminals.

Terminals have submitted an alternative Remediation Action Plan to the EPA. The EPA has given this new plan qualified approval.

Many companies are looking with interest to buy Terminals. A sale is expected by the end of June.

Robin asked about the arrangements for the CICCC and its work in progress, given that new owners might be in place before our next meeting.

Michael Ragen said that the new general manager could possibly attend as early as the July CICCC meeting if the sale process was concluded as planned. He said that he can not make commitments on behalf of a new manager but that as he sees it, one of Terminals operational responsibilities is to have the CICCC as an already established consultation process. However there is nothing in the sale documents that state this and he said that he cannot guarantee the actions of the future owner.

George said that the CICCC’s involvement is included in some of Terminal’s documents, like the Safety Case plan and the EIP.

Michael said that while there is no specific disclosure of the CICCC costs to potential new purchasers of Terminals, the figures are clearly visible in the company’s financial documents.



9 MAY 2002.

* The draft minutes were accepted with the following changes.

Item 5 Page2 spelling of Burns Philp

Item 6 page 2 …“Class 2.3 Dangerous Goods

Item 6 Page 3 …“Safety Case work is continuing to be developed and reviewed by Terminals and is due to be submitted later in June.”

Item 6 page 4 …“It is an offence if the company does not take action it becomes a statutory requirement.”

…“EPA WorkSafe Dangerous Goods Licence.”

…“Margaret said that WorkSafe would 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.”



6.1 Article by Deborah Macfarlane on Emergency Management

* The web site manager has been asked to look at the process for finding this article on the web site as it is presently very hard to get to this article.

ACTION. Robin will update the web site by including information from the last to years. He will include a list of the papers that are on the site and reference points for other information on other relevant web sites.

* Robin said that the full list of reports on the web site included Executive Summaries of the following:

• The 1998 Task Force report;

• The 1998 Schedden Uhde Benchmarking report;

• The 1997 DNV QRA;

• The 1997 TM Services report on Operational Safety Management System Audit;

• The 1992 Coode Island Review Panel Final Report.


6.2 Further advice from Robyn Betts

ACTION. Robin will circulate to everyone on the CICCC the letter to Robyn Betts prepared by Deborah and sent on 13 June 2002.

ACTION . Faye will keep contacting Robyn to arrange a meeting as agreed previously.

6.3 Chair to ask P&O Ports if there has been any reports on the spillage of quinine on board ship in port.

* Robin said that his inquiries to P&O Ports resulted in advice that there was no such spillage.

6.4 Chair to follow up the delay in providing sewerage to Coode Island (advice from Ian Munro, General Manager, Department of Innovation, Industry & Regional Development that the matter will be progressed quickly)

* Robin met with Ian Munro who is pursing this matter. It will be actioned in a couple of months. He will be invited to make a presentation to the CICCC.

Quentin said the new design (provided by the tender) is not yet finalised. He said the new design has to take into consideration the recent new users in the area, like Marstel.

Carlo said the design was finalised 2 years ago.

Ian said he has previously suggested that they consider using a vacuum system.

ACTION. Robin will invite Ian Munro to make a presentation to the CICCC in one or two months time.


6.5 Report by John Luppino on future structure options for Coode Island committee(s)

See Item 10 of these minutes.

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

ACTION. Defer to the next meeting.


6.7 Relevant combustor regulations (EPA & Terminals)

See Attachment 5

* George said that Terminals have used the US Coast Guard Regulations (website details have been circulated to everyone). Terminals have to get approval from the Office of Gas Safety, Victoria. In answer to Ian’s question George said that the approval will cover all aspects of the combustor system.

ACTION. George to report further on this issue to the CICCC at the next meeting. He will include detail about how the combustor will operate.

* Quentin showed some overheads which outlined the EPA’s requirements for the safe operation of the combustor on the Terminals site on Coode Island. He said that flame and oxygen detectors shut down the system so that fire cannot burn back along the line.

George said that

• Stream 1 from the storage tanks is inert because it contains nitrogen. (Oxygen would have to be added to make it burn).

• Stream 2 is from truck filling drum filling (and other points) is diluted to below 25% the Lower Explosive Limit before entering the combustor.

