land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in melbourne
DESCRIPTION
Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne. John O’Meara [email protected]. Nov 2009. The LUP/MHF project. Risk Engineering Society commissioned project to: explain Victorian planning processes to engineers review MHF situation in Melbourne - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in
Melbourne
John O’[email protected]
Nov 2009
The LUP/MHF project
• Risk Engineering Society commissioned project to:– explain Victorian planning processes to
engineers– review MHF situation in Melbourne– examine recent planning applications near
MHFs to identify issues– examine UK situation & compare to Vic
Project output
• collection of hyperlinked files• hybrid:
–something like a website–something like a wiki–many links to external resources
• educational tool• information resource• will demonstrate later
Reverse disclaimer
• Responsibility for this presentation is mine alone – all mistakes are proudly mine
• Presenting factual material• This is information, not opinion
Some pragmatism
• Complex areas to study
• Need to:-– use simplified explanations (apologies to
experts)– avoid “tangents”
Tangents
important, but distracting
FlixboroughLUP/MHF issues
Buncefield causes
Cranbourne landfill
Environment Protection Act
Dangerous Goods Act
Coode Island
Other States
OHS lawharmonisation
Introduction
• MHF regs introduced 2000• Direct consequence of Longford incident, 1998• Purpose – to minimise likelihood of major
chemical incidents that could harm community• Minimise harm to community if an incident
occurs• Inwards focus – on control measures within
MHFs• Say nothing on developments & activities
outside MHFs
Intro…
• Planning laws – Planning and Environment Act 1987
• Apply to all land• One general aim – keep industry and societal
uses apart• In place before MHF regs• Reference MHF minimally
Intro…
• Victoria’s safety regulator defines MHFs as a special class of industry requiring its own set of reg’s to protect the community
• Town planning perspective?- sees MHFs as a special class? - or sees them as just “industry”
• Hobsons Bay review of industrial land use strategy, 2006– 8x MHFs in Hobsons Bay (more than any other)– 100 Page report– No mention of “major hazard facilities”
UK / Vic comparison
Regulator: HSE (Health& Safety Executive)
Worksafe
Popn: 60 million 5 million
COMAH regs (Control ofMajor Accident Hazards)
MHF regs - MajorHazard Facility
1100 COMAH sites 45 MHFs
108 bulk fuel sites4 bulk fuel MHFs inMelbourne
Significant researchcapacity
Victoria can use HSEresearch output
UK Victoria
Buncefield fuel depot
Before Dec 11 2005
Buncefield fuel depot
Dec 11 2005 (a Sunday)
The incident• In a very small nutshell:
– a tank overflowed for more than 30 minutes– 300 te petrol escaped– vapour cloud formed (no wind) : 200m radius,
2m deep, 30 te petrol vapour– at 6:00 am the vapour cloud ignited & there
was a massive explosion– no fatalities or serious injuries– significant damage to neighbouring properties
(go back to aerial shots of depot)
Neighbouring building damaged by blast & secondary fire
Crushed car
200 kilopascals overpressures
Video of Buncefield damage
• 3 minute video taken by forensic photographers for investigators
• note damage to “square” building and to vehicles
(run video)
UK government response to Buncefield
• MIIB - Major Incident Investigation Board
• 3 year investigation by Health and Safety Executive (UK safety regulator)
• Many objectives & many reports, including:– “Land use planning and societal risk near
major hazard sites”
Land use planning & societal risk report
• Chair of Investigation Board: the subject was “without a doubt, the most difficult and technically challenging that the Board has addressed”
• The longest of their reports – “because we made a particular effort to make our conclusions and recommendations intelligible beyond the narrow community of practitioners”
Land use planning recommendations
• 18 recommendations, including “review land use planning system around major hazard sites”
• Need for “Societal Risk Assessment” approach”
• So:– ongoing work– forebodes significant changes
recommendations...
• Does not follow that a revised planning system will prohibit developments near MH sites – may allow developments not currently allowed
• 90 page report worth studying
(no more about Buncefield)
UK - current planning practice
• HSE defines three consultation distances around each MH site
• inner, middle and outer CDs
• not arbitrary distances, such as 100/200/300m
• CDs calculated on a case by case basis
• Any planning application within a CD MUST be referred to HSE for their advice
CDs - consultation distances
HSE will “advise against” or “not advise against”
Decision matrix
The Oval, London
photo: Jamie Goode, Wine Anorak
Planning application
• Gas holders (top tier COMAH site, ie a MHF)
• Proposal to develop new stand & hotel at cricket ground
• Planning application to Council
• Council referred it to HSE because within consultation distance of gas holders site
• HSE formal response: “advise against”
Approved against HSE advice
• Council approved application
• HSE asked Minister to call in the application
• Minister held inquiry
• Minister supported Council’s decision
• Development will proceed
Melbourne
Yarraville
Development proposal
• Application to Maribyrnong Council
• For 66 dwellings on vacant land
• ~250m from fuel terminal (MHF)
• No consultation distances in Victoria
• Council NOT required to refer this application to Worksafe
• Council sought Worksafe’s view
Worksafe’s comment
• Worksafe commented: “undesirable”
• Comment not binding on Council
• Council decision not yet made public
• possibly to be determined at VCAT
Victoria - planning controls
• How does Victoria control societal risks from industry?– Zones– Threshold distances– Referral to Worksafe
Victoria - zones
• all Victorian land is within a defined planning zone that specifies what the land can be used for & what it cannot be used for
• Look at two opposites– Dandenong & Newport– planned vs historical legacy
Planned - Dandenong
Dandenong - zones
Historical legacy - Newport
Newport - zones
Table of threshold distances
• To define those industries that may cause offence or unacceptable risk to the neighbourhood
• Minimum distance from the land of the proposed use to any residential zone
• seems to apply in one direction only - from industry use to residential, but not other way
Threshold distances - examples
Abattoir 500 m
Milk depot 100 m
Petroleum refinery 2,000 m
Petrol storage 100 m floating roof300 m fixed roof
Organic chemicalsmanufacture 1,000 mInorganic chemicalsmanufacture 1,000 m
Deficiencies with threshold distances
• Seems more concerned with protection of community amenity than safety
• Figures seem arbitrary
• not risk based on a case by case basis
Referral to Worksafe
• Worksafe is a referral authority
• If a referral authority objects to an planning application, Council must refuse the application
• Some industrial developments must be referred to Worksafe
• Residential developments are not referred to Worksafe
Some issues
• Communications - technical jargon, communication with community difficult
• Legacy of unplanned development - co-proximity of residential zones & industrial zones
• high density residential proposals near MHFs likely to continue - what risk assessment process exists?
Issues...
• How is Victoria using the Buncefield experience?
• How will Victoria use the research output from the UK HSE?
• Is there a strategy for preserving land for future MHFs?
• Threshold distances - are they a suitable tool management of societal risk management re MHFs?
Issues...
• Threshold distances - suitable tool management of societal risk management near MHFs?
• Rules for statutory referral to Worksafe - extend?
• Will residential development cause MHFs to increase their hazard controls? Should costs be shared by industry & developer?
The end
(for now)
Thankyou
(show Puerto Rico pix)
(demonstrate project)