13 December 2001

COODE  ISLAND  COMMUNITY CONSULTATIVE  COMMITTEE

ITEM 1. WELCOME
BY THE CHAIR

Robin Saunders welcomed the committee members and
other people attending the CICCC meeting.

 

ITEM 2.
APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Allen Hugli and Trevor
Perkins who would be arriving late.
Michael Isaachsen and Cr Bill Horrocks arrived straight from other Council
meetings. Ian Thomas said he would have to leave the meeting at 7pm.

 

ITEM 3.
CONFIRMATION OF THE DRAFT AGENDA

The
draft agenda was adopted.

 

ITEM 4. MPC
SECURITY (AHSAN AZIZ)

Ahsan
said that the gate house was installed on Coode Island for security purposes in
line with the Coode Island Review Panel recommendations following the fire in
1991. The Melbourne Port Corporation (MPC) funds the annual costs of operating
the gate house.

The
MPC have recently commissioned a Risk Assessment of security on Coode Island
Some of the suggested upgrades include

•   better lighting

• 
24 hour camera surveillance

• Closed Circuit
Television (CCT) monitoring at the Gate House

(24 hours per day)

• 
warning signs to discourage the general public from using the area.

All
the tenants on Coode Island have been consulted and they are supportive of the
proposed improved security plans. Tenders for this work closed last week and the
work is expected to be completed in May/June 2002.

Peter
said that he was concerned when he recently passed through the Gate House
without even being questioned by the person on duty.

Ahsan
said that the MPC shared Peter’s concerns and that is why they funded a Risk
Assessment of security on Coode Island. He said that the CCT will function more
effectively than the gate house  which
will probably be removed after an assessment of the upgrade has been finalised.
He said that in addition to these proposals, each company on CI have their own
security arrangements for their sites. The cost of the improvements will be
about $250,000.

Ian
said that the public should be able to have access to the island and in
particular to the Picnic Point area for recreational uses.

George
said that Terminals did not support full public access to CI because there was
always the risk of vandalisation and/or the lighting of fires. He said that
Picnic Point was now designated for a new development. He said the MPC new
proposed system was a great improvement on what presently exists.

Ian
said he disagreed with George’s comments.

 

 

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

Cameron introduced
Quentin Cooke who is the West Metropolitan Region EPA representative. He has
been with the EPA for 6 months and is playing a key part in the Marstel
assessment team. 

He said that  the
EPA are working on the Terminals VECCS Report.

Since 1997 the EPA have been working with Terminals
to reduce the amount of benzene emissions. This has been occurring successfully
to the point where Terminals have exceeded the regulated level on only one
occasion in the past couple of weeks.

Cameron circulated letters of invitation to some
CICCC members for the EPA Public Meeting on 19 December 2001 on the Marstel
Works Approval application and said that other letters of invitation not
circulated tonight would be posted out.

Marstel have indicated that they can provide a
separate briefing about the Works Approval to the CICCC if required.

If the Works Approval application is acceptable to
the EPA, then on Boxing Day the Works Approval
application will be advertised. The advertisement will be followed by 21 days
for public comment with a further extension to the 28 February 2002 if requested
and granted by the EPA. The 28 February is the likely date for the 20(B)
Conference which is required as part of the Works Approval process.

Carlo said that when Terminals submitted their Works
Approval the time period for public comment was left open until the time of the
20(B) Conference without special authority being required.

Peter asked whose idea it was to advertise this on
Boxing Day?

Cameron said that notification of late submissions
(to Feb 28th) will assist the EPA to organise the 20B Conference. The EPA have
to follow the statutory timelines once they receive the document from Marstel.

Peter said that the EPA can accept the WA document
when they choose to.

Robin said that it was extraordinary to publicise
something of this nature during Xmas holiday ‘down time’. He asked if the
Works Approval would be posted on a web site?

Cameron said that over and above the statutory
requirement a public meeting will be held next week. The EPA want to see an
improvement in environmental and safety standards.

Michael suggested that a second advertisement follow
that one placed on Boxing Day.

Cameron said he would take that suggestion to Jim. He
said that a summary of the Terminal’s WA had been placed on the EPA web site but
that changes in web site policy may preclude this from occurring again. He said
that he will ensure all CICCC members receive a copy of the document.

John asked that the advertisement on Boxing 
Day  state that there is a 2
month response time (to the 28 Feb 2002) and that it be followed by another
advertisement one week after Boxing Day. He also asked that the advertisements
state where copies of the Work Approval document might be held for reading by
the public.

