Get this as a Word document


Minutes of Meeting

Thursday 26 August 1999



Robin Saunders

Trevor Perkins

Michael Isaachsen (observer)

Laurie Franklin (observer)

Greg Twitt (EPA)

Joe Perone (WorkCover)

Ted Towson

George Horman

Carlo Fasolino

Peter Reddie

Dr. Peter Brotherton

Ian Gibson

Ian Thomas

Faye Simpson

Robert Glavich

Marg Leser

John Bennett (MPC)

Gary Kenny (WorkCover)

Vanessa Richardson

Sarah Coward (second half of meeting)





The chairperson welcomed the committee and others present at the meeting.




Apologies were received from Cr. Martin Brennan (Joe Perone will attend on Martin’s behalf tonight), Frank Fichera, Scott Maloney and Jim Smith.




The draft agenda for the 26 August 1999 meeting was accepted by the CICCC.


ACTION. Robin to change the phone number which appears on the AGENDA.




  • Newsletter and Websites.


See Attachment 1. Monthly newspaper article in the Maribyrnong City Council News, reporting on the July CICCC meeting.


Robin has investigated the use of the web sites suggested by the committee and none are suitable. InfoWest is a small site with no capacity for a newsletter. The City of Melbourne, and WorkCover sites may take some information but there is insufficient room for the newsletter. EPA is still investigating the possibility of CICCC using its website.


Faye suggested that the Hazardous Substances site might be available.


Robert suggested the CICCC have its own web page set-up.


ACTION. Marg will investigate Vicnet, which provides community web site set-ups.


ACTION. Peter Reddie advised the Committee that he had asked Andrew Nolan to investigate the costs of setting up a web site for the Committee.



  • Request for New Community Representative on the CICCC.


Robert has spoken to local community groups and he will write to the CICCC with suggestions once this has been finalised with the groups.


  • Further Budget Details.


Ian Gibson provided the further detail on the budget, which the Committee had requested. The advice was in the form of a table, as detailed below.


1997-98 1998-99 All periods
186 Recoveries – General 0.00 (21,750.00) (21,750.00)
190 Sponsorships/ donations (14,400.00 (17,796.50) (56,946.50)
Income (14,400.00) (39,546.50) (53,946.50)
325 Consult – General 29,096.50 27,300.00 56,396.50
536 Materials 789.70 0.00 789.70
402 Advertising / Gazetting 926.32 0.00 926.32
412 Catering/meeting expenses 2,029.50 1,546.50 3,576.00
420 Fees – General 0.00 28,247.00 28,247.00
Expenditure 32,842.02 57,093.50 89,935.52
Income and Expense 18,422.02 17,547.00 35,989.02


Ian Gibson explained that the Consultants General included the costs of the Coordinator, while Fees General included the costs of sitting fees to the Community Representatives, the Chair’s costs, and the Minute Taker’s costs.




  • United Nations Environmental List.


Scott has not found a suitable list at this stage, but will continue researching the matter.


See Attachment 3. Annual Assessment of Hazard controls.

Peter Reddie described this new descriptive list that Andrew Nolan has developed. He said it was designed to be accessible to the average person, enabling them to see clearly that the hazardous goods are handled correctly.


They have added an ‘Environmental’ column indicating the degree to which the chemical poses a threat to the environment should a spill occur.


Robin said that there was a need for more information on the list, including the following

  • What will this chemical damage – soil, water, air?
  • How does this chemical rate in terms of how dangerous is it?
  • What chance is there that it may escape?


Robin also requested that an explanation for the coding used on the table be included.


The ‘AD Little’ column highlights those matters that were mentioned in the AD Little report. They are matters, which Terminals have since actioned.


The ‘Tank valve security’ matter has been rectified since the printing of this checklist.


A ‘Rating 1’ indicates No Risk, and the higher the Rating number the more checks are required (indicated by a Y in the columns)


The ‘DNV’ Column indicates when actions were taken. 30/12/94 was the date that terminals introduced its Preventative Maintenance System.


‘NFPA’ is an independent body ranking.


‘HEALTH’ is in relation to human health.


The word ‘Community’ will be deleted from the main title.


Faye and Peter Brotherton suggested that this model could be used by other groups such as PACIA and the Community Advisory Committee panel.


The controls put in place should be assessed annually and noted on this checklist as having been checked annually.


In the green line ‘RATING’ what is the scope of numbers, lowest too highest?


ACTION. This table will be further developed for the next meeting bearing in mind the above comments from the meeting.


