NOPSEMA Environment Management Regulatory Update and Workshop - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

NOPSEMA Environment Management Regulatory Update and Workshop

Melbourne

29 October 2012

Introduction

• Agenda

– Safety briefing + introductions – Regulatory guidance – Spill Assessment updates – Key priority focus areas – Regulatory update

• inherited EPs
• statistics

Regulatory Guidance

EP guidance note project: objectives

• Develop useful, understandable and practical guidance
• Provide clear descriptions of NOPSEMA’s interpretation of

regulatory requirements for environment plan (EP) content (administrative processes dealt with separately)

• Consistent with OPGGS(E) Regulations, with a reasonable

and justifiable basis

• Consistent with objective-based regime

– Focus on ‘what needs to be demonstrated’ not ‘how to demonstrate’

• Avoid regulatory “creep” – expansion of requirements

beyond Regulations

Environmental management external document structure

OPGGS Act OPGGS Act OPGGS (Environment) OPGGS (Environment) Regulations Regulations Policies Policies Guidelines Guidelines

Guidance Guidance Note Note

Practice Practice Note Note

Approach:

• EP Guidance Notes - adopt a system-based model as basis
• Structured on process elements
• All priority issues/topics raised will be covered

Process model evolution

Monitoring andreview Communication and consultation Risk identification & analysis Risk evaluation and treatment Establishing the context

Describe 13(1)(2) Detail 13(3a) Perform 11(1d) 13(4) Monitor 11 (1e) Evaluate 13 (3b) Demonstrate 11(1b,c) Consult 11 (1f) Process

Environment plan content

ALARP Acceptable level Impacts and risks Activity Environment Requirements Acceptable level Objectives Standards Monitoring Reporting Impacts and risks Element (regs) >Measurement criteria Consultation Implementation strategy Plan to implement

AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009

DESCRIBE DETAIL EVALUATE & DEMONSTRATE EVALUATE & DEMONSTRATE CONSULT PERFORM & MONITOR DETAIL

EP process

Environment plan process

Monitoring andreview Communication and consultation Risk identification & analysis Risk evaluation and treatment Establishing the context

Activity assessment

Environmental Environmental policy policy Planning Planning Implementation Implementation and operation and operation Checking Checking Management Management review review Continual Continual improvement improvement

Strategy (Plan for implementation)

AS/NZS ISO 14001

Elements in the EP process

Application of elements in the EP process

Performance Objectives & Measurement Criteria Evaluate I&R Context:

• ESD principles
• Activity
• Environment
• Stakeholders
• Policy
• Requirements

Detail Impacts and Risks

Describe Describe Detail Detail Evaluate & Evaluate & Demonstrate Demonstrate Perform & Perform & Report Report Consultation Consultation

Acceptable Level Controls Performance Standards & Measurement Criteria Acceptable Level & ALARP

Establish the context Risk identification & analysis Evaluation & Treatment Monitoring and Review Communication & consultation Implementation strategy

PROCESS ELEMENT ALARP EVALUATE & DEMONSTRATE:

Regulation 11 (1) (b) demonstrates that the environmental impacts and risks of the activity will be reduced to as low as reasonably practicable; 14 (3) The implementation strategy must identify the specific systems, practices and procedures to be used to ensure that the environmental impacts and risks of the activity are continuously reduced to as low as reasonably practicable and that the environmental performance objectives and standards in the environment plan are met. Regulatory Interpretation: Objective To ensure the environmental impacts and risks of petroleum activities are managed to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) while allowing individual companies to adopt environmental practices and technologies best suited to individual company circumstances, activities and locations. Core Concepts

