COODE  ISLAND  

COMMUNITY CONSULTATIVE  COMMITTEE

Adopted Minutes

Thursday 11 September 2003

PRESENT

Robin Saunders
  CICCC / Chairperson

Carlo Fasolino
 State Man. Terminals P/L / committee

Robert Glavich
 community rep / committee

Andrew Clifton
  community rep./committee

Ian Thomas

 community rep./ committee

Deborah Macfarlane
  community rep./ committee

Michael Isaachsen
  community rep./ committee

Bronwyn Brookman Smith
 MH Div / WorkSafe/ex off comm

Quentin Cooke
 Env. Protection Authority / ex off comm

Paul Swain
  MFESB / ex off comm

George Horman
  General Man./Terminals P/L 

Bill Johnson 
 
Manager Safety & Env Services, MPO

Vanessa Richardson
  minute taker

 

Note on pre-meeting discussion of distances from Coode Island to sensitive receptors.

At 5:45 pm on 11 September 2003, members of the Committee met to review aerial photographs of the Coode Island and Footscray area, and agree on distances between the Coode Island facilities and sensitive receptors. A tabulation of critical distances was prepared after the discussion, which involved mainly Ian Thomas and the Chair. It was submitted for ratification by the meeting. It was resolved that the expert advice of the City of Maribyrnong would be sought to finalise the tabulated distances.

Facility

Receptor

Draft—Distance (metres)

Boundary of Terminals, Marstel and Chemplax

Residential zone boundary  shown in yellow

580

Terminals Pty Ltd new boundary

Residential zone boundary  shown in yellow

700

Marstel

Commercial development with potential for caretakers flats

500

Decrease in separation resulting from the relocation of the PO tanks

To the proposed marina

200

 

ITEM 1. WELCOME BY THE CHAIR

* Robin welcomed everyone with a special mention for Bill Johnson.

 


ITEM 2. APOLOGIES

* Apologies were received from Colleen Hartland, Margaret Donnan, John Luppino, Paul Haywood, Faye Simpson and Peter Brotherton.


ITEM 3. CONFIRMATION OF THE DRAFT AGENDA

* The draft agenda was adopted.

 

ITEM 4. BRIEF REPORT FROM AGENCIES AND TERMINALS ON KEY ISSUES

4.1 EPA Report
The EPA were pleased to receive an application for an accredited License from Terminals P/L this week. The granting of this less prescriptive license will be in recognition of a demonstrated trend of ‘good’ performance. An audit program for ongoing performance assessment will be included as part of the licence. The license fee will cost less and the performance based license terms will be less restrictive (the present 10 pages of license terms will be reduced to about 5 pages). An EPA accredited auditor will regularly check the facility to ensure that the EPA required performance is maintained. If there were to be a drop in standards audit checks would occur more frequently and require more rigorous demonstrations of activities on the site. Quentin said the EPA expect that there maybe some occasional breaches even for the very best accredited companies who have a demonstrated a good track record over the long term. He said that overall the risk that something may go wrong for these accredited companies is much lower.

In answer to Andrew’s question Quentin said that no other Coode Island companies hold such a license. He said Marstel might apply for one after they have established a track record. There are about 20 Victorian companies with the accreditation including Mobil Refinery, Melbourne Water, some power stations, etc. Shell Corio and Huntsman are not accredited.

Quentin said that soil, water and air qualities are monitored in emission ‘bubble’ number terms. The performance requirements are issued by the EPA as part of the license.

George said that the EPA would remain responsible for the site as it is now. This step will ensure a more rigorous site monitoring of Terminals environmental systems and ensure things such as the bund liner integrity are properly installed and not open to question after completion by the EPA and others. It will be a strong discipline for Terminals to have an independent EPA accredited auditor who knows the site well and can work closely with management from the planing to the completion stages of changes to ensure compliance with EPA requirements.


4.2 WorkSafe Report

* Bronwyn said WorkSafe made one field report visit to the site during the month. There were 6 items checked as being satisfactory. It included a discussion about the progression of the East Side development.


4.3 Terminals P/L Report
See Attachments 1 & 2

* George said they have been working on the Accredited License Application. 

It is likely there will be a name change from Terminals P/L, to ST Services P/L which is the main name of the parent company. 

* Carlo said they are waiting for a gas safety approval for the combustors. The Annual Benzene Emissions have come down by over 100% from 4001 kg in 2001/2002 to 1478 kg in 2002/2003 with the commissioning and use of the combustors. 
This measurement includes emissions from the use of the carbon beds for some of the 12-month period. It is expected that the level will be even lower to about 16 kgs in the following 12 months because the carbon beds are no longer used.

