Thursday 10 August 2000
CICCC chair person
City of Maribyr. Councillor/committee
City of Maribyr, GM City Dev /committee
Plastics & Chemicals Ind Ass / committee
community rep./ CICCC committee
community rep./ committee
community rep./ committee
Op. Manager Terminals P.Ltd./committee
Dr Peter Brotherton
Combined Enviro. Groups / committee
community rep./ committee
Kensington Ass. rep / committee
Dept. Human Serv, /ex off committee
Gen Manager Terminals / committee
Environ. Protec Authy / ex off committee
WorkCover / ex off committee
Envir Protec Auth / ex off committee
Commander /Metro Fire & Emerg Ser.
City of Melbourne
Environ. Protec Auth
Major Haz Uni,/WorkCov
ITEM 1. WELCOME BY THE CHAIR
The chairperson welcomed the committee members and observers in attendance.
ITEM 2. APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Robert Clarke and George Horman.
ITEM 3. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA
The Draft Agenda was adopted.
ITEM 4. DISCUSSION WITH WORKCOVER’S MHF REGULATION PANEL
Gary Kenney told the CICCC that those drafting the regulations had considered the points raised by the CICCC in their submission for the Draft MHF Regulations.
The CICCC had made a strong point that there should be full disclosure of information in all the Safety Cases of each application made under the proposed new regulations. He said this had been discussed at policy level and the following points were included (Reg. No. 505, sub heading 3(b)) in the regulations to accommodate the point raised by the CICCC
- The operator must make available a summary of the Safety Case. (This was not required in the initial draft).
- Provide for the public a general description of the Schedule 1 materials that would be likely to be present on the site
Gary went on to explain that the above changes were the first in a planned 2- step process.
- The first step being the inclusion of the above points, and
- The 2nd step involved consideration and movement towards a disclosure process similar to that followed in the United kingdom (U.K.).
In the U.K. the process allows the public to have access to the Safety Case document in its entirety apart from any information that it deemed ‘commercially in confidence’ or ‘impinging on national security’.
Matthew said that a summary was all that had been required in the U.K. until 1999, when the full disclosure amendment was incorporated into their legislation.
Garry said that the Australian National Code required the presentation of a summary only and that Victoria wanted to keep in step with the national code.
Robin said that the ‘consideration’ in step 2 by the department did not guarantee that the changes recommended by the CICCC would be adopted.
Garry said that another consultative process would be required first. He did not know the timing for this. He said that in the original submissions, 7 individual companies had noted the need for confidentiality of information in the Safety Cases.
Robin said that the CICCC had always agreed that there is a need for a small amount of sensitive information about hazardous material storage, to be ‘in confidence’ . However in his reading of all 67 submissions there were none that disagreed with the point made by the CICCC – that in principle, full public disclosure was required.
Gary said that some companies including Terminals, have volunteered to fully disclose information in the Safety Case to the public. He said WorkCover applauded and encouraged such actions from companies.
Peter Brotherton reminded the CICCC that when the issue was first discussed by the CICCC, Ian Swann (PACIA) said he did not believe the industry would object to this point as raised by the CICCC. He said the CICCC experience of the Marstel Report summary of a few pages, showed later that the remaining 200 pages contained no information that was required to be ‘in confidence’.
Gary said a summary of a Safety Case would lack among other things information on specific temperatures, pressures and analysis.
Peter Reddie said he thought the development of draft regulations had been in response to the Longford incident and that they were developed mainly to address issues of on site employee safety rather than community safety.
Ian Thomas said this was another example where policy makers are telling the public that environmental safety issues are more important than public safety issues.
Robin requested that Garry report to his department that the CICCC see this exercise as having been ‘a failure of the consultation process’.
Gary said that his department would talk to the policy developers regarding the matters to be put to Government for consideration in the Step 2 stage. Gary advised that WorkCover had commenced Step 2 with some internal work. Robin requested that this work be shared with CICCC.