• ALARP is the point where the sacrifice required to reduce the environmental impacts and risks of the activity any further would be grossly disproportionate to the

environmental benefit gained

• The Operator must demonstrate in the EP that impacts and risks will be managed to ensure they are reduced to ALARP
• The implementation strategy must show how impacts and risks will continue to be ALARP for the life of the activity
• Operators need to provide sufficient justification and supporting information in the EP in order for the Regulator to have reasonable grounds for believing the environmental

impact and risks are ALARP

• The demonstration of ALARP must be appropriate for the nature and scale of the activity
• Demonstration of ALARP is a particular requirement of the Regulations, but should be considered in conjunction with the acceptable level requirement. Impacts and risks

must be managed to ALARP and must also be at an acceptable level. Considerations

• ALARP is specific to the context of the activity and its impacts and risks, which means that what is ALARP in one circumstance, may not be ALARP in another
• Management measures or controls that are required to ensure environmental impacts and risks are ALARP should be clearly identified
• Where management measures or controls are introduced, any impacts or risks that could be caused by the control must also be addressed by the EP
• Any statements made by the operator to demonstrate that impacts and risk are ALARP should be adequately justified. The justificationof statements should include sufficient

supporting evidence or references such that NOPSEMA can reasonably determine their accuracy and reliability

• The approach used in providing the required demonstration of ALARP within an EP is at the discretion of the operator
• Approaches that could be considered in presenting an ALARP demonstration include:
• Application of the control hierarchy (best first): elimination; prevention; reduction and mitigation
• Comparative assessment of alternatives to reduce environmental impacts and risks relative to their sacrifice (e.g. cost, schedule, operability, safety)
• Impact or risk is sufficiently low, such that any benefit gained is likely to be negligible (and consequently any significant sacrifice would be grossly disproportionate)
• Comparison of impact and risk with company and societal values for what is reasonably practicable

Definitions Management measure or control - a system, an item of equipment, a person or a procedure, that is used as a basis for managing environmental risk

EP Overview Guidance Note: example

OSCP Practice Note

Guidance Scope

– Offshore petroleum activities – Oil spill impacts and risks only

Guidance Content

– Oil spill risk control measures their impact and selection – Planning process in accordance with the regulations – General advice on what to consider in demonstrating ALARP and acceptable – Possible approaches to oil spill risk management

Fully integrated with current National Plan arrangements

13 A232763

2012

Q1 2012

• Published interim guidance for consultation

Q2 2012

• Consultation workshop with industry
• Rev 1 released for use

Q3 2012

• Consolidated Government and other stakeholder feedback
• Rev 2 released for use

14 A232763

Q1 2013

• Planned review of guidance note in context of other NOPSEMA Guidance

Q2 2013

• Planned review of content based on known changes to Regulations

Q3 2013

• Consultation process complete and revision 3 published

2013

Scope

• Practical advice to operators on how to prepare a high standard and fit-

for-purpose OSMP that can be rapidly implemented in the event of a spill

• Information will cover lessons learnt from recent incidents as well as

planning, design and implementation of a monitoring program to meet regulatory requirements

• Operational (Type 1) and scientific (Type 2) monitoring

Content

• Guidance will give effect to Govt’s directive regarding OSMPs from

Montara COI

• Complement and expand on other Government guidance on oil spill

monitoring (e.g. AMSA handbook)

• Provide sufficient topic coverage to meet both sets of legislation

(OPGGSA and EPBC Act)

• Monitoring during normal operations included in future guidance

OSMP Practice Note

OSMP

Q2 2012

• Preliminary drafting
• Consultation with industry groups + Govt agencies

Q3 2012

• Draft OSMP guidance undergoing internal review

Q4 2012

• Technical and Commonwealth Government Review (SEWPaC, RET, AMSA, CSIRO,

AIMS, GA)

• Industry workshop (Dec)

Q4 2012

• Interim guidance issued for use and industry comment – December 2012

NOPSEMA Advice

17 A232763

OPGGS Act OPGGS Act OPGGS (Environment) OPGGS (Environment) Regulations Regulations Policies Policies Guidelines Guidelines

Guidance Guidance Note Note

Practice Practice Note Note

NOPSEMA Assessment Policy EP Assessment Policy Reasonable Grounds Appropriate… Acceptable level EP Content Requirements Petroleum Activity ALARP Consultation Performance Objectives Performance Standards OSCP + OSMP

Questions?

