Get this as a Word document

 Adopted Minutes

 Thursday 27 July 2000



Robin Saunders

  CICCC chair person

Deborah Macfarlane

  community rep./   CICCC committee

Ian Thomas

community rep./ committee

Ted Towson

community rep./ committee

Carlo Fasolino

Op. Manager Terminals P.Ltd./committee

Dr Peter Brotherton

Combined Enviro. Groups / committee

Faye Simpson

community rep./ committee

Cathy Aktypis  

  Kensington Ass. rep / committee

Frank Fichera

community rep./ committee

Murray Frank

Dept. Human Serv, /ex off committee





Peter Reddie

Gen Manager Terminals  / committee

Michael Isaachsen

community member

George Horman

Terminals Pty Ltd / committee

Greg Twitt

Environ. Protec Authy / ex off committee

Denis Marchetti

community member

Jarrod Edwards


Matthew Wylie

  WorkCover / ex off committee

Jim Clements

  Envir Protec Auth / ex off committee

Trevor Perkins

  commander /Metro Fire & Emerg Ser.

Gordon Harrison

  City of Melbourne 

Vanessa Richardson

minute taker






The chairperson welcomed the committee members and observers in attendance.




Apologies were received from Tess Demediuk, John Luppino, Ian Swann, Cuc Lam,         Robert Clarke and Tonya Stephens.




Add the following after Item 10 – Payment of CICCC sitting fees and the GST.


The Draft Agenda was adopted.



This section of the minutes was adopted.




Jim Clements said that today, Terminals had submitted extra information for their             application. This has to be assessed by the EPA and he expects that advertising for        public comment will probably be about 9 August 2000 if all goes well.


See Attachment 1

George Horman said that the upgrade for Stages 2 & 3 included upgrading of facilities      in a similar way to that already presented for Stage 1. Stage 2 is Site B on the west of   Mackenzie Road. Stage 3 is Site C on the west of Mackenzie Road. The basic    configuration of the sites B & C will not change. The upgrade will occur over about a           3-year period.

The upgrade will include the following

Jacking up the tanks and re doing the base of the tanks as needed.

Tanks will have concrete plinths and drains should a leak occur

Little wastage from tanks

Concrete bunds and floors around tanks will be sealed so that seepage can not                   occur

Tanks on sites 2 & 3 will have an additional concrete bund with a concrete                        floor inside the existing earth bund. The new bund will be sized to contain 20                 minutes of overflow from the tanks. The existing bund walls will either be                               replaced in concrete, or have a concrete surface sprayed on.

The piping system will have automated valves

Truck overfill protection

Weigh bridge measuring for truck fills

Vapours to emission system via hoses

Air emissions will be reduced by 95%


Ian Thomas said the coroner had recommended that the bund walls be designed to allow emergency access.


George said that the height of bunds would contain any spill and water used to deluge tanks in the event of a major fire. In the case of the propylene oxide the tanks are individually bunded and as such the bund walls are higher. He said the Metropolitan Fire Brigade has signed off the present plant and it was consistent with the findings from coronial inquiry and lessons learned from the fire in August 1991. Road access to tanks in stages 2 and 3 would not be as good as stage 1 as stage 1 was a ‘green-field development’ and stages 2 & 3 a redevelopment of an existing facility.


Peter Reddie said that the layout of stage 1 allowed direct emergency access to every tank by way of roadway.  This provided a better solution to the coroner’s recommendation to widen the bund walls to provide access.


See Attachment 2.

Acrylates are presently stored in 14 tanks on sites B & C and will be relocated into Stage 1 on completion.. The 14 tanks in site B & C will have good emergency access and will continue to be used to store Class 3 flammable liquids some of which need to be relocated from the western side of Mackenzie Road as a result of the redevelopment.  Products planned to occupy these tanks at this stage are :-

  • ethanol – a class 3 flammable liquid
  • caustic – a class 8 corrosive liquid
  • plasticisers – combustible liquids
  • other solvents – class 3 flammable liquids


Tanks in the stage 2 development area (Plant B west) will be serviced by the stage 1 truckfill stand. Truck filling in stage 3 (Plant C West) will be upgraded to the standard proposed for Stage 1.


