APPENDIX C ASSESSED HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUID … · 2 n C1.0 Introduction As presented in Section...

APPENDIX C ASSESSED HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUID SYSTEMS

AP

PE

ND

IX C

A

SS

ES

SE

D H

YD

RA

ULIC

FR

AC

TU

RIN

G F

LU

ID S

YS

TE

MS

1

Intr

od

uctio

n

Appendix C1 Schlumberger Methodology – Guar Based

Systems

2

I

ntr

oductio

n

C1.0 Introduction As presented in Section 5.0 of the Hydraulic Fracturing Risk Assessment Compendium (RA

Compendium), a weight-of-evidence approach was used by Santos to evaluate the potential for human

health and environmental (e.g., ecological) risks as a result of the hydraulic fracturing processes.

Golder Associates (Golder), on behalf of Santos, completed a qualitative risk assessment (Golder, 2013)

that evaluated the nature of the geology in the areas undergoing stimulation, the potential for impacts

on water resources, the process and chemicals used.

A Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA), completed by EHS Support, LLC (EHS Support), supplemented

the qualitative risk assessment (EHS Support, 2012). The QRA was conducted to meet Conditions 49e

and 49f of the 2 October 2011 approval under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC 2008/4059) and the EA conditions to assess the toxicity of the mixtures.

Key reports and studies previously submitted for these fluid systems comprise:

Golder Associates Pty Ltd. 2013. “Coal seam hydraulic fracturing risk assessment - Combined Stage

1 and Stage 2 Risk Assessment for Schlumberger Methodology” Revision 1, Dated 14 March 2013.

EHS Support, Inc.2012. “Coal Seam Gas Hydraulic Fracturing Quantitative Risk Assessment

Report” Dated 16 October 2012.

The results and conclusions of the qualitative risk assessment components and the QRA are

summarised below. Refer to the text of this report for detailed discussions on mythologies employed

for each component; specific tables referred to in this summary are included for review with this

document. Table numbers specific to the original reports were retained for consistency between

documents.

A direct toxicity assessment (DTA) will be conducted to develop an ecotoxiciy testing program to assess

the incremental toxicity of fraccing fluids in the context of the natural ecotoxicity of coal seam gas (CSG)

groundwater to surface water organisms. The CSG proponents contracted with Hydrobiology to develop

the program. Once the DTA is complete for this fluid system, a summary will be added to this appendix.

3

Qu

alita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent a

nd E

va

luation

C2.0 Qualitative Risk Assessment and Evaluation

Chemicals Evaluated

Three 'fluid systems' were assessed, each having a foamed and non-foamed version, for a total of six

hydraulic fracturing fluid mixtures. Chemical constituents identified in each hydraulic fracturing fluid

system were evaluated in the hydraulic fracturing risk assessments. The list of individual chemicals

present within the three fluid systems is presented in Table 1 below. A mass balance of the chemicals

within each of the hydraulic fracturing fluid systems is provided as Appendix C1-1 (Table D-3; Golder,

2013) which is included in.

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for each of the hydraulic fluid chemicals are included in Appendix

D of this report (Appendix E; Golder, 2013). Information regarding the chemical and physical properties

of the individual chemicals listed below as well as the approximate percentage present in the hydraulic

fracturing system can be found on the MSDSs.

It is noted, while none of the fracturing fluid chemicals identified contain benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,

xylenes (BTEX) or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), that PAHs occur naturally in coal and it is

possible that certain PAHs may naturally be present in the coal seam groundwater used in the hydraulic

fracturing process.

Table 1

Chemical Cas Number

Carbohydrate polymer (guar gum) 9000-30-0

Polypropylene Glycol 25322-69-4

Alcohols C6-C10 ethoxylated (surrogate C6 - C12) 68439-45-2

Vinylidene Chloride/methylacrylate 25038-72-6

Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA) 64-02-8

Alkylaryl Sulfonate 25155-30-0

Timethylammonium chloride 8030-78-2

Nitrogen, liquid form 7727-37-9

trimethyl-3-[{1-oxooctadecyl)amino]propylammonium methyl sulphate 19277-88-4

Propane 1,2 diol 57-55-6

Magnesium Chloride 7786-30-3

Diatomaceous Earth, calcined 91053-39-3

Crystalline silica (cristobalite) 14464-46-1

Crystalline silica (quartz) 14808-60-7

Diammonium peroxidisulphate (ammonium persulphate) 7727-54-0

Ammonium C6-C10 alcohol ethoxysulfate 68187-17-7

Carbonic acid, sodium salt 533-96-0

Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0

Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6

Sodium Hydroxide 1310-73-2

Non crystalline silica (amorphous silica surrogate) 7631-86-9

Postassium Chloride 7447-40-7

Sodium Hypochlorite 7681-52-9

4

Q

ualit

ative

Ris

k A

sse

ssm

ent a

nd E

va

luatio

n

C2.2 Risk Assessment Framework and Findings

As discussed in Section 5.0 of the systematic weight of evidence approach was utilised to complete the

risk assessment for the Schlumberger Fluid Systems. The work has involved the following evaluations:

Qualitative Assessment Methodologies

Environmental Hazard Assessment

Exposure Assessment including Fate and Transport Assessment in Groundwater

Mass Balance of the fluid systems

Groundwater Fate and Transport Modelling.

Quantitative Risk Assessment Methodologies

Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment

Quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment for Terrestrial and Aquatic Receptors.

Direct Toxicity Testing

Direct Toxicity Assessments of Fluid Systems.

C2.3 Environmental Hazard Assessment

The environmental hazard assessment approach outlined in Section 6.1 was undertaken to rank the

hydraulic fracturing chemicals based on persistence (P), bioaccumulation (B) and toxic (T) potential

(hereafter referred to as PBT).

A combination of data sets were used in the PBT assessment including chemical information sheets

(Appendix E) were compiled for each chemical from the MSDSs (Appendix D), the Hazardous

Substance Database, and modelled data from USEPA (2009) EPISUITE modelling software, when data

not available from other sources. Appendix E of the Golder report presents MSDSs for the chemicals;

Appendix F of the Golder report presents the chemical information sheets used (Golder, 2103).

Of the 34 chemicals listed above, three were not considered for PBT ranking. Crystalline silica (quartz,

14808-60-7) and crystalline silica (cristobalite, 14464-64-1) relate to the sand used as the proppant, and

are therefore not considered to represent an environmental hazard. Similarly, amorphous silica is an

inert element, also ubiquitous in the environment, and was therefore not considered further in the PBT

ranking.

C2.4 Exposure Assessment

As discussed in Section 7.0, the exposure assessment identified receptors potentially exposed to

COPCs identified for the study, and outlines the exposure pathways by which the receptors may come

in to contact with the COPCs.

C2.4.1 Onsite Exposures

Of the pathways evaluated, the onsite assessment indicated that the majority of exposures were unlikely

or incomplete; given the application of operational controls by Santos. These operational controls

include:

Occupational health and safety procedures implemented during hydraulic fracturing operations to

prevent workers from direct contact with chemicals during spills and when handling flowback water

or sediments

Implementation of spill containment procedures during operations to prevent migration of and

exposure to chemicals

5

Qu

alita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent a

nd E

va

luation

Disposal or capping of sediments contained within drained mud pits and turkey nests, to prevent

exposure to contaminates in windborne dust

Fencing of drill pads to prevent trespassers and installation of signs to indicate that the water in the

turkeys nest and mud pit is not potable and may contain contaminants

Installation and maintenance of fences around the well pad to prevent access to the drill pad by

livestock and large native fauna

Mud pits and turkeys nests lined with clay or similar material to prevent seepage of flowback water

into underlying aquifer.

Refer to Table 50 of the Golder qualitative risk assessment for details regarding onsite exposure

scenarios, receptors, pathways evaluated (Golder, 2013).

The following on-site pathways were determined to be potentially complete and were evaluated:

Exposure to COPCs in mud pit and turkeys nest sediments:

— Workers and trespassers via direct contact (ingestion and dermal contact).

Exposure to COPCs in flowback water in turkeys nest and mud pit:

— Workers while working with turkeys nest inlet/liner or drainage of turkeys nest or mud pit via

direct contact

— Trespassers after entry (accidental or deliberate) to turkeys nest or mud pit via direct contact

— Native terrestrial fauna after entry (accidental or deliberate) to turkeys nest or mud pit via

ingestion

— Stock animals after entry (accidental or deliberate) to turkeys nest or mud pit via ingestion.

Exposure to COPCs in flowback water released to environment (spill, leak, mud pit, turkey nest

delivery system failure or overflow):

— Workers, terrestrial fauna, terrestrial flora via ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation.

One potentially complete exposure pathway was identified, which is direct contact to the flowback water

in the turkey’s nest and mud pit for small native fauna (i.e. lizards and birds). All reasonable measures

will be conducted to discourage entry of small native fauna into the well pad area during hydraulic

fracturing operations.

C2.4.2 Offsite Exposure Pathways

Of the pathways evaluated, the following off-site pathways were determined to be potentially complete

and were evaluated:



— Residents, terrestrial fauna, terrestrial flora via ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation.

Refer to Table 51 of the Golder qualitative risk assessment for details regarding offsite exposure


Potential off site exposure pathways were evaluated for residents, stock animals, native flora and fauna

and aquatic ecosystems. Four possible sources were identified, hydraulic fracturing fluids, sediments

from mud pit or turkeys nest, flowback water and coal seam gas (methane). The exposure assessment

concluded that with the implementation of operational controls including use of liners in turkey nests,

well integrity testing, operational monitoring and capping and/or removal of sludge all off-site exposures

are considered unlikely and incomplete.

6

Q

ualit

ative

Ris

k A

sse

ssm

ent a

nd E

va

luatio

n

C2.5 Mass Balance of Fluid System

A quantitative mass balance calculation was undertaken to identify the amount of each chemical additive

of the hydraulic fracturing fluid in the following fluid systems:

Waterfrac / Slickwater

WF130 Linear Gel

WF130 Linear Base Gel for Foam Fluid

YF125LG Crosslinked Gel.

Specific details regarding the methodology of the calculation are presented in Section 4.7 of this report.

The results of the mass balance calculations are presented in the referenced Table D-3 (Golder, 2013)

which is included in Appendix C1-1.

C2.6 Fate and Transport Modelling

For the sake of conservatism, the fate and transport of four of the highest ranked and most mobile

organic chemicals was further assessed. This included:

Tetrasodium EDTA

Vinylidene chloride.

Details on the fate and transport modelling methodology and results are provided in Section 7.2 of the

report. The modelling demonstrated that there is limited potential for chemicals to migrate within the

coal seams.

7

Qu

an

tita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent

C3.0 Quantitative Risk Assessment In accordance with the methodologies presented in Section 8.0, a QRA was conducted on both

theoretical and empirical datasets for those chemicals identified in the Combined Stage 1 and 2 Risk

Assessments (EHS Support, 2012). The QRA approach evaluates the toxicity of the individual

substances, and characterises the cumulative risks of the total effluent toxicity and ecotoxicity.

Generally, this methodology includes the identification of the hazards posed by constituents in the

flowback water, compilation of the toxicity criteria for each constituent, development of exposure models

to estimate the daily intake of the constituents, and calculations of individual constituent hazard quotients

(daily intake divided by the toxicity criteria) and a cumulative constituent hazard index (HI) for each

potentially complete exposure pathway for each human or terrestrial receptor.

Potential complete exposure pathways to the storage of flowback from hydraulically stimulated wells

and potential risks to humans, terrestrial and aquatic receptors from the potential storage and accidental

releases are evaluated in the QRA.

No further assessment of groundwater was determined to be necessary due to lack of potentially

complete exposure pathways. Detailed operational procedures have been provided that are designed

to contain the hydraulic fracturing fluids within the coal sequences, and no connection exists between

groundwater in the coal seams and surface-water or springs (and therefore MNES). Further, the

potential risks to workers involved with the hydraulic fracturing process were not considered as detailed

Health and Safety (H&S) procedures are employed to manage exposures. The QRA considered the

following specific exposure pathways:

1. Exposure of trespassers to flowback water contained within flowback storage ponds

2. Exposure of terrestrial receptors (e.g. livestock and wildlife) to flowback water contained within

the flowback storage ponds

3. Exposure of aquatic receptors to flowback water in the situation of an accidental release, such

as from piping or a release from the flowback storage pond. These potential releases could

include a failure of containment systems, overtopping of the dam or in an extreme situation

(considered highly unlikely) structural failure of the dam itself.

Exposure Assessment

The purpose of the exposure assessment in the QRA was to predict the magnitude and frequency of

potential human exposure to each COPC following the methodologies presented in Section 8.1. A

conceptual site model (CSM) was developed which describes the potential receptors and exposure

scenarios for the flowback water used in this exposure assessment. The potential exposures to

receptors were evaluated based on the potential for a complete exposure pathway.

As discussed in Section 8.2, exposure point concentrations (EPCs) were derived for both the theoretical

assessment and the empirical assessment. The EPCs for the theoretical assessment were calculated

by estimating the mass and discharge flow of the COPCs from the flowback water monitoring data were

used (Appendix C1-2, Table C-1; EHS Support, 2012). Operational data were utilized to assess the

fate and transport of the constituents in the flowback storage ponds. Refer to Appendix C of the EHS

Support QRA (Appendix C1-2, Tables C-2 through C-4) for the empirical data used in the QRA (EHS

Support, 2012). The tables are included in this summary.

C3.2 Human Health QRA

A human health hazard assessment was conducted according to the methodologies presented in

Section 8.4. The purpose of the hazard assessment process was to summarize the environmental

8

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent

data, and to address the toxicological assessment of the COPCs that will be evaluated further in the risk

assessment process.

Exposure assumptions for the human trespasser scenario were developed based on default or site-

specific assumptions (Section 8.4). This receptor exposure pathway includes a small child to teenager

that may come in contact with the above grade water exposure scenario for approximately 20 days/year

for a 10 year period with potential incidental ingestion (of 50 mL water) and dermal contact (e.g.,

swimming where the whole body gets wet) for ½ hour (Table 4; EHS Support, 2012).

Calculation of intake of COPCs was performed using the equations presented below:

Ingestion of water:

𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒 (𝑚𝑔/𝑘𝑔 − 𝑑𝑎𝑦) = (𝐶𝑊 𝑥 𝐼𝑅 𝑋 𝐸𝐹 𝑋 𝐸𝐷) / (𝐵𝑊 𝑥 𝐴𝑇)

Dermal contact with water:

𝐴𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑜𝑠𝑒 (𝑚𝑔/𝑘𝑔 − 𝑑𝑎𝑦) = (𝐶𝑊 𝑥 𝑆𝐴 𝑥 𝐷𝑃 𝑥 𝐸𝑇 𝑥 𝐸𝐹 𝑥 𝐸𝐷 𝑥 𝐶𝐹) / (𝐵𝑊 𝑥 𝐴𝑇)

Where:

CW = concentration in water (mg/l)

ET = exposure time (hr/day or hours/hours)

EF = exposure frequency (day/year)

ED = exposure duration (years)

CF = correction factor (1 x 10-3 l/cm3)

AT = averaging time (days)

IR = ingestion rate (l/hr)

BW = body weight (kg)

SA = skin surface area available for contact (cm2/d)

DP = dermal permeability factor (Kp – cm/hr)

C3.3 Toxicity Assessment

A toxicity assessment was conducted to determine the relationship between the dose of a COPC taken

into the body, and the probability that an adverse effect will result from that dose. Quantitative estimates

of the potency of COPCs include two sets of toxicity values, one for genotoxic carcinogens and one for

other non-genotoxic carcinogens and non-carcinogenic effects. As discussed in Section 8.4, detailed

toxicological profiles were developed for the chemicals. The toxicological profiles are included as

Appendix F.

The assessment of toxicity of the COPCs was used to develop initial screening criteria for human health

exposure scenarios as discussed in Section 8.4. Refer to Tables 1, 2, and 3 of the QRA for details

regarding the toxicity assessment of the COPCs (EHS Support, 2012).

C3.4 Risk Estimation

Risk estimation was performed in accordance with the methodologies outlined in Section 8.4. The total

target risk range for carcinogens was 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6; the target hazard index (HI) for non-threshold

effects is less than or equal to 1.0.

C3.4.1 Theoretical

No carcinogenic compounds are present in the stimulation fluids injected into the subsurface and as a

result, only non-carcinogenic risks were calculated. The exposure scenarios include the specific

fracturing fluids event from Golder (2011) Table D-3, or the maximum of the fracturing fluids events, for

the 20 and 80 percent mass recovery from the fracturing fluid well flowback. The modelled risks from

9

Qu

an

tita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent

injected chemicals in the flowback water were acceptable, with the trespasser for the maximum

exposure to COPCs at the 80 percent recovery indicating a potential risk below the HI of 1.0 (Tables 5

and 6; EHS Support, 2012).

C3.4.2 Empirical

Two data sets, flowback storage ponds and untreated flowback, were used to characterize potential

risks for the trespasser to COPCs. Trespasser exposure to water in flowback storage ponds did not

have an unacceptable HI at either the mean or maximum concentrations; there were no carcinogens

present (Tables 7 and 8; EHS Support, 2012).

While the mean scenario for the trespasser exposed to COPCs in pumped flowback did not have

unacceptable levels of risk, the risk calculated using maximum concentrations did result in an

unacceptable risk with an HI equal to 2.3 and an excess cancer lifetime risk of 5.1 x 10-7.

C3.5 Ecological Risk Assessment

As discussed in Section 8.5, a screening level ecological risk assessment (ERA) was conducted to

evaluate the potential for adverse ecological effects to terrestrial and aquatic ecological receptors that

may be exposed to residual levels of hydraulic fracturing fluids in surface water used in the CSG fields.

Terrestrial receptors evaluated in the ERA include domesticated livestock, large mammalian wildlife and

small mammalian wildlife. Beef cattle were used to evaluate domesticated livestock, kangaroos

evaluated for large mammalian wildlife and dingos for small mammalian wildlife. Aquatic receptors

evaluated included invertebrates and fishes.

Ecological effects were characterised following the methodologies outlined in Section 8.5.3 (Table 9;

EHS Support, 2012). Exposure scenarios were the same for ecological receptors as human receptors;

EPCs were estimated in accordance with the methodology presented in Section 8.5.4 (Appendix C1-

2). Environmental fate information is provided in Table 10 (EHS Support, 2012).

Risks were characterised in accordance with the methodologies discussed in Section 8.5.6. The

resulting ecological hazard quotient must be less than or equal to 1.0 for risks to be considered

acceptable.

C3.5.1 Estimation of Risks

C3.5.1.1 Theoretical

Appendix C1-3 presents the calculated HI for flowback water (Appendix E, EHS Support, 2012). The

HI calculated for flowback water for aquatic risk was elevated above the acceptable level for the majority

of COPCs evaluated. Where large discharges of flowback water occur to surface water and/or flux

dilution within the surface-water was insufficient, potential impacts on aquatic receptors could occur. As

noted in the toxicity assessment section above, the lack of a robust aquatic toxicological database

resulted in aquatic screening values for the theoretical exposure scenario COPCs to be conservatively

very low.

The modelled risks from injected chemicals in the flowback water were all acceptable for each of the

ecological receptors modelled, with HI ranging from 0.016 (dingo) to 0.051 (cattle) (Tables 14 through

19; EHS Support, 2012).

10

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent

3.5.1.2 Empirical

Appendix C1-3 presents the calculated HI for flowback water (Appendix E, EHS Support, 2012).

Aquatic life TRVs exceeded for the pump flowback water included toluene, xylene, C10-C36 Fraction

(sum), aluminium, barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lithium, manganese, molybdenum,

nickel, strontium, tin, and zinc.

The modelled risks from the empirical exposure scenarios were all acceptable for each of the ecological

receptors modelled, with the exception of the livestock cattle for the maximum exposure to COPCs in

the flowback storage ponds, the HI of 1.2 slightly exceeded the acceptable HI of 1.0 (Tables 20 through

25; EHS Support, 2012). However, it is noted that this included a very conservative long-term exposure

as compared to the typical duration that the flowback storage ponds surface water would be available

for exposure.

11

Su

mm

ary

of Q

RA

fin

din

gs

C4.0 Summary of QRA findings The QRA was completed as discussed in Section 8.0, using two (2) independent assessments to

develop a weight-of-evidence approach for potential human health and ecological risks. The first

assessment was conducted using highly conservative theoretical calculations based on the chemicals

utilized by Schlumberger in hydraulic fracturing. This assessment assumed that a range of theoretical

percentages of injected chemicals would be present in the flowback water. The second assessment

utilized empirical data collected as part of the Stimulation Impact Monitoring Program from hydraulic

stimulation events conducted by Schlumberger.

Consistent with the risk assessment and groundwater fate and transport modelling conducted by Golder,

no potentially complete exposure pathways were identified for groundwater. Potential exposures are

limited to the aboveground storage and handling of flowback water as part of the CSG Water

Management Plan (WMP). Management of CSG water involves the temporary storage of flowback

water in flowback storage ponds.

On the basis of the risk calculations, the potential risks associated with the flowback water are generally

limited. Potential risks to trespassers could occur with repeated exposures to flowback water. However,

the cumulative risks are only slightly above the non-carcinogenic threshold discussed above where

management and operational controls can be implemented to control potential exposures. There were

no carcinogenic risks identified.

Limited to no risks to cattle and native mammals were identified in the risk assessment using the most

conservative theoretical calculations (80% chemical mass in the flowback water). Based on contractor

experience and the empirical data collected as part of the SIMP, concentrations of constituents detected

in flowback water are orders of magnitude lower than theoretical concentrations and no potential risks

exist for livestock or native mammals.

Similarly, potential impacts could occur if releases of flowback water were to occur to aquatic

environments. Based on the use of liners and operational controls that limit the potential for turkey nest

and dam overflows, the potential for these risks are also considered limited.

A combination of management and operational controls are being implemented to eliminate and control

the potential for exposures. These include:

Worker training and hazard identification

Use of appropriate personal protective equipment (gloves etc.)

Flowback storage pond fencing to prevent entry of livestock and minimize trespassing.

Installation of clay dam liners and routine dam inspections to prevent releases from flowback storage

ponds

Routine operational and security patrols to prevent trespassing.

12

D

irect T

oxic

ity A

naly

sis

C5.0 Direct Toxicity Analysis As discussed in Section 9.0, a DTA is being conducted to assess the toxicity of the mixture. Once

complete, the results of the analysis will be appended to this document.

13

Co

nclu

sio

ns

C6.0 Conclusions A weight-of-evidence evaluation of potential risks as described in Section 5.0 was performed for the

Schlumberger guar gum fluid system. Based on the qualitative and quantitative risk characterisations,

the overall risk to human health and the environment is low. Existing operational control activities

employed by Santos are in place that will limit the potential risks to human health and the environment.

These measures include:



or sediments;

Environmental authority conditions that preclude the construction of well pads within 100 m of a

watercourse of water body.


exposure to chemicals;

Disposal or capping of sediments contained within drained mud pits and turkey nests , to prevent

exposure to contaminates in windborne dust;


turkeys nest and mud pit is not potable and may contain contaminants;


livestock and large native fauna;

Santos operational procedures to ensure well integrity and design of fracture to stay within the target

seam; and

Mud pits and turkeys nests with clay liners, or similar material, to prevent seepage of flowback water

into underlying aquifers.

Regular monitoring of water supply bores and surface water for a representative suite of chemicals

within 2 kilometre of wells that are fractured is required to confirm the conclusion of incomplete exposure

pathways and low risk.

No additional risks, other than those previously discussed, were identified with the chemicals or systems

employed by Schlumberger in hydraulic fracturing. Evaluation of other potential risks associated with

hydraulic fracturing (i.e., noise and vibration) was conducted.

Refer to Section 10.0 for methodology specifics and results of this evaluation.

EHS Support Tables

Table 1 Oral Reference Doses and Drinking Water Guidelines Derived for Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals

Chemical Study Critical Effect/Target Organ(s)

NOAEL (mg/kg/day)

Uncertainty Factors

Oral Reference Dose

(mg/kg/day)

Drinking Water Guideline (ppm)

Hemicellulase enzyme 13-wk rat dietary General toxicity/liver 600 1,000 0.6 2

Lactosea 2-yr rat dietary Effects not considered chemical-specific 1,580 1,000 1.0 3.5

Maltodextrinb - - - - - -

Sodium chloridec -180 for Na+ and

250 for Cl- (aesthetics)

Shellac, ammonium salteOne –generation rat

reproductive None 500 1,000 0.5 1.8

Sodium carboxymethyl cellulosef - - - - - -Sodium lauryl sulfate 2-yr rat dietary Liver 113 100 1.1 4Sorbitan, monododecanoate, poly(oxy-1,2-diethanediyl) 2-yr rat dietary Marked diarrhea; distention

of cecum 2,500g 100g 25g 88

Sulfuric acid -

pH; 500 (health) and 250

(aesthetic) for SO42-

Talch - - - - - -Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride No data - - - - -Potassium chloridec 2-yr rat dietary Systemic effects 1820d 100 18.2 63.7

aBased on animal toxicity studies only.bNo toxicity data found. GRAS substance by FDA (no limitation in food).cThere is an Australian drinking water standard for chloride.dthe highest dose testedeFood coating is a biopolymer and is insoluble in water. It is not expected to be bioavailable and therefore not hazardous to human health. There is an Australian drinking water standard for ammfADI classified as “Not Specified” (formerly “Not Limited”) by Joint WHO/FAO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA).gADI (Joint WHO/FAO Expert Committee on Food Additives or JECFA).hTalc is a mineral that is insoluble in water. It is not expected to be bioavailable and therefore not hazardous to human health by oral ingestion

Page 1 of 1

Table 2 Australian Drinking Water Screening Values for Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals

Constituent Drinking Water Screening Guideline Drinking Water Screening Value (ppm)aDiammonium peroxidisulfate Sulfate 500 (health), 250 (aesthetic)Hydrogen chloride pH; Chloride 6.5 to 8.5; 250 (aesthetic)Magnesium chloride Chloride 250 (aesthetic)Sodium acetate, anhydrousb Sodium; pH 180 (aesthetic); 6.5 to 8.5Sodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate Sodium; EDTA 180 (aesthetic); 0.25Sodium hydroxide Sodium; pH 180 (aesthetic); 6.5 to 8.5

aExcept for pH values.bJoint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives maintains an ADI of “not limited.”

Page 1 of 1

Table 3 Regulatory Screening Values for DERM Specified Analytes

Parameter Drinking Water Guideline Values (mg/L) Stock Watering (mg/L) Aquatic Ecosystems

pH 6.5 to 8.5a d 6.5 to 7.5 f

Electrical Conductivity b d h

Turbidity 5a d 1 to 50 NTU f

Total dissolved solids 500 (aesthetic)a 2,000 to 10,000 f h

Temperature b d h

Dissolved Oxygen b d 6.5 to 7.5 (% saturation) f

Methane b d h

Chlorine 5 (health)a; 0.6 (aesthetic)a d 3 f

Carbon Dioxide b d h

Hydrogen Sulfide 0.05 (aesthetic)a d 1 f

Bicarbonate as CaCO3 b d h

Carbonate as CaCO3 b d h

Hydroxide as CaCO3 b d h

Total as CaCO3 b d h

Residual Alkali b d h

Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) b d

Bicarbonate b d h

Carbonate as CaCO3 b d h

Hydroxide as CaCO3 b d h

chloride 250 (aesthetic)a d 230000 as chloride i

fluoride 1.5 (health)a d h

sulphate 500 (health)a; 250 (aesthetic)a d h

Aluminium 0.2 (aesthetic)a 5 f 55f

Calcium b 1,000 f 116,000 j

Magnesium b 10 g 1,900f

Potassium b d 53,000 j

Sodium 180 (aesthetic)a; 250 (aesthetic)a 2,000 as sodium g 680,000 j

Wet Chemistry

Dissolved Gases

Alkalinity

Anions

Cations

Page 1 of 3



Aluminium b d i

Arsenic III b d i

Barium b d i

Boron b d i

cadmium b d i

Chromium III b d i

Copper b d i

Iron b d i

Lead b d i

Manganese b d i

Mercury b d i

Nickel b d i

Selenium b d i

Silver b d i

Zinc b d i

Aluminium 0.2a 5 f 55 fArsenic III 0.007 as arsenic, not specified (health)a 0.5 to 5 as arsenic, not specified f 24 fBarium 0.7 (health)a d 4 jBoron 4 (health)a 5 f 370 fCadmium 0.002 (health)a 1 f 0.2 f

Chromium III 0.05 as chromium VI (health)a; 0.1 as total chromium (health)k 1 as chromium, not specified f 1.0 as chromium VI f

Copper 2 (health)a; 1 (aesthetic)a 0.4 to 5 f 1.4 fIron 0.3 (aesthetic)a 10 gLead 0.01 (health)a 0.1 f 3.4 fManganese 0.5 (health)a; 0.1 (aesthetic)a 10 g 1,400 fMercury 0.001 (health)a 0.002 f 0.6 fNickel 0.02 (health)a 1 f 11 fSelenium 0.01 (health)a 0.02 f 11 fSilver 0.1 (health)a d 0.05 fZinc 3 (aesthetic)a 20 f 8 fTotal Petroleum Hydrocarbons b d h

Total Metals

Dissolved Metals

Page 2 of 3



Benzene 0.001 (health)a 14.3 to 74.3 e 950 f

Ethylbenzene 0.3 (health)a; 0.003 (aesthetic)a 11.7 to 60.6 e 90 j

toluene 0.8 (health)a and 0.025 (aesthetics)a. 89.5 to 464 e 2 j

ortho-xylene b d 350 f

para-xylene b d 200 f

meta-xylene b d 1.8 j

total xylene 0.6 (health)a; 0.02 (aesthetic)a 71.7 to 371 e 13 j

Naphthalene b 2.01 to 10.4 as LMW PAH e 16 f

Phenanthrene b 2.01 to 10.4 as LMW PAH e 0.4 j

Benzo (a)pyrene 0.00001a 0.402 to 2.08 as HMW PAH e 0.015 j

Sodium Hypochlorite b d h

Sodium Hydroxide b d h

Formaldehyde 0.5 (health)a d h

Ethanol b d 1,400 f

Gross alpha Radiation 0.5a 0.5 Bq/L f h

Notes

b No existing guideline based on Drinking Water hierarchy

aAustralia Drinking Water Guidelines

g Other (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, 1996. South African Water Quality Guidelines (second edition). Volume 5: Agricultural Use: Livestock Watering.)

cMay contain bromate from naturally occurring sodium bromide (WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, pp. 187-188). Australian drinking water guideline for bromate is 0.02 mg/L.

e API Risk-Based Screening Levels for the Protection of Livestock Exposed to Petroleum Hydrocarbons (cattle/calves, sheep, goat, horse)f Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC & ARMCANZ, 2000)

d No existing guideline based on Stock Watering hierarchy

l Section 8.3.5.15 Incorporating effects of water hardness of ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000) notes to compare total to guideline, if exceeds, then compare dissolved

h No existing guideline based on Aquatic Ecosystem hierarchyi EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria j Other (EPA Region 3 Biological Technical Assistance Group Freshwater Screening Benchmarks)k U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)

BTEX

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Page 3 of 3

Table 4 Exposure Assumptions - Trespasser

Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter ValueIR Ingestion rate l/hr 0.05ET Exposure time hr/day 0.5EF Exposure frequency day/yr 20ED Exposure duration yr 10BW Body weight kg 47

AT-NC Averaging time - noncancer days 3,650AT-C Averaging time - cancer days 25,550SA Surface area for contact cm2/day 13,000DP Dermal permeability factor cm/h chemical-specificET Exposure time hr/day 1EF Exposure frequency day/yr 20ED Exposure duration yr 10BW Body weight kg 47

AT-NC Averaging time - noncancer days 3,650AT-C Averaging time - cancer days 25,550CF Conversion factor l/cm3 1.0E-03

Ingestion

Dermal

Page 1 of 1

Table 5 Risk Estimates for Trespasser Schlumberger Theoretical Exposure for 20% Mass Returned

Specific Frac Stimulation Event Maximum Frac Stimulation EventHazard Quotient Hazard Quotient

Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) Cmax (mg/l) PC (cm/hr) RfDo CADDoral CADDderm Incidental Ingestion Dermal CADDoral CADDderm Incidental Ingestion DermalMagnesium chloride 7786-30-3 1.3E-01 4.0E-01 5.0E-04 NA 7.8E-06 5.1E-07 2.3E-05 1.5E-06Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 2.9E+00 4.0E+00 NA 1.7E-04 2.3E-04Crystalline silica (cristobalite) 14464-46-1 NACrystalline silica (quartz) 14808-60-7 NADiammonium peroxidisulphate (ammonium persulphate) 7727-54-0 9.5E+01 9.5E+01 14.29 5.5E-03 3.9E-04 5.5E-03 3.9E-04Carbohydrate polymer (guar gum1) 9000-30-0 3.8E+02 4.7E+02 1.3 2.2E-02 1.7E-02 2.8E-02 2.1E-02Non-crystalline silica (amorphous silica surrogate) 7631-86-9 1.1E+00 1.3E+00 2.5 6.2E-05 2.5E-05 7.8E-05 3.1E-05Polypropylene glycol 25322-69-4 4.0E+00 4.3E-04 0.5 2.3E-04 1.3E-05 4.7E-04 2.6E-05Ammonium C6-C10 alcohol ethoxysulfate 68187-17-7 1.4E+02 2.7E-03 0.75 8.1E-03 2.8E-03 1.1E-02 3.7E-03Alcohols C6-C10 ethoxylated 68439-45-2 2.4E+00 1.5E-04 0.5 1.4E-04 2.8E-06 2.8E-04 5.5E-06Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 8.5E+01 8.5E+01 2.3E-03 NA 4.9E-03 1.4E-03 4.9E-03 1.4E-03Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate 25038-72-6 2.4E+00 2.4E+00 1.1E-02 NA 1.4E-04 2.1E-04 1.4E-04 2.1E-04Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA) 64-02-8 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 2.4E-14 0.007 6.2E-05 1.9E-16 8.9E-03 2.8E-14 6.2E-05 1.9E-16 8.9E-03 2.8E-14magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 5.9E-05 NA 7.8E-06 6.0E-08 7.8E-06 6.0E-08Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 2.6E-06 5.14 7.8E-06 2.6E-09 1.5E-06 5.1E-10 7.8E-06 2.6E-09 1.5E-06 5.1E-10

Hazard Index 2.7E-02 Hazard Index 4.6E-02

Toxicity20% Mass Returned

Page 1 of 1

Table 6 Risk Estimates for Trespasser Schlumberger Theoretical Exposure for 80% Mass Returned

Specific Frac Stimulation Event MaximumHazard Quotient Hazard Quotient

Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) Cmax (mg/l) PC (cm/hr) RfDo CADDoral CADDderm Incidental Ingestion Dermal CADDoral LADDoral CADDderm Incidental Ingestion DermalMagnesium chloride 7786-30-3 5.3E-01 1.6E+00 5.0E-04 NA 3.1E-05 2.0E-06 9.3E-05 1.3E-05 6.1E-06Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1.2E+01 1.6E+01 NA 6.8E-04 9.3E-04 1.3E-04Crystalline silica (cristobalite) 14464-46-1 NACrystalline silica (quartz) 14808-60-7 NADiammonium peroxidisulphate (ammonium persulphate 7727-54-0 3.8E+02 3.8E+02 14.29 2.2E-02 1.5E-03 2.2E-02 3.2E-03 1.5E-03Carbohydrate polymer (guar gum1) 9000-30-0 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.3 5.8E-02 4.5E-02 5.8E-02 8.3E-03 4.5E-02Non-crystalline silica (amorphous silica surrogate) 7631-86-9 4.3E+00 5.3E+00 2.5 2.5E-04 9.9E-05 3.1E-04 4.4E-05 1.2E-04Polypropylene glycol 25322-69-4 - 1.6E+01 4.3E-04 0.5 9.3E-04 1.3E-04 5.2E-05 1.9E-03 1.0E-04Ammonium C6-C10 alcohol ethoxysulfate 68187-17-7 - 5.6E+02 2.7E-03 0.75 3.3E-02 4.7E-03 1.1E-02 4.3E-02 1.5E-02Alcohols C6-C10 ethoxylated 68439-45-2 - 9.6E+00 1.5E-04 0.5 5.6E-04 8.0E-05 1.1E-05 1.1E-03 2.2E-05Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 3.4E+02 3.4E+02 2.3E-03 NA 2.0E-02 5.8E-03 2.0E-02 2.8E-03 5.8E-03Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate 25038-72-6 9.6E+00 9.6E+00 1.1E-02 NA 5.6E-04 8.3E-04 5.6E-04 8.0E-05 8.3E-04Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA) 64-02-8 4.3E+00 4.3E+00 2.4E-14 0.007 2.5E-04 7.7E-16 3.6E-02 1.1E-13 2.5E-04 3.6E-05 7.7E-16 3.6E-02 1.1E-13magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 5.3E-01 5.3E-01 5.9E-05 NA 3.1E-05 2.4E-07 3.1E-05 4.4E-06 2.4E-07Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 5.3E-01 5.3E-01 2.6E-06 5.14 3.1E-05 1.1E-08 6.0E-06 2.0E-09 3.1E-05 4.4E-06 1.1E-08 6.0E-06 2.0E-09

