Early engagement
J. DunsterNational Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority [NOPSEMA].
The APPEA Journal 52(2) 644-644 https://doi.org/10.1071/AJ11058
Published: 2012
Abstract
In mid-2010, amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety) Regulations 2009 and the associated Levies Regulations provided, for the first time, a mechanism for operators of proposed facilities to enter formal dialogue with the regulator about the safety of a proposed facility early in its design.
The amended provisions provided flexibility to the timing of agreeing to a scope of validation and the means for the regulator to recover the costs of assessing a submission made at this early stage. Since mid-2010, a number of operators have chosen to submit early engagement safety cases for assessment and feedback to manage regulatory risk. Such submissions have also provided the regulator with the opportunity to challenge the operator’s consideration of inherent safety principles at a point in the design of a facility when changes could be reasonably expected to be made.
While the present arrangements have been welcomed by industry and the regulator alike, they do encompass a number of challenges. In particular, the application of existing provisions not appropriately focused on concept selection and design has required the use of suboptimal administrative arrangements. The National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority (NOPSA) and the National Offshore Petroleum and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) have continued to work with the Department of Resources Energy and Tourism to ensure the regime includes more appropriately targeted provisions applicable to all proposed production facilities in the future. This extended abstract summarises the latest experiences and the view about where early engagement is headed in pursuit of a safer Australian offshore petroleum industry.
In September 2006, Jeremy Dunster joined NOPSA (now NOPSEMA)—the national health, safety, and environmental management regulator for the Australian offshore petroleum industry. He is the authority’s manager of technical services. Prior to joining the authority, he spent five years as the health, safety, and environment manager with the Timor Sea Designated Authority after a decade with BHP Petroleum in a number of roles in Darwin, Dampier, and Perth. He started his career as a mechanical design draughtsman in the public and private sectors. |
References
Reasonably practicable was legally defined in England by Lord Justice Asquith in Edwards v National Coal Board [1949]: ‘“Reasonably practicable” is a narrower term than “physically possible” and seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by the owner, in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other; and that if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them—the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice — the defendants discharge the onus on them. Moreover, this computation falls to be made by the owner at a point of time anterior to the accident.’ This English decision has since been confirmed by the Australian High Court —Slivak v Lurgi (Australia) Pty Ltd (2001) 205 CLR 304 cited in Bluff and Johnstone (2004). The relationship between Reasonably Practicable and Risk Management (WP 27 ANU National Research Centre for OHS Regulation).Kletz, T., and Amyotte, P.R., 2010—Process Plants—a handbook for inherently safer design (second edition). Baco Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Kahn, F.I., Veitch, B., and Amyotte, P.R., 2004—Evaluation of Inherent safety potential in offshore oil and gas activities. In: Proceedings of OMAE04 23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 20–25 June, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, OM AE2004-51528.
