COMMUNITY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Thursday 14 August 2003
Env. Protection Authority
Ex Off Comm
West/ Minute Taker
ITEM 1. WELCOME BY THE CHAIR
Robin Welcomed everyone with special mention Nick Easy & Robert Glavich
ITEM 2. APOLOGIES
Paul Haywood, Vanessa Richardson
ITEM 3. CONFIRMATION OF DRAFT AGENDA
ITEM 4. BRIEF REPORT FROM AGENCIES & TERMINALS ON KEY ISSUES
Paul: Report on LPG Truck Incident in Kensington tabled.
Main interaction with Terminals during the month was a meeting of Fire Brigade & Terminals regarding the Proposal for Plant C West. Overview was removal of Flammable tanks & replacing them with Non Flammable. No objection. Vehicle Access considered.
Bronwyn: Attended meeting with regard to the status of upgrade at Coode. Involved as well in Port Buffer Study, Port Community Forum, OHS, Port Reform Legislation.
Robin: Work Cover have engaged Sweeney to conduct interviews regarding Effectiveness of Regulations with various agencies. Robin will attend an interview shortly & report back to Committee.
Action: Robin to report back to Committee
Margaret: PACIA– The National Health and Safety Commission is driving the use of Safety Cases in Australia, Victorian Regulatory Authorities, Industry & Unions are gathering experience to assist other states. PACIA held a workshop with MHF & put together guidance notes. When these are finalized we will put them to the committee.
John: Update: Community Alert Information Project. Council did a mailout to Maribyrnong Community with Letter & Questionnaire asking people to participate. System will be trialed next month with a test message & then information will be sought from participants.
The Management Team have trialed the system and it was successful. The next action is to introduce it to a wider area for evaluation.
The mail out letters were tabled at the meeting. All committee members were given one, and if they wish to be involved in the trial, they should fill out the consent form & return it.
Action: All members to complete Consent Form & Return if they wish to be included in the trial.
The new CEO for the City of Maribyrnong is Ms Kerry Thompson, who is currently Director of City Assets at the City of Melbourne. Has been in local government for 23 years and joins council 15/9/03.
Quentin: Visit by Terminals regarding expansion proposal. Visited Terminal to review EIP activity.
EIP Maribyrnong Wharf 1, Review Completed. Endorsed EIP produced by Port of Melbourne Corporation.
Robin: Thinks that the Committee should be involved in emission issues from Maribyrnong No 1 & the EIP done by Port Authority.
Nick: As there is a due process to view the Report under FOI he does not believe that the Committee needs to be involved.
Robin: The Committee expressed interest and deliberated for a number of months in considering the Terminals EIP. It is quite common for EIP’s to be discussed. Quentin agreed “In a general sense”. Therefore, Members agreed to have discussions with POMC to consider the Maribyrnong Wharf 1 EIP.
Action: Robin will write to Port Melbourne Authority for future presentation.
Quentin: Quentin tabled the letter to Ian Thomas from EPA addressing the issue raised by Ian when EPA Chair Mick Burke attended the CICCC.
Visited site checked process of EIP items and will enable him to sign off some items completed. Carlo to update target dates for balance of other items.
Next week something will be available.
Action: Quentin, Bronwyn and Carlo to update the IAR and provide a copy for Robin to circulate and put on the website, by 21 August 2003.
George: Interview with Sweeney conducted regarding Worksafe.
USA managers have been out over the past 2 weeks reviewing budgets. Facility will lose over ½ income & facility manning will be reduced to remain sustainable. No certainty of employment at Coode. All costs are being looked at and will be cut. CICCC costs over $40K/a and are looking to reduce to ¼ of this.
Carlo: Quiet at Coode, regular meetings with Marstell. Waiting on VECS System approval for dilute system from the office of Gas Safety for commissioning. AcrylateTanks almost ready to receive product.
Robin: Addressed George’s comments again. George re-iterated that all costs need to be looked at. Implications for all involved at Coode are great. Committee to carefully look at future plans and how CICCC can manage to remain a useful tool.
Ian: Total surprise. More importantly the welfare of the people involved at Coode. If employment it cut what about the potential safety. In his view there are ways in which the existing facilities can be expanded. Main business lost, can be regained. It is important that Terminals have proved that they can operate safely and should continue to do so.
George: Acknowledged Ian’s comments and said, we have a limited amount of room. Doubts whether business would be there. Have to look at the future of Marstell. There will be no discussion on manning changes until the people who are affected are dealt with sometime next year. .
Ian: Attended another group meeting & comments made were regarding closing of various factories. Would like to see a Community Group to support the industry.