Hazard Index 8.2E-02 Hazard Index 1.4E-01


Page 1 of 1

Table 7 Risk Estimates for Trespasser Empirical Exposure - Flowback Storage Ponds

Constituent Name Cmax (mg/l) Cmean (mg/l) PC (cm/hr) CSFo RfDo CADDoral LADDoral CADDderm LADDderm Incidental Ingestion Dermal Incidental Ingestion Dermal CADDoral LADDoral CADDderm LADDderm Incidental Ingestion Dermal Incidental Ingestion DermalAluminium 19.8 4.2E+00 1.0E-03 1 1.2E-03 1.6E-04 1.5E-04 2.1E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.2E-03 1.5E-04 2.4E-04 3.5E-05 3.1E-05 4.5E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.4E-04 3.1E-05Arsenic 0.135 1.0E-02 1.0E-03 0.002 7.9E-06 1.1E-06 1.0E-06 1.5E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.9E-03 5.1E-04 5.8E-07 8.3E-08 7.6E-08 1.1E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.9E-04 3.8E-05Barium 1.87 3.8E-01 1.0E-03 0.2 1.1E-04 1.6E-05 1.4E-05 2.0E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 5.5E-04 7.1E-05 2.2E-05 3.1E-06 2.8E-06 4.1E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.1E-04 1.4E-05Benzene 0 0.0E+00 2.1E-02 0.055 0.004 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Beryllium 0 0.0E+00 1.0E-03 0.002 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Boron And Borates Only 1.47 6.5E-01 1.0E-03 0.2 8.6E-05 1.2E-05 1.1E-05 1.6E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.3E-04 5.6E-05 3.8E-05 5.4E-06 4.9E-06 7.1E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.9E-04 2.5E-05Cadmium 0 0.0E+00 1.0E-03 0.0005 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Chromium (total) 0.031 7.9E-03 1.3E-03 1.5 1.8E-06 2.6E-07 3.1E-07 4.4E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.2E-06 2.0E-07 4.6E-07 6.6E-08 7.8E-08 1.1E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.1E-07 5.2E-08Cobalt 0.005 2.1E-03 1.2E-03 0.000006 2.9E-07 4.2E-08 4.6E-08 6.5E-09 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.9E-02 7.6E-03 1.2E-07 1.7E-08 1.9E-08 2.8E-09 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.0E-02 3.2E-03Copper 0.14 1.0E-02 1.0E-03 0.04 8.2E-06 1.2E-06 1.1E-06 1.5E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.0E-04 2.7E-05 5.9E-07 8.4E-08 7.6E-08 1.1E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.5E-05 1.9E-06Ethylbenzene 0 0.0E+00 7.4E-02 0.011 0.1 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Lead 0.009 4.9E-03 1.0E-04 0.0036 5.2E-07 7.5E-08 6.8E-09 9.7E-10 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.5E-04 1.9E-06 2.9E-07 4.1E-08 3.7E-09 5.3E-10 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 7.9E-05 1.0E-06Lithium 0.46 9.8E-02 1.0E-03 2.00E-03 2.7E-05 3.8E-06 3.5E-06 5.0E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.3E-02 1.7E-03 5.7E-06 8.2E-07 7.4E-07 1.1E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.9E-03 3.7E-04Manganese 0.255 4.2E-02 1.7E-03 0.024 1.5E-05 2.1E-06 3.2E-06 4.6E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 6.2E-04 1.3E-04 2.5E-06 3.5E-07 5.3E-07 7.6E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.0E-04 2.2E-05Molybdenum 0.628 4.7E-02 1.0E-03 5.00E-03 3.7E-05 5.2E-06 4.8E-06 6.8E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 7.3E-03 9.5E-04 2.7E-06 3.9E-07 3.6E-07 5.1E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 5.5E-04 7.1E-05Naphthalene 0.0054 5.4E-03 6.9E-02 0.02 3.1E-07 4.5E-08 2.8E-06 4.0E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.6E-05 1.4E-04 3.1E-07 4.5E-08 2.8E-06 4.0E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.6E-05 1.4E-04Nickel (soluble salts) 0.12 8.8E-03 1.0E-03 0.02 7.0E-06 1.0E-06 9.1E-07 1.3E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.5E-04 4.5E-05 5.1E-07 7.3E-08 6.7E-08 9.5E-09 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.6E-05 3.3E-06Selenium 0 0.0E+00 1.0E-03 5.00E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Silver 0 0.0E+00 6.0E-04 5.00E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Strontium, Stable 2.7 6.5E-01 1.0E-03 6.00E-01 1.6E-04 2.2E-05 2.0E-05 2.9E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.6E-04 3.4E-05 3.8E-05 5.4E-06 4.9E-06 7.1E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 6.3E-05 8.2E-06Tin 0.004 3.0E-03 1.0E-03 6.00E-01 2.3E-07 3.3E-08 3.0E-08 4.3E-09 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.9E-07 5.1E-08 1.7E-07 2.5E-08 2.3E-08 3.2E-09 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.9E-07 3.8E-08Toluene 0.004 3.0E-03 4.5E-02 0.08 2.3E-07 3.3E-08 1.4E-06 1.9E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.9E-06 1.7E-05 1.7E-07 2.5E-08 1.0E-06 1.5E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.2E-06 1.3E-05TPH Aliphatic C6-9 1.08 2.8E-01 3.0E-01 5 6.3E-05 9.0E-06 2.4E-03 3.5E-04 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.3E-05 4.9E-04 1.6E-05 2.3E-06 6.3E-04 9.1E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.3E-06 1.3E-04TPH Aliphatic C10-14 0.68 3.9E-01 1.9E+00 0.1 4.0E-05 5.7E-06 9.8E-03 1.4E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.0E-04 9.8E-02 2.3E-05 3.2E-06 5.6E-03 8.1E-04 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.3E-04 5.6E-02TPH Aliphatic C15-28 1.11 5.0E-01 9.2E+01 2 6.5E-05 9.2E-06 7.7E-01 1.1E-01 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.2E-05 3.9E-01 2.9E-05 4.2E-06 3.5E-01 5.0E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.5E-05 1.7E-01TPH Aliphatic C29-36 0.92 2.5E-01 9.2E+01 12 5.4E-05 7.7E-06 6.4E-01 9.1E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.5E-06 5.3E-02 1.5E-05 2.1E-06 1.8E-01 2.5E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.2E-06 1.5E-02Uranium 0.002 1.8E-03 1.0E-03 0.003 1.2E-07 1.7E-08 1.5E-08 2.2E-09 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.9E-05 5.1E-06 1.0E-07 1.5E-08 1.4E-08 1.9E-09 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.5E-05 4.5E-06Vanadium 0.14 5.0E-02 1.0E-03 0.00007 8.2E-06 1.2E-06 1.1E-06 1.5E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.2E-01 1.5E-02 2.9E-06 4.2E-07 3.8E-07 5.4E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.2E-02 5.4E-03Xylenes (total) 0.014 5.8E-03 8.0E-02 0.2 8.2E-07 1.2E-07 8.5E-06 1.2E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.1E-06 4.2E-05 3.4E-07 4.8E-08 3.5E-06 5.0E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.7E-06 1.8E-05Zinc 0.046 1.9E-02 6.0E-04 0.3 2.7E-06 3.8E-07 2.1E-07 3.0E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 8.9E-06 7.0E-07 1.1E-06 1.6E-07 8.6E-08 1.2E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.7E-06 2.9E-07

Total Risk 0.0E+00 Hazard Index 7.6E-01 Total Risk 0.0E+00 Hazard Index 3.2E-01

ToxicityTurkey Nest

Turkey Nest Mean ConcentrationsTurkey Nest Maximum ConcentrationsExcess Cancer Lifetime Risk Hazard Quotient Excess Cancer Lifetime Risk Hazard Quotient

Page 1 of 1

Table 8 Risk Estimates for Trespasser Empirical Exposure - Pump Flowback

Constituent Name Cmax (mg/l) Cmean (mg/l) PC (cm/hr) CSFo RfDo CADDoral LADDoral CADDderm LADDderm Incidental Ingestion Dermal Incidental Ingestion Dermal CADDoral LADDoral CADDderm LADDderm Incidental Ingestion Dermal Incidental Ingestion DermalAluminium 2.65 1.1E-01 1.0E-03 1 1.5E-04 2.2E-05 2.0E-05 2.9E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.5E-04 2.0E-05 6.2E-06 8.9E-07 8.1E-07 1.2E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 6.2E-06 8.1E-07Arsenic 0.015 3.5E-03 1.0E-03 0.002 8.7E-07 1.2E-07 1.1E-07 1.6E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.4E-04 5.7E-05 2.0E-07 2.9E-08 2.7E-08 3.8E-09 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.0E-04 1.3E-05Barium 37.9 4.6E+00 1.0E-03 0.2 2.2E-03 3.2E-04 2.9E-04 4.1E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.1E-02 1.4E-03 2.7E-04 3.9E-05 3.5E-05 5.0E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.3E-03 1.8E-04Benzene 0.041 1.5E-02 2.1E-02 0.055 0.004 2.4E-06 3.4E-07 6.5E-06 9.3E-07 1.3E-07 3.6E-07 6.0E-04 1.6E-03 8.8E-07 1.3E-07 2.4E-06 3.4E-07 4.8E-08 1.3E-07 2.2E-04 6.0E-04Beryllium 0 0.0E+00 1.0E-03 0.002 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Boron And Borates Only 55.3 1.4E+01 1.0E-03 0.2 3.2E-03 4.6E-04 4.2E-04 6.0E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.6E-02 2.1E-03 7.9E-04 1.1E-04 1.0E-04 1.5E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.0E-03 5.1E-04Cadmium 0.0004 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 0.0005 2.3E-08 3.3E-09 3.0E-09 4.3E-10 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.7E-05 6.1E-06 5.8E-09 8.3E-10 7.6E-10 1.1E-10 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.2E-05 1.5E-06Chromium (total) 0.147 1.5E-02 1.3E-03 1.5 8.6E-06 1.2E-06 1.4E-06 2.1E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 5.7E-06 9.7E-07 8.9E-07 1.3E-07 1.5E-07 2.1E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 5.9E-07 1.0E-07Cobalt 0.01 1.3E-03 1.2E-03 0.000006 5.8E-07 8.3E-08 9.2E-08 1.3E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 9.7E-02 1.5E-02 7.6E-08 1.1E-08 1.2E-08 1.7E-09 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.3E-02 2.0E-03Copper 0.156 2.2E-02 1.0E-03 0.04 9.1E-06 1.3E-06 1.2E-06 1.7E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.3E-04 3.0E-05 1.3E-06 1.8E-07 1.7E-07 2.4E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.2E-05 4.2E-06Ethylbenzene 0.003 2.4E-03 7.4E-02 0.011 0.1 1.7E-07 2.5E-08 1.7E-06 2.4E-07 1.9E-09 1.9E-08 1.7E-06 1.7E-05 1.4E-07 2.0E-08 1.3E-06 1.9E-07 1.5E-09 1.5E-08 1.4E-06 1.3E-05Lead 0.035 2.0E-03 1.0E-04 0.0036 2.0E-06 2.9E-07 2.7E-08 3.8E-09 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 5.7E-04 7.4E-06 1.2E-07 1.7E-08 1.5E-09 2.2E-10 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.2E-05 4.2E-07Lithium 2.84 1.5E+00 1.0E-03 2.00E-03 1.7E-04 2.4E-05 2.2E-05 3.1E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 8.3E-02 1.1E-02 8.6E-05 1.2E-05 1.1E-05 1.6E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.3E-02 5.6E-03Manganese 1.66 4.0E-01 1.7E-03 0.024 9.7E-05 1.4E-05 2.1E-05 3.0E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.0E-03 8.8E-04 2.3E-05 3.3E-06 5.1E-06 7.2E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 9.7E-04 2.1E-04Molybdenum 0.231 1.6E-02 1.0E-03 5.00E-03 1.3E-05 1.9E-06 1.8E-06 2.5E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.7E-03 3.5E-04 9.1E-07 1.3E-07 1.2E-07 1.7E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.8E-04 2.4E-05Naphthalene 0.231 1.6E-02 6.9E-02 0.02 1.3E-05 1.9E-06 1.2E-04 1.7E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 6.7E-04 6.0E-03 9.1E-07 1.3E-07 8.2E-06 1.2E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.5E-05 4.1E-04Nickel (soluble salts) 0.051 1.2E-02 1.0E-03 0.02 3.0E-06 4.2E-07 3.9E-07 5.5E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.5E-04 1.9E-05 7.2E-07 1.0E-07 9.3E-08 1.3E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.6E-05 4.7E-06Selenium 0.01 1.0E-02 1.0E-03 5.00E-03 5.8E-07 8.3E-08 7.6E-08 1.1E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.2E-04 1.5E-05 5.8E-07 8.3E-08 7.6E-08 1.1E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.2E-04 1.5E-05Silver 0 0.0E+00 6.0E-04 5.00E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Strontium, Stable 32.4 1.2E+01 1.0E-03 6.00E-01 1.9E-03 2.7E-04 2.5E-04 3.5E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.1E-03 4.1E-04 7.2E-04 1.0E-04 9.3E-05 1.3E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.2E-03 1.6E-04Tin 0.161 3.5E-03 1.0E-03 6.00E-01 9.4E-06 1.3E-06 1.2E-06 1.7E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.6E-05 2.0E-06 2.0E-07 2.9E-08 2.7E-08 3.8E-09 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.4E-07 4.4E-08Toluene 0.094 2.1E-02 4.5E-02 0.08 5.5E-06 7.8E-07 3.2E-05 4.6E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 6.8E-05 4.0E-04 1.2E-06 1.8E-07 7.2E-06 1.0E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.5E-05 9.0E-05TPH Aliphatic C6-9 0.25 7.9E-02 3.0E-01 5 1.5E-05 2.1E-06 5.7E-04 8.1E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.9E-06 1.1E-04 4.6E-06 6.6E-07 1.8E-04 2.5E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 9.2E-07 3.6E-05TPH Aliphatic C10-14 0.5 2.4E-01 1.9E+00 0.1 2.9E-05 4.2E-06 7.2E-03 1.0E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.9E-04 7.2E-02 1.4E-05 2.0E-06 3.5E-03 5.1E-04 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.4E-04 3.5E-02TPH Aliphatic C15-28 5.16 7.3E-01 9.2E+01 2 3.0E-04 4.3E-05 3.6E+00 5.1E-01 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.5E-04 1.8E+00 4.2E-05 6.0E-06 5.0E-01 7.2E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.1E-05 2.5E-01TPH Aliphatic C29-36 3.28 4.5E-01 9.2E+01 12 1.9E-04 2.7E-05 2.3E+00 3.3E-01 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.6E-05 1.9E-01 2.6E-05 3.7E-06 3.1E-01 4.4E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.2E-06 2.6E-02Uranium 0 0.0E+00 1.0E-03 0.003 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Vanadium 0.02 1.5E-02 1.0E-03 0.00007 1.2E-06 1.7E-07 1.5E-07 2.2E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.7E-02 2.2E-03 8.7E-07 1.2E-07 1.1E-07 1.6E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.2E-02 1.6E-03Xylenes (total) 0.031 1.4E-02 8.0E-02 0.2 1.8E-06 2.6E-07 1.9E-05 2.7E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 9.0E-06 9.4E-05 8.4E-07 1.2E-07 8.7E-06 1.2E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.2E-06 4.4E-05Zinc 0.251 2.2E-02 6.0E-04 0.3 1.5E-05 2.1E-06 1.1E-06 1.6E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.9E-05 3.8E-06 1.3E-06 1.8E-07 9.9E-08 1.4E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.2E-06 3.3E-07

Total Risk 5.1E-07 Hazard Index 2.3E+00 Total Risk 2.0E-07 Hazard Index 4.0E-01

Hazard QuotientPump Flowback Maximum Concentrations Pump Flowback Mean Treated ConcentrationsToxicity

Pump Flowback Excess Cancer Lifetime Risk Hazard Quotient Excess Cancer Lifetime Risk

Page 1 of 1

Table 9 Aquatic Toxicity Values (PNECs)

NOEC PNECaquatic PNECsediment PNECsoil (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/kg dry wt) (mg/kg)

Guar gum 48-hr EC50 (Daphnia) 42 1,000 0.042 - -Tetrasodium ethylenediamine tetraacetate Chronic Daphnia 22 10 2.2a -a -a

Sodium acetate 96-hr LC50 (fish) 100 mg/L 1,000 0.1 - -2.63 243 138

Range: 0.118-11.9 Range: 2.76 - Range: 1.03 - C6-C10 alcohol ethoxysulfates Chronic Cerioaphnia QSAR e 10 0.27 - 0.0083Diammonium peroxidisulfate 96-hr LC50 (fish) 76 1,000 0.076 - -Hydrochloric acid - - - - - -Sodium hydroxide - - - - - -Magnesium chloride 72-hr EC50 (algae) 100 1,000 0.1 - -

Polypropylene glycol 96-hr LC50 (fish)48-hr EC50 (Daphnia) 100 1,000 0.1 0.08 0.0133

4 x 10-5

(0.04 μg/L)TPH FractionsC15-C36 Aliphatics 72-hr NOEL (algae) 100 50 2 - -

Vinylidene/methylacrylate copolymer NA NA NA NA NA NANoncrystalline silica/Silica gel NA NA NA NA NA NATalc NA NA NA NA NA NACrystalline silica, quartz NA NA NA NA NA NACrystalline silica, cristobalite NA NA NA NA NA NADiatomaceous earth, calcined NA NA NA NA NA NA

aEU Risk Assessment Report for Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate.bSee HERA Report on Alcohol Ethoxylates.dInterim Canadian Water Quality Guideline for the Protection of Aquatic Life for Didecyldimethyl ammonium chloride (DDAC).eSee HERA Report on Alcohol Ethoxysulfates.fCanadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Long-term Exposure to Boron (2009)

-Sodium hypochlorite 48-hr EC50 (Daphnia) 0.04 1,000 -

Chemical Endpoint Assessment Factor

C6-C10 alcohol ethoxylates Chronic Daphnia QSAR b 10

Page 1 of 1

Table 10 Environmental Fate Information

C6-C10 Alcohol Ethoxylates

Readily biodegradable and also anaerobically biodegradable. Proposed half-lives in river water at 12oC: 4 to 24 hours (based on experimental data). BCF (see HERA report)

C6-C12 Alcohol Ethoxysulfate

AES are readily biodegradable under aerobic conditions; they are expected to be easily biodegradable under anaerobic conditions. Degradation rate in surface water: 0.48 d-1 (measured)

Guar gum Expected to be readily biodegradable as a polysaccharide; not expected to bioaccumulate. [No Vinylene chloride / methylacrylate polymer Biologically inert. Persistent in the environment.

Polypropylene glycol Readily biodegradable. 65% degradation after 20 days (OECD 301F). Bioconcentration potential is low (BCF less than 100 or log Pow less than 3).

Tetrasodium ethylenediamine tetraacetate

Not biodegraded. Biodegradation rate constant: 0 d-1. Unlikely to bioaccumulate.

Page 1 of 1

Table 14 Risk Estimates for Cattle Schlumberger Theoretical Exposure for 20% Mass Returned


Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) Cmax (mg/l) Sreening Level\

TRVs CADDoral Incidental Ingestion CADDoral Incidental Ingestion

Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 1.3E-01 4.0E-01 2000 6.6E-04 2.0E-03Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 2.9E+00 4.0E+00 1.5E-02 2.0E-02Crystalline silica (cristobalite) 14464-46-1Crystalline silica (quartz) 14808-60-7Diammonium peroxidisulphate (ammonium persulphate) 7727-54-0 9.5E+01 9.5E+01 1000 4.7E-01 4.7E-01Carbohydrate polymer (guar gum1) 9000-30-0 3.8E+02 4.7E+02 2.1E+02 1.9E+00 9.2E-03 2.3E+00 1.1E-02Non-crystalline silica (amorphous silica surrogate) 7631-86-9 1.1E+00 1.3E+00 4.2E+02 5.3E-03 1.3E-05 6.6E-03 1.6E-05Polypropylene glycol 25322-69-4 - 9.9E-02 8.3E+01 4.9E-04 5.9E-06Ammonium C6-C10 alcohol ethoxysulfate 68187-17-7 - 3.5E+00 1.2E+01 1.7E-02 1.4E-03Alcohols C6-C10 ethoxylated 68439-45-2 - 6.0E-02 8.3E+00 3.0E-04 3.6E-05Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 8.5E+01 8.5E+01 2000 4.2E-01 4.2E-01Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate 25038-72-6 2.4E+00 2.4E+00 1.2E-02 1.2E-02Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA) 64-02-8 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 2000 5.3E-03 5.3E-03magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 6.6E-04 6.6E-04Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 2000 6.6E-04 6.6E-04

Hazard Index Hazard Index9.2E-03 1.3E-02


Page 1 of 1

Table 15 Risk Estimates for Cattle Schlumberger Theoretical Exposure for 80% Mass Returned




Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 5.3E-01 1.6E+00 2000 2.7E-03 8.0E-03Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1.2E+01 1.6E+01 5.8E-02 8.0E-02Crystalline silica (cristobalite) 14464-46-1Crystalline silica (quartz) 14808-60-7Diammonium peroxidisulphate (ammonium persulphate 7727-54-0 3.8E+02 3.8E+02 1000 1.9E+00 1.9E+00Carbohydrate polymer (guar gum1) 9000-30-0 1.5E+03 1.9E+03 2.1E+02 7.7E+00 3.7E-02 9.4E+00 4.5E-02Non-crystalline silica (amorphous silica surrogate) 7631-86-9 4.3E+00 5.3E+00 4.2E+02 2.1E-02 5.1E-05 2.7E-02 6.4E-05Polypropylene glycol 25322-69-4 - 4.0E-01 8.3E+01 2.0E-03 2.4E-05Ammonium C6-C10 alcohol ethoxysulfate 68187-17-7 - 1.4E+01 1.2E+01 6.9E-02 5.5E-03Alcohols C6-C10 ethoxylated 68439-45-2 - 2.4E-01 8.3E+00 1.2E-03 1.4E-04Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 3.4E+02 3.4E+02 2000 1.7E+00 1.7E+00Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate 25038-72-6 9.6E+00 9.6E+00 4.8E-02 4.8E-02Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA) 64-02-8 4.3E+00 4.3E+00 2000 2.1E-02 2.1E-02magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 5.3E-01 5.3E-01 2.7E-03 2.7E-03Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 5.3E-01 5.3E-01 2000 2.7E-03 2.7E-03



Page 1 of 1

Table 16 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo Schlumberger Theoretical Exposure for 20% Mass Returned




Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 1.3E-01 4.0E-01 2000 4.4E-04 1.3E-03Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 2.9E+00 4.0E+00 9.6E-03 1.3E-02Crystalline silica (cristobalite) 14464-46-1Crystalline silica (quartz) 14808-60-7Diammonium peroxidisulphate (ammonium persulphate) 7727-54-0 9.5E+01 9.5E+01 1000 3.1E-01 3.1E-01Carbohydrate polymer (guar gum1) 9000-30-0 3.8E+02 4.7E+02 2.1E+02 1.3E+00 6.1E-03 1.6E+00 7.5E-03Non-crystalline silica (amorphous silica surrogate) 7631-86-9 1.1E+00 1.3E+00 4.2E+02 3.5E-03 8.4E-06 4.4E-03 1.1E-05Polypropylene glycol 25322-69-4 - 9.9E-02 8.3E+01 3.3E-04 3.9E-06Ammonium C6-C10 alcohol ethoxysulfate 68187-17-7 - 3.5E+00 1.2E+01 1.1E-02 9.1E-04Alcohols C6-C10 ethoxylated 68439-45-2 - 6.0E-02 8.3E+00 2.0E-04 2.3E-05Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 8.5E+01 8.5E+01 2000 2.8E-01 2.8E-01Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate 25038-72-6 2.4E+00 2.4E+00 7.9E-03 7.9E-03Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA) 64-02-8 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 2000 3.5E-03 3.5E-03magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 4.4E-04 4.4E-04Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 2000 4.4E-04 4.4E-04



Page 1 of 1

Table 17 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo Schlumberger Theoretical Exposure for 80% Mass Returned




Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 5.3E-01 1.6E+00 2000 1.8E-03 5.3E-03Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1.2E+01 1.6E+01 3.9E-02 5.3E-02Crystalline silica (cristobalite) 14464-46-1Crystalline silica (quartz) 14808-60-7Diammonium peroxidisulphate (ammonium persulphate) 7727-54-0 3.8E+02 3.8E+02 1000 1.2E+00 1.2E+00Carbohydrate polymer (guar gum1) 9000-30-0 1.5E+03 1.9E+03 2.1E+02 5.1E+00 2.4E-02 6.2E+00 3.0E-02Non-crystalline silica (amorphous silica surrogate) 7631-86-9 4.3E+00 5.3E+00 4.2E+02 1.4E-02 3.4E-05 1.8E-02 4.2E-05Polypropylene glycol 25322-69-4 - 4.0E-01 8.3E+01 1.3E-03 1.6E-05Ammonium C6-C10 alcohol ethoxysulfate 68187-17-7 - 1.4E+01 1.2E+01 4.6E-02 3.6E-03Alcohols C6-C10 ethoxylated 68439-45-2 - 2.4E-01 8.3E+00 7.8E-04 9.4E-05Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 3.4E+02 3.4E+02 2000 1.1E+00 1.1E+00Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate 25038-72-6 9.6E+00 9.6E+00 3.2E-02 3.2E-02Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA) 64-02-8 4.3E+00 4.3E+00 2000 1.4E-02 1.4E-02magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 5.3E-01 5.3E-01 1.8E-03 1.8E-03Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 5.3E-01 5.3E-01 2000 1.8E-03 1.8E-03



Page 1 of 1

Table 18 Risk Estimates for Dingo Schlumberger Theoretical Exposure for 20% Mass Returned




Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 1.3E-01 4.0E-01 2000 2.1E-04 6.3E-04Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 2.9E+00 4.0E+00 4.6E-03 6.3E-03Crystalline silica (cristobalite) 14464-46-1Crystalline silica (quartz) 14808-60-7Diammonium peroxidisulphate (ammonium persulphate7727-54-0 9.5E+01 9.5E+01 1000 1.5E-01 1.5E-01Carbohydrate polymer (guar gum1) 9000-30-0 3.8E+02 4.7E+02 2.1E+02 6.1E-01 2.9E-03 7.5E-01 3.6E-03Non-crystalline silica (amorphous silica surrogate) 7631-86-9 1.1E+00 1.3E+00 4.2E+02 1.7E-03 4.0E-06 2.1E-03 5.1E-06Polypropylene glycol 25322-69-4 - 9.9E-02 8.3E+01 1.6E-04 1.9E-06Ammonium C6-C10 alcohol ethoxysulfate 68187-17-7 - 3.5E+00 1.2E+01 5.5E-03 4.4E-04Alcohols C6-C10 ethoxylated 68439-45-2 - 6.0E-02 8.3E+00 9.4E-05 1.1E-05Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 8.5E+01 8.5E+01 2000 1.3E-01 1.3E-01Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate 25038-72-6 2.4E+00 2.4E+00 3.8E-03 3.8E-03Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA) 64-02-8 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 2000 1.7E-03 1.7E-03magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 2.1E-04 2.1E-04Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 2000 2.1E-04 2.1E-04



Page 1 of 1

Table 19 Risk Estimates for Dingo Schlumberger Theoretical Exposure for 80% Mass Returned




Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 5.3E-01 1.6E+00 2000 8.4E-04 2.5E-03Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1.2E+01 1.6E+01 1.9E-02 2.5E-02Crystalline silica (cristobalite) 14464-46-1Crystalline silica (quartz) 14808-60-7Diammonium peroxidisulphate (ammonium persulphate) 7727-54-0 3.8E+02 3.8E+02 1000 6.0E-01 6.0E-01Carbohydrate polymer (guar gum1) 9000-30-0 1.5E+03 1.9E+03 2.1E+02 2.4E+00 1.2E-02 3.0E+00 1.4E-02Non-crystalline silica (amorphous silica surrogate) 7631-86-9 4.3E+00 5.3E+00 4.2E+02 6.7E-03 1.6E-05 8.4E-03 2.0E-05Polypropylene glycol 25322-69-4 - 4.0E-01 8.3E+01 6.3E-04 7.5E-06Ammonium C6-C10 alcohol ethoxysulfate 68187-17-7 - 1.4E+01 1.2E+01 2.2E-02 1.8E-03Alcohols C6-C10 ethoxylated 68439-45-2 - 2.4E-01 8.3E+00 3.8E-04 4.5E-05Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 3.4E+02 3.4E+02 2000 5.4E-01 5.4E-01Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate 25038-72-6 9.6E+00 9.6E+00 1.5E-02 1.5E-02Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA) 64-02-8 4.3E+00 4.3E+00 2000 6.7E-03 6.7E-03magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 5.3E-01 5.3E-01 8.4E-04 8.4E-04Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 5.3E-01 5.3E-01 2000 8.4E-04 8.4E-04



Page 1 of 1

Table 20 Risk Estimates for Cattle Empirical Exposure - Flowback Storage Ponds

Turkey Nest Maximum Concentrations Turkey Nest Mean ConcentrationsHazard Quotient Hazard Quotient

Constituent Name Cmax (mg/l) Cmean (mg/l) Sreening Level\


Aluminium 19.8 4.2E+00 1.7E+01 9.9E-02 5.9E-03 2.1E-02 1.2E-03Arsenic 0.135 1.0E-02 5.0E-03 6.7E-04 1.3E-01 5.0E-05 1.0E-02Barium 1.87 3.8E-01 3.3E+00 9.3E-03 2.8E-03 1.9E-03 5.6E-04Benzene 0 0.0E+00 6.7E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Beryllium 0 0.0E+00 3.3E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Boron And Borates Only 1.47 6.5E-01 3.3E+00 7.3E-03 2.2E-03 3.3E-03 9.8E-04Cadmium 0 0.0E+00 8.3E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Chromium (total) 0.031 7.9E-03 2.5E+01 1.5E-04 6.2E-06 3.9E-05 1.6E-06Cobalt 0.005 2.1E-03 1.0E-04 2.5E-05 2.5E-01 1.0E-05 1.0E-01Copper 0.14 1.0E-02 6.7E-01 7.0E-04 1.0E-03 5.0E-05 7.5E-05Ethylbenzene 0 0.0E+00 1.7E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Lead 0.009 4.9E-03 6.0E-02 4.5E-05 7.5E-04 2.4E-05 4.1E-04Lithium 0.46 9.8E-02 3.3E-02 2.3E-03 6.9E-02 4.9E-04 1.5E-02Manganese 0.255 4.2E-02 4.0E-01 1.3E-03 3.2E-03 2.1E-04 5.2E-04Molybdenum 0.628 4.7E-02 8.3E-02 3.1E-03 3.8E-02 2.3E-04 2.8E-03Naphthalene 0.0054 5.4E-03 3.3E-01 2.7E-05 8.1E-05 2.7E-05 8.1E-05Nickel (soluble salts) 0.12 8.8E-03 3.3E-01 6.0E-04 1.8E-03 4.4E-05 1.3E-04Selenium 0 0.0E+00 8.3E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Silver 0 0.0E+00 8.3E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Strontium, Stable 2.7 6.5E-01 1.0E+01 1.3E-02 1.3E-03 3.2E-03 3.2E-04Tin 0.004 3.0E-03 1.0E+01 2.0E-05 2.0E-06 1.5E-05 1.5E-06Toluene 0.004 3.0E-03 1.3E+00 2.0E-05 1.5E-05 1.5E-05 1.1E-05TPH Aliphatic C6-9 1.08 2.8E-01 8.3E+01 5.4E-03 6.5E-05 1.4E-03 1.7E-05TPH Aliphatic C10-14 0.68 3.9E-01 1.7E+00 3.4E-03 2.0E-03 1.9E-03 1.2E-03TPH Aliphatic C15-28 1.11 5.0E-01 3.3E+01 5.5E-03 1.7E-04 2.5E-03 7.5E-05TPH Aliphatic C29-36 0.92 2.5E-01 2.0E+02 4.6E-03 2.3E-05 1.3E-03 6.3E-06Uranium 0.002 1.8E-03 5.0E-02 1.0E-05 2.0E-04 9.0E-06 1.8E-04Vanadium 0.14 5.0E-02 1.2E-03 7.0E-04 6.0E-01 2.5E-04 2.1E-01Xylenes (total) 0.014 5.8E-03 3.3E+00 7.0E-05 2.1E-05 2.9E-05 8.7E-06Zinc 0.046 1.9E-02 5.0E+00 2.3E-04 4.6E-05 9.5E-05 1.9E-05

Hazard Index Hazard Index1.1E+00 1.4E-01

ToxicityTurkey Nest

Page 1 of 1

Table 21 Risk Estimates for Cattle Empirical Exposure - Pump Flowback

Pump Flowback Maximum Concentrations Pump Flowback Mean Treated ConcentrationsHazard Quotient Hazard Quotient



Aluminium 2.65 1.1E-01 1.7E+01 1.3E-02 7.9E-04 5.3E-04 3.2E-05Arsenic 0.015 3.5E-03 5.0E-03 7.5E-05 1.5E-02 1.7E-05 3.5E-03Barium 37.9 4.6E+00 3.3E+00 1.9E-01 5.7E-02 2.3E-02 6.9E-03Benzene 0.041 1.5E-02 6.7E-02 2.0E-04 3.1E-03 7.5E-05 1.1E-03Beryllium 0 0.0E+00 3.3E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Boron And Borates Only 55.3 1.4E+01 3.3E+00 2.8E-01 8.3E-02 6.8E-02 2.0E-02Cadmium 0.0004 1.0E-04 8.3E-03 2.0E-06 2.4E-04 5.0E-07 6.0E-05Chromium (total) 0.147 1.5E-02 2.5E+01 7.3E-04 2.9E-05 7.6E-05 3.0E-06Cobalt 0.01 1.3E-03 1.0E-04 5.0E-05 5.0E-01 6.5E-06 6.5E-02Copper 0.156 2.2E-02 6.7E-01 7.8E-04 1.2E-03 1.1E-04 1.6E-04Ethylbenzene 0.003 2.4E-03 1.7E+00 1.5E-05 9.0E-06 1.2E-05 7.2E-06Lead 0.035 2.0E-03 6.0E-02 1.7E-04 2.9E-03 1.0E-05 1.7E-04Lithium 2.84 1.5E+00 3.3E-02 1.4E-02 4.2E-01 7.3E-03 2.2E-01Manganese 1.66 4.0E-01 4.0E-01 8.3E-03 2.1E-02 2.0E-03 5.0E-03Molybdenum 0.231 1.6E-02 8.3E-02 1.2E-03 1.4E-02 7.8E-05 9.3E-04Naphthalene 0.231 1.6E-02 3.3E-01 1.2E-03 3.5E-03 7.8E-05 2.3E-04Nickel (soluble salts) 0.051 1.2E-02 3.3E-01 2.5E-04 7.6E-04 6.1E-05 1.8E-04Selenium 0.01 1.0E-02 8.3E-02 5.0E-05 6.0E-04 5.0E-05 6.0E-04Silver 0 0.0E+00 8.3E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Strontium, Stable 32.4 1.2E+01 1.0E+01 1.6E-01 1.6E-02 6.1E-02 6.1E-03Tin 0.161 3.5E-03 1.0E+01 8.0E-04 8.0E-05 1.7E-05 1.7E-06Toluene 0.094 2.1E-02 1.3E+00 4.7E-04 3.5E-04 1.0E-04 7.9E-05TPH Aliphatic C6-9 0.25 7.9E-02 8.3E+01 1.2E-03 1.5E-05 3.9E-04 4.7E-06TPH Aliphatic C10-14 0.5 2.4E-01 1.7E+00 2.5E-03 1.5E-03 1.2E-03 7.3E-04TPH Aliphatic C15-28 5.16 7.3E-01 3.3E+01 2.6E-02 7.7E-04 3.6E-03 1.1E-04TPH Aliphatic C29-36 3.28 4.5E-01 2.0E+02 1.6E-02 8.2E-05 2.2E-03 1.1E-05Uranium 0 0.0E+00 5.0E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Vanadium 0.02 1.5E-02 1.2E-03 1.0E-04 8.5E-02 7.5E-05 6.4E-02Xylenes (total) 0.031 1.4E-02 3.3E+00 1.5E-04 4.6E-05 7.2E-05 2.2E-05Zinc 0.251 2.2E-02 5.0E+00 1.2E-03 2.5E-04 1.1E-04 2.2E-05

Hazard Index Hazard Index1.2E+00 3.3E-01

ToxicityPump Flowback

Page 1 of 1

Table 22 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo Empirical Exposure Flowback Storage Pond






ToxicityTurkey Nest

Page 1 of 1

Table 23 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo Empirical Exposure - Pump Flowback







Page 1 of 1

Table 24 Risk Estimates for Dingo Empirical Exposure - Flowback Storage Ponds






ToxicityTurkey Nest

Page 1 of 1

Table 25 Risk Estimates for Dingo Empirical Exposure - Pump Flowback







Page 1 of 1

Golder Tables

Table 9: Hydraulic fracturing chemicals sorted into organic and inorganic

Chemical Type Chemical Name CASRN Carbohydrate polymer (surrogate guar gum) 9000‐30‐0 Polypropylene Glycol 25322‐69‐4 Alcohols C6‐C10 ethoxylated (surrogate C6 ‐ C12) 68439‐45‐2 Vinylidene Chloride/methylacrylate 25038‐72‐6 Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate 64‐02‐8 Alkylaryl Sulfonate 25155‐30‐0 Trimethylammonium chloride 8030‐78‐2 Nitrogen, liquid form 7727‐37‐9 trimethyl‐3‐[{1‐oxooctadecyl)amino]propylammonium methyl sulphate 19277‐88‐4 Propane 1,2 diol 57‐55‐6 Magnesium Chloride 7786‐30‐3 Diatomaceous Earth, calcined 91053‐39‐3 Crystalline silica (cristobalite) 14464‐46‐1 Crystalline silica (quartz) 14808‐60‐7 Diammonium peroxidisulphate (Ammonium Persulphate) 7727‐54‐0 Ammonium C6‐C10 alcohol ethoxysulfate 68187‐17‐7 Hydrochloric Acid 7647‐01‐0magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807‐96‐6Sodium Hydroxide 1310‐73‐2Non‐crystalline silica (amorphous silica surrogate) 7631‐86‐9Potassium Chloride 7447‐40‐7Sodium Hypochlorite 7681‐52‐9

* NA – CASRN not provided

Page 1 of 1

Table 50: On site exposure assessment summary

Source Exposure Scenario Receptors Exposure Pathways Likelihood of exposure scenario

Comments

Entry to pit or excavation/stockpiling of pit sediments

Workers, trespassers Ingestion, dermal Unlikely OH&S procedures limit workers exposure to sediment.

