Risk Based Work Plans

CHRIS PROWSE, Principal Consultant for C.K. Prowse & Associates Pty. Ltd. discusses Risk Based Work Plans.

Recent history
On 8 December 2015 the Extractive Industry in Victoria were required to adopt the risk based format for work plans and variations to existing work plans under revised legislation and regulations. The exception being work plans or work plan variations already within the approvals process could continue under the previous system. The personal comments following concentrate on my first hand experiences of the new process so far.

The new approach came about following governmental enquiry and review of legislation and processes facing the industry. This has been done many times previously (please don’t mention one stop shop!). A central outcome of this review and the industry consultation was for the Department of Economic Development Jobs Transport and Resources (DEDJTR) through their Earth Resources Regulation branch (ERR) to essentially follow risk based approaches more explicitly in regulating quarries operations as experienced either in other interstate jurisdictions. (e.g. South Australia) or other industries (e.g. petroleum) where risk based outcomes and criteria have been commonplace for some time which enhances the perception of a more selfregulated industry.

Has anything changed?
My experience in risk based development plans is from the South Australian system since 2000 where we have prepared risk based plans which concentrate on identification and assessment of risks, ascertaining objectives / outcomes, formulating measurement criteria to measure the achievement or not of meeting the objective / outcome and the associated control strategies the operator would undertake to meet those objective / outcomes. Like everywhere (I’ve seen this in the UK too), most of the concentration is devoted to environmental issues and rehabilitation outcomes.

It is evident development plans have increasingly become solely environmental documents of combined complexity with limited emphasis on the practical resource data and mining engineering parameters.

However, considering the common everyday operation, I believe the risks have not changed no matter as to the approach our work plans must be approved – a descriptive “story” or risk based. My central tenet is essentially nothing has changed except the format the information is presented. That is, we still must deal with issues which could require expert reports, satisfy Planning requirements and obtain other statutory permits or licences often as a separate process resulting in the cost, delay and frustration of many work plan approvals.  We are currently undertaking new risk based work plans at several sites in Victoria.

State of play
Late 2014, I undertook to obtain a draft of the new Schedule 1 which would need to be followed. My understanding being the risk based work plans could still be submitted in hard copy format despite the Departments obvious desire to undertake the new plans in their online Resource Rights and Allocation Management System (RRAMS). I can see the obvious advantages of such a portal based submission (we’re actually doing some online plans) but the reliance is functionality. Numerous follow ups with DEDJTR were frustrated by the draft schedules’ unavailability – a copy was obtained in mid January this year.

The introduction of the requirements through the ERR facilitated Earth Resources Reform Steering Committee has been a somewhat closed forum from a consultants perspective until more recently (my thanks to Elizabeth Gibson for some valuable updates). Certainly one of ERR’s preferences has been to suggest to proponents to complete work plans on the online system (Resource Regulation and Minerals System (RRAMS). Unfortunately implementation has been somewhat cumbersome with proponents and regulators suffering from deficiencies in delivery and clarity. A potentially confusing situation has arisen where the delivery of various multiple versions of guidelines has probably exacerbated the apparent complexity of expectations. It is my understanding continuous revisions will still occur to the middle of 2016.

Some confusion over complexity of the numerous new fee types (whether statutory referral, sensitive sites within 200m with or without blasting etc.) and actual fee payment systems accurately processing payment was noted in dealings with three regional ERR offices. Thankfully a concerted effort by ERR is apparent to provide consistency across the spectrum is evident. One thing is certain, the fees are not going any lower.

A surprising aspect to my mind recently, was the absence of a Risk Matrix in the guidelines Version 4. I understand from our dealings this was also of concern with ERR. At time of writing it is understood a risk matrix is to be provided, however the release of version 5 of the guidelines may not occur until late  March. From my South Australian experience is it paramount proponents should have certainty in their individual assessments level of risk as it is pivotal to the control strategies, outcomes and criteria. This area alone, is probably the greatest point for arguments and delay with the regulator in that state.

Probably my major concern is the various Statutory Authorities whom proponents must still negotiate with directly, do not yet have functional access to RRAMS. Certainly our dealings are still directly with them, on their terms and timeframes.  Getting past such hurdles is commonly the main issue when dealing with some of the ancillary environmental issues.

I contend this is actually where the greatest cost lies and the very central issue is in the fact that while the outward EI regulations impose certain process requirements and formats, the governing MRSDA legislation is hamstrung by its binding connection to planning legislation which compounds and exacerbates problems in obtaining work plan approvals. In turn the frustration of proponents is often vented upon ERR who have little option other than facilitate the process.

The status quo
In my view, a fully functional online system should be acknowledged as the way to move forward in the 21st century with the necessity of greater efficiency and productivity. But did the industry really get what it thought it wanted from the reform agenda on work plans? Probably not, but It is clear the new legislation and risk based approach is here to stay, so the industry must adjust. Change is often difficult and usually resisted.

The teething issues with RRAMS, internally to ERR and externally to the industry, will find its own path. I suspect there are probably short term advantages to providing hard copy risk based work plans that will reassure proponents in controlling the management of their proposals. Long term it would be hoped the online system will provide flexibility, simplicity and clarity in the process and savings in time and cost, at least to the degree of avoiding repeated submissions to ERR.

If history is any guide, some of the outcomes finally evolving will likely be unintended and problematic. Another round of governmental enquiry and yet another industry review may well occur. Until the Extractive Industry in Victoria has a truly singular and overriding central governing Act, I suggest there can be no meaningful mention of one stop shops.

My company’s involvement in completing these risk based work plans is providing critical feedback and ideas to the ERR inspectors we deal with. As we endeavour to make constructive change in progressing the new approach I look forward in continuing to work with ERR to make the process best practice.

 

 

Chris Prowse is the Principal Consultant for CK Prowse & Associates Pty Ltd.
The group conducts geological investigations, resource assessment, development design and project management of WA applications and works plans for the extractive industries.
Email: admin@ckpa.com.au

You must be logged in to post a comment Login