Get this as a Word document


 Adopted Minutes

 Thursday 23 March 2000




Robin Saunders

Faye Simpson

Dr. Peter Brotherton

Marg Leser

Cathy Aktypis

Deborah Macfarlan

Ian Gibson

Ian Thomas

Frank Fichera

Ted Towson

Carlo Fasolino

Trevor Perkins

Doug Buchanan






Russell Melmoth – National Union of


George Horman

Mathew Wylie

Kevin O’Shea

Michael Isaachsen

Murray Frank – Dept. Human Services

Gavin Berry – P&O Ports Pty Ltd

Joan Thomas – IF Thomas & Associates

Rod Boyd – Stereo 974

Vanessa Richardson






The chairperson welcomed the committee and others in attendance including


  • Murray Frank from the Department of Human Services


  • Rob Boyd who has been providing free to air advertising for the CICCC


  • Gavin Berry from P&O Ports


  • Joan Thomas


  • Russel Melmoth who works for Terminals and is a member and representative

from the National Union of Workers






Councillors Brennan and Coward, Ian Swann and Peter Reddie.





There were a number of additions to Other Business


  • Selection of Terminals representatives on the CICCC Sub-Committees


  • CICCC Web Page descriptions of members of the committee


  • Open day at the Terminal’s site in Geelong – CICCC attending


  • Major Hazards Facility Consultation – see Item 7



ITEM 4. Minutes of the Previous Meeting

The minutes were accepted as an accurate record.


ACTION. All CICCC comunications from Vanessa will be sent in hard copy to Marg Leser.



Action Items.


4.1 Letter to Premier and Media Release

This was actioned and the CICCC received a reply which said that the matter would be referred to John Brumby


4.2CICCC update

Everyone received a copy.


4.3 CICCC Website.

There have been free advertisements for the website placed in newspapers and on  local radio broadcasts.


The number of visits to the website have been

  • January – up to 50
  • February – 153
  • So far in March – 73


The minutes of CICCC meetings and agendas are going on the site.


Murray said that he has found it very informative and it had given him a good insight into what had been happening previously.


ACTION The Executive Summary of the Task Force Report is available in full on the CICCC web site, under “Reports”.     Robin to follow up with Andrew Nolan and David James to expedite the text of other reports presently listed on the web site, but not yet available (CIRP, AD Little, DNV Technica, TM Services)

CICCC members to forward further suggestions to Robin.


4.4 Small Scale Plans of major petrochemical and storage site s MHF

See attachment 3

The plan shows the location of sites which are likely to be considered as MHF sites. (Check wording with George)



4.5 Hawaii DisasterWarning Plans.

Defer to a later date when more information is available.


4.6 Maribyrnong City Council application for funding.

Ian G has a copy of the submission available for people to look at. It was an application for a grant of $50,000 to prepare a study for multi lingual communities in Maribyrnong. It will look at effective emergency management communication methods.

Notification about their success or otherwise in May.


4.7 Holden Dock Incident.

See attachment 4

Held over to the next meeting


4.8 Community Forum

There is no date set for this. It will probably be in late April.

Deborah suggested that it be advertised at the Kensington Festival.

Robin suggested that the date is set ASAP and he will advertise it on the web site.


4.9 Future date for the CICCC meetings.

ACTION  Redo the dates in the minutes. They are


13 April

***  27 April   extra  meeting

11 May

***  14 June  Public Info. Forum

15 June

13 July

10 August

14 September

12 October

9 November

11 January       2001

8 Feb               2001

8 March           2001

12 April           2001

ITEM 5. Correspondence In


5.1 From Dept of Premier and Cabinet

See attachment 1


5.2 WorkCover consultation briefing.

See attachments 5.1, 5.2


5.3 Port of Melbourne Strategic Statement and Environmental Management Plan Workshop. Invitation to forum.

See attachment 2

This is a management plan for the whole of the Melbourne Port area.

