Get this as a Word document

Adopted Minutes

 Thursday 27 April 2000



Robin Saunders

Deborah Macfarlane

Ian Thomas

Ted Towson

Carlo Fasolino

Dr Peter Brotherton

Trevor Perkins

Greg Twitt

Tess Demidiuk

Murray Frank

Lam Cuc (Councillor, City of Maribyrnong)

George Horman

Michael Isaachsen




Mathew Wylie

Nic Hardy (Det Norske Veritas)

Scott Maloney

Jeff  Hibbert (Terminals Engineering Manager)

Wayne Jarman (Project Manager Terminals)

Mark Cahill – GHD/Terminals

Nick Easy – Manager Ports Logistics and Planning, MPC

Julie Gorman – MPC

Vanessa Richardson






ITEM 1. Welcome by the Chair

The chairperson welcomed the committee and others in attendance.


ITEM 2. Apologies


Peter Reddie, Ian Gibson, Robert Clarke, Kathy Aktypis and Marg Leser.


ITEM 3. Confirmation of the Agenda


There were a number of additions to Other Business


  • The confidentiality status of material presented at CICCC meetings was             flagged as an item for Other Business.







ITEM 4. Minutes of the Previous Meeting


The following Amendements were made


  • Spelling of Doug Buchanan


  • Item 7. 4th paragraph should read


‘ The upgrading plan proposals were presented to EPA in a report,…’


  • Item 7. Other Points Raised Paragraph 9 should read


‘ Air emission testing requirements would be determined as part of EPA’s                         Works Approval and licensing process. Scott said that there are clear air                             quality standards that are required to be met. Part of the Works Approval                           application assessment process involves predicting expected Ground Level              Concentrations using a computer package that….’


  • Item 7. Other Points Raised Paragraph 11 should read


‘ Under the Works Approval and License, EPA will require Terminals to make                  sure….’


  • Item 8.

Paragraph 1 should read


‘ WorkCover’s main tasks……employees who are injured at work.’


                        Paragraph 2 should read


‘The Dangerous Goods Regulations  are a part of the suite of regulatory                            administration by Victorian WorkCover Authority – see….’

‘They are highly prescriptive.’


  • Item 13.

Spelling of  the word Phenol.

The initials ‘PV’ to be replaced by ‘Pressure Vacuum Vent’.


The last paragraphs in Item 13 should appear with Amendements and in the                       following order


‘Peter Reddie reported on an incident that had occurred on 10 December 1999                   when EPA investigated Ethyl Acrylate odours at the P&O site across the road                 from Terminals. He said this material has a very low odour threshold but does                  not pose any serious health effects. Despite this he said some P&O staff had                    taken time off work for a couple of days. Peter said the effects would have                         been similar to painting a room without ventilation. The EPA is going to                            prosecute Terminals for this incident. Scott said that it was an air pollution                         matter with a maximum penalty of $20,000.


In relation to an incident at Geelong, Peter said that it was unfortunate for                          Terminals that this incident had occurred because it had resulted from                                improvements that they had made to the coupling devise for the road tankers.                    He said that they had installed rubber material in an isolating protection devise.                         The rubber had become brittle and broken, causing a blockage where liquid              was spilt.

The fire alarm detected the fumes, the fire brigade arrived within 5-10 minutes                  and the incident was reported in the papers. Terminals circulated a Press                                   Release (Robin has a copy). They are developing better gaskets and the bottom                loading facilities designed for the upgrade, will assist in curtailing these sorts                  of incidents. Peter said this incident indicated that the emergency detection and               alarm facilities work well.’



Action Items


4.1 CICCC Update

Everyone has received copies of the media release that was circulated.


4.2 Web Site Advertisements

Terminals have provided funding of $1,300 for the placement of                                         advertisements for the CICCC web site in the next 8 issues of the following                       papers: Melbourne Times, Footscray Mail, Advocate, Altona Laverton Mail,                      Williamstown Advertiser.


There will also be free advertisements on community radio 3WRB and the                         Western Times.


4.3 Web Site Activity

Robin will provide a monthly update at the next meeting.