ACTION Gary to respond to the CICCC request for access to the work being done by WorkCover on Step 2 Review of the MHF Regulations.
ITEM 5. CONFIRMATION OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE CICCC COMMENTS ON THE WORKS APPROVAL APPLICATION.
See Attachment 1.
Five CICCC members and Robin will write up a submission based on the headings as tabled, and as further refined.
ACTION. A draft submission will be presented at the 13 September CICCC meeting.
Peter Reddie said that the Terminal’s Works Approval Application document is in 4 volumes that contained the following information:
Vol 1. This is the best to read and contains technical and general information.
Vol 2. Consists mainly of calculations.
Vol 3. Consists mainly of calculations.
Vol 4. Material Safety Data Sheets.
They are now available for the public at the following locations
- Maribyrnong City Library – Vols 1,2,3 & 4
- North Melbourne City Library – Vols 1,2,3 & 4
- Williamstown Library – Vol 1
- Mooney Valley Library – Vol 1
- Kingville Library – Vol 1
- West Footscray Library – Vol 1
- Highpoint Library – Vol 1
- Terminals web site -Vol 1
The CICCC discussed the preparation of a submission on the Terminals Works Approval document. The following comments were made
- A great deal of time needs to be spent on this to do it properly, probably 3 days work to look at it thoroughly.
- Who should cover the cost of the CICCC members’ time on this. Is it appropriate for Terminals to pay fees?
- There is a conflict of interest if Terminals pays for the development of a CICCC response
- Terminals have been paying all CICCC sitting fees and minute taking costs. Should this continue? What about (real or otherwise) concerns regarding conflicts of interest?
- The public must be able to see that that there is no conflict of interest
- Terminals have considered the points already raised by the CICCC and considered these when developing the Works Approval Application.
- Maribyrnong and Melbourne City Councils should cover the costs of the CICCC response
- Melbourne City Council are likely to do an independent response submission
- State Government should meet the costs of the CICCC, as is the case in other countries where legislation requires public consultation of this type.
- Other community groups are looking at the matter of Government funding for public consultation costs.
- WorkCover and the EPA should cover the costs. They have funded other public consultations previously.
- This is the only way the public can comment on the Works Approval and we’ve only got 3 weeks in which to do it.
- In the response the CICCC needs to be concise and focused on issues already raised by the CICCC
ACTION. All CICCC members to work on areas of their own expertise and submit comments to Robin who will collate the CICCC submission.
ACTION. CICCC will write to the City of Melbourne, the City of Maribyrnong and the EPA to request appropriate $6,000 funding ($2,000 each) to write the CICCC response to the Terminals Works Approval Application. It is unlikely that a decision on funding will be available before the deadline date for submissions.
Greg Twitt said that the CICCC submission should be made ASAP. A public conference will be conducted by the EPA too.
Robin said that a draft submission would probably be available by 30 August.
ITEM 6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING OF 13 JULY 2000.
The following Amendements are to be made
- Item 4.6 will now read “Murray tabled a copy of two reports providing burden of disease information (mortality and morbidity data) for Victoria. It is expected that the updated Burden of Disease study will be available shortly. The Morbidity report can be found on the web on www.dhs.vic.gov.au/phb/9909065/foreword.htm and the Mortality report can be found on the web on www.dhs.vic.gov.au/phb/9903009/index.htm”
- Page 3. Action Item spelling should be
‘ Dave Horsman’.
- Page 3. Action Item should read
‘ Ian Thomas in consultation with Peter Brotherton will develop…draft letter’.
- Page 4, Item 6 should read
‘ The Dangerous Goods Application was lodged with WorkCover on 11 July 2000.’
‘Greg Twitt said that it would be 2 or 3 weeks before the Works Approval document would be publicly available.’
and page 5
‘ Ian Thomas added…..lightning arrester technology….in the report.’
