8 March 2013

Martin Squire Environment Regulations Review Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism GPO Box 1564 CANBERRA ACT 2601 (Via email to environmentregreview@ret.gov.au)

Dear Martin,

Issues Paper - Review of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009

APPEA welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the above Issues Paper. A number of matters addressed in the Issues Paper are central to achieving more effective, efficient and streamlined commonwealth environmental regulation in the oil and gas industry.

Section 3 of our submission highlights four key foundational issues on which we believe it is important to establish the correct approach if further streamlining of the regulatory framework is to be achieved:principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) and cumulative impacts; acceptability, ALARP and significance test for impacts and risks definition of a petroleum activity transparency and consultation

Section 4 of our submission contains our specific responses to the wide ranging options for reform canvassed in the Issues Paper.

APPEA welcomes further involvement and the opportunity for further comment on any regulatory amendments arising from the Issues Paper.

If you would like to discuss the matters raised in this submission further, please contact Ms Miranda Taylor, Director Environment, Safety and Skills on 08 0426 7201 or at mjtaylor@appea.com.au.

Yours sincerely David Byers CHIEF EXECUTIVE

SUBMISSION TO THEFEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Issues Paper - Review of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse

Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009

March 2013The Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) is the peak national body representing Australia‘s oil and gas exploration and production industry. APPEA has 90 full member companies exploring for and producing Australia‘s oil and gas resources. The companies currently account for around 98 per cent of Australia‘s total oil and gas production and the vast majority of exploration. APPEA also represents over 200 service companies providing a range of goods and services to the industry. Further details about APPEA can be found at our website at www.appea.com.au.

CONTENTS 1. THE AUSTRALIAN OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY......................................... . 4 2. OFFSHORE PETROLEUM ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION ......... .. 5 3. KEY ISSUES ................................................................................................... ... 7 4. REVIEW ISSUES PAPER – ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED OPTIONS. ...... . 13 CHAPTER 3: OBJECTIVES ................................................................................. 13 CHAPTER 4: BEST PRACTICE & CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT ........... 13 CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION ................................ 18 CHAPTER 6: REPORTING ................................................................................. 20 CHAPTER 7: REPRESENTATION .................................................................... 22 CHAPTER 8: DUTIES & RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES ......................... 22 CHAPTER 9: TRANSPARENCY ......................................................................... 23 CHAPTER 10: MARINE POLLUTION INCIDENTS ....................................... 26 CHAPTER 11: ALIGNMENT OF TERMINOLOGY ......................................... 32 CHAPTER 12: MONITORING ............................................................................ 35 CHAPTER 13: LIFE CYCLE ................................................................................ 38 CHAPTER 14: COMPLIANCE, ENFORCEMENT & PENALTIES ................ 38 CHAPTER 15: GOVERNMENT POLICY & GUIDANCE ................................ 38 CHAPTER 16: OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS ............................................... 39

1. The Australian Oil and Gas Industry The oil and gas industry is an integral part of the Australian economy. The industry‘s direct contribution includes: the supply of reliable, clean, efficient energy supplies for households and industry; employment of tens of thousands of Australians; regional investment; export income (and the replacement of imports); and the payment of significant amounts of government tax revenues (on average, more than $7 billion per annum over the last five years).

In addition, substantial indirect benefits flow from the industry, including to the national and state economies via a growing services and contractor sector. Reliable, secure and competitively priced energy is crucial to industry, our communities and households. It underpins Australia‘s economy and industrial structure. Within this framework, oil and gas plays a key role. At present, petroleum (oil and gas) accounts for nearly 60 per cent of Australia‘s primary energy needs. This is expected to increase over the next two decade. The policy framework must ensure that Australia‘s explorers and producers are not competitively disadvantaged with producers of other energy sources and similar activities that are undertaken in other countries. Measures that attract increased exploration in the many yet-to-be explored or under-explored areas of Australia are also important.

Australia‘s upstream oil and gas industry has entered a period of unprecedented growth and transformation. Almost $200 billion is currently being invested in oil and gas projects including seven major LNG projects. This will increase Australian GDP by up to 2.2 per cent a year and require a construction workforce peaking at over 100,000 full-time equivalent jobs. By 2025, the construction and operation of these projects is projected to add more than $260 billion1 to Australian GDP and contribute between $7.9 billion and $12.1 billion a year in taxation revenue2. This takes account only of currently committed and ―under construction‖ projects.

The construction activity now underway is delivering large economic benefits to the nation. Gas supply to Australian industry and households is being increased and by 2017 Australia could overtake Qatar as the world‘s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Once operational, these projects will also help reduce the growth in Australian and global greenhouse gas emissions, improve Australia‘s energy security and increase the competitiveness of our energy markets. They will also provide a long-term boost to jobs and income for service industries and tax revenues for governments. The second wave of investment has the potential to increase Australia GDP by $4553 billion by 2035. This investment will require a construction workforce peaking at over 167,000 full-time equivalent jobs, and contribute between $12.1 billion and $12.8 billion in taxation revenue.

1 Figure is quoted in net present value [NPV] terms. 2 Deloitte Access Economic: Harnessing our comparative advantage (June 2012)

3 Figure is quoted in net present value [NPV] terms.

2. Offshore Petroleum Environmental Regulation APPEA continues to support the objective of achieving sound regulatory oversight of the oil and gas industry.

Regulation of the offshore operations of Australia‘s oil and gas industry has undergone a major reform process over recent years, culminating in the establishment of new national regulatory agencies on 1 January 2012. The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) is now responsible for the regulation of occupational health and safety, integrity of facilities and wells, environmental management and day-to-day operations of petroleum activities in commonwealth waters through the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Storage Act 2006 and supporting Regulations.

These reforms arose out of recommendations put forward by the Productivity Commission (PC) in its 2009 Review of the Regulatory Burden on the Upstream Petroleum (Oil and Gas) Sector and by the 2010 report of the Montara Commission of Inquiry.

The Australian Government has also proceeded with other recommendations from the PC and Montara Inquiry Reports and Final Government Response concerning regulatory reform. Of particular significance to the oil and gas industry are recommendations for reforms to achieve the development of environmental risk and outcome-based standards, process improvements and the removal of costly, confusing and unnecessary duplication. This duplication occurs both at a Commonwealth to Commonwealth level through the EPBC Act and OPGGS Act, and also between the Commonwealth and states and territories.

By assuming the responsibilities for offshore regulation previously held by state and territory Designated Authorities, the creation of NOPSEMA represented a significant step in improving consistency and reducing the degree of duplication in offshore petroleum regulation. However, further reform is required. APPEA supports strong environmental regulation that recognises economic and social values as well as conservation values. The goal should be to set an objective and science based framework for reducing risks and impacts to the environment whilst providing certainty to industry. Uncertainty and inconsistency combined with subjective and duplicative regulation creates an unacceptable level of risk and seriously threatens the future development of Australia‘s resources.

The management of the transition to NOPSEMA acquiring responsibility for environmental management of the offshore industry has posed serious challenges for the industry. In some cases, companies requiring acceptance of Environment Plans (EPs) have incurred substantial costs and delays, with implications for pre-existing permits and work program commitments. While transitional issues were to be expected, the focus should now be on issues which are material rather than transitional.

In this regard, there are four key foundational issues on which we believe it is important to establish the correct approach if further streamlining of the Commonwealth‘s environmental regulation of offshore petroleum activities

is to be achieved:

Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development and cumulative impacts; Acceptability/ALARP and Significance Test Definition of Petroleum Activity; and Transparency and consultation.

These issues are discussed in Section 3 of this submission.

Section 4 of our submission provides a response to each of the many options canvassed in the Department‘s ‘Issues Paper’ of December 2012 for the Review of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 (“the Regulations”).

Further, what we have learned from the establishment of NOPSEMA is the necessity for any reforms to be accompanied by a clearly thought through implementation plan including clear transitional arrangements. Some proposed reforms may be designed to allow for future streamlining of regulatory oversight of offshore petroleum activities and remove duplication, and therefore require ‘switching on provisions‘.

3. Key Issues Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) and explicit reference to cumulative impacts and risks

The issues paper outlines a number of options for: Defining the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development

(ESD); and Explicitly referencing and defining ‗evaluation of cumulative impacts

and risks‘

The inclusion of ESD considerations into the regulations is guided by the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, adopted in 19924 . This strategy outlines a commitment from governments to adopt ESD principles into relevant policy making processes. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 adopts the principles of ESD into legislation, as:

(a) decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations; (b) if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation; (c) the principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations; (d) the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making; (e) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted.

Discussion/Key points: APPEA believes that the inclusion of ESD concepts in the Regulations or the OPGGS Act could raise a number of issues:

There appears to be some confusion as to whether the level of scrutiny attached to an Environmental Plan for a petroleum activity under the OPGGS Act regime is equivalent to that required of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the EBPC Act. An EIS is one assessment method under the EPBC Act for an activity that may have a ―significant impact‖ on matters of National Environmental Significance (NES). Environmental Plans are currently required under the Regulations for a much broader range of activities. This point is addressed later in this submission in regard to APPEA support of the concept of a Major Environmental Event (Option 2.4)

EP‘s are currently required to address ALL impacts and risks, not just those with the real risk of a significant impact. The current Regulations are confusing and some provisions do provide for the significance concept yet others do not. For example, Regulation 13(2) suggests all risks must be addressed, then continues on to suggest that the EP must evaluate all the significant impacts and risks.

