Get this as a Word document

Adopted Minutes

 Thursday 15 June 2000



Robin Saunders

Deborah Macfarlane

Ian Thomas

Ted Towson

Carlo Fasolino

Cathy Aktypis

Dr Peter Brotherton

Ian Gibson

Faye Simpson

Frank Fichera

Murray Frank

Peter Reddie

Ian Swann

Michael Isaachsen

Jim Clements (EPA)

Cuc Lam – City of Maribyrnong

Gordon Harrison – City of Melbourne

Thuy Tran

Matthew Wylie

Jarrod Edwards

Huw Jones (DNV)

Andrew Green – local resident

Vanessa Richardson





The chairperson welcomed the committee and others in attendance. Robert Glavich          has advised that he plans to rejoin to the CICCC as a Kensington Association    representative.  Robert also advised that he would not be able to attend tonight’s meeting.





Apologies were received from George Horman and Tess Demidiuk.




The Draft Agenda was adopted.


To Other Business:

  • Faye Simpson issues of concern, raised and circulated previously to all CICCC.
  • Peter Brotherton – letter to the EPA.
  • Ted Towson’s letter to the CICCC re his concerns.





  • Include Cathy Aktypis as an apology. The minutes were accepted with this change.



  • pp 3. Paragraph beginning ‘ The combustor is designed….’ Follow with new      paragraph:

‘Ian Thomas said the only way to be sure of this is to have a flame arrester above the        flame.’


  • pp 4 Paragraph beginning ‘Peter Brotherton said there are a number…’ Follow with      new paragraph:

            ‘Ian Thomas said it was refreshing to learn of options not considered previously by           Terminals Pty Ltd in its exhaustive appraisal.’


  • pp 5 Paragraph beginning ‘Murray said…’ change to

Murray queried whether the German standard for benzene was to be applied in Victoria.’


  • pp 5 Paragraph beginning ‘Jim said that continuous….’ Follow with a new paragraph:

‘Ian Thomas said ground level measurements  are’ modelled, not measured.’


  • pp 6 Paragraph beginning ‘Jim said it was these standards that….’ Follow with new paragraph :

Murray reaffirmed the position of the Department of Human Services that was     provided to the meeting 24      February 2000 (see Appendix to the minutes of that meeting).


  • pp 6 Paragraph beginning ‘Jim told the Committee that combustion….’ Follow with a new paragraph:

Ian Thomas asked if the EPA was locked into the use of combustion/incineration as         rumour has it and if so why?

             Jim replied ‘No.’


  • pp 8 Paragraph beginning ‘He added that the Port Botany…’ Final sentence to read:

‘Port Botany expanded in ’86, ’89 and’96.

Follow with a new paragraph:

‘Ian Thomas said Port Botany does not have incinerators but successfully used twin          carbon beds.’


  • pp 10 Paragraph beginning ‘George said he has asked…’ Follow with a new paragraph:

Ian Thomas expressed concern that the’ lesson’ given to Terminals at the last      meeting appears to be ignored as Terminals is going ahead with incineration.’


Action Items


            5.1 Local Paper Advertising and Press Releases

            See Attachment 1

            Advertisements for the Public Forum have been placed in 8 local newspapers for the         next two Wednesdays.

Ted had advised Robin that Community TV Station Channel 31, have a community          information session running in conjunction with the broadcasts of the local football       games. Robin has followed up with Channel 31, and hopes community notices about      the Forum will be shown.


ACTION. Robin to make enquires about the possibility of getting editorials in local papers.


A Professional Writing Course student is drafting an article about Coode Island as an        assignment. She hopes also to get it published in the local press, and will send the         article to Robin for proof reading before the article is submitted for publication.


            See Attachment 2

Public Forum publicity fliers are available to distribute to the community.

Ian Gibson said that the City of Maribyrnong had assisted HazMAG by distributing          copies of their community newsletter.



The CICCC web site is averaging 70 hits per week.


ACTION. Ian Swann and Ian Gibson will use their respective organisations, media clipping service to search the print media for articles and advertisements re Coode Island, and report to the CICCC at the next meeting.


Deborah said she has been checking the Melbourne Times and the Western Times for       the CICCC press release material and has only seen material in the Western Times.