4.4 Update on MHF Regulations

These have gone to the Parliamentary Counsel for review. Key stakeholders                      including CICCC will be given early viewing of the adopted regulations and                      Matthew Wylie will point out the significant changes, and how the changes               respond to the concerns raised by CICCC.


4.5 Report on the WorkCover 6 Monthly Audit

Defer to the next meeting.





ITEM 5. Correspondence In

See attachment 1.

            Letter from John Brumby dated 12 April 2000, responding to the CICCC letter of 25         February 2000. The letter advises, amongst other things, that the legal opinion (on the          potential for compensation claims) considered by Government in regard to their            decision on the retention of Terminals at Coode Island, can not be made available for             public release.


ITEM 6. Presentation by Nick Easy, Manager Ports Logistics and Planning

See Attachments 3 & 4


The Draft Strategic Issues and Directions Working Paper and the Working Paper Whole of Port Environmental management Plan) were made available to the CICCC.


The Melbourne Ports Corporation (MPC) employed Maunsell McIntyre Pty Ltd to assist with the development of the following

Port of Melbourne Strategic Plan

Port of Melbourne Strategic Statement

Whole of Port Environmental Management Plan

These documents will set out the planning policy framework for the port. It is a part of the standardising of planning schemes throughout the state, and it is also in accordance with the requirements of the Minister’s Assessment of the Webb Dock EES. The Melbourne Ports and Docklands area are the last of the new format Planning Schemes to be prepared.

The public consultation for the new format planning scheme draft is scheduled in September or October 2000. The planning scheme will be completed in June 2001.


Future requirements will impact on existing and new users of the port and best practise management will be encouraged.

The outcomes will be performance based and not prescriptive.


The Victorian Channel Authority is responsible for the management of channels, navigation and maintenance dredging in the Port.

MPC have a land lord role, provide infrastructure and lease sites for long term development. MPC are responsible for the whole of the port plan which is reinforcing a strong strategic port management role.


The port presently has an economic input to the State of $5.5 billion per annum and handles over $50 billion in trade per year.


            See attachment 5

The consultation period is currently occurring. There has been input to the plan from many sources.

            See attachment 6.1 & 6.2 & 6.3

The purpose of the port needs to be determined for the future. There is a need for this study, as the demand for seaborne trade will increase as container transport usage also increases. It is predicted the increase will be 6-8% annually in the long term.


The report will look at the buffering areas between residential and industrial lad usage.

The Dynon Road Rail Terminals is an important hub area which in future may need to be included in the Planning Scheme of the Melbourne Port area.  Presently 8% of goods are handled by rail. There is a future opportunity for 30% to be rail transported from various docks.

There is a lot of consultation occurring with Vic Roads so that traffic flows can be improved in the future especially at the Westgate Bridge interchange and at the intersection with Todd and Williamstown Roads, and the Dockside Road area.

Williamstown Road traffic content presently comprises 10% container trucks and Todd Road carries 14% in container trucks. The future growth of this traffic needs to be planned for.


            See attachment 7.1 & 7.2 & 7.3

There are emerging precincts for which specific plans will be made.


It is the intention that all leases will include environmental requirements for development and land use.

Robin asked if the following matters were being addressed

Energy usage

Green House emissions especially from land transport

The appointment of an Environmental Review Committee with community            representation.

Nick said that the EMP Advisory Group were following up these matters.


There will be a future requirement for an advisory group to gather and communicate information about the various issues involved in managing the port to the community.

Robin suggested that the prinicipl of the ‘Community Right to Know’ should be adopted by MPC as a in policy and communication principle. Robin stressed the need for these principals to be followed in MPC’s dealings with the whole community.

Nick said this was the case with Councils and the MPC had recently released ‘Quay Issues’, a newspaper circulated to 5,500 residents in the port area.

Peter B suggested that the broader community also have a real interest in the management issues of the port.

Nick suggested that CICCC may wish to include information in the newspaper.

ACTION. Robin will make further enquires about the above matter.


Feedback on the report is sought from the CICCC.   Robin thanked Nick and Julie.