The application of the ‗precautionary principle‘ can be problematic in some circumstances. The Minister for Environment is required to take

account of the precautionary principle in making decisions under the EPBC Act (section 391 and in applying the principles of ESD). The aspect most open to interpretation is that relating

4 http://www.environment.gov.au/about/esd/index.html#nsesd

to “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

The applicability of the precautionary principle to a proposal requires consideration of two threshold questions: o Is there a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage? o Is there scientific uncertainty as to the environmental damage?

The decision in Telstra Corporation Ltd v HornsbyShire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133 (Telstra) identifies the following factors which may be considered in assessing whether scientific uncertainty as to the nature and scope of the threat of environmental damage exists. o the sufficiency of the evidence that there might be serious or irreversible environmental harm caused by the proposal; o the level of uncertainty, including the kind of uncertainty (such as technical, methodological or epistemological uncertainty); o the potential to reduce uncertainty having regard to what is possible in principle, economically and within a reasonable time frame.

Therefore, it is an important consideration to what extent scientific uncertainty is necessary for the principle to apply. The Telstra case suggests that considerable scientific uncertainty must exist and without scientific uncertainty, the precautionary principle should not apply.

APPEA believes that a better understanding of the required test would be needed before it could be imported into the OPGGS Act and the Regulations.

Similarly, the inclusion of reference to an evaluation of cumulative impacts: may have a number of implications: o The onus should not be on the oil and gas industry to undertake all cumulative impact assessments in areas where there are significant other activities and interests. This may be a government responsibility at a strategic level. o Scientific monitoring is a complex activity in the marine environment and must be appropriate to the nature and scale of the activity. o As conceded in the Issues Paper, individual operators do not have knowledge of what other operators in the vicinity are planning.

APPEA therefore believes that more consultation on the details and implications is required.

Acceptability, ALARP and Significance Test for Impacts and Risks A number of core concepts in the Regulations require careful consideration before amendments are considered: Nature and Scale of Activity Acceptable Level As Low as Reasonably Practicable (or ALARP); and Significance Testing

Discussion/key points: The Regulations currently require (Regulation 11(1)(b) and (c) and

13(3)(b)) that all impacts and all risks are evaluated and clear demonstration and justification is provided that these risks are at an acceptable level. ―Acceptable‖ is determined by taking into consideration principles of ESD, standards and laws, key stakeholders, operator and activity specific requirements and ALARP). The operator is then required to separately demonstrate all risks and impacts are reduced to ALARP levels – regardless of the level of the risk.

However, while regulation 13(3)(b) of the regulations provides that an EP must evaluate all the impacts and risks, 13(3A) clarifies this requirement to ensure (and remove any doubt) that an operator must evaluate significant impacts and risks (from all operations of the activity and also potential emergency conditions).

NOPSEMA‘s recent Guidance Note (Environment Plan Content Requirements: 21/12/2012) also highlights the concept of addressing risks that are ‗appropriate to the nature and scale of the activity‘. The Guidance Note also states that ―unnecessary or irrelevant information should not be provided in an EP”.

The current regulations are confusing and are driving operators to apply and demonstrate both the Acceptable and ALARP tests to all impacts and all risks. This has resulted in large and excessive EPs being required for short term and often low-risk activities. This level of regulatory burden is not commensurate with the level of risk that some activities present.

APPEA therefore supports amendments to the Regulations to focus EP requirements and regulator assessment on significant, rather than all, environmental impacts and risks. Replacing references to ―the environmental impacts and risks‖ with ―all significant environmental impacts and risks‖ in the following Regulations would achieve this purpose: o Acceptance Criteria at Regulations 11(1)(b) and (c); o EP content requirements at Regulations 13(1) and (3); and o Implementation strategy requirements at Regulation 14(3).

The Issues Paper proposes an option to introduce an important concept of ―Major Environmental Event‖ (MEE), but then undermines the efficacy of this approach by stating that all risks are to be evaluated and demonstrated to acceptable and ALARP levels.

The equivalent treatment under the safety Regulations requires a full demonstration of ALARP for the risks associated with major accident events, and all other hazards and risks requires evidence of a safety management system that provides a process for identifying hazards, assessing risks and achieving ALARP. In this way the safety case covers all risks by establishing the process, but through full justification for how ALARP has been achieved for every risk.

APPEA argues for a similar scheme to apply in respect of the environmental regulations. The inclusion of MEE would provide a greater focus on the identification and evaluation of major environmental hazard events and is therefore supported.

The MEE concept is consistent with the significance tests applied under the EPBC Act and the offshore petroleum safety regime‘s concept of major accident events. Only for ‗ an event connected with an activity that has the potential to cause significant environmental impact‘ should a case be required to be made for acceptability and ALARP.

APPEA does not support option 2.6 (page 20 of the Issues Paper) to expressly state that all risks require ALARP and acceptable testing. This defeats the point of introducing the concept of MEE.

APPEA proposes that the references to ―…all impacts and risks‖ in the Environment Regulations be removed. Instead, as in the safety regulations, there should be a new requirement that an operator sets out the details of its management systems and processes that deal with non-MEE risks and that achieve acceptable/ALARP risk levels.

The concepts of ‗acceptable‘ and ALARP are a central concept of the Regulations but require flexibility in their application. APPEA supports introducing more explicit definitions (Option 1.1, Option 2.1 and Option 2.2) as long as the definitions focus on the process of demonstrating acceptability not the risk themselves, and allow for flexibility. An operator is entitled to have an EP accepted if the Regulator has reasonably grounds for believing that the acceptance criteria are met (Regulation 11(1)).

Guidance issued by the Regulator on EP contents has provided some additional clarity on the core concepts involved in an ‗acceptable‘ test: o ‗Acceptable level‘ is the level of impacts and risks that broad considerations, including principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD), the environment, stakeholders, and other requirements indicate will be accepted for the specific activity. o Defined acceptable levels must be established in an EP in order to demonstrate that the impacts and risks of the activity will be acceptable. o Acceptable levels provide a basis against which the magnitude of impacts and risks of the activity can be compared. o In setting acceptable levels, the following need to be considered:

- principles of ESD - other requirements (including standards, laws, policies) - internal context (e.g. consistent with operator policy and goals) - external context (environment and stakeholders) - demonstration of ALARP.

It is clear that just because a risk/impact is acceptable does not mean it is ALARP. ALARP is a concept well understood by the petroleum industry and involves consideration of 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.

Definition of Petroleum Activity The Regulations require petroleum operators who want to conduct a ‗petroleum activity‖ in Commonwealth waters to prepare and implement an environment plan (EP) for the period of the activity. There is no definition of what constitutes a petroleum activity in the OPGGS Act but a definition is provided in the Regulations - that a petroleum activity includes any activity relating to petroleum exploration or development which may have an impact on the environment.

This broad definition has resulted in a large number of extremely low-risk activities, such as geotechnical investigations, coring or other scientific examinations, having to undertake a full EP.

Discussion/Key points: APPEA considers that the intent of the OPGGS Act is to regulate

activities directly related to the exploration for and production of naturally occurring hydrocarbons, such as seismic surveying and the drilling of wells.

Legal opinion provided to APPEA advises that interconnected provisions under the OPGGS Act mean that, to be captured, an activity must be carried out pursuant to a petroleum instrument or related to exploration or development. An EP is currently therefore required for such activities.

APPEA supports the option of more explicitly linking the requirement for an EP to the requirement to hold a petroleum title under the OPGGS Act, such as an Exploration Permit, Special Prospecting Authority, Retention lease, etc. If this process is not adopted, further investigation into whether a significance or materiality threshold could be included in the definition of petroleum activity is recommended in order to narrow the definition to activities which may have a significant impact on the environment.

APPEA is of the view that this matter requires clarification as a matter of urgency.

Consultation and Transparency The Issues Paper considers the effectiveness of consultation (Chapter 5) and the transparency of current arrangements and publication of information (Chapter 9).

Discussion/Key points: Under the EPBC Act, it is only matters of National Environmental

Significance (NES) that require referral and therefore trigger the full public consultation and transparency provisions of that Act. For example, as soon as practicable after receiving a referral the Environment Minister must publish the referral and a 10 business day invitation for anyone to provide the Minister with comments on whether the action should be a controlled action (assessed in Canberra).

APPEA supports in-principle, the need for transparency and to engage and consult with relevant industry stakeholders - both at a strategic level on general impacts and risks associated with petroleum activities in the marine environment, and at a more immediately level with specific stakeholders for a specific activity). APPEA considers that any

new or expanded transparency and consultation provisions introduced into the OPGGS Act regime must also reflect the ‗significance test‘, and ensure the safety and security of petroleum activities.

It should also be recognised that there are already consultation requirements much earlier in the process e.g. through the process for awarding titles and releasing acreage for bidding (annual acreage release). Areas included in a permit ‗release‘ are selected following targeted

consultation aimed at providing information about environmental, fishing, security and other third party considerations that could impact on future petroleum activities in an area. It is acknowledged however that at this stage in the process there may be no clear idea of what the final activity may be, such as drilling into an oil reservoir, and therefore consultation is required at multiple steps as activities become more defined and specific.

