Assessment process

When will NOPSEMA make a decision to either accept or refuse to accept an environment plan? What does it mean if NOPSEMA provides an opportunity to modify and resubmit a plan or requests further written information?

During the assessment of an environment plan NOPSEMA may make a number of assessment decisions before it makes a final decision to either accept or refuse to accept an environment plan.

If NOPSEMA requires clarification on information in the environment plan, or more information on a particular aspect, then NOPSEMA will make a decision to REQUEST FURTHER WRITTEN INFORMATION from the titleholder.

NOPSEMA will make a decision to provide a titleholder an OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY AND RESUBMIT the environment plan if it determines the plan is yet to meet regulatory requirements for acceptance. In fact, NOPSEMA is required by law to provide a titleholder a reasonable opportunity to modify their environment plan before making a final decision to either accept of refuse to accept. NOPSEMA will typically offer two opportunities to modify and resubmit; however, NOPSEMA is not restricted to only offering two such opportunities.

NOPSEMA will make a final decision to REFUSE TO ACCEPT an environment plan when it has provided the titleholder a reasonable opportunity to modify and resubmit the plan but determines that the plan still does not meet the regulatory requirements for acceptance. When NOPSEMA refuses to accept an environment plan it is not a rejection of the type of activity proposed, rather it is a rejection of the titleholder's proposed environmental management for that activity. An activity may not begin without an accepted environment plan in place, therefore a titleholder must prepare and submit a new environment plan and begin the assessment process again.

Since NOPSEMA was established on 1 January 2012, 3% of all environment plans submitted for assessment have been refused.

If NOPSEMA determines an environment plan has met all regulatory requirements for acceptance then by law NOPSEMA is required to make a final decision to ACCEPT the plan. If NOPSEMA accepts an environment plan the proposed offshore petroleum activity is approved to begin. Once the activity begins, it will be subject to inspection by NOPSEMA to ensure it is undertaken in accordance with the accepted plan and the requirements of the law and NOPSEMA may take enforcement action if any non-compliance is found.

For an overview of the assessment process for environment plans see Flowchart - Assessment process for environment plans - April 2016

The law allows NOPSEMA to take as much time as required to ensure a professional and rigorous assessment can be undertaken. Less than 10 per cent of plans are accepted by NOPSEMA on first submission. Plans that are not accepted on first submission can be modified by the titleholder and resubmitted to NOPSEMA for further assessment.

Under the statutory assessment timeframes in the Environment Regulations, NOPSEMA has 30 days from the date of submission to determine whether it meets the criteria for acceptance in the Environment Regulations. After reviewing the plan and its complexity, NOPSEMA may determine that extra time is needed to complete its assessment. If this is the case, NOPSEMA will extend the timeframe at its discretion to ensure that there is enough time to complete a comprehensive assessment.

If NOPSEMA decides to give the titleholder an opportunity to modify and resubmit, the titleholder is given a specified amount of time based on an estimate of the time that it may take for the titleholder to address the points raised (often in the order of 4-8 weeks). The titleholder can also request for an extension of time to complete this work should it require additional time.

Where an environment plan is resubmitted, NOPSEMA then undertakes a further assessment on the revised environment plan.

NOPSEMA publishes average assessment timeframes for environment plans according to the proposed activity types each quarter. See the Median environment plan assessment timeframe page.

NOPSEMA relies on scientific evidence and a team of highly qualified experts to ensure high quality decision making and high quality advice to industry and other stakeholders.

NOPSEMA's Environment Division is staffed by personnel with extensive experience in environmental sciences and offshore oil and gas (over half of this number hold PhD’s or Masters degrees).

Environment specialists generally have a range of previous experience related to environmental disciplines such as marine research, baseline studies, monitoring and modelling; environment impact assessments; preparation of environmental policy guidance related to marine parks, water quality, protected species, conservation and recovery plans; and environmental management systems. NOPSEMA also has a team of dedicated experts with backgrounds in oil spill and emergency response arrangements who have experience within the Australian and international context.

The information that NOPSEMA uses to support assessment decisions comes from a variety of sources, both national and international, including peer-reviewed published scientific literature, industry publications, published government management planning documents and species advice and information sought through relevant forums and conferences. The authors of this information range from university academics, scientific and industry experts and government departments and agencies such as CSIRO and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). If a situation arose where NOPSEMA’s technical staff were unable to assess scientific information provided in a submission due to the technical nature of the information provided, NOPSEMA is able to seek advice from external scientific experts.