ACTION. A future meeting will be organised in August 2000. Nick Easy will initiate contact then.



ITEM 7. Upgrade of the Plant – Layouts


George said that tonight’s presentation to the CICCC was the second of three (and            maybe four) which will occur before the finalisation of the Works Approval report        due for submission on 1 June. This is not a final plan, but a proposal. Terminals welcome all feedback and discussion of the proposal.


Following some concerns expressed at the last meeting, George said that it was not           usual for combustion units to be fitted with outlet monitoring devices.  They are fitted         with devices that ensure correct operation such as operating temperature.  In establishing that the unit is working properly, it would be assumed the output would      also be within specification.   Should Terminals adopt combustion, an outlet device will be fitted to monitor emissions in addition to normal practice. Terminals are    looking for a suitable outflow analyser to achieve this.


Attachment 2.1 & 2.2 notes the Terminals staff, consultants and teams that are     working on the redevelopment plan.


Attachment 2.3 shows the proposed timelines for the construction of the   redevelopment.


Stage One of the redevelopment will see the development of the BP site on the      western side of McKenzie Road, and the subsequent closure of the site on the eastern         side of McKenzie Road.


Attachment 2.4 lists the Design Philosophies used in the development of the design         options for Stage One.


The constraints of this site that have affect on the design layout for this site, include          the following factors


  • Protected works distances (required by AS1940) from the adjacent property             occupied by Tallowmaster limiting the distance a tank could be located on                                     to that boundary.


  • Land shape


  • Cummins Street which runs East-West


  • Vapour Emission control facilities, truck and road tanker access


  • A pipeline easement



Layout Plans for Three Different Options

            See attachments 2.5, 2.6 & 2.7


  • Option One

See attachment 2.11

                                    There is a nice buffer between the sites

Pipe runs to the truck loading area are short

Areas for the staged construction are clearly separated

Meets the design philosophies previously outlined.


  • Option Two

See attachment 2.10

                                            no buffer to the existing site

poorer emergency access to option 1

to entry locations required

PO trucks need to exit on a road bend



  • Option Three

See attachment 2.9  See attachment 2.12

The Propylene Oxide (PO) tanks are further from the residential                                         areas with a possible affect on reducing the residential risk.          PO tanks                                  are adjacent to the Acrylonitrile tank possibly increasing the risk to the                                     site.

PO, Acrylonitrile and phenol loading are combined complicating fire                                 protection.

PO loading area is close to passing traffic.

Emergency access is not as good.

The pipe runs are not as short as for Option One

More difficult to construct.


Some advantages of this site are that it is tidier but more cramped.

Pumps are sited more remote from the truck filling area

Smaller general chem compounds – possible better emergency access.

There is one exit point.




 General Improvements Include


  • The new designs aim to reach the highest feasible standard


  • Drainage systems for the truck loading area will be a separate system to the main drainage system on the site.


  • Propylene Oxide and Acrylonitrile will be loaded in an area that is separate to the general truck loading area.


  • Tanks will be grouped, and segmented into compounds where the tanks are only 2 deep with emergency access roads                           surrounding them. This will improve safety access.


  • There will be 2 Phenol tanks on the new site rather than one.


  • See attachment 2.8. The storage requirements are approx 45000M3 comprising of 14700M3 of Benzenes, 9000M3 of PO,                      9500M3 of Acrylates, 2200M3 of Phenol, 8100M3 of                             Ethanol/General Chemicals. The proposed storage reestablished                     on the BP site would be 1000M3 more than the corresponding                        current storage on the East side of Mackenzie Rd to cater for the                         existing products.  There are also 6 tanks of nominal 500M3                   capacity included on the layouts but these are not designated for              any particular use. The present site has 40 tanks and the                    proposed site will have 30. Contracts with clients will be                 completed when final pricing details are available.


  • Use of Nitrogen blanketing with Acrylate storage tanks


  • Cast steel pumps will be used. Pumps will stop automatically                   if the flow is too fast or too slow ie. The pumps will be                              automated with the truck loading systems.