It is important to be clear that the general public and stakeholders do not have a regulatory approval role and do not ‘assess’ an activity.

Proposed options that suggest stakeholders could ‘self-identify’ (Options 3.2 and 3.3, p.27) or engage directly with the Regulator raise concerns that this process could be abused by certain groups to deliberately delay activities or to campaign. This is particularly the case if the operator is required to engage and justify each self-nominated relevant person.

Further consideration of the definitions of what constitutes a ‗relevant person‘ under the regulations would be required to ensure that overseas persons, organisations or special interests groups not interested in genuine consultation do not place an unnecessary burden on the process.

4. Review Issues Paper – Analysis of Proposed Options. Chapter 3: Objectives Option 1.1 The current object of the Regulations be expanded to specifically include reference to the concepts of acceptable and ALARP environmental impact and risk management.

See discussion above in the key issues section.

Option 1.2 The principles of ESD be defined for the purposes of the offshore petroleum regulatory regime as in other Commonwealth legislation that refers to these principles. A definition of these principles could be included in either the OPGGS Act, or the regulations.

See discussion above in the key issues section.

Option 1.3 Address the integration of short and long term considerations, inter-generational equity and the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity by including an explicit reference to evaluation of cumulative impacts and risks and a definition. See discussion above in the key issues section.

Chapter 4: Best Practice & Continuous Improvement Option 2.1 The definition of ―environmental performance objective‖ under Sub-regulation 4(1) be aligned more closely with AS/NZS ISO 14001:2004 i.e. the definition in the Regulations could be a hybrid of the definitions of ―environmental performance‖ and ―environmental objective‖ in the standard. The definition should be linked to the concept of an acceptable level of impact and risk such that performance objectives allow an operator to demonstrate that their performance will meet or better the defined acceptable level.

Supported

APPEA welcomes clarity on this option. Performance objectives, standards, control measures and measurement criteria should be properly defined. It should be clear which definition is used in the regulations if there are any references made with the same name as those in definitions used in ISO 14001.

Option 2.2 Include a definition of ―acceptable level‖ in the Regulations. This definition would focus on the magnitude of impacts and risks and the point at which they become acceptable after consideration of the internal and external

context of the activity. The context of the activity includes the principles of ecologically sustainable development, legislative and other requirements, the receiving environment, operator policies, and the views of stakeholders.

Supported APPEA supports a clearer definition in the legislation as to what factors should be considered in determining acceptability for example, principles of ESD other requirements (including standards, laws, policies), internal context (e.g. consistent with operator policy and goals), external context (environment and stakeholders), demonstration of ALARP. The focus should be on the process or the test rather than defining any acceptable level of risk. Operators require flexibility in the application of the concepts of ALARP and acceptable. Acceptable risk is a binary decision making point i.e. is this an acceptable solution or not? Definitions of what is acceptable are unique, and will vary from company to company, and from stakeholder to stakeholder. The definition will also change over time, as expectations, industry practices and technology changes. It is also the first test of two – the second being the need to demonstrate ALARP. This second test encourages continuous improvement and requires a balance to be struck between for example the cost of a control versus the environmental benefit.

Option 2.3 In order to make more explicit the link between performance standards and control measures several options may be considered. These options are not mutually exclusive.

Supported in Part APPEA supports sub-option 1 and 2. APPEA agrees that there are benefits in linking performance standards and control measures as long as the concept is linked to the concept of a Major Environment Event (MEE) as proposed in Option 2.4. Incorporating definitions of performance standards may give increased clarity and certainty to operators. APPEA does not support Sub-Option 3, to integrate the concept of control measures into environmental performance.

Specific comment is provided against the sub-options below, after a broader discussion on the matter of performance standards.

Performance standards Regulation 13(4) states that an EP must include environment performance objectives, environmental performance standards and measurement criteria. The Issues Paper examines a number of methods to make the link between performance standards and control measures more explicit.

Discussion/Key points: APPEA agrees there are benefits in linking performance standards to control measures as long as this is also linked to the concept of Major Environment Event (MEE). An environmental performance standard means a statement of performance required by a control measure that is used as a basis for managing Major Environmental Risk, for the duration of the activity as set out in an EP accepted under the Regulations. In this regard, measurement criteria should also be tied into the concept of MEE. The setting of performance objectives and measurement criteria linked to MEE allows for an auditable record of environmental performance for major risks to be maintained.

Paragraph 13(4)(a) of the Regulations requires an operator to demonstrate in the EP all of the legislative and other controls that manage environmental features of the activity. Option 2.8 (p.20) proposes to separate out the concepts of ‗legislative controls‘ and ‗control measures‘ and require these concepts to be separately communicated and captured. The concept of ‗legislative control‘ is potentially misleading – legislation sets out legal

requirements and includes both performance and technical standards to be met - they are not really ‗controls‘ in themselves. APPEA would recommend the Regulations require the EP to set out the standards that will be applied (including legislative standards) and the control measures that will achieve those standards. Industry does not support any requirement that operators provide evidence in an EP of how they are meeting other legislative requirements beyond the Regulations unless it is in the following manner - the EP states a legislative requirement/standard (which might be from other Regulations) and then clearly sets out the control measures to achieve that standard for the purposes of achieving acceptable level and ALARP for the impacts and risks of the petroleum activity in question.

Sub-option 1 (supported) Redefine performance standards so they explicitly link to control measures. A definition could be:

Environmental performance standard means a statement of performance required by a control measure that is used as a basis for managing environmental risk, for the duration of the activity as set out in an environment plan accepted under these regulations.

Sub-option 2 (supported) If Option 1 is adopted, include a definition of control measure in the Regulations. This could utilise the current performance standard definition and state ‗Control measure means a system, an item of equipment, a person or a procedure that is used as a basis for managing environmental risk.

Sub-option 3 (not supported) Maintain the current definition of an environmental performance standard but integrate the concept of control measures in this definition.

Option 2.4 Amend the regulations to include the concept of a Major Environmental Event (MEE): ―an event connected with an activity having the potential to cause significant environmental impact‖. This concept should be aligned with the requirements for EP summaries and a definition of what constitutes a MEE included under Regulation 4(1).

Supported APPEA supports the introduction of a ―Major Environmental Event‖ to provide a greater focus on the identification and evaluation of major environmental hazard events. The MEE concept is consistent with the significance impact test under the EPBC Act and the offshore petroleum safety regime‘s concept of major accident events – so only for ‗an event connected with an activity having the potential to cause significant environmental impact‘ would a case need to be made for acceptability and ALARP.

Linked to this option however, APPEA does not support option 2.6 below – this defeats the point of introducing the concept of an MEE. APPEA proposes that the references to ―all impacts and risks‖ in the Regulations

be removed. Instead, as in the safety regulations, there should be a new requirement that an operator sets out the details of their management systems and processes that deal with non-MEE risks and that achieve acceptable /ALARP risk levels. Safety regulations requires a full demonstration of ALARP for the risks associated with major

accident events, and all other hazards and risks require evidence of a safety management system. These systems must provide a process for identifying hazards, assessing risks and achieving ALARP – but not a full justification for how ALARP has been achieved for every risk.

APPEA proposes that references to ―all impacts and risks‖ in the Environment Regulations be removed. Instead, as in the safety regulations, there should be a requirement that an operator sets out the details of their management systems and processes that deal with non-MEE risks and that achieve acceptable and ALARP risk levels.

Option 2.5 Amend the Regulations to provide a greater focus on the identification and evaluation of major environmental hazard events and controls measures, which at present are only specifically identified as major environmental hazards in Sub paragraph 11(8)(a)(iv) in relation to a summary EP, and indirectly by Sub regulation 13(3A) which refers to ―significant impacts and risks” and ―potential emergency conditions”.

Supported As above, industry strongly supports greater focus on the identification and evaluation of major environmental hazards. The regulations should provide for the reduction of regulatory burden relating to the identification and management of low order risks. As noted in key issues and Option 2.4, an event connected with an activity having the potential to cause significant environmental impact would require a full case for acceptability / ALARP.

Option 2.6 Ensure the wording of Regulations 13(3) and 13(3A) is clear that all risks are to be evaluated and that all risks must be demonstrated to be acceptable and ALARP.

Not Supported See ALARP discussion in the key issues section. Industry does not support that all risks must be demonstrated to be acceptable and ALARP. Consistent with comments on the management of Major Environmental Risks above (Option 2.4 and 2.5) ALARP demonstration should not be required for low risks with well understood impacts. Regulations should be amended to ensure consistency between regulation 13(3)(a) and 13(3A). In particular amend 13(3) to focus on evaluation of all significant impacts and risks.

Option 2.7 Include a definition of measurement criteria in Sub-regulation 4(1). Measurement criteria must allow an operator to determine if performance objectives and standards have been met. Measurement criteria may consist of parameters or methods used to determine the achievement of an objective and standard. Any measurement criterion should result in production of a record to verify that the stated level of performance has been attained

Supported with Amendment APPEA supports defining measurement criteria in Sub-regulation 4(1). APPEA would make the following recommendation to amend the wording of this option. Records of measurement criteria should be available during an

audit process, i.e. ―Any measurement criterion should result in a record that can be produced if required to verify that the stated level of performance has been attained‖. APPEA recommends the wording of this option be amended as above.

