Under the proposal, what changes would be made to container stacking and loading processes? Would the terminal layout and procedures remain the same, or would measures be introduced to ensure automated machines and trucks are kept separated within the terminal?

If we decide to proceed with the project, it’s possible that the yard would operate as a mixed-traffic environment, with both automated and manually operated equipment and vehicles sharing the same area. This would require us to carefully review our traffic management protocols and other documents like the site traffic management plan, to ensure that we have appropriate controls in place to manage risk.

Further WHS consultation would be conducted in relation to updating these documents.

Further, we have not selected the exact automated equipment that might be implemented. The equipment specifications will impact how we review and update our documents and processes and will inform the risk assessment to identify suitable control measures.

How will DP World be satisfied the proposed project complies with the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, associated regulations, Codes of Practice and applicable Australian Standards?

Safety is a key consideration/non-negotiable in deciding whether and how to proceed with the proposed project, and DP World will not proceed with the proposed project unless it is satisfied that it will meet its legal obligations with respect to safety

The proposed introduction of automated equipment is subject to a thorough safety review. This includes initial and ongoing risk identification, mitigation and consultation, and this WHS consultation process. Throughout this process, DP World intends to identify and meet its legal obligations with respect to safety.

If autonomous vehicles are introduced, will there be separation of automated and manually operated vehicles? Will exclusion zones be established so that drivers in vehicles do not come into contact with the automated vehicles?

The current proposal is for ARTG to outside carrier transactions to be carried out using fully automated ARTGs with some intervention via a manned remote-controlled console (RCC), as and when required. The proposed operational concept also includes elements of mixed traffic, where Intelligent Guided Vehicles (IGVs) and manually operated trucks may share operational areas.

At this stage, DP World is proposing to control risks to truck drivers in a number of ways. This includes limiting the points of interaction between truck drivers and the automated vehicles.

No final decisions have been made regarding the detailed traffic management arrangements. Should the project proceed, these aspects, including driver safe zones, interaction protocols and separation measures will be fully assessed through a comprehensive risk management framework and consultation with all stakeholders will continue before implementation, including as more information becomes available, such as the selection of the equipment.

If autonomous vehicles are introduced, will they be physically excluded from the rail corridor through an engineering solution (such as a fence or barrier)? This seems important to minimise collision risks, especially when rail crews are inspecting trains or when trains are moving within the port.

Several options are currently being considered as part of the proposed project. DP World cannot make final decisions until supplier capabilities are confirmed and all relevant information, including work health and safety considerations, has been assessed.

Under the proposal, would there still be a human-driven vehicle available to transport rail crews along the rail corridor for train placement and pickup, as is current practice? Or would this function also be replaced by an autonomous vehicle?

There is no intention for rail crews to be escorted via an automated vehicle.

What would be used for communication between the truck driver and the operations room regarding incorrect box landing issues?

If the proposed project proceeds, it is expected that a number of Remote-Control Console (RCC) operators would be required to manage exceptions, such as situations where a container has not been correctly positioned. Truck drivers would be able to communicate with RCC operators; the exact method of communication is yet to be determined.

Should the project proceed, how would traffic management plans, site procedures and worker inductions be updated to reflect changes introduced by automation, including the integration of autonomous vehicles and equipment within the terminal?

If we decide to proceed with the project, we would need to review and update many of our existing procedures, including the site traffic management plan. Further WHS consultation would be conducted in relation to updating these documents.

What information will be considered by the Company in deciding whether to proceed with the project?

During this WHS consultation process, from a WHS perspective, we have been discussing how the proposed project may affect the health and safety of workers. It is important that workers have the opportunity to express their views, provide input and contribute to the decision-making process.

What factors might lead the Company to decide not to proceed with the project?

It’s important that we carefully assess the hazards and risks associated with introducing automated equipment and identify possible control measures.

We must identify and implement controls to manage risks as far as reasonably practicable. If we are unable to identify appropriate controls that enable us to operate safely to the applicable legal standard, this could be a reason for us to decide against proceeding with the proposed project.

The proposed project involves significant capital expenditure, and there is a possibility that financial and related factors will also be relevant as to whether the required funding is approved.

What is the anticipated ‘go live’ date for the project?

A decision has not been made to proceed with the proposed introduction of automated equipment. If we decide to proceed with the proposed project, we anticipate that a ‘go live’ date would be at least 12 months from the time a decision is made.

Can the Kalmar RTGs be retrofitted with equipment to enable automated operation?

Yes, we believe that it is possible to retrofit the Kalmar RTGs with equipment to enable automated operation. We understand that 8-rope manual RTGs have successfully been converted in other locations overseas. Our RTGs only have 4 ropes, but we understand that they could also be converted to allow automated operation. It is unlikely we would consider converting the older (yellow) RTGs given their remaining useful life.

Would a change to the yard layout be required – would it need to be rotated by 90 degrees?

No, if we decide to proceed with the proposed project, we anticipate that the yard layout would remain much the same.

Does the yard need to be completely flat for IGV/ ARTG operations? Would surface works be required?

It is not anticipated that substantial re-surfacing works would be required given the nature of the proposal.

How do I contact DP World?

Use ‘Contact us’ on the homepage or select from the site menu. This would send your message to an email address that would be monitored periodically.

Would I receive updates about the proposed project?

As WHS consultation progresses, we would continue to share updated information on this website. If a decision is made to proceed with the project, this would be formally announced, and additional consultation would take place.

Would I be able to give feedback or have input at a later stage if a decision is made to proceed with the project?

Should the project proceed to the next stage, there would be further consultation.