Peter: The Environment Groups have understood that it is not an option to close the chemical industry and have mass unemployment. Chemical imports contribute more than ½ of Trade Deficit.
Robin: The health of the industry is what we all subscribe to.
ITEM 5 NICK EASY, MANAGER PORT SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT, POMC – BUFFER STRATEGY
Nick: The Inception Report has been used as a learning exercise. Buffers can be applied geographically to address emissions and amenity issues. ,The Inception Report looks at what are the approaches in this state, other states & international. Instruments used are: Zones in Planning Scheme, Overlays & Section 173 Agreements. Exercise undertaken for Melbourne Port and report circulated.
Robin: The minutes of the meeting he attended with the Port of Melbourne Corporation and Maunsells have been circulated to CICCC by email. Robin indicated that the Inception Study Report was quite interesting and brought together a comprehensive treatment of the buffer issue. Robin is in the process of reading it
Action: Robin will make a brief report to the committee on it.
Nick will make 8 or 9 more copies of the Buffer Study available to distribute to members.
Nick: As a result need to do more work and implemented process. An opportunity presented for the improvement & strengthen of Melbourne 2030 with Government participation.
Minutes were taken and circulated to group. Matters raised highlight relevant issues to port. Refer to Planning Schemes, Social Impact, Access of Port & Waterfront. All documented & included in a report, which is being put together and happy to present as Draft to Committee. Robin supported the CICCC need to have a further presentation on the findings of the Buffer Study
ACTION: Nick to advise the Chair when the next report is available, and to agree a time to present it to the CICCC.
Faye: What Security is incorporated into the Buffer Concept?
Nick: Developed an International & Port Facility Code. Requirement for Ports to produce Security Plans. Public access is definitely a consideration.
Ian: Could we have an indication of how Port is going? Is there a level of Business Rising or Lessening.
Nick: Port growing 8% over the last decade. Value of trade $70 billion. Majority is boxes. 1.5 Million containers per annum and growing.
Robin: A recent Age article published a review of Port activity, and the costs and benefits of the Channel Deepening proposal. although the deepening will cost a lot of money, with port tonnages increasing at a rapid rate, it is believed that the deepening is warranted.. The port is becoming increasingly important at a National level.
Nick: A summary document including port usage statistics can be forwarded to Robin and distributed to members. 15 copies will be provided.
Michael: Posed question regarding would the predicted throughput still double road traffic in 2030?
Nick: Yes, there are some enormous difficulties in meeting the Melbourne 2030 target of increasing the proportion of dock tonnage moved by rail from the present 17% to 30% . The 17% figure includes all tonnage going through the Dynan Freight Centre (although it is shuttled to the center by road).
Robin: Road Transport has impact on freight traffic from Coode on the communities of West Melbourne & Footscray etc and the issue does go to amenities from port.
Ian: The proposed site is encroaching on development and is not sufficient, are there any comments from Melbourne Port?
Nick: Not raised with him. Needs to go through the process. it is the Council view that development on the West side is critical.
Ian: Even if they are sufficiently located we have been aware developments/residential are coming closer. Market to be built on river. Have the Port considered that.
Robin: The Minutes of the meeting between him and PoMC documented the Committee’s concerns and this issue has been included in the framework of the Buffer Study. Hopefully it will be adequately addressed.
Nick: Left 7.50pm
ITEM 6. MOTION FROM IAN THOMAS
Robin: Items are treated sequentially and if any comments to be addressed then. – all agree.
1. CICCC Approaches the Maribyrnong City Council seeking that it again becomes the entity responsible for the committee.
Ian: Not suggesting MCC funds the committee, it is a desire to go back to the situation when MCC was the entity & paid us without invoicing. This would be the first step to be independent of the company.
Robin: I have different recollection, MCC was the facilitator to bring the CICCC about.
Andrew: Move that the word “again” be deleted.
Michael: Begs the question for the MCC to become the entity. What were they responsible for.
Robin: Maribyrnong Council was like the mother hen with her egg, waiting for it to be hatched and then be independent. The MCC paid sitting fees, they provided the note taker and had an arrangement with Terminals for reimbursement of some costs. If this motion is passed, are we giving away our independence?
Ian: Go back to situation of auspice with MCC. We believed that was where the money was coming from.
Colleen: HazMAG always knew where the money was coming from. Council contributed small amount for sandwiches, never anything else.
Ian: I find it difficult to invoice Terminals as well as wield the stick.
Robin: Are you saying that you request the MCC be the vehicle to pay sitting fees. Need to hear their view.
Michael: More than one company should contribute to the sitting fees.
Robin: If this was to happen what would that mean.