Option 2.8 For clarity, split Paragraph 13(4)(a) so the concepts of legislative controls and control measures are more clearly required to be separately communicated and captured in performance objectives and standards.

Supported in Part Industry supports clarifying control measures. However, splitting legislative controls and control measures most not result in duplicate demonstration of legislative controls from other Acts (i.e. EPBC conditions duplicated in EPs). The concept of legislative control is potentially misleading – legislation sets out the legal requirements and describes the performance and technical standards that need to be met to meet this requirement. Legislation is therefore not a control in itself. APPEA recommends that regulations should require the EP to set out the standards that will be applied (including legislative standards) and the control measures required to achieve those standards.

Option 2.9 Remove Regulations 29 (Discharge of produced formation water) and 29A (Tests and reports of discharges of produced formation water) from the Regulations so the requirements of these regulations are incorporated with the management of all environmental risks and impacts to ALARP and acceptable levels.

Supported in Part APPEA agrees that the removal of Regulations 29 and 29A relating to the discharge of Produced Formation Water (PFW) is consistent with an objective based regime and ALARP Demonstration. However, APPEA is concerned that this amendment may result in unforseen issues which must be resolved, such as:

This option may affect the ability of the regulator to give consent if there is to be a temporary excursion over a stipulated limit. A mechanism could be put in place whereby the operator could seek temporary deviation from a stipulated limit.

How international standards may be affected – as these regulations hold Australia to them.

Additional burden for industry. The previous Petroleum Submerged Lands regulations required operators to show reason why PFW discharge should not be lower than maximum amounts specified in regulations. Currently 30ppm is used as a limit, and operators are not required to demonstrate why it shouldn‘t be lower. NOPSEMA expectations on how ALARP assessment and demonstration would be required in order to avoid confusion on ALARP Demonstration. The adoption of Major Environmental Events (MEE) as proposed in option 2.5 would alleviate this concern.

Chapter 5: Consultation and Notification Option 3.1 (Refer also to Option 7.2 and Option 8.2)

At least 10 business days prior to submission of an EP a proponent must provide the Regulator with the following details for public disclosure:

(i) Coordinates of the activity (ii) A summary description of the receiving environment (iii) A summary description of the activity ((iv) Details of title numbers (v) Details of consultation already undertaken and plans for ongoing

consultation (vi) Contact details for the nominated liaison personnel for the activity.

This should include provisions that the Regulator may decline to consider a submission if this information is not provided within the required time frame or delay their commencement of assessment until the required timeframe has passed. To prevent vexatious claims by persons seeking to delay activities, this addition could also include a time limit for inclusion of information in an EP by the operator i.e. if correspondence is received after the 10 day comment period has closed this does not need to be addressed in the subsequent submission. This option will improve the transparency of the consultation process and ensure that concerns raised by stakeholders are adequately addressed prior to submission of an EP.

Supported in Part APPEA considers that any new/additional transparency and consultation provisions introduced into the OPGGS Act regime would need to reflect the ‗significance test‘ (as proposed with the MEE concept), and ensure the safety and security of petroleum activities. See discussion in key issues.

Currently a summary EP is required within 10 days after receiving notification that the Regulator has accepted an environment plan. Public submission prior to the finalisation of an EP may add significant burden (timing and compliance) on industry if significant review of content is required prior to publishing in the public arena. APPEA believes the requirement to have details of consultation already undertaken publicly released prior to an EP submission could provide an incomplete picture of consultation results that are still in progress. This may also push operators to have all consultation completed at the time of public disclosure in order to avoid publishing an incomplete report.

If this option is adopted, the content for public disclosure should resemble what is provided under the EPBC Act referral process and include information for future planned consultation, etc. Details of the consultation already undertaken by the operator should be removed. The detailed accounts of the public consultation required in the EP should be sufficient to allow the regulator to assess appropriate consultation levels.

Option 3.2 Modify Sub regulation 11A to allow a person or organisation to identify themselves to the operator as a ‗relevant person‘ as their interests or activities may be affected by the activities to be carried out. The operator must then assess the merits of any objection or claim raised by self -nominating persons or organisations and present the results of this assessment in an EP or a revision to an EP. The obligation of the operator to consult with other relevant persons would be retained.

Supported in Principle (needs further work) This option requires further consultation with industry before APPEA can support an amendment to the regulations. APPEA‘s members are concerned that this process could be abused by certain groups to deliberately delay activities or to campaign. This is particularly the case if the operator is required to engage and justify each self-nominated relevant person. Further consideration of the definitions of what constitutes a ‗relevant person‘ under the regulations would be required to ensure that overseas persons, organisations or special interests groups not interested in genuine consultation do not place an unnecessary burden on the process. This approach might also keep the operator out of the loop in terms of knowing the details of issues raised. However, APPEA is of the view that this process could add value if the Regulator is able to provide a genuine link between unknown stakeholders and industry without becoming in effect an ‗arbitrator‘.

Option 3.3 Modify the consultation and EP assessment provisions of the Regulations to enable stakeholders to engage directly with the Regulator in relation to a consultation process.

Not Supported APPEA requires further consultation before an amendment of this sort can be supported. APPEA is concerned that this option may compromise objective based regulation as the regulator would be required to assess the validity of consultation concerns and become the arbitrator of consultation.

Option 3.4 As per the Commonwealth Minister for Resources and Energy‘s decision, amend Sub-regulation 15(2) to include a requirement of advance notification to the department or agency of the responsible state or NT minister for all seismic and drilling activities (and not just when they may have an impact on the community in the area where the drilling or seismic survey will be carried out).

Supported APPEA supports this option, as it aligns State and Commonwealth information repositories.

Option 3.5 Expand Regulation 15 by including a requirement for notification of start and end dates of activities to the Regulator. Notification of completion of an activity should have the clear effect that an EP is no longer in force.

Supported in Part The ability of an operator to accurately determine the start date of an activity is dependent on whether all environmental approvals have been received, and whether suitable contractors and

equipment are secured. In addition, work program schedules require flexibility in order to effectively manage unforseen or force majeure issues such as vessel availability, delays and weather.

While APPEA supports notification to the regulator of start and end dates, consideration of this option must recognise the above points and give flexibility to operators as to how and when they notify. For example, notification could be given at the commencement of an activity to allow flexibility in a certain schedule and meet notification requirements. Consideration must also be given as to how the notification of an end date for an EP may affect operations that are transitioning to another phase of work.

Chapter 6: Reporting Option 4.1 The definition of a recordable incident under sub-regulation 4(1) is clarified to require that any breach of a performance objective or standard resulting from the activity must be reported to the Regulator.

Not Supported Current regulations require all incidents with the potential to cause moderate or significant environmental damage to be reported. The regulations also establish a recordable incident as ―an incident arising from the activity that:

o (a) breaches a performance objective or standard in the environment plan that applies to the activity; and

o (b) is not a reportable incident.”

A reportable incident means an incident relating to the activity that has caused, or has the potential to cause, moderate or significant environmental damage.

The issues paper raises a concern that the definition of a reportable incident (potential for moderate or significant environmental damage) varies from company to company, and therefore a wide range of environmental incidents are reported.

While APPEA supports clarifying the reporting and recording criteria under the legislation, amending sub-regulation 4(1) to require any breach to be reported to the regulator would result in minor and trivial breaches and incidents being reported. This would create an excessive reporting burden on both the operator and the regulator, and divert limited resources away from actually addressing these. The attention for reporting should be on significant breaches, incidents and MEEs. APPEA is of the view that the current provisions require ‘recording’ of these breaches, and that these must be able to be produced at an audit/inspection so the regulator can verify what has been done to address the breaches. Those breaches that also fit the description for a ‘reportable’ incident must be reported.

Option 4.2

Paragraph 26(4)(c) be modified to state that an operator must notify a reportable incident orally within 2 hours, with a written report to follow in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 26A. Consequential amendments would also be required to Regulation 26AA.

Supported in Part APPEA supports this amendment as it clarifies expectations in the regulations.

Option 4.3 Amend the Regulations to require the operator to provide further reports and/or analysis of environmental incidents, following the initial notification and receipt of the written report

Not Supported There is currently no provision in the regulations that requires the operator to detail further analysis or other measures taken after the reporting of an incident. APPEA notes that regular reporting during the Montara incident was essential for public awareness during the response. While this is not currently a legislative requirement this can already be mandated under a direction given to a titleholder under the OPGGS Act.

APPEA is of the view this should only be required for MEEs or significant incidents, and does not support the requiring of incident investigation reports for all moderate incidents or for recordable incidents. This would be a large reporting and compliance burden to industry. Any reporting in this option must only be required for significant reportable incidents (such as MEE), or where the regulator / Minister believes it is required for incidents of significant nature.

Option 4.4 Amend the Regulations to require the operator to provide periodic reports in the event of a significant incident

Supported in Part There is currently no provision for the operator to provide a periodic report in the event of a significant and ongoing incident. As above, industry is concerned that this option may impose additional compliance burden if significant incident definition is too broad, and reporting requires significant effort. ―Significant incident‖ and ―period‖ must be defined in order to remove ambiguity. There is concern that this could duplicate reportable or recordable reporting categories.

Option 4.5 The requirements under Regulations 26 and 26A be clarified to ensure that operators provide both corrective and preventative actions in written reports. A notification under Regulation 26 should include details of corrective actions undertaken to address the incident, whilst a follow up report should also contain detail of preventative actions to stop similar incidents from occurring in future.