            See Attachment 4

            Letter from EPA in response to the CICCC letter of 2 June 2000



            See Attachment 3

            Letter from CICCC sent to the EPA, 2 June 2000





Peter Reddie said in the past 4 weeks Terminals had described and presented the proposed upgrade options from an environmental perspective. He said that tonight’s DNV Technica presentation looks specifically at the safety to the population of the proposed upgrade options.


Huw Jones from DNV Technica described details of the safety assessments made for each of the 4 options as discussed at the last    CICCC meeting.

  • They were concerned mainly with looking at possible large scale incidents that may occur
  • They looked at the various options proposed by Terminals and assessed the risk of each option.
  • They compared risk with other criteria and with other risks
  • They made a conservative estimate of the improvements to be gained by the engineering improvements associated with the upgrade
  • The risk to population is assessed

The definitions of the terms used are

‘Acceptable Risk’ is the World Wide standard and included what is acceptable to Terminals and what is allowable under the Dangerous Goods License, Victoria.

‘Tolerable Risk’ describes what the community will tolerate based on its own assessment.

Regulatory authorities  and industries may find risks ‘acceptable’, but the   public can only ever find them ‘tolerable’.


            See Attachment 1. QRA Studies at the Site Consistently Conclude..


Propylene oxide and acrylonitrile are the main contributors to the offsite risk. In all the options proposed for the upgrade the risk levels are below the acceptable national and international criteria for 1994, 1997 and 2000.


Huw said that the Victorian standards were based on a review of  world wide sites and practises that were then written as a conservative and more stringent example compared to sites world wide.


See attachment 2. Four Layout Options. PLL Measure.


There is more than one indicator of risk. A PLL Measure is the figure for Potential Loss of Life for society. It does not measure things like respiratory affects on the population. He said that the world wide fatality data is more accurate than other comparative health effects data available worldwide. Therefore this analysis is based only on fatality predictions for the     population.

Risks can be small and frequent or large and less frequent. There is no real significant difference between the four options. The actual risk level is very low compared with other sites worldwide.



See attachment 3. Framework for Risk Criteria.

The aim is to keep the level of risk as low as possible without using disproportionate effort.

Risk is assessed in three ways

  • Risk that is intolerable.
  • Risk that is tolerable if it is as low as possible
  • Risk below this level does not warrant further assessment


See attachment 4. Four Layout Options. Societal Risk Measure.

The graphs show the frequency of possible   incidents and the number of fatalities per incident. Large-scale incidents occur rarely and small-scale incidents are likely to occur more often.

The 4 curves represent the 4 different proposed upgrade options. The black line indicates the acceptable regulated level of risk for Victoria.


Peter Brotherton and Robin indicated that the terms used on the graph needed to be changed to read ‘acceptable’ rather than ‘tolerable’.


See attachment 5. Existing Individual Risk.


This risk plan shows 10 to-7 (indicates the same level of risk as being struck by lightning per year) and 10 to -8 contours. Huw said that the 10 to -8 should be removed because it is not relevant statistically and may cause unnecessary concern. It is mentioned in the Victorian Criteria in the context of coarse semi-quantitative analysis which is a detailed study. In the context of voluntary or involuntary risk it is not a significant level of risk.



See attachment 6. Risk in Perspective


See attachment 7. Individual Risk. All of Coode Island.

Option 1 is showing the risk for the whole of Coode Island and not just the Terminals site. The 10 to -7 in the residential area of Victoria Street are acceptable. The risk factor is less than 10 to -7 in the rest of the residential areas.


See attachment 8. Individual Risk. Options 1-4.


These contours show an average per year of the frequency of incidents and the frequency of possible fatalities. The risk factors are well within the regulated allowable limits and there is very little difference in risk factors between these 4 options.


See attachment 9. Risk Contours.


The shape of each contour line contracts and increases by the percentages listed.


See attachment 10 & 11 &12. Risk Reductions. Option 1.


See the list and include the following points

  • Shut off valves installed downstream and operated by remote.
  • Less operations onsite resulting in fewer opportunities for spills to occur.


Peter Reddie said that all the upgrade options allowed every tank to be next to a road so that emergency vehicles had access to each tank, and all tanks would be nitrogen blanketed. He said everything would be upgraded and engineered to the highest feasible engineering standard. The Safety Management System will be upgraded so that there is continual monitoring and improvements of the system.


