Adopted Minutes

 Thursday 8 March 2001




Robin Saunders  CICCC chair person

Deborah Macfarlane  community rep./  committee

Ian Thomas  community rep./ committee

Ted Towson  community rep./ committee

Carlo FasolinoOp. Manager Terminals P.Ltd./committee

Dr Peter Brotherton  Combined Enviro. Groups / committee

George Horman  Terminals Pty Ltd / committee


Michael Isaachsen  community rep./committee

Faye Simpson community rep./ committee

Matthew Wylie  WorkCover/ex off committee

Cameron Fitzgerald   Environ. Protec Authy / ex off committee

Jim Clements  Environ. Protec Auth

Geoff Millard Terminals Nat. Health & Safety Manager

Vanessa Richardson  minute taker

Peter Reddie  Gen Manager Terminals  / committee




The chairperson welcomed the committee members and others in attendance.



 Apologies were received from Gordon Harrison, Trevor Perkins, Jim Clements, Keith       Smithers, Murray Franks and John Luppino.



The Draft Agenda was adopted.





            Cameron (EPA) reported that the EPA has considered Ian Thomas’s appeal to VCAT against the granting of Terminals’Works Approval for the upgrade..


Peter Reddie said the following dates apply in this matter and he wonders what will happen in the future regarding this proposed appeal.

1Dec 2000. Works Approval given to Terminals

18 Dec. VCAT received notification from Ian Thomas that he intended to              appeal.

22 Dec. Final date for all appeals

13 Feb. Letter from Ian noting the sections he will refer to in his appeal. VCAT has requested that I T Thomas seek the views of Terminals and EPA prior to them deciding whether to proceed with a Directions Hearing.

Peter said that he has discussed with Ian the matters he raised at the 20B Conference  that are mainly safety issues covered under the Dangerous Goods License, which is not a public process. He said Ian’s principle concern is the proposed relocation of the facility presently situated on the E side of McKenzie Road. Peter said that Terminals have had Government direction to move this as planned.


Ian Thomas said that the relevant parties have been responsible for a great deal of time wasting and ‘argy bargy’ about the details of his submission of the appeal.

George said that Terminals have only just become aware of the nature of this time delay.

Ian said he has not heard if the appeal will proceed or not.

Cameron said that the EPA is presently preparing a response to Ian’s request. While the EPA have some procedural concerns they will leave the decision to VCAT.

ACTION. Cameron to send Robin a copy of the correspondence that will be sent to Ian Thomas regards the hearing at VCAT.

Peter Brotherton said that the Combined Environmental Groups (CEG) agreed with 13 of the 14 objections that Ian submitted in his application/correspondence to VCAT.

In response to Peter Reddie’s question Ian said he had contacted some of the people he had listed in his the same correspondence as additional possible objectors. The names included those of the Community Representatives on the CICCC, plus 3 HazMAG members.

ACTION. Peter Brotherton will send the relevant CEG correspondence to Robin.



See attachment 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3

Peter Reddie said they have been considering 2 different concepts to send out to those in the nearby neighbourhoods. They are

  1. A fridge magnet, which notes the contact details residents should use if they have concerns regarding any possible industrial accident that may adversely affect them in their homes.
  2. A poster of the ‘Safe haven’ concept, which would provide further information about any possible industrial accident that, may adversely affect them like for instance an accidental vapour release.


Committee comments about the fridge magnets included the following

  • add notes about what activities might trigger a resident to telephone for further               information
  • ‘In an emergency’ could mean any emergency including those that are unrelated               (like the flooding of the Maribyrnong River) to the purpose of this exercise.
  • if potentially thousands of people try to call the same phone number, all but one or    two person will get through and the rest will not be able to get the required                      information.
  • put the most important information in bold text ‘listen to the local radio station’
  • previously when I’ve called an after hours council phone number, I get transferred to    a call centre to leave a message with them, which I do, but I don’t get a return phone        call from a council employee. Emergency services may be similar.
  • we will have to formally request the use of appropriate phone numbers and then test   them to make sure they will function appropriately.
  • linking in with the MFB could be useful as other councils could also access such a   facility. My fridge is getting overloaded with too many different bits of information.       Streamlining appropriate service delivery to our neighbourhoods is welcomed.
  • this need to be available in other languages
  • other languages can be done later on, let’s get the English version completed and               distributed first
  • lets use the police number ‘000’
  • ‘000’ has almost unlimited capacity to take many calls at once. It is not an                information provider but rather allows people to report something that may be of      concern to them.
  • I always phone my local police station for information
  • we need to work out a pecking order for the phone numbers
  • I think people will want more than brief details about what to do
  • they can get more information after the immediate emergency is handled
  • should we have an ABC radio contact for information?
  • lets just use the Footscray neighbourhood radio station as the purpose of this exercise   is only meant to be serving the needs of the residents in the Footscray area
  • we have to be able to assure residents that if 3WRB have not heard of any                emergency, then none exists
  • suggest that people pre-set their radio station
  • the general media are very quick to get on the site of real emergencies when they    happen and they start broad casting to the public fairly quickly
  • ‘industrial emergency’ does not clearly communicate to the public. It should be spelt   out more clearly . For example ‘If a siren alarms you, or you think there is an                          emergency….etc’
  • an appropriate illustration in the background may further enhance the specific               emergencies we are referring to