Not Supported APPEA does not support an amendment as the language in the regulations is suitable for the regulator to implement this. In addition, APPEA has concerns that a three day timeframe for a report of preventative actions is unrealistic as it generally takes some time to understand the detail of the problem and establish preventative actions.

Additional Regulation 26 (4)(d)(iii) should be removed as it is unlikely that an operator would be able to detail corrective actions within 2 hours of an incident to prevent reoccurrence.

Chapter 7: Representation Option 5.1 Enhance transparency by requiring public disclosure of proposed activities in line with the discussion in Chapter 5: Consultation and notification.

Supported in Part Operators are currently required to submit an EP summary within 10 days of receiving notification that the Regulator has accepted an environment plan. However, public submission prior to the finalisation of an EP could add additional burden (timing and compliance) on industry relating to the review of content prior to publishing in the public arena.

If this option is adopted, the content for public disclosure should resemble what is provided under the EPBC Act referral process and details of consultation already undertaken should be removed. The detailed accounts of public consultation required in the EP should be sufficient to allow the regulator to assess appropriate consultation levels.

Chapter 8: Duties & Responsibilities of Parties Option 6.1 To fix the disconnect between the title related provisions of the OPGGS Act and the obligations contained in the Regulations, and to ensure multiple titleholder provisions in the OPGGS Act are able to be extended to the Regulations, it is proposed to remove references in the Regulations to instruments, instrument holders, the operator and agent, and make the titleholder responsible under the Regulations for all matters currently the responsibility of these parties.

A consequence of this option would be that no EP for any activity could be submitted to the Regulator until an appropriate title has been granted and that any activity that does not require a title will no longer require an EP.

Sub-regulation 31(1) requires the instrument holder to ensure that, at all times, there is an operator of the activity. The operator of an activity does not need to be an instrument holder – but is the person responsible to the instrument holder for the overall management and operation of the activity. This issues paper notes that this creates a disconnect from the responsibilities of an instrument holder and the operator of an activity (who may be a subsidiary of the titleholder). There are specific obligations for a titleholder but not for an operator. For example, Non-compliance with the legislation is grounds for the cancellation of a title.

Supported By providing that any activity that does not require a title will no longer require an EP simplifies the regulations and defers the responsibility of environmental management to the titleholder.

There are a number of activities that do not require a title that currently require an EP – such as met-ocean or geophysical studies. This option, while

providing clarification for obligations, could also streamline the scope of ‘petroleum activities’ to those that require a title under the OPGGS Act.

This process would require the title be held prior to an EP submission. As a result, adopting this option would require closer working relationships with titles administration to ensure that no undue delays are encountered in the title process. For example, in order to minimise delays

operators may submit an EP at the same time as applying for the appropriate title under the OPGGS Act.

Option 6.2 Consider options for the process of EP assessment and grant of title to occur concurrently, reviewing both the costs in added complexity and industry views on potential benefits.

Supported APPEA agrees that if option 6.1 above is adopted, the consideration of concurrent assessment of titles and EP assessment is required. This would assist in minimise undue delays to EP submission if there is a delay with titles administration.

Chapter 9: Transparency Option 7.1 The publication requirements at the time of submission of the EP be expanded to include the information listed in Paragraph 11(8)(a) (to be caveated by a declaration that the information was correct at the time of submission, but the accepted activity may differ in some respects).

Currently Paragraph 11(8)(a) requires that a summary must be provided within 10 days after receiving a notification from the regulator that the EP has been accepted. This summary must include (to the satisfaction of the regulator): (i) Coordinates of the Activity; (ii) A description of the receiving environment; (iii) A description of the action; (iv) Details of major environmental hazards and controls; (v) A summary of the management approach; (vi) Details of consultation already undertaken, and plans for ongoing consultation; and (vii) Contact details of the operator‘s nominated liaison personnel for the activity.

Option 7.1 proposes amending this regulation to require that this summary be provided at the time of application, rather than the time of acceptance.

Supported in Part APPEA supports transparency and information provisions, and the value of early engagement. We have some questions about the efficacy of transparency at an early stage of in the EP submission process given the comprehensive nature of EPs which currently address all impacts and risks. If this provision is linked to proposals for MEEs and a management systems approach to the remaining risks and impacts, APPEA may be able to support this option. Under the EPBC Act, it is only matters of National Environmental Significance that require referral and therefore trigger the full public consultation and transparency provisions.

APPEA is concerned that as the EP is revised the summary would also require revision. This may create administrative burden on the operator for minimal gain. Due to this it may be more appropriate for the submission of

an EP summary at the acceptance of the EP - as it is consistent with the final arrangements.

Option 7.2 That the proponent must provide the Regulator with certain details for public disclosure in line with option 3.1 in Chapter 5 (see also Option 8.2).

Supported in Part APPEA supports transparency arrangements that provide clear and concise information to genuine stakeholders and acknowledges that the introduction of a 10 day comment period could improve transparency prior to submission.

However, public submission prior to the finalisation of an Environment Plan would add additional burden (timing and compliance) on industry relating to the review of content prior to publishing in the public arena. In particular, industry are concerned that the requirement to have details of consultation already undertaken publicly released prior to an EP submission could provide an incomplete picture of consultation results that have not yet been concluded. This may also push operators to have all consultation completed at the time of public disclosure in order to avoid publishing an incomplete report.

If this option is adopted, the content for public disclosure should resemble what is provided under the EPBC Act referral process and details of consultation already undertaken should be removed. The detailed accounts of public consultation required in the EP should be sufficient to allow the regulator to assess appropriate consultation levels.

Option 7.3 Once the EP has been accepted, the contents of summary EPs be made more comprehensive and include additional content requirements in the Regulations. These additional content requirements should include a summary of oil spill response arrangements, a summary of monitoring to be undertaken and the existing requirements of regulation 11(8).

Supported in-Principle APPEA notes that this option fulfils the Australian Government‘s acceptance of the Montara Commission of Inquiry‘s recommendation 97 that Oil Spill Contingency Plans (OSCP‘s) be made publicly available (with consideration whether OSCP‘s could be published without commercial prejudice to the operator).

APPEA agrees that providing additional information on the arrangements put in place by industry to combat an oil spill could provide benefit in providing further information to the public. However, industry is concerned that the detailed provisions of oil spill contingency planning information will be difficult for the public to understand and could put undue emphasis on the remote possibility of major oil spills. For example releasing oil spill trajectory modelling information could mislead the public more than inform them. A demonstration of the complete response arrangements would also be difficult to fulfil without adding substantial information to the summary. This would create significant additional burden to industry.

If this option is adopted significant guidance should be provided (in consultation with industry) to accurately communicate what spill response information could be included in an EP summary that provides an accessible and realistic picture of arrangements without undue burden on industry.

Amending Regulation 11(8) as proposed at Option 8.2 would provide sufficient legislative room for further details of certain content of OSCP‘s to

be made available. Any further clarification required can be managed through guidelines. These guidelines could be developed with industry to accurately determine what spill response information could be included in an EP summary that provides a realistic picture of arrangements without undue burden on industry. APPEA

believes this is a more appropriate mechanism for achieving this goal than further legislative change.

Option 7.4 Include a provision for the Regulator to require modification and resubmission of a summary in a timely manner if the document does not meet the requirements outlined in the Regulations.

Not Supported Regulation 11(8)(b) states that a summary EP must be to the satisfaction of the regulator. APPEA does not support an additional amendment as this option can be resolved within the existing regulatory framework. Additional guidance would ensure that summary documents are comprehensive, transparent and provided in an accessible format.

Option 7.5: The Regulations be amended to require operators to publish reports of environmental performance which are currently required to be submitted to the Regulator under Section 15.

Supported in-Part Operators have a legal obligation under the Regulations to report incidents within a specified period of time, depending on the impact or potential impact to the environment. APPEA notes that reports of environmental performance that are submitted to the regulator have already been routinely released under Freedom of Information Provisions.

APPEA agrees that explicitly publishing this data may clarify existing expectations for reporting and publishing environmental performance and increase transparency and public confidence in the industry. If this option is adopted, care must be given that the reporting process is implemented in a framework that is supportive (such as safety reporting), encourages industry improvement and implements a no blame, incident sharing culture.

Option 7.6: Investigation and enforcement provisions under the OPGGS Act and/or Regulations be amended to allow the Regulator to publish the results of an investigation.

Not Supported The publication of incident investigations is generally consistent with regulatory compliance provisions and other applicable legislation. In addition, APPEA acknowledges that this information is generally available under broad FOI provisions.

APPEA notes that the current Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Compliance Measures) Bill 2012 is currently before parliament. This bill will strengthen existing penalties in the Act for breaches of provisions and information and inspection powers have been strengthened. APPEA is concerned that incident reporting under the environment regulations would duplicate the investigation provisions of the criminal and civil penalty regime. Consideration of incident reporting is not suitable for Regulations and should be considered in the OPGGS Act.

Option 7.7 The OPGGS Act and/or associated regulations be amended to require (from a date to be proclaimed) the submission to GA (or another specified data management agency) of environmental data acquired for environmental assessment, monitoring, and oil spill response

under the Regulations by the titleholder or a contractor on their behalf. This requirement would not be activated until the facilities are in place for environmental data to be processed effectively.