Pit dries and pit sediments become windblown dusts

Workers, trespassers Inhalation of dusts Possible Pathway is limited by disposal or capping of sediments contained in the mud pit and turkeys nest at the end of operations

Pit dries and pit sediments become windblown dusts, contaminating surrounding soil

Native terrestrial fauna (mammals, reptiles, birds), terrestrial flora

Ingestion, uptake Unlikely Volume of pit sediments considered insufficient to cause significant contamination of drill pad.

Entry to pit or exposure to excavated pit sediments

Native terrestrial fauna (mammals, reptiles, birds)

Ingestion Unlikely Mud pit and turkeys nest does not contain food or habitat for terrestrial species.

Working with turkey nest inlet/liner, or drainage of turkey nest or mud pit

Workers Ingestion, dermal Possible OH&S procedures limit workers exposure to flow back water.

Entry (accidental or deliberate) to Turkeys nest or mud pit

Trespassers Ingestion, dermal Possible Trespassers entry is limited via fencing and signage around drill pad areas. Trespassers can be entirely precluded from areas.


Native terrestrial fauna (mammals, reptiles, birds)

Ingestion Observed Native fauna has been observed in and around the turkey nests, despite areas being fenced.


Stock animals Ingestion Observed Maintained fences and grids with routine maintenance can be effective at precluding livestock however, some stock animals have been observed

Hydraulic fracturing Chemicals

Spill, leak of well delivery system failure during surface handling. Supply or disposal vehicle accident on‐site

Workers, terrestrial fauna (mammals, reptiles, birds), terrestrial flora

Ingestion, dermal Unlikely OH&S and spill containment, procedures adequately address this exposure.

Flow back water Spill, leak, mud pit, turkey nest delivery system failure or overflow

Workers, terrestrial fauna (mammals, reptiles, birds), terrestrial flora

Ingestion, dermal, inha Possible

Mud pit and turkeys nest sediments

Flow back water in Turkey nest and mud pit

Page 1 of 1

Table 51: Off site exposure assessment summary

Source Exposure Scenario Receptors Exposure Pathways Likelihood of exposure scenario

Comment/Management/control measures

Fracture fluid escapes into aquifer via a well casing failure, or a fault/fracture/unconformity in seam/strata, and fluids enter aquifer used downgradient for domestic water supply

Residents: adults and children

Ingestion, dermal, inhalation

Unlikely Exposure scenario unlikely however; dependant on Santos operational procedures i.e. well integrity testing and design of fracture to stay with the target seam. No recorded instances in peer‐reviewed literature of fracturing chemicals in downgradient water supplies (Osborn et al 2011).

Fracture fluid escapes into aquifer via a well casing failure, or a fault/fracture/unconformity in seam/strata, and fluids enter aquifer used downgradient for stock water supply

Stock animals Ingestion Unlikely

Fracture fluid escapes into aquifer via a well casing failure, or a fault/fracture/unconformity in seam/strata, and fluids enter aquifer that discharges to surface water

Aquatic ecosystems Direct exposure Unlikely

Residual fracturing fluid in the coal seam migrates down gradient and enters a spring or water supply bore

Residents, aquatic ecosystems, stock animals


Unlikely Fate and transport modelling used to estimate the likely extent of migration of residual fluids in coal seam (section 7.4)

Turkeys nest or mud pit sediments

Nest/Pit dries and sediments become windblown dusts, contaminating surrounding soil

Native terrestrial flora and fauna, stock, Residents adults and children

Direct exposure/ inhalation of dusts

Unlikely Volume of pit sediments considered insufficient to result in concentrations of concern in the surrounding land.

Seepage of chemicals from mud pit or turkeys nest to a shallow aquifer used downgradient for domestic water supply



Unlikely Considered unlikely that the concentrations of chemicals would be of a concern however regular maintenance of liners required to remove exposure pathway. Monitoring of down gradient bores also recommended to confirm no exposure.

Seepage of chemicals from mud pit or turkeys nest to a shallow aquifer used downgradient for stock water supply

Stock animals Ingestion Unlikely

Seepage of chemicals from mud pit or turkeys nest to a shallow aquifer that discharges to surface water


Spill, leak, turkey nest overflow Residents, terrestrial fauna (mammals, reptiles, birds), terrestrial flora


Possible Possible overflows during prolonged periods of high rainfall (>500 mm of rainfall required) based on freeboard control requirements. Likelihood of occurrence can be reduced through minimising duration of storage in pit and turkeys nest, and toxicity of fluid is likely to decrease rapidly due to short biotransformation half‐lives of most chemicals.

Hydraulic fracturing fluids

Flow back water

Page 1 of 1

Appendix C1-1

APPENDIX DHydraulic Fracturing Risk Assessment - Table D3

Table D3: Chemical mass balance and estimated concentrations in typical hydraulic fracturing fluids


WF130 Linear Gel


YF125LG Crosslinked Gel

Waterfrac /Slickwater

WF130 Linear Gel



Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 6.82 1.15 0.34 0.47 3 3 3 1

Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 68.18 11.45 3.43 8.18 30 30 30 22



Diammonium peroxidisulphate (ammonium persulphate) 7727-54-0 - 155.26 - 269.44 - 410 - 712

Carbohydrate polymer (guar gum1) 9000-30-0 - 1340.04 377.38 1091.83 - 3540 3323 2884

Non-crystalline silica (amorphous silica surrogate) 7631-86-9 - 3.66 1.03 2.90 - 10 9 8

Polypropylene glycol 25322-69-4 - 11.53 - - - 30 -

Ammonium C6-C10 alcohol ethoxysulfate 68187-17-7 - - 119.04 - - - 1048 -

Alcohols C6-C10 ethoxylated 68439-45-2 - - 1.99 - - - 18 -

Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 - - - 240.41 - - - 635

Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate 25038-72-6 - - - 6.91 - - - 18

Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA) 64-02-8 - - - 2.98 - - - 8

magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 - - - 0.30 - - - 1

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 - - - 0.26 - - - 1

Total chemical mass injected per coal seam (kg): 216 1720 683 2812Residual chemical mass assuming 60% recovery (kg): 86 688 273 1125

Notes:

1. Estimated concentration in pre-injection fracturing fluid may exceed the effective solubility of the compound.

j:\hyd\2011\117636002_santos glng - official folder is in brisbane\task 7000 fraccing ra\schlumberger report\tables\117636002-7000-004-table d3.docx

7 July, 2011No. 117636002-7000-004 1/1

Constituent Name CAS No.

Estimated mass per coal seam (kg) Estimated concentration in pre-injection fluid systems (mg/L)

Assumed to be sand, not included in chemical mass balance Assumed to be sand, not included in chemical mass balance

Appendix C1-2

Table C-1 Surface Water Quality Data for Theoretical Scenario in Initial Flowback for Schlumberger


WF130 Linear Gel

WF130 Linear Base Gel for Foam Fluid YF125LG

Crosslinked GelMaximum of All

Stimulation Events 20% 40% 60% 80% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 3 3 3 1 3 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6

Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 30 30 30 22 30 2.9 5.9 8.8 11.7 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0



Diammonium peroxodisulphate (ammonium persulphate) 7727-54-0 - 410 - 712 712 94.9 189.9 284.8 379.7 94.9 189.9 284.8 379.7

Carbohydrate polymer (guar gum1) 9000-30-0 - 3,540 3,323 2,884 3,540 384.5 769.1 1153.6 1538.1 472.0 944.0 1416.0 1888.0

Non-crystalline silica (amorphous silica surrogate) 7631-86-9 - 10 9 8 10 1.1 2.1 3.2 4.3 1.3 2.7 4.0 5.3

Polypropylene glycol 25322-69-4 - 30 - 30 - - - - 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0

Ammonium C6-C10 alcohol ethoxysulfate 68187-17-7 - - 1,048 - 1,048 - - - - 139.7 279.5 419.2 558.9

Alcohols C6-C10 ethoxylated 68439-45-2 - - 18 - 18 - - - - 2.4 4.8 7.2 9.6

Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 - - - 635 635 84.7 169.3 254.0 338.7 84.7 169.3 254.0 338.7

Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate 25038-72-6 - - - 18 18 2.4 4.8 7.2 9.6 2.4 4.8 7.2 9.6

Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA) 64-02-8 - - - 8 8 1.1 2.1 3.2 4.3 1.1 2.1 3.2 4.3

magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 - - - 1 1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 - - - 1 1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5

Estimated Initial Mud Pit Concentration in flowback (150% of injected fluid volume) per coal seam per percent of mass returned calculated using equation: Mud Pitcon

= FBconcentration (mg/L)/ FB dilution 150% x percent mass returned (mg/L)


Estimated concentration in pre-injection fluid systems (mg/L) YF125LG Crosslinked Gel Maximum of All Stimulation Events

Page 1 of 1

Table C-2 Surface Water Quality Data for Stimulation Monitoring in Flowback Storage Pond

Parameter Number of Detections Detection Ratio Minimum Maximum Mean

Aroclor 1016 0 0/27 NA NA NAAroclor 1221 0 0/27 NA NA NAAroclor 1232 0 0/27 NA NA NAAroclor 1242 0 0/27 NA NA NAAroclor 1248 0 0/27 NA NA NAAroclor 1254 0 0/27 NA NA NAAroclor 1260 0 0/27 NA NA NAAroclor 1262 0 0/27 NA NA NA

Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls 0 0/27 NA NA NA

Benzene 0 0/54 NA NA NAEthylbenzene 0 0/54 NA NA NA

meta- & para-Xylene 4 4/54 0.002 0.009 0.0045ortho-Xylene 1 1/54 0.005 0.005 0.005

Sum of BTEX 4 4/53 0.003 0.018 0.00725Toluene 2 2/54 0.002 0.004 0.003

Total Xylenes 4 4/53 0.002 0.014 0.00575

2-Methylnaphthalene 0 0/23 NA NA NAAcenaphthene 0 0/53 NA NA NA

Acenaphthylene 0 0/54 NA NA NAAnthracene 0 0/54 NA NA NA

Benz(a)anthracene 0 0/54 NA NA NABenzo(a)pyrene 0 0/54 NA NA NA

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0 0/54 NA NA NABenzo(g.h.i)perylene 0 0/54 NA NA NA

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0 0/54 NA NA NAChrysene 0 0/54 NA NA NA

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0 0/54 NA NA NAFluoranthene 0 0/54 NA NA NA

Fluorene 0 0/54 NA NA NAIndeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene 0 0/54 NA NA NA

Naphthalene 1 1/53 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054Phenanthrene 0 0/54 NA NA NA

Pyrene 0 0/54 NA NA NASum of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1 1/47 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054

C10-C14 Fraction 3 3/54 0.18 0.68 0.39C10-C36 Fraction (sum) 11 11/54 0.06 2.71 0.651818182

C15-C28 Fraction 7 7/54 0.12 1.11 0.497142857C29-C36 Fraction 10 10/54 0.05 0.92 0.252

C6-C9 Fraction 7 7/54 0.02 1.08 0.278571429

>C10-C16 Fraction 3 3/53 0.23 0.5 0.36>C10-C40 Fraction (sum) 13 13/53 0.11 2.48 0.576923077

>C16-C34 Fraction 13 13/53 0.11 1.72 0.448461538>C34-C40 Fraction 3 3/53 0.1 0.26 0.196666667

C6-C10 Fraction 6 6/53 0.03 0.56 0.251666667C6-C10 Fraction minus BTEX (F1) 6 6/53 0.03 0.56 0.248333333

SG>C10 - C16 Fraction 0 0/21 NA NA NASG>C10 - C40 Fraction (sum) 0 0/21 NA NA NA

SG>C16 - C34 Fraction 0 0/21 NA NA NASG>C34 - C40 Fraction 0 0/21 NA NA NA

SGC10 - C14 Fraction 0 0/21 NA NA NASGC10 - C36 Fraction (sum) 0 0/21 NA NA NA

SGC15 - C28 Fraction 0 0/21 NA NA NASGC29 - C36 Fraction 0 0/21 NA NA NA

Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 32 32/54 59 636 374.46875Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 22 22/54 3 1740 203.3181818Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 0 0/54 NA NA NA

Residual Alkali (meq/L) 26 26/47 -1.42 36.9 9.020384615

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (mg/L)

BTEX (mg/L)

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (mg/L)

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/L)

Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (mg/L)

Alkalinity (mg/L)

Page 1 of 3



Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 32 32/54 59 1850 514.25

Chloride 33 33/54 25 4530 627.1818182Fluoride 33 33/54 0.4 4.6 1.766666667

Sulfate as SO4 2- 33 33/54 1 19400 628.9090909Sulfide as S2- 0 0/24 NA NA NA

Total Anions (meq/L) 31 31/52 3.74 569 41.59612903

Calcium 33 33/54 1 44 11.33333333Magnesium 26 26/54 1 12 4.5Potassium 33 33/54 3 13200 503.4545455

Sodium 33 33/54 49 5160 611.6060606Total Cations (meq/L) 31 31/52 3.81 562 41.12322581

Ammonia as N 29 29/53 0.01 2.6 0.253793103Dissolved Oxygen (Lab Test) 6 6/27 7.5 10.1 9.05

Sodium Absorption Ratio 6 6/27 5.26 40.2 21.36Total Cyanide 0 0/27 NA NA NA

Dissolved Metals (mg/L)Aluminium (Dissolved) 24 24/47 0.02 2.54 0.32125

Arsenic (Dissolved) 26 26/54 0.001 0.128 0.007115385Barium (Dissolved) 32 32/54 0.056 1.86 0.37271875

Beryllium (Dissolved) 1 1/54 0.096 0.096 0.096Boron (Dissolved) 25 25/48 0.12 1.52 0.5872

Cadmium (Dissolved) 0 0/54 NA NA NACaesium (Dissolved) 1 1/22 -5.7 -5.7 -5.7

Chromium (Dissolved) 9 9/54 0.001 0.028 0.004555556Cobalt (Dissolved) 1 1/54 0.001 0.001 0.001

Copper (Dissolved) 22 22/54 0.001 0.119 0.008318182Dysprosium (Dissolved) 1 1/22 -5.6 -5.6 -5.6

Iron (Dissolved) 16 16/48 0.07 0.54 0.24375Lead (Dissolved) 1 1/54 0.002 0.002 0.002

Lithium (Dissolved) 20 20/41 0.006 0.501 0.09825Manganese (Dissolved) 26 26/54 0.001 0.236 0.032153846

Mercury (Dissolved) 0 0/54 NA NA NAMolybdenum (Dissolved) 18 18/47 0.001 0.532 0.033333333

Nickel (Dissolved) 9 9/54 0.001 0.106 0.014555556Selenium (Dissolved) 0 0/48 NA NA NA

Silver (Dissolved) 0 0/43 NA NA NAStrontium (Dissolved) 29 29/50 0.112 2.72 0.587310345

Tin (Dissolved) 3 3/41 0.002 0.003 0.002333333Uranium (Dissolved) 3 3/43 0.001 0.002 0.001333333

Vanadium (Dissolved) 4 4/54 0.01 0.14 0.0425

Total Metals (mg/L)Aluminium (Total) 19 19/41 0.02 19.8 4.147894737

Arsenic (Total) 18 18/48 0.001 0.135 0.009888889Barium (Total) 27 27/48 0.076 1.87 0.374777778

Beryllium (Total) 0 0/48 NA NA NABoron (Total) 19 19/42 0.07 1.47 0.652631579

Cadmium (Total) 0 0/48 NA NA NAChromium (Total) 13 13/48 0.002 0.031 0.007923077

Cobalt (Total) 7 7/48 0.001 0.005 0.002142857Copper (Total) 22 22/48 0.001 0.14 0.010045455

Iron (Total) 18 18/42 0.06 11.8 3.167222222Lead (Total) 8 8/48 0.001 0.009 0.004875

Lithium (Total) 20 20/41 0.005 0.46 0.09815Manganese (Total) 27 27/48 0.005 0.255 0.042148148

Mercury (Total) 0 0/48 NA NA NAMolybdenum (Total) 14 14/41 0.001 0.628 0.047357143

Nickel (Total) 20 20/48 0.001 0.12 0.00875Selenium (Total) 0 0/42 NA NA NA

Zinc (Dissolved)

Anions (mg/L)

Cations (mg/L)

Other Inorganics (mg/L)

Total Dissolved Solids @180°C

Page 2 of 3



Silver (Total) 0 0/43 NA NA NAStrontium (Total) 23 23/44 0.13 2.7 0.651565217

Tin (Total) 3 3/41 0.002 0.004 0.002666667Uranium (Total) 4 4/43 0.001 0.002 0.00175

Vanadium (Total) 5 5/48 0.02 0.14 0.05

Radioactivity (Bq/L)Gross Alpha 0 0/22 NA NA NA

Gross Beta Activity - 40k 1 1/22 1.43 1.43 1.43

Zinc (Total)

Page 3 of 3

Table C-3 Surface Water Quality Data for Stimulation Monitoring in Initial Flowback




Benzene 0 0/44 NA NA NAEthylbenzene 0 0/44 NA NA NA

meta- & para-Xylene 0 0/44 NA NA NAortho-Xylene 0 0/44 NA NA NA

Sum of BTEX 2 2/44 0.002 0.004 0.003Toluene 2 2/44 0.002 0.004 0.003

Total Xylenes 0 0/44 NA NA NA








Naphthalene 6 6/44 0.0017 0.0111 0.0053Phenanthrene 0 0/44 NA NA NA

Pyrene 0 0/44 NA NA NASum of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 6 6/40 0.0017 0.0111 0.0053

C10-C14 Fraction 14 14/44 0.05 1.15 0.338461538C10-C36 Fraction (sum) 22 22/44 0.16 5.74 1.515238095

C15-C28 Fraction 22 22/44 0.1 2.94 0.746666667C29-C36 Fraction 19 19/44 0.12 2.62 0.652222222

C6-C9 Fraction 5 5/44 0.19 2.64 1.0875

>C10-C16 Fraction 11 11/44 0.17 1.22 0.375454545>C10-C40 Fraction (sum) 21 21/44 0.11 5.92 1.6265

>C16-C34 Fraction 21 21/44 0.11 4.52 1.192>C34-C40 Fraction 15 15/44 0.1 1.22 0.325714286

C6-C10 Fraction 7 7/44 0.02 2.66 0.745C6-C10 Fraction minus BTEX (F1) 7 7/44 0.02 2.66 0.745

SG>C10 - C16 Fraction 0 0/21 NA NA NASG>C10 - C40 Fraction (sum) 0 0/21 NA NA NA

SG>C16 - C34 Fraction 0 0/21 NA NA NASG>C34 - C40 Fraction 0 0/21 NA NA NA

SGC10 - C14 Fraction 0 0/21 NA NA NASGC10 - C36 Fraction (sum) 0 0/21 NA NA NA

SGC15 - C28 Fraction 0 0/21 NA NA NASGC29 - C36 Fraction 0 0/21 NA NA NA

Polychorindated Biphenyls (mg/L)

BTEX (mg/L)




Page 1 of 3



Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 21 21/44 37 1190 387.45Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 6 6/44 19 162 24Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 0 0/44 NA NA NA

Residual Alkali (meq/L) 19 19/40 -67.8 22.4 1.405Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 21 21/44 37 1210 393.3

Chloride 23 23/44 34 24200 2318.909091Fluoride 23 23/44 0.2 4.3 1.1

Sulfate as SO4 2- 23 23/44 4 1400 145.9090909Sulfide as S2- 0 0/27 NA NA NA


Calcium 23 23/44 6 1590 96Magnesium 23 23/44 1 72 9.590909091Potassium 23 23/44 6 18200 1513.545455



Sodium Absorption Ratio 3 3/24 24.8 38.6 29.76666667Total Cyanide 0 0/25 NA NA NA

Total Dissolved Solids @180°C 23 23/44 310 64400 6641.818182

Aluminium (Dissolved) 20 20/42 0.08 1.45 0.365263158Arsenic (Dissolved) 21 21/44 0.001 0.066 0.0095Barium (Dissolved) 23 23/44 0.019 6.55 0.888863636

Beryllium (Dissolved) 0 0/44 NA NA NABoron (Dissolved) 20 20/42 0.05 6.96 2.044736842

Cadmium (Dissolved) 4 4/44 0.0001 0.0002 0.00015Caesium (Dissolved) 0 0/21 NA NA NA

Chromium (Dissolved) 17 17/44 0.002 0.09 0.014375Cobalt (Dissolved) 14 14/44 0.001 0.005 0.002615385

Copper (Dissolved) 21 21/44 0.001 0.093 0.01115Dysprosium (Dissolved) 0 0/21 NA NA NA

Iron (Dissolved) 20 20/42 0.1 38.9 7.421578947Lead (Dissolved) 9 9/44 0.001 0.004 0.001555556


Mercury (Dissolved) 0 0/44 NA NA NAMolybdenum (Dissolved) 21 21/42 0.001 0.352 0.0408

Nickel (Dissolved) 22 22/44 0.004 0.064 0.023333333Selenium (Dissolved) 0 0/42 NA NA NA


Tin (Dissolved) 3 3/38 0.002 0.066 0.025333333Uranium (Dissolved) 3 3/39 0.001 0.002 0.001333333

Vanadium (Dissolved) 1 1/44 0.01 0.01 0.01Zinc (Dissolved) 20 20/44 0.005 0.704 0.121894737

Alkalinity (mg/L)

Anions (mg/L)

Cations (mg/L)


Dissolved Metals (mg/L)

Page 2 of 3



Aluminium (Total) 17 17/38 0.15 9.43 1.865Arsenic (Total) 17 17/40 0.002 0.019 0.004875Barium (Total) 19 19/40 0.08 7.12 0.603055556


Cadmium (Total) 5 5/40 0.0002 0.0003 0.000225Chromium (Total) 17 17/40 0.002 0.123 0.0418125

Cobalt (Total) 16 16/40 0.001 0.019 0.0042Copper (Total) 19 19/40 0.004 0.144 0.041333333

Iron (Total) 17 17/38 0.27 45.4 20.45875Lead (Total) 16 16/40 0.001 0.012 0.003


Mercury (Total) 0 0/40 NA NA NAMolybdenum (Total) 15 15/38 0.001 0.396 0.048428571

Nickel (Total) 19 19/40 0.004 0.122 0.040833333Selenium (Total) 0 0/38 NA NA NA


Tin (Total) 3 3/38 0.001 0.005 0.003Uranium (Total) 6 6/40 0.001 0.002 0.0016

Vanadium (Total) 2 2/40 0.01 0.03 0.01Zinc (Total) 18 18/40 0.014 0.694 0.215411765

Gross Alpha 0 0/22 NA NA NAGross Beta Activity - 40k 1 1/22 18.4 18.4 18.4

Total Metals (mg/L)

Radioactivity (Bq/L)

Page 3 of 3

Table C-4 Water Quality Data for Stimulation Monitoring in Pumped Flowback




Benzene 56 56/74 <0.001 1.92 0.4584Ethylbenzene 54 54/74 <0.002 0.053 0.0095

meta- & para-Xylene 55 55/74 <0.002 0.522 0.0946ortho-Xylene 52 52/74 <0.002 0.153 0.0276

Sum of BTEX 61 61/74 <0.001 3.24 0.9944Toluene 61 61/74 <0.002 1.77 0.4058

Total Xylenes 65 55/74 <0.002 0.61 0.1215








Naphthalene 52 52/74 <0.001 0.0218 0.0065Phenanthrene 0 0/74 NA NA NA

Pyrene 0 0/74 NA NA NASum of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 52 52/74 <0.001 0.0218 0.008

C10-C14 Fraction 73 73/74 <0.05 3.56 0.4019C10-C36 Fraction (sum) 73 73/74 <0.05 9.53 1.4193

C15-C28 Fraction 51 51/74 <0.1 4.8 0.6515C29-C36 Fraction 55 55/74 <0.05 3.13 0.3895

C6-C9 Fraction 57 57/74 <0.02 4.4 1.2585

>C10-C16 Fraction 67 67/74 <0.1 2.57 0.3455>C10-C40 Fraction (sum) 68 68/74 <0.1 9.89 1.4424

>C16-C34 Fraction 55 55/74 <0.1 7.34 0.925>C34-C40 Fraction 36 36/74 <0.1 1.56 0.2145

C6-C10 Fraction 59 59/74 <0.02 4.7 1.4018C6-C10 Fraction minus BTEX (F1) 37 37/54 <0.02 1.98 0.3553

SG>C10 - C16 Fraction 0 0/2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1SG>C10 - C40 Fraction (sum) 1 1/2 <0.1 0.7 0.375

SG>C16 - C34 Fraction 1 1/2 <0.1 0.59 0.32SG>C34 - C40 Fraction 1 1/2 <0.1 0.11 <0.1

SGC10 - C14 Fraction 0 0/2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05SGC10 - C36 Fraction (sum) 2 2/2 0.05 0.65 0.35

SGC15 - C28 Fraction 1 1/2 <0.1 0.38 0.215SGC29 - C36 Fraction 2 2/2 0.05 0.27 0.16

Polychorindated Biphenyls (mg/L)

BTEX (mg/L)




Page 1 of 3



Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 74 74/74 166 3680 1238.9459Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 24 24/74 <1 1420 50.1892Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 0 0/74 <1 <1 <1

Residual Alkali (meq/L) 59 59/59 0.67 71.9 24.6868Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 74 74/74 262 3680 1288.8514

Chloride 74 74 210 73200 3794.6081Fluoride 74 74 0.2 3.3 1.7203

Sulfate as SO4 2- 68 68/74 <1 280 33.4324Sulfide as S2-


Calcium 74 74/74 1 215 54.5946Magnesium 60 60/74 <1 40 8.027Potassium 74 74/74 9 22200 452.5946



Sodium Absorption Ratio 56 56/56 58.3 911 109.2821Total Cyanide 0 0/15 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004

Total Dissolved Solids @180°C 74 74/74 1110 119000 8783.9189

Aluminium (Dissolved) 30 30/74 NA NA NAArsenic (Dissolved) 48 48/74 <0.001 0.14 0.0026Barium (Dissolved) 74 74/74 0.008 36.3 3.485

Beryllium (Dissolved) 0 0/74 NA NA NABoron (Dissolved) 74 74/74 0.43 26.1 10.0908

Cadmium (Dissolved) 12 12/74 NA NA NACaesium (Dissolved) 0 0/0 NA NA NA

Chromium (Dissolved) 59 59/74 <0.001 0.016 0.0042Cobalt (Dissolved) 5 5/74 <0.001 0.002 0.0014

Copper (Dissolved) 38 38/74 <0.001 0.005 0.0016Dysprosium (Dissolved) 0 0/0 NA NA NA

Iron (Dissolved) 72 72/74 <0.05 120 10.8368Lead (Dissolved) 0 0/74 NA NA NA


Mercury (Dissolved) 0 0/74 NA NA NAMolybdenum (Dissolved) 56 56/74 <0.001 0.257 0.0233

Nickel (Dissolved) 65 65/74 <0.001 0.05 0.0066Selenium (Dissolved) 0 0/74 NA NA NA


Tin (Dissolved) 4 4/59 <0.001 0.037 0.0012Uranium (Dissolved) 0 0/59 NA NA NA

Vanadium (Dissolved) 20 20/74 <0.01 0.03 0.0205Zinc (Dissolved) 34 30/74 <0.005 0.047 0.0079

Alkalinity (mg/L)

Anions (mg/L)

Cations (mg/L)


Dissolved Metals (mg/L)

Page 2 of 3



Aluminium (Total) 50 50/59 <0.01 2.65 0.1069Arsenic (Total) 41 41/59 <0.001 0.015 0.0035Barium (Total) 59 59/59 0.098 37.9 4.6268


Cadmium (Total) 12 12/59 <0.0001 0.0004 0.0001Chromium (Total) 58 58/59 <0.001 0.147 0.0152

Cobalt (Total) 22 22/59 <0.001 0.01 0.0013Copper (Total) 59 59/59 0.002 0.156 0.022

Iron (Total) 59 59/59 0.79 150 25.8159Lead (Total) 13 13/59 <0.001 0.035 0.002


Mercury (Total) 0 0/59 NA NA NAMolybdenum (Total) 48 48/59 <0.001 0.231 0.0156

Nickel (Total) 54 54/59 <0.001 0.051 0.0123Selenium (Total) 2 2/59 <0.01 0.01 0.01


Tin (Total) 45 45/59 <0.001 0.161 0.0035Uranium (Total) 0 0/59 NA NA NA

Vanadium (Total) 2 2/59 <0.01 0.02 0.015Zinc (Total) 37 37/59 <0.005 0.251 0.0218

Gross Alpha 0 0/24 NA NA NAGross Beta Activity - 40k 13 13/24 <0.1 1.02 0.2504

Total Metals (mg/L)

Radioactivity (Bq/L)

Page 3 of 3

Appendix C1-3

Table E1. Comparison of Estimated Schlumberger Theoretical Concentrations to Human Health Drinking Water Guidelines

Drinking Water

Guideline (mg/L)

Rapidly Biodegradable

Waterfrac /

Slickwater

WF130 Linear

Gel

WF130 Linear

Base Gel for Foam

Fluid


Maximum of All

Stimulation

Events

20% 40% 60% 80% 20% 40% 60% 80% 20% 40% 60% 80% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 3 3 3 1 3 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 250 No 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.006

Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 30 30 30 22 30 2.9 5.9 8.8 11.7 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 NA No


Assumed to be

sand, not included

in chemical

mass balance

NA No

Crystalline silica (quartz) 14808-60-7 NA No

Diammonium peroxodisulphate (ammonium persulphate) 7727-54-0 - 410 - 712 712 94.9 189.9 284.8 379.7 94.9 189.9 284.8 379.7 250 No 0.380 1 1 2 0.380 1 1 2

Carbohydrate polymer (guar gum1) 9000-30-0 - 3,540 3,323 2,884 3,540 384.5 769.1 1153.6 1538.1 472.0 944.0 1416.0 1888.0 44 No 9 17 26 35 11 21 32 43

Non-crystalline silica (amorphous silica surrogate) 7631-86-9 - 10 9 8 10 1.1 2.1 3.2 4.3 1.3 2.7 4.0 5.3 NA No

Polypropylene glycol 25322-69-4 - 30 - 30 - - - - 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 2 Yes - - - - 2 4 6 8

Ammonium C6-C10 alcohol ethoxysulfate 68187-17-7 - - 1,048 - 1,048 - - - - 139.7 279.5 419.2 558.9 2.6 Yes - - - - 54 107 161 215

Alcohols C6-C10 ethoxylated 68439-45-2 - - 18 - 18 - - - - 2.4 4.8 7.2 9.6 2 Yes - - - - 1 2 4 5

Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 - - - 635 635 84.7 169.3 254.0 338.7 84.7 169.3 254.0 338.7 250 No 0.339 0.677 1 1 0.339 0.677 1 1

Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate 25038-72-6 - - - 18 18 2.4 4.8 7.2 9.6 2.4 4.8 7.2 9.6 NA No

Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA) 64-02-8 - - - 8 8 1.1 2.1 3.2 4.3 1.1 2.1 3.2 4.3 0.25 No 4 9 13 17 4 9 13 17

magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 - - - 1 1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 NA No

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 - - - 1 1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 180 No 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003

Highlighted cells are ratios greater than one and indicate a potentially unacceptable risk Cumulative Ratio 14 27 41 55 73 145 218 291

Ratio of COPC Concentrations and Screening Criteria (Ratio greater than one = unacceptable potential risk)

YF125LG Crosslinked Gel Maximum of All Stimulation Events

Estimated Initial Concentration in flowback (150% of injected fluid volume) per coal seam per percent of mass returned

calculated using equation: Initial Flowback Concentration = FBconcentration (mg/L)/ FB dilution 150% x percent mass


Estimated concentration in pre-injection fluid systems (mg/L) YF125LG Crosslinked Gel Maximum of All Stimulation

Events

Page 1 of 1

Table E-2 Comparison of Empirical Flowback Concentrations to Human Health Screening Guidelines

Parameter Parameter Maximum MeanBTEX (mg/L) BTEX (mg/L)

Benzene 0.001 Benzene 41.00 15.08Ethylbenzene 0.3 Ethylbenzene 0.01 0.01

meta-& para-Xyelenes NA meta- & para-Xylene NA NAortho-Xylene NA ortho-Xylene NA NA