Spill Assessment Update

Objective

• 1. Provide regulatory clarity on the complexities of

vessel based petroleum activities

• 2. Provide an overview of Victorian oil spill

response arrangements

Vessels undertaking petroleum activities

• A vessel undertaking a petroleum activity must

be considered in the environment plan for the activity

• The scope of the petroleum activity will

determine when the vessel is covered by the environment plan

• The environment plan for the petroleum activity

must contain an OSCP as part of an appropriate implementation strategy

Vessels undertaking petroleum activities

• The OSCP must demonstrate that the

arrangements in place will reduce environmental impacts and risks of the activity to ALARP

• Vessels have existing arrangements that may

contribute to an ALARP demonstration, though are not always commensurate to the risk

– SOPEP – National Plan

Petroleum Activity

Regulatory division of responsibility for EPs

Vessel AMSA NOPSEMA Facility

All vessels not undertaking a petroleum activity Seismic / supply vessels etc (whilst undertaking the petroleum activity) FPSO, pipelay etc (whilst undertaking the petroleum activity) Aeroplane undertaking survey etc

What does the National Plan say?

Commonwealth waters Explanation Examples Statutory Agency Combat Agency Offshore petroleum

• perations

Those operations conducted at petroleum facilities where the Navigation Act does not apply (see OPGGSA s640 for disapplication) Vessel activities occurring within the scope of a petroleum activity Facilities as defined by Schedule 3, Clause 4 of the OPGGSA FPSO, pipelay vessel etc NOPSEMA Operator # Vessels (outside

• f petroleum
• perations)

Vessel activities outside the scope of petroleum activities and where the Navigation Act applies Any vessel as defined by the Navigation Act 1912 (and not disapplied by the OPGGSA s640) AMSA AMSA

# The National Plan provides for the operator to request another agency to act on its behalf. The details of such an arrangement need to be agreed prior to a spill.

Example

• Seismic Survey

A seismic survey is proposed adjacent to a number of sensitive habitats. The survey will operate adjacent shallow reefs for a 40 day period. The vessel is carrying HFO and modelling indicates a spill in the survey area has a high probability of contacting exposed reef in short timeframes (<10hrs).

• How does the division of responsibility apply?

Example

AMSA

• Vessel travelling to

location

• SOPEP / National Plan

NOPSEMA

• Vessel undertaking activity
• Risk as presented in EP
• OSCP must include emergency

response arrangements. Those response arrangements form part

• f the ALARP demonstration

Example

• The OPGGS (E) Regs require that operators

demonstrate all impacts and risks will be managed to ALARP

• The nature and scale of the risk will influence

what arrangements are required

• The Regs allow flexibility for how risk is managed

– Internal resources – Mutual aid – National Plan

Questions?

Victorian Oil Spill Response Arrangements

• In some circumstances offshore petroleum

activities have the potential to impact on State waters

• The environment regulations require that an

OSCP includes;

– emergency response arrangements to mitigate this risk; and – that consultation is undertaken with all relevant persons as defined by Regulation 11A

Spill Assessment Feedback on submissions

Objective

Provide feedback to operators based on the last ten months of assessment, focussing on;

• 1. Observed improvements
• 2. Opportunities for improvement

Observed improvements

• OSCPs relevant to risks presented by the activity
• Performance objectives and standards included

for preparedness and response

• Development of, and justification for, credible

spill scenarios

• Defined and justified zone of potential impact

Opportunities for improvement

Description of the response activity Impacts and risks arising from emergency conditions Access to resources

Description of the response activity

• Regulation 13(1) requires a comprehensive

description of the activity which includes additional information relevant to consideration

• f environmental impacts and risks of the

activity

• Limited detail incorporated into response

strategies can lead to;

– An inappropriate implementation strategy – An inappropriate evaluation of significant impacts and risks arising from potential emergency conditions – An inadequate demonstration that impacts and risks will be reduced to ALARP and be of an acceptable level

