Adopted Minutes

Thursday 14 March 2002



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

Ian Swann
 General Manager / PACIA / committee
John Luppino
  City of Maribyr, GM City Dev /committee
Jim Clements
  Env. Protection Authority/ex off comm
Michael Ragen
  Cash Controller, Burns, Philp & Co Limited / CICCC Committee

Ian Thomas
  community rep./ committee
Bill Horrocks
  City of Maribyr. Councillor/committee 
Faye Simpson
  community rep./ committee
Deborah Macfarlane
  community rep / CICCC committee
Carlo Fasolino
  Op. Manager Terminals / committee
Ted Towson
  community rep./ committee
Dr Peter Brotherton
Combined Enviro. Groups / committee
George Horman
  Terminals Pty Ltd / committee
Michael Isaachsen
  community rep./ committee
Cameron Fitzgerald
  Environ. Protec Auth / ex off comm
Emma Klement
  Env. Protection Authority / HR
Bronwyn Brookman Smith
Vanessa Richardson
  minute taker



Robin Saunders welcomed the committee members and other people attending the CICCC meeting.

He congratulated Bill Horrocks on his election as Mayor at the City of Maribyrnong, for the second time.   



Apologies were received from Jarrod Edwards and Trevor Perkins. Bronwyn Brookman-Smith represented WorkSafe at the meeting.



 The draft agenda was adopted.



See attachment 1

Cameron said that the EPA issued the Terminals Licence Amendment today. The      licence specifies the operating standards for the new vapour emission control system, and removes some redundant reporting requirements. Cameron tabled a list of changes to the licence which included details in the following areas

• Environment Improvement Plan (EIP)

• Tank Integrity Reporting

• Stormwater Management Reporting

Robin said that the CICCC will want more information about the EIP and the level of     community involvement required in this plan.

Cameron said that the EPA saw it important that the CICCC have input into the EIP.

ACTION The EIP development is to be listed on the Agenda for the next meeting as an item for discussion.

Allen said that Terminals P/L had initiated the preparation of the EIP.

Jim said that of the 50 facilities in the State that have prepared EIPs 47 have done so voluntarily. All of those, apart from 3 companies, have volunteered to prepare EIPs. The other 3 companies were compelled by the EPA to prepare EIPs.

Ian Thomas said that the changes were positive and had improved the safety of the Terminals site. He asked Cameron if the EPA had been aware that Terminal’s new VECS would cost $4.3 million to install.  Ian went on to say that the benzene tanks on the east side of Mackenzie Road would be connected to the new VECS system at an estimated cost of $1 million and only be in service for 4 months beyond the date they were connected. They would then be decommissioned.

George said that Terminals wanted to provide benzene to customers and they were required to comply by installing the new VECS. The Marstel  site is still not completed and final timelines are unclear so the 4-month operational period could be stretched.

In answer to Michael’s question, Allen said that the decision to install the new VECS was a commercial decision and the requirement for the VECS had not been ‘rammed down their throats’ by the regulatory authorities.

Cameron said that there have been lots of improvements already made including interim measures like changing the carbon beds more regularly. He said that the longer-term solutions included the VECS.

The styrene tank (reported previously to have leaked through a corroded pinhole) has been repaired and Terminals are seeking approval to return it to service.

George commented that benzene emissions had been reduced to below the 51 g level  license limit consistently over the last couple of months. To achieve this reduction, the largest benzene tank had been taken out of service, and the inventory reduced by one third.

Ian Thomas asked if it might not be wiser for Terminals to ask the EPA to consider waiving the new VECS requirements for the tanks on the east side of McKenzie Road for the four months they will be in operation after August 2002.

Robin asked “If $1 million were to be spent at Coode Island, what would give the greatest environmental or safety improvement?”.

ACTION. Cameron will provide a copy of the licence (and a copy of his summary) to Robin for circulation to members and for posting to the web site.

Bronwyn said that WorkSafe concluded the six monthly audit round on 8 March. Terminals were visited on 28 February. The WorkSafe audit report is due by the end of March.

ACTION. The April meeting will include the WorkSafe audit report for Terminals.

The Safety Case for the Corio site has been submitted.

Ian Thomas asked if the bottoms of the tanks at the Corio facility would be in the same condition as those on Coode Island.

George said that the Corio tanks are newer than the Coode Island tanks. They are inspected regularly as required. He said that one leak in a tank on Coode Island did not mean that the other tanks in the facility were not sound. He said that 3 tanks have been lifted recently  and checked for faults. They are in good condition.