Quentin said that knock-out pots stop liquids from going into the combustor. He said there are many more safety regulations covering requirements for combustors than there are for carbon bed systems which currently operate on the site. He said this system (with the safety features) is as safe as the carbon beds system.

The amount of benzene emissions in Victoria is about 4,000 tonnes in total per year being;

• 100 tonnes per year from point sources (this includes 7 tonnes from the Terminals site)

• 3900 tonnes for car exhaust.

Future cleaner fuel requirements and reductions from the petroleum industry sites will improve these emission amounts. The cleaner fuel requirements are expected to halve the benzene emissions within 4-5 years.

Peter said that Australian petroleums are high in benzene compared to other OECD countries.

Quentin said that 2 smaller combustors (as planned) will produce less greenhouse emissions than one large combustor would.

* Bronwyn said that WorkSafe have a Memorandum of Understanding with the Office of Gas Safety (who have an interest in combusters) regarding the MHF regulations.

She said an Office of Gas Safety (OGS) Safety Case can assist by assessing the system if they decide to do so. They have a range of levels to which they might get involved in the assessment of such a system. She said the OGS Safety Case is different to that used by WorkSafe but she is not clear about the detail of how it is different.

Ian suggested that Terminals volunteer to ask WorkSafe to make such an assessment.

In answer to Robin’s question George said that in their WorkSafe Safety Case, Terminals are required to fully explain how they propose to construct and operate the combustor.

ACTION. The HSE subcommittee will meet next Tuesday to further consider the above matter.

* Ian said that Marstel offered their committee an opportunity to sit in on their HAZOP so they could observe all the detail. He wondered if Terminals might do the same.

Robin reminded him that George had also previously made a similar invitation to the CICCC.

Michael Isaachsen said that Marstel are planning to use a smaller combustor and carbon beds.


6.8 Further advice on whether draft EIP matters will be binding on a future owner of Terminals P/L (EPA & Terminals)

* Wayne said the answer to this enquiry was a ‘yes’.

George says that in the lease the EIP is noted as being part of the ongoing lease contract.



To Robyn Betts 10/5/2002 re regulations - has been circulated to everyone.












*John circulated a paper indicating his thoughts on this matter to the CICCC members during the month. He said he has been on the CICCC for 2 years and that he recapped the history of the CICCC and the Marstel CC as background to a possible way forward. He hopes that the document is a starting point and that it will stimulate future discussion and development of options.

*Robin thanked John for the paper and said that it was very useful. He suggested that the CICCC make some initial enquires about the paper tonight and that it be put on the agenda for further discussion and the development of a course of action at the next CICCC meeting.

Many other CICCC members also thanked John for his paper.

*Deborah said it was a pity that he had placed a lot of emphasis on the Victoria University of Technology (VUT) Review of the Committee’s effectiveness because the CICCC had previously considered the Review and found it most unsatisfactory. She said that when she first joined the CICCC she had been pleasantly struck by the care that was taken by this committee to ensure that all members understood the often complex content of material to be assessed. The community see their reps on the CICCC as a catalyst to ensure things are monitored. Their CICCC representatives know what’s going on, without the necessity for all individual members of the Footscray ( and surrounding) communities having to follow all the (often complex) details themselves. They are also pleased with the information on the CICCC web site. However she said she had concerns about whether or not the information in the Marstel newsletter was of much use to the local community. She agreed with John that the CICCC meetings of 4-5 hours once a month were very long. However she thought the paper should include more detail about what the CICCC has achieved and so provide a more balanced view overall.

John said that the CICCC must add its own views to the paper and that it was at this stage just a work in progress. The CICCC need to decide on the way forward.

*Bronwyn suggested that all the port precinct (including Coode Island) be included as the relevant area of concern for the future committee/s rather than just the Major Hazard sites of Terminals and Marstel.

Deborah disagreed and said that there is already a lot of information to be considered by committee members regarding just the redevelopment of the Terminals site on Coode Island.

*Michael Isaachsen agreed that the community are concerned about numerous MH bulk storage sites in the area but that the CICCC must not dilute its focus on the Terminals redevelopment. He agreed with others that the paper in its present form might give the wrong impression to others about the CICCC.