Huw said the Safety Case Review would assess the management system in detail. At this stage in all measurements that are being calculated for the risk assessment at Terminals are treated as operating at a ‘worlds average standard’ for management.

Peter Reddie said that the QRA looks at the design only and not the management. He said Terminals have been open about their injury   history. All this information will be included in the WorkCover reports.

Mathew Wylie said that WorkCover look at the 10 to -7 contours and they use other tests.

Faye said she thought it was unfortunate that the terms described were       only dealing with mortality.

Ian Swann said that it was too early for the CICCC to make a judgement    about these options because more feedback from government authorities and the community is required.


Michael asked if the risk contours would change if the Terminals facility were sited in a less populated area.

Huw said ‘No, but the number of people impacted would change’ If the population density at Docklands increases then the PLLs could change. He said a Consequent Study would look at factors influencing the health of a population. A Risk Assessment  analysis only assesses possible fatalities.

Huw said that they have not assessed the risk if the propylene oxide were   moved off the site.


Huw said that 10 to -7 is the contour level used by authorities worldwide. This level of risk is already very low and so they do not use 10 to -8 contours because these incidents are even lower and highly    unlikely to happen.  However 10 to -8 may be used for nuclear sites. In other states in Australia they only require readings to 10 to -6.

Huw said he did not know why 10 to -8 had been used in previous reports.

Peter Reddie said he thought that WorkCover used it previously.


Peter Brotherton asked about DNV’s previous QRA findings in the 1980’s before the fire. Did they use the same methodology and was the risk of the Terminals site acceptable in he 1980’s?

Huw said that the data available for risk assessment in the 1990’s is far superior to that available for risk assessments in the 1980’s. The results obtained from these studies these days, are more accurate.

Peter Reddie said that today’s QRA was based on figures stipulated by WorkCover. It was therefore difficult to do comparisons with the results of the 1980’s QRA that used different figures. Peter Reddie said that perhaps the most significant outcome of the investigations following the fire in 1991 is that Terminals have developed a Safety Management System geared towards continuous improvement.


ACTION Huw will make available a comparison of QRA operational figures for 1984 and 2000.


Peter Reddie said the Terminals Works Approval Document would be available on the web site. Terminals are presently setting up their own website. The document will be available in sections for down loading as required. Hard copies will be made available to the CICCC, City of Maribyrnong, City of Melbourne and there will be copies available at the Terminals office. All of this will be available by the end of June.

Peter Brotherton said it was a very large document for the community to    be down loading form computers.

ACTION.  Peter Reddie to check the download time of the various sections of the report.


ACTION . The above document will be ‘hot linked’ from the CICCC web page.


ACTION Huw will make available a comparison of risk  values for 1994, 1997 and 2000



ACTION . The Works Approval application will be put on the web (either the CICCC site, or on the Terminals’ site with a hotlink from the CICCC site). Peter R to check the download time of the various sections of the report.




The draft brief for the consultant was circulated earlier to CICCC members and     observers.

The CICCC decided that a consultant will be appointed within the next 2 weeks. The        review is to be completed with a presentation of a report to the CICCC at the end of      the next 4-week period. The collated responses will be interpreted as trends based on      % of numbers collated.

All the CICCC members will be interviewed including other people identified by the        CICCC members. Cost approximately $3,000.

Ian Thomas suggests that Martin Wurt and Colleen Hartland be interviewed.

ACTION. CICCC members are to e-mail Ian Swann with the names of those who should be included in the interviews.

ACTION. Deborah will work with Ian Swann to organise all of the above.




Matthew Wylie said that the Major Hazard Regulations have gone through and are            presently with the Minister. Their commencement is expected 1 July 2000. The time             lines for each application will be

  • 30 days for notification of whether the site is a MHF or stores more than 10% of the      threshold amounts (sites with greater than 10% can be determined by the Authority to           be MHFs following an inquiry process).
  • 90 days following registration as a MHF for the operator to prepare a Safety Case Outline which is a detailed project plan for how the safety case will be developed   (this     includes a clear description of the consultation processes to be used);
  • The maximum time allowable for the development of the Safety Case is 24 months (although WorkCover can require a short period if appropriate).
  • Following the application for a MHF License (which must include an appropriate safety case) WorkCover has up to 6 months to access the Safety Case and the other       requirements.