The upgrades meet the now more stringent earthquake code.

Terminals may look at a back up power supply to the site.

Truck fill areas are roofed. Any spills in these areas will be contained away from the truck fill area. The first 20 minutes of any rainfall on roads in the site goes to a 40,000 litre containment tank to be checked and treated before being released as non contaminated water.  All the pipes, connections and valves will be upgraded to the same design standard as on the Stage 1 site.


Ian Thomas suggested that the pipes should be colour coded.


The 10-7 contours on the map do not include population traffic on the river. It does account for populations of employees and residents in the area.


Peter Reddie said that in the future there would be mainly Class 3 flammables stored at site B & C.  Products stored currently such as ethanol and toluene may increase in the future.


Matthew said that if the amounts of these materials were to increase the proposed increase would firstly have to be approved by WorkCover as a condition of the license to store hazardous materials. The safety requirements of each tank would have to be validated in each application to use a tank for the storage of hazardous materials. The tanks are checked for integrity every 10 years.


Peter Reddie said that every week Terminals report to WorkCover, the content figures for each tank on site.


Faye Simpson said she thought the community wants to know the percentage of each class of material stored on the site at any given time.


Matthew Wylie said that the above information is available to the community  as gazetted information available as a license requirement. The EPA will provide the           information about the type of material stored on the site and WorkCover will provide          information about the total amount per Class that they are licensed to store on the site.


Jim Clements said that the materials are listed on the license.


Greg Twitt said that a new Works Approval application would be required if a new chemical that is more toxic (and where air emissions would increase) comes on site. Peter Reddie said that in 1993 less than 10% of liquids stored at the Terminals’ facility were non-hazardous, while now over 25% of the liquids stored were non-hazardous.


Matthew Wylie said that under the Major Hazard Facilities Regulations if Terminals revise the materials stored on the site, WorkCover would reassess the storage and this could result in a change to the licence. All this information would then be available to the public.


Ian Thomas asked if the regulatory changes due 8 Dec 2000 would increase or decrease the amount of information available to the public.




See Attachment 3.

6.1 Robin Saunders drew to the attention of the CICCC how the forum was reported         on the web site. Comment made included the following

  • The forum was a great success
  • Large variety of people attended
  • The ripples of dissent were answered too softly
  • Enjoyable
  • Need to write it up with a balanced approach. Include Hazmag’s concerns so that balance is achieved

On the issue of Emergency Management communication:

  • the residents want to know what to do when sirens go off in this area. Whose responsibility is this matter?
  • Which Government Authority is responsible for the above? The government have a duty of care as they have allowed the development of these sites.
  • Peter Reddie advised the committee that Terminals were revising their emergency response plan to include a media release at the earliest possible time after sounding the site emergency alarm. The plan involves immediately notifying radio station 3WRB of the circumstances behind the response by emergency vehicles. Currently only Terminals and two other companies in the area are parties to this plan. The objective longer term is to have all industry in the area participate in the plan. Peter asked for input from community members on the content of the media release to ensure it is informative and serves the community’s information needs.
  • Peter Reddie advised the Committee that he had approached other operators in the Footscray area with a proposal that they all use 3WRB as a community information provider for residents. When a siren or other incident occurs, the                 operators will advise 3WRB, who will broadcast the information. So far, three              of the ten operators contacted have replied.
  • Under DISPLAN Police and Emergency Services only issue a media release well after an emergency has occurred and only if action needs to be taken by the community. Frequently emergency services are called to attend an incident and no media release is issued as the severity of the incident does not warrant any action by neighboring communities.
  • It is believed that some industrial sites are not manned out of hours and that when an alarm sounds there is no one to respond to calls from the community. In these cases the community cannot get information about what has caused an alarm to sound.
  • It is a slow process getting industry to take responsibility on this matter.
  • The police have a media unit to handle serious emergencies.
  • In an industrial area, residents are concerned about every alarm and wonder if it is heralding a situation that may jeopardise their safety.
  • Local communities could review the Safety Plans of each site.
  • When the fire occurred at the Terminals site on Coode Island in 1991 no one knocked on my door to tell me (as a resident) if I was safe or not.
  • There needs to be some way the community can be find out what is happening even for the low level occurrences, so that they can relax in the                         knowledge that they have a facility that will adequately inform them regarding                         their safety.
  • Maybe there should be a dedicated phone number to deal with this need of the community.
  • There should be fines for false alarms.
  • The CICCC Emergency Sub Committee have lost their chairperson, however they can keep working on this matter. The CICCC community reps need to be doing more work on this matter.
  • Fridge magnets are not very practical.
  • We need to get clearer about which option work best.
  • You can’t over communicate on this matter. The community need to know why an ambulance is stopping nearby. Living in an industrial area means that residents are always concerned that there may be an incident that may affect                   their well being.
  • As an example, the use of radio reports for traffic movement in the metro area works very well for me as a way of getting appropriate information quickly.
  • The Altona Complex have solved these problems for their community. They have had appropriate plans in place for 10-15 years and the community practise these regularly .
  • The Altona Complex plan does not deal with low level alarms.
  • We have been waiting 10 years for something to happen on this issue.
  • The Melbourne Port Authority said they would report to CICCC on the matter of evacuating Terminals staff from their site. They have not done this.


ACTION. The Emergency Management Subcommittee (Cathy and Deborah) will work on this matter with the assistance of Peter Brotherton, Frank Fichera and George.  Deborah will chair the Subcommittee.


            6.2 The worst case scenario independent review.

The HSE sub committee will address the issue of the independent review of the Worst      Case Scenario issues when Terminals develop the Safety Case. The HSE Sub-    Committee will then bring recommendations to CICCC in the form of a consultant       brief for the review.

Peter Reddie and Peter Brotherton said that using Worst Case Scenarios was the best        way to communicate ‘risk’ to the community.




See attachment 4.

Ian Thomas said he has some concerns about the recent CICCC press releases. He             thinks they tended to detail what Terminals presented to the Committee, but didn’t      provide enough about community members concerns.

Robin said he appreciated feedback from the members.

Peter Brotherton said that the work of the community representatives on the CICCC         needed to be better represented. He has concerns that Terminals Pty Ltd predetermined options and then only presented those options to the CICCC. Without             the broader picture being presented, the CICCC is unable to form a reliable wider           perspective on issues up for consideration.

Peter Reddie said it was important that issues discussed by the CICCC were written up     in the minutes. He said the press releases should also reflect this 2 way process.

ACTION.  In relation to the points made by the AWU (see Ian’s report), Robin will develop a short statement of consultation principles for the Committee’s consideration.


Peter Reddie said that the press releases are not always published because the        publishers do not judge their content (which is process based) as news worthy.


Peter Brotherton suggested that the next press releases could be less bland and focus         on the two issues discussed under Item 6 above. He also asked the Chair to request     that the EPA do more to increase public awareness of this upgrade issue.


George suggested publicising the 9 August 2000 date (when it is anticipated the 21           public comment period will commence) and that reports are available on the         Terminals Pty Ltd web site at

ACTION. Robin will request EPA to advertise more widely and prominently, and to issue their own press release about the comment period on the Works Approval application.


The Altavista search engine brings up the CICCC web site very promptly.

ACTION. Robin to report on the number of web site hits at the next meeting. He will also ask PACIA (whose web page gets a lot of hits) to put in a hot-link to the CICCC web site.




The sub committee have come up with a calculation of residual risk for each substance     stored on the site and rated it 1-5. PACIA are generally supportive of this paper. Much   more work needs to be done to avoid the results being mis-interpreted. The

mathematical basis for combining different aspects was also thought to be inappropriate.


