Meeting of the HB Civil Defence Emergency Management
Group
Date: Monday
5 December 2011
Time: 1.00
pm
|
Venue:
|
Council Chamber
Hastings
District Council
207 Lyndon Road
East
HASTINGS
|
Agenda
Item Subject Page
1. Welcome/Notices/Apologies
2. Confirmation of Minutes of the
HB Civil Defence Emergency Management Group held on 20 September 2011
3. Matters Arising from Minutes of the HB Civil Defence
Emergency Management Group held on 20 September 2011
Decision Items
4. Update on Outstanding Actions
5. Hawke’s Bay CDEM Plan Review: Governance Model &
Consultation Strategy
Information or Performance Monitoring
6. Hawke's Bay Oil Spill Preparedness:
Lessons from RENA
7. Lessons from Christchurch - John Hamilton, Director, MCDEM
8. General Business
Please Note:
1.00 pm arrival and lunch in Guilin Room
1.45 meeting to start in Council Chamber
3.15 tour of new GECC facility
3.45 afternoon tea and finish
HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
HB
Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
Monday 05 December 2011
SUBJECT: Update on Outstanding Actions
Reason for Report
1. At previous meetings of the Joint
Committee and Co-ordinating Executive Group discussion or resolutions have
identified actions that need to be completed to progress matters or provide
additional information. The attached schedule is a chronological listing of
these minuted Action Items. The schedule informs on implementation progress
and the current status of each Action Item. The Joint committee are asked to
resolve the progress of actions from previous Joint Committee meetings.
2. The items which are highlighted with
green shading and identified as complete will be removed form the schedule once
resolved.
Financial and Resource Implications
3. Action items are
generally managed within existing resources unless reported and resolved
differently. Each item on the schedule confirms responsibilities and
timeframes.
4. There are no new
financial or human resource requests to be resolved to support implementation
actions as a result of this report.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the
Joint Committee resolve:
1. To receive the report “Action Items
from HB CDEM Meetings” and completion of items as reported.
|
|
Nigel Simpson
CDEMG
Co-ordinator
|
Ian Macdonald
Group
Manager HB Civil Defence Emergency Management
|
Attachment/s
|
Action Schedule
|
Attachment 1
|
Actions from Civil Defence Emergency Management
Committee Meetings
The
following are a list of items raised at CDEM meetings that require actions or
follow-ups.
All
action items indicate who is responsible for each action, when it is expected
to be completed and a brief status comment for each action. Once an item have
been completed and reported back to the Committee they will be removed from the
list.
|
Agenda Item
|
Action
|
Person
Responsible
|
Due Date
|
Status Comment
|
Status
|
|
CEG - 22 March 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.Improvements
to Emergency Operations Performance
|
Key role position descriptions to be distributed to agencies and
followed up by a presentation to all relevant staff
|
N.S
|
Early 2012
|
· New GECC Staff and Role descriptions were successfully tested during
Ex Tangaroa 2010.
· Role descriptions will be reviewed in conjunction with the induction
programme for the Hastings GECC.
|
On Target
|
|
CEG - 15 Dec 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item 8
|
Improvements to Emergency Operations Performance
|
ALL
|
Early 2012
|
1. WS1 complete GECC
structure and appointments exercised
- strategy for additional GECC staff from across Group to be developed
in conjunction with the induction programme for the Hastings GECC.
