Maritime Transport Act
Section 226 of the Maritime Transport Act states that “harmful substances shall not be discharged or escape, otherwise that in accordance with the marine protection rules, from any ship, offshore installation or pipeline into the sea within the exclusive economic zone or over the continental shelf of New Zealand”.
Part 131 of the Marine Protection Rules ensures offshore installation operating in New Zealand continental waters and in the internal waters of New Zealand have oils spill contingency plans that will support an efficient and effective response to an oil spill at sea. The oil contingency plan must be approved by Maritime New Zealand.
Under the EEZ Act, the EPA is required to take into account “the nature and effect of other marine management regimes” when considering a marine consent application. 2231 This includes those established under the Maritime Transport Act 1994. So although Maritime New Zealand approves oil contingency plans, the EPA can take them into account when determining if marine consent should be granted or refused.
Part 21 of the Maritime Transport Act provides for regulation of deliberate disposal into the sea of platforms or other man-made structures. Maritime New Zealand’s position on this matter mirrors Annex II of the London Protocol from which the regulation comes from, which notes a hierarchy of preferred waste management options in increasing order of environmental impact:
- Off-site recycling
- Destruction of hazardous constituents
- Treatment to reduce or remove the hazardous constituents
- Disposal on land, into air and in water
Marine disposal is considered the last resort where no other viable option exists, and in the specific circumstances of decommissioning, this implies that all practically recoverable material will be removed. 2232 In 2010, Maritime New Zealand began a process intended to develop a national policy on offshore decommissioning in consultation with the industry. As mentioned above the changes arising from the RLAA now address decommissioning.
In 2013 Greenpeace sought judicial review of a decision by the EPA to accept as complete an impact assessment submitted by Anadarko. 2234 Greenpeace alleged that the EPA erred in law as the impact assessment included as an appendix the discharge management plan (required by Maritime New Zealand under the Maritime Transport Act 1994), but did not include its annexes, which included oil spill modelling reports, the emergency response plan, and the oil spill contingency and well control contingency plan. The High Court found that the EPA’s role under section 41 does not involve any assessment of the merits of the content of the impact assessment and is limited to assessing whether the application contains information about the required matters. The application for judicial review was unsuccessful.
EEZ Act 2012, section 59(2)(h).
Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc v The Environmental Protection Authority  NZHC 3482
Last updated at 3:51PM on February 11, 2018