ACTION. The HSE will review the draft, including to make the following changes:

  • change the mathematical equation about human health and environmental             quality, to wording which describes the point
  • they will use a lot more words to describe the concentrations of materials
  • include a note in the pre amble about PACIA’s support for this paper
  • use the wording ‘damage to living organisms’ rather than ‘environmental                impact’
  • re do the Residual Risk Graph so that the relative risks are more accurately  interpreted
  • represent the information as
  1. An Estimation of Risk
  2. Steps to Reduce Risk
  3. The Degree to which Best Practise has been Established
  4. How much room is there for further improvement
  • the Inherent Hazard needs to be more weighted




The following points and comments were made in discussion:

  • How effective is the content of the minutes ?
  • “I like detailed minutes because it helps me to understand the complex matters arising in discussion.
  • “I find it useful to have a record of the background discussions so I can better relate detail to others outside the CICCC”
  • “Looking for minutes on web sites is too difficult “

ACTION. Peter Reddie will investigate the feasibility of posting the attachments to the minutes on the CICCC web site.


ACTION.  Continue preparing the minutes in the usual style, and sending minutes to all those on the mailing list (total 46, mainly by e-mail). Attachments will continue to be mailed out, until such time as Terminals is able to provide them in an electronic form, suitable for emailing and posting to the web site.

NOTE: It would be appreciated if other material presented to the Committee was provided to Vanessa in electronic form for distribution.





Peter Reddie is unclear about the regulatory framework in which the Manchester Agreement was developed. He is not sure if it was similar to Victoria’s. He said that the Manchester Agreement appeared to be similar to the Victorian “Environment Improvement Plan” (EIP) process. This involves an agreement between the company, the community and EPA regarding site improvements over a given period. Peter noted that the Works Approval would also be issued with conditions that Terminals must abide by.

Greg Twitt said that EPA had many examples of EIP agreements that Terminals could follow, where the company had committed to specific targets and objectives. A committee made up of Terminals, the community and EPA could sign off on such an agreement.

Jim Clements said he knew of 30 or 40 similar agreements already made throughout the state of Victoria. Local Government is also often involved. The EIP timelines are different for each different project. The company is required to do as the community requires in these instances. A lot of things can be included in EIP. The Works Approval decision is due in about 4 months time, and will be issued with conditions that Terminals are required to comply with.


Ian Thomas said that he thought it would be better to have an agreement between the CICCC and Terminals, and exclude the EPA. Then the CICCC would not have to confine itself to purely environmental matters.

Ted Towson said that it would be better to have an agreement between business and the community because the community do not trust the regulatory authorities.

Robin said that the CICCC have to take a strong role in clarifying what is needed and included on behalf of the community, which will range over matters outside the ambit of the EPA.


Peter Brotherton suggested that the CICCC start to consider the principals that may be included.  One principle is the use of appropriate consultation processes.

ACTION.  Ian Thomas and Peter Brotherton will develop the principles further for consideration by CICCC.  Further work on an agreement (whether associated with the EIP or not) will follow.





            11.1 Payment of CICCC sitting fees and the GST.


Those receiving sitting fees who are a registered business with an ABN number should submit Tax Invoices to Terminals Pty Ltd so that Terminals can pay sitting fees with GST included in those few cases.  Members who wish to be paid through their businesses are to advise Terminals, if they have not already done so. Where sitting fees are paid to individuals, GST does not apply as these payments fall below the tax threshold.

Other CICCC members will be paid as previously.

ACTION. CICCC members are to e-mail Peter Reddie if they wish to be paid as a company, if they have not already done so.



ACTION . Send a letter of appreciation (as read) to Ian Gibson.



Other items were deferred to the next meeting.



Close               11 pm



Next Meetings           


Meeting Thursday 10 August, 2000

Meeting Thursday 14 September 2000
















Attachment      1        Overheads for the Terminals presentation

Attachment      2        Terminals Site Upgrade and the Associated Tank Movements on the           Site at           Coode Island.

Attachment      3        Report on the Community Forum, 29 June 2000

Attachment      4        Ian Thomas correspondence re Consultation Processes