Ian G said it would be very useful for CICCC to attend. He said that the Melbourne Ports Corporation (MPC) were seeking some exemptions from the new WorkCover regulations.

Mathew said it was unlikely that any of the regulations would change as a result of the MPC Plan.

ACTION. Gavin to ask the MPC if they will attend the next CICCC meeting at 10pm to brief the CICCC committee. If necessary Robin will give Kevin a set of other possible meeting dates.



ITEM 6. Presentation by Gavin Berry, P&O Ports Pty Ltd.

See attachment 6.1

Chris Vicary was unable to attend and Gavin Berry the Engineering Services Manager at the site,  substituted for Chris. In response to the questions asked of him by the CICCC, Gavin advised as follows:


  • The percentage of containers carrying Dangerous Goods and the percentage of containers carrying Dangerous Goods as a portion of their total load.



Feb 2000         Total no of containers 25,282

No of containers carrying Dangerous Goods (in whole or part of the total load)

665  (2.63%)


Jan                   No figures


Dec 1999         Total no of containers 31,997

No of containers carrying Dangerous Goods (in whole or part of the total load)

1066  (3.33%)


Nov 1999        Total no of containers 30,002

No of containers carrying Dangerous Goods (in whole or part of the total load)

902  (3%)



  • Truck Movements


Feb 2000                     16,727  averaging 880 per day

Dec 1999                     17,707 averaging 885 per day

Nov 1999                    15,943 averaging 725 per day


  • Sharing P&O Ports Incident and Accident reports with the CICCC.


Yes P&O Ports would be able to share these reports related to dangerous goods incidents. The last significant documented incident was in 1995. P&O Ports respond the same way with a set process to all minor and more serious spills and incidents according to the site Emergency Plan.


  • Sharing information about the amount of goods handled



See attachment 6.2

The proposed expansion for the P& O Ports site is in 2 parts.


  1. The extension to the stacking area which is occurring presently.
  2. The Melbourne Port Corporation extension of Coode Road.


Containers which hold dangerous goods are stored with other containers in the blocks of containers but the dangerous goods containers are placed at the corners and on the external parts of the blocks of containers. There is a required separation distance set in the Yard Plan.


Trevor said that they are not stacked too deep so that emergency services can readily gain access to them.


Gavin said that dangerous goods containers moving on and off a ship, with any suspect problems are moved to an especially contructed dangerous goods location which is surrounded by a box drainage system which has separated drainage attached, to contain any spillage that may occur. The spills can be valved off to separate areas where the material can be dealt with appropriately.

There is an on-site emergency response unit available at all times. There are procedures in place that operate well.


Gavin said that he was not privy to any of P&O Ports’s long-term plans for their site. He said that P&O Ports will seek to get the site that Terminals plan to vacate on the west of Mackenzie Road and use this site for extending the container storage area of the P&O Ports site. He was not aware of the signing of any new contracts in the past few months between P&O Ports and the Government.

When asked about any possible legal liabilities he said that he did not deal with the commercial aspects of P&O Ports planning and procedure.

Gavin said (and he’s not sure if P&O Ports hold the same view) that if he were designing an ideal site for holding containers the shape of the wharf would be 4 times deeper than its length. At present the wharf is 900 metres and the depth is 300 meters. If P&O Ports were to gain the site that Terminals want to vacate on the eastern side of Mackenzie Road, the container storage area for P&O Ports would then be a deeper and as such a more appropriate shape.


Ted asked about the availability of prior knowledge of the arrival of dangerous goods to the port for unloading.

Gavin said that  there is a process where notification is made 24 – 48 hours prior to arrival at the dock. The Dangerous Goods  in certain classes are taken off immediately and transported. The more dangerous the rating for the material, the more quickly it is transported from the site by designated trucks.

Matthew said that the Dangerous Goods regulations prescribe the type of trucks allowed to transport specific Dangerous Goods. The regulating body monitors this and not P&O Ports.


