IODP Environmental Protection and Safety Panel
Best Practices SummaryIntroduction
The IODP Environmental Protection and Safety Panel (EPSP) is an advisory body of the JOIDES
Resolution Facility Board (JRFB) composed of volunteers from IODP member countries. The
EPSP carries out site-by-site reviews of proposed or scheduled IODP expeditions for safety andenvironmental protection, and it reviews additions and modifications to drilling plans during
expeditions. The ECORD Facility Board and Chikyu IODP Board also use EPSP as an advisory bodyfor non-riser projects.
This document describes the primary functions and operations of the EPSP with the goal ofidentifying best practices to aid future panels, programs, review processes, and policy
documents with similar charges.

Membership
EPSP members are specialists who provide expert advice on maximizing safety and minimizing
environmental impact associated with drilling of proposed sites, including sites in hydrocarbon
prone and biologically sensitive areas. The panel composition is outlined in the agreements andMOUs with contributing nations.
While many IODP panels benefit from regular rotation of members to bring fresh ideas andperspectives, EPSP works best with a stable membership. Familiarity with the IODP proposal
process, the capabilities of the drilling platforms, and the program process takes time to learn
in detail, making the longer perspective valuable. Conflicts of interest for meeting participants
are also generally not a concern as the panel only assesses operational safety, a determination
independent of scientific value or scheduling decisions. All participants may contribute to thediscussions; however, panel members do not vote on proposals for which they are conflicted.

Work FlowEPSP typically meets annually on a date determined by the scheduling needs of the platforms,
but multiple meetings may be needed during times of high activity. As most of EPSP’s work
during IODP was for proposals using the JOIDES Resolution, EPSP meetings were oftenscheduled ~3 months prior to the JRFB annual meeting, and the meetings were held at Texas
A&M University to aid the attendance of JRSO staff scientists and engineers. The meeting
attendees consist of EPSP members, one proponent for each proposal being reviewed, theappropriate Facility Board chairs for the proposals, the site co-chair of the Science Evaluation
Accepted by JRFB, May 2023
Page 1Panel (SEP), a representative from the National Science Foundation (and/or other funders, asappropriate for the platform), staff from the IODP Science Support Office, and staff from theoperator. In addition to safety reviews by the EPSP, the safety panel for the platform operator
performs an independent review of proposed sites; this is typically accomplished in association
with the EPSP meeting.
EPSP’s work is organized by the chair, who coordinates closely with the platform operators andFacility Board chairs to determine which proposals require a safety review. Proposals are
officially only reviewed by EPSP after they reach the Facility Board stage of the IODP process,and the review typically takes place before a proposal is scheduled. The EPSP chair may also
request that EPSP preview a proposal when potential risks are high, such as in areas withknown hydrocarbons or when drilling in over-pressure systems. If sites are added or deepened
after the proposal’s EPSP safety review, EPSP reviews the site again to examine the change.
Once the proposal and sites for an upcoming meeting are determined, the IODP Science
Support Office notifies the lead proponents of the meeting dates, review requirements, andprocess deadlines. One proponent representative – usually the data lead – attends the meeting
to present and discuss the data with the panel. The outcomes from the EPSP safety review
might require modification of the drilling plan (e.g., relocation of sites, changes in drilling
depths), and these requested changes are noted in the draft meeting meetings. Proponents
then submit changes to their drilling plan through an Addendum to their proposal soon after
the meeting. EPSP finalizes the meeting minutes after the Addendums are submitted so that all
approved sites – both those approved during the meeting and those approved in theAddendums – are included.
For proposals with potentially higher than average safety concerns, it is often helpful to begin
considering issues early in the proposal process. The EPSP chair attends SEP meetings to help
identify such proposals and may request proponents present at an EPSP meeting to allow theEPSP panel to preview the proposal while at the SEP stage. Proponents asked to participate in apreview submit the same documentation to EPSP as other proposals. The resulting guidance isfocused on key issues, which may include data requirements, site locations, and target depths,
as opposed to the site-specific feedback provided during a regular review. Proponents then use
the guidance to adjust their sites while considering the science implications, resulting in asmoother safety review later in the proposal process.
While annual meetings are standard, EPSP can consider proposals or sites out of cycle if areview is needed quickly for scheduling, clearance timing, or other reasons. If an entire
proposal needs an off-cycle review, the standard procedures are followed (e.g., all required
documents must be submitted, all customary participants are invited), and the meeting isconducted by email or zoom. If only a single site or a couple of sites require quick evaluation(e.g., relocation or depth change request during expedition), then the EPSP chair typicalAccepted by JRFB, May 2023
Page 2

provides the review by email, consulting with other EPSP members as needed. The quick review
of a single site only requires necessary documentation and data to conduct the analysis.

Key Review Documents
Proponents are required to submit a Safety Review Report and Safety Presentation to the IODP
Science Support Office for distribution to the EPSP prior to the meeting. A draft Safety Review
Report and draft Safety Presentation are submitted three months prior for initial review; EPSP
checks the drafts against the requirements (mostly focusing on figures, seismic data, and maps
to ensure the correct scale, annotation, and vertical exaggeration) and provides feedback to theproponents. Completion of the draft step helps to ensure an efficient EPSP meeting that
focuses on reviewing the relevant data. For details on the content of these and otherdocuments, please see the document Safety Review Report and Expedition Safety Package
Guidelines.

EPSP Review Approach
At each EPSP meeting, proponents present the required information for each proposed site
under review. EPSP uses the presentation, discussion, and the Safety Review Report to analyze
the site for potential issues to ensure safety of the platform, drilling equipment, environment,
and personal. If a proposed site has a potential safety issue, EPSP rejects or relocates the site toa safe location or limits the drilling depth. These decisions are made with the proponent, chairof SEP, and chair of JRFB to try to find a safe location that still meets the science goals. Sites
proposed in extremely safe environments might be approved to a deeper depth than proposed
to give the science party more flexibility to make shipboard decisions. Similarly, EPSP might
approve a line (defined by seismic with a width commonly of 50 meters either side from thecenter point) or area for drilling (as opposed to a single location) to provide additional flexibility
in extremely safe environments; these types of approvals are typically limited to areas with athin sediment layer.

Accepted by JRFB, May 2023
Page 3