Description of the response activity

• The OSCP is an operational component of the

implementation strategy

• Information presented in the EP is not required

in the OSCP and vice versa. All component documents are considered a single submission

• Information in the plan should assist a responder

in achieving the plans objectives

• Plans should include affirmative language of

what will be done to manage the risk rather than training doctrine

Description of the response activity

Planning Process Justification

• f Activities

Planning Output (OSCP) STATING YOUR CASE TO OPERATE OPERATIONAL PLAN

Industry Challenge - Balance

Example

• Description of the response activity

The operator identified high probability of shoreline impacts

• f a heavy oil, to islands with regionally significant

rookeries of seabirds and turtle nesting beaches, in short timeframes. – The submission identified protection and deflection booming though did not identify what actions would be undertaken in the event of a spill – Protection priorities were not predetermined and equipment and personnel requirements were not identified

Impacts and risks arising from emergency conditions

• Regulation 13(3a)(b) requires an evaluation of

the significant impacts and risks arising directly

• r indirectly from potential emergency

conditions (whether resulting from accident or any other reason)

• Control measures implemented in an emergency

might introduce significant impacts and risks that need to be evaluated

• The submission must demonstrate that these

impacts and risks are both ALARP and acceptable

Environmental risks of operations Environmental risks of operations for potential emergency conditions

Impacts and risks arising from emergency conditions

Proposed Activity Hydrocarbon Release Identify & Evaluate Impacts and Risks Performance Objectives, Standards & Measurement Criteria Response Technique Identify & Evaluate Impacts and Risks Performance Objectives, Standards & Measurement Criteria Implementation Strategy inc. OSCP

RESPONSE TECHNIQUES

Example

• Impacts and risks arising from emergency

conditions

The operator identified dispersant use as a control measure to be implemented in the event of a loss of well control. – No evaluation of the impacts and risks associated with dispersant use. For example, no consideration given to the dispersant / dispersed oil mix in the water column – The submission did not identify how dispersant use would be managed to mitigate this risk

Access to resources

• Regulation 14(8AA) requires an OSCP to include

emergency response arrangements

• Regulation 13(4)(b) requires that the

environment plan sets standards against which performance by the operator in protecting the environment is to be measured

• A standard is defined as ‘a statement of

performance required of a system, an item of equipment, a person or a procedure’

Access to resources

• The submission must provide reason to believe

the arrangements are appropriate to access resources required to implement control measures

• What provides you the assurance that the

control measures will be implemented?

• For example; standards may consider

– availability of equipment and personnel – mobilisation timeframes

Example

• Access to resources

The operator identified containment and recovery as a control measure to be implemented in the event of a hydrocarbon release. – Equipment available on site could be mobilised within the timeframe required, however the equipment described was not appropriate for the application – Secondary resources could not be mobilised in time to effect a response prior to shoreline impacts

Questions?

Priority Focus Areas

An environmentally responsible

• ffshore petroleum industry

Assessments & inspections commence Securing minimum evidence to justify acceptance Opportunities for improvements in EP/OSCP Improvements in OSCP/OSMP arrangements Inherited EP revisions Inspections program national focus topics Additional guidance notes released Financial responsibility Commencement of amended regulations EPBC Act streamlining Increased focus on improvements – continuous improvement, monitoring etc Promote strategic approaches Comprehensive challenge to

• perators – ‘could

even more be done?’

Improvement in environmental

• utcomes

1 January 2012

Priority Focus Area

Improvement to date

• OSCPs relevant to risks

presented by the activity

• Performance objectives

and standards included for preparedness and response

• Development of, and

justification for, credible spill scenarios

• Defined and justified zone
• f potential impact

Further improvement possible

• Description of the oil spill

control measures

• Evaluation of impacts and

risks arising from control measures

• Demonstrated access to

resources to implement control measures

Industry

• pportunities
• Response arrangements

common to many operators

• Wildlife response capability
• Aerial surveillance

capability and purpose

• Response focused OSCPs
• Significant improvement in content and applicability of OSCPs