ACTION. Robin will write to the Maribyrnong City Council, the MF&ESB and WorkCover to request endorsement of the proposed text of the fridge magnets.


Cameron spoke to Leo van der Tooren (Office for the Commissioner for Emergency Services, Dept of Justice ). He said they are currently debriefing about the Ferny Creek emergency system which was recently introduced to the community. He said it is possible to set up exciting projects and he is happy to talk to the CICCC about what is possible.

Ian Thomas agreed it would be useful to have him attend and advise the CICCC but that the CICCC should not delay any farther with the progress of this project.

ACTION. Cameron will invite  Leo van der Tooren to the next CICCC meeting.


ACTION. The layout and wording of the fridge magnet will be progressed by Robin, and copies will be sent in the letters to MF&ESB, Maribyrnong City Council and WorkCover.



See attachment 9 in the minutes of the 19 November 2000.


The objectives for the CICCC have been reduced from 7 to 3 main items. The Committee adopted the revised Objectives, as follows:


Objective 1 – To maintain a forum of representatives from Terminals, the community and Government agencies, that monitors and responds to emergency, health, safety and the environment issues arising from the operation of the Coode Island facility.
Objective 2 – To promote a process of continuous improvement for Coode Island and encourage the operator to strive for the highest possible safety and environmental standards at all times.
Objective 3 – To provide information to the community about Coode Island, its operation, the hazards and risk it poses, emergency management procedures and any changes proposed to the facility.

             Jim Clements asked if the focus of the CICCC is the Terminals site on Coode Island or is it all of Coode Island?

Robin said the main focus for the CICCC is the Terminals site on Coode Island but the 3 objectives listed above would not exclude other operators on Coode Island.

ACTION. Robin will change the wording on the next page ‘Expectations should be….’ and make some changes to the information in the boxes.

             Jim suggested that the CICCC circulate information to the community more widely by using letterbox drops, newsletter, etc.

Ian added his agreement and said we should also continue with the press releases.

Faye Simpson said that there is a need in the wording for  the recognition of members who contribute a unique body of knowledge.

It was decided that the information in brackets be removed to avoid the document becoming too prescriptive.

Peter Reddie suggested we include the point that local government ‘demonstrate ‘their effective participation in the CICCC.

The wording suggested to include ‘emergency plan’ and ‘effectively engage as active committee member’ and ‘maintain open dialogue’.

Take out the word ‘regulators’ and replace with ‘agencies’.

             It may be possible to put all the core issues in one box.

Ian suggested the wording include reference to everyone agreeing to a ‘duty to frankly and openly consult’.

George said there was a need to add the point that the agencies will bring to the committee all their expectations and detail for the relevant Government regulations and changes to any regulations.

On page 4. ‘Practical Initiatives for CICCC’. Change ‘3WRB’.

Ted requested the addition of a note in reference to the work of the HSE sub-committee.

The general view was that the expectations sho8uld be reworked to apply equally to all members of CICCC, if that was practicable.

ACTION. Formally adopt this paper at the next meeting.

Michael suggested that references to future land transport options could be included, particularly the use of rail transport methods for dangerous goods rather than road transport.

Jim said that the issues of land transport were presently under discussion by a group of government agencies. They recently held a daylong workshop on this issue. They are looking at issues of noise, fumes, benzine emissions, etc. He said he though they were discussing the further use of rail transport in the longer term.

Bruce Mildenhall chaired the group, and the members include

Vic Roads

Department of Infrastructure


Maribyrnong City Council

And others


Faye said this group should also be discussing the matter of transporting waste materials. She said she was disappointed that Maribyrnong CC had not informed the CICCC of these meetings.

Peter Brotherton said that it was of concern to the CICCC that they were not informed of this key issue especially when the CICCC had previously shown considerable interest in this specific matter.

ACTION. George said he had some information about the meetings that he would circulate to the CICCC.


