ITEM 1. WELCOME BY THE CHAIR & APOLOGIES

The chairperson welcomed the committee members and others in attendance.

Apologies were received from Gordon Harrison.

ITEM 2. CONFIRMATION OF THE DRAFT AGENDA

The draft agenda was adopted with Item 6 (3^rd and 4^th dot points) brought forward to Item 4. (Note: the minutes maintain the same order as the original agenda.).

ITEM 3. BRIEF REPORT FROM AGENCIES AND TERMINALS ON KEY ISSUES, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT CONSIDERATION OF THE MARSTEL PROPOSAL.

See Attachment 1

Peter Reddie read the Terminals Media Release and then discussed the contents with the committee.

Peter was asked which of the VCMBCG companies had not signed contacts with Terminals. Peter said Dow and Huntsman did not sign but the other three companies did sign. He said that the governments input of $11,000,000 will now go (through the Marstel development) selectively to support the Dow and Huntsman companies.

He said that Marstel’s pricing seems extraordinary low. It is therefore difficult for Terminals to guess what future pricing will be like and to see where Terminals might or might not fit into that market. He said it is a bit like what happened recently in the airline industry, and all the terminalling companies may be affected by these pricing changes.

He said it is too early to say which chemicals Terminals will keep storing. Both benzene and propylene oxide can not fit on the B West and C West sites.

He said that Tim Gunning (Marstel) had recently questioned Terminal’s ability to continue consulting with the community once the upgrade of the Terminal site is completed. Peter said they will continue to consult with the community after the upgrade.

Matthew said that the terms of reference for the government Coode Island Technical Working Group (which was set up to look at the future redevelopment of Coode Island) will be revisited to accommodate the entry of Marstel. They will also continue to look at the future development of the remainder of the Terminal site.

Cameron said the $5,000 donation had been made to the Back to School Project. The EPA will have a meeting in the next couple of weeks on the Air Quality Monitoring Project. Those CICCC members who expressed interest will be invited to the meeting. There will be a small meeting first and then the issue will be opened for involvement of the wider community.

Peter B and Robin suggested that HazMAG be invited to attend.

Jim said the proposal would be advertised once the draft had been developed.

The OPSIS beam monthly results were similar to last months. The spikes of toluene recorded last month were not detected this month.

Ian said that while the OPSIS recorded benzene levels were below the SEPP limits it could be inferred that there were no adverse health risks to the community from benzene in the environment.

Faye said she disagreed with Ian’s statement because the recordings were only being made at that particular point across the river. She said it was well known that at the base of a stack there may be no recordings made but the results can be different with elevation and distance from the original source.

George said that the present positioning of the OPSIS beam measures more of the area surrounding the Terminals site rather than specifically the Terminals site only.

Cameron agreed that a more North and South orientation of the beam rather than the present E and W positioning was desirable. He said that possible installation problems prevented a more North and South orientation.

Ian commended the EPA for installing the OPSIS.

Faye said while it would assist with health and safety issues for workers on the site, more OPSIS measuring sites were needed for the larger community’s sake.

Robin stated that the combination of the OPSIS results with the proposed community air monitoring would provide a useful data base.

Bill asked where we are in relation to Worlds Best Practise for the terminalling of hazardous chemicals?

Cameron said that in recent years some EPA staff have travelled overseas to observe storage site procedures. They have written a report on procedures used in USA and Europe for incinerating vapours. On return from overseas, Scott Moloney presented his findings to the CICCC. Five staff members assessed the Terminal's proposal so that the highest standards would be met. The same will be done with the Marstel project.

Ian T suggested that the EPA should arrange for the withdrawal of court directions recently imposed on Terminals.

Peter B said that there will be a Coode Island Fire Anniversary BBQ at the jetty, 11am on 21 August 2001. All are welcome.

ITEM 4. CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING 14 JULY 2001

The minutes were adopted with the following amendments-

Include Ian Swann as an apology.