OSCP Preparation

Priority Focus Area

• Clear link between Performance Objectives and measurement

criteria

• Clear link between Performance Standards and measurement

criteria

• Performance standards identifying a measure of performance

expected of a control

• Use of affirmative language (will v’s may)
• Clarity of measurement expectations (not vague or ambiguous)
• Reporting requirements enabling determination of whether the

performance objectives and performance standards have been met

Performance Objectives and Standards

Priority Focus Area

• Performance objectives –consideration in measuring the
• perators performance in protecting the environment
• Inclusion of ecological monitoring elements as a control with

associated performance standard

• Implementation strategy to define the arrangements for the

monitoring (systems, practices and procedures)

• Montara Commission of Inquiry government response for

OSMP

Ecological Monitoring

Advice and guidance on Ecological Monitoring

Monitoring programs appropriate to nature and scale of activity / impact /location Clear demonstrations for why ecological monitoring is, or isn’t, required Use of ecological monitoring to test predictions of impacts Link impacts and risks to monitoring Clear objectives for monitoring and links to performance objectives in the EP Measurement criteria to demonstrate that monitoring objectives are achieved Clear triggers for initiation and termination of monitoring

Priority Focus Area

• Regulation 11(1)(g) & 14(10)
• Consideration of extent and duration of petroleum

activity

• Consideration of whether equipment to be

removed, left in situ for future use or permanently abandoned

• Assessment of risks and impacts for duration of

activity

• Consideration of OPGGS Act where relevant (e.g.

section 572, 270).

Compliance with Act and Regulations

Questions?

Regulatory Update

Current Status

• 86 submissions, 45 acceptances, 4 refusals
• Significant improvement in EP compliance with

regulations since 1 January

• Based on assessments and inspections, number
• f areas in EP submissions where NOPSEMA is

challenged to find ‘reasonable grounds’

• NOPSEMA to highlight key area for our ongoing

focus via workshops, forums, publications etc.

Environment plans accepted by Designated Authorities

• NOPSEMA is reviewing ‘in force’ EPs transferred from DAs

(‘inherited EPs’):

– Screening process to prioritise EPs for review – 65+ EPs screened – NOPSEMA will seek confirmation of completed activities – All inherited EPs for activities not completed will be reviewed – Require operator appointments (Regulation 31) – Review EP against criteria in Regulation 11(1)

• NOPSEMA may request a proposed revision of the plan ‘if

the Regulator is not satisfied’ it meets one or more of the criteria

Environment plan review process

• Requests for proposed revisions expected in Q4 2012
• Operators free to revise and submit a proposed revision

independently of a request from NOPSEMA

• If a proposed revision is requested, the resubmitted EP:

– need to meet all the requirements of the current regulations – must be submitted in timeframe outlined in request – assessed as per regulations 10, 11 and 11A [Regulation 21] – be subject to levy [Regulatory Levies Regulation 59C (1)]

• Does not affect status of EP in force, until proposed revision

accepted

• Guidance being updated and published
• Letter to the titleholder with EP(s) in force

Operator appointment notification requirements

• Regulation 31 - Notification of appointment of operator

– “the instrument holder for an activity must ensure that… there is an

• perator of an activity”

– This means all instrument holders must nominate the operator – Must be registered instrument holder that signs appointment (see NEATS)

• Regulation 34 – Regulator may decline to consider submission

– NOPSEMA will now exercise discretion to decline to consider submission unless all instrument holders have appointed the operator – Does not apply where activity does not require a title under the Act and/or there is no instrument holder

• Updated form on website to assist in compliance
• Letter to all titleholders (instrument holders)

Summary of NOPSEMA activities 2012 to date

• 115+ operator liaison meetings
• Assessments

– 82 submissions received, 49 complete – 89% accepted – 99% assessments within timeframe (30 days) – 23 days average time for notification

• Inspection program commenced

– 4 complete, 3 scheduled

• 12 industry workshops, Perth and Melbourne

– Environment Plans, OSCP’s, Guidance Development

Regulatory update Year to date

Questions and Close