Adopted Minutes
Thursday 8 November 2001
PRESENT
Ian Thomas
Acting Chairperson
Bill Horrocks
City of Maribyr.
Councillor/committee
John Luppino
City of Maribyr, GM City
Dev /committee
Faye Simpson
community rep./
committee
Jarrod Edwards
WorkCover ex off comm
Trevor Perkins
commander
/MF&ESB/ex off comm
Deborah Macfarlane
community rep./ CICCC
committee
Carlo Fasolino
Op. Manager Terminals /
committee
Ian Thomas
community rep./
committee
Ted Towson
community rep./ committee
Dr Peter Brotherton
Combined Enviro. Groups
/ committee
George Horman
Terminals Pty Ltd /
committee
Michael Isaachsen
community rep./ committee
Cameron Fitzgerald
Environ. Protec Auth / ex off comm
Allen Hugli
Chief Financial Officer,
Burns, Philp &
Company Limited/CICCC
Committee
Jim Clements
Env. Protection
Authority/ex off comm
Vanessa Richardson
minute taker
ITEM 1. WELCOME BY THE
CHAIR & APOLOGIES
Ian
Thomas the acting chairperson for tonight welcomed the committee members and others
attending this CICCC meeting.
ITEM 2. APOLOGIES
Apologies
were received from Michael Ragen and Robin Saunders.
ITEM 3. CONFIRMATION OF
THE DRAFT AGENDA
The
draft agenda was adopted with the inclusion of an additional item for
discussion regarding the new incoming e-mailed
correspondence.
Faye
will give the HSE sub-committee report.
Item
5 was removed from the agenda because Allen said this item had no immediate impact
on Terminals who are progressing with the running of their business as required.
ITEM 4. BRIEF REPORT FROM
AGENCIES AND TERMINALS ON KEY ISSUES
Bill
said that the Maribyrnong City Council at its last meeting decided to write to
Bronwyn Pike (state member for Melbourne, cabinet member and Minister for
Housing and Aged Care). They have invite her to convene a meeting to clarify
and allow for full information sharing about issues, facts and roles concerning
all activities on Coode Island. All stakeholders will be invited. She has
accepted this invitation but dates have not been finalised.
Peter
asked why the minister responsible for Coode Island activities was not asked to
convene the meeting? What was the rationale behind inviting Bronwyn Pike?
Bill
said he had originally moved the motion for Council to consider. He said it is
of interest to Bronwyn because she is the member for Melbourne and that Coode
Island is in her electorate. He said she should have all the information from
all the stakeholders. He said it is the aim of the Maribyrnong City Council to
have only one community based committee monitoring activities on Coode Island.
Bronwyn Pike’s Electoral Officers will decide on the list of stakeholders
to be invited to the meeting. The CICCC will be invited to contribute.
Ian
said he felt offended because the CICCC had not been approached by the
Maribyrnong City Council to request that they make this approach to Bronwyn
Pike. He said it must be unusual for council to work with two committees from
Coode Island.
Peter
said that the issue of one committee for all Coode Island major hazard storage
businesses had been discussed in a previous report made some years earlier.
ACTION. 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 attend the
meeting proposed above.
See the broadsheet
e-mailed to committee members 4 November 2001
John advised that the Community Information/Alert Project Steering
Group, a
joint initiate between the Office of Emergency Management
Commissioner and
the City of Maribyrnong met for the first time in mid October and
the Group
was chaired by Cr Horrocks. John understood that a copy of the
minutes in
the form of a broad sheet had been electronically circulated to
the CICCC.
Theo Pykoulas, Council’s MERO has been seconded to work on this
project and
Council has back filled his role as an Environmental Health
Officer for the
next 6 months so that he can concentrate his efforts on this
project and the Marstel Working Group. This cost is being borne entirely by the
City of Maribyrnong.
The City of Maribyrnong is providing other ‘in kind’ resources and
assistance to the project across the whole organisation and has the full
support of Management. The next meeting of the Steering Group will be in early
December.
ACTION. Ian will e-mail a
copy of the broadsheet to all CICCC members.
ACTION. Further discussion
about matters arising from the content of the broadsheet will be deferred to
the next meeting.
Maribyrnong is perceived as the municipality most closely linked
with Coode Island, even if it is currently in the City of Melbourne. Most
relevant strategic planning relates to Maribyrnong. Furthermore, Maribyrnong
receives most of the negative impacts of the continued operation of Coode
Island, but receives no benefits.
Last week the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer met with the
Mayor, Chief
Executive Officers and Advisors from the City of Melbourne over
boundary issues. The City of Maribyrnong put an argument to the City of
Melbourne that Coode Island should be hand back to the City of Maribyrnong, so
that the rates collected can be used to deal with the negative impacts from
chemical storage facilities on the Island.