Elisabeth Attard has taken a redundancy package and Susan Chatterton, a staff member from the Geelong office has replaced her on a part-time basis.

ITEM 5. PRESENTATION BY BILL JOHNSON. PORT OF MELBOURNE CORPORATION (PoMC) ON THE MARIBYRNONG NO1 WHARF ENVIRONMENT IMPROVEMENT PLAN (EIP)
See Attachment 3


* Bill said that part of his role as Manager for Safety & Environmental Services is to mange the safety systems on the Coode Island Maribyrnong No 1 Berth and for the visiting ships that use that system. He has 25 years of experience working in port services/management positions.

He manages the Safety and Environment Officers who 

1. Monitor the safety regulations for the berth
2. Respond to emergencies throughout the port
3. Audit and monitor the EIP for the Maribyrnong No 1 Berth 

In 2001 efforts were made to reduce the odour complaints made by people working in the area. Some of the products handled on the berth have the potential to produce odours and the authority wanted to control that potential by introducing an EIP which addresses the management of products that cause the odours. Appendix A of the EIP notes the specific operations plans for cargoes listed in Table 1. It covers the dangerous goods cargoes testing procedures (before they are unloaded) so as to avoid spills and/or odour releases. The prescriptive procedures have employed every possible procedure that will reduce the chance of spills.

In answer to Robin’s question, Bill agreed that methylacyrlate is the most odorous of the products.

The plan sets out the requirements for the Pre-arrival Meeting for the ships carrying the Table 1 dangerous goods products. The standards of these ships vary so the meetings are a very important way of managing the activities employed when they use the berth. The ships representative attends the meeting onshore and they then liase with the ship. At least 3 days before entering the port the meetings result in agreed berthing procedures with the ships crew. Ship and shore checks are signed off before hoses are connected. International requirements state that all key personal on board ships (from all countries) speak English.

An additional requirement for those using the berth, is the Australian Standard for bulk hazardous cargo AS3846.

Additional staff have been employed in the port for safety and security. They include a GateHouse Officer and a Safety Officer who are on the berth one hour before and after the ship is in the dock. They ensure the details in the checklist and agreement are adhered to while the ship is in dock. The safety officer patrols the ship and the shore all the time the ship is docked and they are replaced with an equally qualified officer should they be required to leave the ship for any period of time. They also ensure there are no unauthorised small ships within 30 metres of dangerous goods vessels in the port. They have a clear line of reporting, raising alarms and implementing installed fire equipment. They cooperate as part of the Emergency Services with Harbour Control in the control tower on the other side of the river who coordinate all emergency operations throughout the port including the water police who are located at Williamstown.

In answer to questions about recent Greenpeace protests about cargo carried by three ships in the port, Bill said they were carrying naptha extracted from shale oil. Greenpeace say the extraction methods used are not environmentally sound.

The PoMC’s EIP has already been reviewed twice and was approved by the EPA in August 2003. The plan will be changed as ships’ technologies change in future. PoMC have a brief to develop an EIP for Holden Dock.

* Carlo suggested that the plan was not an EIP but an ‘odour abatement procedure’.

Quentin said it might also be called an ‘Environment Management Plan’.

Robin said it was a ‘significant and solid piece of work’ demonstrating that PoMC are meeting their responsibilities for safety and environmental management on Maribyrnong Berth No 1. He noted it contained a lot of safety procedures that the EPA do not usually sign off on.

Bill said that the EPA are not responsible for overseeing the safety measures and all of WorkSafe’s responsibilities are not included specifically in the EIP. The Berth Operations Manual used by the staff on the berth contains all the bells and whistles of the EIP requirements (which also happens to include some safety requirements) and the additional safety requirements for WorkSafe. The annual reviews required by the A S 3846 are sent to WorkSafe. Monitoring continues in an ongoing way.

Bronwyn said that WorkSafe has consideration of the requirements of Australian Standard 3846 as part of their oversight of port facilities. That particular standard includes both safety and environmental issues. WorkSafe’s involvement is covered in the General Description section of the EIP which summarises all the operational plans for the berth. Port Reform legislation, with implications for WorkSafe monitoring in the port, is going through parliament now, and in the meantime WorkSafe continue to administer Occupational Health and Safety and Dangerous Goods legislation where they apply. The EIP does not cover everything required by WorkSafe, and included in other plans for the berth.

George said there had been odour problems on the berth for about 20 years. They occur mainly when sampling of materials before unloading occurs. However since the introduction of the EIP there have not been any odour complaints from the area.

Ian suggested that WorkSafe’s involvement in safety monitoring at the berth be more fully explained.

