5.0 Conclusions 52 5.1 The Program 52 5.2 Other related issues arising from consultation 52 6.0 Appendices 55 6.1 Summary of written submissions 55 TABLES APPENDICES Appendix 6.1: Summary of written submissions………………………………………………….55
Submissions that referred to this issue: 11, 15, 17, 22, 27, 29, 33, 35, 36, 38. Transitional arrangements 36 Delayed implementation of the Program Many industry stakeholders sought clarification of matters relating to the implementation of the Program, noted the scale and complexity of the proposed regulatory amendments and recommended a delayed implementation of these provisions, to ensure the greater understanding of the Program and minimise any unintended consequences. Response The Taskforce notes that streamlining offshore environmental approvals will reduce regulatory burden on industry while maintaining existing environmental safeguards, in accordance with the Government’s agenda to provide a one stop shop for environmental approvals, as well as its broader deregulation agenda. The Taskforce also notes the Government’s commitment to streamline offshore environmental approvals by March 2014. The Ministerial announcements and the Strategic Assessment Agreement indicate the Government’s commitment to completing the Strategic Assessment by end February 2014. The Taskforce is continuing to work towards this commitment. Submissions that referred to this issue: 15, 17, 24, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35. The Taskforce has not actioned any changes in relation to this issue. 37 Further clarity and guidance is required about transition and implementation matters Several industry submissions identified a number of aspects of implementation and transitional arrangements as a source of significant uncertainty, which they suggest require further clarification in the Program or as part of NOPSEMA guidance. These included: the transfer of EPBC Act conditions to NOPSEMA from existing EPBC Act approvals; compliance and enforcement arrangements between the Department of the Environment and NOPSEMA); and arrangements for ‘brownfields’ projects approved prior to the EPBC Act. The Taskforce recommends that the Department of the Environment clarify transitional matters in relation to existing EPBC Act approvals and conditions.
Taskforce recommends that the Offshore Resources Branch in the Department of Industry consider the scope for consultation as part of the acreage release strategy and process. Submissions that referred to this issue: 22, 5, 33. 45 Financial assurance provisions Submission 11 suggested that financial readiness should be tiered to reflect risk, and submission 5 suggested that titleholders should contribute to a ‘trust fund’ to cover costs of any initial emergency actions and as a consequence to minimise delays. Response The Taskforce notes that these comments relate to financial assurance and polluter pays provisions under the OPGGS Act, and that the Department of Industry is pursuing regulatory amendments to implement these provisions. These matters fall outside the Terms of Reference for this Taskforce, which has passed the comments to the relevant area within the Department of Industry. Submissions that referred to this issue:11, 5. The Taskforce recommends that the Offshore Resources Branch in the Department of Industry consider the submissions’ comments in its deliberations on the matter. 46 Delegation of approvals for greenhouse gas activities to NOPSEMA A submission noted that NOPSEMA has delegated powers for environmental approvals in relation to greenhouse gas activities and requested clarification about whether this will be retained after 30 June 2014. Response NOPSEMA’s greenhouse gas environmental approvals role is well referenced in the Program. The Taskforce notes, however, that the current responsibility for approvals relating to greenhouse gas activities has been delegated to NOPSEMA by the Minister for Industry, and that this delegation is not currently permanent. The matter of delegation is one for the Minister for Industry. Submissions that referred to this issue: 38. The Taskforce recommends that the Resources Division in the Department of Industry consider the submissions’ comments in its deliberations on the matter.
Appendices Appendix 6.1 Summary of written submissions Submission Number Stakeholder Name Theme Issues identified/ Comments 01 Jan Price Decision making processes Sees the Program as positive. Use of ‘should’ is weak compared to ‘must’ in terms of consideration of consultation outcomes in risk assessments etc. and in application of principles of ecologically sustainable development. (Strategic Assessment Report (SAR) Section 4.3). 02 Social Resources Separate policy issues Currently response actions under the National Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan are exempt from the EPBC Act. Asks whether the exemption will remain and what the implications are for oil spill response. 03 Environmental Defenders Office WA (EDO WA) Adequacy of environmental protection Suggests that standard of protection of Commonwealth marine environment and Commonwealth land be higher than ‘maintain’ – it should be ‘improvement’ of degraded ecosystems. Queries NOPSEMA qualifications and capacity to inspect. Compliance and enforcement Concern about the level of monitoring and enforcement and funding of that. Inspectors should be qualified, independent and have coercive powers. Consultation/ transparency Period of Offshore Project Proposal consultation not long enough, considering potential magnitude of environmental impacts – suggest s 60 days. Level of discretion creates uncertainty – concerned representative groups should be able to register to receive notification for all applications. Notification on Environment Plans should be broadened – interested parties must be consulted and those comments must be considered by NOPSEMA. Clarification is required about reports and whether they will be published – is the ‘annual plan’ the same as the ‘annual report’? Suggests that Annual Report must be published. Cumulative impacts Ongoing review of cumulative impacts under Offshore Project Proposal and Environment Plan is required. Decision making processes ‘Acceptable/unacceptable’ impacts should be defined. Offshore Project Proposal process There should be a provision for a final rejection of a project. Need a clearly unacceptable decision (areas where environmental impacts so high that project can never proceed). It is suggested that proponents could continually resubmit Offshore Project Proposal to postpone removal of tenure rights. Reporting Operators should report all environmental damage, not just ‘moderate and significant’.
Environmental data EPBC Act requires publication of environmental data – this will be lost under Program but is crucial to understanding the marine environment. 23 Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) Consultation/ transparency Fishing industry is concerned about impacts of offshore activities but lack capacity to respond to petroleum industry Environment Plan requests. 24 CONF Consultation/ transparency Feedback from stakeholders that they are suffering from ‘fatigue’ – this should be considered in review of Environment Plan consultation requirements. Welcome the opportunity to further discuss with the Department of Industry and NOPSEMA. Decision making processes Urge consideration of concept of ‘major environment event” requiring full demonstration of ALARP (as for safety) while other risks require evidence of management. Environment Regulations Review ‘petroleum activity’ definition very broad – should be limited to exploration and production Support proposed changes to Environment Plan content requirements, and ‘request for more information’. Operator vs titleholder definition requires further consultation (Regulations). Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (OPEP) requirement to quantitatively monitor discharges requires set up time – not possible to implement instantaneously. OPEP – responsibility for oil spills from vessels needs clarifying. Offshore Project Proposal process Offshore Project Proposal requirement will stop minor activities such as geotechnical surveys, progressing while under assessment. Requirement for revision may cause delay if minor marine activities are required which are not anticipated. Opportunities for further streamlining To achieve effective streamlining the content and stakeholder requirements for Environment Plans (with a Proposal) should be reviewed to minimise overlap. Transition arrangements Transfer of EPBC Act conditions to NOPSEMA is of interest for discussion. 25 CONF Consultation/ transparency Seeks maximum consultation for Offshore Project Proposals should be 4 weeks (not minimum). NOPSEMA decision on ‘adequacy’ of consultation is subjective and should be removed. NOPSEMA can view the full text of consultations and response. Cost recovery NOPSEMA needs to be adequately resourced to ensure no delays.