Adopted Minutes

Thursday 3rd March,







Quentin Cooke:

Protection Authority / Ex Off Comm

Ian Thomas:

Rep. / CICCC Committee

Gary Laidlaw

Protection Authority




City of

Faye Simpson


Theo Pykoulas

City of




Regulatory Affairs, PACIA

George Horman:

Director, Terminals Pty Ltd

Geoff Cooke


VictorianManager, Terminals Pty Ltd

Owen Quake


Minute Taker

Peter Egan

MFB Manager
Community Safety Central Zone


Mark Dalrymple

MFB Manager
Community Safety Western Zone






Robin         Welcomed
Peter Egan, Mark Dalrymple – MFB, Geoff Cooke, Owen Quake –      WorkSafe,
and Gary Laidlaw – EPA.




Peter LaRose








Discussion of draft Port
Environs Plan and New Format Port Planning Scheme.


Robin:        Opened the meeting with reference to the directions hearing that
took place 3rd            March,
2005 at which the Maribyrnong council attended in force. Also at the     hearing
was Quentin representing the EPA, also in attendance Victorian           Workcover
Authority, Department of Industry and Regional Development,     MARSTEL,
DOW, Huntsman, Port of Melbourne Corporation along with the            applicant
for the development.


main activity at this second Directions Hearing was to look at the work     plan
for the hearing on 4th April – 22nd April, 2005.
Expert witness reports need             to
be available 23rd March, 2005. All representatives will be heard,
and the          Advisory Committee
will undertake a site visit.. The scope of the Advisory          Committee
role is now limited to a merits review of 99 Moreland Street       application


“Request to be heard form” for Deborah to attend has been
submitted. Robin has requested the Planning Panels Victoria send any further
information to the CICCC via Deborah.


then handed over to Deborah to ask committee as to what help she needed.


main issues were the development planned around Coode Island. Representations
should convey that such high density developments should not take place.


developments currently in the area taking place next to Lonely Planet are:


2030 plan showing substantial development for
area which is not a good idea.

Unlawful occupancy of boutique office/warehouse

Boats moored

Government made decision to keep Coode Island so
therefore should not allow such developments in close proximity.

Residential developments are increasing


George:     Residential development
then causes restrictions on industry. Therefore higher regulatory pressure.
Therefore more difficulties on the manufacturing          industry.


then related to Port of Melbourne Environs Plan drawing of planned     development
of Riverside Precinct and its distance away from Coode Island           site.
The Marstel site with hazardous chemicals is closest to development.


Faye:          Are
companies considering alternatives for their projects with regard to    principles
of planning for 2030 so that we are not fighting all planning.


Robin:        Stated
that Terms of Reference for committee is to confine their activities to 99          Moreland
Street. The whole principles of buffer zones need to be considered.     The
criteria the committee need to think about and address are buffers – 1     km
for residential presently in Planning Scheme for large storage facilities like            Coode
Island, subject to assessment of the hazard. Thrust in the present       review
is not so much of residential use but of intensity of usage.


Ian:             Is
occupancy 24 hours per day?


Robin:        Intensity
of usage should be the most dominant issue, and while offices and    entertainment
faciites may not be attended 24 hours per day, the large           numbers
dwarfed residential exposure. Robin then stated that the buffer area    set
out in the draft Port Environs Plan was defined by streets (Hyde Street in         particular),
providing only a 700 metre buffer to residences west of Hyde             Street,
while the Planning Scheme had a 12 km buffer zone between new            major
storage facilities and residential (subject to consideration of the likely impact).
The planning issues should be: buffer, zoning, density and amenity          such
as noise level, fumes and transport.


Colleen:     When they first put
plan out there were not formal objections by agencies.     Colleen
stated the bigger issue is buffer zones.


Robin:        Council
is saying they are administering the planning scheme within         guidelines.


Faye:          Ask
if the planning scheme contained buffer zones at the time of decision and            do
agencies support buffer zones.


George:     Council has to conform
to State Government committed usage of parcels of land.


Colleen:     Quite a few pockets
on residential areas in amongst Hyde street industry.


Robin:        There
is nothing in the planning scheme which prohibits development in buffer         zones.
(See pages 25 and 26 of the draft Port Environs Plan for a longer             treatment
of this issue.) The Advisory Committee will listen to everyone and    then
advise government.


Faye:          Support
a principled argument – planning level – is there sufficient support
to argue at that level.


Robin:        This
is a test case only concerning 99 Moreland Street. The agenda is for 99     Moreland
Street only.


Ian:             With
respect to council view, council is desirous of increasing its rates base.


Colleen:     Refuted comment from


Theo:          99
Moreland Street is not residential. The plan is for offices, retail and             reception


Robin:        Council
supports development for mixed use development comprising of 37,000 sq office
space, 2,400 sq meters, retail, 600 seat reception with 1,000 car spaces. It
is a massive development with occupancy comprising of workers, visitors,
patrons etc.


Colleen:     Referred to a number
of agencies that did not object to it.


