COODE ISLAND COMMUNITY

CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

 

Adopted Minutes

Thursday 31st
May 2012

 

 

PRESENT

 

Ian Thomas:

Community
Rep./Committee

Geoff Millard 
Terminals Pty Ltd

Safety
Environment &Training Manager

Deborah
Macfarlane
:

Community
Rep./Committee

Peter La Rose 
Terminals Pty Ltd
Manager Coode Island

Michael
Isaachsen
:

Community
Rep./Committee

Susan
Chatterton 
Terminals
Pty Ltd

Minute Taker

Bro
Sheffield-Brotherton
Combined Enviro.
Groups / Committee

Jenny Bygrave

Community
Relations Manager

Port of
Melbourne Corporation

Faye Simpson

Community
Rep./Committee

 

John Riley

Port of
Melbourne Corporation

Joan Thomas

Robin
Saunders
:

CICCC /
Chairperson

 

 

 ITEM 1.      WELCOME BY
THE CHAIR, APOLOGIES & CONFIRMATION OF DRAFT           AGENDA

 

Robin         First
of all it is my pleasure to welcome Jenny Bygrave and John Riley from             the
Port of MelbourneWelcome also to Joan
Thomas and Geoff Millard.

 

                    Apologies
Carlo Fasolino, Ian Thomas, Theo Pykoulas, and Jessamy Nicholas

 

                    Confirmation
of draft agenda – adopted

 

 

ITEM 2.       PRESENTATION
BY PORT of MELBOURNE CORPORATION

 

STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK

 

Jenny         Thank
you for having John and I at this meeting.

 

Jenny then spoke
of revenue tonnage of billable cargo that goes through the Port, and what that
cargo consisted of such as cars, grain (in containers), bulk liquid, etc.

 

Overall the
total port trade is increasing, with the April 2012 throughput of 7.15 million
revenue tonnes being an 11.5 increase over April last year. Container
throughput (full and empty) for April showed an increase of 9.8% over the same
month last year.

 

Jenny then
handed out information regarding Stakeholder views from the Port City Vision Workshop
of 17 April, 2012.  On the hand out were 4 questions participants were
asked:-

 

  1. How can the Port
    bring together the views and needs of different stakeholders?
  2. What are the
    effective ways for the different stakeholders to shape a Port City vision?
  3. How could
    PoM’s approach to community engagement help develop a shared Port City
    vision?
  4. What would you
    like to see next?

 

From those questions came 8 responses from the PoMC of what they
intend to do and by when.

 

Deborah    Why did the Port decide to do this?

 

Jenny         The
seminar opened our eyes to what people actually thought of the Port.  We
occupy a lot of space and impact on the surrounds.

 

John           We
are looking at implementing a History Trail

 

Deborah    The
Port is terribly secretive. We would like to see the Port being transparent
about safety.  The Port has overall management of the area.

 

                    General
discussion on the reporting of incidents to the PoMC took place, with advice
from Jenny that the PoMC did not seek details of incidents from leaseholders.

 

Bro              Strange
the Port doesn’t know if one of the lease holders makes a mistake that might
affect the community.

 

Peter          Terminals
have never had an obligation to report an incident to the Port.

 

Deborah    I
think there should be an obligation to report any incidents.

 

Robin         Terminals
took the step to provide a full disclosure to the CICCC of all incidents at
their site a long time ago. That action, along with others, has helped
Terminals to develop an open, transparent relationship with the committee. We would
welcome a similar relationship with the PoMC. 

 

Jenny         We
are actually encouraging discussions and that is the type of approach we are
aiming for, being more transparent.

 

Deborah    Transparency
yes but also need to know what is going on around the Port.

 

Jenny         We
need to know about incidents only to a certain level.

 

Faye           Apart
from Port interacting with community, it needs to interact with shipping and address
bi-lingual issues that raise safety issues.  How Customs operate
throughout the Port is another issue: clearly the Port is one access
point.  The community needs to know you are operating for the community.

 

Jenny         There
are different bodies that control different responsibilities within the Port.

 

Suggestions
raised by the committee are as follows:-

 

  1. Gather
    feedback from communities.
  2. Seek comment
    on draft charter – put on website.
  3. Reverse beeper
    noise; consult with WorkSafe, EPA, review of sirens etc.
  4. Bringing
    stakeholders together annually not enough: extend to 3 times per year
  5. Hold discussion
    forums
  6. Engagement
    process – examples Whyalla and Newcastle ports, where wharves have
    been opened up to communities.  The PoMC community centre at present is
    not easy to get to by public transport.  Look at establishing
    something in the CBD.
  7. Port Interface
    Landscape Master Plan

·     
Port being more sharing of their land

·     
Demonstration projects, see something on the
ground

·     
Port physically fenced in, need areas where public
can get in without breaching security.

 

Jenny         There
are areas under the Westgate Bridge – 3 areas now being looked at for
improving open space and landscaping.  Port has budget for landscaping.