ITEM 7. ACTION ITEMS FROM MEETING OF 13 JULY 2000
7.1 Effectiveness Review (Ian Swann)
Half of the interviews have been completed. A draft report should be ready by the meeting on the 14 September. The CICCC said that they were looking for a report which provided both an analysis of the responses to the questions in the questionnaire (with answers on a 1–5 scale), and a qualitative summary of additional verbal and written responses made during the administration of the questionnaire.
ACTION List item on agenda for September 14 meeting.
7.2 Coode Articles in Local papers (Ian Swann and John Luppino)
See Attachment 2
John tabled the local newspaper articles that have been published in recent weeks.
ACTION. Ian Swann said that in future he could provide a summary of relevant articles that appear in the state and national daily papers.
7.3 CICCC Membership Numbers and the Role of the City of Maribyrnong CICCC Member.
Peter Brotherton has not yet spoken to Marg Leser about her plans regarding membership of the CICCC.
The Chair suggested the following priority issues for CICCC:
- Work on the upgrade of the Terminals site (Works Approval submissions and Safety Case (includes worst case scenario).
- Emergency management and public communication plans for those residents close to the Terminals site.
Items that could involve Maribyrnong City Council taking a lead role include:
- Ongoing land use controls for sites in the Coode Island vicinity
- On going Maribyrnong council member involvement in CICCC
- Generic communication plan for all residents in the region that would be endorsed by the City of Maribyrnong. There is a unique need given the mix of industry and residential land use in this region. There is a gap between what DISPLAN can provide and the needs of the community. An integrated plan is required. Council could distribute the information to all residents.
A question was raised about the possibility of having a grading of alarms in the area so that the residents understand the meanings of the different alarms and sirens.
Councillor Lam said that she would continue to attend the CICCC meetings as her commitments allow.
MOVED. A vote of thanks from all the CICCC for Councillor Cuc Lam in appreciation of her interest and attendance at the CICCC meetings.
7.4 Tools used by Industry to Communicate with Neighbouring Communities (Ian Swann)
ACTION. Defer to another meeting.
Trevor Perkins said he made some enquires about alarms in the Footscray area. A preliminary scan indicates that in the past twelve months, in the Melway Map 42 area, there were approximately 380 occasions when alarms were activated during the day or night. Approximately forty percent of these were false alarms.
ACTION. Trevor will confirm this information when he has completed his
Ian Swann said that there were many different types of alarms used. He said that PACIA would look into this matter. PACIA are keen to support Terminals in their efforts to successfully communicate with the community when alarms are sounding on their site. He said there was a need for a central point of contact where people could be informed accurately about the status of an alarms in the region.
Robin said that sirens which the public could hear and that had nothing to do with emergencies (like those used to indicate the beginning of a shift in a factory) should be silenced to the point that only those on the work site can hear them. Anything else could be described a ‘public nuisance’.
7.5 Summary of DHS Morbidity Risk Profile Report (Faye Simpson)
Faye is still completing this task. She said that the report examines the health of the population of the State of Victoria. It looks at the causes of declines in health and the numbers of individuals that are affected. Percentage data relating to prevalence of illness is presented. Postcode relevant information is not made available which could have been of use for the CICCC.
ACTION. Faye will provide a summary of the report to the CICCC in the near future.
ACTION. Murray will get copies of the reports for Deborah, Peter Brotherton and Ian Thomas.
7.6 Advice on the CICCC Library (John Luppino)
The manager of Central Records manages the CICCC library. Anyone wanting information from the CICCC library can contact John Luppino on Ph: 9688 0266.
Robin requested that the materials held be catalogued. John supported this suggestion, and will follow up as resources become available.
7.7 Study on the Effects of Chemicals on the Altona Community (Murray Franks, Ian Swann)
Murray was unable to find any information on this.
Ian Swann had copies of two reports that did not appear to be those that the CICCC wee seeking. The reports are
- 1996 report which assessed the levels of Benzene and Toluene in the Altona area.
- 1993 report which looked at air pollution at Altona.