* Robin said that EIPs usually included a list of commitments for improvements and the dates by which they will be completed and who will complete the tasks. He asked why they were not included in this EIP. He also asked why the CICCC were not consulted prior to the finalisation of the plan when as part of clause 1.5 of the EIP it is expected that the community will have periodic input to such a plan. He said the CICCC had not been consulted during the time of the two reviews either. He and Deborah said they could not recall being informed about the development of an EIP for the No 1 Berth.

Bill said he would make note of the matters raised by Robin and added that the plan is being improved all the time. He said Michael Isaachsen is a member of the consultative group for the port.

George said Cameron Fitzgerald informed the CICCC 3 years ago, about the PAN notice (for emission abatement) and plans to develop an EIP for the berth which was also subsequently distributed to the committee. He said it is noted in the CICCC minutes 12 July 2001that MPC acted on the notice by beginning the development of an EIP.

Quentin said that consultation had occurred but there was no one representing the community.

* Robin said the CICCC concerns about the plan were
1. There had not been any consultation with the CICCC for the 2-3 year period of its development.
2. Section 1.5 ‘Community Consultation Process’ is inadequate.
3. No inclusion of a schedule for monitoring requirements. 

Bill said the PoMC is a new organisation which will address as best they can, the concerns mentioned by Robin. The new charter for the organisation states that they operate on license ‘from the community’ so they want the support of the community and will consult with the CICCC.

* Ian requested a copy of recorded accidents and incidents on the berth.

Bill said the list goes back to the 1980’s and he would make it available to the CICCC. There is also a summary of this information available.

* Robin thanked Bill for his very informative presentation.


ITEM 6. CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING 
14 August 2003.

* The minutes were adopted with the following minor amendments.

With reference to Item 9 para 6 which states: “George: …None of the tanks vent to the atmosphere.…”, replace “vent to the atmosphere” with “need to be connected to the VECS system”.


ITEM 7. PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF THE COMMITTEE

* A full discussion of this matter will be deferred to the November meeting as Colleen will be overseas during October.

* George said he has spoken to the Coode Island Users Group (CIUG) who want to make changes to their group as they have recently met the aims the Coode Island task force had set. They expect their meetings in future to deal with mainly operational matters concerning the tenants on the island. They want the meetings to be chaired by the Melbourne Ports as the landlord and manager and who receive rent from those using CI for their operations. The CIUG do not wish to amalgamate with the CICCC.

Terminals P/L are happy to continue to pay for the CICCC where it concerns itself with public consultation matters concerning Coode Island but they question their responsibility for meeting the cost of the CICCC when it is dealing with the whole of the port issues as they arise. He said they are meeting soon with the PoMC to discuss future meeting schedules. He would like to see
1. CICCC meet quarterly to discuss Terminals P/L matters that concern the community. Funded by Terminals P/L. 
2. Other individual companies on CI (like Marstel P/L) meet quarterly with their
community consultation group. 
3. PoMC meet quarterly with CI tenants and the community to discuss issues about Coode Island, etc. Funded by PoMC.

* Robin said George’s proposal was fine but it lacked a mechanism for all the CI operators to be consulting with the community. 

George said the CI users are willing to consult with the community and indicated that they (lesser CI users) would be happy to participate in a PoMC overall meeting if they did not run their own. He said that the EPA could instruct companies to consult as they have done with Terminals and Marstel. George is discussing this with Nick Easy from PoMC

* Carlo said the PoMC have stated that they plan to be more accountable and transparent in their future dealings with the community.

Robin stressed the importance of the new community consultative committees maintaining their independence if they are to be seen by the community as legitimate bodies. He said Terminals P/L have understood the importance of this factor. Setting up a workable and legitimate framework from the beginning of a committee’s life is an important factor in building the trust that is essential if the community is to have faith in the working of a committee. He said the CICCC will work to develop George’s plan for future meetings as outlined.

ACTION. Colleen to facilitate a working group to prepare for the future discussion of this issue. Someone from Terminals P/L to be included in that group.


ITEM 8.

CORRESPONDENCE OUT

None


CORRESPONDENCE IN

None 


ITEM 9. ACTION ITEMS FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING

9.1 Improvement Action Report. 
* WorkSafe and EPA have now provided entries under the Authority “sign-off” column. Robin asked if the wording of those entries provided assurance to the community that the improvements “met or exceeded the requirements of the authorities” as promised in Minister Brumby’s 14 February 2000 press release.

The updated IAR was emailed to all members of the CICCC on 11 September, and the wording will be discussed at the next CICCC meeting.

Ian asked what was meant by ‘worlds best practice’?
George said he was referring to the ‘grant deed’ which does not exist.


9.2 Report on attendance at the CIUG meeting (Robin, Ian and Michael)

* Ian and Robin attended this meeting. The CIUG is changing direction having met it’s earlier goals. There were not many Coode Island companies present on the day. Robin gave a presentation about how the CICCC operates. 

