COODE ISLAND COMMUNITY
Thursday 3rd March, 2005
CICCC / Chairperson
Env. Protection Authority / Ex Off Comm
Community Rep. / CICCC Committee
Env. Protection Authority
City of Maribyrnong
City of Maribyrnong
Manager Regulatory Affairs, PACIA
Managing Director, Terminals Pty Ltd
MFB Manager Community Safety Central Zone
MFB Manager Community Safety Western Zone
ITEM 1. WELCOME BY THE CHAIR
Robin Welcomed Peter Egan, Mark Dalrymple - MFB, Geoff Cooke, Owen Quake - WorkSafe, and Gary Laidlaw – EPA.
ITEM 2. APOLOGIES
ITEM 3. CONFIRMATION OF DRAFT AGENDA
ITEM 4. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RE 99 MORELAND STREET
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.
The 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 only.
A “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.
Robin then handed over to Deborah to ask committee as to what help she needed.
The main issues were the development planned around Coode Island. Representations should convey that such high density developments should not take place.
Other 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.
George 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 Ian.
Theo: 99 Moreland Street is not residential. The plan is for offices, retail and reception centre.
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 usage.
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 zones..
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 development.
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 evidence.
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.
ITEM 5: REPORTS FROM AGENCIES AND TERMINALS
TERMINALS PTY LTD
Presented 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.
Start 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.
Planning 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.
Presented 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.
One of the things WorkSafe has been doing has been assessing submissions that Terminals has made.
Geoff 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.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Presented 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.
Presented 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 CICCC.
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 EIP 2005 – 2008 SCHEDULE AND PRESENTATION
TERMINALS PTY LTD
Presented by Carlo Fasolino – State Manager Victoria
Carlo: Summarized main actions:
o 10 tanks upgrade
o 8 Tallow tanks upgrade
o 12 tank upgrades
o Hard pipe exchange areas
o Sealed truck loading
o East side remediation
o Emergency lighting
o Ground water protection
o Storm water segregation
o 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.
ITEM 7: CONFIRM DRAFT MINUTES FOR THE MEETING 3RD FEBRUARY, 2005
Accepted without change.
ITEM 8: OTHER BUSINESS
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 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
MEETING CLOSED: 10.00pm