Gavin was asked if the site that Terminals are planning to vacate will be large enough to cater for the projected increase in the number of containers in the next few years. Gavin said that P&O Ports is increasing the volume of containers handled in the next 5 – 10 years. Melbourne Ports expect that the general cargo load to the Melbourne Ports area will increase by 3.5% – 6%. Gavin said that half of all this increase would come through the P&O Ports site.


Michael asked about plans for a rail siding.

Gavin said that here was a plan afoot to re introduce rail but he is not sure if it will eventuate.

Michael went on to describe the inland port facility at Port Botany in NSW. He said the purpose of inland ports was to move goods for storage away from the seaports and hold them at the inland port. The goods are then picked up from the inland port. This results in a decrease in the amount of land required for storing goods at ports and docks and it reduces the amount of trucking traffic in the dock areas.

Gavin said that any rail line takes up space that can otherwise be used for storage but he acknowledged that the volume growth matter was a concern. He said inland ports would result in less trucking activity at a dock site but there would still need to be large areas for holding containers.

Carlo said that the approximate present capacity for P&O Ports was 3 – 3.5 thousand. The new site being presently developed adds a further capacity for 1,600 bringing it to a total (without the site that Terminals is vacating) of 5,000 capacity.


Gavin was asked about spills from containers and he said that P&O Ports staff locate spills in containers by directly observing a spill, or a ship or trucking company handling the goods notifies them. If there is a leak in a container it goes undetected until it leaks out though the seals. The containers are normally sealed so that they are waterproof and air tight.

Matthew said that Restricted Goods (“Goods too dangerous to be moved”) could not be handled through the P&O Ports site.


Robin asked why the present the P&O Ports site depth of one sixteenth the desirable depth was not acceptable?

Gavin said that stacking containers behind ships to an extra depth could be helpful. He said ‘extra depth facilitates greater efficiency in terminal operations’.


The new extension to Coode Road will be finished about the end of June and the extension to the stacking area will be completed by November.


P&O Ports would be happy to make further presentations as required to the CICCC. The Chair thanked Gavin for attending and giving an informative presentation.



ITEM 7. Facility Upgrade – timelines and progress. George Horman.


George showed the committee 2 large photos of the Terminals site for comparison. One was taken in 1991 and the other 1999. He marked the boundary limit for residential sites.


In 1991 the area used by Terminals was 17.5 hectares. Presently it uses 11.5 hectares and when Terminals move to the new BP site on the East Side of Mackenzie Road, the total land use area will be 11.4 hectares.

Bentley Chemicals will probably stay where it is and Tallow Master Pty Ltd is staying where it is.


The engineering advantages of moving the propylene oxide (PO) tanks to the west side of MacKenzie Road are:

  • the Propylene Oxide (PO) tanks needs lots of new internal pipes and gauges which requires ‘hot work’ inside and out. They also need to be jacked up and put onto a containment structure as do all the tanks.


  • The bunded area is only earth now, and needs to be properly sealed so that it won’t leak and so that any spill material can be diverted away from the tank.


  • All the following items require upgrades so that they meet high standards, (in some cases over and above that required by the regulations)–

Pipes, valves and controls

Computer systems


Pumps and seals

Loading systems for trucks so they can be loaded from ground level

Bunds above ground rather than below ground

There are no tanks to hold the PO while work is in progress. It would take 6-12 months to upgrade the tank in its present position. It would not be practical or safe to do this sort of work on a live site. It would be an upgrade of an old model and the result would not be as satisfactory as starting from scratch with a new facility. The old tanks may be moved to the east side and used again. They are fine, but the infrastructure around them needs to be completely upgraded. There is one client for the PO storage.

A similar scenario applies to the Benzine storage facilities on the west side.


Deborah asked if land belonging to P&O Ports (which is further still from residential areas) could be used.