George said that it is now possible for Terminals to pick up faults by scanning the floors of the tanks. The scanners detect corrosion. If corrosion occurs it is usually found on the outside of the tank. There is only one tank on the site containing material that can potentially corrode the tank interior. .

All the tanks on Coode Island are due for inspection during the next 2 years. They are checked every 10 years.

George said that the following activities have occurred in the past month

• The Geelong site Safety Case was submitted.

• Terminals have let a contract for the new combustors at Coode Island.

• The bio pile appears to be working well. There are no results yet.

• The acrylate tanks and their foundations are being upgraded. Three already    have substantial foundations and so they only require new liners.

George showed the CICCC photos of the tank lifting process. He explained that the tanks are lifted in small distances with the aid of air bags and then supported with solid chocks. This process is repeated until the tanks have been lifted to a height of about 2 metres that enables full inspection of the foundation below the tank, and the metal base can also be inspected thoroughly. A plastic liner is placed between the tank and the pad prior to lowering the tank.

In answer to Peter’s question George said that the bio pile contained low levels of the following contaminants

• hydrocarbons

• heavy metals left on the site before Terminals P/L leased it

• lube oil

• benzene

Terminals are still ascertaining the level of heavy metals on the site. This will not be clear until the bio pile is turned over. If it looks like contaminants are going to threaten the nearby waterways then Terminals will do something about that, otherwise they will be left as they are.   

Peter said that changes to the regulations concerning disposal of contaminated soil to landfill were imminent.

ACTION. George will get details about the volume of soil which is being remediated in the bio mass. He will also report to the CICCC about the impending regulatory changes mentioned above and how they might affect Terminals management of  the contaminated soil.


George said that the styrene tank had been repaired and Terminals are awaiting WorkSafe’s permission to start using the tank once more. This tank has not been lifted yet. Tankbuilders were employed to repair the bottom of the tank. They welded on  overlapping plates to the bottom in the position where the leak occurred and in other areas where   there were some small holes. The welds were then tested. The area under the tanks was pumped full of nitrogen to ensure that fires were not ignited while the welding process took place.

Ian Thomas and Michael thanked George for his thorough explanation of the process.



The minutes were adopted with the following alterations

• pp 3 …Insert before the paragraph starting “Cameron stated that different facilities…” 
to a new paragraph, as follows: “Michael stated that Worlds Best practice     depended in part on the complexity of the plant.”

• pp 4 …Amend the sentence “WorkCover have given feedback about the Corio risk     assessment Pilot Study.”
to “WorkCover have given feedback about the Corio Safety Case Pilot Study.”



 6.1 Letter to EPA from the Committee raising issues of concern, and response.

These were e-mailed to everyone on the 20 & 22 Feb.

The CICCC discussed whether or not these two e-mails should be included on the CICCC web site.

Deborah said that the only information going onto the web site  in the last 12 months has been the meeting minutes. As schools are going to use the site in the future she suggested that further information could be of interest to them.

She said that some of the ‘links’ were not working.

Faye suggested that references (date, page number, etc) to specific newspaper articles could be included without actually including a ‘link’ to that newspaper.

Robin said that newspapers do not make their newspaper articles available via the web for very long.

ACTION. Robin will add informative documents and correspondence to the web site and check the ‘links’ operation. 

Ian Thomas said that the Marstel vapour balancing matter has progressed a lot recently. The letter dated 27 February 2002 from the EPA was not useful in that it did not indicate recent developments on this matter.

Cameron said that the 20B-conference report was not yet finalised.

Jim said that the chairperson of the EPA will make a decision before the 17 April as to when the report will be available.

ACTION. The CICCC awaits the 20 B Conference Report (if it is made available to the public).


6.2 Possible public forum

See attachment 2

The CICCC discussed the need for such a forum. The previous forum was held two years ago.

Some of the possible topics suggested for the forum included :

    • Robyn Betts update of project

    • Upgrades at Terminals

    • Marstel and Terminal’s joint efforts.

    • Marstel presentation.

    • Terminals Safety Case ( available to do in early July)

 Michael said that the recently facilitated 20B Conferences were public forums and so he wondered if another public forum was necessary.

Ian Thomas suggested that the press releases, web page and meetings were providing sufficient information to the public. He said that very few members of the public attend the forums.

Robin agreed that public interest had been low.

Michael said that recently, when he was delivering the Marstel newsletters, he met and talked to residents and business owners in the area. His observations included the following:

    • Of 20 householders, only 3 knew of what occurred on Coode Island and the others had little idea of what occurred on the island.

    • They were not asking questions about any possible hazards associated with Coode Island.

    • They did not know about the CICCC meetings.