2. -
WS2 complete for Napier GECC site
- Good progress made at the Hastings GECC site
3. WS3 well advanced
until Feb 2011
|
On Target
|
|
CEG - 16 Feb 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item 7
|
Facilitate election of CEG Chair once the new organisational
structure is effective
|
NS / IM
|
Early 2012
|
At next CEG an election
of Chairman will be conducted
|
Pending
|
|
Item 8
|
Draft of brief on CDEM Group plan review process to be provided
to Ross Mcleod
|
NS / IM
|
Dec 2011
|
Proposed process &
governance to be presented to a workshop early December
Group Manager CDEM HB to
manage Project
|
On Target
|
|
Item 10
|
HB CDEM Group Tsunami Plan - process for public release
|
NS
|
Nov 2011
|
Ref
CEG Item 6 16 August 2011
Group
Tsunami Hazard Plan to be updated with new information and circulated
|
Pending
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Action Schedule
|
Attachment 1
|
|
Joint
Committee –
28
March 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item 6
Proposed response to
recommendations of Monitoring and Evaluation Report
|
1. Group culture and integration, and the approach
proposed for addressing these matters
|
CEO’s
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Ensure organisations fully engage with
preparation of 2nd Group Plan and Group work programme
|
ALL
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Authorises the release of the Monitoring and
Evaluation Report together with an improvement plan
|
CEO’s & AN
|
|
To be released to
interviewees and other contributors after 1 October 2011
|
Complete
|
|
|
4. Relocation of:
- GEMO to the Hastings
- Primary GECC to Hastings
- agreement on tenure and related
matters
|
|
|
- GEMO to remain
in Napier in the short term
- Hastings GECC
to be operational Nov 2011
- MoU to be
developed with HDC
|
On Target
|
|
CEG - 28 March 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item 8
|
Group Coordinator to review Capacity of the GCEE Planning and
Logistics
|
NS
|
|
Progressing – awaiting
lessons learnt from CHCH
|
Pending
|
|
Action Schedule
|
Attachment 1
|
|
CEG - 16 August 2011
|
NOTE: Agenda
sequence altered items below match order in minutes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item 8
MCDEM
RESILLIENCE FUND 2010/11 AND 2011/12
|
Ian
Macdonald to input into the drafting of the final project brief.
|
|
Jan 2012
|
MCDEM funding approved.
Project Plan to be confirmed
|
On Target
|
|
Item 14 GB
National
Controller Forum
|
Andrew Newman, Ken Foote, Ian Macdonald and
John Freeman, will attend
|
AH
Di Wisely
|
Nov 2011
|
Facilitate Travel &
Accommodation
|
Completed
|
|
Item 14 GB
Group
Controller Induction
|
Ian Macdonald to have an induction with
John Hamilton, David Coetzee etc in Wellington
|
AH
|
Nov 2011
|
Dates being agreed with MCDEM
|
Completed
|
|
Item 14 GB
Industry
Training Org
|
“Learning State” to meet with Training
Advisory Group and present themselves to CEG’s
|
TAG Chair
CN
|
|
Chair of TAG progressing
this action
|
Pending
|
|
Item 14 GB
Absence of
members
|
Andrew Newman to contact member
organisations that regularly are not represented
|
AN
|
|
|
|
|
Joint Committee – 20 Sept
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GB
|
Ex. Pacific Wave Communicate with partner
organisations, low key approach
|
NS/IM
|
Nov 2011
|
Exercise conducted.
Group Office the only registered participant for Hawke’s Bay. Objectives
were meet.
|
Completed
|
|
GB
|
Consider development of online disaster
impact Assessment form
|
|
|
|
|
HB
Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
Monday 05 December 2011
SUBJECT: Hawke’s Bay CDEM Plan Review:
Governance Model & Consultation Strategy
Reason for Report
1. The purpose of this
report is to obtain a decision of the Joint Committee on a
governance model and consultation strategy to be used as part of the review of
the Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Plan Review.
2. The current Hawke’s Bay
CDEM Plan was adopted in March 2005. Under the CDEM Act 2002 the Plan must be
reviewed within 5 years. The current Plan is therefore due for review and is
the top priority in the Group work plan.
3. The CDEM Act outlines
the statutory requirements for undertaking this review. The relevant sections
are attached as Appendix A. The key points are that the Plan must involve
partner organisations and that public consultation is required. The Plan must
also be approved by the Joint Committee. The purpose of this report is to
address these three matters prior to drawing up a detailed project plan and
commencing the review process.
4. This report concludes
by recommending that the Committee adopt the Governance Model and Engagement
and Consultation Strategy attached as Appendix B and C respectively.