Robin said the CICCC’s efforts to have the Safety Cases publicly available were   unsuccessful. Matthew Wylie said that the accompanying Guidance Paper would steer    applicants in the direction of making all appropriate information available.

            See Attachment 5

The various sites on Coode Island (including Terminals site) were recently audited by       WorkCover with the summary notes available as Attachment 5. Other points made by   Matthew Wylie were

  • WorkCover will not make a recommendation about whether or not return valves to be installed on the remaining Terminal’s tanks will be internal or                     external, but it is likely that they will external.
  • Personal protective equipment maintenance at Terminals needed to be improved.
  • The time lines for compliance to be installed on the remaining Terminal’s tanks is based on what can be practically achieved. Some things will be                               achieved this year while others associated with the upgrade have a time line of                      4 years to completion. They are complying robustly.
  • Mobil Oil has moved from its previous site and is in the process of             relinquishing its licence to operate from this site.
  • Sometimes P&O Ports hold dangerous goods containers for more than the allowable 5-day period. This occurs when the Customs Department put a hold               on the containers. One observed during the audit was held for a maximum of              17 days. P&O are now required to notify WorkCover if they intend to hold a               container longer than 5 days. The containers are then moved to a security                           holding area (the emergency holding area). Explosives are only  kept on site                      for 24 hours.
  • The next audit of the Coode Island Terminals Sites will be in approximately three and a half months.



Matthew Wylie said that last month WorkCover held a public feedback session for            such comment and discussion about submissions.

Robin said that the WorkCover Review Committee’s comments to the CICCC that            industry had concerns about making Safety Cases public had been an insensitive            response.

Peter Brotherton said that it was an inaccurate response from WorkCover given that it       was a point that the CICCC had made robustly.

ACTION. Matthew Wylie to take the above comments back to WorkCover for comment.  He will also organise a presentation from the WorkCover Public Comment Review Group for the August meeting of the CICCC.



Deferred to the next meeting.




Peter R said that the issues of safety for storage and transport were of major concern         and unless the Corio option was significantly safer it would stay at Coode Island.        Points that Terminals are considering include

  • The Geelong community’s reaction
  • The present State Government directions regarding the upgrade for Coode              Island
  • The Geelong site is permanently a VCM (vinyl chloride monomer) site and as a gateway for this product it may require space for future expansion.
  • Transporting Dangerous Goods on the Geelong Road is of concern. There are no clients for this product in Geelong so all of the material would have to be              moved from Geelong by road transport.
  • Terminals can do a rough review of this as an option but with an agreed list of terms of reference from the CICCC.

Peter Brotherton said that transporting this material by road was technically not a problem as it would be passing through areas of minor population.

Ian Thomas suggested the CICCC write to Government and asks about other possible       alternative sites for the propylene oxide.

Robin said that the proposed upgrade will further enhance the safety of the  storage           of propylene oxide at Coode Island.

Carlo said the safety of the P&O workers (as well as the community) have to be    considered because of its present close proximity.

Michael said using rail transport had still not been fully considered. This may be one        way that propylene oxide could be safely transported from a storage site in Geelong to        Melbourne.

Peter R said that the safety  on the proposed upgraded site will greatly improve      because the whole site is being reengineered, and not just because it is proposed to      move the propylene oxide storage tanks to the western side of Mackenzie Road. The      benefit of moving them to the western side is that they will be reduced in number from         4 tanks to 3.


He said they would use these facts to make a comparison with the Geelong site as a          possible storage site for the propylene oxide tanks.

Ian Thomas asked if Peter R could provide two more sets of risk contours

  1. Showing where the contours would be if the tanks were removed from             Coode Island
  2. Showing where the contours would be if the tanks were upgraded and left in their present position


ACTION. Peter R will ask Huw to provide the above contours and report to the CICCC in one month regarding the feasibility of a storage site at Geelong for the propylene oxide tanks.

Matthew Wylie asked why there was no P&O Ports population data in DNV’s safety        assessment.

Huw said this was not required for the societal risk analysis.

Frank F asked if P&O Ports had signed a lease for the land on the East Side yet.