Cannot be supported on current information APPEA agrees that the centralised management of environmental data could have benefits through open access to a large volume of marine data for all stakeholders. The management and demonstration of this data could positively contribute to improving the social licence of the industry and improve better planning and awareness of environmental outcomes.

A central repository of marine data is not a new concept to the offshore oil and gas industry and proposals to manage marine data have been proposed from Geoscience Australia, the CSIRO, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, and many other individual research institutions.

While APPEA agrees that the discussion on a central repository for marine data is an important one, there are significant hurdles that must be overcome before industry can support amendments to regulations to give effect to any arrangement. Serious consideration is required on a number of issues such as:

data quality and management; data collection and format; data identification; funding of central repository; existing data, and aggregation; confidentiality arrangements and excluded data.

In addition, any future discussion on the legislative requirement for the submission of environmental data is not appropriately managed through the environment regulations. The regulations have the objective of managing environmental risk. As is the case for data that is currently submitted for geological information, specific data management regulations are required in order to ensure that the role of the cost-recovered independent regulator is not complicated. APPEA welcomes additional discussions with Government on this option.

Chapter 10: Marine pollution incidents The ‗Options‘ set out in the Issues Paper seek to address the effectiveness and completeness of the current Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP) provisions as a mechanism for requiring adequate preparation for and response to marine pollution incidents from petroleum activities. In addition, the paper also considers ‗polluter pays‘ principles and seeks to clarify financial and insurance capabilities – to ensure that the social, environmental and economic impacts of a significant offshore petroleum incident are appropriately addressed in the legislative regime. A specific response to the Options is provided below after a broader discussion of key issues.

Discussion/Key points:

APPEA agrees that oil spill response arrangements must be relevant and commensurate to the nature and scale of the range of credible spill scenarios evaluated.

APPEA is of the view that the current Environmental Regulations lack clarity on what is acceptable or should be the contents of the OSCP, and that NOPSEMA is relying on guidance material to enforce this. APPEA recommends that the Environmental Regulations

should mirror the approach of Section 2.20 of the OPGGS (Safety) Regulations 2009 for the emergency response plan, and set out clear ‗acceptance criteria‘.

The definition of a ―credible event‖ requires clarification, as currently all scenarios regardless of the likelihood or consequence appear to require an OSCP. The removal or clarification of the term ‘credible’ could be aligned with a significance test.

The inclusion of requirements for operators to provide evidence of detailed financial arrangements in the EP, such as insurance, cost-recovery and other financial liabilities associated with impacts and remediation of the environment needs clarification. APPEA acknowledges this arises directly from the Montara Report Recommendations.

The OPGSS Act already requires such insurance (see section 571 of the Act) but the current wording has led to some confusion and inconsistency in implementation. In addition, the Montara Recommendations acknowledged that fact that at the title point, the titleholder may not you know what they will find and therefore the risks associated with the activity e.g. drilling into an oil reservoir, and therefore there needs to be further consideration of specific insurance etc. at the point of the EP.

The OPGGS Bill Explanatory Memorandum 2005 - provided this context to the introduction of Clause 302 – Insurance:

“This clause is inserted to ensure that a titleholder takes out adequate insurance to cover eventualities such as blowouts, pollution damage and clean-up costs. The requirement is mandatory under the letter of the Act in the case of exploration permittees, retention lessees and production, pipeline and infrastructure licensees but is at the discretion of the Designated Authority in the case of holders of special prospecting authorities and access authorities. The difference is due to the fact that neither of the latter titles allows the drilling of a well or the laying of pipelines, meaning the operations are, on average, less risky. A scenario where the holder of a special prospecting authority or an access authority could be given a direction relating to clean-up or remedying the effects of an escape of petroleum could involve a seismic vessel used by the holder of a special prospecting authority or access authority colliding with a petroleum production platform. In the case of every title, the phrase ―as directed by the Designated Authority from time to time‖ means that the Designated Authority may issue directions about the comprehensiveness and level of cover of the insurance that is to be held. Equivalent provision in PSL Act: subsections 97A(1) and (2) Policy change: that the Designated Authority‘s direction is to be in writing”

Option 8.1 The terminology in the Regulations be updated to ‘Oil Pollution Emergency Plans (OPEP)’ so as to improve consistency with the OPRC terminology. Insert new definition of Oil Pollution Emergency Plans.

Supported

APPEA supports consistent terminology.

Option 8.2: Sub-regulation 11(8) be amended to add a requirement to summarise the OSCP or be more explicit about OSCP details and arrangements in the EP summary. This aligns with option 7.2 in the previous chapter of this paper.

Supported in Part See response for Option 7.3.

Option 8.3: Sub-regulation 13(1) (description of activity) be amended to more clearly require a description of the planned response activities that are to be implemented following the occurrence of an unplanned hydrocarbon release.

Not Supported The current wording of the regulations already provides that an Environment Plan must contain the description and demonstration of an activity and environmental impacts and risks. However, APPEA agrees there may have been some confusion as to where this description fits within an EP and additional clarity may be required.

Option 8.4: Any amended wording of Regulations 12-15 should be considered in the context of oil spill risk and response matters, to ensure they maintain and improve relevance where appropriate. The wording of Sub-regulations 13(3) and 13(4) should be amended to avoid any doubt that these regulations are equally as applicable to oil spill risks and spill response activities.

Not supported APPEA notes that the intent of the regulations are not to focus on oil spill response from unplanned events. The regulations are designed to manage all significant risks associated with impacts from activities.

In addition, it may not be appropriate to apply standard objectives, standards and measurement criteria to the response associated with unplanned events. In addition, ALARP should not be required for every response measure. Net environmental benefit analysis is more appropriate for response to oil spills and is more consistent with world-wide requirements. The concept of ‘acceptable’ is difficult to relate to response activities – as the definition of acceptable in emergency situations changes.

Option 8.5: Sub-regulations 14(8AA) and 14(8A) which define the requirements for OSCPs elaborate on the ‘response arrangements’ to be addressed within the submission by explicitly requiring that submissions describe:

(a) the operational response activities to be implemented for the range of credible scenarios defined within the risk assessment; (b) the preparedness arrangements to ensure a response capability is in place and is maintained; (c) consistency with the national framework for oil spill response; and (d) arrangements in place to control the source of a potential hydrocarbon spill in the event of an emergency

The details of these arrangements would be required content of the OPEP, but where this content is to be provided would not specified. The amendments to Sub-regulations 14(8) and 14(8AA) would reflect that the OPEP is an operational response document, and accordingly the relevant evaluations, justifications and demonstrations of preparedness are to be provided elsewhere in the EP.

Supported This is already required by NOPSEMA through guidance and a formal amendment may assist operators by clarify existing expectations. Industry supports that the definition of ―credible event‖ requires clarification, as currently all scenarios appear to require an OSCP. The removal or clarification of a ‘credible’ event is supported in line with the concept of MEE or a significance test.

Option 8.6: The OPEP to include arrangements for monitoring of response efficacy and the impacts on the receiving environment appropriate to the credible spill scenarios defined for the activity. With respect to environmental monitoring, response arrangements should include: (a) Operational monitoring to inform the response activities; and (b) Scientific monitoring for environmental damage assessment including extent, severity and duration and arrangements for baseline studies.

Not Supported The requirement to incorporate this change into regulations rather than through guidance is not warranted. Operational and Scientific Monitoring Programs should only be required where there are significant risks or impacts to the environment and should align with the nature and scale of the activity. Through existing legislation, monitoring requirements are linked with applicable standards, objectives and measurement criteria through the remainder of the EP.

The issues paper also considerably underestimates the workload, time and cost involved in monitoring requirements. Monitoring of the receiving environment as a complex biological system and it is impossible to achieve a yes or no outcome. This is not a minor burden to industry.

Option 8.7: Sub-regulation 14(8A) should be updated to clarify the intent of the Regulation. The Regulations should ensure that the oil spill response arrangements are tested and the objectives of the test: (a) assess the elements of response relevant to notification, communications, responsibilities, mobilisation and response operations. (b) demonstrate that the operator is adequately prepared to respond to a spill and mitigate impacts of a spill to ALARP.

Not Supported APPEA does not believe that there is a clear case to incorporate this into regulations as this could be communicated effectively through guidance. In addition, guidance should provide clarity to operators who carry out multiple operations as this proposal as it stands may require too frequent testing and exercises, which are costly and resource intensive. Only activities that require high level mobilisation (such as Tier 3 response) should require this level of testing and it should not be operational specific.

Option 8.8 Sub-regulation 14(8) to require that the response arrangements described in the OPEP are relevant and commensurate to the nature and scale of the range of credible spill scenarios evaluated in Sub-regulations 13(3) and 13(3A).

Not supported APPEA supports that response arrangements described in the OSCP must be relevant and commensurate to the nature and scale of the credible spill scenario. APPEA reiterates that there is benefit in defining credible spill scenario in the legislation.

Option 8.9: The EP is required to detail the arrangements in place for insurance, cost-recovery and other financial liabilities associated with impacts to the environment and remediation of those impacts to the environment, and include an independent validation of necessary insurance or financial capacity, commensurate to the risks of the activity.