Discussion of Options and Recommendations
Governance Model
5. In is proposed that the
governance input in the plan review occur at identified points during the
process. Appendix B broadly identifies these proposed points. This will
involve the governance group being both consulted and making decisions.
6. Other options revolve
around who makes up the governance group for the various tasks. It may be
appropriate that in hearing submissions on the plan that a separate panel be
appointed. The Joint Committee may also appoint nominees to carry out the
governance functions. The only requirement of the Act is that the Joint
Committee gives the final approval of the reviewed Plan.
7. It is recommended
however that for consistency and an efficient process, the Joint Committee
approves the Draft Plan for consultation, hears any pubic submissions made, and
gives final approval to the reviewed Plan.
8. It is considered that
there are no ‘conflict of interest’ matters created by this process. It is
therefore recommended the Committee adopt the model proposed in Appendix B.
9. It is noted that next
year is also an LTP year so the intention would be for hearings to occur after
July 2012.
Engagement and Consultation Strategy
10. The purpose of the
strategy is to set the guiding principles for engagement and consultation with
both key stakeholders and the public through this process. Appendix C outlines
the overall intent with regard to engagement and consultation and how it is
proposed this will be achieved.
11. The key points are that
key stakeholders are engaged early in the process to shape the draft plan.
This draft is then used as a vehicle for specific public consultation. A final
draft plan then forms a statement of proposal notified under the special
consultative process of the Local Government Act 2002.
12. It is considered that
the process identified in Appendix C provides a good balance between the
requirement that some parts of the plan will be of a technical nature, with the
ability for the community to influence Hawke’s Bay CDEM into the future. It is
therefore recommended that the Committee adopt the strategy contained in
Appendix C.
Financial and Resource Implications
13. Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group
has budgeted for the review of the Group Plan. There will be some requirement
for staff from all of the Councils and partner agencies to be involved in the
review process and this will need to be managed.
Future Intentions
14. Once the Governance
Model and the Engagement and Consultation Strategy are agreed by the Committee,
work can commence on establishing the project and in particular completing a
detailed project management plan.
15. The aim is to have the
reviewed Group Plan adopted by the end of 2012 at the latest.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the
Joint Committee resolve:
1. To adopt the Governance Model contained in Appendix B
to this paper.
2. To adopt the Engagement and
Consultation Strategy contained in Appendix C to this paper.
|
|
Ian Macdonald
Group
Manager HB Civil Defence Emergency Management
|
|
Attachment/s
|
1View
|
CDEM Act
Statutory Requirements
|
|
|
|
2View
|
Governance
Model
|
|
|
|
3View
|
Engagement
and Consultation Strategy
|
|
|
|
CDEM Act Statutory Requirements
|
Attachment 1
|
Appendix
A
Civil Defence Emergency
Management
Act 2002
Civil Defence
Emergency Management Group Plans
48 Civil Defence Emergency Management
Group Plans
Every Civil Defence Emergency Management
Group must prepare and approve a civil defence emergency management group plan.
49 Proposed plan to be sent to Minister
(1) Before approving a civil
defence emergency management group plan, a Civil Defence Emergency Management
Group must send a copy of the proposed plan to the Minister for his or her
comments and must allow the Minister 20 workingdays to comment.
(2) The plan must state and
provide for—
(a) the local
authorities that have united to establish the Civil Defence Emergency
Management Group:
(b) the
hazards and risks to be managed by the Group:
(c) the civil
defence emergency management necessary to manage the hazards and risks
described under paragraph (b):
(d) the
objectives of the plan and the relationship of each objective to the national
civil defence emergency management strategy:
(e) the
apportionment between local authorities of liability for the provision of
financial and other resources for the activities of the Group, and the basis
for that apportionment:
(f) the
arrangements for declaring a state of emergency in the area of the Group:
(g) the
arrangements for co-operation and co-ordination with other Groups:
(h) the period for which the plan remains in force.
…….
51 Incorporation by reference
(1) Any written material or
document that, in the opinion of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group,
is too large or otherwise impractical to be printed as part of a civil defence
emergency management group plan may be incorporated by reference.