Peter R said that the Terminals lease states that Terminals have to vacate the eastern         side.  He said that P&O Ports have signed an agreement that allows them access to   that site in future.


ACTION. Robin said that the CICCC will consider the rail issue in 3 or 4 months time.


Peter R said he now has a copy of the Manchester Agreement to consider.




See Attachment 2

Robin asked that everyone distribute the fliers. He said that they have been sent to             various local agencies.



See Attachment 6.1 & 6.2

The Altona Neighbourhood Consultative Group liase with the community who live           near the Altona complex. They circulate a quarterly newsletter to more than 7,000 people. They also provide a New Residents Kit.

Ian Thomas said that these are examples of how the CICCC could inform the local            community  about Coode Island.

Ian Swann said that PACIA are holding a Community Advisory Panel tomorrow and        he would seek to get further examples of the tools used by industries to communicate           successfully with their neighbouring communities and provide this information for the       CICCC.

ACTION. Ian to report to the CICCC at the next meeting re the above matter.


Robin said that fridge magnets containing information about community emergency         alarms seemed useful. He said that Colleen Hartland’s criticism of this committee was      that it still had not been able to provide clear advice about emergency plans for the community, despite agreeing years ago on the need for these resources.


Peter R said that 3WRB in Maribyrnong will broadcast the details from the Terminals       Response plan should an emergency incident occur.


Deborah said that the community emergency alarm made a sound like an air raid siren.






ACTION. The CICCC moved that the letter be sent to Mr Bracks.





See Attachments 7.1, 7.2 & 7.3

The minutes of meeting held in March, April and May were circulated.

There has been discussion about temporarily suspending the HSE sub committee   meetings. However as it is a charter of this committee to have such a sub committee      and as there is support for it to continue meeting, it will continue.

Ian Thomas said the sub-committee last met in May and plans to meet again on the 20      or 21 July. He said that the matrix had taken a great deal of work and time to   complete.






            There was no particular discussion on this item, and the chair will prepare the        agenda in the normal way.







            18.1 HSE Risk Matrix for Endorsement.

            See Attachment 10

Draft Residual Risk Assessment document.



18.2 Concerns Submitted by Faye Simpson.

            See Attachment previously circulated.

            Point 1.  Morbidity Risk Profile

Both departments have different views about the      amount of data that is available.

            See Attachment 8. Health Department Response – Murray Franks

ACTION. Murray will ask the Heath Department about the type of specific data they have and report to the CICCC.

Point 2.  Emission Monitoring

ACTION. Terminals will provide a response at the next meeting.

            Point 3   Residual Risk Matrix

A matrix showing the present site and another showing the upgraded site is what is           required here.

            Point 4  Operator Error

ACTION. Peter Reddie to address at the next meeting.

            Point 5   Security

There is a surrounding fence, locked gates, swipe cards and 24-hour video surveillance.

Point 6  Rail Access

ACTION. To be dealt with in the future.




Peter Brotherton stated his concern that the EPA response dated 9 June to our letter of      2 June (both previously circulated) did not answer the questions posed.

ACTION. Robin will contact Jim Clements regarding this.



Close   11.15pm



Next Meetings           

Public Forum Thursday 29 June, 2000

Meeting. Thursday  13 July, 2000

Meeting Thursday 10 August, 2000






Attachment      1        CICCC Media Release 29 May 2000

Attachment      2        Flier for Public Forum

Attachment      3        CICCC Correspondence to EPA 2 June 2000

Attachment      4        EPA Correspondence to CICCC 9 June 2000           

Attachment      5        WorkCover Overheads for Presentation on the Audit of the Terminals        Site at Coode Island.

Attachment      6.1     Page 1 of booklet for Altona Complex residents

                          6.2     Page 1 of The Consultative Chonicle quarterly newsletter

Attachment      7.1     HSE Sub Committee Minutes 8 March 2000

                          7.2     HSE Sub Committee Minutes 11 April 2000

                          7.3     HSE Sub Committee Minutes 16 May 2000             

Attachment      8        Health Department (Murray Franks) Response to Faye Simpson’s List        of Concerns

Attachment      9        Terminals Response to Edward Towson List of Concerns

Attachment      10      HSE draft Residual Risk Assessment document