Sum of BTEX NA Sum of BTEX NA NAToluene 0.8 Toluene 0.1 0.0

Total Xylenes 0.6 Total Xylenes 0.1 0.0Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (mg/L) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (mg/L)

Naphthalene 0.00014 Naphthalene 27.1 15.0Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/L) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/L)

C10-C14 Fraction NA C10-C14 Fraction NA NAC10-C36 Fraction (sum) 18 C10-C36 Fraction (sum) 0.5 0.1

C15-C28 Fraction NA C15-C28 Fraction NA NAC20-C36 Fraction NA C29-C36 Fraction NA NA

C6-C9 Fraction Na C6-C9 Fraction NA NAMetals (mg/L) Metals (mg/L)

Aluminium 0.2 Aluminium 13.3 0.5Arsenic 0.007 Arsenic 2.1 0.5Barium 0.7 Barium 54.1 6.6Boron 4 Boron 13.8 3.4

Cadmium 0.002 Cadmium 0.2 0.1Chromium 0.1 Chromium 1.5 0.2

Copper 2 Copper 0.1 0.0Iron 0.3 Iron 500.0 86.1

Lead 0.01 Lead 3.5 0.2Lithium 0.031 Lithium 91.6 47.5

Manganese 0.5 Manganese 3.3 0.8Molybdenum 0.078 Molybdenum 3.0 0.2

Nickel 0.02 Nickel 2.6 0.6Strontium 9.3 Strontium 3.5 1.3

Tin 9.3 Tin 0.0 0.0Vanadium 0.078 Vanadium 0.3 0.2

Zinc 3 Zinc 0.1 0.0

Maximum Dilution Factor 500 86

Highlighted cells indicate exceedance of aquatic screening criteria

Human Health Screening Values Pump Flow Back Hazard Quotients

Page 1 of 1

Table E-3. Comparison of Estimated Theoretical Schlumberger Concentrations to Aquatic Life Water Guidelines

PNEC aquatic (mg/L)


WF130 Linear Gel


YF125LG Crosslinked

Gel

Maximum of All Stimulation

Events20% 40% 60% 80% 20% 40% 60% 80% 20% 40% 60% 80% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 3 3 3 1 3 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 0.1 1.3E+00 2.7E+00 4.0E+00 5.3E+00 4.0E+00 8.0E+00 1.2E+01 1.6E+01

Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 30 30 30 22 30 NA


Assumed to be sand, not

included in chemical mass

balance

NA

Crystalline silica (quartz) 14808-60-7 NA

Diammonium peroxodisulphate (ammonium persulphate) 7727-54-0 - 410 - 712 712 94.9 189.9 284.8 379.7 94.9 189.9 284.8 379.7 0.076 1.2E+03 2.5E+03 3.7E+03 5.0E+03 1.2E+03 2.5E+03 3.7E+03 5.0E+03

Carbohydrate polymer (guar gum1) 9000-30-0 - 3,540 3,323 2,884 3,540 384.5 769.1 1153.6 1538.1 472.0 944.0 1416.0 1888.0 0.042 9.2E+03 1.8E+04 2.7E+04 3.7E+04 1.1E+04 2.2E+04 3.4E+04 4.5E+04

Non-crystalline silica (amorphous silica surrogate) 7631-86-9 - 10 9 8 10 NA

Polypropylene glycol 25322-69-4 - 30 - 30 - - - - 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 0.1 - - - - 4.0E+01 8.0E+01 1.2E+02 1.6E+02

Ammonium C6-C10 alcohol ethoxysulfate 68187-17-7 - - 1,048 - 1,048 - - - - 139.7 279.5 419.2 558.9 0.27 - - - - 5.2E+02 1.0E+03 1.6E+03 2.1E+03

Alcohols C6-C10 ethoxylated 68439-45-2 - - 18 - 18 - - - - 2.4 4.8 7.2 9.6 2.63 - - - - 9.1E-01 1.8E+00 2.7E+00 3.7E+00

Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 - - - 635 635 NA

Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate 25038-72-6 - - - 18 18 NA

Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA) 64-02-8 - - - 8 8 1.1 2.1 3.2 4.3 1.1 2.1 3.2 4.3 2.2 4.8E-01 9.7E-01 1.5E+00 1.9E+00 4.8E-01 9.7E-01 1.5E+00 1.9E+00

magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 - - - 1 1 NA

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 - - - 1 1 NR

Highlighted cells indicate exceedance of aquatic screening criteria Cumulative Ratio 10,406 20,813 31,219 41,626 13,050 26,100 39,150 52,201

Estimated Initial Flowback Concentration in flowback (150% of injected fluid volume) per coal seam per percent of mass returned calculated using

equation: Mud Pitcon = FBconcentration (mg/L)/ FB dilution 150% x percent mass returned (mg/L)


Estimated concentration in pre-injection fluid systems (mg/L) YF125LG Crosslinked Gel Maximum of All Stimulation Events

Ratio of COPC Concentrations and Screening Criteria (Ratio greater than one = unacceptable potential risk)

YF125LG Crosslinked Gel Maximum of All Stimulation Events

Page 1 of 1

Table E-4 Comparison of Empirical Flowback Concentrations to Aquatic Life Water Guidelines

Parameter Parameter Maximum MeanBTEX (mg/L) BTEX (mg/L)

Benzene 0.95 Benzene 0.04 0.02Ethylbenzene 0.09 Ethylbenzene 0.03 0.03

meta-& para-Xyelenes NA meta- & para-Xylene NA NAortho-Xylene NA ortho-Xylene NA NA

Sum of BTEX NA Sum of BTEX NA NAToluene 0.002 Toluene 47.0 10.5

Total Xylenes 0.013 Total Xylenes 2.4 1.1Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (mg/L) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (mg/L)

Naphthalene 0.016 Naphthalene 0.2 0.1Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/L) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/L)

C10-C14 Fraction NA C10-C14 Fraction NA NAC10-C36 Fraction (sum) 2 C10-C36 Fraction (sum) 4.5 0.7

C15-C28 Fraction NA C15-C28 Fraction NA NAC20-C36 Fraction NA C29-C36 Fraction NA NA

C6-C9 Fraction Na C6-C9 Fraction NA NADissolved Metals (mg/L) Dissolved Metals (mg/L)

Aluminium 0.055 Aluminium 48.2 1.9Arsenic 0.024 Arsenic 0.6 0.1Barium 0.004 Barium 9475.0 1156.7Boron 0.37 Boron 149.5 36.7

Cadmium 0.0002 Cadmium 2.0 0.5Chromium 0.001 Chromium 147.0 15.2

Copper 0.0014 Copper 111.4 15.7Iron 0.3 Iron 500.0 86.1

Lead 0.0034 Lead 10.3 0.6Lithium (Dissolved) 0.014 Lithium (Dissolved) 202.9 105.2

Manganese 1.4 Manganese 1.2 0.3Molybdenum 0.073 Molybdenum 3.2 0.2

Nickel 0.011 Nickel 4.6 1.1Strontium 1.5 Strontium 21.6 8.2

Tin (Dissolved) 0.073 Tin (Dissolved) 2.2 0.0Vanadium 0.02 Vanadium 1.0 0.8

Zinc 0.008 Zinc 31.4 2.7

Cumulative Hazard Quotient 10,766 1,445

Highlighted cells indicate exceedance of aquatic screening criteria

Aquatic Life Screening Values Pump Flow Back Hazard Quotients

Page 1 of 1

1

Apppendix C2 Halliburton Water and Guar Based Systems

(Original DeltaFoam 140 Formulation)

2

I

ntr

od

uction

Introduction As presented in Section 5.0 of the Hydraulic Fracturing Risk Assessment Compendium (RA


health and environmental (e.g., ecological) risks as a result of the hydraulic fracturing processes and

the Halliburton water and guar based fluid system (DeltaFoam 140 formulation).

Golder Associates (Golder), on behalf of Santos, completed a qualitative risk assessment (Golder,

2013) that evaluated the nature of the geology in the areas undergoing stimulation, the potential for

impacts on water resources, the process and chemicals used.




Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC 2008/4059) and the EA conditions to assess the toxicity of the mixtures.


Golder Associates Pty Ltd. 2013. “Coal seam hydraulic fracturing risk assessment - Combined

Stage 1 and Stage 2 Risk Assessment for Halliburton Methodology” Dated 3 May 2013.

EHS Support, Inc. 2013. “Coal Seam Gas Hydraulic Fracturing Quantitative Risk Assessment

Report for Halliburton Delta 140 Chemistry Report” Dated 4 August 2013.

The QRA evaluated both the original DeltaFoam 140 and Delta 140 formulations; refer to Appendix C5

for discussion of the results of the QRA for the alternative fluid system (Delta 140).





documents.



groundwater to surface water organisms. The CSG proponents contracted with Hydrobiology to

develop the program. Once the DTA is complete for this fluid system, a summary will be added to this

appendix.

3

Q

ualit

ative R

isk A

ssessm

ent

and

Evalu

atio

n

Qualitative Risk Assessment and Evaluation

Chemicals Evaluated



system were evaluated in the hydraulic fracturing risk assessments. The list of individual chemicals is

presented in Table 1. A mass balance of the chemicals within each of the hydraulic fracturing fluid

systems is provided as Appendix C2-1 (Table D-3; Golder, 2013).

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for each of the hydraulic fluid chemicals are included in

Appendix D of this report (Appendix E; Golder, 2013). Information regarding the chemical and physical

properties of the individual chemicals listed below as well as the approximate percentage present in the

hydraulic fracturing system can be found on the MSDSs.

It is noted, while none of the fracturing fluid chemicals identified contain benzene, toluene,

ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX) or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), that PAHs occur naturally

in coal and it is possible that certain PAHs may naturally be present in the coal seam groundwater used

in the hydraulic fracturing process.

Table 1. Hydraulic fracturing chemicals

Chemical Cas Number

Guar Gum 9000-30-0

Acetic Acid 64-19-7

Alkylated quaternary chloride (surrogate tetramethylammonium chloride) 75-57-0

Ethanol 67-17-5

Terpenes and terpenoids, sweet orange oil 68647-72-3

1,2 Benzisothiazolin -3-one 2634-33-5

Non-ionic surfactant mix™ -*

Surfactant mix™ -*

Coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine 61789-40-0

Fatty acid ester™ -*

Ethoxylated fatty acid ester™ -*

Tetrakis (hydroxymethyl) phosphonium sulphate (THPS) 55566-30-8

Enzyme™ -*

Terpene hydrocarbons by products™ 68956-56-9

Sodium chloride 7647-14-5

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2

Sodium thiosulfate 7772-98-7

Bentonite 121888-68-4

Calcium chloride 10043-52-4

Silica gel 112926-00-8

Sodium sulfate 7757-82-6

Sodium sulfite 7757-83-7

Crystalline silica 14808-60-7

4

Q

ualit

ative R

isk A

ssessm

ent

and

Evalu

atio

n

Chemical Cas Number

Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9

* The CAS numbers for fatty acid ester, ethoxylated fatty acid ester, non-ionic surfactant mix, surfactant mix, terpene

hydrocarbon by products and enzyme have not been included in this table due to commercial confidentiality.


As discussed in Section 5.0 of the systematic weight of evidence approach was utilised to complete

the risk assessment for the Schlumberger Fluid Systems. The work has involved the following

evaluations:

















Substance Database, and modelled data from USEPA (2009) EPISUITE modelling software, when data

not available from other sources. Appendix E of the Golder report presents MSDSs for the chemicals;

Appendix F of the Golder report presents the chemical information sheets used (Golder, 2103).

Of the 24 chemicals listed above, three were not considered for PBT ranking. Physico-chemical and/or

toxicological data were not available and surrogates could not be identified for silica gel (surrogate

amorphous silica, 112926-00-8), crystalline silica (14808-60-7), and terpene hydrocarbon by products

in a non-specified formulation (CAS number withheld for proprietary reasons). Crystalline silica (14808-

60-7) relate to the sand used as the proppant, and therefore is not considered to represent an

environmental hazard.




in to contact with the COPCs.

5

Q

ualit

ative R

isk A

ssessm

ent

and

Evalu

atio

n

C2.4.1 Onsite Exposures

Of the pathways evaluated, the onsite assessment indicated that the majority of exposures were unlikely

or incomplete; given the application of operational controls by Santos. These operational controls

include:



or sediments


exposure to chemicals

Disposal or capping of sediments contained within drained mud pits and turkey nests, to prevent

exposure to contaminates in windborne dust


turkeys nest and mud pit is not potable and may contain contaminants


livestock and large native fauna

Mud pits and turkeys nests lined with clay or similar material to prevent seepage of flowback water

into underlying aquifer.

Refer to Table 50 of the Golder qualitative risk assessment for details regarding onsite exposure


The following on-site pathways were determined to be potentially complete and were evaluated:

Exposure to COPCs in mud pit and turkeys nest sediments:

— Workers and trespassers via direct contact (inhalation of dusts).

Exposure to COPCs in flowback water in turkeys nest and mud pit:

— Workers while working with turkeys nest inlet/liner or drainage of turkeys nest or mud pit via

direct contact

— Trespassers after entry (accidental or deliberate) to turkeys nest or mud pit via direct contact

— Native terrestrial fauna after entry (accidental or deliberate) to turkeys nest or mud pit via

ingestion

— Stock animals after entry (accidental or deliberate) to turkeys nest or mud pit via ingestion.



— Workers, terrestrial fauna, terrestrial flora via ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation.

C2.4.2 Offsite Exposure Pathways

Potential off site exposure pathways were evaluated for residents, stock animals, native flora and fauna

and aquatic ecosystems. Four possible sources were identified, hydraulic fracturing fluids, sediments

from mud pit or turkeys nest, flowback water and coal seam gas (methane). The exposure assessment

concluded that with the implementation of operational controls including use of clay liners in turkey

nests, well integrity testing, operational monitoring and capping and/or removal of sludge all off-site

exposures are considered unlikely and incomplete.

Of the pathways evaluated, the following off-site pathways were determined to be potentially complete

and were evaluated:

6

Q

ualit

ative R

isk A

ssessm

ent

and

Evalu

atio

n



— Residents, terrestrial fauna, terrestrial flora via ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation.

Refer to Table 51 of the Golder qualitative risk assessment for details regarding offsite exposure



A quantitative mass balance calculation was undertaken to identify the amount of each chemical

additive of the hydraulic fracturing fluid in the following fluid systems:

Delta 140

DeltaFoam 140

Linear Gel

Linear Gel Foamed

Water

Water Foamed.


The results of the mass balance calculations are presented in the referenced Table D-3 (Golder, 2013)



For the sake of conservatism, five chemicals were further assessed for mobility in the environment

through fate and transport modelling:

Fatty acid ester

1,2 Benzisothiazolin -3-one

Alkylated quaternary chloride

Sweet orange oil

Surfactant mix.

Details on the fate and transport modelling methodology and results are provided in Section 7.2 of the

report. The modelling demonstrated that there is limited potential for chemicals to migrate within the

coal seams.

7

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

en

t

Quantitative Risk Assessment In accordance with the methodologies presented in Section 8.0, a QRA was conducted on both

theoretical and empirical datasets for those chemicals identified in the Combined Stage 1 and 2 Risk

Assessments (EHS Support, 2013). The QRA approach evaluates the toxicity of the individual




to estimate the daily intake of the constituents, and calculations of individual constituent hazard

quotients (daily intake divided by the toxicity criteria) and a cumulative constituent hazard index (HI) for

each potentially complete exposure pathway for each human or terrestrial receptor.







groundwater in the coal seams and surface-water or springs (and therefore MNES). Further, the

potential risks to workers involved with the hydraulic fracturing process were not considered as detailed

Health and Safety (H&S) procedures are employed to manage exposures. The QRA considered the

following specific exposure pathways:














As discussed in Section 8.2, exposure point concentrations (EPCs) were derived for the theoretical

assessment; empirical data were not available for evaluation. The EPCs for the theoretical assessment

were calculated by estimating the mass and discharge flow of the COPCs from the flowback water

monitoring data were used Appendix C2-2 (Appendix C, Table C-1; EHS Support, 2013).



Section 8.4. The purpose of the hazard assessment process was to summarize the environmental

data, and to address the toxicological assessment of the COPCs that will be evaluated further in the

risk assessment process.

8

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

en

t





swimming where the whole body gets wet) for ½ hour (Table 3; EHS Support, 2013).


Ingestion of water:

Intake (mg/kg-day) = (CW x IR X EF X ED) / (BW x AT)


Absorbed dose (mg/kg-day) = (CW x SA x DP x ET x EF x ED x CF) / (BW x AT)

Where:

















Appendix F.


exposure scenarios as discussed in Section 8.4. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 of the QRA for details

regarding the toxicity assessment of the COPCs (EHS Support, 2013).



target risk range for carcinogens was 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6; the target hazard index (HI) for non-threshold

effects is less than or equal to 1.0.



fracturing fluids event from Golder (2011) Table D-3, for the 20 and 80 percent mass recovery from the

fracturing fluid well flowback. The modelled risks from injected chemicals in the flowback water at 20

percent mass recovery were acceptable; the modelled risks to the trespasser for the maximum

exposure to COPCs at the 80 percent recovery predicted a HI of 2.5 (Tables 4 and 5; EHS Support,

2013). The primary risk drivers for this scenario were coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine, alkylated

9

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

en

t

quaternary chloride and tetrakis (hydroxylmethyl) phosphonium sulfate (THPS) via incidental ingestion,

and alkylated quaternary chloride and terpenes via dermal contact.

Based on field observations, the risk assessment conducted on 80 per cent mass recovery in the

flowback water diverted to the flowback storage ponds, is highly conservative. These conditions are

not observed in the fields as the combination of biodegradation and sorption in the subsurface and

biodegradation, complexation and settling of suspended solids in the flowback storage ponds results in

lower concentrations. Based on stimulation flowback monitoring conducted by Santos and the QRA

completed for the Schlumberger Fluid Systems (EHS Support, 2013), 20 per cent of the total mass of

constituents injected is assumed to be recovered in the flowback water. On this basis and using the

theoretical concentrations, no adverse effects are predicted on trespassers.





Terrestrial receptors evaluated in the ERA include domesticated livestock, large mammalian wildlife

and small mammalian wildlife. Beef cattle were used to evaluate domesticated livestock, kangaroos

evaluated for large mammalian wildlife, and dingos for small mammalian wildlife. Aquatic receptors





3; Table A-1; EHS Support, 2013). Environmental fate information is provided in Table 9 (EHS Support,

2013).



acceptable.

C3.5.1 Estimation of Risk

The HI calculated for flowback water for aquatic risk were elevated above the acceptable level for the

majority of COPCs evaluated (Appendix C2-2, Table C-3; EHS Support, 2013). Where large

discharges of flowback water occur to surface water and/or flux dilution within the surface-water was

insufficient, potential impacts on aquatic receptors could occur. As noted in the toxicity assessment

section above, the lack of a robust aquatic toxicological database resulted in aquatic screening values

for the theoretical exposure scenario COPCs to be conservatively very low.


ecological receptors modelled, except livestock cattle for the maximum exposure to COPCs at the 80%

recovery indicating a HI equal to 1.9 (Tables 13 and 14, 17 and 18, 21 and 22; EHS Support, 2013).

Primary risk drivers were coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine, alkylated quaternary chloride and THPS

via incidental ingestion; dermal contact was not evaluated for terrestrial ecological receptors. As

discussed in the HHRA, 80 percent recovery conditions are not observed in the fields. A recovery of 20

percent is more realistic based on stimulation flow back monitoring conducted by Santos (EHS Support,

2013).

10

S

um

mary

of Q

RA

Fin

din

gs

Summary of QRA Findings The QRA was completed as discussed in Section 8.0. An assessment was conducted using highly

conservative theoretical calculations based on the chemicals utilized by Halliburton in hydraulic

fracturing. This assessment assumed that a range of theoretical percentages of injected chemicals

would be present in the flow back water.

Consistent with the risk assessment and groundwater fate and transport modelling conducted by

Golder, no potentially complete exposure pathways were identified for groundwater. Potential

exposures are limited to the aboveground storage and handling of flowback water as part of the CSG

Water Management Plan (WMP). Management of CSG water involves the temporary storage of

flowback water in flowback storage ponds.

On the basis of the quantitative risk calculations, the potential risks associated with the flowback water

are generally limited. Potential risks to trespassers could occur with repeated exposures to flowback

water. However, the cumulative risks are only slightly above the non-carcinogenic threshold discussed

above where management and operational controls can be implemented to control potential exposures.

There were no carcinogenic risks identified.

Limited to no risks to cattle and native mammals were identified in the risk assessment; and only in the

most conservative theoretical calculations (80% chemical mass in the flowback water) were potentially

unacceptable risks identified. Based on contractor experience and stimulation flowback monitoring, 20

percent of the total mass constituents injected is assumed to be recovered in flowback water.

Additionally, environmental fate information indicated primary risk drivers are readily biodegradable.

Therefore, no potential risks exist for livestock or native mammals.


environments. Based on the use of clay liners and operational controls that limit the potential for turkey

nest and dam overflows, the potential for these risks are also considered limited.




Use of appropriate personal protective equipment (gloves etc.)

Flowback storage pond fencing to prevent entry of livestock and minimize trespassing.


ponds


11

D

ire

ct

To

xic

ity A

na

lysis

Direct Toxicity Analysis As discussed in Section 9.0, a DTA is being conducted to assess the toxicity of the mixture. Once


12

C

onclu

sio

ns

Conclusions A weight-of-evidence evaluation of potential risks as described in Section 5.0 was performed for the

Halliburton water and guar fluid system (DeltaFoam 140). Based on the qualitative and quantitative risk

characterisations, the overall risk to human health and the environment is low. Existing operational

control activities employed by Santos are in place that will limit the potential risks to human health and

the environment. These measures include:



or sediments;

Environmental authority conditions that preclude the construction of well pads within 100 m of a

watercourse of water body.










seam; and







employed by Halliburton in hydraulic fracturing. Evaluation of other potential risks associated with

hydraulic fracturing (i.e., noise and vibration) was conducted. Refer to Section 10.0 for methodology

specifics and results of this evaluation.

E

HS

Supp

ort

Tab

les

EHS Support Tables

Table 1 Oral Reference Doses and Drinking Water Guidlines Derived for Hydraulic Facturing Chemicals


NOAEL(mg/kg/day)

Uncertainty Factors

Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)


Cocoamidopropyl betaine 90-d rat oral gavage Forestomach (irritation) 53.6 1,000 0.05 0.19Guar gum 2-yr rat dietary General toxicity 1250 100 1.3 44Enzyme X 13-wk rat dietary General toxicity 600 1,000 0.6 2Ethanol 90-d rat dietary Liver 2,400 1,000 2.4 8Bentonite (Zeolite as surrogate) 104-wk rat dietary - 1,000 100 10 35C6-C10 Alcohol Ethoxylates 2-yr rat dietary - 50 100 0.5 2Monoethanolamine borate (Read-across from CASRN 68512-53-8) 28-day rat oral gavage - 1,000 1,000 1 3.5Noncrystalline Silica/Silica Gel 2-yr rat dietary - 2,500 100 2.5 87.5Terpene hydrocarbons, processing by-products/ Terpenes & Terpenoids, sweet orange peel 2-yr rat and mouse oral gavage Liver 107 100 1.1 3.8

Tetrakis(hydroxylmethyl) phosphonium sulfate (THPS) 2-yr rat and mouse Liver 4a 1,000 0.004 0.01Ethoxylated fatty acid ester 2-yr mouse dietary forestomach 3,250a 1,000 3 11Fatty acid ester 2-yr rat dietary - 2,500 100 2.5 87.5PEG oleate ester 2-yr rat dietary Liver 1,000a 1,000 1 3.5Alkylated quaternary chloride (DDAC as surrogate) Rat 2-yr dietary General toxicity 32 100 0.3 11,2-Benzothiazolin-3-one Dog oral subchronic Emesis/clinical chemistry 5 100 0.02 0.18Crystalline silica, quartz NA NA NA NA NA NA

Acetic acid Australian drinking water standard for pHAlcohols, C6-C12, ethoxylated propoxylated 2-yr rat dietary - 50 100 0.5 2Alcohols, C10-C16, ethoxylated propoxylated 2-yr rat dietary - 50 100 0.5 2Choline chloride Human study Hypotension 142 2 71 248Cocoamidopropyl betaine 90-d rat oral gavage Forestomach (irritation) 53.6 1,000 0.05 0.19Crystalline silica - - - - - -Ethylene glycol 1-yr rat dietary Kidney 150 100 1.5 5.3Guar gum 2-yr rat dietary General toxicity 1,250 100 12.5 44

Delta 140

DeltaFoam 140

Page 1 of 1


Constituent Drinking Water Screening Guideline Drinking Water Screening Value (ppm)

Acetic acid pH 6.5 to 8.5Calcium chloride Chloride; Hardness as CaCO3 250 (aesthetic); 200 (aesthetic)Sodium chloride Sodium; Chloride 180 (aesthetic); 250 (aesthetic)Sodium hydroxide Sodium; pH 180 (aesthetic); 6.5 to 8.5Sodium sulfate Sodium; Sulfate 180 (aesthetic); 500 (health), 250 (aesthetic)Sodium sulfite Sodium; Sulfate 180 (aesthetic); 500 (health), 250 (aesthetic)Sodium thiosulfate Sodium; Sulfate 180 (aesthetic); 500 (health), 250 (aesthetic)

Page 1 of 1


Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value

IR Ingestion rate l/hr 0.05ET Exposure time hr/day 0.5EF Exposure frequency day/yr 20ED Exposure duration yr 10BW Body weight kg 47



Ingestion

Dermal

Page 1 of 1

Table 4 Risk Estimates for Trespasser DeltaFoam 140 Theoretical Exposure for 20% Mass Returned

Hazard QuotientConstituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) PC (cm/hr) RfDo CADDoral LADDoral CADDderm Incidental Ingestion Dermal1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one 2634-33-5 2.7E-01 6.0E-04 0.02 1.6E-05 2.2E-06 1.2E-06 7.8E-04 6.0E-05Acetic acid 64-19-7 2.8E+01 5.6E-04 NA 2.3E-04Alcohols, C10-12, ethoxylated 67254-71-1 3.2E+00 1.5E-04 0.5 1.9E-04 2.7E-05 3.7E-06 3.7E-04 7.4E-06Alkylated quaternary chloride 75-57-0 2.8E+02 1.8E-02 0.3 1.6E-02 2.3E-03 3.7E-02 5.4E-02 1.2E-01Bentonite 121888-68-4 3.2E+01 NA NA 2.7E-04Calcium chloride 10043-52-4 2.7E-01 NA NACrystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 1.6E+00 NA NAEnzyme X - 2.7E-01 NA 0.6 1.6E-05 2.2E-06 2.6E-05Ethanol 64-17-5 1.5E+02 5.5E-04 2.4 8.7E-03 1.2E-03 6.2E-04 3.6E-03 2.6E-04Fatty acid ester 1,2 - 3.7E+01 5.1E-04 2.5 2.2E-03 3.1E-04 1.5E-04 8.7E-04 5.8E-05Ethoxylated fatty acid ester 1,2 - 3.7E+01 2.3E-03 3 2.2E-03 3.1E-04 6.5E-04 7.3E-04 2.2E-04Guar gum 1 9000-30-0 3.2E+02 NA NA 2.7E-03Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 2.3E+02 1.8E-05 1 1.4E-02 1.9E-03 3.1E-05 1.4E-02 3.1E-05Polyethylene glycol oleate ester 1 56449-46-8 3.2E+00 NA 1 1.9E-04 2.7E-05 1.9E-04Silica gel 112926-00-8 3.2E+00 NA 2.5 1.9E-04 2.7E-05 7.5E-05Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 8.8E+00 NA NASodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 6.1E+01 NA NATHPS 55566-30-8 1.1E+01 2.9E-19 0.004 6.5E-04 9.3E-05 2.5E-20 1.6E-01 6.1E-18Sodium sulfate 7757-82-6 1.1E+00 NA NA 8.9E-06Sodium sulfite 7757-83-7 5.3E-01 NA NASodium thiosulfate 7772-98-7 3.1E+01 NA NA 2.5E-04Terpene hydrocarbon by-products 68956-56-9 1.3E+01 4.2E-01 1.1 7.3E-04 1.0E-04 4.0E-02 6.6E-04 3.6E-02Terpene and Terpenoids, sweet orange oil 1 68647-72-3 1.3E+01 4.2E-01 1.1 7.3E-04 1.0E-04 4.0E-02 6.6E-04 3.6E-02Coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine 61789-40-0 1.7E+02 5.4E-05 0.05 9.7E-03 1.4E-03 6.8E-05 1.9E-01 1.4E-03

Hazard Index 6.3E-01

DeltaFoam 14020% Mass Returned Toxicity

Page 1 of 1

Table 5 Risk Estimates for Trespasser DeltaFoam 140 Theoretical Exposure for 80% Mass Returned

Hazard QuotientConstituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) PC (cm/hr) RfDo CADDoral CADDderm Incidental Ingestion Dermal1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one 2634-33-5 1.1E+00 6.0E-04 0.02 6.2E-05 4.8E-06 3.1E-03 2.4E-04Acetic acid 64-19-7 1.1E+02 5.6E-04 NAAlcohols, C10-12, ethoxylated 67254-71-1 1.3E+01 1.5E-04 0.5 7.5E-04 1.5E-05 1.5E-03 2.9E-05Alkylated quaternary chloride 75-57-0 1.1E+03 1.8E-02 0.3 6.4E-02 1.5E-01 2.1E-01 4.9E-01Bentonite 121888-68-4 1.3E+02 NA NACalcium chloride 10043-52-4 1.1E+00 NA NACrystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 6.4E+00 NA NAEnzyme X - 1.1E+00 NA 0.6 6.2E-05 1.0E-04Ethanol 64-17-5 6.0E+02 5.5E-04 2.4 3.5E-02 2.5E-03 1.5E-02 1.0E-03Fatty acid ester 1,2 - 1.5E+02 5.1E-04 2.5 8.7E-03 5.8E-04 3.5E-03 2.3E-04Ethoxylated fatty acid ester 1,2 - 1.5E+02 2.3E-03 3 8.7E-03 2.6E-03 2.9E-03 8.7E-04Guar gum 1 9000-30-0 1.3E+03 NA NAMonoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 9.3E+02 1.8E-05 1 5.4E-02 1.2E-04 5.4E-02 1.2E-04Polyethylene glycol oleate ester 1 56449-46-8 1.3E+01 NA 1 7.5E-04 7.5E-04Silica gel 112926-00-8 1.3E+01 NA 2.5 7.5E-04 3.0E-04Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 3.5E+01 NA NASodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 2.4E+02 NA NATHPS 55566-30-8 4.5E+01 2.9E-19 0.004 2.6E-03 9.8E-20 6.5E-01 2.5E-17Sodium sulfate 7757-82-6 4.3E+00 NA NASodium sulfite 7757-83-7 2.1E+00 NA NASodium thiosulfate 7772-98-7 1.2E+02 NA NATerpene hydrocarbon by-products 68956-56-9 5.0E+01 4.2E-01 1.1 2.9E-03 1.6E-01 2.7E-03 1.5E-01Terpene and Terpenoids, sweet orange oil 1 68647-72-3 5.0E+01 4.2E-01 1.1 2.9E-03 1.6E-01 2.7E-03 1.5E-01Coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine 61789-40-0 6.7E+02 5.4E-05 0.05 3.9E-02 2.7E-04 7.8E-01 5.4E-03

Hazard Index 2.5E+00

80% Mass Returned DeltaFoam 140Toxicity

Page 1 of 1


NOEC PNECaquatic(mg/L) (mg/L)

DeltaFoam 140Cocoamidopropyl betaine Chronic Daphnia 0.932 50 0.0186Guar gum 48-hr EC50 (Daphnia) 42 1,000 0.042Sodium sulfate 120-hr EC50 (algae) 1,900 1,000 1.9

8.4 x 10-5

(0.084 μg/L) Acetic acid Chronic Daphnia 23 50 0.46

2.63Range: 0.118-11.9

Alkylated quanternary chloride - - - 0.0015b

Calcium chloride Chronic Daphnia 160 50 3.2Ethanol Chronic Ceriodaphnia sp. 9.6 10 0.96Hydrochloric acid - - - -Sodium hydroxide - - - -Enzyme X/hemicellulase 96-hr LC50 (fish) 330 1,000 0.33Fatty acid ester - - - 0.0191c

Ethoxylated fatty acid - - - 0.01914c

PEG Oleate ester 72-hr EC50 (algae) 93 1,000 0.093Monoethanolamine borate 72-hr EC50 (algae) 13 1,000 0.013Sodium sulfite Chronic Daphnia 13 50 0.26Sodium chloride - - - Not relevant?Sodium thiosulfate 96-hr EC50 (algae) 100 1,000 0.1Terpene hydrocarbons, processing by-products / Terpenes & Terpenoids, sweet orange peel 96-hr EC50 (Daphnia) 0.421 1,000 4.21 x 10-4

(0.421 μg/L)2.0 x 10-4

(0.20 μg/L)Bentonite NA NA NA NANoncrystalline silica/Silica gel NA NA NA NACrystalline silica, quartz NA NA NA NA


1,2-Benzothiazolin-3-one 72-hr EC50 (algae) 0.084 1,000

Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl) phosphonium sulfate (THPS) 72-hr EC50 (algae) 0.204 1,000

C6-C10 alcohol ethoxylates Chronic Daphnia QSAR a 10

Page 1 of 2


NOEC PNECaquatic(mg/L) (mg/L)


Delta 140Acetic acid Chronic Daphnia 23 50 0.5

Alcohols, C6-C12, ethyoxylated propoxylated Chronic Daphnia QSAR a 10 1.69 Range: 0.1 - 5.77

Alcohols, C10-C16, ethoxylated propoxylated Chronic Daphnia QSAR a 10 0.54 Range: 0.04 - 1.8

Choline chloride Chronic Daphnia 30 50 0.6Crystalline silica - - - -Ethylene glycol Chronic Ceriodapnia dubia 3,469 10 347Guar gum 48-hr EC50 (Daphnia) 42 1,000 0.04Hemicellulase 96-hr LC50 (fish) 330 1,000 0.33Maltodextrin No data - - -Monoethanolamine borate 72-hr EC50 (algae) 13 1,000 0.013Polyethylene glycol 72-hr EC50 (algae) 100 50 2Cocoamidopropyl betaine Chronic Daphnia 0.932 50 0.0186Sodium hydroxide - - - -Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium sulfate 72-hr EC50 (algae) 0.204 1,000 0.0002aSee HERA Report on Alcohol Ethoxylates.bInterim Canadian Water Quality Guideline for the Protection of Aquatic Life for Didecyldimethyl ammonium chloride (DDAC).cPNEC is the water solubility limit because the calculated acute toxicity values are estimated to be higher than the water solubility limit.

Page 2 of 2


Acetic acidDissociates to H+ and CH3CO2

- in aqueous media. Acetate anion is readily biodegradable under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Biodegradation: 74% (BOD) after 14 days (MITI-I, OECD 301C); 99% after 7 days under anaerobic conditions.

Alkylated Quaternary chloride

Surrogate: Didecyldimethylammonium chloride (DDAC), a cationic surfactant. DDAC adsorbs strongly and rapidly to sediments, clay materials, and other negatively charged surfaces. In unacclimated river water, half-lifes of AQCs range from <1 to several days. Half-life of the 12 carbon alkyl chain reported as 2.1 d. Rate of degradation - with ¯ alkyl chain. BCF (experimental) = 81 (whole body fish tissues).

C6-C10 Alcohol Ethoxylates

Readily biodegradable and also anaerobically biodegradable. Proposed half-lives in river water at 12oC: 4 to 24 hours (based on experimental data). BCF (see HERA report)

Benzothiazolin-3-oneHydrolytically stable (T1/2 >30 d); breaks down fairly quickly in aerobic soil (T1/2 <24 hr in sandy loam). Moderate to strong binding to soils.