(2) Any material incorporated by
reference under this section is to be treated for all purposes as forming part
of the plan.
(3) If any amendment to the
material incorporated by reference under this section is made, the amendment
does not come into force as part of the plan until—
(a) an
amendment to that effect to the plan has been made under this Act; or
(b) a date
specified by the Group by notice in the major metropolitan daily newspaper
circulating in the Group’s area.
(4) All material incorporated by
reference under this section must be available at the office of the Group and
copies of that material must be available for purchase for a reasonable charge.
52 Procedure for making civil defence
emergency management group plans
(1) Before making a civil
defence emergency management group plan, a Civil Defence Emergency Management
Group must—
(a) give
public notice, and any specific notice that the Group considers appropriate, of
the proposal to make a plan; and
(b) specify
in every notice given under paragraph (a) a period within which persons
interested in the proposal may make submissions on the proposal to—
(i) the
Group; or
(ii) a
subgroup or committee of the Group; and
(c) ensure
that any person who makes written submissions on the proposal within the period
specified in the notice given under paragraph (a) is given a reasonable
opportunity to be heard by the body to which the submissions are made; and
(d) make all
written submissions on the proposal available to the public unless there is
some good reason in law why it should not do so; and
(e) ensure
that the final decision in relation to the proposal is made at a meeting of the
Group.
(2) The period specified under
subsection (1)(b)—
(a) must not
be less than 1 month; and
(b) unless
the Group otherwise directs, must not be more than 3 months.
53 Civil defence emergency management
group plan must not be inconsistent with national civil defence emergency management
strategy and must take account of Director’s guidelines, codes, or technical
standards
(1) A civil defence emergency
management group plan must not be inconsistent with the national civil defence
emergency management strategy in force when the plan is approved.
(2) A civil defence emergency
management group plan must take account of the guidelines, codes, or technical
standards issued by the Director under this Act.
……
55 Currency of civil defence emergency
management group plan
A civil defence emergency
management group plan—
(a) takes effect on the date of
the final decision taken under section 52(1)(e); and
(b) remains operative for the
period specified in the plan, but if the plan is not replaced before the close
of that period it continues in force until replaced.
…….
Review and amendment of civil
defence emergency management group plans
56 Review of civil defence emergency
management group plans
(1) If a civil defence emergency
management group plan has been operative for 5 years or more and it is more
than 5 years since the plan has been reviewed under this section, the Civil
Defence Emergency Management Group concerned must review the plan.
(2) A Group may at any time
review any civil defence emergency management group plan made by it.
(3) Following a review, the
Group may amend or revoke and replace the plan or leave the plan unchanged.
(4) A review under this section
is commenced by a proposal notified in accordance with section 52, and sections
49, 51, and 55 apply to that review with any necessary modifications.
|
Governance Model
|
Attachment 2
|
|
To:
|
CDEM Joint Committee
|
|
From:
|
Ian
Macdonald, Group Manager Hawke’s Bay CDEM
|
|
Date:
|
29/11/2011
|
|
Subject:
|
Proposed Governance Model
|
|
|
|
1. The
purpose of this document is to establish an appropriate governance model as to
the overview and ultimately approval of the review of the Hawke’s Bay Civil
Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Group Plan.
2. The
CDEM Act 2002 sets the statutory consultation requirements for the review of
the Plan. The Act requires public notice and an opportunity for submitters to
be heard.
Intent
3. It
is intended that the governance of the plan review will enable Joint Committee
to have input into the process at key points while maintaining a transparent
process in accordance with the relevant legislation.
4. It
is proposed that this be achieved by gaining the Committee’s approval of the
draft plan prior to public consultation; and the approval of a final draft
before the plan is notified under the special consultative procedure of the
Local Government Act 2002.
5. Finally
the Committee will hear any submissions that result from this process before it
approves the final plan.
Outcomes
6. The
outcomes sought through this governance model are to ensure that during the
development of the Group Plan the Joint Committee:
· Has an understanding of
the issues for CDEM in the region.