Peter suggested that one advertisement go in the
second week in January rather than on Boxing Day.

Quentin said that Marstel have said they will launch
their own web site and post the WA on their web site.

Deborah asked Cameron to request Marstel to send
their information to the CICCC as promised, because nothing has been received
for 6 weeks.

Peter said he was extremely disappointed that he has
only been given one weeks notice of the 19 December public meeting which he will
be unable to attend. He asked if an alternative time could be arranged?

Faye said that the CICCC HSE sub committee meeting is
scheduled for that time.

Deborah said that the CICCC were promised they would
be kept informed. This had not happened in this instance.

Cameron said that comments could be made at the 20(B)
Conference. He said that the purpose of the meeting on the 19 December is to
present and clarify the WA application document which has been commented on and
added to previously.

ACTION.
Proposed meeting with Marstel for a briefing 20 December 2001, at 6 pm. Cameron
will make a copy of the application available to all CICCC members by 17
December 2001.

 

MOTION -Peter
Brotherton.

That
in any future press release the CICCC state its concerns about the intention of
the EPA to start a public consultation period on Boxing Day. This timeframe is
seen by the CICCC to be extraordinary and fundamentally flawed.

SUPPORTED by
all the CICCC except Michael.

 

Michael said that the City Councils of
Maribyrnong and Melbourne are using the same consultant that they commissioned
to review the Terminals WA application to report to them about the Marstel WA
application. His report will be available in January 2002. Michael reported that
Tim Gunning had said that Marstel will finance a meeting and discussion between
the Marstel CG and Councils’ consultant. Michael said he thought that other
people may also be able to attend that meeting and that it might be worthwhile
asking Tim about that.

John said that while the proposal sounds good in
principle he has not been advised by Theo of this plan yet, and that the above
arrangement would require the approval of both councils before proceeding.

Jarrod said that WorkCover have visited the Terminals
site on only two occasions during the last month. There were four Improvement
Notices lifted and the cancellation of a prohibition notice.

Marstel P/L were registered as a Major Hazard
Facility during November 2001. In response to a question, Jarrod confirmed that
the Terminals Pty Ltd Coode Island site was still registered as a Major Hazard
Facility. 

John said that the Maribyrnong City Council passed a
motion on Friday 16 November regarding a proposed meeting with Bronwyn Pike. He
said that since then Cr Bill Horrocks and he have met with her and her advisers
to bring her up to date on matters concerning Coode Island including the
boundary review issues. She will talk with her parliamentary colleagues about
the issues discussed including a request for a larger meeting in the New Year
which would include the CICCC.

The boundary review matter was also discussed with
the Melbourne City Council. The  Maribyrnong
City Council suggested that its municipality should include 
Appleton Dock and Coode Island and other docks up to the Docklands
development. Both councils will have to agree to any proposed changes if they
are to proceed. He said that at this stage there are no indications that
Melbourne City Council are totally opposed to the proposal.

George said that the benzene emissions were down
again this last month as a result of replacing the carbon in the beds every
month.

He tabled the VECCS Upgrade Report for the CICCC to
read.

Terminals have secured a long term contract to store
acrylate for Orica. They are still seeking to secure further business.

They have also lodged a planning application with
Geelong City Council for the construction of a new 1500 cubic metre sphere for
the storage of liquid petroleum gas. This material is used to make polypropylene
for items like plastic drink bottles. Basell P/L are working on this initiative
with Terminals resulting in a doubling of their present capacity for this
product. Potentially Terminals will pump it from the storage site to the Basell
facility. The contract is worth approximately $90 million to Terminals P/L.

In answer to Faye’s question he said that the
nearest sphere to the new sphere is 90 metres and the regulations state that
they be at least 20 metres apart. He said the new sphere will be the smallest
sphere on the site.

  

ITEM
6. CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING 8 NOV 2001.

Ian
said that his experience chairing last month’s meeting was fascinating and
an experience that the other  community representatives of the CICCC should have at
some point.

The
minutes were accepted with the following changes

•
pp 1 in the PRESENT listing. That Jarrod be noted as an ex officio committee
member.

•
Item 4, second paragraph, replace “rational” with “rationale”

• The Action under Item 4 to state “The CICCC
will write to Council thanking them for organising this meeting and requesting
that they take all necessary steps to invite all members of the CICCC to attend
the meeting proposed above.

Under the sub-heading “See the broadsheet e-mailed
to committee members 4 November 2001”, delete the following paragraph. Insert
in its place the two paragraphs from the top of page 3 (from “John advised
that the Community Information …” to “The next meeting of the Steering
Group will be in early December.”)