John said that the success of and boundary reform was dependant on
agreement between the two municipalities before an approach is made to the
Minister for Local Government.
In
answer to Ian’s question Bill said he had not attended the meeting
himself and so could not comment on the full content of the discussion. He did
not know if the CICCC had been discussed or not.
Theo Pykoulas is Council’s representative on the Marstel
Consultative Group. It is Council’s objective through its participation on the
Consultative Group to ensure that Marstel develop a world recognised chemical
storage facility that will meet the highest standard of safety and
environmental performance.
Council has negotiated with the City of Melbourne to joint fund an
independent review of the Marstel Works Approval application to ensure it achieves
the above objective. This is similar to the approach Council took with the
Terminals Works Approval Application last year.
The consultants will be asked to compare the Marstel Works
Approval with
that of Terminals, and advise Council if the ‘bench mark’ safety
and environmental standards set by the Terminals Works Approval application
have been met, exceeded or compromised.
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?
Cameron
said that the EPA would have to look at the possible cumulative effects of the
operations of the two facilities as they arise.
Jarrod
said that Marstel have not been registered as a Major Hazard Site yet but that
WorkCover can require that they co-ordinate their processes if necessary.
George
said that nothing had been co-ordinated yet because of the different time
frames for both facilities.
Jarrod
said that no time extensions would be granted to Terminals but that the aspect
of practicality will be considered when the application is assessed. If new
hazards appear as a result of new information from Marstel, then Terminals may
be asked to alter some aspects of their Safety Case.
Peter
asked if this could pose a significant resourcing concern for Terminals in the
future?
George
said that Terminals have to assume that the new Marstel facility will be of no
possible safety threat to Terminals.
Carlo
said that a new terminal could not be built if it were to increase the risk of
an already existing site.
Jarrod
said that WorkCover would assess any possible implications in line with
considerations for ‘practicability’. He said that in future
something like possible land use changes could change things even for a new
facility. 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.)
Deborah
said that ABC Radio’s Background Briefing program had recently covered
the new major hazard legislation.
Peter
said the second of two programs in the series would be held in December. He is
interviewed in the second program.
ACTION. Deborah will get a
transcript of the programs for tabling at the next meeting.
See e-mail from Peter
Brotherton to the CICCC dated 7 November 2001
Peter
Brotherton referred to an email 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?“
John
said he was disappointed that tonight was the first time he has seen the above
e-mail and the proposed motion. He said he was offended and disappointed that
it had not been sent to him prior to tonight’s meeting.
Peter
said that he had e-mailed it to his CICCC list and apologised if that list was
incomplete.
Ian
said that John and Bill were probably now feeling like he had felt when he
first found out about the meeting arrangements made with Bronwyn Pike without
the knowledge and inclusion of the CICCC.
Peter
said that as a CICCC community representative he found it necessary to play
‘hard ball’ sometimes.
John
said he had not been trying to play ‘hard ball’ and that he had
never agreed to a policy of no sitting fees for committee members as a was
alleged.
Following
further discussions John and Peter decided that their differences were better
understood and the matter would be settled in a spirit of reconciliation, and
Peter requested that the motion be withdrawn.
Deborah
said that it was Gordon Harrison who had told her that he had persuaded others
around to his view that sitting fees should not be paid. He said it was not
needed or ideal. She said she explained to him the practical difficulties
experienced for some people when fees were not made available. This was one of
the reasons that some CICCC members had made a decision to not become Marstel
consultative committee members. Deborah says it is significant that the City of
Melbourne does not attend the CICCC meetings and yet they collect all the rates
from the facilities on Coode Island.
Michael
said that no fees were being paid to the Marstel committee members because it
gave the impression of less bias on a committee. Marstel took this position
after consulting with the committee members themselves about this matter. He
said they are an active committee who ask hard questions but there are no
members with technical expertise on that committee.
Ian
said Tim Gunning from Marstel had made it very clear to him early on that they
were not planning to pay sitting fees to committee members.
Bill
said that at the first meeting chaired by him Tim had made the comment that
they would not be paying fees to sitting members.
Faye
asked the agencies to comment on their feelings about sitting on such a
committee as set up by Marstel?
John
said both committees meet in the same building and it was council’s wish
to have only one committee. The next Marstel meeting will be held at P&O
Ports.
Deborah
said she was not keen to spend time attending Marstel committee meetings
because she sees their committee as lacking in suitable representation and/or
credibility.
Jim
said that Peter Reddie had said it was not practical for 2 companies to work
together as one committee because of commercial concerns. He said that Marstel
have gone through the same process as Terminals did. He suggested that the time
to amalgamate them might be after the Marstel Works Approval is completed.
Peter
said that while Marstel and Terminals were in particularly vigorous competition
in the pre-approval stage, a single Committee incorporating the operators needs
was not possible. He believed most people accepted the desirability of a single
Committee over the longer term.