· Has strategic input into
the preparation of the Plan.
· Is able to make informed
decisions on public submissions to the plan.
· That the inter-council arrangements and
the operation of Hawke’s Bay CDEM are endorsed by the members of the Committee.
Conclusion
7. The
Group Plan is an example of the councils of Hawke’s Bay cooperating on the
provision of CDEM to the community. The governance model proposed helps to
ensure that this occurs in an inclusive manner.
8. The
following table proposes how in outline this can occur.
|
Governance Model
|
Attachment 2
|
Governance Input into the Review of the Hawke’s Bay
CEDEM Plan
|
|
Project Plan
|
Review Workstreams
|
First Draft Approval
|
Public Workshops
|
Final Draft Approval
|
Hearings
|
Final Approval
|
|
Joint Committee
|
Consult
|
Consult
|
Approve
|
Can Attend
|
Approve
|
Hear & Approve Amendments
|
Approve
|
|
CEG
|
Approve
|
Approve
|
Consult
|
Can Attend
|
Consult
|
Consult
|
Consult
|
|
Project Management
Team[1]
|
Prepare
|
Overview
|
Prepare
|
Prepare
|
Prepare
|
Prepare Reports
|
Prepare
|
|
Technical Advisory
Groups (TAG)[2]
|
Consult
|
Prepare
|
Consult
|
Attend
|
Consult
|
Prepare Reports
|
Prepare
|
|
Engagement and Consultation Strategy
|
Attachment 3
|
INTERNAL REPORT
|
To:
|
CDEM Joint Committee
|
|
From:
|
Ian
Macdonald, Group Manager Hawke’s Bay CDEM
|
|
Date:
|
29/11/2011
|
|
Subject:
|
review of group plan: Public engagement and
consultation Strategy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. The
purpose of this document is to provide guidance and an outline plan for the
engagement and consultation of key stake holders and the community as part of
the review of the Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Group
Plan. This paper needs to be read in conjunction with the Governance paper
which outlines how it is proposed to involve the Joint Committee or their
representatives in this process.
2. At
this point it is important to note that the Group Plan is a strategic planning
document. The Group Plan does not include matters such as local community
response plans. The Group Plan sets the CDEM objectives for the region based
on the ‘4Rs’[3].
Within this framework the Plan also covers the regional arrangements/structures
for:
· Specific hazard and risk
identification and management measures.
· Response to an emergency
and subsequent recovery operations.
· The provision of
resources.
· The arrangements for cooperation and
coordination both within the Hawke’s Bay Group and with other CDEM Groups and
national government agencies across the 4Rs.
3. The
CDEM Act 2002 sets the statutory consultation requirements for the review of
the Plan. The Act requires public notice and an opportunity for submitters to
be heard.
Intent
4. It
is intended to engage with key technical and community stake holders at an
early part of the review process to ensure they are able to have meaningful
input prior to a draft of the reviewed Group Plan being completed. General
public input is best facilitated through discussion on the resulting draft
Plan.
Outcomes
5. The
outcomes sought through this Engagement and Consultation Plan are to ensure
that the development of the Group Plan:
· Is a comprehensive, all
agency response to the identified hazards and risks.
· Facilitates regional
cooperation and where appropriate integration.
· Is reflective of the CDEM
needs of the Hawke’s Bay community and is “owned” by the community.
· Consistent with the National CDEM Plan.
6. Two
stages have therefore been identified to facilitate the engagement and
consultation for the review of the Plan.
7. Stage
one will be primarily based on the engagement of Group members (including
partner organisations) and key stakeholders (such as MCDEM) as part of the
review preparation and plan drafting phase.
8. Stage
two will involve specific community consultation based on an approved final
draft of the reviewed Group Plan. This process will also use the special
consultative process under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).
Stage
One
9. The
review of the Plan will be broken into a number of sections based around the
4Rs[4]. Each work
stream will have a technical advisory group and where appropriate workshops
will be held to bring together the various key stakeholders and seek their
input. Appendix A is a list of currently identified stakeholders. This list
is not exclusive and may evolve as the process advances.