  • There will improvements made to the valves that open directly to atmosphere such as sample valves. These will be                        double valves, spring return or blanked.


  • Bunds will slope away from the tanks.


  • Gas detectors in the Acrylonitrile bund area will automatically trigger foam pourer immediately gas is detected so that the toxic                 vapour cloud will be smothered as quickly as possible.




  • Hard pipe exchange areas will be used for filling from ships to tanks, rather than hoses, as is the case in some instances                              presently. Pressures in tanks will alarm if too high.



  • Trucks will be weighed to determine fill levels rather than            doing this visually which is the case presently. Truck brakes                        will be locked when filling.


  • Mimic alarms will be used at the Wharf, so that wharf operators know what is happening at the tanks.


  • The likely capital cost for Stage One will be between 30 – 45                         million dollars.


Nick Hardy said that the next part of the process is to decide which option has the             least risk. The Risk Analysis assesses any potential big hazard events. He prepares the          data for any such possibility, which will then feed the layout deign.

At this stage he only has preliminary results. He said that 4 Options have been       developed, the three provided by Terminals and one he has devised.


The Risk Summation will include management proposals for all possible major hazard     events. They will fall into 2 categories


Those that may be small in size but that occur frequently

Those which are large in size and occur infrequently


There are worldwide statistics available to make these calculations. (Nick has copies         of a paper that outlines these statistics since 1985). For instance if an operation           switches from using 4 tanks to using 3 tanks, the frequency of events drops by 25%.           Another example is that  less spills occur in loading zones, where less inventory   (pipes, valves, tanks, etc) are used for loading,. When the frequency is halved, the       number of spills is also halved.

Models that include things like all likely weather conditions, can be developed      which show the possible effects of a spill on the surrounding area. Coode Island has            16  various wind directions which includes variants like speed and lateral mix of           clouds. Night time winds are the reverse of daytime winds.


Nick said that the preliminary study results  show that all the proposed new options           provide a safer site than that which  is presently operational. He likes Option 3 least and prefers Option 4 where the Propylene Oxide tanks are placed as far as possible away from the Acrylo Nitrate tanks. He is checking the toxic measure data especially             that for Acrylonitrile because existing data is not very reliable.


The Risk Contours indicate that for the present layout and design, 200 workers at Terminals and other nearby sites and nearby residents were within the 10-8 Risk contour. The new Options indicate that the risk will be improved so that only 20        people would be at risk of death in within the 10-8 risk contour. The risks are           continually improving on a site like Terminals as the technology continues to improve.     The biggest hazards on a site such as this are those potentially posed by actions of the staff on site.


Deborah asked where the contours indicating injury to people might be placed.

Mathew said these can be done on a material specific basis. Injury rates usually     increase by a factor of 10 over death rates.

Nick said that a lot of data about specific toxic materials is not available. He added           that there are many variables including short and long term facts, exposure levels, etc.    He said that he was being conservative with the measures and predictions he was        making for Coode Island.

All his findings will be made available to the CICCC.


There was discussion about the community’s response to risk contour lines on a map.       Peter B said that the lines indicate to the community that the information is factual and specific without also communicating a measure of uncertainty that is inherent in such     calculations.

Robin suggested that pictures with lines could be misconstrued, unless some idea of          the uncertainty surrounding the predictions was also communicated.

Nick said he thought the public should be shown the lines, because describing       uncertainties will not give the public answers.

Michael suggested that fluctuating lines as guides might be the answer to   communicating all this information to the community.

Robin stressed the responsibility for everyone involved, to communicating this      information to the community very well . He said that the lines indicated a       conservative best estimate of the most likely risk. Different analysis will show the         lines in a different position. So that the final picture will be uncertain.

Nick said that it was important to never underestimate risk.

Robin suggested the comparison with death from lighting strikes was inappropriate.

Peter B said that while the community might be cynical about past standards at the            Terminals site, it should be well communicated that the upgrade would offer Worlds Best Practise in this field.

George said that it has been difficult to operate at the Terminals site in the past years        since the fire, because Terminals have been ready and wanting to go ahead with their           upgrade but have been held back while the consultation matters were managed.