The performance history of oil and gas companies is taken into account through the acreage release and title grant process administered by the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator (NOPTA).

NOPSEMA is not involved in making decisions on which oil and gas companies should be allowed to operate in Australia, only on how they operate.

NOPSEMA's decisions focus exclusively on the technical and scientific merits of environment plans. During an assessment, NOPSEMA will consider the compliance record of the titleholder where it relates to matters considered in the environment plan.

Stakeholders may subscribe to be notified by email of any changes to NOPSEMA's assessment of an environment plan on the Activity status and summaries page.

On this page, NOPSEMA publishes information regarding the status of environment plan submissions and decisions in order to keep stakeholders up-to-date on the assessment processes.

Details of the proposed offshore petroleum or greenhouse gas activity and its location are published on submission to NOPSEMA. From 1 January 2016, NOPSEMA began publishing expected assessment timeframes and decision notices. If an environment plan is accepted, a summary of that plan is also published.

The oil spill images often used in media reporting are produced from is what is called 'stochastic' or 'probabilistic' oil spill modelling. The images generated show areas that are many times larger than what would actually be affected in the event of a real spill and are not an accurate picture of what an individual oil spill would look like.

The images are generated by overlaying a large number (often hundreds) of computer-simulated oil spills, each starting at a particular location, under different sets of wind and weather conditions. The models also assume that nothing is done to control the spill or to capture spilt oil. Stochastic oil spill modelling is a good tool for understanding oil spill variability and planning to respond to an oil spill because it shows where oil may go under a large number of different conditions.

NOPSEMA has recently published an animation on oil spill modelling. You can view the animation here.

Under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009, an environment plan must describe the proposed petroleum activity and its operational details, describe the relevant environmental features of the activity's location, undertake an assessment of all the potential environmental impacts and risks of the activity, and provide appropriate controls and mitigations to reduce those risks to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). It is through this process that a company will provide NOPSEMA with a risk-based justification for their chemical selection processes and discharge proposals.

To be accepted, the environment plan must demonstrate that the environmental risks associated with the intended use of chemicals is ALARP. For further information on how to a company may provide this demonstration within environment plan, see NOPSEMA's Environment plan content requirements guidance note (GN1344).

NOPSEMA is frequently contacted by suppliers regarding regulatory pre-approvals of drilling fluids, mud additives, oily water separation additives and treatment equipment. NOPSEMA does not provide approvals for specific products or treatment equipment outside the context of an accepted environment plan. The proposed use of a product and its subsequent treatment and disposal must be described within an environment plan and demonstrated to minimise impacts and risks to the environment to ALARP. This demonstration is assessed in the context of the proposed petroleum activity.

Please note that the above information is relevant to regulation under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 and doesn't provide guidance in relation to other regulatory requirements in Australia such as product registration and chemical import requirements.

Ultimately, a titleholder has to decide when to submit an environment plan. NOPSEMA strongly advises titleholders to check their environment plan against the requirements of the Environment Regulations prior to submission. The decision making guidelines are likely to be useful for those reviewing the submission in this manner that also has sign-off authority for the environment plan. If a titleholder can confidently say that the environment plan has addressed each of the ‘making a decision’ points in each guideline then the environment plan should be ready for submission.

NOPSEMA makes a distinction between environmental impacts and environmental risks. Understanding this distinction is critical to demonstrating environmental impacts and environmental risks will be reduced to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) and will be of an acceptable level.

An environmental impact, as defined in the Environment Regulations (Regulation 4), means ‘any change to the environment, whether adverse or beneficial, that wholly or partially results from an activity’. An ‘environmental risk’ is not defined in the regulations, or indeed in any AS/NZS, it is considered by NOPSEMA to mean ‘any change to the environment, whether adverse of beneficial, that wholly or partially may result from an activity’.

Accordingly, the difference between ‘impact assessment’ and ‘risk assessment’ is that environmental impact assessments are concerned with events* that are reasonably certain to occur, while environmental risk assessment is concerned with events that may possibly occur.

Acoustic emissions, lighting, planned fluid/air emissions, benthic habitat disturbance etc. are examples of environment impacts because they generally cannot be completely avoided when undertaking petroleum activities. Unplanned fluid/air emissions, oil spills, introductions of invasive marine species etc. are examples of environmental risks because they can be prevented when undertaking petroleum activities.

If a titleholder assesses an impact as a risk, or a risk as an impact, in their environment plan then it is unlikely that the environment plan will meet the criteria for acceptance specified in the Environment Regulations.