Michael reiterated his views that committee members should not receive sitting fees from the company but rather from local government as had been the case initially with the CICCC. He suggested that council pay the committee from a fund provided by the company/s. He said some Marstel CC members have shown interest in this option also.

Robin suggested that it could be ‘certified’ through an account that is transparent to the community.

* Peter thanked John for the report. He said that Maribyrnong City Council employed a consultant to advise them about the initial development of a CICCC. He suggested that a possible way forward is to look at a process which considers other options for forming a committee looking at all hazardous bulk chemical storage issues rather than implicitly assuming that it would result from a coming together of the two existing committees. One option might be to consider establishing a committee from scratch.

The matter of sitting fees could be considered later. He reminded the CICCC that the Melbourne City Council had previously recommended that the State Government should fund the CICCC. Peter said that the CICCC needed to discuss this further as Coode Island has significance for the local community and the whole state. He warned against a committee becoming too diverse in what precincts it considers, as it may mean they do not get considered carefully enough.

He said the VUT report lacked insight and did not clearly address the CICCC’s strengths and weaknesses. It gave inappropriately heavy emphasis to the role of government departments and insufficient emphasis on the involvement of non-government stakeholders the community generally. He said that at the end of the day the community will drive the CICCC with input from government agencies.

He said Section 7 of John’s paper was a ‘certitude’ and not a ‘paradox’ as suggested by John. He said the local community have been ‘disempowered’ and, in turn, may have become ‘desensitised’ (as suggested by John) because what they wanted (removal of the Terminals site from their local area) did not occur. Many in the community trust HazMAG to act as the watchdog for them on this matter. This is exactly how community dynamics happen when such issues concern them.

He made the comment that the CICCC was the most ‘highly functional and challenging community-based committee’ he had experienced in his many years of involvement in similar committees.

Jim said that the Peerless Committee was another good example.

* John said he tried to do what the CICCC had asked of him, namely to propose a way forward that would include the representatives already on the two committees. He agreed that looking at the option of starting from scratch would be useful.

The Docklands Authority with 20,000 residents and many visitors will also be interested.

Deborah said that the Dockland area have a residents group.

* Faye said that when the CICCC was initially created, she was not going to be included as a member. She reminded the meeting that residents on the east side of the river are also interested about what happens on the west side of the river. She said that the storage of hazardous materials in the Melbourne metropolitan area was a concern because they were not stored in other cities.

Others present at the meeting disagreed with her comments about other cities not storing MH materials.

Faye said she too favoured a more open arrangement for the payment of fees.

She suggested the 2 committees remain separate until the redevelopments are completed. In the future a broader committee will be required but not presently.

She said that the Marstel CC do not deal with associated health issues as is the case with the CICCC.

* Ian congratulated the Marstel CC for producing a newsletter. He said he was disappointed that the CICCC had not yet produced fridge magnets, etc which provided information for the community about emergency procedures.

Peter said he saw the Marstel newsletter as a PR publication for Marstel with no information included about community representatives.

Michael Isaachsen said that the reason there were no community rep articles in the Marstel newsletter was because the community representatives on the Marstel CC had not submitted any articles for the newsletters. Their next newsletter will be their last, and then, Michael hopes, a combined Marstel/Terminals/Coode Island newsletter might be produced.

Ian reminded the CICCC that the community representatives on the CICCC has dropped from 7 to 5 members.

* George said that Terminals work very well with the CICCC because there is a good level of hard earned established trust. He said that if other companies were involved in such a committee he would be more guarded about the information he shared with a committee. He said he agreed with Peter’s suggestion that a committee be re convened based on workable options used elsewhere. He said it was worth doing thoroughly.

* Quentin said that the EPA has had experience with similar groups in the western Melbourne metropolitan areas. He suggested that there could be a structure with one large overriding committee (that considered the bigger ‘common to all’ issues) and that a group of smaller localised committees deal with the local company issues. He said that the Altona complex has evolved this way.

Deborah said she did not like this option.

Bronwyn said that she has seen such an option work well in the past.

Jim said that the community reps at Altona liked this model. They meet in the smaller groups once every 2 months.