Ian Thomas reminded the CICCC of John Brumby’s comments last February when he referred to the continuing role of the CICCC as a vehicle for consultation..



See Attachment 3 and 4


The CICCC have been asked to approve the tabled brief. The following comments            were made

  • Any reference in the consultant brief to the use of I.T.Thomas and Associates should be removed .        It is          also undesirable for any of the committee members to go off independently and do         the work that we will be paying a credible consultant to carry out.
  • The independent evaluation must be credible if it is to be useful.
  • The HSE Sub-Committee could ask Ian, as the Chair of that Committee, to do a critique of the consultant’s report for the CICCC after it has been presented.
  • Why wasn’t propylene oxide included?
  • The cost will be $5,000 -$20,000
  • There needs to be a section in the brief which specifies the information to be submitted with tenders.
  • Consideration should be given to allowing the tenderer to review the worst case scenarios, and suggest a fifth scenario if they think it necessary.
  • The chemicals and their quantities should be specified in the brief for each scenario.

ACTION. Carlo to provide a new draft in advance of the next CICCC meeting which will incorporate the above comments  for further consideration and discussion by the CICCC.

            Peter Reddie said he thought that a potential worst case scenario would not be one that  occurred during the transportation of a hazardous material because such an incident would not affect the community .

Peter Brotherton replied that a worst case scenario is one that is a result of the functions of the industries on Coode Island but the effects of that activity might potentially occur anywhere.

Faye said that for instance all round storage tanks (high-pressure storage) were a concern to her.

Peter Reddie said there were no high-pressure tanks on Coode Island. Everything is low-pressure storage. There are only 3 tanks that are a little above atmospheric pressure on Coode Island.

Carlo said the worst case scenarios will help the community to understand what they should do if there was such an incident on the Coode Island.

George added that it was not necessary to include an incident involving propylene oxide because it has  ‘near incident effects’ that do not spread as readily as other chemicals.

Matthew said this exercise would

  1. indicate which incident potentially has the worst consequences in distance from the source, and at which distances will the results be the worst
  2. determine possible unacceptable on site impacts


Ted said it would be handy to have some simple circles on a map that people could read easily and understand clearly.

Peter Brotherton suggested a ‘catch all’ phrase in the brief so that the consultant could go beyond 4 scenarios if he thought it necessary for an accurate assessment report.

ACTION. All comments to be sent to Carlo for inclusion in the next draft before the next meeting.

Robin thanked Ian for his presentation.



George tabled his diagrams and notes for comments.


In answer to Robin’s query  at the last meeting, Peter Reddie said that the government have not allocated any general revenue funding to the Terminals site on Coode Island. All the expenditure shown on the graph is Terminals capital. However the government have assisted Terminals’ acquisition of Site C by charging Terminals only $1 for the site lease. In the meantime Terminals have spend $9,000,000 in redevelopments on that site.


Faye said that the report was anecdotal but useful for a quick visual indication. As a serious report it was inadequate because it was subjective and would not stand up to scrutiny.

Peter Brotherton said it was a qualitative report that was made to look quantitative.

ACTION. Remove the numbers on the axis and use the terms ‘starting point’ and ‘worlds best practise’ at each end of the trend lines.

Robin agreed that it was a subjective view but non-the-less useful. He asked that WorkCover and the EPA have a closer look and assess the report to see if in general they concur with Terminals trends as illustrated.

Matthew said the graph showed the degree of effort and activity made by Terminals, it showed the changing face of Terminals.

Peter Brotherton said it showed that a lot of capital had been spent on safety improvements and less to date on improvements that would have an impact on improving environmental impacts. However it did show environmental improvements will happen in the future. He said he did not think the community will see it as a useful way to communicate to them.

Michael said it would be useful to see some comparisons about where best practise was in 1991 and where it is today and the regulated improvements that have been involved. He added that he saw no harm in Terminals crowing about the improvements they have made using information and presentation as presented in these graphs.

Faye suggested that Terminals release this document but that the CICCC release something that is more accurate.



The minutes were adopted with the following amendments

1. Page 3, Item 5.4 – 2nd paragraph add the following

‘In response to a suggestion that defacto caretakers did occur’, John said that the…

Spelling of ‘oppose’

2.Page 6, Item 7 – 3rd paragraph delete the word ‘pressure’ and replace with‘urge’.

Item 8 – 1st paragraph spelling ‘reduced’.

3. Page 7, 3rd paragraph add the heading ‘Residual Risk Matrix’ and in the following paragraph delete the word ‘rated’ and replace with ‘compared’ and change he spelling of ‘practice.’