Bill suggested that a forum could follow a CICCC meeting. It would provide an opportunity for the public to ask questions.

John thought there would not be big enough numbers to warrant such a meeting.

Faye suggested that stickers could be distributed to advertise the meeting.

Peter said that most of the CICCC communication methods were passive and he wondered if other methods should be investigated. He said that Coode Island is of interest to a wider group than the locals in the area.

Robin said that the wider spread of information can result in positive issue development as occurred recently between the Marstel and CICCC.

John suggested that the CICCC await Robyn Betts report on the questionnaire results. She had a high return rate of 14% (700 returns). This represented a possible database of 700 people already. The questionnaire was 8 pages long.

Peter said that privacy issues could be a factor in contacting people on a database.


ACTION. Peter will forward the relevant privacy legislation information to Robin.


ACTION . Robin will contact Robyn Betts and ask her to cover the  issues of interest to the CICCC members in her presentation to the CICCC next month.

The CICCC also discussed the need for a process for amalgamation of the Marstel and Terminals committees. Peter Brotherton suggested that the City of Maribyrnong look into options for moving to a future single committee.

Jim said that as the Works Approvals for both companies have neared completion, the EPA supported the amalgamation of both committees.

ACTION. Bill and John will explore process options to move towards achieving one committee, and present them to the CICCC for discussion at the next meeting.

 Deborah said it was of concern that once again the City of Maribyrnong were expected to invest resources into Coode Island management issues, yet they were not in receipt of the local government rates for Coode Island. The rates go the City of Melbourne. She said that the CICCC appreciated the City of Maribyrnong’s expenditure on Coode Island very much.

Bill said that the City of Maribyrnong is moving ahead slowly on the issue of who should receive the rates for Coode Island.

Ian Thomas said that the 2nd Marstel Newsletter was ‘a brilliant and excellent achievement’. He commented that in the title for the newsletter, the word ‘Marstel’ was less obvious to the eye than other title words like ‘Consultative Group (Coode Island)’

Peter said it will be interesting to find out if people actually read the newsletter or treat it as just more junk mail.

Robin said the CICCC will await Robyn Betts’ report on these matters before further discussing the need for forums or other communication methods.


6.3 Community and environment representatives meeting with Marstel

Nothing further to report.


6.4 Invitation to Robyn Betts to present the results of the community survey on   

      Emergency Management Pilot Study (accepted for the 11 April meeting)

Robyn will make her presentation at the next meeting.


6.5 Safety Case Regulatory Regime Review-need for representation by DNV

The DNV brief for the work was Attachment 5 to the Minutes of the CICCC meeting on 14 February 2002.

Robin said that the DNV brief had been to look at the regulatory regimes for all industries in all states. He said he thought it unnecessary for the CICCC to spend time on this.

Some other CICCC members disagreed.

Faye asked if they wanted community input. Robin said that they had sought community input but had heard mainly from industry representatives.

Faye said that it would be useful to tell them that the community are interested in these issues and that they want the Safety Cases to be made public.

Robin said he had articulated the above points on behalf of the CICCC when speaking to a representative from DNV.

Deborah said she would be interested to know what they were saying about Coode Island and the other facilities in the area.

ACTION. Robin will contact DNV and ask the above questions.

    Note from the Chairperson:

    Subsequent to this March meeting, I spoke to Huw Jones the Victorian Manager of    DNV,   on this matter. Huw advised that the only reference to Coode Island in their  entire report    were the remarks that I had made to Alan Ross when he interviewed me last December. These mainly centred on the community desire for Safety Cases to be publicly accessible,  as they are in the UK. 

George and Michael said this was not an issue for the CICCC to address.

Ian Swann said that it would only impact on Terminals if there were to be amalgamations of some of the legislated requirements.

Robin said that Victoria were leaders the field of Major Hazard facilities in Australia.

 Bronwyn said that DNV were working for the Department of Treasury and Finance. She said that presently there are 2 or 3 different Safety Case regulatory frameworks operating in Victoria. Some companies are required to comply with all of these. This review will report on what is best for Safety Case regimes in Victoria.

Robin said that DNV are not likely to reveal much information because they are required to report initially to the government.

Bronwyn said that WorkCover has a representative on a committee that is looking at this DNV review.

ACTION. Bronwyn will talk to he WorkCover representative on the review committee and ask them

    • what has been said about Coode Island?

    • what improvements to the Major Hazard regime might be expected?

    • what are the major outcomes of the report?

 ACTION. Robin will give DNV contact details to Ian Thomas so those on the CICCC who have a personal interest in this matter can follow up with the DNV as necessary.


