Hydrogeological Regulatory Conditions Setting and Implementation, an effort to move towards best practices

Presenters Name No 1Presenters Name No 2

Regulatory Conditions Setting and Implementation

Purpose: Protecting and managing groundwater and associated values

Recipe:1. Have regulations It seems we have a fair bit of it !2. Have fit for purpose tools to address the intend of the regulation

Do we have the right tools? 1. Good science means skilled staff. Skilled technical staff, use of

hydrogeologists2. A process in defining conditions, implementation and negotiating them as

necessary3. Communication

1 Good scienceGood science requires technically skilled and suitably experienced staff.

Industry Regulators

What you say

What you think they do

• Can be a requirement• Varies with significance• 90-100%• Varies between Industries

1 Good scienceGood science requires technically skilled and suitably experienced staff.

Industry Regulators

What you say

What you think they do

• Can be a requirement• Varies with significance• 90-100%• Varies between Industries

Stretched in relation to

hydrogeological expertise

Not currently or overworked and cannot operate appropriately

mostly

Lack of experience

OGIA (QLD) cited as a good

example of bubble with

technical experts

Not anymore

2 Process: requirements definition (regulatory agencies)

Regulators process

•Varies between agencies

•From a mix of blanket approach and site-specific requirements to fully risk based approach

•Some (not all) agencies appear to negotiate the requirements with proponents before they becomes final

•SA approach appears to be fully risk based with high levels of engagements with the proponents

•Process often requires several agencies input

Industry’s view

2 Process: requirements definition (regulatory agencies)

Regulators process

•Varies between agencies

•From a mix of blanket approach and site-specific requirements to fully risk based approach

•Some (not all) agencies appear to negotiate the requirements with proponents before they becomes final

•SA approach appears to be fully risk based with high levels of engagements with the proponents

•Process often requires several agencies input

Industry’s view

Regulators do not try to understand site activities and

site settings

In most case, fair. Similar activities

would be considered by the

company in absence of conditions

Conditions not acceptable especially on monitoring,

analytes and frequency not leading in acquisition of

additional data

The costs and resources

required by the conditions can

make the project not

viable

The standardisation of Environmental Authorities (QLD) is not working: difficult to implement, unnecessary conditions

Not practical !!!!

2 Process - implementingIndustry’s process Regulator’s view

•Different approaches:•Enter negotiations•Direct implementation, no questions asked

•Risk based in many instances, initially motivated by cost controls but also technically meaningful

•The Proponent must demonstrate unsuitability of the condition while abiding to it until it can be negotiated

•In some case, it is cheaper to get on with an unsuitable condition than enter negotiation

2 Process - implementingIndustry’s process Regulator’s view

•Different approaches:•Enter negotiations•Direct implementation, no questions asked

•Risk based in many instances, initially motivated by cost controls but also technically meaningful

•The Proponent must demonstrate unsuitability of the condition while abiding to it until it can be negotiated

•In some case, it is cheaper to get on with an unsuitable condition than enter negotiation

Take conditions as prescribed

May have some level of discussion

Quite advanced hydrogeological knowledge, request a lot of changes,

enters into negotiation

MiningPetroleumLand developmentContaminated sites remediationWaste industry TransportCouncils

2 Process - negotiating

Regulators Industry

•Regulatory agencies open to negotiation within their jurisdiction

•Negotiation requested vary enormously between agencies

•Relates about always to monitoring and data acquisition (often due to cost)

•Sometimes negotiation relate to monitoring being technically unfeasible

• About all agencies were listed!

• Key reasons cited:• Most often required to change

monitoring (too often, too many)• Set without consideration to the

level of risk and suitability to detect/monitor for impact

• Other reasons why requested include: • Lack of technical knowledge by

regulators• Had different views on

interpretation of data• Did not take into consideration pre-

existing work/studies

3. CommunicationGood communication smooths the process, what does it looks like out there?

Communication industry – regulatory agencies, is this happening? • Often existing, but is it effective communication or purely compliance and process discussions?• Limited site visits (other than audits)• The review or lack of review of compliance submissions is another trust break point.

Communication between regulatory agencies, what is going on there?• Very rare (e.g. OGIA working with CSGCU and for some items with DEHP)• Limited face to face meetings to discuss a project as a whole• Can involve politics

Communication with the community, reinstating the trust• Industry does not want bad publicity, significant information available under their website

(sometimes associated to a regulatory requirement)• What should be the role of the regulatory agencies?

• Science communication• Standing by good science

3. CommunicationGood communication smooths the process, what does it looks like out there?

Communication industry – regulatory agencies, is this happening? • Often existing, but is it effective communication or purely compliance and process discussions?• Limited site visits (other than audits)• The review or lack of review of compliance submissions is another trust break point.

Communication between regulatory agencies, what is going on there?• Very rare (e.g. OGIA working with CSGCU and for some items with DEHP)• Limited face to face meetings to discuss a project as a whole• Can involve politics

Communication with the community, reinstating the trust• Industry does not want bad publicity, significant information available under their website

(sometimes associated to a regulatory requirement)• What should be the role of the regulatory agencies?

• Science communication• Standing by good science

Lack of consultation between State Agencies

(comment came from both the industry AND

the regulators)

Good work from CSGCU

and OGIA

Industry’s view

• Strong media and political pressure on some industries

• Different Industries in the spotlight overtime

• Conditioning can be fit for purpose AND containing condition to address another agenda

• Community perception of science needs improvement

• Politicians and science don’t mix well

Do we have a good mix for our recipe? Regulatory conditions are not always so fit for purpose…the strongest limitation is the political agenda

Industry’s view

• Strong media and political pressure on some industries

• Different Industries in the spotlight overtime

• Conditioning can be fit for purpose AND containing condition to address another agenda

• Community perception of science needs improvement

• Politicians and science don’t mix well

Appropriate use of groundwater model to define conditions

Conditions on some EA are very

suitable

DoE set requirements

already managed

under State approval

Do we have a good mix for our recipe?

True across all industries

Regulatory conditions are not always so fit for purpose…the strongest limitation is the political agendaRegulators want to be

seen to regulate activities (even when

completely unnecessary)

Towards best practices• There is a wide range of approaches, especially in the setting of requirements, it maybe

worth looking over other agencies’ shoulder

• The use of suitable qualified and experienced staff is critical within the Industry and the regulatory agencies (petroleum and mining industries appear to lead there). Qualified staff necessary not only for technical validity and practicality but also to promote trust

• Develop awareness of risk based approach and negotiations across the industries

• Risk base approach should also be part of the regulatory process

• It seems that the less communication, less site specific, less risk based approach, the more negotiations (up to a few requests a year) .

• The big challenge is science communication with the community