5      CICCC Involvement in the WorkCover Audit of Coode.


ACTION. Commences 9 am Monday 30 August, at 70 McKenzie Street. There will be a 2-hour presentation to the committee members.


The full audit will last for 1-2 days.


  1. Objectives for Council’s Involvement in the CICCC.

See Attachment 2.


Advice from the City of Melbourne concerning their objectives for Council’s involvement in the CICCC was tabled.


ACTION        This matter will be put on the Agenda for the next meeting.




  • HAZMAG e-mailed the CICCC to say there were points in the newsletter that they would like amended. They are

They don’t believe that the CICCC contributed ‘substantially’ to the withdrawal of the Marstel proposal.

They would like us to publish their full list of reasons for resigning from the CICCC, and not just the extract that is presently in the newsletter.

The Chair reported that he had advised HazMAG that the word “substantially” had been removed, and that the full text of their reasons for withdrawing had been reinstated in the Newsletter. He advised the Committee that these changes had been made.


2    Letter to Brian Boyd from the CICCC regarding a new member of the ACTU to fill his vacated position on the CICCC. No response yet.


ACTION. Peter Brotherton to phone Sue Pennicuik to ask if she is willing to be a CICCC member.




Gary Kenny explained that the draft regulations would not be available for public comment until after the forthcoming state election. However he was able to give the CICCCC a briefing tonight.


He said the new legislation was specifically for those facilities that were handling large quantities of dangerous goods, for example refineries and petro-chemical facilities.


The regulations are written in such a way as to put the onus on the operator to demonstrate that they have in place, rigorous safety systems. This would be done by presenting a Safety Case to the VWA, which would be the basis for obtaining a Major Hazard (MH) licence to operate in the handling of dangerous goods. A MH license would be issued by the VWA within 6 months of receiving the Safety Case.


One of the requirements of the proposed Regulations is that the operators must provide information to the local community regarding the safety of their facility and actions to be taken in the case of an emergency. The information provided must be in a form that is readily understandable by members of the local community. Members of the public will be able access full reviews of this material, which will probably be 20-25pp. These will be kept in the local public libraries. The full Safety Case documents are very technical in nature and, therefore may be too technical for the public to access. In addition to requiring operators of MH facilities to provide this information to the local community and councils, other councils and individuals will also be able to write and request this information. Further the details of the Safety Case will be discussed with the local council as part of the development stage.


Trevor said that while there are potentially 3,000 hazardous goods sites in the state only the larger facilities will be impacted by the proposed regulations. Currently it is estimated that some 40 different sites across the state would be classed a major hazard facility.

The proposed regulations will require an operator to consult with the local emergency services and develop on and off-site emergency plans in co-operation with these groups. These plans will form one part of the operators control measures and must be revised whenever a change or modification is made to the facility or at five yearly intervals.


Further if long term or temporary operational details (eg staff numbers, or volume of chemicals stored) change over time, Safety Cases will have to be modified prior to the changes taking place, so that risks to safety levels are not changed. Where a Safety case has been revised it will have to be sent to WorkCover for review and acceptance.


The Safety Case will show how the company plans to mange large and small spills. These will include any spills that occur off their own sites, eg on roads or elsewhere. It does not cover on shore shipping activities. The Melbourne Port Corporation is responsible for the safety of off shore activities.


The Safety Cases will be rewritten every 5 years and the public information reviews (in libraries) will be updated every 5 years. Complete revisions will occur if there is an incident or if any major structural changes are to be carried out.


Assessment of the reviews and revision will take approximately 30-90 person days to complete over a six calendar month timeframe. It will take 2 years for new licences to be granted following the implementation of this new legislation.


WorkCover have recently increased their staff levels. They have employed a number of experts to administer these new requirements.


The proposed regulations incorporate all of the requirements of the Australian national Standard on major Hazard facilities but do not encompass everything as required in the European Union’s Seveso 11 directive, which is considered to be World’s best practise (WBP). However, the Victorian Government are moving towards WBP standard but it will take approximately 2 years to do so. The implementation of the proposed regulations is the first stage in a two-stage process that may take 2 years to complete.


ACTION. All CICCC members and observers will receive by courier, a copy of the Draft legislation when it is released. At the earliest this will be during the first or second week of October.




John Bennett said the work to be carried out at the No 1 Berth was in line with what had been recommended in Section 6 of the Task Force findings. The mooring and berthing dolphins will be completely removed and replaced to safely accommodate the mooring of large vessels. There will be a fender system, and the new steel piles will probably be driven rather than bored. However the exact design cannot be fully commented on at this stage.


