The presentation is based on a small industry survey and a small regulators survey (anonymous). It explore the different items required to reach best practices for the purpose of groundwater values management. The key conclusions is we need to : use the right people, ensure effective engagement between industry and governments and science communication. The first two are pretty straight forward to address, the last one requires a national effort.

1. Hydrogeological
Regulatory
Conditions Setting
and
Implementation, an
effort to move
towards best
practices
Presenters Name No 1
Presenters Name No 2

2. Regulatory Conditions Setting and Implementation
Purpose: Protecting and managing groundwater and associated values
Recipe:
1. Have regulations It seems we have a fair bit of it !
2. Have fit for purpose tools to address the intend of the regulation
Do we have the right tools?
1. Good science means skilled staff. Skilled technical staff, use of
hydrogeologists
2. A process in defining conditions, implementation and negotiating them as
necessary
3. Communication

3. 1 Good science
Good science requires technically skilled and suitably experienced staff.
Industry Regulators
What
you
say
What
you
think
they
do
• Can be a requirement
• Varies with significance
• 90-100%
• Varies between Industries

4. 1 Good science
Good science requires technically skilled and suitably experienced staff.
Industry Regulators
What
you
say
What
you
think
they
do
• Can be a requirement
• Varies with significance
• 90-100%
• Varies between Industries
Stretched in
relation to
hydrogeological
expertise
Not currently or
overworked and
cannot operate
appropriately
mostly
Lack of
experience
OGIA (QLD) cited
as a good
example of
bubble with
technical experts
Not
anymore


5. 2 Process: requirements definition (regulatory agencies)
Regulators process
•Varies between agencies
•From a mix of blanket approach and
site-specific requirements to fully risk
based approach
•Some (not all) agencies appear to
negotiate the requirements with
proponents before they becomes final
•SA approach appears to be fully risk
based with high levels of
engagements with the proponents
•Process often requires several
agencies input
Industry’s view

6. 2 Process: requirements definition (regulatory agencies)
Regulators process
•Varies between agencies
•From a mix of blanket approach and
site-specific requirements to fully risk
based approach
•Some (not all) agencies appear to
negotiate the requirements with
proponents before they becomes final
•SA approach appears to be fully risk
based with high levels of
engagements with the proponents
•Process often requires several
agencies input
Industry’s view
Regulators do not
try to understand
site activities and
site settings
In most case, fair.
Similar activities
would be
considered by the
company in absence
of conditions
Conditions not acceptable
especially on monitoring,
analytes and frequency not
leading in acquisition of
additional data
The costs and
resources
required by the
conditions can
make the
project not
viable
The standardisation of Environmental
Authorities (QLD) is not working: difficult
to implement, unnecessary conditions
Not practical
!!!!

7. 2 Process - implementing
Industry’s process Regulator’s view
•Different approaches:
•Enter negotiations
•Direct implementation, no
questions asked
•Risk based in many instances,
initially motivated by cost controls but
also technically meaningful
•The Proponent must demonstrate
unsuitability of the condition while
abiding to it until it can be negotiated
•In some case, it is cheaper to get on
with an unsuitable condition than
enter negotiation

8. 2 Process - implementing
Industry’s process Regulator’s view
•Different approaches:
•Enter negotiations
•Direct implementation, no
questions asked
•Risk based in many instances,
initially motivated by cost controls but
also technically meaningful
•The Proponent must demonstrate
unsuitability of the condition while
abiding to it until it can be negotiated
•In some case, it is cheaper to get on
with an unsuitable condition than
enter negotiation
Take conditions as
prescribed
May have some level
of discussion
Quite advanced hydrogeological
knowledge, request a lot of changes,
enters into negotiation
Mining
Petroleum
Land development
Contaminated sites
remediation
Waste industry
Transport
Councils

9. 2 Process - negotiating
Regulators Industry
•Regulatory agencies open to negotiation
within their jurisdiction
•Negotiation requested vary enormously
between agencies
•Relates about always to monitoring and
data acquisition (often due to cost)
•Sometimes negotiation relate to monitoring
being technically unfeasible
• About all agencies were listed!
• Key reasons cited:
• Most often required to change
monitoring (too often, too many)
• Set without consideration to the
level of risk and suitability to
detect/monitor for impact
• Other reasons why requested include:
• Lack of technical knowledge by
regulators
• Had different views on
interpretation of data
• Did not take into consideration pre-
existing work/studies

10. 3. Communication
Good communication smooths the process, what does it looks like out there?
Communication industry – regulatory agencies, is this happening?
• Often existing, but is it effective communication or purely compliance and process
discussions?
• Limited site visits (other than audits)
• The review or lack of review of compliance submissions is another trust break point.
Communication between regulatory agencies, what is going on there?
• Very rare (e.g. OGIA working with CSGCU and for some items with DEHP)
• Limited face to face meetings to discuss a project as a whole
• Can involve politics
Communication with the community, reinstating the trust
• Industry does not want bad publicity, significant information available under their website
(sometimes associated to a regulatory requirement)
• What should be the role of the regulatory agencies?
• Science communication
• Standing by good science

11. 3. Communication
Good communication smooths the process, what does it looks like out there?
Communication industry – regulatory agencies, is this happening?
• Often existing, but is it effective communication or purely compliance and process
discussions?
• Limited site visits (other than audits)
• The review or lack of review of compliance submissions is another trust break point.
Communication between regulatory agencies, what is going on there?
• Very rare (e.g. OGIA working with CSGCU and for some items with DEHP)
• Limited face to face meetings to discuss a project as a whole
• Can involve politics
Communication with the community, reinstating the trust
• Industry does not want bad publicity, significant information available under their website
(sometimes associated to a regulatory requirement)
• What should be the role of the regulatory agencies?
• Science communication
• Standing by good science
Lack of consultation
between State Agencies
(comment came from
both the industry AND
the regulators)
Good work
from CSGCU
and OGIA

12. Industry’s view
• Strong media and political
pressure on some
industries
• Different Industries in the
spotlight overtime
• Conditioning can be fit for
purpose AND containing
condition to address
another agenda
• Community perception of
science needs
improvement
• Politicians and science
don’t mix well
Do we have a good mix for our recipe?
Regulatory conditions are not always so fit for
purpose…the strongest limitation is the political agenda

13. Industry’s view
• Strong media and political
pressure on some
industries
• Different Industries in the
spotlight overtime
• Conditioning can be fit for
purpose AND containing
condition to address
another agenda
• Community perception of
science needs
improvement
• Politicians and science
don’t mix well
Appropriate use of
groundwater model
to define conditions
Conditions on
some EA are very
suitable
DoE set
requirements
already
managed
under State
approval
Do we have a good mix for our recipe?
True
across all
industries
Regulatory conditions are not always so fit for
purpose…the strongest limitation is the political agendaRegulators want to be
seen to regulate
activities (even when
completely
unnecessary)

14. Towards best practices
• There is a wide range of approaches, especially in the setting of requirements, it maybe
worth looking over other agencies’ shoulder
• The use of suitable qualified and experienced staff is critical within the Industry and the
regulatory agencies (petroleum and mining industries appear to lead there). Qualified
staff necessary not only for technical validity and practicality but also to promote trust
• Develop awareness of risk based approach and negotiations across the industries
• Risk base approach should also be part of the regulatory process
• It seems that the less communication, less site specific, less risk based approach, the
more negotiations (up to a few requests a year) .
• The big challenge is science communication with the community