 

ACTION:  Jenny to send links through to Robin to view Port
Interface Landscape Master Plan.

 

  1. Present
    forward trends, economic through put data and forecasting that would
    enhance the way you look at the Ports forward planning.
  2. Benchmarking operations,
    including wharf use, against for other ports, including Singapore and Hong
    Kong. With comments as necessary for different conditions. 
  3. Link what you
    do everyday to what comes through the Port.
  4. Present at Key
    Community events.  CICCC will put on our agenda once a year to
    formerly invite the Port to one of our meetings.  We would be seeking
    an overview of big picture initiatives at the port..
  5. Regular email
    – link to website.  Information on Facebook and Twitter. 
    Engage people.

 

Robin         On
the issue of cultural change, we were impressed by cultural change processes within
the EPA. Suggest you talk to Jessamy Nicholas about recent approaches at EPA to
involve staff in setting the five year plan and to come up with, and implement,
a new organisational structure.

 

ACTION:  Jenny to send Robin information regarding seminar on
the Port freight and logistics chain for community stakeholders.

 

John Riley then talked
through overhead presentation regarding Port City Vision Workshop and the Port
Environs Controls.

 

  • Rezoning from
    Business 2 to Business 3 to prevent activity happening that will constrain
    the Port.
  • Consultations
    – mail drops
  • Intermodal
    hubs
  • Community
    engagement
  • Considering
    the impact on the Port and its surrounds both “inside and outside the
    fence”

 

            There
was some general discussion during which Committee members talked about the
need for the Vision work to address the interaction of land use and port
operation, questioning what comes first, acceptable transport networks or port
capacity. This led on to extensive discussion of inland ports, and rail access
at the Port land in Footscray opposite Coode Island. 

Peter        The Port has sought
advice on any proposed works within our site. In view of the detailed
procedures in place for the permitting of works, it may be better if the Port
gets an understanding of the procedures presently in place through discussion
with us.

 

Robin       We
would like to thank you for attending the meeting tonight and for participating
in the rather extended session, recognizing the value of getting considerable
feedback from a group of committed community representatives.

 

 

ITEM 3.       CONFIRM DRAFT MINUTES FOR
THE MEETING ON 29TH FEBRUARY,   2012 AND      REVIEW
ACTION ITEM LIST

 

The draft minutes of the February meeting were adopted without
change. The Action Item list review of uncompleted items was deferred to next
meeting

 

 

ITEM 4.       REPORTS
FROM AGENCIES AND TERMINALS

 

 

TERMINALS REPORT

 

The report will be emailed to members by Robin, and the incidents of
severity 2 will be discussed at the next meeting.

Geoff Cooke advised that the Safety Case is being submitted in mid
June. WorkSafe will take 6 months to assess it. The workshops that led to its
development were thorough, and WorkSafe advised on human factors and asset
integrity.

There were 52 recommendations for improvement. 12 of these were for
software, and safety management systems to be reviewed against best Australian
practice.

 

The Buncefield (UK) experience was carefully considered, and
learnings applied. One recommendation considered a case where a tank overflow
was not noticed for a considerable time (although this is not likely, given the
high level alarms and the degree of site oversight). Should however the high
level alarms not work, and such a scenario developed, it was recommended that
improvements to the detection of such an overflow should be investigated.

 

An example of human factors involved a scenario where limited
controls on tanker filling were required for vegetable oils, and operators
might then get careless with a subsequent truck loading dangerous materials.

 

Committee members questioned whether loading bays could be separated
into flammable and non-flammable products. Peter responded that this had been
carefully examined, but the distribution, diversity and location of tanks did
not make it a viable solution.

 

ACTION:  Geoff to circulate the 52 recommendations in the
Safety Case as a basis for developing the next EIP, highlighting those with
environmental impact, and also including the capital list summary.

 

CITY OF MARYIBYRNONG

 

Theo had advised prior to the meeting that there was
nothing to report.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY

 

While Jessamy had another meeting and had sent an apology, she had
also provided the usual comprehensive EPA Report, which also provided comment
on outstanding EPA items. In particular it covered the issue of procedures to
combat illegal dumping, and an interim report on Terminals request for the
stopping of monitoring on the East side of Mackenzie Road.

I

ITEM 5.       PROCESS (WITH KEY DATES)
FOR DEVELOPING THE NEXT EIP         (TERMINALS)

 

This matter was deferred to the August meeting.

 

 

ITEM 6.       OTHER
BUSINESS

 

None

 

 

NEXT SCHEDULED MEETINGS: 

 

Next meeting date: 30th August, 2012 at 6:30 pm at the
city of Maribyrnong.

 

The last meeting
for 2012 will be held at the Terminals Coode Island office on Wednesday 28th
November, 2012 at 3pm, commencing with a site inspection.

 

 

MEETING CLOSED  9:15 PM