Allen
said that tonight’s discussion included new information for Terminals and
that he will make comments about tonight’s discussion at the next
meeting.
Faye
said that as a community representative she has concerns about government
agencies endorsing committees that lack credibility. She said that in contrast
Terminals had gone to great lengths to ensure credibility. She said that an
additional combined committee would not be ideal.
Deborah
said she had heard that Jim had advocated for a ‘new broom
approach’ to forming the Marstel committee. She asked if a ‘tame
committee’ might give the EPA less trouble?
Jim
said he was open to debate in relation to this matter.
Jarrod
said that WorkCover was keen to see that the Marstel project was a safe
operation and to ensure it communicated information to the community. The
credibility of the committee members was not of as much concern as the other 2
points.
Faye
said that if agencies are seeking opinions of committees then wouldn’t
they require opinions of credible committee members who would be asking hard
questions and promoting discussion about sometimes difficult and technical
issues.
Michael
asked if she was suggesting this was not happening on the Marstel committee?
Trevor
said this matter had been discussed at the last four CICCC meetings. He said
that Ian’s wife was on the Marstel committee and she has a professional
background. They did ask about a broad range of matters and they did ask hard
questions. He said he attends the Marstel meetings and sees them to be in the
same position as the CICCC committee was about 6 months ago.
Faye
asked again if the credibility of the Marstel committee was relevant to his
agencies?
Trevor
asked why he should answer that question.
Deborah
said it was very relevant that Gordon held this committee in low esteem
especially as he was the Melbourne City Council represented the on the CICCC.
She said that as a resident living in the area she is concerned that she can
not find out information she would like to know about the Marstel proposal.
Trevor
said that the MF&ESB have been meeting with PACIA and others on the Office
of the Emergency Services Commission project which Robyn Betts has been
co-ordinating. They have given advice regarding the VECCS at Terminals.
Carlo
said it has taken a long time to finalise this initiative.
George
said that a larger tank would be replacing two smaller tanks and that the
contents would no longer need be transferred via mobile tanks as had previously
occurred.
Trevor
said that Marstel have contacted their department a number of times and they
will be meeting with them next week to discuss the design and layout of the
site.
Ian
said Robin Saunders has spoken to Tim Gunning and Tim has agreed to make
available to the CICCC all the documentation generated by the Marstel Community
Consultative meetings. Ian tabled these.
Bill
asked if P&O Ports had ever been a member of the CICCC.
Peter
said they had been invited to be more involved in the CICCC meetings and that
they had always come when they were invited which was on 2 or 3 occasions.
Ian
said that on those occasions they addressed the CICCC very well.
Jarrod
said WorkCover are continuing to work with Robyn Betts.
They
visited the Terminals site four times in October. Two visits were previously
planned, one was a follow-up inspection and the other was to have discussions
as requested with the Terminal’s health and safety representative. The
Terminals Health and Safety representative wanted clarification on the
regulations for an unusual non-routine task being carried out at the site. A
risk assessment task is not usually covered in the manual.
The
Field Division are preparing for the ongoing 6 monthly audit of the Terminals
site as required under the Dangerous Goods and Health and Safety regulations.
Faye
asked if there had been any further attention given to safety since the
September 11 incident in the USA.
Jarrod
said it was discussed at a more senior level but not in his section.
Trevor
said that the MF&ESB had handled a lot of anthrax false alarms. He said
that chemical agents could be attractive to terrorists. The government and emergency
services need to look at tightening up the security of dangerous goods. It has
been suggested that a national focus is needed. There has been nothing directly
conveyed to him regarding the Terminals site.
Cameron
said it had been a quiet month for the EPA. They have met with Terminals to
discuss the new VECCS plan which will be submitted to the EPA by the 19
November. Input about this will be sought from the CICCC at the next meeting.
They
are waiting for the right conditions to commence monitoring from the sites
discussed at the last meeting.
George
said Terminals have been working on the new VECCS which is to be a combustion
system in line with the approved EPA works Approval.
They
have been negotiating new lease arrangements with the Melbourne Ports for the
redevelopment of the site.
The
monitoring of benzene using a Gas Chromatograph Photo Ionisation Detector
(GCPID) show levels (short time thus far) show it has been controllable to
below 51 GPM with very minor accedence’s. Currently we are using a hired
unit but a new unit is about to be delivered that will be permanently installed
and will be able to switch carbon beds and sound alarms which the current unit
cannot do. He said this system can detect acrylates but not at levels low
enough for licence compliance or odour control.
Carlo
said its lowest detection level is 1pp which is not low enough for this highly
odours material. It can be smelt at much lower levels than 1pp.
George
said that the carbon beds are now replaced monthly. The cleaning of tank 101 is
almost complete and they are presently doing the mandatory 10-year tests on
tank 370. They had good results from the WorkCover 2-day quality audit.