Cocoamidopropyl betaine

Readily biodegradable; easily biodegradable under anaerobic conditions. BCF between 3 and 71. Biodegradation: 86 – 100 % after 28 days (OECD 301A/B/D/E), 90 – 93 % after 35 days (OECD 301B) and 100 % after 20 days (Directive 84/449/EEC, C.5).

Ethanol Readily biodegradable; unlikely to bioaccumulate; and is not persistent in the environment. Biodegradation: 74% after 5 days. Calculated log BCF = 0.5.

Ethoxylated fatty acid Expected to be biodegradable, but not readily biodegradable based on ethoxylated castor oil. OECD 302B: 90-100% after 21 days.

PEG Oleate ester Expected to be biodegradable, but not readily biodegradable based on ethoxylated castor oil. OECD 02B: 90-100% after 21 days.

Guar gum Expected to be readily biodegradable as a polysaccharide; not expected to bioaccumulate. [No data]

Enzyme X Readily biodegradable; unlikely to bioaccumulate. 84-92% DOC removal after 28 days (OECD 301E); 78% BOD/COD after 28 days (OECD 301C)

Monoethanolamine borate

Readily biodegradable. MEA Polyborate(1:1): 73% after 28 days (OECD 301B). MEA Polyborate (1:3): 75% after 28 days (OECD 301B). Does not adsorb to soil.

Terpene hydrocarbonsReadily biodegradable. Biodegradation of limonene: 41-98% degradation by BOD in 14 days (OECD 301C). Biodegradation of terpinolene: 80% biodegradation after 28 and 31 days (OECD 302C); 62.1% after 28 days (OECD 301B).

Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl) phosphonium sulfate

Rapidly biodegrades under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Binds poorly to environmental particulates

Acetic acidDissociates to H+ and acetate (CH3CO2

-) in aqueous media. Acetate anion is readily biodegradable under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Biodegradation: 96% after 20 days under aerobic conditions; 99% after 7 days under anaerobic conditions.

Alcohols, C6-C12, ethoxylated propoxylated

Read-across to C6-C12 alcohol ethoxylates. Readily biodegradable and also anaerobically biodegradable. Proposed half-lives in river water at 12oC: 4 to 24 hours (based on experimental data).

Alcohols, C10-C16 ethoxylated, propoxylated

Read-across to C10-C16 ethoxylates. Readily biodegradable and also anaerobically biodegradable. Proposed half-lives in river water at 12oC: 4 to 24 hours (based on experimental data).

Choline chloride Readily biodegradable (93% within 14 days in a MITI-I test. In another MITI-I test, biodegradation was >60%.

Crystalline silica Naturally occurring mineral that is insoluble in water. It is persistent in the environment.

Ethylene glycol Readily biodegradable under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. There was 97% degradation after 20 days in a BOD test, and 96% degradation after 28 days in an OECD 301D test.

Guar gum Expected to be readily biodegradable, as it ia a naturally occurring polysaccharide.

Hemicellulase Readily biodegradable. 84-92% DOC removal after 28 days (OECD 301E); 78% BOD/COD after 28 days (OECD 301C)

Maltodextrin Expected to biodegrade, as it is a naturally occurring polysaccharide.Monoethanolamine borate

Readily biodegradable. MEA Polyborate(1:1): 73% after 28 days (OECD 301B). MEA Polyborate (1:3): 75% after 28 days (OECD 301B).

Polyethylene glycolRead-across to tetra- and penta- ethylene glycol, major constituents of low-molecular weight polyethylene glycol. Inherently biodegradable. TetraEG: 22% degradation after 20 days (BOD test); 40% degradation after 28 days (OECD 301D). PentaEF: 3% degradation after 20 days (BOD test).

Sodium hydroxide Disociates to Na+ and OH- in aqueous media.Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl) phosphonium sulfate Inherently biodegradable. >20% degradation within 28 days (OECD 302B).

DeltaFoam 140

Delta 140

Page 1 of 1

Table 13 Risk Estimates for Cattle DeltaFoam 140 Theoretical Exposure for 20% Mass Returned

DeltaFoam 140Hazard Quotient

Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs CADDoral Incidental Ingestion1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one 2634-33-5 2.7E-01 8.3E-01 1.3E-03 1.6E-03Acetic acid 64-19-7 2.8E+01Alcohols, C10-12, ethoxylated 67254-71-1 3.2E+00 8.3E+00 1.6E-02 1.9E-03Alkylated quaternary chloride 75-57-0 2.8E+02 5.3E+00 1.4E+00 2.6E-01Bentonite 121888-68-4 3.2E+01Calcium chloride 10043-52-4 2.7E-01Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 1.6E+00Enzyme X - 2.7E-01 1.0E+02 1.3E-03 1.3E-05Ethanol 64-17-5 1.5E+02 4.0E+02 7.5E-01 1.9E-03Fatty acid ester 1,2 - 3.7E+01 4.2E+02 1.9E-01 4.5E-04Ethoxylated fatty acid ester 1,2 - 3.7E+01 5.4E+02 1.9E-01 3.4E-04Guar gum 1 9000-30-0 3.2E+02Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 2.3E+02 1.7E+02 1.2E+00 6.9E-03Polyethylene glycol oleate ester 1 56449-46-8 3.2E+00 1.7E+01 1.6E-02 9.4E-04Silica gel 112926-00-8 3.2E+00Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 8.8E+00Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 6.1E+01THPS 55566-30-8 1.1E+01 6.0E-01 5.6E-02 9.3E-02Sodium sulfate 7757-82-6 1.1E+00Sodium sulfite 7757-83-7 5.3E-01Sodium thiosulfate 7772-98-7 3.1E+01Terpene hydrocarbon by-products 68956-56-9 1.3E+01 1.8E+01 6.2E-02 3.5E-03Terpene and Terpenoids, sweet orange oil 1 68647-72-3 1.3E+01 1.8E+01 6.2E-02 3.5E-03Coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine 61789-40-0 1.7E+02 8.9E+00 8.3E-01 9.3E-02

Hazard Index4.6E-01

20% Mass Returned Toxicity

Page 1 of 1

Table 14 Risk Estimates for Cattle DeltaFaom 140 Theoretical Exposure for 80% Mass Returned


Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs CADDoral Incidental Ingestion1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one 2634-33-5 1.1E+00 8.3E-01 5.3E-03 6.4E-03Acetic acid 64-19-7 1.1E+02Alcohols, C10-12, ethoxylated 67254-71-1 1.3E+01 8.3E+00 6.4E-02 7.6E-03Alkylated quaternary chloride 75-57-0 1.1E+03 5.3E+00 5.5E+00 1.0E+00Bentonite 121888-68-4 1.3E+02Calcium chloride 10043-52-4 1.1E+00Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 6.4E+00Enzyme X - 1.1E+00 1.0E+02 5.3E-03 5.3E-05Ethanol 64-17-5 6.0E+02 4.0E+02 3.0E+00 7.5E-03Fatty acid ester 1,2 - 1.5E+02 4.2E+02 7.5E-01 1.8E-03Ethoxylated fatty acid ester 1,2 - 1.5E+02 5.4E+02 7.5E-01 1.4E-03Guar gum 1 9000-30-0 1.3E+03Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 9.3E+02 1.7E+02 4.6E+00 2.8E-02Polyethylene glycol oleate ester 1 56449-46-8 1.3E+01 1.7E+01 6.4E-02 3.7E-03Silica gel 112926-00-8 1.3E+01Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 3.5E+01Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 2.4E+02THPS 55566-30-8 4.5E+01 6.0E-01 2.2E-01 3.7E-01Sodium sulfate 7757-82-6 4.3E+00Sodium sulfite 7757-83-7 2.1E+00Sodium thiosulfate 7772-98-7 1.2E+02Terpene hydrocarbon by-products 68956-56-9 5.0E+01 1.8E+01 2.5E-01 1.4E-02Terpene and Terpenoids, sweet orange oil 1 68647-72-3 5.0E+01 1.8E+01 2.5E-01 1.4E-02Coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine 61789-40-0 6.7E+02 8.9E+00 3.3E+00 3.7E-01

Hazard Index1.9E+00


Page 1 of 1

Table 17 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo DeltaFoam 140 Theoretical Exposure for 20% Mass Returned


Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs CADDoral Incidental Ingestion1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one 2634-33-5 2.7E-01 1.7E+00 8.8E-04 5.1E-04Acetic acid 64-19-7 2.8E+01Alcohols, C10-12, ethoxylated 67254-71-1 3.2E+00 1.7E+01 1.1E-02 6.1E-04Alkylated quaternary chloride 75-57-0 2.8E+02 1.1E+01 9.1E-01 8.2E-02Bentonite 121888-68-4 3.2E+01Calcium chloride 10043-52-4 2.7E-01Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 1.6E+00Enzyme X - 2.7E-01 2.1E+02 8.8E-04 4.2E-06Ethanol 64-17-5 1.5E+02 8.3E+02 4.9E-01 6.0E-04Fatty acid ester 1,2 - 3.7E+01 8.6E+02 1.2E-01 1.4E-04Ethoxylated fatty acid ester 1,2 - 3.7E+01 1.1E+03 1.2E-01 1.1E-04Guar gum 1 9000-30-0 3.2E+02Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 2.3E+02 3.4E+02 7.6E-01 2.2E-03Polyethylene glycol oleate ester 1 56449-46-8 3.2E+00 3.4E+01 1.1E-02 3.1E-04Silica gel 112926-00-8 3.2E+00Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 8.8E+00Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 6.1E+01THPS 55566-30-8 1.1E+01 1.2E+00 3.7E-02 3.0E-02Sodium sulfate 7757-82-6 1.1E+00Sodium sulfite 7757-83-7 5.3E-01Sodium thiosulfate 7772-98-7 3.1E+01Terpene hydrocarbon by-products 68956-56-9 1.3E+01 3.7E+01 4.1E-02 1.1E-03Terpene and Terpenoids, sweet orange oil 1 68647-72-3 1.3E+01 3.7E+01 4.1E-02 1.1E-03Coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine 61789-40-0 1.7E+02 1.8E+01 5.5E-01 3.0E-02

Hazard Index1.5E-01


Page 1 of 1

Table 18 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo DeltaFoam 140 Theoretical Exposure for 80% Mass Returned


Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs CADDoral Incidental Ingestion1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one 2634-33-5 1.1E+00 1.7E+00 3.5E-03 2.0E-03Acetic acid 64-19-7 1.1E+02Alcohols, C10-12, ethoxylated 67254-71-1 1.3E+01 1.7E+01 4.2E-02 2.4E-03Alkylated quaternary chloride 75-57-0 1.1E+03 1.1E+01 3.6E+00 3.3E-01Bentonite 121888-68-4 1.3E+02Calcium chloride 10043-52-4 1.1E+00Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 6.4E+00Enzyme X - 1.1E+00 2.1E+02 3.5E-03 1.7E-05Ethanol 64-17-5 6.0E+02 8.3E+02 2.0E+00 2.4E-03Fatty acid ester 1,2 - 1.5E+02 8.6E+02 4.9E-01 5.7E-04Ethoxylated fatty acid ester 1,2 - 1.5E+02 1.1E+03 4.9E-01 4.4E-04Guar gum 1 9000-30-0 1.3E+03Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 9.3E+02 3.4E+02 3.0E+00 8.9E-03Polyethylene glycol oleate ester 1 56449-46-8 1.3E+01 3.4E+01 4.2E-02 1.2E-03Silica gel 112926-00-8 1.3E+01Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 3.5E+01Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 2.4E+02THPS 55566-30-8 4.5E+01 1.2E+00 1.5E-01 1.2E-01Sodium sulfate 7757-82-6 4.3E+00Sodium sulfite 7757-83-7 2.1E+00Sodium thiosulfate 7772-98-7 1.2E+02Terpene hydrocarbon by-products 68956-56-9 5.0E+01 3.7E+01 1.6E-01 4.5E-03Terpene and Terpenoids, sweet orange oil 1 68647-72-3 5.0E+01 3.7E+01 1.6E-01 4.5E-03Coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine 61789-40-0 6.7E+02 1.8E+01 2.2E+00 1.2E-01

Hazard Index5.9E-01


Page 1 of 1

Table 21 Risk Estimates for Dingo DeltaFoam 140 Theoretical Exposure for 20% Mass Returned


Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs CADDoral Incidental Ingestion1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one 2634-33-5 2.7E-01 2.0E+00 4.2E-04 2.1E-04Acetic acid 64-19-7 2.8E+01Alcohols, C10-12, ethoxylated 67254-71-1 3.2E+00 2.0E+01 5.1E-03 2.5E-04Alkylated quaternary chloride 75-57-0 2.8E+02 1.3E+01 4.4E-01 3.4E-02Bentonite 121888-68-4 3.2E+01Calcium chloride 10043-52-4 2.7E-01Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 1.6E+00Enzyme X - 2.7E-01 2.4E+02 4.2E-04 1.7E-06Ethanol 64-17-5 1.5E+02 9.7E+02 2.4E-01 2.4E-04Fatty acid ester 1,2 - 3.7E+01 1.0E+03 5.9E-02 5.8E-05Ethoxylated fatty acid ester 1,2 - 3.7E+01 1.3E+03 5.9E-02 4.5E-05Guar gum 1 9000-30-0 3.2E+02Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 2.3E+02 4.1E+02 3.7E-01 9.0E-04Polyethylene glycol oleate ester 1 56449-46-8 3.2E+00 4.1E+02 5.1E-03 1.2E-05Silica gel 112926-00-8 3.2E+00Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 8.8E+00Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 6.1E+01THPS 55566-30-8 1.1E+01 1.5E+00 1.8E-02 1.2E-02Sodium sulfate 7757-82-6 1.1E+00Sodium sulfite 7757-83-7 5.3E-01Sodium thiosulfate 7772-98-7 3.1E+01Terpene hydrocarbon by-products 68956-56-9 1.3E+01 4.3E+01 2.0E-02 4.6E-04Terpene and Terpenoids, sweet orange oil 1 68647-72-3 1.3E+01 4.3E+01 2.0E-02 4.6E-04Coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine 61789-40-0 1.7E+02 2.2E+01 2.6E-01 1.2E-02

Hazard Index6.1E-02


Page 1 of 1

Table 22 Risk Estimates for Dingo DeltaFoam 140 Theoretical Exposure for 80% Mass Returned


Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs CADDoral Incidental Ingestion1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one 2634-33-5 1.1E+00 2.0E+00 1.7E-03 8.3E-04Acetic acid 64-19-7 1.1E+02Alcohols, C10-12, ethoxylated 67254-71-1 1.3E+01 2.0E+01 2.0E-02 1.0E-03Alkylated quaternary chloride 75-57-0 1.1E+03 1.3E+01 1.7E+00 1.3E-01Bentonite 121888-68-4 1.3E+02Calcium chloride 10043-52-4 1.1E+00Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 6.4E+00Enzyme X - 1.1E+00 2.4E+02 1.7E-03 6.9E-06Ethanol 64-17-5 6.0E+02 9.7E+02 9.5E-01 9.7E-04Fatty acid ester 1,2 - 1.5E+02 1.0E+03 2.4E-01 2.3E-04Ethoxylated fatty acid ester 1,2 - 1.5E+02 1.3E+03 2.4E-01 1.8E-04Guar gum 1 9000-30-0 1.3E+03Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 9.3E+02 4.1E+02 1.5E+00 3.6E-03Polyethylene glycol oleate ester 1 56449-46-8 1.3E+01 4.1E+02 2.0E-02 4.9E-05Silica gel 112926-00-8 1.3E+01Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 3.5E+01Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 2.4E+02THPS 55566-30-8 4.5E+01 1.5E+00 7.1E-02 4.9E-02Sodium sulfate 7757-82-6 4.3E+00Sodium sulfite 7757-83-7 2.1E+00Sodium thiosulfate 7772-98-7 1.2E+02Terpene hydrocarbon by-products 68956-56-9 5.0E+01 4.3E+01 7.9E-02 1.8E-03Terpene and Terpenoids, sweet orange oil 1 68647-72-3 5.0E+01 4.3E+01 7.9E-02 1.8E-03Coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine 61789-40-0 6.7E+02 2.2E+01 1.1E+00 4.8E-02

Hazard Index2.4E-01


Page 1 of 1

G

old

er

Asso

cia

tes T

able

s

Golder Associates Tables

Table 50: On site exposure assessment summary

Source Exposure Scenario Receptors Exposure Pathways

Likelihood of exposure scenario Comments

Mud pit and turkeys nest sediments

Entry to pit or excavation/stockpiling of pit sediments Workers, trespassers Ingestion, dermal Unlikely

OH&S procedures limit workers exposure to sediment.

Pit dries and pit sediments become windblown dusts Workers, trespassers Inhalation of dusts Possible

Pathway is limited by disposal or capping of sediments contained in the mud pit and turkeys nest at the end of operations

Pit dries and pit sediments become windblown dusts, contaminating surrounding soil

Native terrestrial fauna (mammals, reptiles, birds), terrestrial flora Ingestion, uptake Unlikely

Volume of pit sediments considered insufficient to cause significant contamination of drill pad.

Entry to pit or exposure to excavated pit sediments

Native terrestrial fauna (mammals, reptiles, birds) Ingestion Unlikely

Mud pit and turkeys nest does not contain food or habitat for terrestrial species.

Flow back water in Turkey nest and mud pit

Working with turkey nest inlet/liner, or drainage of turkey nest or mud pit Workers Ingestion, dermal Possible

OH&S procedures limit workers exposure to flow back water.

Entry (accidental or deliberate) to Turkeys nest or mud pit Trespassers Ingestion, dermal Possible

Trespassers entry is limited via fencing and signage around drill pad areas. Trespassers can be entirely precluded from areas.


Native terrestrial fauna (mammals, reptiles, birds) Ingestion Observed

Native fauna has been observed in and around the turkey nests, despite areas being fenced.

Entry (accidental or deliberate) to Turkeys nest or mud pit Stock animals Ingestion Observed

Maintained fences and grids with routine maintenance can be effective at precluding livestock however, some stock animals have been observed in well pad areas.

Hydraulic fracturing Chemicals

Spill, leak of well delivery system failure during surface handling. Supply or disposal vehicle accident on site

Workers, terrestrial fauna (mammals, reptiles, birds), terrestrial flora Ingestion, dermal Unlikely

OH&S and spill containment, procedures adequately address this exposure.

Flow back water Spill, leak, mud pit, turkey nest delivery system failure or overflow

Workers, terrestrial fauna (mammals, reptiles, birds), terrestrial flora Ingestion, dermal, inhal Possible

Page 1 of 1

Table 51: Off site exposure assessment summary

Source Exposure Scenario Receptors Exposure Pathways

Likelihood of exposure scenario Comment/Management/control measures

Hydraulic fracturing fluids

Fracture fluid escapes into aquifer via a well casing failure, or a fault/fracture/unconformity in seam/strata, and fluids enter aquifer used downgradient for domestic water supply


Ingestion, dermal, inhalation Unlikely

Exposure scenario unlikely however; dependant on Santos operational procedures i.e. well integrity testing and design of fracture to stay with the target seam. No recorded instances in peer‐reviewed literature of fracturing chemicals in downgradient water supplies (Osborn et al 2011).

Fracture fluid escapes into aquifer via a well casing failure, or a fault/fracture/unconformity in seam/strata, and fluids enter aquifer used downgradient for stock water supply Stock animals Ingestion Unlikely

Fracture fluid escapes into aquifer via a well casing failure, or a fault/fracture/unconformity in seam/strata, and fluids enter aquifer that discharges to surface water


Residual fracturing fluid in the coal seam migrates down gradient and enters a spring or water supply bore

Residents, aquatic ecosystems, stock animals


Fate and transport modelling used to estimate the likely extent of migration of residual fluids in coal seam (section 7.4)

Turkeys nest or mud pit sediments

Nest/Pit dries and sediments become windblown dusts, contaminating surrounding soil

Native terrestrial flora and fauna, stock, Residents adults and children

Direct exposure/ inhalation of dusts Unlikely

Volume of pit sediments considered insufficient to result in concentrations of concern in the surrounding land.

Flow back water

Seepage of chemicals from mud pit or turkeys nest to a shallow aquifer used downgradient for domestic water supply



Considered unlikely that the concentrations of chemicals would be of a concern however regular maintenance of liners required to remove exposure pathway. Monitoring of down gradient bores also recommended to confirm no exposure.

Seepage of chemicals from mud pit or turkeys nest to a shallow aquifer used downgradient for stock water supply Stock animals Ingestion Unlikely Seepage of chemicals from mud pit or turkeys nest to a shallow aquifer that discharges to surface water


Spill, leak, turkey nest overflow

Residents, terrestrial fauna (mammals, reptiles, birds), terrestrial flora

Ingestion, dermal, inhalation Possible

Possible overflows during prolonged periods of high rainfall (>500 mm of rainfall required) based on freeboard control requirements. Likelihood of occurrence can be reduced through minimising duration of storage in pit and turkeys nest, and toxicity of fluid is likely to decrease rapidly due to short biotransformation half‐lives of most chemicals.

Page 1 of 1

A

ppe

ndix

C2

-1

Appendix C2-1

APPENDIX D Hydraulic Fracturing Risk Assessment - Table D3

15 March 2012 No. 117636002-7000-003 1/1

Table D3: Chemical mass balance and estimated concentrations in typical hydraulic fracturing fluids

Constituent Name

CASRN

Estimated mass per coal seam (kg) Estimated concentration in fluid systems (mg/L)

Delta 140 DeltaFoam 140 Linear Gel

Linear Gel Foamed

Water Water Foamed

Delta 140 DeltaFoam 140 Linear Gel

Linear Gel Foamed

Water Water Foamed

1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one 2634-33-5 0.41 0.41 0.20 0.20 - - 2 2 1 1 - -

Acetic acid 64-19-7 39.69 39.69 39.69 39.69 - - 210 210 210 210 - -

Alcohols, C10-12, ethoxylated 67254-71-1 4.54 4.54 4.54 4.54 - - 24 24 24 24 - -

Alkylated quaternary chloride 75-57-0 391.45 391.59 391.59 391.59 391.59 391.59 2068 2069 2069 2069 2069 2069

Bentonite 121888-68-4 45.36 45.36 45.36 45.36 - - 240 240 240 240 - -

Calcium chloride 10043-52-4 0.41 0.41 0.20 0.20 - - 2 2 1 1 - -

Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 2.27 2.27 2.27 2.27 - - 12 12 12 12 - -

Endo-1,4-beta-mannanase enzyme 37288-54-3 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.23 - - 2 2 2 1 - -

Ethanol 64-17-5 212.62 212.62 212.62 212.62 - - 1123 1123 1123 1123 - -

Fatty acid ester 1,2

- 53.16 53.16 53.16 53.16 281 281 281 281

Ethoxylated fatty acid ester 1,2

- 53.16 53.16 53.16 53.16 - - 281 281 281 281 - -

Guar gum 1

9000-30-0 453.59 453.59 453.59 453.59 - - 2397 2397 2397 2397 - -

Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 329.13 329.13 - - - - 1739 1739 - - - -

Polyethylene glycol oleate ester 1

56449-46-8 4.54 4.54 4.54 4.54 - - 24 24 24 24 - -

Silica gel 112926-00-8 4.54 4.54 4.54 4.54 - - 24 24 24 24 - -

Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 12.47 12.47 6.24 6.24 - - 66 66 33 33 - -

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 86.18 86.18 - - - - 455 455 - - - -

THPS 55566-30-8 15.88 15.88 15.88 15.88 15.88 15.88 84 84 84 84 84 84

Sodium sulfate 7757-82-6 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 - - 8 8 8 8 - -

Sodium sulfite 7757-83-7 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 - - 4 4 4 4 - -

Sodium thiosulfate 7772-98-7 43.25 43.25 43.25 43.25 - - 229 229 229 229 - -

Terpene hydrocarbon by-products 68956-56-9 17.71 17.71 17.71 17.71 - - 94 94 94 94 - -

Terpene and Terpenoids, sweet orange oil 1

68647-72-3 17.71 17.71 17.71 17.71 - - 94 94 94 94 - -

Coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine 61789-40-0 - 236.03 - 236.03 - 236.03 1247 - 1247 - 1247

Total chemical mass injected per coal seam (kg): 1791 2027 1369 1605 407 643 Residual chemical mass assuming 60% recovery (kg): 716 811 548 642 163 257

Notes:

1. Estimated concentration in pre-injection fracturing fluid may exceed the effective solubility of the compound.

2. The CAS numbers for fatty acid ester and ethoxylated fatty acid ester have not been included in this table due to commercial confidentiality.

\\syd1-s-file02\jobs\hyd\2011\117636002_santos glng - official folder is in brisbane\task 7000 fraccing ra\halliburton report\appx d_tables\117636002-7000-003-table d3 v2_revised.docx

Cheryl.Rimkus

Typewritten Text

APPENDIX A: Table D-3 Halliburton

A

ppe

ndix

C2

-2

Appendix C2-2

Table C-1. Comparison of Estimated DeltaFoam 140 Theoretical Concentrations to Human Health Drinking Water Guidelines

Delta 140 DeltaFoam 140 Linear Gel Linear Gel Foamed Water 20% 40% 60% 80% 20% 40% 60% 80%

1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one 2634-33-5 2 2 1 1 - 0.27 0.53 0.80 1.07 0.18 1.5E+00 3.0E+00 4.4E+00 5.9E+00

Acetic acid 64-19-7 210 210 210 210 - 28.00 56.00 84.00 112.00 NA NA NA NA NA

Alcohols, C10-12, ethoxylated 67254-71-1 24 24 24 24 - 3.20 6.40 9.60 12.80 2 1.6E+00 3.2E+00 4.8E+00 6.4E+00

Alkylated quaternary chloride 75-57-0 2,068 2,068 2,069 2,069 2,069 275.73 551.47 827.20 1102.93 1 2.8E+02 5.5E+02 8.3E+02 1.1E+03

Bentonite 121888-68-4 240 240 240 240 - 32.00 64.00 96.00 128.00 35 9.1E-01 1.8E+00 2.7E+00 3.7E+00

Calcium chloride 10043-52-4 2 2 1 1 - 0.27 0.53 0.80 1.07 200 1.3E-03 2.7E-03 4.0E-03 5.3E-03

Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 12 12 12 12 - 1.60 3.20 4.80 6.40 NA NA NA NA NA

Enzyme X - 2 2 2 2 - 0.27 0.53 0.80 1.07 2 1.3E-01 2.7E-01 4.0E-01 5.3E-01

Ethanol 64-17-5 1,123 1,123 1,123 1,123 - 149.73 299.47 449.20 598.93 8 1.9E+01 3.7E+01 5.6E+01 7.5E+01

Fatty acid ester - 281 281 281 281 - 37.47 74.93 112.40 149.87 87.5 4.3E-01 8.6E-01 1.3E+00 1.7E+00

Ethoxylated fatty acid ester - 281 281 281 281 - 37.47 74.93 112.40 149.87 11 3.4E+00 6.8E+00 1.0E+01 1.4E+01

Guar gum 9000-30-0 2,397 2,397 2,397 2,397 - 319.60 639.20 958.80 1278.40 44 7.3E+00 1.5E+01 2.2E+01 2.9E+01

Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 1,739 1,739 - - - 231.87 463.73 695.60 927.47 3.5 6.6E+01 1.3E+02 2.0E+02 2.6E+02

Polyethylene glycol oleate ester 56449-46-8 24 24 24 24 - 3.20 6.40 9.60 12.80 3.5 9.1E-01 1.8E+00 2.7E+00 3.7E+00

Silica gel 112926-00-8 24 24 24 24 - 3.20 6.40 9.60 12.80 87.5 3.7E-02 7.3E-02 1.1E-01 1.5E-01

Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 66 66 33 33 - 8.80 17.60 26.40 35.20 180 4.9E-02 9.8E-02 1.5E-01 2.0E-01

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 455 455 - - - 60.67 121.33 182.00 242.67 180 3.4E-01 6.7E-01 1.0E+00 1.3E+00

Tetrakis(hydroxylmethyl) phosphonium sulfate (THPS) 55566-30-8 84 84 84 84 84 11.20 22.40 33.60 44.80 0.01 1.1E+03 2.2E+03 3.4E+03 4.5E+03

Sodium sulfate 7757-82-6 8 8 8 8 - 1.07 2.13 3.20 4.27 500 2.1E-03 4.3E-03 6.4E-03 8.5E-03

Sodium sulfite 7757-83-7 4 4 4 4 - 0.53 1.07 1.60 2.13 500 1.1E-03 2.1E-03 3.2E-03 4.3E-03

Sodium thiosulfate 7772-98-7 229 229 229 229 - 30.53 61.07 91.60 122.13 500 6.1E-02 1.2E-01 1.8E-01 2.4E-01

Terpene hydrocarbon by-products 68956-56-9 94 94 94 94 - 12.53 25.07 37.60 50.13 3.8 3.3E+00 6.6E+00 9.9E+00 1.3E+01

Terpene and Terpenoids, sweet orange oil 1 68647-72-3 94 94 94 94 - 12.53 25.07 37.60 50.13 3.8 3.3E+00 6.6E+00 9.9E+00 1.3E+01

Coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine 61789-40-0 - 1,247 - 1,247 - 166.27 332.53 498.80 665.07 0.19 8.8E+02 1.8E+03 2.6E+03 3.5E+03

Highlighted cells are ratios greater than one and indicate a potentially unacceptable risk 2379 4758 7137 9516


Estimated concentration in pre-injection fluid systems (mg/L) DeltaFoam 140 Drinking

Water

Guideline

(mg/L)

Ratio of Chemical Concentrations and Screening

Criteria (Ratio greater than one = unacceptable

potential risk)

DeltaFoam 140

Estimated Initial Concentration in flowback

(150% of injected fluid volume) per coal seam per

percent of mass returned calculated using

equation: Initial Flowback Concentration =

FBconcentration (mg/L)/ FB dilution 150% x

percent mass returned (%)

Table C-3. Comparison of Estimated Theoretical DeltaFoam 140 Concentrations to Aquatic Life Water Guidelines

Delta 140 DeltaFoam 140 Linear Gel Linear Gel Foamed Water 20% 40% 60% 80% 20% 40% 60% 80%

1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one 2634-33-5 2 2 1 1 - 0.27 0.53 0.80 1.07 8.40E-05 3.2E+03 6.3E+03 9.5E+03 1.3E+04

Acetic acid 64-19-7 210 210 210 210 - 28.00 56.00 84.00 112.00 0.46 6.1E+01 1.2E+02 1.8E+02 2.4E+02

Alcohols, C10-12, ethoxylated 67254-71-1 24 24 24 24 - 3.20 6.40 9.60 12.80 1.07 3.0E+00 6.0E+00 9.0E+00 1.2E+01

Alkylated quaternary chloride 75-57-0 2,068 2,068 2,069 2,069 2,069 275.73 551.47 827.20 1102.93 0.5 5.5E+02 1.1E+03 1.7E+03 2.2E+03

Bentonite 121888-68-4 240 240 240 240 - 32.00 64.00 96.00 128.00 NA

Calcium chloride 10043-52-4 2 2 1 1 - 0.27 0.53 0.80 1.07 3.2 8.3E-02 1.7E-01 2.5E-01 3.3E-01

Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 12 12 12 12 - 1.60 3.20 4.80 6.40 NA

Enzyme X - 2 2 2 2 - 0.27 0.53 0.80 1.07 0.33 8.1E-01 1.6E+00 2.4E+00 3.2E+00

Ethanol 64-17-5 1,123 1,123 1,123 1,123 - 149.73 299.47 449.20 598.93 0.96 1.6E+02 3.1E+02 4.7E+02 6.2E+02

Fatty acid ester - 281 281 281 281 - 37.47 74.93 112.40 149.87 0.0191 2.0E+03 3.9E+03 5.9E+03 7.8E+03

Ethoxylated fatty acid ester - 281 281 281 281 - 37.47 74.93 112.40 149.87 0.01914 2.0E+03 3.9E+03 5.9E+03 7.8E+03

Guar gum 9000-30-0 2,397 2,397 2,397 2,397 - 319.60 639.20 958.80 1278.40 0.042 7.6E+03 1.5E+04 2.3E+04 3.0E+04

Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 1,739 1,739 - - - 231.87 463.73 695.60 927.47 0.013 1.8E+04 3.6E+04 5.4E+04 7.1E+04

Polyethylene glycol oleate ester 56449-46-8 24 24 24 24 - 3.20 6.40 9.60 12.80 0.093 3.4E+01 6.9E+01 1.0E+02 1.4E+02

Silica gel 112926-00-8 24 24 24 24 - 3.20 6.40 9.60 12.80 NA

Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 66 66 33 33 - 8.80 17.60 26.40 35.20 NA

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 455 455 - - - 60.67 121.33 182.00 242.67 NA

Tetrakis(hydroxylmethyl) phosphonium sulfate (THPS) 55566-30-8 84 84 84 84 84 11.20 22.40 33.60 44.80 2.00E-04 5.6E+04 1.1E+05 1.7E+05 2.2E+05

Sodium sulfate 7757-82-6 8 8 8 8 - 1.07 2.13 3.20 4.27 1.9 5.6E-01 1.1E+00 1.7E+00 2.2E+00

Sodium sulfite 7757-83-7 4 4 4 4 - 0.53 1.07 1.60 2.13 0.26 2.1E+00 4.1E+00 6.2E+00 8.2E+00

Sodium thiosulfate 7772-98-7 229 229 229 229 - 30.53 61.07 91.60 122.13 0.1 3.1E+02 6.1E+02 9.2E+02 1.2E+03

Terpene hydrocarbon by-products 68956-56-9 94 94 94 94 - 12.53 25.07 37.60 50.13 4.21E-04 3.0E+04 6.0E+04 8.9E+04 1.2E+05

Terpene and Terpenoids, sweet orange oil 1 68647-72-3 94 94 94 94 - 12.53 25.07 37.60 50.13 4.21E-04 3.0E+04 6.0E+04 8.9E+04 1.2E+05

Coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine 61789-40-0 - 1,247 - 1,247 - 166.27 332.53 498.80 665.07 0.0186 8.9E+03 1.8E+04 2.7E+04 3.6E+04

Highlighted cells are ratios greater than one and indicate a potentially unacceptable risk Cumulative Ratio 154,898 309,796 464,694 619,592


Estimated concentration in pre-injection fluid systems (mg/L) DeltaFoam 140

Ratio of COPC Concentrations and Screening

Criteria (Ratio greater than one = unacceptable

potential risk)

DeltaFoam 140

Estimated Initial Concentration in flowback


percent of mass returned calculated using

equation: Initial Flowback Concentration =

FBconcentration (mg/L)/ FB dilution 150% x

percent mass returned (%)

PNEC aquatic

(mg/L)

A

ppe

ndix

C2

-3

Appendix C2-3

Table A-1 Surface Water Quality Data for Theoretical Scenario in Initial Flowback for DeltaFoam 140

Page 1 of 1

Delta 140DeltaFoam

140Linear Gel

Linear Gel

FoamedWater 20% 40% 60% 80%

1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one 2634-33-5 2 2 1 1 - 0.27 0.53 0.80 1.07

Acetic acid 64-19-7 210 210 210 210 - 28.00 56.00 84.00 112.00

Alcohols, C10-12, ethoxylated 67254-71-1 24 24 24 24 - 3.20 6.40 9.60 12.80

Alkylated quaternary chloride 75-57-0 2,068 2,068 2,069 2,069 2,069 275.73 551.47 827.20 1102.93

Bentonite 121888-68-4 240 240 240 240 - 32.00 64.00 96.00 128.00

Calcium chloride 10043-52-4 2 2 1 1 - 0.27 0.53 0.80 1.07

Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 12 12 12 12 - 1.60 3.20 4.80 6.40

Enzyme X - 2 2 2 2 - 0.27 0.53 0.80 1.07

Ethanol 64-17-5 1,123 1,123 1,123 1,123 - 149.73 299.47 449.20 598.93

Fatty acid ester 1,2 - 281 281 281 281 - 37.47 74.93 112.40 149.87

Ethoxylated fatty acid ester 1,2 - 281 281 281 281 - 37.47 74.93 112.40 149.87

Guar gum 1 9000-30-0 2,397 2,397 2,397 2,397 - 319.60 639.20 958.80 1278.40

Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 1,739 1,739 - - - 231.87 463.73 695.60 927.47

Polyethylene glycol oleate ester 1 56449-46-8 24 24 24 24 - 3.20 6.40 9.60 12.80

Silica gel 112926-00-8 24 24 24 24 - 3.20 6.40 9.60 12.80

Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 66 66 33 33 - 8.80 17.60 26.40 35.20

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 455 455 - - - 60.67 121.33 182.00 242.67

THPS 55566-30-8 84 84 84 84 84 11.20 22.40 33.60 44.80

Sodium sulfate 7757-82-6 8 8 8 8 - 1.07 2.13 3.20 4.27

Sodium sulfite 7757-83-7 4 4 4 4 - 0.53 1.07 1.60 2.13

Sodium thiosulfate 7772-98-7 229 229 229 229 - 30.53 61.07 91.60 122.13

Terpene hydrocarbon by-products 68956-56-9 94 94 94 94 - 12.53 25.07 37.60 50.13

Terpene and Terpenoids, sweet orange oil 1 68647-72-3 94 94 94 94 - 12.53 25.07 37.60 50.13

Coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine 61789-40-0 - 1,247 - 1,247 - 166.27 332.53 498.80 665.07

Estimated Initial Mud Pit Concentration in flowback


percent of mass returned calculated using equation:

Mud Pitcon = FBconcentration (mg/L)/ FB dilution

150% x percent mass returned (%)



1

Appendix C3 Halliburton CleanStimAUs System

2

I

ntr

odu

ctio

n


Compendium), a weight-of-evidence approach was used by Santos Ltd. (Santos) to evaluate the

potential for human health and environmental (e.g., ecological) risks as a result of the hydraulic

fracturing processes and the Halliburton CleanStimAUS fluid system.