Further clarification required The inclusion of requirements for operators to provide evidence of detailed financial arrangements in the EP, such as insurance, cost-recovery and other financial liabilities associated with impacts and remediation of the environment needs clarification. APPEA acknowledges this arises directly from the Montara Report Recommendations.

The OPGSS Act already requires such insurance (see section 571 of the Act) but the current wording has led to some confusion and inconsistency in implementation. In addition, the Montara Recommendations acknowledged that fact that at the title point, the titleholder may not you know what they will find and therefore the risks associated with the activity e.g. drilling into an oil reservoir, and therefore there needs to be further consideration of specific insurance etc. at the point of the EP.

The OPGGS Bill Explanatory Memorandum 2005 - provided this context to the introduction of Clause 302 – Insurance:

This clause is inserted to ensure that a titleholder takes out adequate insurance to cover eventualities such as blowouts, pollution damage and clean-up costs. The requirement is mandatory under the letter of the Act in the case of exploration permittees, retention lessees and production, pipeline and infrastructure licensees but is at the discretion of the Designated Authority in the case of holders of special prospecting authorities and access authorities. The difference is due to the fact that neither of the latter titles allows the drilling of a well or the laying of pipelines, meaning the operations are, on average, less risky. A scenario where the holder of a special prospecting authority or an access authority could be given a direction relating to clean-up or remedying the effects of an escape of petroleum could involve a seismic vessel used by the holder of a special prospecting authority or access authority colliding with a petroleum production platform. In the case of every title, the phrase “as directed by the Designated Authority from time to time” means that the Designated Authority may issue directions about the comprehensiveness and level of cover of the insurance that is to be held. Equivalent provision in PSL Act: subsections 97A(1) and (2) Policy change: that the Designated Authority’s direction is to be in writing

Option 8.10 If specific content requirements of the ‘response arrangements’ are not amended into the Regulations, then the regulation could be amended to clarify that the response arrangements are described to the satisfaction of the Regulator. This would then provide further opportunity for the Regulator to elaborate on these requirements within guidance

Not supported APPEA does not support this option. Including an amendment to ensure response arrangements are to the ‘satisfaction of the regulator’ is inconsistent with the existing objective based regulations and duplicative of the existing acceptance criteria. It introduces an unacceptable level of subjectivity and uncertainty, and would enable regulatory creep of expectations.

Option 8.11 Insert a new regulation to enable the Regulator to call a no-notice real-time spill response exercise requiring the operator to respond accordingly and deploy to a level directed by the Regulator and report back to the Regulator on completion.

Not supported Industry does not support the introduction of no-notice spill response exercised. No-notice real time spill response exercises would pose a large and inappropriate impact on the operator for a small gain in confidence for the regulator. APPEA notes that the regulator has powers to review exercise outcomes via inspections. This process is sufficient to evaluate objectives of the regulations.

Option 8.12

For consistency, the term ‘remediate’ be used in reference to the response arrangements required by Sub-regulation 14(8AA) and the term be defined within the Regulations.

Supported in Part The OPGGS Act provides scope for the regulator to issue remediation orders via direction powers. While no amendments are required, APPEA agrees that the definition of remediation should be incorporated and must be carefully defined. This is particularly important as remediation of the marine environment is difficult to implement and evaluate and often the best option is to allow the marine environment to recover naturally without intervention. Remediation is recovery to similar or like levels to the immediate proximity of the observed impact.

Chapter 11: Alignment of terminology Option 9.1 The definition of ‘environment’ in the Environment Regulations is elevated to the OPPGS Act.

Supported APPEA agrees with this proposal, with the provision that this definition is consistent with the intended scope of the Regulations.

Option 9.2 The Regulations include a provision to allow the Regulator to request further written information when considering the acceptance of an EP.

Supported in Part APPEA supports this option as it would allow operators to clarify information in the assessment process. This allows additional information to be incorporated without a formal rejection or submission (and additional fee payment). APPEA notes however, that there is nothing precluding the Regulator from already requesting further information in the assessment process and formally incorporating this requirement may not be necessary. Further, if such an amendment was introduced there may be a need for some additional consideration of implications for assessment timeframes. Currently the timeframe for an EP‘s acceptance or not acceptance (or unable to make a decision) is 30 days. If this provision generated an additional clock stopping provision APPEA would require further consultation.

Option 9.3 Clarify what constitutes a petroleum activity in order to clearly define which activities require submission of an EP, particularly:

(a) assess other surveys in Table 11.1: Listed Petroleum Activities, activity type (i) seismic and other surveys; and (b) to avoid confusion, delete or amend activity type (xi) storage, processing or transport of petroleum

The latter may require revision and expansion of the definition of a facility in the Regulations to ensure that Floating Storage and Off-take (FSOs) vessels and any other facility types currently captured are included.

If feasible, a clear definition of what does and does not require an EP under law is the first best option. A second best option could be to leave the requirement for an EP to interpretation by the Regulator or self-assessment by the operator. The Regulator or operator would apply criteria around significance of potential environmental impacts to guide them in making this determination. Such judgements may shift over time as new technologies or knowledge come to hand, and this scope for inconsistency may be criticised as introducing uncertainty, however, the scope to adjust assessments to reflect new circumstances has the advantage of flexibility bounded by stable criteria.

With this in mind, views are sought on the necessity to classify as a petroleum activity requiring an EP, other surveys including surface core sampling or dredge sampling conducted as part of a petroleum pipeline survey and surveys for a proposed infrastructure facility prior to the grant of an infrastructure licence. Some options for comment are detailed below, but there may be other worthy options.

Amendments Supported APPEA supports a clear definition for what does and does not require an Environment Plan. The current definition of petroleum activity is too broad and does not contain a significance threshold for environmental impact. The intent of the OPGGS Act is to regulate activities directly related to the exploration for, and production of, naturally occurring hydrocarbons, such as seismic surveying and the drilling of wells.

As discussed in the key issues section, APPEA supports Sub-option 1 to amend the Regulations to explicitly link the requirement for an EP to the requirement to hold a petroleum title under the OPGGS Act. If this change is made, the definitions of activity type in part (b) should also be modified or removed to reflect this adjustment. For example, storage, processing or transport of petroleum is covered by other legislation. Additional comment on the Sub-Options can be found below.

Sub-option 1 Amend Regulation 4 Petroleum Activity: delete Subparagraph (a)(ii) from the definition of petroleum activity in Regulation 4 so that the OPGGS Act regime does not require submission and acceptance of an EP for an activity for which a title is not required.

No EP may be required for (e.g.) a petroleum pipeline survey or a survey for a proposed infrastructure facility conducted before a pipeline licence or an infrastructure licence was in place. This option has the merit of simplicity and avoids the risks inherent in partially regulating an activity that is otherwise outside the scope of the OPGGS Act. For example, there are no applicable work practices requirements in the Act.

On the other hand, some of these activities may be large scale with potentially significant environmental impacts. This could include activities such as drilling to obtain geotechnical information necessary for placement of a major production facility. Consideration needs to be given to whether it is appropriate for these activities undertaken by or for petroleum companies to be unregulated by the regime.

It may also be an option to amend the requirements of Subparagraph (a)(ii) to align with the wording of Section 98(1)(c) of the OPGGS Act i.e. a petroleum activity includes such operations and works as are necessary for the purposes of petroleum exploration or development. This may capture surveys for infrastructure placement but exclude surveys that are being conducted solely for the purposes of obtaining an approval to operate. (See also Option 6.1)

Supported (Refer to key issues section for further comment on petroleum activity.) APPEA agrees that an EP Should not be required for activities that operate outside of a formal title under the OPGGS Act. Removing the definition in the regulations (8) (ii) that a petroleum activity includes any activity relating to petroleum exploration or development which may have an impact on the environment is the most practical in terms of its operation and avoids the

risks of partially regulating an activity that is otherwise outside the scope of the OPGGS Act.

If a title process as proposed is not adopted, a significance or materiality threshold could be included in the definition of petroleum activity to narrow the definition to activities which may have a significant impact on the environment.

APPEA notes that large-scale activities with the potential for environmental impacts and are not covered by the offshore petroleum regime are rare. These activities also operate under other legislation, as would any other marine operations – such as the Navigation Act, the EPBC Act, etc.

Sub-option 2 As with option 1, but bring non-passive surveys not conducted within a title within the OPGGS Act regime by creating a new title type (say a Special Survey Authority) based on a simplified Petroleum Special Prospecting Authority model. Consideration will need to be given to whether requiring titles to be issued and administered by NOPTA is an efficient use of regulatory resources to achieve the desired outcome of requiring that an EP be in place for those surveys.

Not Supported It is unclear how a ―Special Survey Authority‖ would differ from a Special Prospecting Authority already administered under the OPGGS Act. A special prospecting authority authorises the holder to carry on petroleum exploration operations in an area outside of standard exploration, production or retention title areas. Non-passive surveys that are not related to the exploration or production of hydrocarbons should not be administered by petroleum legislation and the extension of the Act to cover activities outside of titles is inappropriate.

Sub-option 3 Give the Regulator the authority to determine that certain surveys do not require submission and acceptance of an EP, or that in specified circumstances they do not require submission and acceptance of an EP.

Supported in-Principle While APPEA supports that an EP should not be required for activities outside of a title under the OPGGS Act, any amendment that provides further certainty to operators and ensures that low-order risks associated with incidental activities do not require an EP is supported. If the regulator has the authority to determine that certain surveys do not require submission, a significance or materiality threshold could be included to assist narrow the definition to activities based on those which may have a significant impact on the environment.