Stage
Two
10. This
stage contains two parts. The first part involves engaging with interested
members of the community on a completed draft of the reviewed Group Plan. This
will be achieved through advertising and holding public workshops in:
· Wairoa
· Napier
· Hastings
· Waipawa or Waipukurau
11. Any
feedback will be considered and if appropriate amendments could be made to the
draft Plan.
12. The
subsequent step will involve the notification of the draft of the reviewed
Group Plan using the special consultative process for one month. Hearings will
be held on any submissions received.
Conclusion
13. The
engagement and consultation strategy proposed will help to ensure that all
stakeholders directly involved Hawke’s Bay CDEM activities will have an
opportunity to shape the drafting of the reviewed Group Plan.
14. Once
this has occurred, focused public consultation can occur based on a draft
already accepted by the key stakeholders and approved under the governance
model. This public consultation will also fulfil the consultation requirements
of the CDEM Act and the LGA.
Appendix
A
HAWKE’S
BAY CDEM PLAN REVIEW LIST OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS
1. TLA Members
2. HBRC Technical Staff
3. Hawke’s Bay DHB
4. Hawke’s Bay Lifelines Group
(incorporates Telecom/Unison etc)
5. Hawke’s Bay WAG and associated
organisations
6. Ministry of Civil Defence and
Emergency Management
7. Emergency Services
8. NZ Defence Force
9. Other Government Departments (eg
MAF)
10. Adjoining CDEM Groups (e.g.
Horizons MW)
11. GNS/NIWA
12. Ngāti Kahungunu
13. Federated Farmers and other
agricultural/horticultural sector groups
14. Hawke’s Bay Chamber of Commerce
15. Inter-Agency Communications Group
HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
HB
Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
Monday 05 December 2011
SUBJECT: Hawke's Bay Oil Spill Preparedness:
Lessons from RENA
Reason for Report
1. On
the 5 October 2011, Rena, a 21-year-old 236 metre Liberian-flagged cargo vessel
en route from Napier to Tauranga, struck Astrolabe Reef off Tauranga and
grounded. Approximately 350 tonnes of oil escaped from Rena, some of it
washing up at various points along the Bay of Plenty coastline.
2. Questions
have been asked about risks of a similar event in Hawke’s Bay and what plans
are in place to respond to a marine oil spill that occurs within our coastal
marine area.
3. The
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has a statutory responsibility under the Maritime
Transport Act 1994 (MTA) to conduct a Tier 2 response to marine oil spills, and
maintains a plan which details how a Tier 2 response operation is to be
undertaken. This project sits within the Council’s Hazard Management activities
and is managed by the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group office.
4. This
report is to inform the Joint Committee of the risks and plans in place, and
the lessons Hawke’s Bay oil spill response staff have learnt from their
involvement with the Rena response, including a photograph presentation by
Regional On-Scene Commander, Bryce Lawrence who is also a member of the
National Response Team.
BACKGROUND:
5. New
Zealand’s marine spill and pollution response capability is maintained (and
developed) through partnerships between Maritime New Zealand, Regional
Councils, the oil industry, and overseas agencies. This includes a National
Response Team (NRT) made up of 60 specialists, trained in all aspects of oil
spill response. The team includes MNZ and Regional Council staff members and
other experts from around the country. The NRT sits above a broader team of
about 400 trained oil spill responders based around New Zealand’s 16 regions.
6. The
response system is comprised of three tiers. Each tier can be escalated to the
next, depending on the scale of the event. Those responsible for each tier are
required to prepare contingency plans and a response capability appropriate to
their respective levels of responsibility:
· Tier 1 –
industry (ships and onshore/offshore oil transfer sites)
· Tier 2 –
regional councils
· Tier 3 –
Maritime New Zealand.