Golder Associates Pty Ltd. (Golder), on behalf of Santos, completed a human health and ecological

toxicity assessment (Golder, 2012) that evaluated the nature of the geology in the areas undergoing

stimulation, the potential for impacts on water resources, the process and chemicals used.




Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC 2008/4059) and the Environmental Amendment (EA) conditions to

assess the toxicity of the mixtures.


Golder Associates Pty Ltd. 2013. “Hydraulic fracturing risk assessment – Human Health and

Ecological Toxicology Assessment - CleanStimAU” Dated November 2013.


Report for Halliburton CleanStimAUS Chemistry Report” Dated 16 July 2013.





documents.





appendix.

3

Q

ualit

ative

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent a

nd

Eva

luatio

n


C2.1 Chemicals Evaluated

Chemical constituents identified in the CleanStimAUS fracturing fluid system were evaluated in the

hydraulic fracturing risk assessments. The list of individual chemicals is presented in Table 1. A mass

balance of the chemicals within each of the hydraulic fracturing fluid systems was provided in Table C-

1 (Golder, 2012).









Table 1: Hydraulic fracturing chemicals

Chemical CAS Number

Carbohydrate -*

Food coating 64-19-7

Sodium lauryl sulfate 75-57-0

Fatty acid ester™ -*

Hemicellulase enzyme™ 9012-54-8

Saccharide -*

Polysaccharide -*

Tri tetradecyl phosphonium chloride (TTPC) 81741-28-8

Inorganic salt -*

Potassium chloride 7447-40-7

Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9

Talc 14807-96-6

Cyrstalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7

* The CAS numbers have not been included in this table due to commercial confidentiality.



the risk assessment for the Halliburton fluid systems. The work has involved the following evaluations:



Exposure Assessment

Mass Balance of the fluid systems.

4

Q

ualit

ative

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent a

nd

Eva

luatio

n

As noted in Section 7.2, fate and transport of previously modelled fluid systems was not sensitive to

the variability in physical properties of chemicals. Due to the broad range of physical properties

assessed, the limited transport observed in the model and limited impact that physical properties has

on transport distances, fate and transport of the chemicals present in this fluid system was not

considered warranted.





Direct Toxicity Assessments of fluid systems.






(Appendix E) were compiled for each chemical from published guidelines, the Hazardous Substance

Database, and modelled data from United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2009)

EPISUITE modelling software, when data not available from other sources. Appendix A of the Golder

Risk Assessment presents the chemical information sheets used (Golder, 2012).

Of the 13 chemicals listed above, three were not considered for PBT ranking. Physico-chemical and/or

toxicological data were not available and surrogates could not be identified for saccharide, talc,

polysaccharide, and tri tetradecyl phosphonium chloride (TTPC) (81741-58-8). Crystalline silica

(14808-60-7) relate to the sand used as the proppant, and therefore is not considered to represent an

environmental hazard.




in to contact with the COPCs. A detailed exposure assessment was not conducted in the qualitative

risk assessment; however, hazards from potential exposures were determined to be primarily

occupational concerns with some limited environmental matters (Golder, 2012).



additive of the hydraulic fracturing fluid system. Specific details regarding the methodology of the

calculation are presented in Section 4.7 of this report. The results of the mass balance calculations

are presented in the referenced Table C-1 (Golder, 2012).


As noted in previously, fate and transport of previously modelled fluid systems was not sensitive to the

variability in physical properties of chemicals. Due to the broad range of physical properties assessed,

the limited transport observed in the model and limited impact that physical properties has on transport

5

Q

ualit

ative

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent a

nd

Eva

luatio

n

distances, fate and transport of the chemicals present in this fluid system was not considered warranted.

Additionally, the modelling demonstrated that there is limited potential for chemicals to migrate within

the coal seams.

6

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent

Quantitative Risk Assessment In accordance with the methodologies presented in Section 8.0, a QRA was conducted on theoretical

datasets for those chemicals identified in the human health and ecological toxicity evaluation (EHS

Support, 2013). The QRA approach evaluates the toxicity of the individual substances, and

characterises the cumulative risks of the total effluent toxicity and ecotoxicity.












groundwater in the coal seams and surface-water or springs (and therefore Matters of National

Environmental Significance [MNES]). Further, the potential risks to workers involved with the hydraulic

fracturing process were not considered as detailed Health and Safety (H&S) procedures are employed

to manage exposures. The QRA considered the following specific exposure pathways:

1. Exposure of trespassers to flowback water contained within flowback storage ponds.

2. Exposure of terrestrial receptors (e.g., livestock, wildlife) to flowback water contained within the

flowback storage ponds.














monitoring data were used Appendix C3-1 (Appendix A, Table A-1; EHS Support, 2013).



Section 8.4. The purpose of the hazard assessment process was to summarise the environmental



7

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent





swimming where the whole body gets wet) for half an hour (Table 4; EHS Support, 2013).


Ingestion of water:




Where:

















Appendix F.


exposure scenarios as discussed in Section 8.4. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 of the EHS Support QRA for

details regarding the toxicity assessment of the COPCs (EHS Support, 2013).



target risk range for carcinogens was 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6; the target HI for non-threshold effects is less

than or equal to 1.0.


result, only non-carcinogenic risks were calculated. The exposure scenarios include 20 percent mass

recovery from the fracturing fluid well flowback from 0 to 150 days from injection of fluid. The modelled

8

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent

risks from injected chemicals in the flowback water in both scenarios were acceptable (Tables 5 and 6;

EHS Support, 2013).













2013).



acceptable.






section, the lack of a robust aquatic toxicological database resulted in aquatic screening values for the

theoretical exposure scenario COPCs to be conservatively very low.


ecological receptors modelled (Tables 11 through 16; EHS Support, 2013). Therefore, there were no

estimated potential risks to domesticated wildlife or mammalian wildlife that are either present on

operational areas infrequently or in the vicinity of the well pads.

9

S

um

ma

ry o

f Q

RA

Fin

din

gs


conservative theoretical calculations based on the chemicals utilised by Halliburton in hydraulic


would be present in the flowback water.






On the basis of the quantitative risk calculations, no elevated potential risks were identified for the

trespasser scenarios. No potential risks exist for livestock or native mammals. Potential impacts could

occur if releases of flowback water were to occur to aquatic environments. Based on the use of clay

liners and operational controls that limit the potential for turkey nest and dam overflows, the potential

for these risks are also considered limited.




Use of appropriate personal protective equipment (gloves, etc.)

Flowback storage pond fencing to prevent entry of livestock and minimise trespassing


ponds


10

D

ire

ct T

oxic

ity A

naly

sis



11

C

onclu

sio

ns


Halliburton CleanStimAUS. Based on the qualitative and quantitative risk characterisations, the overall

risk to human health and the environment is low. Existing operational control activities employed by

Santos are in place that will limit the potential risks to human health and the environment. These

measures include:



or sediments;

Environmental authority conditions that preclude the construction of well pads within 100 metres of

a watercourse of water body;










seam; and









specifics and results of this evaluation

E

HS

Su

pp

ort

Tab

les

EHS Support Tables



NOAEL (mg/kg/day)

Uncertainty Factors

Oral Reference Dose


Aluminum sulfate 0.05 0.18 ppm [as Al]Hemicellulase enzyme 13-wk rat dietary General toxicity/liver 600 1,000 0.6 2

Lactosea 2-yr rat dietary Effects not considered chemical-specific 1,580 1,000 1.0 3.5

Maltodextrinb - - - - - -

Sodium chloridec -180 for Na+ and

250 for Cl- (aesthetics)

Shellac, ammonium salteOne –generation rat

reproductive None 500 1,000 0.5 1.8

Sodium carboxymethyl cellulosef - - - - - -Sodium lauryl sulfate 2-yr rat dietary Liver 113 100 1.1 4Sorbitan, monododecanoate, poly(oxy-1,2-diethanediyl) 2-yr rat dietary Marked diarrhea; distention

of cecum 2,500g 100g 25g 88

Sulfuric acid -

pH; 500 (health) and 250

(aesthetic) for SO42-

Talch - - - - - -Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride No data - - - - -Potassium chloridec 2-yr rat dietary Systemic effects 1820d 100 18.2 63.7

Page 1 of 1

aBased on animal toxicity studies only.bNo toxicity data found. GRAS substance by FDA (no limitation in food).cThere is an Australian drinking water standard for chloride.dthe highest dose testedeFood coating is a biopolymer and is insoluble in water. It is not expected to be bioavailable and therefore not hazardous to human health. There is an Australian drinking water standard for ammonium fADI classified as “Not Specified” (formerly “Not Limited”) by Joint WHO/FAO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA).gADI (Joint WHO/FAO Expert Committee on Food Additives or JECFA).hTalc is a mineral that is insoluble in water. It is not expected to be bioavailable and therefore not hazardous to human health by oral ingestion


Constituent Drinking Water Screening Guideline Drinking Water Screening Value (ppm)a

Aluminum sulfate aluminum, sulfate 0.2 (aesthetic) for aluminum; 500 (health) and 250 (aesthetic) for sulfate

Sodium chloride chloride and sodium 180 for Na+ and 250 for Cl- (aesthetics)Potassium chloride Potassium chloride 64Sulfuric acid pH, sulfate 6.5 to 8.5; 500 (health) and 250 (aesthetic) for sulfate

aExcept for pH values.

Page 1 of 1


Aluminum sulfate Dissociates completely in aqueous mediaHemicellulase enzyme Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)Lactose Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)Maltodextrin Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)Sodium chloride Dissociates completely in aqueous mediaShellac, ammonium salte Not biodegradableSodium carboxymethyl cellulose Inherently biodegradable (half-life = 150 days)Sodium lauryl sulfate Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)Sorbitan, monododecanoate, poly(oxy-1,2-diethanediyl) Inherently biodegradable (half-life = 150 days)Sulfuric acid Dissociates completely in aqueous mediaTalch Water-insoluble mineral (does not biodegrade)Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride No dataPotassium chloride Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Source: EU Guidance Document: Half-life estimates from in vitro biodegradation test results

Page 1 of 1

Table 4 Exposure Assumptions ‐ Trespasser

Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter ValueIR Ingestion rate l/hr 0.05ET Exposure time hr/day 0.5EF Exposure frequency day/yr 20ED Exposure duration yr 10BW Body weight kg 47



Ingestion

Dermal

Page 1 of 1

Table 5 Risk Estimates for Trespasser Halliburton CleanStimAUS Theoretical Exposure for Day 0

CleanStimAUSHazard Quotient

Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) PC (cm/hr) RfDo CADDoral CADDderm Incidental Ingestion DermalAluminum sulfate 10043-01-3 8.4E+01 NA 0.057 4.9E-03 8.6E-02Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 4.8E-01 NA 0.6 2.8E-05 4.7E-05Lactose 63-42-3 3.7E+01 9.2E-09 1.6 2.2E-03 2.6E-09 1.4E-03 1.6E-09Maltodextrin 9050-36-6 4.7E+01 NA - - -Sodium chloride 7447-40-7 3.2E+02 NA 51 1.9E-02 3.7E-04Shellac, ammonium salt 68308-35-8 9.6E+00 2.7E-15 0.5 5.6E-04 2.0E-16 1.1E-03 4.0E-16Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose 9004-32-4 6.4E+02 NA - -Sodium lauryl sulfate 151-21-3 1.3E+01 4.4E-04 1 7.8E-04 4.4E-05 7.8E-04 4.4E-05

Sorbitan, monododecanoate, poly(oxy-1,2-diethanediyl) 9005-65-5 2.4E+01 NA 25 1.4E-03 5.6E-05

Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9 2.1E+01 NA 142.9 1.2E-03 8.6E-06Talc 14807-96-6 4.8E-01 NA - - -Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 4.8E-01 NA - - -Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 - NA - - -


ToxicityDay

Page 1 of 1

Table 6 Risk Estimates for Trespasser Halliburton CleanStimAUS Theoretical Exposure for Day 150


Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) PC (cm/hr) RfDo CADDoral CADDderm Incidental Ingestion DermalAluminum sulfate 10043-01-3 8.4E+01 NA 0.057 4.9E-03 8.6E-02Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 4.7E-04 NA 0.6 2.7E-08 4.6E-08Lactose 63-42-3 3.6E-02 9.2E-09 1.6 2.1E-06 2.5E-12 1.3E-06 1.6E-12Maltodextrin 9050-36-6 4.6E-02 NA - - -Sodium chloride 7447-40-7 3.2E+02 NA 51 1.9E-02 3.7E-04Shellac, ammonium salt 68308-35-8 9.6E+00 2.7E-15 0.5 5.6E-04 2.0E-16 1.1E-03 4.0E-16Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose 9004-32-4 3.2E+02 NA - -Sodium lauryl sulfate 151-21-3 1.3E-02 4.4E-04 1 7.6E-07 4.3E-08 7.6E-07 4.3E-08Sorbitan, monododecanoate, poly(oxy-1,2-diethanediyl) 9005-65-5 1.2E+01 NA 25 7.0E-04 2.8E-05Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9 2.1E+01 NA 142.9 1.2E-03 8.6E-06Talc 14807-96-6 4.8E-01 NA - - -Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 4.8E-01 NA - - -Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 - NA - - -


ToxicityDay 150

Page 1 of 1


NOEC PNECaquatic (mg/L) (mg/L)

Aluminum sulfate a Chronic fish 0.06 1 0.06 [as Al]Hemicellulase enzyme 96-hr LC50 (fish) 330 1,000 0.33Lactose 96-hr LC50 (fish) [ECOSAR] 81, 045 1,000 81Maltodextrinb - - - -Sodium chloride - - - -Shellac, ammonium saltc - - - -Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose 96-hr EC50 (algae) 500 1,000 0.5Sodium lauryl sulfate Chronic Daphnia 0.88 10 0.09Sorbitan, monododecanoate, poly(oxy-1,2-diethanediyl) Acute algae 100 1,000 0.1Sulfuric acid Chronic fish 0.13 50 0.0026Talcd - - - -Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 48-hr LC50 (Daphnia) 0.025 1,000 2.5 x 10-5 Potassium chloride 72-hr EC50 (algae) 100 1,000 0.1


Page 1 of 1

a CEPA Priority Substance List Assessment Report (2010)b Saccharide is a oligosaccharide composed of D-glucose sugars (molecular weights ranging from 550-3000). There are no data; however, it is not expected to be toxic to aquatic organism due to molecular weight considerations and that D-glucose is a sugar found in the body and is an energy source.c Food coating is a biopolymer and is insoluble in water. It is not expected to be bioavailable and therefore not hazardous to aquatic organisms. d Talc is an inert mineral and is insoluble in water. It is not expected to be harmful to aquatic organisms.

Table 11 Risk Estimates for Cattle Halliburton CleanStimAUS Theoretical Exposure for Day 0


Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs TI Incidental IngestionAluminum sulfate 10043-01-3 8.4E+01Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 4.8E-01 1.0E+02 3.7E-03 3.7E-05Lactose 63-42-3 3.7E+01 2.6E+02 2.9E-01 1.1E-03Maltodextrin 9050-36-6 4.7E+01Sodium chloride 7447-40-7 3.2E+02Shellac, ammonium salt 68308-35-8 9.6E+00 8.3E+01 7.5E-02 9.0E-04Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose 9004-32-4 6.4E+02Sodium lauryl sulfate 151-21-3 1.3E+01 1.9E+01 1.0E-01 5.5E-03Sorbitan, monododecanoate, poly(oxy-1,2-diethanediyl) 9005-65-5 2.4E+01 4.2E+02 1.9E-01 4.5E-04Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9 2.1E+01Talc 14807-96-6 4.8E-01Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 4.8E-01Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 -

Hazard Index8.0E-03

Day 0 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1

Table 12 Risk Estimates for Cattle Halliburton CleanStimAUS Theoretical Exposure for Day 150


Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs TI Incidental IngestionAluminum sulfate 10043-01-3 8.4E+01Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 4.7E-04 1.0E+02 3.6E-06 3.6E-08Lactose 63-42-3 3.6E-02 2.6E+02 2.8E-04 1.1E-06Maltodextrin 9050-36-6 4.6E-02Sodium chloride 7447-40-7 3.2E+02Shellac, ammonium salt 68308-35-8 9.6E+00 8.3E+01 7.5E-02 9.0E-04Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose 9004-32-4 3.2E+02Sodium lauryl sulfate 151-21-3 1.3E-02 1.9E+01 1.0E-04 5.4E-06

Sorbitan, monododecanoate, poly(oxy-1,2-diethanediyl) 9005-65-5 1.2E+01 4.2E+029.4E-02

2.3E-04

Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9 2.1E+01Talc 14807-96-6 4.8E-01Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 4.8E-01Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 -

Hazard Index1.1E-03

Day 150 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1

Table 13 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo Halliburton CleanStimAUS Theoretical Exposure for Day 0


Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs TI Incidental IngestionAluminum sulfate 10043-01-3 8.4E+01Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 4.8E-01 2.1E+02 1.6E-03 7.6E-06Lactose 63-42-3 3.7E+01 5.4E+02 1.2E-01 2.3E-04Maltodextrin 9050-36-6 4.7E+01Sodium chloride 7447-40-7 3.2E+02Shellac, ammonium salt 68308-35-8 9.6E+00 1.7E+02 3.2E-02 1.8E-04Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose 9004-32-4 6.4E+02Sodium lauryl sulfate 151-21-3 1.3E+01 3.9E+01 4.4E-02 1.1E-03

Sorbitan, monododecanoate, poly(oxy-1,2-diethanediyl) 9005-65-5 2.4E+01 8.6E+027.9E-02

9.2E-05

Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9 2.1E+01Talc 14807-96-6 4.8E-01Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 4.8E-01Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 -

Hazard Index1.6E-03

Day 0 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1

Table 14 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo Halliburton CleanStimAUS Theoretical Exposure for Day 150


Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs TI Incidental IngestionAluminum sulfate 10043-01-3 8.4E+01Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 4.7E-04 2.1E+02 1.5E-06 7.5E-09Lactose 63-42-3 3.6E-02 5.4E+02 1.2E-04 2.2E-07Maltodextrin 9050-36-6 4.6E-02Sodium chloride 7447-40-7 3.2E+02Shellac, ammonium salt 68308-35-8 9.6E+00 1.7E+02 3.2E-02 1.8E-04Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose 9004-32-4 3.2E+02Sodium lauryl sulfate 151-21-3 1.3E-02 3.9E+01 4.3E-05 1.1E-06Sorbitan, monododecanoate, poly(oxy-1,2-diethanediyl) 9005-65-5 1.2E+01 8.6E+02 4.0E-02 4.6E-05Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9 2.1E+01Talc 14807-96-6 4.8E-01Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 4.8E-01Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 -

Hazard Index2.3E-04

Day 150 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1

Table 15 Risk Estimates for Dingo Halliburton CleanStimAUS Theoretical Exposure for Day 0


Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs TI Incidental IngestionAluminum sulfate 10043-01-3 8.4E+01Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 4.8E-01 2.4E+02 7.6E-04 3.1E-06Lactose 63-42-3 3.7E+01 6.4E+02 5.9E-02 9.2E-05Maltodextrin 9050-36-6 4.7E+01Sodium chloride 7447-40-7 3.2E+02Shellac, ammonium salt 68308-35-8 9.6E+00 2.0E+02 1.5E-02 7.5E-05Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose 9004-32-4 6.4E+02Sodium lauryl sulfate 151-21-3 1.3E+01 4.6E+01 2.1E-02 4.6E-04Sorbitan, monododecanoate, poly(oxy-1,2-diethanediyl) 9005-65-5 2.4E+01 1.0E+03 3.8E-02 3.8E-05Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9 2.1E+01Talc 14807-96-6 4.8E-01Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 4.8E-01Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 -

Hazard Index6.7E-04

Day 0 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1



Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs TI Incidental IngestionAluminum sulfate 10043-01-3 8.4E+01Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 4.7E-04 2.4E+02 7.4E-07 3.0E-09Lactose 63-42-3 3.6E-02 6.4E+02 5.8E-05 9.0E-08Maltodextrin 9050-36-6 4.6E-02Sodium chloride 7447-40-7 3.2E+02Shellac, ammonium salt 68308-35-8 9.6E+00 2.0E+02 1.5E-02 7.5E-05Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose 9004-32-4 3.2E+02Sodium lauryl sulfate 151-21-3 1.3E-02 4.6E+01 2.1E-05 4.5E-07Sorbitan, monododecanoate, poly(oxy-1,2-diethanediyl) 9005-65-5 1.2E+01 1.0E+03 1.9E-02 1.9E-05Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9 2.1E+01Talc 14807-96-6 4.8E-01Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 4.8E-01Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 -

Hazard Index9.4E-05

Day 150 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1

A

ppe

nd

ix C

3-1

Appendix C3-1

Table A-1 Surface Water Quality Data for Theoretical Scenario in Initial Flowback for DeltaFoam 140

Page 1 of 1

Delta 140DeltaFoam

140Linear Gel

Linear Gel

FoamedWater 20% 40% 60% 80%

1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one 2634-33-5 2 2 1 1 - 0.27 0.53 0.80 1.07

Acetic acid 64-19-7 210 210 210 210 - 28.00 56.00 84.00 112.00

Alcohols, C10-12, ethoxylated 67254-71-1 24 24 24 24 - 3.20 6.40 9.60 12.80

Alkylated quaternary chloride 75-57-0 2,068 2,068 2,069 2,069 2,069 275.73 551.47 827.20 1102.93

Bentonite 121888-68-4 240 240 240 240 - 32.00 64.00 96.00 128.00

Calcium chloride 10043-52-4 2 2 1 1 - 0.27 0.53 0.80 1.07

Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 12 12 12 12 - 1.60 3.20 4.80 6.40

Enzyme X - 2 2 2 2 - 0.27 0.53 0.80 1.07

Ethanol 64-17-5 1,123 1,123 1,123 1,123 - 149.73 299.47 449.20 598.93

Fatty acid ester 1,2 - 281 281 281 281 - 37.47 74.93 112.40 149.87

Ethoxylated fatty acid ester 1,2 - 281 281 281 281 - 37.47 74.93 112.40 149.87

Guar gum 1 9000-30-0 2,397 2,397 2,397 2,397 - 319.60 639.20 958.80 1278.40

Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 1,739 1,739 - - - 231.87 463.73 695.60 927.47

Polyethylene glycol oleate ester 1 56449-46-8 24 24 24 24 - 3.20 6.40 9.60 12.80

Silica gel 112926-00-8 24 24 24 24 - 3.20 6.40 9.60 12.80

Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 66 66 33 33 - 8.80 17.60 26.40 35.20

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 455 455 - - - 60.67 121.33 182.00 242.67

THPS 55566-30-8 84 84 84 84 84 11.20 22.40 33.60 44.80

Sodium sulfate 7757-82-6 8 8 8 8 - 1.07 2.13 3.20 4.27

Sodium sulfite 7757-83-7 4 4 4 4 - 0.53 1.07 1.60 2.13

Sodium thiosulfate 7772-98-7 229 229 229 229 - 30.53 61.07 91.60 122.13

Terpene hydrocarbon by-products 68956-56-9 94 94 94 94 - 12.53 25.07 37.60 50.13

Terpene and Terpenoids, sweet orange oil 1 68647-72-3 94 94 94 94 - 12.53 25.07 37.60 50.13

Coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine 61789-40-0 - 1,247 - 1,247 - 166.27 332.53 498.80 665.07



percent of mass returned calculated using equation:

Mud Pitcon = FBconcentration (mg/L)/ FB dilution

150% x percent mass returned (%)



A

ppe

nd

ix C

3-2

Appendix C3-2

Table C-1. Comparison of Estimated Halliburton CleanStimAUS Theoretical Concentrations to Human Health Drinking Water Guidelines

Page 1 of 1

CleanStimAUS Half-Life 0 30 150 300 0 30 150 300

Aluminum sulfate 10043-01-3 633 NA 84.40 84.4 84.4 84.4 1.8E-01 4.7E+02 4.7E+02 4.7E+02 4.7E+02

Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 3.6 15 0.5 0.1 0.0005 0.0000005 2.1E+00 2.3E-01 5.7E-02 2.2E-04 2.2E-07

Lactose 63-42-3 280 15 37.3 9.3 0.036 0.00004 5.5E+00 6.8E+00 1.7E+00 6.6E-03 6.5E-06

Maltodextrin 9050-36-6 356 15 47.5 11.9 0.046 0.00005 -

Sodium chloride 7447-40-7 2,397 NA 319.6 319.6 319.6 319.6 1.8E+02 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00

Shellac, ammonium salt 68308-35-8 72 NA 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 1.8E+00 5.3E+00 5.3E+00 5.3E+00 5.3E+00

Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose 9004-32-4 4,793 150 639.1 556.3 319.5 159.8 -

Sodium lauryl sulfate 151-21-3 100 15 13.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 4.0E+00 3.3E+00 8.3E-01 3.3E-03 3.2E-06

Sorbitan, monododecanoate, poly(oxy-1,2-diethanediyl) 9005-65-5 181 150 24.1 21.0 12.1 6.0 8.8E+01 2.8E-01 2.4E-01 1.4E-01 6.9E-02

Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9 158 NA 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 5.0E+02 4.2E-02 4.2E-02 4.2E-02 4.2E-02

Talc 14807-96-6 3.6 NA 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 -

Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 3.6 NA 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 -

Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 - - - - - -

Water 7732-18-5 - - - - - -

Highlighted cells are ratios greater than one and indicate a potentially unacceptable risk Cumulative Ratio 487 479 476 476

Temporal Scenario (days)

Drinking

Water

Guideline

(mg/L)

Ratio of COPC Concentrations and

Screening Criteria (Ratio greater than

one = unacceptable potential risk)



Estimated concentration

in pre-injection fluid

systems (mg/L)

Estimated Initial Mud Pit Concentration in flowback (150%

of injected fluid volume) per coal seam per 20% of mass

returned calculated using equation: Mud Pitcon =

FBconcentration (mg/L)/ FB dilution 150% x percent mass

returned (mg/L) x Biodegradation (half life)

Fate and

Transport

Properties

Table C-2. Comparison of Estimated Theoretical Halliburton CleanStimAUS Concentrations to Aquatic Life Water Guidelines

Page 1 of 1

CleanStimAUS Half-Life 0 30 150 300 0 30 150 300

Aluminum sulfate 10043-01-3 633 NA 84.40 84.4 84.4 84.4 6.0E-02 1.4E+03 1.4E+03 1.4E+03 1.4E+03

Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 3.6 15 0.5 0.1 0.0005 0.0000005 3.3E-01 1.5E+00 3.6E-01 1.4E-03 1.4E-06

Lactose 63-42-3 280 15 37.3 9.3 0.036 0.00004 8.1E+01 4.6E-01 1.2E-01 4.5E-04 4.4E-07

Maltodextrin 9050-36-6 356 15 47.5 11.9 0.046 0.00005 -

Sodium chloride 7447-40-7 2,397 NA 319.6 319.6 319.6 319.6 -

Shellac, ammonium salt 68308-35-8 72 NA 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 -

Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose 9004-32-4 4,793 150 639.1 556.3 319.5 159.8 5.0E-01 1.3E+03 1.1E+03 6.4E+02 3.2E+02

Sodium lauryl sulfate 151-21-3 100 15 13.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 9.0E-02 1.5E+02 3.7E+01 1.4E-01 1.4E-04

Sorbitan, monododecanoate, poly(oxy-1,2-diethanediyl) 9005-65-5 181 150 24.1 21.0 12.1 6.0 1.0E-01 2.4E+02 2.1E+02 1.2E+02 6.0E+01

Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9 158 NA 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 2.6E-03 8.1E+03 8.1E+03 8.1E+03 8.1E+03

Talc 14807-96-6 3.6 NA 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 -

Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 3.6 NA 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5E-05 1.9E+04 1.9E+04 1.9E+04 1.9E+04

Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 - - - - - -

Water 7732-18-5 - - - - - -

Highlighted cells are ratios greater than one and indicate a potentially unacceptable risk Cumulative Ratio 30,379 30,070 29,469 29,089


PNEC

aquatic

(mg/L)








systems (mg/L)






Fate and

Transport

Properties

1

Appendix C4 Schlumberger Clearfrac XT Fluid System

2

I

ntr

od

uction



health and environmental (e.g., ecological) risks as a result of the hydraulic fracturing processes and

the Schlumberger ClearFRAC XT fluid system.

EHS Support, LLC (EHS Support) conducted a persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity (PBT)

assessment and compared ClearFRAC XT fluid system to the Schlumberger water and guar based

system discussed in Appendix C1 (EHS Support, 2013). The assessment was conducted to meet

Conditions 49e and 49f of the 2 October 2011 approval under the Environmental Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC 2008/4059) and the Environmental Amendment (EA)

conditions to assess the toxicity of the mixtures.


EHS Support, Inc. 2013. Memorandum: “ClearFRAC PBT Assessment and Comparison to Primary

Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid” Dated 27 June 2013.

The results and conclusions of the fluid system evaluation are summarised below. Refer to the text of

this report for detailed discussions on mythologies employed for each component; specific tables

referred to in this summary are included for review with this document. Table numbers specific to the

original reports were retained for consistency between documents.





appendix.

3

Q

ualit

ative R

isk A

ssessm

ent

and

E

valu

atio

n



Chemical constituents identified in the ClearFRAC XT fracturing fluid system were evaluated in the

hydraulic fracturing risk assessments. The list of individual chemicals is presented in Table 1. A mass

balance of the chemicals within each of the hydraulic fracturing fluid systems is provided as Appendix

C4-1 (Attachment 1; EHS Support, 2013).


ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), that PAHs occur naturally

in coal, and it is possible that certain PAHs will naturally be present in the coal seam groundwater used



Chemical CAS Number

Water (including mix water supplied by client) -

Cyrstalline silica 14808-60-7

Erucic amidopropyl dimethyl betaine 149879-98-1

Propan-2-ol 67-63-0

Cholinium chloride 67-48-1

Sodium chloride 7647-14-5

Benzenesulfonic acid, 4-ethenyl-, sodium salt, homopolymer 25704-18-1


Vinylidene chloride/methalacrylate copolymer 25038-72-6

Sodium chloroacetate 3926-62-3

Acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with ethenol 25213-24-5

Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3

Polyvinyl acetate, partially hydrolyzed 304443-60-5


Magnesium nitrate 13077-60-3

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4

Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3

2-methyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one 2682-20-4

Cristobalite 14464-46-1



the risk assessment for the Schlumberger ClearFRAC XT Fluid System. The work has involved the

following evaluations:


PBT Assessment

4

Q

ualit

ative R

isk A

ssessm

ent

and

E

valu

atio

n

Exposure Assessment

Mass Balance of the fluid system.

As noted in Section 7.2, fate and transport of previously modelled fluid systems was not sensitive to

the variability in physical properties of chemicals. Due to the broad range of physical properties

assessed, the limited transport observed in the model and limited impact that physical properties has

on transport distances, fate and transport of the chemicals present in this fluid system was not

considered warranted.


A quantitative risk assessment (QRA) was conducted for the original Schlumberger fluid system

(Appendix C1) to estimate potential risks from exposures to the fluid system as discussed in Section

8.0. The constituents of the ClearFRAC XT fluid system were compared to those present in the original

fluid system to determine if toxicological information or projected chemical concentrations would result

in a greater risk to human health or the environment than those in the Schlumberger water and guar

based system.



C2.3 PBT Assessment

The PBT approach outlined in Section 6.1 was undertaken to rank the hydraulic fracturing chemicals

based on persistence (P), bioaccumulation (B) and toxic (T) potential. As a result of this assessment,

no chemical constituents identified in the ClearFRAC XT fluid system was classified as a PBT chemical

and is therefore not considered to be inherently hazardous (Table 1; EHS Support, 2013)


As discussed in Section 8.0, detailed human health and environmental toxicological profiles and

supporting documents were developed for the chemicals within the ClearFRAC XT system

(Appendices F and G; Attachment 2, EHS Support, 2013). Physical, chemical, and toxicoloigical data

on the ClearFRAC XT constituents were collected in accordance with the methodology outlined in

Section 6.0 and the Schlumberger water and guar based fluid system (Appendix C1).

C2.5 Summary of Qualitative PBT and Human Toxicity Assessment

In accordance with the methodology outlined in Section 6.1, the chemicals identified in the

Schlumberger ClearFRAC XT fluid system were assessed for their potential persistence,

bioaccumulation, and toxicity in the PBT assessment. None of the chemicals was considered to be

inherently hazardous.



chemicals of potential concern (COPC) identified for the study, and outlines the exposure pathways by

which the receptors may come in to contact with the COPCs. A detailed exposure assessment was not

5

Q

ualit

ative R

isk A

ssessm

ent

and

E

valu

atio

n

conducted in the qualitative risk assessment; however, hazards from potential exposures were

determined to be consistent with exposures identified in the Schlumberger water and guar based fluid

system (Appendix C1): primarily occupational concerns with some limited environmental matters.



additive of the hydraulic fracturing fluid system. Specific details regarding the methodology of the

calculation are presented in Section 4.7 of this report. The results of the mass balance calculations

are presented in the referenced Attachment 1 (EHS Support, 2013) which is included in Appendix C3-

1.


As noted in previously, fate and transport of previously modelled fluid systems was not sensitive to the

variability in physical properties of chemicals. Due to the broad range of physical properties assessed,

the limited transport observed in the model and limited impact that physical properties has on transport

distances, fate and transport of the chemicals present in this fluid system was not considered warranted.

Additionally, the modelling demonstrated that there is limited potential for chemicals to migrate within

the coal seams.

6

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

en

t


and empirical datasets for those chemicals identified in the human health and ecological toxicity

evaluation for the Schlumberger water and guar based system (Appendix C1; EHS Support, 2013). A

QRA specific to ClearFRAC XT fluid system chemicals was not conducted; however, the chemicals

were compared to the original Schlumberger fluid system components to identify relative risks in the

ClearFRAC XT fluid system (Table 2; EHS Support, 2013). The QRA approach evaluates the toxicity

of the individual substances, and characterises the cumulative risks of the total effluent toxicity and

ecotoxicity.















to manage exposures. Similar to the original formulation, the following are considered specific exposure

pathways:


2. Exposure of terrestrial receptors (e.g., livestock and wildlife) to flowback water contained within













assessment for ClearFRAC XT fluid system and compared to the theoretical EPCs developed for the

Schlumberger water and guar based system (Table 3; EHS Support, 213). In general, there were fewer

7

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

en

t

constituents in the ClearFRAC XT system, including fewer solvents. In addition, the estimated

concentrations were less for chemicals present in both systems.