Option 9.4 Amend Regulation 10 to provide an additional mechanism, in relation to an EP that does not meet certain criteria in Sub-regulation 11(1), for the re-submission of an EP and clear requirements and timeframes for that resubmission of an EP.

Supported APPEA supports the clarification of timeframes for the submission of an EP.

Option 9.5 Clarify Sub-regulation 11(2) to ensure appropriate measures are in place to provide a proponent with reasonable opportunity to modify a submitted environment plan.

Supported APPEA supports mechanisms that allow opportunity to modify submitted environment plans.

Option 9.6: Remove the reference in the object of the Regulations under Sub-regulation 3(b) to ‘an environmental plan’ and replace with ‘an environment plan’.

Supported

Chapter 12: Monitoring There are currently no prescriptive requirements in the Regulations in regard to scientific or operational environmental monitoring or any provisions specifically addressing baseline monitoring. The Regulations require operators to describe the environment (Sub-regulation 13(2)), detail and evaluate impacts and risks (Sub-regulation 13(3)) and set appropriate performance objectives, standards and measurement criteria to measure performance in protecting the environment (Sub-regulation 13(4)). This generally requires some level of environmental monitoring, with some baseline monitoring/surveys used in describing the environment (and future detection of impacts from activities) and environmental monitoring of routine operations important to measure performance in protecting the environment.

The Issues Paper proposes Options for amendments to the Regulations to explicitly include monitoring and to increase the level of environmental monitoring undertaken by operators. Specific comment on the Options is provided below after a broader discussion/key points.

Discussion/Key points: The Issues Paper is incorrect in suggesting that increasing the level of

environmental monitoring would be a ―minor additional burden‖ to industry. In reality, the workload and cost of completing in-depth environmental monitoring would pose a significant and costly burden to industry, and therefore needs to be tightly related to the concept of ‘significance’. In addition, the need for monitoring needs to be tied in specifically with what is determined to be required to minimise risks or to measure performance (objectives/standards)

There is agreement that some level of environmental monitoring should be undertaken. Recognition must however be given to the complexity of monitoring of the receiving environment - monitoring a complex biological system is both difficult, time consuming, and in the offshore environment, it is also particularly expensive. Moreover, due to the complexity, monitoring rarely provides a definitive answer on impacts or lack of impacts.

The level of environmental monitoring, if any, implemented by operators to meet the requirements of the Regulations should be dependent on factors including the:

o nature and scale of activities; o environmental setting of those activities; o degree of confidence that can be placed in predictions of impact; o likely effectiveness of proposed management measures for ensuring objectives are achieved; and o extent of relevant existing data/supporting studies.

APPEA and its members are currently working with the Regulator on this matter, and do not support any regulatory changes.

Option 10.1: The requirements of the Regulations be reviewed to ensure that they capture monitoring activities to be undertaken. This may be achieved by ensuring that the EP:

(a) adequately relates the stated performance objectives, standards and measurement criteria to the impacts and risks in the receiving environment identified in the EP; (b) includes appropriate arrangements for monitoring performance of control measures and the receiving environment if a degree of uncertainty associated with an impact or risk exists; and (c) includes an appropriate implementation strategy for the activities described within the plan and measures for monitoring, recording and reporting performance against the plan.

Supported in Part (See also Option 8.6) APPEA supports this option, but legislative change is not warranted. Existing legislation already provides for appropriate monitoring arrangements that are linked with applicable standards, objectives and measurement criteria throughout the EP.

In addition, Operational and Scientific Monitoring Programs should only be required where there are significant risks or impacts to the environment and should align with the nature and scale of the activity. The issues paper also considerably underestimates the workload, time and cost involved in monitoring requirements. Monitoring of the receiving environment as a complex biological system and it is impossible to achieve a yes or no outcome. This is not a minor burden to industry.

Option 10.2 Regulation 13 be amended to ensure that monitoring of environmental performance is adequately captured and to strengthen obligations to demonstrate information. Items to be considered include: (a) a requirement for operators to define the acceptable level of impacts and risks and to include a discussion on whether the environmental impacts and risks for the activity are of an acceptable level; (b) ensuring that performance objectives are set in accordance with the defined acceptable levels for impacts and risks to the environment and that achievement of performance objectives will allow an operator‘s performance to meet or better the defined acceptable level.

Supported in Part APPEA supports the provision of additional clarity, but is of the view that legislative change is not warranted. Existing legislation already provides for appropriate monitoring arrangements that are linked with applicable standards, objectives and measurement criteria throughout the EP. The Issues Paper underestimates the additional workload and costs for monitoring requirements. Monitoring of the receiving environment as a complex biological system to achieve a yes or no outcome is difficult, costly and time consuming. The impact of these monitoring activities is not a ‘minor burden’ to industry.

Option 10.3 Regulation 14 be amended to achieve the following:

(a) ensure that a characterisation of emissions and discharges is required under the Regulations, at intervals appropriate to the nature and scale of the activity. This should include PFW and other emissions and discharges relevant to the activity that create an environmental impact or risk (e.g what are the components and relative levels of toxicity of emissions and discharges as well as recording requirements (this would include PFW and other emissions and discharges relevant to the activity that create an environmental impact or risk); and (b) ensure that accepted tests of emissions and discharges are conducted at regular intervals, and the results of these tests are recorded and assessed to (a) assess the performance of monitoring equipment, and (b) monitor emissions and discharges and their effects on the receiving environment.

Inclusion of the above will ensure that requirements formerly only applied to discharges of PFW are applied to all emissions and discharges to the environment with equivalent rigour. This will ensure that deletion of regulations 29 and 29A as proposed earlier in this paper does not result in a reduction in environmental outcomes.

Supported in Part (See also Option 2.9) Operators should be able to demonstrate/justify situations where monitoring is not required due to the fact that adequate knowledge of the impacts of emissions and discharges already exists and evidence of such is provided. The monitoring of emissions and discharges should be consistent with the nature and scale of the activity. In addition, some monitoring processes may not be reproducible. For example, oily water systems on vessels are calibrated to measure 15 ppm and may have automatic divert systems. This information may not be stored as monitoring information, yet calibration and sampling would provide certainty of the operation. Trivial emissions should be excluded from this requirement.

This requirement may also duplicate existing reporting requirements under other legislation, such as National Greenhouse Energy Reporting (NGERs) and the EPBC Act.

Option 10.4 Include a requirement that the implementation strategy provide for the discovery of, and access to, environmental monitoring data/information by the public, possibly after an appropriate fixed period of time.

Not Supported APPEA does not support this option as is places unnecessary burden on industry and duplicates existing reporting requirements. APPEA notes that specific information provided to the regulator in EPs is available to the public through freedom of information requests.

This option duplicates proposals in Option 7.7. While APPEA agrees that access to environmental data is important, there are significant hurdles that must be overcome before industry can support amendments to regulations

to give effect to any arrangement. The regulations have the objective of managing environmental risk. As is the case for data that is currently submitted for geological information, specific data management regulations are required in order to ensure that the role of the cost-recovered independent regulator is not complicated. APPEA welcomes additional discussions with Government on this option.

Chapter 13: Life cycle Option 11.1 Create a design notification obligation for activities likely to have long term and or significant environmental impacts, aimed at promoting engagement between operators and the Regulator at the design phase of proposed facilities, particularly for site or route selection and adoption of innovative new technology, at a stage where guidance on the management of environmental impacts can be incorporated through early facility design planning.

Supported in Principle (but needs further clarification) APPEA supports early engagement between project developers and the Regulator as it can facilitate an exchange of information and guidance on handling risks to the environment early in the lifecycle of a facility and prior to the submission of an EP. This process can provide a greater level of certainty to proponents on what may be acceptable for an EP. However, industry would not support making early engagement / life cycle decisions a mandatory regulatory function of NOPSEMA. Additional scoping of this issues and development of an industry accepted position, such as optional life cycle engagement, is to be undertaken by APPEA. Industry would also require additional clarity on how such an option would be implemented.

Chapter 14: Compliance, Enforcement & Penalties Option 12.1 Adjust the level of penalties applying to Regulations 6 and 7 to ensure they reflect community standards and are appropriate to the nature of the offences with which they are associated.

Supported in Part APPEA supports penalties that reflect community standards. Additional advice on how this relates to recent amendments strengthening the OPGGS Act civil and liabilities regime is required.

Option 12.2 Where appropriate, additional offence and penalty provisions be included e.g. failure to comply with regulation 11(7).

Supported in Part As above additional advice on how this relates to recent amendments strengthening the OPGGS Act civil and liabilities regime is required.

Chapter 15: Government Policy & Guidance Option 13.1 Include a caveat in the Regulations that if information relevant to a particular aspect has been provided to the Regulator, assessed and accepted

under other OPGGS Act regulations, the operator need only reference that other accepted document rather than duplicate this information.

Supported APPEA supports this option as it will reduce unnecessary or duplicative submission of data.

Chapter 16: Other Relevant Matters Regulation 16(b) should not require a report on all consultations

between the operator and any relevant person, for regulation 11A – particularly if this information may be made public.

A summary prepared by the operator (which can be audited) should be sufficient in fulfilling this requirement.