ITEM 5. SAFETY CASE. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS OF PILOT STUDY ON ACRYLONITRILE AND PROPYLENE OXIDE BY GEOFF MILLARD - UPDATE ON RELEVANCE

Peter Reddie said that propylene oxide will not be stored by Terminals on Coode Island in the longer term. They have moved the focus of their safety case to the Geelong facility for the time being. The Safety Case for Coode Island is on hold for now.

Matthew said that the regulations require that Terminals will have to do a Safety Case for Coode Island by June 2002.

George said they have to be off the old BP site by Feb 2004. He disagreed with Mr Brumby’s statement that ‘there will be no delays’. There have already been delays and Terminals expect more, given that the following timelines will apply

• 6 to 8 months to Empty and degas/decommission then demolish the facility.

•12 to 14 months to remediate soil on the E side of McKenzie Road

Counting back from the end date of Feb 1, 2004 Terminals will need to start this process by May – June next year (2002). So Marstel will not be operating for at least a year beyond that date.

Terminals have not been notified by the Department of Infrastructure of their expectations of Terminals for the near future. Terminals understand that the end date of 1/2/04 is still the Governments expectation but there expectation is there is no “Gap” either therefore there is a major discrepancy.

Peter Brotherton said the community need to know of these delays in the CICCC press release.

Matthew said the safety case (to be lodged before 30 June 2002) requires Terminals to show that they are taking all practical means to make the site safe. Matthew said they can only be prosecuted if they have not taken all reasonable steps to make the facility safe. Marstel will have to have a safety case in place which is consistent with what WorkCover expected of Terminals.

Jim said that the EPA have written to Marstel regarding the department’s expectation of a community consultative process before a Works Approval is exhibited. They expect a minimum of 4-6 weeks of discussions.

Robin said that there could be further delays to a Marstel Works Approval if there were resubmissions and appeals. Given all possibilities Robin asked if it was reasonable to except that the Marstel development would be ready for operation in approximately 2.5 years?

ITEM 6. ACTION ITEMS FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING

6.1 Worst case scenario tender evaluation (Ian Thomas) - relevance

George said that Terminals do not want to meet the full costs of the consultant now that Marstel have been given the go ahead. He wondered if the Department of Infrastructure might fund the appointment of a consultant ($12-15,000).

Faye asked if the companies storing their goods with Marstel could fund the consultant’s study?

Mathew said that Marstel’s different design will effect the possible consequences of an analysis especially in the case of a big spill event. They have proposed different sized bunds but it was just a simple matter of doing different runs on the computer program for the different design components.

ACTION. Robin will write to Marstel to invite them to contribute to the funding for the worst case scenario consultancy. George will e-mail the brief to Robin.

6.2 MPC Environment Improvement Plan

Robin said that the document was e-mailed to everyone 16 July, 2001.

Peter Reddie asked about the scope of the plan.

Cameron said that the initial plan includes air emissions and the other environmental considerations will come later on.

ACTION. Discuss this at the next CICCC meeting. (Vanessa to mail copies to those not on email.)

6.3 Petrol spill: report from EPA and Maribyrnong City Council, and

6.4 Emergency communication (see also initiative of the Commissioner for Emergency Services)

See attachment 2

There has been a report made to council. Robin said the tone of the report indicated that there was some environmental risk but no public health risk. On the contrary, at the last CICCC meeting the EPA reported that the situation was unsafe for the first few hours of the spill.

Theo said that council have not been privy to any detail. He said that petrol is not as toxic as benzene and that if the situation had been unsafe, the emergency services who were in charge would have told council staff that an evacuation was required. He said that council was ‘on the back foot as far as getting information at 11am,’ seven hours after the spill first occurred. He said that council should be one of the first authorities to be notified by emergency services so they can give correct information to querying local residents. We have now informed industries in the area that we have a 24 hour contact person for this purpose. Council would like to be able to better inform our local residents. We have a new project that we would like to implement so that this matter of suitable communications when implied or real emergencies occur, can be

adequately address for local residents. We do not have the resources to develop this initiative.

Peter B said it is a concern to him that the 2 different reports given about the spill are completely different.

George said that a spill of 4 tons of unleaded petrol is a serious spill.

Peter R said that it is a Class 3 flammable material and it was lucky that there was no possible ignition source.