He will continue in his search for the CICCC requested report that describes the effects of chemicals on humans. Members of the CICCC suggested the following people may be able to assist him
Altona Community Health Centre
Altona Clean Air Project
Chemical Trauma Alliance
7.8 Procedure for Checking Operators (Cognitive Ability) who Have Been Exposed to Dangerous Vapours (Peter Reddie)
No information yet.
ACTION. Deferred to another meeting
ITEM 8. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING OF 27 JULY 2000.
Amendements to be made as presented by Peter Reddie and Greg Twitt.
ITEM 9. ACTION ITEMS FROM MEETING OF 27 JULY 2000
9.1 Media Release
See Attachment 6.
The CICCC feedback to Robin was very useful and he has made changes accordingly.
9.2 Works Approval Application advertisement
Advertisements have been placed in the Public Notices in 6 local papers and the Herald Sun. They have also had a press release advertising the public consultation period, and that further information is available on the web sites of Terminals, CICCC and the EPA.
Some CICCC members said that the notice in the Herald Sun was not very prominent and that a notice should have been placed in the Age newspaper.
Robin said the CICCC was not happy that despite a specific request from the CICCC, a notice had not been placed in the Age. He added that he always sends the CICCC press releases to the Age. Peter Reddie said that the Age had not published much on Coode Island.
Peter Brotherton requested that this matter be discussed in future.
Peter Reddie said that Terminals were placing advertisements about the consultation period for the Works Approval Application in the local papers next week.
9.3 Statement of consultation principles
See Attachment 3.
ACTION. The Committee adopted the Statement of Consultation Principles with the words ‘project designs’ replaced with ‘outcomes’. The amended statement will be placed on the CICCC web site.
9.4 Web Site Update and Hits.
There have been about 80 hits per week over the last 4 weeks.
Robin said that some things on the web page will require updating soon.
Ian Swann said that PACIA are posting a link to the CICCC web site on their web site.
Robin reported that a Master’s journalism student has written an 8-page article about the CICCC and Coode Island. It is a human-interest story and draws on interviews with Colleen Hartland and two local residents. Robin has also been quoted and provided her with comments as requested.
The North Melbourne Times local paper (published quarterly) requested a 1000 word article on the CICCC. Robin will use the ‘CICCC Background’ article on the web as a starting point for the article.
9.5 Concord and Holmesglen (Ian Thomas)
See Attachment 4.
9.6 Other Items listed (Worst case scenario, emergency management, Coode Island Agreement—principles, HSE Risk Matrix) will go to future meetings as advised.
ITEM 10. FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING RELOCATION OF PROPYLENE OXIDE STORAGE
Peter Reddie said that in future he would like to further discuss this item with the CICCC. He reminded the CICCC that the Government has directed Terminals to make appropriate provision for the storage and handling of all materials currently stored on Coode Island. This includes propylene oxide. The Government do not want to be part of anything that may be perceived as ‘moving the Coode Island Terminals site by stealth’.
Ian Thomas said he thinks this is an issue between the CICCC and the Government and not Terminals and the CICCC.
Faye said she wondered if the Government would object if a non-hazardous material like tallow storage were moved elsewhere.
Peter Reddie said it was the hazardous materials that were of major issue to the Government. Propylene oxide was the 2nd most hazardous material stored on the Coode Island site and it is in large volumes.
Robin reminded the CICCC that the Taskforce Report said that there would be no significant risks if the site were upgraded. The Government have already spent $20 million over 6 years looking at options for the relocating of the Terminals site and it could be well expected that the Geelong community will have a strong view on any proposed relocation.
In response to a question, Peter Reddie said that Terminals’ Corio site would be a bit crowded if the Terminals storage at Coode Island was moved there in its entirety.
Michael asked if the CICCC could actually advise Government on the matters of concern to it. Robin answered that the CICCC could advise Government but that Government does not necessarily act on that advice.
ACTION. Peter will make a further presentation on this Item 10 matter at the next meeting.