Robin said that the CICCC would need to be sure that the wording used in reports             indicates clearly and transparently to the public, the true picture of the possible risks            if an event were to occur. He asked if it might be appropriate at this stage to develop a            map that showed the difference in risk between the present site to the new options   proposed.

Nick said his presentation tonight was preliminary and that more information would         be available in the report. He said the development of this site will set a precedent for   others to follow.

Peter B said he thought people wanted clear information about what Nick thought             could potentially go wrong on the site, and how these events would be managed.

Robin asked George to comment, George replied that the aim of the presentation was        to demonstrate the improvements that will be made will make for a safer operation and         the risk calculations using the same basis as previously has reflected the improvements albeit preliminary confirming that the proposed measures will have an affect ie. A tangible reduction.  The figures as a comparison are valid but as an absolute measure    were subjective.

ACTION. George and Nick will seek advice regarding who might be best suited to most effectively communicate this information to the community.


George said the use of nitrogen blankets to control Acrylonitrile storage was above           Worlds Best Practise.

Carlo said that the proposed shift from manual option of the facilties to a less manual        operation with engineering improvements would be better but it was currently being compensated with strict procedures and operating practices.


Michael said the community will want to hear reassuring statements from the        Government authorities and experts about Worlds Best Practise standards being achieved at this site.


Ted asked how adding more valves to a pipe would decrease the risk of a hazardous          event.

Nick said that valves were able to isolate large storage tanks. He said the details of            these systems can be broken down into their components and given a numerical rating   which can be used to determine a percentage of failure rate for a particular system and    parts of systems. This determines the risk factor of the system.


George tabled plans of the proposed piping schematics for


Flammable piping






Robin thanked George and Nick for their presentation to the CICCC.




ITEM 8. Effectiveness Review (Ian Swann)


Defer to the next meeting.



ITEM 9. Agenda for the Next Meeting (11 May 2000)


  • WorkCover six monthly audit.


  • CICCC Effectiveness Review – Ian Swann


  • Ian Thomas issues

Expertise of engineers

Use of multiple incinerators


  • Terminals Presentation – Overview of the EPA Works Approval Application


ITEM 10. Other Business


            10.1 The confidentiality status of material presented at CICCC meetings.

Robin said that several documents had already been tabled with CONFIDENTIAL or             COPYRIGHT clearly marked on them. He said that all materials tabled will be      expected to be made generally available, and that any exceptions to this rule would         need to be made clear on release of the material.


Peter B suggested that the CICCC draft some procedures for managing this issue as          different people will interpret this matter differently.

ACTION. Peter B to develop a draft procedure to be followed, and to consult with Robin.


Michael suggested that the CICCC might also consider assisting its members to make       responsible public statements in regard to the redevelopment plans and processes.


Close  10.30pm



Next Meetings           

                                    Thursday 11 May

* Thursday 25 May…this is a newly scheduled meeting to be                                             confirmed


Thursday 15 June


Note: Forum 14 June














Attachment      1        Correspondence from John Brumby, Minister for State and Regional           Development, date 12 April 2000.

Attachment      2.1     Sources of Input to Development of the Terminals Site

2.2     Terminals Teams


                          2.3     Construction Time line


2.4     Design Philosophies


2.5     Option 1 Plan Diagram


2.6     Option 2 Plan Diagram


2.7     Option 3 Plan Diagram


2.8     Stage 1 Layout


2.9     Option 3 Plan Features


2.10   Option 2 Plan Features


2.11   Option 1 Plan Features


2.12   New & Additional Features


Attachment      3        Background to the Port of Melbourne Strategic Plan

Attachment      4        Background to the Whole of Port Environmental Management Plan           

Attachment      5        Strategy Framework and Study Process

Attachment      6.1     Port Pressures – Need for Strategic Plan


                          6.2      Consultation Issues Raised


6.3     Consultation Issues Raised

Attachment      7.1     Emerging Directions


                                  7.2     Plan Outcomes


7.3    Plan Outcomes


Attachment      8        Terminals Development Timeline


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