George said this was not possible. There were no other alternatives available.


See attachment 7 & 8

The timetable for the redevelopment shows that Preliminary Design work has started. The period prior to lodging the EPA Works Approval application will extend to 1st June so that community consultation can be addressed.


Robin noted that the timelines had been spread out by a further 1 month since the previous advice. He said this was good in that it allowed the CICCC to have more time to fully consider this matter and give appropriate advice.

ACTION. At the April 13 CICCC Meeting, George will provide the CICCC with background briefing to the proposed upgrading

ACTION. At the 27 April CICCC Meeting, George will make provide th   e proposed layouts of the new plant.. At the  11 May CICCC Meeting he will present the draft (as it is at that time) EPA Works Approval Proposal application. ACTION. On and after the 11 May the CICCC will respond to the proposed Works Approval application, in time before its submission to the department.


Ian T said that in risk assessment 3 things were important

  • Risk assessment
  • HAZOP – the broad risk assessment after the process diagrams were developed
  • HAZAN – what is required for the future


Peter B thanked Terminals for taking into account the CICCC’s consultation timelines concern. He asked the CICCC how it proposed to facilitate community understanding of proposed changes to the Terminals site.

ACTION. Robin to advertise the next CICCC meeting so that others in the community may attend. The timetable and all its detail will be made available on the CICCC web site.

Doug B said that comment can be invited before the application is made, and that there is time after this for further public comment and input.

Peter B said that it was important that maximum discussion occur before the application goes in.



The CICCC discussed other possibilities for communicating with the public. They included

  • Displays at Council premises
  • PowerPoint presentations included in the web site, in parts that it can be

downloaded and used by others.

  • Public Forum, which is part of the CICCC brief
  • Information on the web site – what, where and when.
  • List of activities the CICCC are engaged in too fully manage this matter.
  • Information Forum, method for response and provision of appropriate feedback.
  • Timetable document (attachment 7) on the web site
  • Have the forum after the EPA works approval is submitted.
  • Advertise to the public that the Work Approval Application is being made and

at the same time advertise the forum.

  • Include lots of visuals like photos
  • Have a specific invitation list for the forum that includes local bodies.
  • Works Approval information and a timetable should be included in a press


  • CICCC need to discuss their proposed mechanisms for gathering public comments.

Peter B suggested that the Domain Name for the site be altered so that the words ‘Coode Island’ appear and can be searched.

George said that .au should be included in the address. Presently one has to search the world for the site rather than just searching Australian sites.

ACTION. Robin to attend to the above matters with David in Sydney.

ACTION. Public Forum on 14 June at 7pm. Venue is Maribyrnong council rooms. The purpose will be for:

  • Terminals to present the details of the proposed redevelopment
  • Agencies to discuss the processes (including monitoring) they will follow..

ACTION. Deborah and Cathy will prepare a list of people to invite to the forum, and consider ways the CICCC might advertise the forum to the community.


Marg said she may have to resign from the CICCC as she will be overseas for much of the period that the consultation and planning is occurring.

Deborah said that Marg had expertise that the CICCC can not afford to loose.

ACTION. Robin to contact the Melbourne City Council to see if another community representative could be appointed for the period of Marg’s  absence.


Robin thanked George for the work which had been done on this matter since that last CICCC meeting.







ITEM 8.Presentation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (Matthew Wylie)


Hold over until the next meeting, in view of late hour.



Matthew reported that various government agencies have formed a joint working group to consider and streamline their responses to the proposed Terminals development. The departments are

Environmental Protection Agency


Melbourne Ports Corporation

Department of Human Services


Trevor and Doug are presently writing the Terms of Reference and mapping out a regulatory overlay process for Terminals. This will be presented to the CICCC when it is completed.

Members of the CICCC said they were impressed that the various departments had taken this initiative.

Matthew said it had been in response to the work that the CICCC had done in regard to the morbidity issues.

