Adopted Minutes

Thursday 13 June 2002


Robin Saunders
CICCC / Chairperson

Faye Simpson
community rep./ committee

John Luppino
City of Maribyr, GM City Dev

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

Deborah Macfarlane
community rep./ committee

Michael Ragen
Cash Controller, Burns, Philp
Co Limited / CICCC

Ian Thomas
Community rep./ committee

Dr Peter Brotherton
Combined Enviro. Groups /

George Horman
State Man./Terminals
Pty Ltd / committee

Michael Isaachsen
community rep./ committee

Wayne Bergin
Environmental Protection

Bronwyn Brookman Smith
MH Div

Jim Cyngler
Environmental Protection

Env. Protection

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Hazards Unit – Greg Harvey has been replaced by a new director, Mr Rob Sheers.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 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



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
if the company does not take action it becomes a statutory

…“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

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

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 &

* 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

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

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

* 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

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




* 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

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

• 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


(11 JULY 2002)

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

Letter to Robyn Betts 13/6/02

Discussion paper – John Luppino 6/02