ITEM 11. STAKEHOLDER BRIEFING ‘UPDATED DANGEROUS GOODS (STORAGE AND HANDLING) REGULATIONS.
Robin spoke briefly to his written report. The new regulations propose to replace licences with a system of notification. There is at present no opportunity for public involvement (or even notification) in the proposed notification and auditing system. Because of concerns raised at the briefing, WorkCover is now investigating whether the Dangerous Goods Act provides a head of power for information to be made available to the public.
Robin said that in Victoria while there are 40 – 60 sites that will be categorised as Major Hazard Facilities, many more sites will be just below the cut off threshold, but none the less store materials that are potentially of concern to public safety. These new regulations will not allow for public comment on the management of such sites.
Matthew said the new regulations would be for everyone who handles dangerous goods. They can be large or small sites that handle dangerous goods materials. They will no longer require a licence but the Dangerous Goods Regulations will apply to their handling of dangerous goods. Matthew said that for Major Hazard Facility sites, licences under the DG Regulations will continue until 2002, when the Safety Case process will be in place. He said that ‘to a degree the new regulations will be performance based with a Code of Practice which is prescriptive and companies will be expected to comply’.
Ian Thomas said that from the 8 December 2000 sites handling dangerous goods would be performance based. Government departments associated with auditing the safety of sites will need to be diligent in their auditing to ensure the safety of the sites. He believes that matters of safety on sites were better handled by regulations that are prescriptive rather than performance based. After the 8 December, 2000 they will unfortunately be performance based.
Peter Brotherton said it was of great concern that there appeared to be a lack of Government accountability and public process around safety and emergency responses.
Peter Reddie said he could not see how it was a concern for the CICCC.
Robin said that P&O Ports is a site that would be covered by these new regulations. Peter Brotherton said that lack of Government accountability in this process is not in Terminals’ best interest. Peter Brotherton added that the interests of the Committee with respect to the regulatory environment is broader than Peter Reddies’ view.
Ian Swann said that PACIA had noted the CICCC concerns and were yet to formulate a view but he will relate the CICCC views to their next PACIA meeting.
Trevor said that from next week to the end of September Government was requesting public comments on the draft.
ACTION. The CICCC will further discuss these new regulations after their release next week.
ITEM 12. VICTORIAN PORTS STRATEGIC STUDY BRIEFING
See Attachment 5
The key issues were
- Identification of the eastern bank of the Maribyrnong River at Coode Island as a development opportunity.
- Land use conflict between the storage of hazardous materials (eg. at Coode Island) and the proximity of residential areas (eg. Footscray).
- Rail transport to and from the wharves.
Michael asked about the new rail link back to the P&O Ports site.
Robin said that the replacement of the rail link to the P&O Ports site was at an advanced stage of planning, he had been told at the briefing.
ITEM 13. AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING
Discussion about Integrated Storage and Delivery (see Michael Isaachsen’s two page letter of 23 March 2000, posted out as pages 30 and 31 to the attachment to 30 March 2000 minutes.
ITEM 14. OTHER BUSINESS
PACIA have requested public comment on the PACIA Review of the Responsible Care Program. A questionnaire was provided to CICCC members to fill in and to return to PACIA.
Close 10.15 pm
Meeting Thursday 14 September 2000
Meeting Thursday 12 October 2000
CICCC ATTACHMENTS TO DRAFT MINUTES 10 August 2000
Attachment 1 Arrangements for the Preparation of the CICCC Comments on the Works Approval Application
Attachment 2 Local Paper Articles
Attachment 3 Statement of Consultation Principles
Attachment 4 Ian Thomas Correspondence to CICCC Members
Attachment 5 Victorian Ports Strategic Study Briefing Report
Attachment 6 CICCC Media Release July 2000
Attachment 7 Correspondence to CICCC from Vanessa Richardson (minute taker)
Attachment 8 Terminals Monthly Operations & Occurrence Report, July 2000