Government funding of $4 million has been allocated for the project. Melbourne Port Corporation has everything ready to go to tenders but they are awaiting final agreement to the plans from two Government Ministers. This approval will probably occur after the election.


John said he wasn’t sure if it was a requirement these days for ships to berth bow downstream or not. There will be a tonnage limit in the port but he is not sure what it will be.


He said that Holden Dock was removed to allow rapid exit from the docks should an emergency occur and to allow general access for wider vessels.


ACTION. John will notify the CICCC of the maximum vessel tonnage for the new dolphins.


Then Melbourne Port Corporation is not a Responsible Authority (ie. responsible for administering the Planning Scheme) under the Planning and Environment Act.






George said that Terminals are intending to make a submission regarding the redevelopment of Coode to the EPA on September 17, 1998 They would then await comments. Terminals have met with the MPA but there has been no formal response at this stage. It is expected that nothing will happen until after the election. Plans are 3 months behind at this stage. Starting time being July 2000 at his stage. They still  don’t know which parcel of land will be allocated.


The redevelopment of Coode will cost 30-60 million dollars.


John Bennett (MPA) said that they had 4 proposals for development at the site. Three were for non-hazardous developments, the other being the Terminals redevelopment proposal. Land allocation including buffer zones will be key factors.

A Public comment period of 21 days will apply as part of the process carried out by the EPA. Planning Permits will be required at Local Council level at which time public comment will also occur.


Peter Reddie said that if necessary the consulting period should be longer than 21 days as Terminals wanted to allow sufficient time for everything to be done thoroughly so that the process would be successful for everyone.


ACTION. Greg Twitt will advise the CICCC in writing what the EPA buffer zone requirements are for the facility.


ACTION. Ian will advise the CICCC in writing concerning the Planning Scheme requirement for a buffer zone, which may be in the form of an Environmental Overlay.


Peter Reddie said that they were proposing to move the northern boundary of the Terminals site, further south and the facilities on the eastern side would move to the West. The actual landmass used in future would be a smaller site than is presently used by Terminals, and everything would be on the one site without public access roads dividing parts of the operational site. This will be a great improvement for safety management of the site. The most dangerous goods would be stored on the most Northern section of the new proposed site. The new North boundary will be further south and so further away than presently from any residential areas.


He said that McKenzie Road will be re-routed and smaller in future, and that the P&O Ports Container Terminal will be made larger. He said that in the future the P&O container site would be handling a wider range of hazardous goods than those handled by Terminals.


ACTION. George will ask P & O for details about any Hazardous goods incidents at their site. Trevor will also investigate this matter.


WorkCover assess the Safety Zones. EPA is responsible for the Buffer Zones (adequately containing odours).


ACTION. Peter Reddie will bring the new QRA Plan for the handling of Bulk Liquids to the next meeting. He will also bring a diagram showing the present Terminals site and the future prosed site.



See Attachment 4.

They discussed the incident reports and looked at seismological activity in the area.


The Terminals medical clinic may consider screening their employees for any health risks associated with the Phthalate chemicals.


This committee are still working on their mission statement.


Terminals have almost completed their Year 2000 compliance.


Ian tabled some brochures from the Australian Maritime Authorities, which indicate that ships waste disposal activities are heavily and adequately regulated.

The Terminal’s stack emissions for Benzene are not complying with EPA standards but all others are complying.


ACTION. This sub-committee have achieved a great deal and they will bring a list of their achievements to the next CICCC meeting so that activities can be signed off by the CICCCC.


9.1       Road and Pipeline Transport Questionnaire. Not ready to comment on this yet.


  • Population growth forecasts. Ian Gibson provided a copy of the latest forecasts to the Sub-Committee Chair.



See Attachment 5.


Current regulations are

  1. MFB Act


  1. Dangerous Goods Regulations. WorkCover are the regulatory body.


  1. Emergency Management Act. Police, SES, Local Government and Fire authorities.


A future meeting to talk about the emergency action plan will include representatives from the CICCC Emergency Management sub committee, EPA, MFB, Police, SES, Maribyrnong and Melbourne City Councils, MPC and VWA.


Meeting Details


Monday 6 September

                        6.30 PM

                        Melbourne Town Hall

                        Victoria Room


** Contact George or Marg so that, for security reasons your access to the building can be arranged.


  • Trevor Perkins has kindly indicted his willingness to participate on this sub committee and will join the Coode Island Users Group.