George: The Coode Island User Group provides a model for such a situation. It has contributions from a number of companies, and has appointed a Treasure to handle invoices etc.
Robin: So, if there was more than one company funding the CICCC, a Treasurer would be in charge of collection of monies and distribute accordingly. It would mean that in the future the companies would appoint a treasurer for the combined companies.
Robin: In response to a query about the role of the CIUG, Robin explained that the CICCC wants to engage the CIUG in discussion, and representatives of the CICCC will be attending their next meeting. However the two committees have very different purposes. The CIUG involves the companies on the island and the regulators, while the CICCC has a community focus.
Ian: Strike out 1st Clause on the grounds that we may have other companies/councils involved.
2. THAT CICCC GIVES FURTHER CONSIDERATION TO THE MATTER OF THE LEVEL OF INDEPENDENCE IT HAS FROM THE COMPANY WHICH IT ENDEAVOURS TO INFLUENCE.
Ian: Regard as premature. Not in a position of being independent of Terminals.
Robin: Do you mean Financial Independence or broader independence. Do people have a view.
Peter: the background material in Ian’s motion held up two committees in Sydney. If any committee is more powerful than this one I challenge anyone to name a stronger committee.
Robin: Do we feel we are independent of Terminals? Is this the issue.
Ian: The 2 committees are irrelevant.
Colleen: There is either a culture of independence or not. It is about the caliber of representatives that they are not influenced on the basis of a sitting fee. They can go to the press independently.
Ian: Strike out 2.
3. THAT CICCC ASKS THE MARIBYRNONG CITY COUNCIL (MCC) TO ASCERTAIN AND REPORT ON THE SEPARATION DISTANCES BETWEEN VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONS AND VARIOUS SIGNIFICANT POINTS ON COODE ISLAND.
George: We have a photograph that could be shown. Good place to start.
Robin: Definitional, measuring closest house. Residential Area Zoned or Defacto.
George: Are we identifying actual distance to things.
Robin: We need to clarify what we are measuring. Is it the present facility at Coode Island, the old facility before 1991, the future facility with Marstel, and do we measure to the closest house, the closest residential area, the closest residential zone, and how do we allow for future mixed use development and caretaker flats?
John: GIS System could be utilised. But where are we measuring.
Peter: It would be worthwhile before next meeting to look at map ½ hour before at say 5.45 pm.
Andrew: Who owns the map. Can we purchase a map & chinagraph pencil.
Robin: Maribyrnong CC should keep the aerial photo on behalf of CICCC (in the CICCC library).
ACTION: JOHN/GEORGE TO GET AERIAL PHOTO BEFORE NEXT MEETING VIEW PRIOR TO START.
Ian: Want it to show location of Marstell Tanks.
Robin: Summarised that Point 3 of Ian’s motion will be dealt with in the manner documented above prior to the next meeting.
4. THAT EITHER ROBIN’S UN PAPER BE PUBLISHED ON THE WEBSITE TOGETHER WITH WORDS TO MAKE CLEAR THE ACTUAL FORM OF CO-OPERATIVENESS EVIDENT AND IF NECESSARY, WITH CORRECTIONS MADE TO THE ALL-IMPORTANT SEPARATION DISTANCES ONCE THESE ARE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED –
OR THAT THE TITLE AND PARTICULARS OF ROBIN’S PAPER BE PUBLISHED ON THE WEBSITE SO THAT INTERESTED PARTIES MAY SEEK IT.
AND THAT ANY AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT PAPERS BE PUBLISHED TO THE SAME DEGREE, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF CICCC.
Ian: Remove 1st and look at second and third paragraphs with the initial words (“OR” and “AND”) removed . I believe that any relevant matters should have the opportunity to be posted on the website, but in the form of a reference.
Deb: Much better to have articles on the Website as a whole document because it is an educational tool.
George: No special rules required, let any paper by any CICCC member be considered on it’s merits.
Robin: Suggested that papers may be posted to the CICCC Website provided they are tabled at a CICCC meeting and approved for posting to the web site. They may need the disclaimer that they are not the committees view rather the authors view, and this will emerge from the case-by-case review.– All Agreed.
ITEM 7. RESPONSE TO ADVERTISEMENT FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST FROM THE COMMUNITY TO JOIN CICCC
Andrew and Robert were asked to leave the meeting for this item.
Robin: Expressions of interest received from Andrew Clifton, Robert Glavich & Valerie Gemmel. Valerie Gemmel has withdrawn. The committee unanimously agreed to the appointment of Andrew and Robert, and on their return Robin welcomed them both to the committee.
ITEM 8. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 10.07.03
Robin: George moved that the minutes as presented by Vanessa be adopted. There was a large measure of consensus with the suggestion, and the draft minutes were confirmed.