*Event means the occurrence or change of a particular set of circumstances [ISO 73:2009, definition 3.5.1.3]

Only by including a sufficient level of detail in the environment plan will NOPSEMA be able to determine if the environment plan meets the criteria for acceptance. The environment plan must be a stand-alone document that is sufficient to meet the content and level of detail requirements of the Environment Regulations without the need to refer to other documents external to the environment plan.*

Overall, a well-structured, coherent environment plan will facilitate a titleholder’s ability to demonstrate to others that they have a clear understanding of the factors that influence environment impact and environmental risk, and the controls that are critical to reduce them to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) and to an acceptable level.

The Environment Regulations are very clear where a titleholder is to supply descriptions of elements in the environment plan, as opposed to referencing other documents. The description of an element should:

• distil the points of value and the relevant features of the element

• outline its potential deficiencies and how these may be overcome

• outline the reasoning or the background thinking to the development of the element

• explain how it is connected to, or supports, other elements.

When referencing supporting studies, the environment plan should summarise the key findings of the study and explain their significance. Any assumptions made in the environment plan should also be specifically noted, for example the description of the supporting study should demonstrate an understanding of any assumptions made and limitations these may create.

Generally, listing elements or referencing other documents will not provide a sufficient level of detail for NOPSEMA to determine if the environment plan meets the criteria for acceptance. Examples of this include:

• details in relation to higher order environmental impacts and risks limited to either a reference to a study performed or, in some cases, simply a commitment to conduct a study

• details provided in relation to the summary of a titleholders environmental management system limited to the listing of internal policies and procedures

• activity descriptions limited to the physical facility or vessel, with little or no detail on the activities that will, or are likely to, interact with the environment

• only partial details of the control measures identified as a result of the environmental assessment.

During NOPSEMA’s assessment of an environment plan, a request for further written information may be made with regard to the description of a reference document, but the document itself would not typically be requested.

The nature and scale of the activity proposed in the environment plan is the primary factor that will determine the level of detail required. This is because the nature and scale of the activity will determine the evaluation method(s) selected to assess environmental impacts and risks which will then determine the level of detail necessary to be provided in the environment plan. For higher order environmental impacts and risks, a more rigorous and thorough evaluation method may be required in which will generally necessitate greater level of detail and extent of analysis to be provided. The detail provided should include:

• inherent features of the method(s) that underpin its operation and suitability for the circumstances of its use

• the assumptions made and their influence on the method(s) and the outcomes generated

• the known strengths and weaknesses of the method(s)

• relevant inherent aspects of the activity and its environment

• any precautions applied in the evaluation.

The extent of the detail provided in an environment plan should be considered in regard to the relative significance and uncertainty associated with the environmental impact or risk, and the amount of interest expressed by relevant persons in that impact or risk.

*Except where a titleholder specifies information already provided to NOPSEMA under Regulation 31.

The methods a titleholder selects to evaluate environmental impacts and risks demonstrate the processes a titleholder undertakes to determine the comparative magnitude of an impact or risk and the control measures necessary to reduce the impacts and risks to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) and to an acceptable level. NOPSEMA expects a titleholder to apply their preferred evaluation method(s) consistently throughout the environment plan. NOPSEMA has noted titleholder evaluation of environmental impacts and risks is usually undertaken using a mix of the following methods:

• the application of an environmental standard / method / code or document of standing

• good practice and professional judgement

• qualitative discussion and analysis

• semi-qualitative basic empirical analysis

• quantitative analysis such as prediction modelling

• application of the precautionary principle.

Higher order environmental impacts and environmental risks are likely to require greater study and evidence that are aligned with quantitative methods whereas lower order environmental impacts and environmental risks are when qualitative methods are more likely to be acceptable.

The evaluation method(s) used should generally be consistent with methods of international repute. There is no preference for which method(s) are used however some more typically seen by NOPSEMA include Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), Best Available Technology Analysis (BAT), Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA), ENVID/HAZID Hazard Identification, and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The UKOOA risk-based decision framework is commonly used in Australia and ISO 17776:2000 describes some of the methods (called structured review techniques by the standard) used in safety and environmental contexts. Whatever method is used, the quality and ultimately utility of the output(s) generated depends on the quality of input information. Where the volume and availability of information, and confidence in the available information is low, additional studies may be required to inform the impact and risk evaluations or to test assumptions made.

Blue Whale Conservation Management Plan – Frequently asked questions