Ian
thanked everyone for their reports.
ITEM 5. (Removed from the
agenda)
ITEM 6. CONFIRMATION OF
THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
The
minutes were accepted with the following changes
pp3
ITEM 4. The first line should read –
‘Jarrod
said that WorkCover was still oversighting the Terminals
…..’
ITEM 7. ACTION ITEMS FROM
THE PREVIOUS MEETING
7.1
Follow up action on the Newsletter (Deborah)
Deborah
said that she has not actioned this item and asked if it should be a project
that Marstel and Terminals committees do jointly?
Ian
tabled the Marstel draft newsletter.
Deborah
said there would be a lot of duplication if Terminals produced the same sort of
newsletter.
Other
suggestions made by the CICCC included
•
use the CICCC web site for the newsletter
•
lots of people in Footscray don’t own computers
•
computers are available to everyone in libraries and kids have access to them
in schools
•
publicise our web site more in the community
•
the CICCC web address is always included in the press release published in
the local papers
•
do an A4 double sided flier/newsletter for locals to read
•
contact primary schools and suggest they do a school project using the
CICCC web site for information.
•
The Terminals web site also has a lot of useful information and it could be
good PR for Terminals to tell schools about this web site too.
ACTION.
Deborah and George will write a letter to all the local primary schools in the
area and tell them about the CICCC web site.
7.2
Possible public forum
Deferred
to next meeting
7.3
Review of sitting fees
Deferred
to next meeting
ITEM 8.
CORRESPONDENCE
OUT
See e-mail 30 October 2001
• Letter
of appreciation to Matthew Wylie.
Robin
has made contact with Matthew and has his contact details for those who require
them.
ITEM 9.
CORRESPONDENCE
IN
See e-mail 4 November 2001
• Reply
from Marstel on Worst Case Scenario
See e-mail 4 November 2001
• Marstel media release
See Attachment 2
•
Notes from Robin
Saunders
See e-mail 4 November 2001
• OESC
Broadsheet (Robyn Betts)
Deborah
said that the issues the OESC committee deal with are of concern to the community.
She said that the CICCC have already discussed this material at length. The
CICCC were expecting to be invited to the meeting.
Ted
pointed out that in her written presentation at the last meeting Robyn Betts
had listed the CICCC as a stakeholder.
George
pointed out that the OESC committee may get wider involvement in this plan which
might be the impedes needed to action some of the issues previously discussed by
the CICCC.
ACTION. Further discuss
the above matter at the next CICCC meeting.
See CICCC library
• Copy
of notes tabled at the last Marstel CCC meeting.
These
were received with thanks from the CICCC members but there was concern expressed
about the number of pages to be read and how this might be achieved so optimum
use of the information would be achieved.
ITEM 10. MONTHLY REPORT
FROM TERMINALS.
See Attachment 3.1 and
3.2
Carlo
tabled the reports for September 2001 and October 2001.
Trucking
movements were less but shipping was busy.
Benzene
movements stopped for about one month only.
Trucks
with bottom loading, multiload compartment capacity pose a potential safety
risk for vapours to contaminate other compartments when the stationary brakes
are operated.
ITEM 11. MONTHLY REPORT
FROM HS&E SUB-COMMITTEE (FAYE)
See Attachment 1.
Faye
gave the report as tabled.
George
said that in 1999 an enterprise bargaining agreement saw the Terminals staff
made redundant and then they were re-employed as contactors. So all the
contracted staff have been employed on the site for a long time. There is only
one staff member working as a casual employee.
Faye
said they have two quotes to consider for the Worse Case Scenario contract.
Ted
said that tools used by riggers namely ‘fids’ and
‘podgers’ were discussed.
ITEM 12. AGENDA FOR THE
NEXT MEETING 13 DECEMBER 2001
See
all the above ACTION ITEMS.
CLOSE.
Time
10.40 pm
NEXT MEETINGS
Thursday
13 December 2001
Thursday
14 February 2002
CICCC ATTACHMENTS TO DRAFT MINUTES
8 November 2001
Attachment 1 HS&E
sub committee minutes for meeting 5 September 2001
Attachment 2 Robin
Saunders Report to the CICCC meeting.
Attachment
3.1 Terminals Monthly Operation Report, September 2001
3.2 Terminals Monthly Operation Report, October 2001
Items
posted to those without e-mail facilities include
1. E-mails
10/10/01 • Letter to
Matthew Wylie
2. E-mails
4/11/01 •
Broadsheet from Community Alert & Information System
Project
•
Marstel media release
•
Copy of letter from Marstel 24/9/01
3. E-mails
7/11/01 •
From Peter Brotherton re Maribyrnong City council and best
practise community monitoring and consultative system.
4. E-mails
8/11/01 •
From Peter Brotherton re public forum on the 14/11/01