ITEM 9. NON HAZARDOUS EXPANSION AT PLANT C
Carlo: Displayed a plan. TPL are proposing to remove existing flammable tanks at Plant C South & build or relocate larger tanks for non hazardous service. Will free up other tanks to enable the overall upgrade to continue. Able to keep business whilst expansion in progress.
George: Expansion is 4,500 cubic metres of tankage. 74,000 cubic metres of storage exists today. After east side demolition, 33,000 cubic metres will exist. This expansion will increase the storage to a mere 37,500 m3. It is still going to be only ½ of that in use today. Business in existing tankage will be moved to the new storage to enable upgrades of the existing storages over the next few years.
Robin: What is the dollar value of this plan?
George: $2.5 Million
Robin: Is EPA works approval required?
George: We believe WA is not required. we are yet to convince the EPA about that. None of the tanks need to be connected to the VECS system. The proposed equipment is no different to that being installed as part of the upgrade. The other advantage is that the proposed redevelopment will allow two hot spots of contaminants to be directly treated. If you remove the source the problem is removed and the sparge curtain extension to the south required in the EIP may not be required.
Faye: The contamination, did it originate under the tanks? And are there any other hot spots?
George: None we know of. The contamination could very well have come from adjacent transfer pits.
Quentin: Extensive testing has been done on the site to determine the level of the contamination.
Peter: Will the East side contaminated soil be removed? Will the removed soil be remediated?
George: 3000 m3 of prescribed waste will be removed to a secure landfill and about 3000 m3 low level waste to land fill.
Andrew: Where will contaminated soil go, and will the groundwater remain contaminated?
George: Prescribed waste would go to Cleanaway or SITA and a similar amount would be suitable for landfill. EPA has classification guidelines. Odours kept down. Ground Water if contaminated will be treated or removed off site. The auditor has to be satisfied the source has been removed.
Quentin: In answer to a question HDPE (High density Polyethylene) is a thick black plastic liner.. It is chemical resistant, and will be used under the tanks.
George: There is a telltale drain from a low point under the liner for signs of leaking. The bunds will be lined with Clay fabric (Betonite Clay).
Peter: What is the fibre? Is it a sheet of plastic? What is in the EIP? It was proposed to be put in the Environmental Plan. Fabric on top or bottom for handling.
ACTION: CARLO TO ORGANISE SAMPLE OF CLAY LINER
Robin: Presumably the proposals are important for the future direction of the facility?
George: Board approval has been granted for the works.
Robin: When further down the track with plans & designs could the Committee have more information on the new development.
Robin: Are there sufficient bore holes to monitor contamination over the whole site?
George: We are monitoring the marine environment. We are making sure our problems don’t go off site. Monitoring wells to do that. Very extensive monitoring.
Robin: Not as wide a problem on West as East?
George: The reason the Sparge Curtain was proposed was to contain (or manage) as opposed to remove given it was not practical to get at the Hot Spots in a working facility.
Robin: If Terminals vacated the site, then they would clean up the site.
George: Yes we have to.
Faye: Does anyone use the ground water for commercial or domestic use. Are there any concerns?
George: Water table is only 1.5 metres down. Bore water would be from an aquifer under pressure 30/40/50 metres down far below any possible contamination from Coode Island. Doesn’t believe that anyone uses. We have to put deep wells to check for deep contamination and not found any.
Robin: In summary Faye is worried about Water Contamination from deep aquifers that might be used.
George: There is an aquifer in the western suburbs that is believed to be polluted but nothing related to Terminals.
Ian: there are 30or 40 pollutants of which ½ dozen are volatile and can be detected by gas analysis and other by soil analysis. George should do a soil test to see what he has.
Carlo: Believe this has been done. We do not look after heavy metals.
George: We are speculating. Alex Mikov covered this matter last time.
ACTION: CARLO WILL GIVE MORE INFORMATION ON CONTAMINATION TESTING PLANT B & C WEST AT SUBSEQUENT MEETING
ITEM 11. ACTION ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
EIP action update (IAR) to be completed by Carlo & EPA and WorkSafe by 21st August 2003
Report by Paul Swain on Road Tank Spill tabled. Will be sent by email to Robin
John Luppino distributed questionnaire – 80 returned so far.
Michael tabled an analysis of Port related freight movements he had compiled.
Ian advised that on 25/27 October 2004 there will be a National Risk Engineering Conference in Melbourne.
Next Meeting Scheduled for 11 September 2003.
The meeting scheduled for 8 April 2004 will be rescheduled for 1 April to avoid Easter.
Meeting Closed 10.05pm