Robin said the structure of the CIUG was such that it could not be an effective community consultative group.

Bronwyn said the CIUG meetings were more like body corporate meetings where the PoMC are the landlords for the CI tenants. She said John Leah is moving on and Ian Shafter has been newly appointed to the position of representing the PoMC.

ITEM 10. OTHER BUSINESS

10.1 Clay Liners for storage tank bases.
* Carlo tabled a sample of a clay liner used as a seal between the ground and the base of storage tanks. The clay held within the fabric expands when in comes into contact with moisture in the soil.

10.2 Ground water testing.
* Carlo said the groundwater on the Terminals site has been tested for 244 chemicals. He tabled the Schedule Sample sheet of results.

Quentin said an Australian Standard specifies the tests required for ground water contaminants.

Ian said it was good that the water was being tested and asked if the soil should also be tested?

Robin asked which of the following tests were used for soil testing

1. ANZECC 2000
2. Clean Fill criteria
3. NEPC criteria.

Carlo said fluke ANZECC 2000 criteria were used for soil tests.

ACTION. Carlo will check the above information about soil testing.


10.3 CICCC presentation to CIUG 27 August 2003

See ITEM 9.2 above.


10.4 Melbourne Port Emergency Management Plan, Workshop 10/9/03
See Attachment 4 

* Paul said a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) covering protocols for how authorities will interact together in an emergency situation (until 2007) was signed by the CEO’s of MFB (Municipal Fire Authority), CFA (Country Fire Authority), VWA (Victorian WorkCover Authority).
ACTION. Paul will send a copy of the MOU to committee members.

* Deborah said there were a group of 30 people attending including many representing the authorities responsible for managing emergencies. Two members of Facilitation Pty Ltd chaired the meeting. Various people made presentations including Theo (City of Maribyrnong) and Robin (CICCC).

Bronwyn said those in attendance were being asked to make suggestions that could be implemented into the re drafting of the co-ordinated Emergency Plans used by each authority. 

* Paul Swain said it was an improvement in process that consultation about these matters was occurring through this meeting.

* Bronwyn said the document Robin referred to as ‘not being available on the day’ is the Co-ordinating Plan document which has been written by the VCA (Victorian Channel Authority) and MPC (Melbourne Port Corporation) — now merged to form PoMC (Port of Melbourne Corporation) to manage emergencies in the port.

Paul said there are many different emergency plans and industry emergency plans that have to be considered. In answer to Robin’s request Paul said he will see if there is anything diagrammatic that demonstrates the overall picture of plans to be understood and coordinated.

* Deborah said she has experienced as a resident during an emergency, that coordination by authorities can be very haphazard. She is concerned that it will take 4-5 years for any of the proposed changes to be implemented in her community and she wonders what will happen in the meantime if there is another incident and emergency. For instance she wonders if there will be enough interpreters available to assist the non- English speaking residents.

Robert said that in the Kensington area evacuation systems have been adopted that involves ‘a knock on the door in the middle of the night’. He believes many people will not answer the doors for obvious reasons!

Paul said door-knocking methods do not work for many reasons.

* Deborah asked if it were likely the CICCC will get any recognition for the preliminary work it completed prior to the Office of Emergency Services (OoES) taking on the role of developing a workable system for this area.

Paul suggested the CICCC request an update from the OoES.
ACTION. Robin to invite Theo Pykoulas to attend the October meeting and brief the committee on progress with the Pilot Project.

* Robin retold the facts of a catastrophic incident and disaster which occurs 16 April 1947 in Texas City. The incident was mismanaged. As a result, people 30 miles away were knocked off their feet due to the huge explosion, and a total of 600 lives were lost and 3,5000 people were seriously injured. There was a damages bill of $700 million.

10.4 Improvement Action Report to website.
Defer to next meeting

ITEM 11. AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING 9 October 2003

* See the ACTION ITEMS above.

CLOSE. 


10.00pm

NEXT MEETINGS 


Thursday 9 October, 13 November and 11 December 2003

Thursday 12 February, 11 March, 1 April, 13 May and 10June 2004




CICCC ATTACHMENTS TO DRAFT MINUTES 11 September 2003

ATTACHMENT 1 Terminals Monthly Operations Report. August 2003.

ATTACHMENT 2 Table ‘Benzene Emissions for 2001 and 2002’
ATTACHMENT 3 EIP for No1 Maribyrnong Berth, summary notes.

ATTACHMENT 4 Presentation to CIUG Aug 2003

ATTACHMENT 5 ‘Post Incident Analysis Summary’ report extracts. MF&ESB 2003

 

 

  Get this as a Microsoft Word document