Robin said that he could see this option offered an opportunity to overcome the issue of ‘confidentiality of company information’.

Carlo said the Marstel & Terminals CCC could be left as they are with a larger combined meeting held every 2 months.

* There was discussion about the Melbourne Port Corporation involvement in the Marstel and CICC committees. John had made the point in his paper that they attended the Marstel CC meetings but not the CICCC meetings. It was noted that the MPC previously informed the CICCC that it would only attend the CICCC meetings on occasions that it was invited to do so. John said that the MPC as the land owners, represented the government and as such Maribyrnong CC wanted them to get more involved in specific local government issues of state importance like these MH site developments.

George said that Chris Whitaker (Managing Director of MPC) has said recently that they want to have more involvement in a broader scope of issues.

ACTION. All written comments should be sent directly to John by 28 June 2002. John will work with Robin to revise the paper before the next meeting. John will circulate the revised draft paper by the 4 July 2002. The draft is still an internal CICCC working paper.

ACTION. At the next meeting the distribution of the paper will be discussed. Robin suggested that the CICCC might look at the matter of a newsletter again.




See Attachment 4

Defer the presentation to next week.




* Terminals are not progressing this any further at this stage. There are concerns that if contaminated soil is remediated on site, the odour problems may be too difficult to manage. They are having discussions with DIIRD about the matter. A six month extension of the lease until the end of January 2005 is being considered. DIIRD are now requiring a ‘dig and remove and clean fill’ management program. The future options for the management of contaminated soil that is removed from the Terminals site include

• store and remediate as soon as possible (most desirable)

• store and remediate later

• landfill it without remediation

The EPA decides which option will be applied. Once the material has left our Coode Island site and is received by an EPA approved handling facility, it is no longer our concern George said.

Peter said that the community will not readily accept the option of using the contaminated soil as landfill at the Lyndhurst site.

George said that it has yet to be decided where it will go because as yet its contaminants have not been fully classified. It may go to Alice Springs. Major Projects Victoria has been trying to establish a recycling depot for some time. This is not likely to occur in time for the treatment of the soil on Coode Island.

Robin asked about the process involved in making the decision about where the removed soil will go. He asked about community consultation on this matter.

Quentin said the soil will have to be classified first, and he said that the public consultation has commenced tonight at this meeting of the CICCC. Further options are still being considered by the EPA.

ACTION. At the next CICCC Quentin will further report on

• Options and criteria used by the EPA in their determination of a suitable site.

• The quality of the soil to be removed

• Program for consultation on this matter

* Ian expressed his concerns that the EPA is more concerned about potential odours from the soil remediation at Coode Island than about the ramifications of the presence of 8.4 million litres of propylene oxide stored 680 metres from the nearby residential community.



See the above ACTION ITEMS.




* Bronwyn said that in response to the enquiry from the CICCC about the comments made by the public to the Review of Safety Case Regimes, the Department of Treasury and Finance will be contacting those who previously submitted comments next week..

14.2 The proposed CICCC meeting for 10 April 2003 will not fall during the Easter break so that date is confirmed.

14.3 See the attached Terminals Monthly Operational Reports for March 2002, April 2002 and May 2002. Questions on the reports will be taken at the next meeting.

14.4 Robin said that he would like to see in the EIP not only descriptions of the work to be done, but also the environmental and safety targets that are to be achieved, expressed in quantified standards against each item. Other columns would provide details of monitoring (the parameters to be tested and the frequency of testing) and the responsibility for action.

ACTION. The CICCC will discuss the EIP at the next meeting.



Time 10.15pm




Thursday 11 July 2002

Thursday 8 August 2002







13 June 2002


Attachment 1 Terminals Monthly Report - March 2002

Attachment 2 Terminals Monthly Report - April 2002

Attachment 3 Terminals Monthly Report - May 2002

Attachment 4 Overheads for the WorkSafe Terminals Audit Presentation (deferred)

Attachment 5 Overheads from the EPA for the presentation about the proposed Terminals combustors on Coode Island.


Items posted to those without e-mail facilities include

Phone number changes Terminals P/L 13/5/02

Letter to Robyn Betts 13/6/02

Discussion paper - John Luppino 6/02

  Get this as a Microsoft Word document