A detailed human health hazard assessment was not conducted on the ClearFRAC XT chemicals. The

QRA conducted on the previous Schlumberger fluid system (refer to Appendix C1) identified potential

risks to human health that would be expected to be similar to or greater than the potential risks from

ClearFRAC XT due to the toxicological properties previously discussed and the estimated EPCs

(Appendix C4-1).







Appendix F.


exposure scenarios as discussed in Section 8.4. Refer to Table 2 for details regarding the toxicity

assessment of the ClearFRAC XT chemicals (EHS Support, 2013).


A specific estimate of risk was not conducted for exposure to the ClearFRAC XT chemicals as the

potential risks to human health and the environment presented in the Schlumberger water and guar

based system were expected to be similar or greater than the potential risks from the ClearFRAC XT

chemicals (EHS Support, 2013). Refer to Appendix C1 for risk estimation on potential exposures to

the water and guar based system.


Similar to the human health assessment, a detailed ecological risk assessment (ERA) was not

conducted specifically for the ClearFRAC XT chemicals. Rather, an environmental health toxicological

review was conducted, theoretical chemical concentrations in flowback water were estimated, and

results were compared to the QRA conducted on the Schlumberger water and guar based system

(Appendix C1), which follows the approach outlined in Section 8.5.

8

S

um

mary

of Q

RA

Fin

din

gs

Summary of QRA Findings The detailed QRA was not completed for the ClearFRAC XT chemicals as discussed in Section C4-3.

However, a detailed QRA was conducted on the original Schlumberger fluid system (Appendix C1) in

accordance with the methodology outlined in Section 8.0. As the ClearFRAC XT fluid system was

developed by Schlumberger as a more environmentally fluid system than their original formulation, the

composition is similar with substitutions for less hazardous chemicals.

Consistent with the risk assessment and groundwater fate and transport modelling conducted by Golder

Associates Pty Ltd. (Golder), no potentially complete exposure pathways were identified for

groundwater. Potential exposures are limited to the aboveground storage and handling of flowback

water as part of the CSG Water Management Plan (WMP). Management of CSG water involves the

temporary storage of flowback water in flowback storage ponds.

The ClearFRAC XT replacement chemicals were found to exhibit lower toxicity than those in the original

formulation. Estimated concentrations in the pre-injection fluid system were found to be less than those

in the original formulation. In addition, fewer constituents are present in the ClearFRAC XT fluid system

than the water and guar based system. On this basis, the potential risks from exposure to chemicals

in ClearFRAC XT were expected to be less than or equal to those estimated for the water and guar

based system discussed in Appendix C1.





Flowback storage pond fencing to prevent entry of livestock and minimise trespassing.


ponds


9

D

ire

ct

To

xic

ity A

na

lysis



10

C

onclu

sio

ns


Schlumberger ClearFRAC XT fluid system. Based on the qualitative and comparison to the

Schlumberger water and guar based quantitative risk characterisations, the overall risk to human health

and the environment is low. Existing operational control activities employed by Santos are in place that

will limit the potential risks to human health and the environment. These measures include:



or sediments;












seam; and










T

ab

les

Tables

A

ppe

ndix

C4

-1

Appendix C4-1

1

Appendix C5 Halliburton Alternative System (Delta 140

Formulation)

2

I

ntr

od

uction


Compendium), a weight-of-evidence approach was used by Santos Ltd. (Santos) to evaluate the

potential for human health and environmental (e.g., ecological) risks as a result of the hydraulic

fracturing processes and the Halliburton alternative fluid system (Delta 140 formulation).

Golder Associates Pty Ltd. (Golder), on behalf of Santos, completed a qualitative risk assessment

(Golder, 2013) that evaluated the nature of the geology in the areas undergoing stimulation, the

potential for impacts on water resources, the process and chemicals used.




Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC 2008/4059) and the Environmental Amendment (EA) conditions to



Golder Associates Pty Ltd. 2013. “Hydraulic fracturing risk assessment – Human Health and

Ecological Risk Assessment Delta 140” Dated August 2013.


Report for Halliburton Delta 140 Chemistry Report” Dated 4 August 2013.

The QRA evaluated both the original DeltaFoam 140 and Delta 140 formulations; refer to Appendix C2

for discussion of the results of the EHS Support QRA for the original DeltaFoam 140 fluid system.





documents.





appendix.

3

Q

ua

litative R

isk A

ssessm

ent

and

Evalu

atio

n





system were evaluated in the hydraulic fracturing risk assessments. The list of individual chemicals is

presented in Table 1. A mass balance of the chemicals within each of the hydraulic fracturing fluid

systems is provided as Appendix C5-1 (Table C-1; Golder, 2013).










Chemical CAS Number

Guar Gum 9000-30-0

Acetic Acid 64-19-7

Coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine 61789-40-0

Tetrakis (hydroxymethyl) phosphonium sulphate (THPS) 55566-30-8

Sodium hydroxide 1 1310-73-2



Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7


Alcohols, C6-C-12, ethoxylated propoxylated 68937-66-6

Alcohols, C10-C16, ethoxylated propoxylated 69227-22-1

Choline chloride 2 67-48-1

Ethylene glycol 107-21-1

Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8

Maltodextrin 9050-36-6

Polyethylene glycol 25322-68-3

Coffee beans (green coffee bean extract; chlorogenic acid) 327-97-9

Coffee beans (caffeine) 58-08-2

1. Chemical excluded from linear gel formulation.

2. Chemical included in water formulation.

4

Q

ualit

ative R

isk A

ssessm

ent

and

Evalu

atio

n



the risk assessment for the Schlumberger fluid systems. The work has involved the following

evaluations:







Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA)










Substance Database, and modelled data from United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) (2009) EPISUITE modelling software, when data not available from other sources. Refer to

Appendix E of the Golder Risk Assessment presents MSDSs for the chemicals; Appendix A of the

Golder Risk Assessment presents the chemical information sheets used (Golder, 2103).

Of the 18 chemicals listed above, three were not considered for PBT ranking: sodium hydroxide and

hydrochloric acid due to their propensity to readily dissociate; crystalline silica due to its similarity to

sand, which is used as a proppant. Physico-chemical and/or toxicological data were not available and

surrogates could not be identified for maltodextrin (64-17-5). Limited toxicological data were available

for polyethylene glycol (25322-68-3) and guar gum (9000-30-0); however, physico-chemical data were

lacking for these constituents. Therefore, they were ranked solely on their respective toxicity data.

C2.4 Summary of Qualitative PBT and Human Toxicity Assessment

In accordance with the methodology outlined in Section 6.1, eighteen chemicals identified in the

Halliburton alternative fluid system (Delta 140) were assessed for their potential persistence,

bioaccumulation and toxicity in the PBT assessment. .

5

Q

ualit

ative R

isk A

ssessm

ent

and

Evalu

atio

n




in to contact with the COPCs. A detailed exposure assessment was not conducted in the qualitative

risk assessment; however, hazards from potential exposures were determined to be primarily

occupational concerns with some limited environmental matters (Golder, 2013).



additive of the hydraulic fracturing fluid in the following fluid systems:

Delta 140

Linear Gel

Water

Acid.


The results of the mass balance calculations are presented in the referenced Table C-1 (Golder, 2013)



As discussed in Section 7.2 fate and transport modelling was conducted on key constituents of interest

in the hydraulic fracturing fluid systems. These results provided the framework for assessing potential

mobility of all constituents used in hydraulic fracturing. The modelling demonstrated that there is limited

potential for chemicals to migrate within the coal seams. Refer to Section 7.2 for further detail.

6

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent

Quantitative Risk Assessment In accordance with the methodologies presented in Section 8.0, a QRA was conducted on a theoretical

datasets for those chemicals identified in the Golder Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment

(EHS Support, 2013). The QRA approach evaluates the toxicity of the individual substances, and

characterises the cumulative risks of the total effluent toxicity and ecotoxicity.


















the flowback storage ponds.














monitoring data were used Appendix C5-2 (Appendix C, Table C-2; EHS Support, 2013).






7

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

en

t





swimming where the whole body gets wet) for one half hour (Table 3; EHS Support, 2013).


Ingestion of water:




Where:

















Appendix F.


exposure scenarios as discussed in Section 8.4. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 of the EHS Support QRA for

details regarding the toxicity assessment of the COPCs (EHS Support, 2013).







fracturing fluids event from Golder (2013) Table C-1, for the 20 and 80 percent mass recovery from the

fracturing fluid well flowback. The modelled risks from injected chemicals in the flowback water at 20

percent mass recovery were acceptable (HI=0.94); the modelled risks to the trespasser for the

maximum exposure to COPCs at the 80 percent recovery predicted a HI of 3.8 (Tables 6 and 7; EHS

8

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

en

t

Support, 2013). The primary risk drivers for this scenario were coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine and

THPS via incidental ingestion, and C6-C12 ethozylanted propoxylated alcohols via dermal contact.

Based on field observations, the risk assessment conducted on 80 percent mass recovery in the

flowback water diverted to the flowback storage ponds, is highly conservative. These conditions are

not observed in the fields as the combination of biodegradation and sorption in the subsurface and

biodegradation, complexation and settling of suspended solids in the flowback storage ponds results in

lower concentrations. Based on stimulation flowback monitoring conducted by Santos and the QRA

completed for the Schlumberger fluid systems (EHS Support, 2013), 20 percent of the total mass of

constituents injected is assumed to be recovered in the flowback water. On this basis and using the

theoretical concentrations, no adverse effects are predicted on trespassers.













2013).



acceptable.






section above, the lack of a robust aquatic toxicological database resulted in aquatic screening values

for the theoretical exposure scenario COPCs to be conservatively very low.


ecological receptors modelled, except livestock cattle for the maximum exposure to COPCs at the 80

percent recovery indicating a HI equal to 2.0 (Tables 15 and 6, 19 and 20, 23 and 24; EHS Support,

2013). Primary risk drivers were coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine and THPS via incidental ingestion.

As discussed in the HHRA, 80 percent recovery conditions are not observed in the fields. A recovery

of 20 percent is more realistic based on stimulation flowback monitoring conducted by Santos (EHS

Support, 2013).

9

S

um

mary

of Q

RA

Fin

din

gs


conservative theoretical calculations based on the chemicals utilised by Halliburton in hydraulic


would be present in the flowback water.






On the basis of the quantitative risk calculations, the potential risks associated with the flowback water

are generally limited. Potential risks to trespassers could occur with repeated exposures to flowback

water. However, the cumulative risks are only slightly above the non-carcinogenic threshold discussed

above where management and operational controls can be implemented to control potential exposures.


Limited to no risks to cattle and native mammals were identified in the risk assessment; and only in the

most conservative theoretical calculations (80 percent chemical mass in the flowback water) were

potentially unacceptable risks identified. Based on contractor experience and stimulation flowback

monitoring, 20 percent of the total mass constituents injected is assumed to be recovered in flowback

water. Additionally, environmental fate information indicated primary risk drivers are readily

biodegradable. Therefore, no potential risks exist for livestock or native mammals.


environments. Based on the use of clay liners and operational controls that limit the potential for turkey

nest and dam overflows, the potential for these risks are also considered limited.





Flowback storage pond fencing to prevent entry of livestock and minimise trespassing


ponds


10

D

ire

ct

To

xic

ity A

na

lysis



11

C

onclu

sio

ns


Halliburton alternative fluid system (Delta 140). Based on the qualitative and quantitative risk






or sediments;


a watercourse of water body.










seam; and










E

HS

Supp

ort

Tab

les

EHS Support Tables

A

ppe

ndix

C5

-1

Appendix C5-1

A

ppe

ndix

C5

-2

Appendix C5-2

A

ppe

ndix

C5

-3

Appendix C5-3

1

APPENDIX C6 Schlumberger YF120Flex with J318 System

2

I

ntr

od

uction


Compendium), Santos Ltd. (Santos) used a weight-of-evidence approach to evaluate the potential for

human health and environmental (e.g., ecological) risks as a result of the hydraulic fracturing processes

and the Schlumber YF120Flex with J318 System.



potential for impacts on water resources, the process and chemicals used and the potential risks

associated with chemicals and backflow water handled and stored above grade.

EHS Support, LLC (EHS Support) conducted a persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity (PBT)

assessment and and a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) to meet Conditions 49e and 49f of the 2

October 2011 approval under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

(EPBC 2008/4059) and the Environmental Amendment (EA) conditions to assess the toxicity of the

mixtures.

The results and conclusions of the qualitative risk assessment components and the QRA are presented

below. Refer to Section 6.0 through Section 8.0 of the RA Compendium for detailed discussions on

the methodologies employed for the qualitative risk assessment and QRA components, which are

referenced in the sections below.





3

Q

ualit

ative R

isk A

ssessm

ent

and

Evalu

atio

n



The Schlumberger YF120Flex with J318 'fluid system' was assessed. The list of individual chemicals is

presented in Table 1 below. A mass balance of the chemicals is provided as Appendix C6-1.


Appendix D of this report. Information regarding the chemical and physical properties of the individual

chemicals listed below as well as the approximate percentage present in the hydraulic fracturing system

can be found on the MSDSs.

While none of the fracturing fluid chemicals identified contain benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes

(BTEX) or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PAHs occur naturally in coal and it is possible that

certain PAHs may naturally be present in the coal seam groundwater used in the hydraulic fracturing

process.


Chemical CAS Number


Guar gum 9000-30-0

Potassium borate 1332-77-0

Cholinium chloride 67-48-1

2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6

Diammonium peroxidisulphate 7727-54-0



Potassium hydroxide 1310-58-3

Glycerol 56-81-5



Non-crystalline silica 7631-86-9





Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 25038-72-6


As discussed in Section 5.0 of the RA Compendium, a systematic weight of evidence approach was

utilised to complete the risk assessment for the Schlumberger fluid systems. The work has involved the



PBT Assessment

Exposure Assessment

Mass Balance of Fluid System

Fate and Transport Modeling.

4

Q

ualit

ative R

isk A

ssessm

ent

and

Evalu

atio

n






C2.3 PBT Assessment

The PBT approach outlined in Section 6.1 of the RA Compendium was undertaken to rank the hydraulic

fracturing chemicals based on persistence (P), bioaccumulation (B) and toxic (T) potential. As a result

of this assessment, no chemical constituents identified in the YF120Flex with J318 fluid system were

classified as a PBT chemical and are therefore not considered to be inherently hazardous. The results

of the PBT Assessment are presented in Table 2.


As discussed in Section 7.0 of the RA Compendium, the exposure assessment identified receptors

potentially exposed to chemicals of potential concern (COPC) identified for the study, and outlines the

exposure pathways by which the receptors may come in to contact with the COPCs. A detailed exposure

assessment was not conducted in the qualitative risk assessment.



additive of the hydraulic fracturing fluid system. The results of the mass balance calculations are

presented in Appendix C6-1.


As discussed in Section 7.2 of the RA Compendium, fate and transport modelling was conducted on a

range of key constituents of interest in typical hydraulic fracturing fluid systems. These results provided

the framework for assessing potential mobility of all constituents used in hydraulic fracturing. The

modelling demonstrated that despite the variability in chemical properties between fluid systems there

is limited potential for chemicals to migrate within the coal seams. Refer to Section 7.2 for further detail.

5

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

en

t


datasets for those chemicals identified in the YF120Flex with J318 fluid system. The QRA approach

evaluates the toxicity of the individual substances, and characterises the cumulative risks of the total

effluent toxicity and ecotoxicity.































were calculated by estimating the mass and discharge flow of the COPCs in the flowback water.






6

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

en

t




for a 10 year period with potential incidental ingestion [of 50 millilitres (ML) of water] and dermal contact

(e.g., swimming where the whole body gets wet) for one half hour. The exposure parameters used in

the QRA are presented on Table 3.


Ingestion of water:




Where:










DP = dermal permeability factor (Kp – cm/hr).







Appendix F.


exposure scenarios as discussed in Section 8.4. The derivation of Oral Reference Dose and Drinking

Water Guideline Values are presented in Table 4, and the Australian Drinking Water Screening Values

are presented inn Table 5.

C3.4 Exposure Point Concentration

As presented above, the exposure scenarios are based on anticipated conditions, and the potential for

exposure to the theoretical estimate of exposure. EPCs for the exposure assessment were calculated

using the results of theoretical fate and transport modelling calculations and the existing environmental

conditions within the fracturing fluids sump or mud pit, and the flowback storage ponds.

For the theoretical calculations, the mass and estimated chemical concentrations of the COPCs in the

YF120Flex with J318 fluids, as presented in Appendix C6-1, were used to estimate the potential

concentrations in water within the fracturing fluids sump or flare pit, or flowback storage ponds. Based

on stimulation flow back monitoring conducted by Santos and the QRA completed for the Schlumberger

7

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

en

t

Fluid Systems (Appendix C), 20 percent of the total mass of constituents injected is assumed to be

recovered in the flowback water. This mass is diluted within 150% of the injected volume (the minimum

volume that must be flowed back) to establish an “estimated” concentration (i.e., concentration expected

due to full dilution of the back flow water) within the flowback storage ponds.

The flowback water will be contained within the flowback storage ponds for a projected maximum period

of one year of operational activity before transfer or conveyance to the water treatment facilities.

Therefore, the concentration of COPCs in the flowback storage pond water was adjusted, where

applicable, to account for the biodegradation and photolytic degradation of constituents over time. The

biodegradation information was obtained from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) ready tests (OECD, 1992) that were developed as a first tier testing scheme to

provide preliminary screening of organic chemicals. The ready tests are stringent screening tests that

are conducted under aerobic conditions in which a high concentration of the test substance is used,

and biodegradation is measured by non-specific parameters including dissolved organic carbon,

biochemical oxygen demand and carbon dioxide production. Table 6 presents the environmental fate

information that was used to assess biodegradation of COPCs, and that was applied at the time periods

of 0, 30, 150 and 300 days from initial flowback.

The water quality data derived using these assumptions for the theoretical COPCs are presented in

Appendix C6-1.

The theoretical EPCs for the four exposure time periods (0, 30, 150 and 300 days) were compared to

human health toxicity-based screening levels, and the results of this comparison, including the ratio of

exceedance of screening levels, is presented in Appendix C6-2.






result, only non-carcinogenic risks were calculated.

The results of the theoretical assessments for YF120Flex with J318 fluid systems for the trespasser

exposure scenarios (day 0 and day 150, YF120Flex with J318 events) are summarized in Tables 7 and

8. As discussed above, the theoretical assessment was only conducted at the well pad sites.

The exposure scenarios include the YF120Flex with J318 fluid system event, as presented in Appendix

C6-1 for day 0 and day 150 from the flowback storage pond. The trespasser for day 0 did not have

unacceptable risks for the YF120Flex with J318 fluid system (HI=0.49, Table 7). The trespasser for day

150 did not have unacceptable risks for the YF120Flex with J318 fluid system (HI=0.47, Table 8).

On this basis and using the theoretical concentrations, no adverse effects are predicted on trespassers.





8

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

sse

ssm

ent






The estimate for dose-based or intake rates for the assessment endpoints for wildlife representing

domestic livestock and native mammalian species used the following general equation:

TI = Cwater x IRwater x EF x ED / BW x ED x 365 days/year

Where:

TI = Total intake of COPC (mg/kg/day)

Cwater = Concentration of COPC in water (mg/l)

IRwater = Ingestion rate (litres/day)

EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)

ED = Exposure duration (years)

BW = Body weight (kg).

Tables 9 through 11 provide the lift-history input values for ingestion rates, exposure frequency,

exposure duration and BW.


To evaluate the potential for adverse ecological effects, toxicity reference values (TRVs) are selected

as measurement endpoints for the ERA that will be used in the risk analysis. The TRVs are based on

COPC levels that imply no adverse effects or levels that represent the lowest concentration at which

adverse effects may occur. The ERA used two types of TRVs. The first TRV is a concentration-based

TRV to evaluate the concentration of the selected COPC in the surface water and direct exposure by

the aquatic ecological receptor. The determination of TRVs for freshwater was conducted according to

the predicted no-effects concentration (PNEC) guidance in the Environmental Risk Assessment

Guidance Manual for Industrial Chemicals prepared by the Australian Environmental Agency (AEA,

2009). Table 12 presents the COPC, the endpoint, NOEC [milligrams per litre (mg/L)], assessment

factor and the aquatic PNEC (mg/L). The second TRV is a dose-based TRV to evaluate the intake dose

of the selected COPC from exposure to surface water by ingestion. The calculated TRVs for each of

the mammalian ecological receptors evaluated in the ERA are presented in the species-specific

ecological risk models.


EPCs for the exposure assessment were calculated using the results of theoretical fate and transport

modelling calculations. The potentially affected flowback water that represents complete exposure

pathways for the ecological receptors includes the surface water systems (e.g., flowback storage ponds

and mud pits) that were used to estimate the EPCs for the human health receptors. Similar to the EPCs

for the human health receptors, the EPCs for the ecological receptors assumed 20 percent of mass

returned in the flowback water was diluted within 150 percent of the injected volume of return water,

and was then adjusted based on biodegradation rates to calculate the theoretical EPCs for the four

exposure time periods (0, 30, 150, and 300 days). Appendix C6-1 presents the calculated EPCs for

the ecological receptor exposure scenarios. The theoretical EPCs for the four exposure time periods

9

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

en

t

(0, 30, 150, and 300 days) were compared to ecological based toxicity-based screening levels, and the

results of this comparison, including the ratio of exceedance of screening levels, is presented in

Appenidix C6-3.



acceptable.

C3.10 Estimation of Risk


majority of COPCs evaluated (Appendix C6-3). Where large discharges of flowback water occur to

surface water and/or flux dilution within the surface-water was insufficient, potential impacts on aquatic

receptors could occur. As noted in the toxicity assessment section above, the lack of a robust aquatic

toxicological database resulted in highly conservative aquatic screening values for the theoretical

exposure scenario COPCs to be conservatively very low.

The results of the theoretical assessments for YF120Flex with J318 fluid systems for the livestock cattle,

kangaroo and dingo are summarized in Tables 13 through 18. The exposure scenarios include the

YF120Flex with J318 fluid systems EPCs presented in Appendix C6-1 for day 0 and day 150 from the

fracturing fluid well flowback. The modelled risks from YF120Flex with J318 fluid system chemicals in

the flowback water were unacceptable for the livestock cattle (HI=6.8 to 6.9, Table 13 and 14) and

kangaroo (HI=1.4, Table 15 and 16) for both exposure scenarios. The primary risk driver was potassium

borate via incidental ingestion. The modelled risks from YF120Flex with J318 fluid system chemicals in

the flowback water were acceptable for the dingo (HI=0.58 to 0.57, Table 17 and 18) for both exposure

scenarios.

10

S

um

mary

of Q

RA

Fin

din

gs


conservative theoretical calculations based on the chemicals utilised by Schlumberger in hydraulic

fracturing. This assessment assumed that a range of theoretical concentrations of injected chemicals

would be present in the flowback water based on biodegradation rates, where applicable.






The results of the qualitative PBT Assessment indicated that no chemical constituents identified in the

YF120Flex with J318 fluid system was classified as a PBT chemical and therefore fluids containing

these chemicals are not considered inherently hazardous.

The two exposure scenarios modelled for the QRA were 20 percent flowback return, and either 0 or

150-day retention with EPC based on applicable degradation rates. Based on quantitative risk

calculations, the potential risks to the trespasser associated with the flowback water are acceptable.


The modelled risks from YF120Flex with J318 fluid system chemicals in the flowback water were

unacceptable for the livestock cattle and kangaroo for both exposure scenarios. The primary risk driver

was potassium borate via incidental ingestion. Potential risks to the dingo were acceptable for both

exposure scenarios.


environments. Based on the use of low permeability materials (clay liners) and operational controls that

limit the potential for turkey nest and dam overflows, the potential for these risks are also considered

limited.





Flowback storage pond fencing to prevent entry of livestock and native fauna and minimise

trespassing

Use of low permeability materials or dam liners and routine dam inspections to prevent releases

from flowback storage ponds


11

D

ire

ct

To

xic

ity A

na

lysis



12

C

onclu

sio

ns


Schlumberger YF120Flex with J318 fluid system. Based on the qualitative and quantitative risk






or sediments;












seam; and










13

T

ab

les

Tables

1 of 3

Table 2. PBT Assessment of the YF120Flex with J318 Fluid System

Substance P/vP criteria fulfilled? B/vB criteria fulfilled? T criteria fulfilled? Overall Conclusion

Crystalline Silica (14808-60-7)

Yes (naturally-occurring inorganic mineral)

No (water-insoluble mineral; not bioavailable)


Not PBT (based on physico-chemical properties)

Guar Gum (9000-30-0)

No (screening data estimated)

No (screening data available) No (screening data available)

Not PBT (based on screening and measured

data)

Potassium borate (1332-77-0)

Yes (inorganic salt) No (screening data available) Yes (measured data; human health

concerns)

Not PBT (based on screening and measured

data)

Cholineium chloride (67-48-1)

No (screening data available)


Not PBT (based on screening data)

2,2,2-nitrilotriethanol (102-71-6)


No (experimental data available)


Not PBT (based on screening and experimental

data)

Diammonium peroxidisulphate (7727-54-0)

Not applicable (ionic species ubiquitous in

environment)

No (essential ions to biological systems; actively

regulated)


Not PBT (based on screening data and

ubiquitous inorganic salt)

Potassium hydroxide (1310-58-3)


environment)


regulated)




Glycerol (56-81-5)




Hydrochloric acid (7647-01-0)


environment)


regulated)




2 of 3


Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer

(25038-72-6)

Yes (polymer not biodegradable)

No (polymer; not bioavailable) No (polymer; not bioavailable)

Not PBT

Diatomaceous earth, calcined (91053-39-3)





Magnesium nitrate (10377-60-3)


environment)

No (Mg is an essential ion to biological systems; nitrate

ions are water-soluble)




Non-crystalline silica (7631-86-9)

Not applicable (inorganic substances ubiquitous in the

environment)

Not applicable (inorganic substances ubiquitous in the

environment)


Not PBT (based on screening data and ubiquitous inorganic

substance)

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothazolo-3-one/2-methyl-2h-isothiasol-3-one

[3:1]

(55965-84-9)



Yes (screening data available)

Not PBT (based on screening and experimental

data)

Magnesium silicate hydrate [talc] (14807-96-6)





Magnesium chloride (7786-30-3)


environment)


regulated)




Cristobalite

(14464-46-1)





Crystalline Silica Yes (naturally-occurring No (water-insoluble mineral; No (water-insoluble Not PBT (based on physico-

3 of 3


(14808-60-7) inorganic mineral) not bioavailable) mineral; not bioavailable)

chemical properties)



IR Ingestion rate l/hr 0.05

ET Exposure time hr/day 0.5

EF Exposure frequency day/yr 20

ED Exposure duration yr 10

BW Body weight kg 47

AT-NC Averaging time - noncancer days 3,650

AT-C Averaging time - cancer days 25,550

SA Surface area for contact cm2/day 13,000

DP Dermal permeability factor cm/h chemical-specific

ET Exposure time hr/day 1






CF Conversion factor l/cm3

1.0E-03

Ingestion

Dermal

Page 1 of 1


Chemical (CAS No.) StudyCritical Effect/Target

Organ(s)

NOAEL

(mg/kg/day)

Uncertainty

Factors

Oral Reference

Dose

(mg/kg/day)

Drinking Water

Guideline (ppm)

Crystalline Silica (14808-60-7) NDa ND ND ND ND ND

Guar Gum (9000-30-0) Rat 2-yr drinking water General toxicity 1,250 100 12.5 44

Potassium borate (1332-77-0) Rat developmental Fetal body weight changes 10.3b 66 0.2

b 0.7 [boron]

Cholinium chloride (67-48-1) Human study Hypotension 7500b 2 50 [as choline] 175 [as choline]

2,2',2''-nitrilotriethanol (102-71-6) Rat 91-day dietary - 1,000 1,000 1 3.5

Glycerol (56-81-5) Rat 2-yr dietary - 8,000 100 80 280


(25038-72-6)ND ND ND ND ND ND

Diatomaceous earth, calcined (91053-39-3) ND ND ND ND ND ND

Non-crystalline silica (7631-86-9) Rat 2-yr dietary - 2,500 100 2.5 0.09

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothazolo-3-one/2-methyl-

2h-isothiasol-3-one [3:1] (55965-84-9)2-year rat drinking water

Gastric irritation of the

stomach2 100 0.0 0.07

Magnesium silicate hydrate [talc] (14807-96-6) ND ND ND ND ND ND

Cristobalite (14464-46-1) ND ND ND ND ND ND

a Not determined

b LOAEL

Page 1 of 1


Chemical (CAS No.) Drinking Water Screening Guideline Drinking Water Screening Value

Diammonium peroxidisulphate

(7727-54-0) sulfate 500 mg/L (health); 250 mg/L (aesthetic)

Potassium hydroxide

(1310-58-3) pH 6.5 to 8.5

Hydrochloric acid

(7647-01-0) pH, chloride 6.5 to 8.5; 250 mg/L (aesthetic)

Magnesium chloride (7786-30-3) Chloride 250 mg/L (aesthetic)

Magnesium nitrate (10377-60-3) Nitrate 50 mg/L (health)

Page 1 of 1


Crystalline Silica Water-insoluble mineral; not biodegradable

Guar Gum Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Potassium borate Water-soluble inorganic; (borate): not biodegradable

Cholinium chloride Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

2,2′,2′′-nitrilotriethanol Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Diammonium peroxidisulphate Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Potassium hydroxide Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Glycerol Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Hydrochloric acid Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Vinylidene chloride/methacrylate copolymer Polymer; not biodegradable

Diatomaceous earth, calcined Water-insoluble mineral; not biodegradable

Magnesium nitrate Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Non-crystalline silica Water-insoluble mineral; not biodegradable

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothazolo-3-one/2-methyl-2h-isothiasol-3-

one [3:1]

Half-lives in river water-sediment system are 17.3 and

9.1 hours, respectively.

Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) Water-insoluble mineral; not biodegradable

Magnesium chloride Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Cristobalite Water-insoluble mineral; not biodegradable


Page 1 of 1

Table 7 Risk Estimates for Trespasser Schlumberger YF120Flex with J318 Theoretical Exposure for Day 0

YF120Flex with J318

Hazard Quotient

Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) PC (cm/hr) RfDo CADDoral CADDderm Incidental Ingestion Dermal

Crystalline silica 14808-60-7 1.5E+04 NA - - - - -

Guar gum 9000-30-0 1.5E+03 NA 12.5 8.7E-02 - 7.0E-03 -

Potassium borate 1332-77-0 1.5E+03 5.1E-04 0.2 8.7E-02 5.8E-03 4.4E-01 2.9E-02

Cholinium chloride 67-48-1 1.5E+03 8.5E-07 50 8.7E-02 9.7E-06 1.7E-03 1.9E-07

2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 1.5E+02 5.1E-05 1 8.7E-03 5.7E-05 8.7E-03 5.7E-05

Diammonium peroxidisulphate 7727-54-0 1.5E+02 NA 142.8 8.7E-03 - 6.1E-05 -

Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1.5E+02 NA - - - -

Magnesium nitrate 10377-60-3 1.5E+02 9.3E-05 14.3 8.7E-03 1.1E-04 6.1E-04 7.4E-06

Potassium hydroxide 1310-58-3 1.5E+02NA

--

- -

Glycerol 56-81-5 1.5E+01 3.3E-05 80.0 8.7E-04 3.8E-06 1.1E-05 4.7E-08

Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 1.5E+01 NA - - - - -

Cristobalite 14464-46-1 1.5E+00 NA - - - - -

Non-crystalline silica 7631-86-9 1.5E+00 NA 2.5 8.7E-05 - 3.5E-05 -

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.5E+00 1.4E-04 0.02 8.7E-05 1.6E-06 4.4E-03 7.8E-05

ToxicityDay 0

Page 1 of 1

Table 8 Risk Estimates for Trespasser Schlumberger YF120Flex with J318 Theoretical Exposure for Day 150

YF120Flex with J318

Hazard Quotient



Guar gum 9000-30-0 1.5E+00 NA 12.5 8.5E-05 - 6.8E-06 -

Potassium borate 1332-77-0 1.5E+03 5.1E-04 0.2 8.7E-02 5.8E-03 4.4E-01 2.9E-02

Cholinium chloride 67-48-1 1.5E+00 8.5E-07 50 8.5E-05 9.4E-09 1.7E-06 1.9E-10

2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 1.5E-01 5.1E-05 1 8.5E-06 5.6E-08 8.5E-06 5.6E-08

Diammonium peroxidisulphate 7727-54-0 1.5E+02 NA 142.8 8.7E-03 - 6.1E-05 -

Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1.5E+02 NA - - - -

Magnesium nitrate 10377-60-3 1.5E+02 9.3E-05 14.3 8.7E-03 1.1E-04 6.1E-04 7.4E-06

Potassium hydroxide 1310-58-3 1.5E+02 NA - - - -

Glycerol 56-81-5 1.5E-02 3.3E-05 80.0 8.5E-07 3.7E-09 1.1E-08 4.6E-11

Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 1.5E+01 NA - - - - -

Cristobalite 14464-46-1 1.5E+00 NA - - - - -

Non-crystalline silica 7631-86-9 1.5E+00 NA 2.5 8.7E-05 - 3.5E-05 -

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.0E-451.4E-04

0.026.1E-50 1.1E-51

3.1E-48 5.5E-50

ToxicityDay 150

Page 1 of 1

Table 9 Exposure Assumptions - Cattle


IR Ingestion rate l/day 86





Ingestion

Page 1 of 1

Table 10 Exposure Assumptions - Kangaroo







Ingestion

Page 1 of 1

Table 11 Exposure Assumptions - Dingo


IR Ingestion rate l/day 0.75





Ingestion

Page 1 of 1


NOEC PNECaquatic

(mg/L) (mg/L)

Crystalline Silica (14808-60-7) NDa ND ND ND

Guar Gum (9000-30-0) 48-hr LC50 (Daphnia) 42 1,000 0.042

Potassium borate (1332-77-0) Species Sensitivity Distribution - - 1.5b,d

;0.37c,d

Cholinium chloride (67-48-1) Chronic Daphnia 30 50 0.6

2,2' ,2'' -nitrilotriethanol (102-71-6) Chronic Daphnia 125 100 1.25

Diammonium peroxidisulphate (7727-54-0) Acute fish 76 1,000 0.076

Potassium hydroxide (1310-58-3) - - - -

Glycerol (56-81-5) Acute fish 5,000 1,000 5

Hydrochloric acid (7647-01-0) - - - -

Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer (25038-72-6) ND ND ND ND

Diatomaceous earth, calcined (91053-39-3) ND ND ND ND

Magnesium nitrate (10377-60-3) - - - 0.7e

Non-crystalline silica (7631-86-9) - - - -

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothazolo-3-one/2-methyl-2h-

isothiasol-3-one [3:1] (55965-84-9)Acute Daphnia 0.027 1,000 0.000027

Magnesium silicate hydrate [talc] (14807-96-6) ND ND ND ND

Magnesium chloride (7786-30-3) Acute algae 100 1,000 0.1

Cristobalite (14464-46-1) ND ND ND ND

aND = Not Determined.

bCanadian water quality guideline for the protection of aquatic life: boron (CCME, 2009).

cAustralia and New Zealand freshwater high reliability trigger value for boron (ANZECC, 2000).

dValue expressed as B equivalents. The conversion factor from mg disodium tetraborate decahydrate/L to mg B/L is 0.113.

eANZECC (2000) water quality “trigger value for nitrate.

