Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L01588:reg:2:p26
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L01588
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 2 (pt 26/32)
Character Range: 91796–94444

NOPSEMA as soon as practicable if:
 (a) the technical knowledge relied upon to formulate the safety case, including the knowledge of systems for identifying hazards and evaluating risks of major accident events, has become outdated so that the safety case no longer adequately provides for the matters mentioned in Subdivisions A, B and C of Division 1 of this Part; or
 (b) the operator proposes to modify or decommission the facility, and the proposed modification or decommissioning is not adequately addressed in the safety case; or
 (c) there are reasonable grounds for believing that a series of proposed modifications to the facility would result in a significant cumulative change in the overall level of risk of major accident events; or
 (d) the operator proposes to significantly change the safety management system; or
 (e) for a facility that is a pipeline—the compositions of petroleum or greenhouse gas substance conveyed in the pipeline are different from the compositions contemplated in the safety case; or
 (f) the activities to be carried out at the facility are different from the activities contemplated in the safety case; or
 (g) subject to subsection (2), there has been, or will be, a loss or removal of a technical or other control measure identified under subsection 2.5(2) as being critical to safety.
 (2) Paragraph (1)(g) does not apply if:
 (a) a technical or other control measure is out of service for the purpose of testing the technical or control measure; or
 (b) the operator of the facility has ceased to undertake an activity that is directly related to the technical or other control measure; or
 (c) NOPSEMA has agreed (in writing) that in the particular circumstances paragraph (1)(g) does not apply.
 (3) Subject to subsection (4), the operator of a facility for which a safety case is in force must submit a revised safety case to NOPSEMA as soon as practicable if there has been:
 (a) a significant increase in the level of risk to the health or safety of persons at or near the facility; or
 (b) a series of increases in the level of risk to the health or safety of persons at or near the facility that, in total, are significant.
 (4) If a circumstance mentioned in subsection (1) or (3) may arise, or is likely to arise, because the operator proposes to modify or decommission the facility, the operator must not submit the revised safety case before the operator and NOPSEMA have agreed on the scope of the validation of the proposal.
 (5) If NOPSEMA agrees, the operator may submit a revised safety case under subsection (1) or (2) in the form of a revision to part of the safety case in force for