Peter B suggested that all this information should be included in the next CICCC press release.


ITEM 9. Consultation on MHF Regulations . Report on the WorkCover briefing – 20 March 2000.

See attachments 9, 5.1 and 5.2


Robin said that WorkCover’s response to the CICCC comments on the regulations was only slight, because the matters raised by the CICCC did not impact largely on the regulations. Rather the CICCC issues about consultation were being responded to in the ongoing process by WorkCover.  He said that the CICCC had been given a good hearing at the meeting.

Marg Donnan had indicated that WorkCover  would hope to put the Guidance Notes on the web so that the general public get a better understanding of what is required in the new regulations.

Matthew said drafts of the first two Guidance notes were completed, and they were being reviewed for readibility.

Robin had been given a copy of the first draft Guidance Note on the  overview of the process. It goes to unions, CICCC, councils and others.

Peter B said that if companies did not want to make the information in their Safety Cases available to the public because of commercial in confidence requirements, then they should have to demonstrate that need.  He said he can understand that this information may assist those who wish to sabotage a facility.

Robin reported   that he had made a detailed verbal case concerning the over-reliance of commercial confidentiality, citing the CICCC experience on the Marstel application.

Mathew said there had been multiple submissions on this point as a converse position. He said it will be a policy decision, and that Freedom of Information was another way that the public could get information.


Robin said there had been 65 submissions.

  • He was impressed with the submission from Hobsons Bay Community against Toxic Sites (No17) as it had reiterated many of the points made by CICCC.
  • PACIA had included very little on community consultation
  • Melbourne Ports had requested exemption from????
  • MFESB supported the need for more community input.
  • HazMAG had not made a submission
  • The Uniting Church made a submission.

He said that industry had said very little about the need for Safety Case Commercial in Confidence requirements.

ACTION. Matthew to take back the CICCC’s statements regarding the of Safety Case Commercial in Confidence requirements and he will lobby on the CICCC’s behalf.

ACTION. Robin to write to WorkCover about the CICCC position on the above matter. Peter Brotherton to work with Robin on this letter.

Ian T said that at a recent PACIA meeting he did not get the impression that members were anxious about the information in their Safety Cases being made public knowledge. Melbourne Ports had said they were opposed to Major Hazard facilities in the ports.

Robin said that PACIA were not pressing for confidentiality of the safety cases.

Mathew said that Safety Cases have to be made public in the U.K. but not in the USA due to CIA concerns.

George said that he was concerned about wide distribution of such information.

Matthew said that one way to deal with it was that the government authority could hold the documents and requests for the information be made through the authority.

Robin said that the principal of the right to know needed to be upheld in some way.



ITEM 10.



ITEM 11. Report on meeting with the Department of Human Services on Health Morbidity.

Robin and Faye met with Dr Anne Geschke and two other staff from the department. It was a very successful meeting.

Faye said Dr Geschke has been allocated responsibility for the Terminals project. The positioning of such a petrochemical site in a built up area is an unusual worldwide practise.

She will monitor morbidity and mortality data for workers, residents and community locally and for residents down wind of the Terminals site. They will see what can be done to  develop suitable methodology for monitoring asthma, blood born contaminants and congenital deformities. They will make available to the CICCC, agreed mortality and morbidity data. Faye will assist the department in the development of this data list.

Robin said there is presently very little data available. Vicky Lynch from Human Services is on the Terminals inter Governmental steering committee.


ITEM 12. The Manchester Agreement.

See attachment 10

Ian T said the Manchester Agreement is a legally binding agreement between a Company and the Municipal Council (on behalf of its residents) about a pipeline that passes through an environmentally sensitive area.

Peter Reddie has said previously that he is in favour of such an agreement.

Robin suggested that the Safety Case headings could make a useful guideline for the content of such an agreement.

George said he could not recall Peter Reddie stating his support for this.