Michael:     Planning
scheme zones Business Class 2. Should be changed to zoning that would restrict


Theo:          Some
councils do have restrictive zoning.


Quentin:     Review
will consider seriously proposals put to them. Some new work to be done to
update new planning scheme. Port of Melbourne new format planning scheme.


Robin:        The
New Format Planning Scheme is a translation of the old scheme into the       new
one, with the myriad of old zones reduced to a much smaller set of           standard


George:     When
Terminals makes presentation they are going to support buffer zone as Terminals
do not think current zone is correct.


Quentin:     Do not think
development with its intensification and close proximity to Coode   should
proceed. Until just recently the site land uses did not include such a         development.


Colleen:     Would
have been good if EPA had objected at the initial hearing. Thought the
comments put forward by the EPA were very mild. Colleen to table document that
details what EPA actually objected to at the next meeting.


Ian:             Considerations
should be given to environment. Quantification of big development within close
proximity to big storage facility. So many meters separation. The notion you
apply to buffer zone and how far should they be apart.


George:     Terminals
had a look at the amenity and spoke to WorkSafe. They base risk on fatality in
area. How do you calculate amenity if a P.O. tank did go up it would probably
not affect development? Amenity should be regarded as daily inconvenience or
annoyance. Risk contour of site are well within WorkSafe requirements.


Ian:             Can
only conclude that risk profiles are not prejudiced by safety.


Robin:        Some
comfort in risk contours as defined by WorkSafe.


Ian:             There
are a lot of other considerations. If all of the facing windows shattered and
caused injury. Would probably have development closed down.


George:     Density
of population should be regulated and made lower. High density should not be
allowed as it is not practical.


Robin:        If
not single storey what is the desirable level 3 or 5? As a committee should we
argue for 3 storeys as against 11 storeys? The 11 storey part of development
is on Whitehall Street side.


Ian:             EPA
buffer zone set in policy a long time ago. Very soundly and logically placed.
Planning has more power which kept on permitting more and more development.
All risk assessments so far talk about proposed Marstel storage against
existing population at that time. Need to argue more strongly against this


Robin:        WorkSafe
feels there is more work to be done on the Environs Plan to make sure it is
clear in the future on how public safety will be taken into account. Safety
Environmental Management Plan – Ports position is that they will be
working on their own risks thru the Environs Plan. Submission will not be
ready until presentation on 23rd March, 2005.


Expert witnesses to have their report in to advisory committee by 23rd
March, 2005. But the Agencies are also expert witnesses, although they are not
treated as such in the rules for Public Hearings, and the provision of expert


The community at large does not hear of agencies opinions until they
present to the Advisory Committee on their scheduled day of hearing.


Chair to write to Advisory Committee to ask that submissions by
agencies be sought by first day of hearings and circulated.


Ian:             Specialist
agency is important.


Faye:          We
need to view reports before we make submission.


George:     We
have to realize that we are not going to have reports by 23rd March
when they are not obliged to have them ready until 8th April 2005.


Ian:             Those
who have time should put views in writing to Deborah. Then Deborah can prepare
committee submission.


Deborah:   Would like to
receive views beginning April – week after Easter. No time given to
date. Robin to clarify in letter.


Robin:        We
do have a right to be heard. Final remark of Environs Plan, Clause 52.10
suggests there should be a threshold of 1,000 meters. Primary purpose to
ensure separation except in course of employment or recreation. Which makes
nonsense of the whole thing regarding buffer zones. Also referred to Page 18
and 20 Appendix 1 of the last recommendation for action.


Robin:        Then
thanked everyone for productive discussion.


Colleen:     Will be happy to send
around planners to summarize where we are up to.






by Carlo Fasolino


Carlo:         Reported
that 10 tanks had been moved across, 5 tanks commissioned for Ethanol storage,
State Managers meeting conducted, taken last Benzene ship and should be liquid
free end of April.


George:     The
soil disposal contract was let to Sita – Lyndhurst. Tenderer for
remediation has not been let but will be shortly as soon as we get the go ahead
from the government.


on 9th May 2005. Not sure how long they are going to take.
Hopefully 4 months probably 6 months. Liquid free end March, gas free end
April early May. Knock all down and then remediate taking 4-6 months including
demolition and remediation.


permit sphere proposal for Butadiene at Geelong. Terminals has complied with
all requirements, had support of all agencies but not Council. Terminals have
appealed to VCAT (on the failure of Council to determine the matter within the
statutory time) and expect to be successful. Geelong council concerned about losing
their powers to oppose planning schemes. Currently forming Terminals Geelong
Community Consultative Committee. To be chaired by Robin Saunders with the
first meeting to be held 21st March. Only 3 community people
interested so far.


Peter:         Asked
if MFB country cousins (CFA) were participating.



by Geoff Cooke


Geoff:         Introduced
himself as the Safety Case Officer for Terminals as well as a number of other
facilities in Victoria such as Shell, Mobil, and Esso. Geoff is a Chemical Engineer
by profession and has looked after major hazard facilities in the U.K.


of the things WorkSafe has been doing has been assessing submissions that
Terminals has made.


plans to visit Coode Island every quarter with the last visit being in October
2004 and will be visiting next week.