At the bottom of page 4, change the sentence to read
“Peter asked about the nature of any process for interaction between the two
facilities that may be operated by Terminals and Marstel on Coode Island.”

The text on page 4 relating to coordination component
of Safety Cases between facilities was amended to read:

“Guidance provided by MHD has indicated that the
coordination component of Safety Case development is anticipated to be of the
order of 5%. He said that there are examples of other similar MHF’s required
to coordinate (eg the recently determined Caltex major hazard site at Newport
co-ordinated with the Shell major hazard facility. This requirement occurred 15
months after Shell’s initial registration.)”

After the heading “See e-mail from Peter Brotherton
to the CICCC dated 7 November 2001” insert:

“Peter Brotherton referred to an e-mail he had sent
to CICCC members containing the following motion:

“That the
Chair write to the City of Maribyrnong seeking clarification as to whether it
still endorses the best practice principles under which it originally auspiced
the CICCC, including the principle of providing sitting fees to community and
environmental group members. If not, could it please clarify those principles
that it no longer endorses and the reasons why?” ”

In the following text, after the phrase “…settled
in a spirit of reconciliation” add “and Peter requested that the motion be
withdrawn.”

Towards the bottom of page 6, there is a sentence as
follows “He wanted clarification on the regulations for an unusual non-routine
task being carried out at the site..” Replace “He” by “The Terminals
Health and Safety representative”.

 

ITEM
7.  ACTION ITEMS FROM THE PREVIOUS
MEETING

7.1 Follow up
action on the Newsletter (Deborah)

As discussed at the last CICCC meeting, Deb said that
she has contacted local schools. Three primary schools are interested for grades
5 & 6 next year. Deb will prepare a suitable presentation of information for
the Regional Meeting. She will possibly do the same for secondary schools.

Peter suggested that the educational schools
information could also be included on the CICCC web site.

  

ITEMS 
8 – 12 WERE DEFERRED TO THE NEXT MEETING.

  

ITEM
13. OTHER BUSINESS

 

13.1

Ian said that last week he met informally with Peter Reddie. Peter asked
that his best wishes be passed onto all
the CICCC members. Ian said that in the future if Peter were 
to resided in Melbourne he would to like invite him to be a community
representative  on the CICCC.

 

13.2

See
attachment 1

Ian tabled the November 2001 Marstel Newsletter.

Robin
said that he tried to speak to Tim recently to enquire about why he had not 
forwarded any information to the CICCC for 6 weeks. There has not been
any reply to  his message.

 

13.3

Further advice
from John Luppino

John advised that Council is prepared to work with
both the CICCC and the MCG to bring the two groups together to enable the
Marstel Works Approval application to be scrutinised not only by members of the
MCG but also members of the CICCC who have already been through a similar
process with Terminals. John said that this also included resolving the issue of
sitting fees for committee members. John sought feedback from the Community Reps
on whether this was something worth pursuing.

Peter
said that it was a logical progression that the two groups be brought together
in the longer term. He said he understood John’s proposal to be a short term
plan to   enable the joint
analysis of the Works Approval.

John
confirmed the above and said that Jim Clements had also expressed a similar
view.

Faye
asked if Marstel were requesting this joint discussion.

John
said that he has not spoken to Marstel about this proposal yet and that it is
a  council initiative. He wanted to create an opportunity for the
expertise on the CICCC   to be
utilised with the Marstel WA proposal.

Faye
said she would be happy to work on a specific task like the Works Approval.
She said it must be seen as completely separate work to that she
performs on theCICCC.

George
said that the Terminals representative on the CICCC would not be attending any
joint meetings with Marstels until Terminals are clearer about their future
operations on CI. They would however meet jointly to discuss such
matters as an Emergency  Plan.

Ted
said that he had information he was not very keen to share with Marstel at the
moment, but that might change in the future.

John
said he will discuss this with Marstel CG and then report back to the CICCC on
the matter.

 

CLOSE.

Time
8.30 pm …followed by Xmas refreshments.

  

NEXT MEETINGS  

Thursday
14 February 2002

Thursday
14 March 2002

 

 

CICCC
ATTACHMENTS TO DRAFT MINUTES

 

13 December
2001

 

 Attachment
1  Marstel
Newsletter – November 2001

 Items posted to those without e-mail facilities
include

 9/11/01Email from John Luppino


20/11/01  Note from Robin Saunders


6/12/01Letter from CICCC to Cr Bill Horrocks