  • The Kensington Group are organising another Community Forum. They are presently seeking funding from Kensington, Flemington, North Melbourne and Mooney Valley Councils.


Forum Details


6.00pm.  Refreshments                                    Wed 6 October

6.30pm – 8.30pm.  Meeting                             Uniting Church Hall

                                                            McKraken Street




  • Worst Case Scenario tender. Terminals and the HSE sub committee have not fully discussed this yet. Terminals will be employing expert consultants and need to develop Terms of Reference with the HSE sub committee.





Peter Reddie gave a description of what had happened on the night of the spill. It occurred 6 July 1996 when unloading a ship with a pressure hose. During the discharge the sample line was accidentally knocked so that it opened, and the Nonyl Phenol (used in detergents) spilled out through the 1/2” bleed valve on the dock line. The spill occurred for a period of 10 minutes.


One of the safety measures operating on the dock is a holding tank under the jetty, which catches liquid spills. Sydney Ports operate this tank. When the tank fills with rain water it is emptied into the bay (if the liquid is not contaminated) or it is pumped out and disposed of correctly if it is contaminated.


On the night of this spill the emptying valve in the tank had been left open and all the spill material entering the tank had emptied straight into the bay instead of being contained in the tank. It was a windy night and some of the liquid contaminant blew off the jetty and was not contained by the concrete kerbing.


Terminals say that about 40 litres was spilt, while one expert witness estimated it was say 700 litres (although the authorities recorded that the material was all recovered in one 44 gallon drum). The material has a category 4 classification. All the material was cleaned up and there had been no environmental harm done.


The court found (14 July 1999) that Terminals were solely responsible for the spill. Peter thinks is a harsh judgement considering the holding tank was operated by the port authority and had been left open by them and not Terminals. Terminals do not have any prior convictions but they were fined $30,000. The Terminals operator was fined $7,000 and there was a further fine of $1,000 for not reporting the spill (the operator did not know it had occurred).


Peter Brotherton said that the decision had been handed down 8 days before our last CICCC meeting and he was concerned that Terminals had not raised this matter with the CICCC.


Peter Reddie said that at the time of the last CICCC meeting he had not mentioned it because in his mind the matter was still not finalised. The matter of costs had still not been finalised with the court. He agreed that he had been remiss in not raising the matter with the CICCC at an earlier time and said that this would not happen again should a similar incident occur.


A copy of the determination will be held in the CICCC archive.


George said that the Terminals operators now check all valves including those that are the responsibility of the port authority.


A similar tank at the Maribyrnong No 1 Berth is drained by a pump at the top and does not have an outlet into the river.


Faye said she thought the Task Force had said that the tank at No 1 Berth was in need of repairs.


ACTION. Carlo to check the Task Force report regarding any repairs that may be required to the holding tank.




Peter Reddie said that the LPG and Liquid Hazardous Berth have scuppers as part of their drainage system. He said that the oil spill in Sydney had occurred when oil was released at the same time as the ballast water from beneath the vessels hull. This cannot happen with dangerous goods that are handled by Terminals because the ships use completely different pipes to the ballast system.



See Attachment 6


Shipping and tanker movement has been about the same as usual.


The drums used to transport materials are filled and dispatched by Terminals.


Peter Reddie said that the last spillage where a hole in a hose had been the cause of the spill occurred in 1994. These incidents are very rare because before hazardous liquids are pumped, the hoses are always pressure tested to a pressure, which is 21/2 times that of the working pressure. Alarms sound if spills occur and there are always 2 people observing when material is pumped.


There has been a one-day, 6 monthly quality report carried out by Lloyds Register.


The HSE sub committee are to discuss 5 new items, which will improve efficiencies in the safe handling of goods.




See above Action items.




Next week the Annual Risk Emergency Conference will be held. Ian Gibson and Peter Reddie are each presenting a paper about the CICCC. They will make their papers available at the next CICCC meeting.




10.45 p.m.


Next meeting 23 September. 6.30 p.m.




Attachment 1             CICCC article in the Maribyrnong City Council News


Attachment 2             CICCC Objectives for Council’s Involvement.


Attachment 3             Annual Assessment of Hazard Controls Chart


Attachment 4             CICCC HS&E sub committee Minutes for August meeting.


Attachment 5             CICCC Emergency Management sub comm. Minutes, Aug.


Attachment 6             Terminals Monthly Operations & Occurrence Report.         


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