George:     Mentioned
that he attended a seminar on Industrial Manslaughter. The statistics
presented were that 35,000 workers have compensation claims with only 5,000
reported injuries. WorkSafe defined what is reportable and what isn’t.


Geoff:         Indicated
that reporting had increased due to the intervention of WorkSafe.


Carlo:         Guidelines
are not really clear on incident notification.


George:     New
regulations to be brought in 1st July 2005 defining injury reporting
more clearly.


Ian:             Western
Safety Group has Terry Crossby summarize what WorkSafe has been involved in
– activity against site visits.


Geoff:         Happy
to provide any answers to questions.


Theo:          Matter
that arose from last Marstel Community Liaison Meeting was poor attendance. In
order for a representative from WorkSafe to attend there has to be so many
members in attendance.


Geoff:         Only
would attend if they are to speak on a certain issue.


Theo:          Having
a meeting between the two groups as to joining the two groups together and
moving forward. Council would hold meeting at a time suitable to both groups.
Put on agenda for next meeting.



by Quentin Cooke


Quentin:     Introduced
Gary – Community Relations Officer EPA.


Gary:           Has
not commenced role as yet and will look at providing committee with Duty
Statement. Position descriptions have been issued. Has been with the EPA 4
years in the Hazardous Waste Management Unit


Quentin:     Meeting
with Carlo regarding ground water monitoring. Issue of some concern a new
plume identified off site just behind Pacific Terminals. Source still being
evaluated. In a further meeting will give finds of plume.


Ian:             Mentioned
Brunswick had 49 houses built on contaminated land.


Robin:        To
look up John Luppino report and circulate.



by Peter Egan – Manager Community Safety Central Zone


Peter:         Chris
Watts has left CICCC. Mark and Peter perform the same role so we are now
dealing with the people who man the fire units. They will be attending
meetings alternatively and are happy to discuss issues that involve Coode
Island and will be happy to produce information that would be of assistance to


Michael:     Asked
if information regarding incidents that happen away from Coode that we could
learn from by presented at the meetings?


Ian:             Supports
that level of openness and requested report on the Millers Road incident be
presented to committee at next meeting.


Peter:         Will
be happy to oblige with the focus being on Coode.


Ian:             Delighted
personally with Chris Watts contribution. Robin will write to Chris.


ITEM 6:       2ND



by Carlo Fasolino – State Manager Victoria


Carlo:         Summarized
main actions:


10 tanks upgrade

8 Tallow tanks upgrade

12 tank upgrades

Hard pipe exchange areas

Sealed truck loading

East side remediation

Emergency lighting

Ground water protection

Storm water segregation

Litter traps


then presented some photos demonstrating the work that had been done
to remind committee of what been presented previously.


George:     Suggested
that there are quite a lot completed and a site visit would be more beneficial
so members could actually see what had been accomplished. The site visit could
act as an audit and be scheduled some time after the next meeting. Date to be
set at next meeting.


Carlo:         Suggested
that as some of the actions where same as previous EIP only 5 new areas needed
to be presented.

1.    Hard pipe exchange areas

2.    Sealed Truck loading

3.    Emergency lighting

4.    Groundwater monitoring

5.    Combustion Heat System Recovery


Proposed that would cover items 1 & 2 tonight and 3, 4 & 5
at next meeting in May. Presentation schedule is attached. Committee agreed
with proposal.

Then showed photo’s to demonstrate how hard pipe exchange
areas and sealed truck loading worked.


Robin:        Thanked
Carlo for presentation which effectively demonstrated how these worked.




Accepted without change.


ITEM 8:       OTHER



Report on criteria for contaminated soil removal (Terminals)


Soil classifications next meeting. Peter Egberts from ERM will
attend and give report.


Community representation on CICCC


Robin:        In
conjunction with the issue of possible joint meetings with Marstel, look at how
to get community members interested.


Some ideas put forward were:


o      Advertising, contact Swinburne, RMIT aiming at those students who
are undertaking studies relevant to industry.

o      Notices in community centers

o      Newsletters

o      Committee not well known within community

o      Subject for discussion at another meeting.


Robin:        The
Committee has talked about a possible newsletter for a number of years. Worth
doing one and seeing if we do get any feed back.


George:     Doing a mail
out for Geelong with regard to the Butadiene and will let committee know
distribution costs.


Robin:        Report
to the community about CICCC regarding what has been going on at meetings.


Michael:     Just to let
people know that there is something across the river, the history, etc.


Robin:        Basic
information already provided on web site so easily available. Suggest that
committee actively pursue the issue of a one off newsletter.


Deborah:   Pay for something in the paper once a month.


Faye:          Any
enthusiasm for a back windscreen sticker? Advertising web site.


Discuss next meeting.



NEXT MEETING:       6:30
pm THURSDAY 12th MAY 2005