Robin said this was a good time to consider a similar agreement as an option. It would become an agreement of honour, a symbol.

Peter B said it would be a commitment and aspiration beyond the requirements of law.


Subject to confirming information on the original Manchester Agreement, Terminals are prepared to consider a similar agreement.


ACTION. Ian to develop a draft agreement progressively.



ITEM 13. EMS Report

See attachment 11

Marg and George have worked together on the text for the web site.

Marg said that there should be more hot links on the web site.

ACTION. Take away and comment in next week to Marg to allow the text to be finalised for adoption at the next meeting.


ITEM 14. HSE Sub – Committee Report.

The sub committee endorse the City of Maribyrnong Federal Government submission for funding.

The sub committee met on the 8 March and changed their meeting strategy, by dealing with only one topic and dealt with it thoroughly. They reviewed the Terminals Hazard Matrix and are now developing it as a Risk Matrix.

An engineering student will have a draft of this ready for the next meeting. The EPA will attend the next meeting and be involved in the development of this document. It will include provision for morbidity data.

Ted asked who would evacuate the workers in the case of an emergency. He asked if people would be cut off if a fire occurred.

Kevin said the CI Users Group Protocols cover this in the Mutual Aide Plan.  While Telstra have not responded on the communications requirements for this, the Orange Network has responded and is working on the communications arm of the plan.

George said it is also included in the Port Emergency Plan. This was recently updated and will be ready soon. It includes an evacuation plan.




ITEM 15. Agenda for Next Meeting.

The main item of business will be the background briefing by Terminals for the proposed upgrading. Other items will include the EM Sub-Committee web site material sign-off.


ITEM 16. Other Business


16.1 Terminals Geelong Site Visit.

See attachment 12

On the 26 March some CICCC members are attending the Geelong Site. They will tour as a group from 2.30pm at the Geelong site. The bus departs from Terminals in Mackenzie Road at 1.30pm


16.2 Terminals Representation on the CICCC

Ian Thomas expressed concern at the representation  by Terminals at the HSE Sub-Committee, and stated that CICCC should be able to direct who attends their meetings.

Robin  and Marg said that Terminals should be the ones to decide who they have on the CICCC and its sub-committees.

George noted Ian’s concerns, and will consider the best way to address them.


16.3 CICCC Web Page descriptions of members of the committee

Ian Thomas had raised with Robin the provision of his company name and contact details on the list of Community Representatives on the web site.

Robin said he wanted to avoid any suggestion of advertising on the web site for CICCC members.

ACTION. The description of Ian Thomas will include the following wording ‘ community representative/Consulting Chemical and Environmental Engineer.’


            16.4 Terminals Incident report.

Held over to the next meeting.





10.40 p.m.



Next meetings             Thursday 13 April

Thursday  27 April

Thursday 11 May

Wednesday 14 June – CICCC Forum

Thursday 15 June







Attachment   1           Correspondence from the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

Attachment    2          Correspondence from the Melbourne Port Corporation

Attachment    3          Map of probable Major Hazard Facilities in Melbourne.

Attachment    4          ABC 7.30 Report transcript of ‘Secrecy Surrounds Melbourne Oil

Spill Risk’

Attachment    5.1       Robin Saunders summary of meeting 20 March.

                        5.2       Joan Thomas summary of meeting 20 March.

Attachment    6.1       Gavin Berry’s brief notes for his presentation to the CICCC.
6.2       Plan of the P&O Ports site showing currents changes.
Attachment    7          Timelines  table for the proposed redevelopment of the Terminals


Attachment    8          Terminals draft Table of Contents for the application for the Works


Attachment    9          Summary of Key Issues         

Attachment    10        Manchester Agreement details.

Attachment    11        Emergency Management sub committee Draft Text for

                        CICCC Web Site

Attachment    12        Flier for the Terminals Sites Open Day



** These attachments will be sent by post to those who have received e-mailed minutes.