7. Maritime
New Zealand maintains a response capability of sufficient size to counter an
oil spill of 3,500 tonnes, which is deemed to be a 'one in a hundred year'
event. If the scale of an incident is beyond the nation's domestic capability,
arrangements are in place to secure overseas assistance. This relationship is
reciprocal - New Zealand will be expected to assist our neighbours if
requested.
8. Oil spill preparedness is funded by an industry
levy, the Oil Pollution Levy, which is paid by those sectors whose activities
raise the risk of a marine oil spill. In the event of an oil spill, the
polluter is liable for all costs associated with the response.
COMMENT:
Risks
9. Maritime
New Zealand undertakes regular national risk assessments for New Zealand which
underpins all preparation and planning for marine oil spill response. It
includes the assessment of both the likelihood of a spill occurring and the
consequences or effects of the spill. It also establishes the basis for the
New Zealand Marine Oil Spill Response Strategy. Hawke’s Bay is deemed to have
a medium to low national risk (see Annex 1).
10. Historical
spill records show that most spills occurring within the Hawke’s Bay region do
so during bunkering operations which, in the majority of cases, have proved
minor and required little or no clean up action. Some spills also originate
from land sources via storm water outlets. However, a significant increase in shipping
over recent years and the introduction of Amoco oil exploration test wells into
the area north east of Castle Point has increased the potential for a large
spill.
11. Hawke’s
Bay is provided with sufficient equipment, training and other resources to
allow it to effectively respond to most of the minor operational spills likely
to occur within the port and along its coastline. At any time, but more
especially in the event of a larger or more catastrophic spill, the Hawke’s Bay
Regional Council can expect the support of the Maritime New Zealand. This
support could range from providing advice, resources or support personnel to
assist the regional (Tier 2) response to escalating the response to a national
(Tier 3) response, such as we have seen with the Rena.
Preparedness
12. The
HBRC maintains Tier 2 response plan (a copy of which is available on the HBRC
website) which details how a Tier 2 response operation is to be undertaken in
response to a marine oil spill within the coastal marine area under our
jurisdiction (see Annex 2).
13. The
plan holds maps, site information and response guides showing the amenity
areas, commercial and recommended areas for protection within Hawke’s Bay.
These have been prepared in consultation with the Department of Conservation,
iwi and interested parties of the Hawke’s Bay region. Many of these areas are
“Significant Areas” as defined in the Regional Coastal Plan.
14. There
are 40 trained responders on the Hawke’s Bay Oil Spill response team, including
Port of Napier, DOC staff and others. MOU’s are also maintained with Napier
City Council & Hastings District Council. Response team members are
required to maintain response qualifications and this is normally achieved by
regular attendance on exercises and revalidation of the appropriate course
qualification every four years.
15. Regional
training exercises, including tabletop and equipment deployment, are held
annually to assess the capability and robustness of all planning, management
and operational response systems
Response
16. In
the 12 months ending 30 June 2011 6 oil spill incidents had been responded to
in Hawke’s Bay for the year. All were minor, yet provide the Hawke’s Bay Oil
Spill Response team with regular practical experience. Annual spill incidents
typically range between 3 - 8 per annum.
17. 13
members of the Hawke’s Bay Oil Spill response team have been involved with the
Rena response to date. Regional On-Scene Commander Bryce Lawrence will give a
presentation on the response to date, and lessons being gleaned for Hawke’s
Bay.
|
RECOMMENDATION
1. That the
Joint Committee receives the report.
|
|
Lisa Pearse
Emergency
Management Coordinator
|
Ian Macdonald
Group
Manager HB Civil Defence Emergency Management
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
HB
Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
Monday 05 December 2011
SUBJECT: General Business
INTRODUCTION
This
document has been prepared to assist the Joint Committee to note any General
Business Items to be discussed.
|
Item
|
Topic
|
Member/Staff
|
|
1.
|
|
|
|
2.
|
|
|
|
3.
|
|
|
|
4.
|
|
|
|
5.
|
|
|
|
6.
|
|
|
|
7.
|
|
|
|
8.
|
|
|
|
9.
|
|
|
|
10.
|
|
|
|
11.
|
|
|
|
12.
|
|
|