Robin said that the Committee had been told at the last meeting that it could have exploded.

Theo said the EPA line was that it was only potentially explosive on the water surface and of no threat to the general community. The council wanted to find out why they had not been notified until 11am. The EPA investigations are not yet completed. The council share the same concerns as expressed by the CICCC.

Ian T said that in these sorts of circumstances the council should be taking initiative on behalf of the local residents, by finding out what’s happening rather than waiting to be informed. He said he has been told that at the time of the spill the only boat (belonging to Maritime Services) that could mop up the spill was out of action and having a maintenance service. He asked, ‘Is there a need for two boats ?’

Theo said council was not informed so it was not able to be pro active. He was told by a resident of the odour at 7am. The local police had not been required to assist either.

Faye said that in the past council had not been very proactive in setting up a response process with industries and council so that the council are notified immediately of anything that may concern residents. She asked if they had supported Terminals with their initiative to use a local radio station as an information source during implied &/or real emergencies?

John disagreed and said that council had been proactive.

Theo said that council could not be seen to favour one radio station over another. He said he will ask industries what they have done and concentrate on getting up to scratch with what the local community requires.

‘It is always a problem trying to work with limited resources,’ he said.

Deborah said she was surprised that there had been communication problems during this latest emergency. She was surprised because a few months ago similar problems had arisen during a mock practise emergency which included all the emergency services. In the exercise, important information had not been passed on. During the debriefing session it was implied that the communication problems would be fixed.

Theo said he wasn’t aware of that. The communication breakdown during the practise run was between the emergency services. This real spill incident was different because he expected to be contacted by the company involve namely Mobil. He said in the real incident there was no emergency so the emergency services didn’t have to notify the council.

Deborah said that council should be informed by the company and the emergency services.

Peter B said that if the council is fully informed by both parties they can then accurately inform the local residents.

Bill questioned the CICCC’s role in questioning and complaining about councils role in this matter. He said that other councils (like Hobsons Bay) were also implicit in this and yet the CICCC had not mentioned them. He said it was only the CICCC’s role and brief to inform the community.

Robin said that the establishment of a Best Practise community emergency communication system (phone system) is required. He welcomed the news that the Office of the Emergency Commissioner had now written to Council, advising that they would fund a Pilot Study focussing on Coode Island, with a Steering Committee to be chaired by Council. He said it was a tribute to the CICCC that lobbying for firm action by the responsible authorities for 18 months had finally resulted in action.

Michael said that council at their last meeting were obviously very serious about making improvements to their communication processes with residents when these incidents arise in future.

John said they are working with the Office of the Emergency Commissioner Working Group. It is made up of council employees and others.

Robin stated that it was desirable for a local community representative to be on the Working Group, and asked if a CICCC representative would be invited to join the working group.

ACTION. Theo to talk to the group re possible CICCC representative.

ACTION . John will update the CICCC as necessary on the developments of the Emergency Communication Pilot Study Working Group.

Deborah said that Hobson Bay have an emergency plan.

ACTION. Robin to write and invite a representative from Hobson Bay Council to address the CICCC about their procedures for Emergency Communication, including during the Mobil incident. (2nd by Faye)

Peter B said that even though council were now taking a leading role in developing a suitable emergency communications system, the CICCC should keep monitoring its development.

Bill said that he will raise some of the issues of tonight’s discussion with the Western Councils’ bi-monthly forum. Their next meeting is at Hobsons Bay. These could then be further discussed at the next CICCC meeting.

Robin thanked Theo for meeting with the CICCC and invited him to join our next meeting.

ACTION. George will obtain a copy of the minutes of Mobil’s public meeting held tonight.

6.5 Full report on the lessons from the emergency exercise held on 18 October 2000

George rang Lance Jamieson but he did not have any further information that added to the report already received and discussed.

Deborah said that the consequences can be seen in the Mobil exercise. At the debriefing of the practise exercise there had been about 6 separate incidents of poor communications. Some CICCC members said there was a poor carry through after the debrief.

ACTION. Robin to write a letter from the CICCC to the Victorian Channel Authority, requesting a further report on the outcomes of Operation Overflow, and follow up action. The letter will indicate Council’s support.