6.6 Update from Maribyrnong City Council on Bronwyn Pike meeting    

John said that Bill has been in touch with the Minister’s office and this matter is progressing. He will keep the CICCC informed.



Letter to EPA 20/02/02 re emissions…see Action item 6.1.





• Response from EPA 27/02/02…see Action item 6.1.



Cameron tabled copies of the report -‘Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program - Volatile Organic Compounds’ (45 pages - copies of the report are available from Terminals P/L).

He said that the report consisted of analysis of material collected up to January 2002 and supplementary information. It is not possible to compare this data directly with that collected for other purposes. The EPA is now investigating some of the elevated levels of chemicals that were found during the monitoring period. The elevated levels were for chemicals not stored at Coode Island. There were no elevated air emissions levels coming from the Terminals site. There were no elevated levels of acrylate.

EPA will combine the results of the off-site monitoring with results of previous monitoring on and off site, to correlate and enhance the value of both data sets. They will report back on this work at the next meeting. 

ACTION Cameron will report on the further analysis at the April meeting.



    Deferred to the April meeting.



    Deferred to April meeting.



    See the above ACTION  ITEMS.



    13.1     Terminals monthly report for Feb.

See attachment 3. 

Carlo presented the Terminals monthly report for Feb. It was a busy month.

In answer to a question about the main products exported by Terminals from Coode Island, Carlo said that tallow was handled in the largest volumes (about 20-30,000 tons were exported annually mainly to Asia and China). Tallow was followed in volumes by acerton, phenol and styrene. 

George said that the odour complaint from the Department of Human Services in Moreland Street was not an odour that he recognised. He checked at the Moreland Street location and said that at that time there was a SSW wind and he could not smell anything so he does not believe the odour came from Terminals.


Carlo reported that a Dept of Human Services audit found high bacteria levels in the VECs cooling tower. This bacteria was not legionella. 

Ian Swann said that there are new regulated requirements for cooling towers maintenance and that many facilities had not yet adjusted their procedures. Using more chemicals could improve their operation.

Ian  Thomas said that the Health Department had information about a variety of processes that could be used apart from increasing the amount of chemicals used in the cooling tower maintenance procedures. They also offered workshops to assist the public to appropriately maintain their systems. 

An operator received phenol burns on the arms during a ship loading operation. Carlo said that the incident occurred because the operator used the wrong gloves.  Terminals are reviewing the process used in handling this product.

In answer to Faye’s question Carlo said that incident reports increased last year due to the large number of odour reports from the public.

He said that the people they now use as contractors are the same people that were employed as normal Terminals staff members. There has simply been a change in the way they are now paid (as contractors rather than staff members).

ACTION. Carlo will provide a summary report on the incidents that occurred last year.


    13.2 Ian Thomas’s submission to the 20B Conference for the Marstel development.

Ian raised concerns that following Terminals’ submission to the 20B Conference, 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 (i.e. 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. 


13.3    Michael’s submission to the 20B Conference for the Marstel development.

     Michael said that in his submission to the 20B Conference he raised the issue of using rail transport for major hazard goods, as he believes it would be a more efficient means of transport for the industry. He said his submission included a plan that would mean less dangerous goods would be stored on Coode Island but would be dispatched by rail to an inland facility.  This would mean that fewer volumes of major hazard materials would be stored on Coode Island. He said it would be difficult to implement such a plan while P&O leased land that could be used for rail connections to Marstel and Terminals. 



    Time 9.35pm



    Thursday 11 April 2002(Robin and Carlo tendered apologies)

    Thursday 9 May 2002



 14 March 2002


Attachment     1      Licence Amendment notes -presentation EPA

Attachment     2      Marstel Newsletter Vol 1 - Issue 2

Attachment     3      Terminals P/L Monthly Operations & Occurrence Reports for Feb2002

Attachment     4      CICCC Web Page Usage details 


Items posted to those without e-mail facilities include

• E-mail 27/2  Robin S & Cameron clarifying EPA’s understanding of the predicted emissions from the proposed Marstel benzene tanks.

• CICCC Media Release 14/02/02

• Meinhart Report…to the Cities of Maribyrnong and Melbourne on the Marstel Works Approval application, dated Feb 2002

• CICCC letter to Jim Clements of EPA dated  20/2/02 on vapour emissions.

• Quentin Cooke's reply on behalf of EPA dated 27 Feb 2002

• To Jim (EPA) 20 Feb 2002. Re: vapour emissions

• Valerie Gemmell e-mail 27 Feb 2002

  Get this as a Microsoft Word document