Thursday 27 April 2000
Dr Peter Brotherton
Lam Cuc (Councillor, City of Maribyrnong)
Nic Hardy (Det Norske Veritas)
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
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.’
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
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
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.
Thursday 11 May
* Thursday 25 May…this is a newly scheduled meeting to be confirmed
Thursday 15 June
Note: Forum 14 June
CICCC ATTACHMENTS TO DRAFT MINUTES 27 April 2000
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.