6.6 Maribyrnong City Council’s Community Engagement Procedures

John said that his plan was adopted by council in July 2000. He said a copy had been e-mailed to CICCC members in July.

They have met with Marstel and given them a copy of the plan. Marstel will develop something based on Council’s plan.

Peter Brotherton said that Jane Fuller wrote a plan for setting up the CICCC. It contains a diversity of views and took 4-5 months to complete.

Robin said that the report was on the CICCC web site.

Jim said that a newsletter like that produced by Altona would be good to aim for.

ACTION. Jim will get further information on the 5 newsletters that are produced for 5 different ares in the Altona region. He will e-mail the information to the CICCC before the next meeting.

ITEM 7.

CORRESPONDENCE OUT

• Letters to surrounding chemical facilities on emergency communication

Robin will continue with this initiative.

ACTION. Ian Swann had also advised that he would follow up with the six companies to whom Peter Reddie wrote.

CORRESPONDENCE IN

See Attachment 3

• From the Minister of Ports (undated, received 7/8/01) re Victorian Ports Strategic Study

The Victoria Ports Strategic Study 2001 Consultation Summary document is now available.

ITEM 8. MONTHLY REPORT FROM TERMINALS (GEORGE)

See Attachment 4

George said there was a lot of uncertainty for Terminals staff. As a result moral is low. He said many operators have completed the Certificate Level 2 after 2 years study in conjunction with The Gordon Institute which is well ahead of what similar industries are doing and that Terminals was very proud of it’s achievements in this area.

ACTION. Carlo will give an overview of the course at the next CICCC.

ITEM 9. MONTHLY REPORT FROM HS&E SUB-COMMITTEE

They will be reconvening soon.

ITEM 10. AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING 13 SEPTEMBER 2001

See all the above ACTION ITEMS and Item 11 will be included in the next meeting.

ITEM 11. GROUNDWATER AND SITE SOIL SURVEY (EPA AND TERMINALS)

This will be discussed at the next meeting.

ITEM 12. OTHER BUSINESS

12.1 External communications by Committee members - Deborah

She said the CICCC needed to decide how letters that were written by individual CICCC members would be signed off when not all members were consulted about the content of the correspondence.

Faye said it must be applauded that letters were written by some members.

Peter Brotherton said it was important that status not be added falsely when it had not been authorised.

Ian Thomas said it was difficult to get a letter published when it was signed by an individual only. Signing as the ‘chair’ can imply an entity rather than an individual.

This was discussed in more detail.

ACTION. If members of the CICCC write personal letters to the media, it may be stated that the writer is a member of the CICCC and a member of a sub committee of the CICCC , but people should not use the word ‘chair’ without seeking approval from all members.

12.2 EPA Works Approval appeal - Ian Thomas

This document is 31 pages, comprising the VCAT decision and Ian’s response.

ACTION. Robin will scan it and e-mail to everyone. Vanessa will mail out to those without e-mail.

CLOSE.

Time 10.00pm

NEXT MEETINGS

Thursday 13 September 2001

Thursday 11 October 2001

CICCC ATTACHMENTS TO DRAFT MINUTES

9 August 2001

Attachment 1 Terminals Pty Ltd Media Release, 9 August 2001

Attachment 2 Letter to Maribyrnong City Council, 7 August 2001

Attachment 3 Letter from the Minister for Ports, not dated

Attachment 4 Terminals Monthly Operations & Occurrence Report, July 2001

Attachment 5 CICCC July 2001 media release

Attachment 6 Media release - Minister for State & Regional Development, 31 July

Attachment 7 Media release - Combined Environment Groups, 1 August 2001.

Items posted to those without e-mail facilities include

1. Environment Improvement Plan, Melbourne Port Corporation.

2. Maribyrnong City Council - Community Engagement Council Report 2000

3. Maribyrnong City Council - Community Engagement Framework July 2000

4. Maribyrnong City Council - Mobil Petrol Spill Report

5. VCAT Decision May 2001

6. Rely to the VCAT decision May 2001

7. Draft Agenda for CICCC meeting 13 September 2001