4. Item 10, 2nd paragraph include ‘…has looked closely at, and manually calculated, all the details…’, and delete the word ‘his’ WorkCover…’

Page 8, Delete ‘the conclusion’ and replace with ‘Matthew concluded’

5. Page 9, Item 11 should read ‘…tanks/fires, etc. ‘St Elmo’s fire’ is a low energy phenomenon, similar to…’.



             10.1 Note taking arrangements


             10.2 Advice received from Dr Brian Robinson, Chairman EPA in January 2001


             10.3 Tools used by industry to communicate with neighbouring communities (Ian      Swann) Deferred

             10.4 Future directions

             (See Item 7)

             10.5 Media Release, web site

            See Attachment 5 & 8 

             10.6 Meeting schedule beyond April 2001


             10.7 Report by EPA on benzene GLCs


             10.8 Safety Case (Terminals)

See Attachment 2

Geoff Millard gave the following presentation about WorkCover comments on the            Terminal’s Safety Case Submission.

He talked about the Aims and Definitions (see attachment notes)

The tonnage shown on page 4 of his overheads refers to a threshold amount for this           chemical and is a limit for a major hazard facility. For the amount of material on site            Terminals have a factor of 167, meaning ???? Robin

Page 6 shows the stages that one followed for every item stored on site. The system is       continually reviewed and revised.

Page 7. Staff are fully informed as a priority.

Page 9. The stages of consultation involve a far more detailed written assessment than      was previously required in Australia. All risks have to be eliminated as much as


George said they are now asked to determine how good each system is.

Geelong is being assessed at the same time as Coode Island. Various chemicals are           assessed at different times. The assessments and fine-tuning of the upgrade are            interdependent.

During Terminals meeting with WorkCover about the Safety Case, there were 21 points made about items needing further attention. The report was         resubmitted in             February 2001. Matthew has looked at the resubmitted review and             discussed it with         Terminals. WorkCover have a special team of experts helping Terminals to get the right results.

There are 47 Major Hazard sites in Victoria. The Terminals site is in the top 10 of the       most hazardous. Before any improvements are incorporated Terminals are spending       $200,000 on this preliminary study.

Geoff said that a pilot study focussing on acrylonitrile and propylene oxide would commence soon as a preliminary exercise to the larger study. This will occur in about June 2001.

[Vanessa, email the Item 10.8 text above to Terminals for their input. Nothing else will do on this one, I fear.]

ACTION. Robin asked that the CICCC be notified (in writing for the next CICCC meeting) of relevant timelines for the pilot study and proposals for community consultation.

Faye asked if tonight’s report could be presented in a more graphically and            informative manner.

Geoff said that tonight’s presentation was only an overview. George and Carlo will be      in a position in future to give the CICCC further information about the pilot study.

Peter Reddie said that the industry had contributed substantial resources to this      regulated process. He asked how much WorkCover had contributed financially.

Matthew said the specialised unit now has a staff of 35 people to manage the 47 (and        possibly 52 licenses) in Victoria, 15 of the staff were solely involved in the Major        Hazard section. The section is self-funded from Workers Compensation Levy funds      and from general revenue.

Robin thanked Geoff for his very informative report.



               Letter to the Minister for Planning

See Attachment 6.




             Victorian Channels Authority 26 Feb 2001

See Attachment 7


ITEM 13. Monthly report from Terminals.



ITEM 14. Agenda for the next meeting. 12 April 2001


Nominated items include the presentation by Leo van der Tooren, report by EPA on benzene,  Worst Case Scenario Brief, Facility Improvement Table, Fridge Magnet progress, and Groundwater and Site Soil Survey.




Peter Brotherton and Faye stated their concerns about the late finish of tonight’s    meeting.

Robin thanked them for the feedback and asked everyone to make their presentations and discussion shorter, where possible.

Robin reminded the Committee that he would be overseas for the 10 May meeting.

 ACTION. In Robin’s absence Peter Brotherton will chair the meeting of 10 May 2001.



Time 11.15pm



Next Meetings           

Thursday 12 April 2001

Thursday 10 May 2001                                  







 8 March 2001


Attachment    1          Content drafts for fridge magnets.

Attachment    2          Safety Case Outline overheads

Attachment    3          HS&E Sub Committee Minutes 20 Feb 2001

Attachment    4          HS&E Sub Committee draft brief for consultant

Attachment    5          CICCC Media Release 8 Feb 2001

Attachment    6          Correspondence ‘Out’ – Letter to the Minister for Planning

Attachment    7          Correspondence ‘In’  – Victorian Channels Authority, 26 Feb 2001

Attachment    8          CICCC web page history of usage for the period 8/2000 – 3/2001