Chemical EndpointAssessment

Factor

Page 1 of 1

Table 13 Risk Estimates for Cattle Schlumberger

YF120Flex with J318 Theoretical Exposure for Day 0

YF120Flex with J318

Hazard Quotient

Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs TI Incidental Ingestion

Crystalline silica 14808-60-7 1.5E+04

Guar gum 9000-30-0 1.5E+03 2.1E+02 1.2E+01 5.6E-02

Potassium borate 1332-77-0 1.5E+03 1.7E+00 1.2E+01 6.8E+00

Cholinium chloride 67-48-1 1.5E+03 4.7E+03 1.2E+01 2.5E-03

2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 1.5E+02 1.7E+02 1.2E+00 7.0E-03

Diammonium peroxidisulphate 7727-54-0 1.5E+02

Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1.5E+02

Magnesium nitrate 10377-60-3 1.5E+02

Potassium hydroxide 1310-58-3 1.5E+02

Glycerol 56-81-5 1.5E+01 1.3E+03 1.2E-01 8.7E-05

Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 1.5E+01

Cristobalite 14464-46-1 1.5E+00

Non-crystalline silica 7631-86-9 1.5E+00 4.2E+02 1.2E-02 2.8E-05

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.5E+00 3.3E-01 1.2E-02 3.5E-02

Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 1.5E+00

Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 1.5E+00

2-methyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one 2682-20-4 1.5E-01 3.3E-01 1.2E-03 3.5E-03

Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 25038-72-6 1.5E-01

Hazard Index

6.9E+00

Day 0 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1



YF120Flex with J318

Hazard Quotient



Guar gum 9000-30-0 1.5E+00 2.1E+02 1.1E-02 5.5E-05


Cholinium chloride 67-48-1 1.5E+00 4.7E+03 1.1E-02 2.4E-06

2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 1.5E-01 1.7E+02 1.1E-03 6.8E-06





Glycerol 56-81-5 1.5E-02 1.3E+03 1.1E-04 8.5E-08




5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.0E-45 3.3E-01 8.2E-48 2.5E-47





Hazard Index

6.8E+00

Day 150 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1

Table 15 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo Schlumberger


YF120Flex with J318

Hazard Quotient



Guar gum 9000-30-0 1.5E+03 4.3E+02 4.9E+00 1.1E-02



2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 1.5E+02 3.4E+02 4.9E-01 1.4E-03





Glycerol 56-81-5 1.5E+01 2.8E+03 4.9E-02 1.8E-05




5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.5E+00 -





Hazard Index

1.4E+00

Day 0 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1



YF120Flex with J318

Hazard Quotient



Guar gum 9000-30-0 1.5E+00 4.3E+02 4.8E-03 1.1E-05








Glycerol 56-81-5 1.5E-02 2.8E+03 4.8E-05 1.7E-08




5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.0E-45 -





Hazard Index

1.4E+00

Day 150 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1


YF120Flex with J318

Hazard Quotient



Guar gum 9000-30-0 1.5E+03 5.1E+02 2.4E+00 4.7E-03

Potassium borate 1332-77-0 1.5E+03 4.2E+00 2.4E+00 5.7E-01







Glycerol 56-81-5 1.5E+01 3.2E+03 2.4E-02 7.3E-06




5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.5E+00 8.1E-01 2.4E-03 2.9E-03





Hazard Index

5.8E-01

Day 0 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1


YF120Flex with J318

Hazard Quotient



Guar gum 9000-30-0 1.5E+00 5.1E+02 2.3E-03 4.6E-06

Potassium borate 1332-77-0 1.5E+03 4.2E+00 2.4E+00 5.7E-01







Glycerol 56-81-5 1.5E-02 3.2E+03 2.3E-05 7.1E-09




5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.0E-45 8.1E-011.7E-48

2.0E-48





Hazard Index

5.7E-01

Day 150 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1

14

A

ppe

ndix

C6

-1

Appendix C6-1

Table C6-1 Surface Water Quality Data for Theoretical Scenario in Initial Flowback

for Schlumberger YF120Flex with J318 System

YF120Flex with J318 Half-Life (days) 0 30 150 300

Crystalline silica 14808-60-7 112,287 NA 14971.57 14971.6 14971.6 14971.6

Guar gum 9000-30-0 11,228.7 15.0 1497.2 374.29 1.4621 0.0014278

Potassium borate 1332-77-0 11,229 NA 1497.2 1497.2 1497.2 1497.2

Cholinium chloride 67-48-1 11,229 15 1497.2 374.29 1.46 0.00143

2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 1,123 15 149.7 37.43 0.15 0.00014

Diammonium peroxidisulphate 7727-54-0 1,123 NA 149.716 149.716 149.716 149.716

Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1,123 NA 149.716 149.716 149.716 149.716

Magnesium nitrate 10377-60-3 1,123 NA 149.716 149.716 149.716 149.716

Potassium hydroxide 1310-58-3 1,123 NA 149.716 149.716 149.716 149.716

Glycerol 56-81-5 112 15 15.0 3.74 0.01 0.00001

Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 112.3 NA 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0

Cristobalite 14464-46-1 11.2 NA 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Non-crystalline silica 7631-86-9 11 NA 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 11 1 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00000

Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 11 NA 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 11 NA 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

2-methyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one 2682-20-4 1 1 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00000

Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 25038-72-6 1.1 NA 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Constituent Name CAS No.Temporal Scenario (days)



systems (mg/L)






Fate and

Transport

Properties

Page 1 of 1

15

A

pp

en

dix

C6

-2

Appendix C6-2

Table C6-2 Comparison of Estimated Theoretical Schlumberger

YF120Flex with J318 Concentrations to Human Health Drinking Water Guidelines

YF120Flex with J318 Half-Life (days) 0 30 150 300

Crystalline silica 91053-39-3 112,287 NA 14971.57 14971.6 14971.6 14971.6

Guar gum 10377-60-3 11,228.7 15.0 1497.2 374.29 1.4621 0.0014278

Potassium borate 7647-01-0 11,229 NA 1497.2 1497.2 1497.2 1497.2

Cholinium chloride 25038-72-6 11,229 15 1497.2 374.29 1.46 0.00143

2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 7631-86-9 1,123 15 149.7 37.43 0.15 0.00014

Diammonium peroxidisulphate 26172-55-4 1,123 NA 149.716 149.716 149.716 149.716

Diatomaceous earth, calcined 14808-60-7 1,123 NA 149.716 149.716 149.716 149.716

Magnesium nitrate 9000-30-0 1,123 NA 149.716 149.716 149.716 149.716

Potassium hydroxide 7786-30-3 1,123 NA 149.716 149.716 149.716 149.716

Glycerol 14807-96-6 112 15 15.0 3.74 0.01 0.00001

Hydrochloric acid 2682-20-4 112.3 NA 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0

Cristobalite 14464-46-1 11.2 NA 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Non-crystalline silica 102-71-6 11 NA 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 7727-54-0 11 1 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00000

Magnesium chloride 1310-58-3 11 NA 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 56-81-5 11 NA 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

2-methyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one 1332-77-0 1 1 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00000


Constituent Name CAS No. Temporal Scenario (days)



systems (mg/L)






Fate and

Transport

Properties

Page 1 of 1

16

A

ppe

ndix

C6

-3

Appendix C6-3


YF120Flex with J318 Concentrations to Aquatic Life Water Guidelines

YF120Flex with J318 Half-Life (days) 0 30 150 300 0 30 150 300

Crystalline silica 91053-39-3 112,287 NA 14971.57 14971.6 14971.6 14971.6 -

Guar gum 10377-60-3 11,228.7 15.0 1497.2 374.29 1.4621 0.0014278 4.2E-02 3.6E+04 8.9E+03 3.5E+01 3.4E-02

Potassium borate 7647-01-0 11,229 NA 1497.2 1497.2 1497.2 1497.2 1.5E+00 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.0E+03

Cholinium chloride 25038-72-6 11,229 15 1497.2 374.29 1.46 0.00143 6.0E-01 2495.26 623.815 2.436777 0.00238

2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 7631-86-9 1,123 15 149.7 37.43 0.15 0.00014 1.3E+00 1.2E+02 3.0E+01 1.2E-01 1.1E-04

Diammonium peroxidisulphate 26172-55-4 1,123 NA 149.716 149.716 149.716 149.716 7.6E-02 2.0E+03 2.0E+03 2.0E+03 2.0E+03

Diatomaceous earth, calcined 14808-60-7 1,123 NA 149.716 149.716 149.716 149.716 -

Magnesium nitrate 9000-30-0 1,123 NA 149.716 149.716 149.716 149.716 7.0E-01 2.1E+02 2.1E+02 2.1E+02 2.1E+02

Potassium hydroxide 7786-30-3 1,123 NA 149.716 149.716 149.716 149.716 -

Glycerol 14807-96-6 112 15 15.0 3.74 0.01 0.00001 5.0E+00 3.0E+00 7.5E-01 2.9E-03 2.9E-06

Hydrochloric acid 2682-20-4 112.3 NA 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 -

Cristobalite 14464-46-1 11.2 NA 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 -

Non-crystalline silica 102-71-6 11 NA 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 -

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 7727-54-0 11 1 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00000 2.7E-05 5.5E+04 5.2E-05 3.9E-41 2.7E-86

Magnesium chloride 1310-58-3 11 NA 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0E-01 1.5E+01 1.5E+01 1.5E+01 1.5E+01

Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 56-81-5 11 NA 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 -

2-methyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one 1332-77-0 1 1 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00000 2.7E-05 5.5E+03 5.2E-06 3.9E-42 2.7E-87

Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 67-48-1 1.1 NA 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -

Cumulative Ratio 102,449 12,763 3,234 3,197

PNEC

aquatic

(mg/L)


Screening Criteria (Ratio greater than one

= unacceptable potential risk)

Temporal Scenario (days)Constituent Name CAS No. Temporal Scenario (days)



systems (mg/L)






Fate and

Transport

Properties

Page 1 of 1

1

APPENDIX C7 Schlumberger Sapphire LF System

2

I

ntr

odu

ctio

n


Compendium), Santos Ltd. (Santos) used a weight-of-evidence approach to evaluate the potential for

human health and environmental (e.g., ecological) risks as a result of the hydraulic fracturing processes

and the Schlumber Sapphire LF System.



potential for impacts on water resources, the process and chemicals used and the potential risks

associated with chemicals and backflow water handled and stored above grade.

EHS Support, LLC (EHS Support) conducted a persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity (PBT)

assessment and and a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) to meet Conditions 49e and 49f of the 2

October 2011 approval under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

(EPBC 2008/4059) and the Environmental Amendment (EA) conditions to assess the toxicity of the

mixtures.


below. Refer to Section 6.0 through Section 8.0 of the RA Compendium for detailed discussions on

the methodologies employed for the qualitative risk assessment and QRA components, which are






3

Q

ualit

ative

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent a

nd

Eva

luatio

n



The Schlumberger Sapphire LF 'fluid system' was assessed. The list of individual chemicals is

presented in Table 1 below. A mass balance of the chemicals is provided as Appendix C7-1.


Appendix D of this report. Information regarding the chemical and physical properties of the individual

chemicals listed below as well as the approximate percentage present in the hydraulic fracturing system

can be found on the MSDSs.

While none of the fracturing fluid chemicals identified contain benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes

(BTEX) or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PAHs occur naturally in coal and it is possible that

certain PAHs may naturally be present in the coal seam groundwater used in the hydraulic fracturing

process.


Chemical CAS Number


Sodium carboxymethylcellulose 9004-32-4

2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethylethanaminium chloride (Choline chloride) 67-48-1

2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6

Diammonium peroxidisulphate 7727-54-0








Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 25038-72-6


As discussed in Section 5.0 of the RA Compendium, a systematic weight of evidence approach was

utilised to complete the risk assessment for the Schlumberger fluid systems. The work has involved the



PBT Assessment

Exposure Assessment

Mass Balance of Fluid System

Fate and Transport Modeling.





4

Q

ualit

ative

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent a

nd

Eva

luatio

n


C2.3 PBT Assessment


fracturing chemicals based on persistence (P), bioaccumulation (B) and toxic (T) potential. As a result

of this assessment, no chemical constituents identified in the Sapphire LF fluid system were classified

as a PBT chemical, and are therefore not considered to be inherently hazardous. The results of the

PBT Assessment are presented in Table 2.


As discussed in Section 7.0 of the RA Compendium, the exposure assessment identified receptors






additive of the hydraulic fracturing fluid system. The results of the mass balance calculations are

presented in Appendix C7-1.


As discussed in Section 7.2 of the RA Compendium, fate and transport modelling was conducted on a





5

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent


datasets for those chemicals identified in the Sapphire LF fluid system. The QRA approach evaluates

the toxicity of the individual substances, and characterises the cumulative risks of the total effluent

toxicity and ecotoxicity.































were calculated by estimating the mass and discharge flow of the COPCs in the flowback water.






6

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent








Ingestion of water:




Where:

















Appendix F.


exposure scenarios as discussed in Section 8.4. The derivation of Oral Reference Dose and Drinking

Water Guideline Values are presented in Table 4, and the Australian Drinking Water Screening Values

are presented inn Table 5.


As presented above, the exposure scenarios are based on anticipated conditions, and the potential for



conditions within the fracturing fluids sump or mud pit, and the flowback storage ponds.


Sapphire LF fluids, as presented in Appendix C7-1, were used to estimate the potential concentrations

in water within the fracturing fluids sump or flare pit, or flowback storage ponds. Based on stimulation

flow back monitoring conducted by Santos and the QRA completed for the Schlumberger Fluid Systems

7

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent

(Appendix C), 20 percent of the total mass of constituents injected is assumed to be recovered in the

flowback water. This mass is diluted within 150% of the injected volume (the minimum volume that must

be flowed back) to establish an “estimated” concentration (i.e., concentration expected due to full

dilution of the back flow water) within the flowback storage ponds.


of one year of operational activity before transfer or conveyance to the water treatment facilities.

Therefore, the concentration of COPCs in the flowback storage pond water was adjusted, where





are conducted under aerobic conditions in which a high concentration of the test substance is used,

and biodegradation is measured by non-specific parameters including dissolved organic carbon,

biochemical oxygen demand and carbon dioxide production. Table 6 presents the environmental fate

information that was used to assess biodegradation of COPCs, and that was applied at the time periods

of 0, 30, 150 and 300 days from initial flowback.


Appendix C7-1.



exceedance of screening levels, is presented in Appendix C7-2. There were no exceedance of the

screening levels based either on an individual comparison, or on a cumulative comparison.







The results of the theoretical assessments for Sapphire LF fluid systems for the trespasser exposure

scenarios (day 0 and day 150, Sapphire LF events) are summarized in Tables 7 and 8. As discussed

above, the theoretical assessment was only conducted at the well pad sites.

The exposure scenarios include the Sapphire LF fluid system event, as presented in Appendix C7-1

for day 0 and day 150 from the flowback storage pond. The trespasser for day 0 did not have

unacceptable risks for the Sapphire LF fluid system (HI=1.5 x 10-4, Table 7). The trespasser for day

150 did not have unacceptable risks for the Sapphire LF fluid system (HI=1.6 x 10-7, Table 8).

On this basis and using the theoretical concentrations, no adverse effects are predicted on trespassers.





8

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent









Where:










To evaluate the potential for adverse ecological effects, toxicity reference values (TRVs) are selected



adverse effects may occur. The ERA used two types of TRVs. The first TRV is a concentration-based

TRV to evaluate the concentration of the selected COPC in the surface water and direct exposure by

the aquatic ecological receptor. The determination of TRVs for freshwater was conducted according to

the predicted no-effects concentration (PNEC) guidance in the Environmental Risk Assessment

Guidance Manual for Industrial Chemicals prepared by the Australian Environmental Agency (AEA,

2009). Table 12 presents the COPC, the endpoint, NOEC [milligrams per litre (mg/L)], assessment

factor and the aquatic PNEC (mg/L). The second TRV is a dose-based TRV to evaluate the intake dose

of the selected COPC from exposure to surface water by ingestion. The calculated TRVs for each of

the mammalian ecological receptors evaluated in the ERA are presented in the species-specific

ecological risk models.


EPCs for the exposure assessment were calculated using the results of theoretical fate and transport



and mud pits) that were used to estimate the EPCs for the human health receptors. Similar to the EPCs

for the human health receptors, the EPCs for the ecological receptors assumed 20 percent of mass

returned in the flowback water was diluted within 150 percent of the injected volume of return water,

and was then adjusted based on biodegradation rates to calculate the theoretical EPCs for the four

exposure time periods (0, 30, 150, and 300 days). Appendix C7-1 presents the calculated EPCs for

the ecological receptor exposure scenarios. The theoretical EPCs for the four exposure time periods

9

Q

uantita

tive

Ris

k A

ssessm

ent

(0, 30, 150, and 300 days) were compared to ecological based toxicity-based screening levels, and the

results of this comparison, including the ratio of exceedance of screening levels, is presented in

Appenidix C7-3.



acceptable.

C3.10 Estimation of Risk

The HI calculated for flowback water for aquatic risk were elevated above the acceptable level for less

than half of COPCs evaluated (Appendix C7-3). Where large discharges of flowback water occur to

surface water and/or flux dilution within the surface-water was insufficient, potential impacts on aquatic




The results of the theoretical assessments for Sapphire LF fluid systems for the livestock cattle,

kangaroo and dingo are summarized in Tables 13 through 18. The exposure scenarios include the

Sapphire LF fluid systems EPCs presented in Appendix C7-1 for day 0 and day 150 from the fracturing

fluid well flowback. The modelled risks from Sapphire LF fluid system chemicals in the flowback water

were acceptable for the livestock cattle (HI=4.6 x 10-4 to 8.9 x 10-8), Table 13 and 14), kangaroo (HI=

HI=9.4 x 10-5 to 1.8 x 10-8), Table 15 and 16), and dingo (HI=3.9 x 10-5 to 7.4 x 10-9) for both exposure

scenarios.

10

S

um

ma

ry o

f Q

RA

Fin

din

gs


conservative theoretical calculations based on the chemicals utilised by Schlumberger in hydraulic

fracturing. This assessment assumed that a range of theoretical concentrations of injected chemicals

would be present in the flowback water based on biodegradation rates, where applicable.






The results of the qualitative PBT Assessment indicated that no chemical constituents identified in the

Sapphire LF fluid system was classified as a PBT chemical and therefore fluids containing these

chemicals are not considered inherently hazardous.

The two exposure scenarios modelled for the QRA were 20 percent flowback return, and either 0 or

150-day retention with EPC based on applicable degradation rates. Based on quantitative risk

calculations, the potential risks to the trespasser associated with the flowback water are acceptable.


The modelled risks from Sapphire LF fluid system chemicals in the flowback water were acceptable for

the livestock cattle, kangaroo, and dingo for both exposure scenarios.




limited.






trespassing

Use of low permeability materials or dam liners and routine dam inspections to prevent releases

from flowback storage ponds


11

D

ire

ct T

oxic

ity A

naly

sis



12

C

onclu

sio

ns


Schlumberger Sapphire LF fluid system. Based on the qualitative and quantitative risk






or sediments;












seam; and










13

T

ab

les

Tables

1 of 2

Table 2. PBT Assessment of the Sapphire LF Fluid System


Sodium carboxymethylcellulose (9004-32-4)

Yes (water-soluble polymer)


Not PBT (based on physico-chemical

properties)

2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethylethanaminium chloride

(Choline chloride) (67-48-1)




2,2,2-nitrilotriethanol (102-71-6)




Not PBT (based on screening and

experimental data)

Diammonium peroxidisulphate (7727-54-0)


environment)

No (essential ions to biological systems; actively regulated)





(25038-72-6)

Yes (polymer not biodegradable)


Not PBT

Diatomaceous earth, calcined (91053-39-3)





properties)

Magnesium nitrate (10377-60-3)


environment)

No (Mg is an essential ion to biological systems; nitrate ions

are water-soluble)




5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothazolo-3-one/2-methyl-2h-isothiasol-3-one

[3:1]

(55965-84-9)




Not PBT (based on screening and

experimental data)

2 of 2


Magnesium silicate hydrate [talc] (14807-96-6)





properties)

Magnesium chloride (7786-30-3)


environment)





Cristobalite

(14464-46-1)





properties)

Crystalline Silica (14808-60-7)





properties)



















1.0E-03

Ingestion

Dermal

Page 1 of 1


Chemical (CAS No.) StudyCritical Effect/Target

Organ(s)

NOAEL

(mg/kg/day)

Uncertainty

Factors

Oral Reference

Dose

(mg/kg/day)

Drinking Water

Guideline (ppm)

Sodium carboxymethylcellulose (9004-32-4) NDa ND ND ND ND ND

Crystalline silica (14808-60-7) ND ND ND ND ND ND

2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethylethanaminium chloride

(Choline chloride) (67-48-1)Human study Hypotension 7500

b 2 50 [as choline] 175 [as choline]

2,2',2''-nitrilotriethanol (102-71-6) Rat 91-day dietary - 1,000 1,000 1 3.5


(25038-72-6)ND ND ND ND ND ND

Diatomaceous earth, calcined (91053-39-3) ND ND ND ND ND ND

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothazolo-3-one/2-methyl-

2h-isothiasol-3-one [3:1] (55965-84-9)2-year rat drinking water

Gastric irritation of the

stomach2 100 0.0 0.07

Magnesium silicate hydrate [talc] (14807-96-6) ND ND ND ND ND ND

Cristobalite (14464-46-1) ND ND ND ND ND ND

a Not determined

b LOAEL

Page 1 of 1


Chemical (CAS No.) Drinking Water Screening Guideline Drinking Water Screening Value

Diammonium peroxidisulphate

(7727-54-0) sulfate 500 mg/L (health); 250 mg/L (aesthetic)

Magnesium chloride (7786-30-3) Chloride 250 mg/L (aesthetic)

Magnesium nitrate (10377-60-3) Nitrate 50 mg/L (health)

Page 1 of 1



Sodium carboxymethylcellulose Not biodegradablea

2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethylethanaminium chloride (Choline

chloride)Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)

a

2,2′,2′′-nitrilotriethanol Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Diammonium peroxidisulphate Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Vinylidene chloride/methacrylate copolymer Polymer; not biodegradable

Diatomaceous earth, calcined Water-insoluble mineral; not biodegradable

Magnesium nitrate Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Crystalline silica Water-insoluble mineral; not biodegradable

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothazolo-3-one/2-methyl-2h-isothiasol-3-

one [3:1]

Half-lives in river water-sediment system are 17.3 and

9.1 hours, respectively.

Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) Water-insoluble mineral; not biodegradable

Magnesium chloride Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Cristobalite Water-insoluble mineral; not biodegradable


Page 1 of 1

Table 7 Risk Estimates for Trespasser Schlumberger Sapphire LF Theoretical Exposure for Day 0

Sapphire LF

Hazard Quotient



Sodium carboxymethylcellulose 9004-32-4 1.4E+01 NA - - - - -


chloride)67-48-1 1.4E+01 8.5E-07 50 8.4E-04 9.3E-08 1.7E-05 1.9E-09

Diammonium peroxidisulphate 7727-54-0 1.4E+00 NA - - - - -

2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 1.4E+00 5.1E-05 1.0 8.4E-05 5.5E-07 8.4E-05 5.5E-07

Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1.4E-01 NA - - - - -

Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 25038-72-6 1.4E-01 NA - - - -

Magnesium nitrate 10377-60-3 1.4E-02 9.3E-05 14.3 8.4E-07 1.0E-08 5.9E-08 7.1E-10

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.4E-02 1.4E-04 0.02 8.4E-07 1.5E-08 4.2E-05 7.5E-07

Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 1.4E-02 NA - - - - -

2-methyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one 2682-20-4 1.4E-03 1.4E-04 0.02 8.4E-08 1.5E-09 4.2E-06 7.5E-08

Cristobalite 14464-46-1 1.4E-03 NA - - - - -

Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 1.4E-03 NA - - - - -

ToxicityDay 0

Page 1 of 1

Table 8 Risk Estimates for Trespasser Schlumberger Sapphire LF Theoretical Exposure for Day 150

Sapphire LF

Hazard Quotient


Crystalline silica 14808-60-7 115.2 NA - - - - -

Sodium carboxymethylcellulose 9004-32-4 14.4 NA - - - - -


chloride)67-48-1 0.01 8.5E-07 50 8.2E-07 9.1E-11 1.6E-08 1.8E-12

Diammonium peroxidisulphate 7727-54-0 1.4 NA - - - - -

2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 0.001 5.1E-05 1.0 8.2E-08 5.4E-10 8.2E-08 5.4E-10

Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 0.1 NA - - - - -

Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 25038-72-6 0.1 NA - - - -

Magnesium nitrate 10377-60-3 0.01 9.3E-05 14.3 8.4E-07 1.0E-08 5.9E-08 7.1E-10

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.0E-47 1.4E-04 0.02 5.9E-52 1.1E-53 2.9E-50 5.3E-52

Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 0.01 NA - - - - -

2-methyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one 2682-20-4 1.0E-48 1.4E-04 0.02 5.9E-53 1.1E-54 2.9E-51 5.3E-53

Cristobalite 14464-46-1 0.001 NA - - - - -

Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 0.001 NA - - - - -

ToxicityDay 150

Page 1 of 1








Ingestion

Page 1 of 1








Ingestion

Page 1 of 1



IR Ingestion rate l/day 0.75





Ingestion

Page 1 of 1


NOEC PNECaquatic

(mg/L) (mg/L)

Crystalline Silica (14808-60-7) NDa ND ND ND

Cholinium chloride (67-48-1) Chronic Daphnia 30 50 0.6

2,2' ,2'' -nitrilotriethanol (102-71-6) Chronic Daphnia 125 100 1.25

Diammonium peroxidisulphate (7727-54-0) Acute fish 76 1,000 0.076

Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer (25038-72-6) ND ND ND ND

Diatomaceous earth, calcined (91053-39-3) ND ND ND ND

Magnesium nitrate (10377-60-3) - - - 0.7b

Sodium carboxymethylcellulose (9004-32-4) Acute Algae 500 1,000 0.5

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothazolo-3-one/2-methyl-2h-

isothiasol-3-one [3:1] (55965-84-9)Acute Daphnia 0.027 1,000 0.000027

Magnesium silicate hydrate [talc] (14807-96-6) ND ND ND ND

Magnesium chloride (7786-30-3) Acute algae 100 1,000 0.1

Cristobalite (14464-46-1) ND ND ND ND

aND = Not Determined.

bANZECC (2000) water quality “trigger value for nitrate.

Chemical EndpointAssessment

Factor

Page 1 of 1


Sapphire LF Theoretical Exposure for Day 0

Sapphire LF

Hazard Quotient



Sodium carboxymethylcellulose 9004-32-4 1.4E+01


chloride)67-48-1 1.4E+01 4.7E+03 1.1E-01 2.4E-05



Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1.4E-01


Magnesium nitrate 10377-60-3 1.4E-02


Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 1.4E-02


Cristobalite 14464-46-1 1.4E-03

Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 1.4E-03

Hazard Index

4.6E-04

Day 0 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1



Sapphire LF

Hazard Quotient





chloride)67-48-1 1.4E-02 4.7E+03 1.1E-04 2.3E-08











Hazard Index

8.9E-08

Day 150 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1



Sapphire LF

Hazard Quotient





chloride)67-48-1 1.4E+01 9.7E+03 4.7E-02 4.9E-06











Hazard Index

9.4E-05

Day 0 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1



Sapphire LF

Hazard Quotient





chloride)67-48-1 1.4E-02 9.7E+03 4.6E-05 4.8E-09











Hazard Index

1.8E-08

Day 150 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1

Table 17 Risk Estimates for Dingo Halliburton Sapphire LF Theoretical Exposure for Day 0

Sapphire LF

Hazard Quotient





chloride)67-48-1 1.4E+01 1.1E+04 2.3E-02 2.0E-06











Hazard Index

3.9E-05

Day 0 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1

Table 18 Risk Estimates for Dingo Halliburton Sapphire LF Theoretical Exposure for Day 150

Sapphire LF

Hazard Quotient





chloride)67-48-1 1.4E-02 1.1E+04 2.2E-05 1.9E-09











Hazard Index

7.4E-09

Day 150 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1

14

A

ppe

nd

ix C

7-1

Appendix C7-1

Table C7-1 Surface Water Quality Data for Theoretical Scenario in Initial Flowback

for Schlumberger Sapphire LF System

Sapphire LF Half-Life (days) 0 30 150 300

Crystalline silica 14808-60-7 864.0 NA 115.20 115.2 115.2 115.2

Sodium carboxymethylcellulose 9004-32-4 108.0 NA 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4

2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethylethanaminium chloride (Choline chloride) 67-48-1 108.0 15 14.4 3.6 0.01 0.00001

Diammonium peroxidisulphate 7727-54-0 10.8 NA 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 10.8 15 1.4 0.4 0.001 0.000001

Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1.1 NA 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1


Magnesium nitrate 10377-60-3 0.1 NA 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 0.1 1 0.01 1.3E-11 1.0E-47 7.1E-93

Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 0.1 NA 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

2-methyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one 2682-20-4 0.01 1 0.001 1.3E-12 1.0E-48 7.1E-94

Cristobalite 14464-46-1 0.01 NA 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 0.01 NA 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001




systems (mg/L)






Fate and

Transport

Properties

Page 1 of 1

15

A

pp

en

dix

C7-2

Appendix C7-2


Sapphire LF Concentrations to Human Health Drinking Water Guidelines

Sapphire LF Half-Life (days) 0 30 150 300

Crystalline silica 14808-60-7 864.0 NA 115.20 115.2 115.2 115.2

Sodium carboxymethylcellulose 9004-32-4 108.0 NA 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4


chloride)67-48-1 108.0 15 14.4 3.6 0.01 0.00001

Diammonium peroxidisulphate 7727-54-0 10.8 NA 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 10.8 15 1.4 0.4 0.001 0.000001

Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1.1 NA 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1


Magnesium nitrate 10377-60-3 0.1 NA 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 0.1 1 0.01 1.3E-11 1.0E-47 7.1E-93

Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 0.1 NA 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

2-methyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one 2682-20-4 0.01 1 0.001 1.3E-12 1.0E-48 7.1E-94

Cristobalite 14464-46-1 0.01 NA 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 0.01 NA 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001




systems (mg/L)






Fate and

Transport

Properties

Page 1 of 1

16

A

ppe

nd

ix C

7-3

Appendix C7-3


Sapphire LF Concentrations to Aquatic Life Water Guidelines

Sapphire LF Half-Life (days) 0 30 150 300 0 30 150 300

Crystalline silica 14808-60-7 864.0 NA 115.20 115.2 115.2 115.2 -

Sodium carboxymethylcellulose 9004-32-4 108.0 NA 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 5.0E-01 2.9E+01 2.9E+01 2.9E+01 2.9E+01


chloride)67-48-1 108.0 15 14.4 3.6 0.01 0.00001 6.0E-01 2.4E+01 6.0E+00 2.3E-02 2.3E-05

Diammonium peroxidisulphate 7727-54-0 10.8 NA 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 7.6E-02 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01

2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 10.8 15 1.4 0.4 0.001 0.000001 1.3E+00 1.2E+00 2.9E-01 1.1E-03 1.1E-06

Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1.1 NA 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -

Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 25038-72-6 1.1 NA 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -

Magnesium nitrate 10377-60-3 0.1 NA 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 7.0E-01 2.1E-02 2.1E-02 2.1E-02 2.1E-02

5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 0.1 1 0.01 1.3E-11 1.0E-47 7.1E-93 2.7E-05 5.3E+02 5.0E-07 3.7E-43 2.6E-88

Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 0.1 NA 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.0E-01 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 1.4E-01

2-methyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one 2682-20-4 0.01 1 0.001 1.3E-12 1.0E-48 7.1E-94 2.7E-05 5.3E+01 5.0E-08 3.7E-44 2.6E-89

Cristobalite 14464-46-1 0.01 NA 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 -

Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 0.01 NA 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 -

Cumulative Ratio 660 54 48 48

PNEC

aquatic

(mg/L)




Temporal Scenario (days)Constituent Name CAS No. Temporal Scenario (days)



systems (mg/L)


(150% of injected fluid volume) per coal seam per 20% of

mass returned calculated using equation: Mud Pitcon =



Fate and

Transport

Properties

Page 1 of 1

1

APPENDIX C8 Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid

System – Well RM 08-14-3

2

I

ntr

oduction

Introduction Santos GLNG (Santos) is looking to use a borate, guar-based crosslinked Halliburton hydraulic

fracturing fluid system (the fluid system) for development of coal seam gas (CSG) resources in the Surat

and Bowen Basins of Queensland, specifically in the Roma Shallow Gas Project Area (RSGPA). The

disclosure for well RM08-14-3, including a listing of the chemical constituents and percent of total volume

in the fluid system, is provided in Appendix 1. The fluid system components provided in Appendix 1

were addressed previously as part of the Hydraulic Fracturing Risk Assessment Compendium (RA

Compendium) by Santos GLNG Projects (2014), with the exception of the following:

• Hydoxylpropyl guar

• Ulexite

• Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate.

Specifically, the assessed fluid system components were addressed either in the Delta 140 fluid system

(Appendix C2 and C5 of the RA Compendium), the Clean Stim fluid system (Appendix C3 of the RA

Compendium), or the Y120 Flex fluid system (Appendix C6 of the RA Compendium).

As presented in Section 5.0 of the RA Compendium, Santos Ltd. (Santos) used a weight-of-evidence

approach to evaluate the potential for human health and environmental (e.g., ecological) risks as a result

of the hydraulic fracturing processes and the use of the Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System in

Well RM 08-14-3.

EHS Support, LLC (EHS Support) conducted a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) to meet Conditions

49e and 49f of the 2 October 2011 approval under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC 2008/4059) and the Environmental Amendment (EA) conditions to



below. Refer to Section 6.0 through Section 8.0 of the RA Compendium for detailed discussions on the

methodologies employed for the qualitative risk assessment and QRA components, which are


3

Q

ualit

ative R

isk A

ssessm

ent and E

valu

ation


C2.1 Chemicals Evaluated The Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3 was assessed. The list of

individual chemicals is presented in Table 1 below. A mass balance of the chemicals is provided as

Appendix C8-Table 1.


Appendix D8 of the RA Compendium. Information regarding the chemical and physical properties of

the individual chemicals listed below as well as the approximate percentage present in the hydraulic


The fluid system does not contain BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes) or polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) based on EHS Support’s understanding that Halliburton has tested all of

their products. Field monitoring will also be conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements. While

none of the fracturing fluid chemicals identified contain BTEX or PAHs, PAHs occur naturally in coal and

it is possible that certain PAHs may naturally be present in the coal seam groundwater used in the

hydraulic fracturing process.


Chemical CAS Number

Hydroxypropyl guar 39421-75-5

Triethanolamine 107-71-6


Ulexite 1319-33-1

Ethylene glycol 107-21-1

Diethanolamine 111-42-2

Acetic acid 64-19-2

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2

Lactose 63-42-3

Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate 12280-03-4

Crystalline Silica 14808-60-7

Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8

Silica dioxide 7631-86-9

Sodium carbonate 497-19-8

Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8

C2.2 Risk Assessment Framework and Findings As discussed in Section 5.0 of the RA Compendium, a systematic weight of evidence approach was

utilised to complete the risk assessment for the Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM

08-14-3. The work has involved the following evaluations:


• PBT Assessment

• Exposure Assessment

• Mass Balance of Fluid System

• Fate and Transport Modeling.


4

Q

ualit

ative R

isk A

ssessm

ent and E

valu

ation

• Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA)

• Quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment for Terrestrial and Aquatic Receptors.


• Direct Toxicity Assessments of fluid systems.

C2.3 PBT Assessment For the environmental hazard assessment, a PBT (persistence, bioaccumulative, toxicity) assessment

was conducted in accordance with the guidance developed by DEWHA (2009), as presented in the RA

Compendium. The PBT assessment is conducted because of specific concerns for substances that can

be shown to persist for long periods in the environment, to bioaccumulate in food chains, and can give

rise to toxic effects after a longer time and over a greater spatial scale than chemicals without these

properties. These effects may be difficult to detect at an early stage because of long-term exposures at

normally low concentration levels and long life-cycles of species at the top of the food chain.


fracturing chemicals based on PBT potential. As a result of this assessment, no chemical constituents

identified in the Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3 were classified as a

PBT chemical, and are therefore not considered to be inherently hazardous. The results of the PBT

Assessment are presented in Table 2.

C2.3 Exposure Assessment As discussed in Section 7.0 of the RA Compendium, the exposure assessment identified receptors




C2.4 Mass Balance of Fluid System A quantitative mass balance calculation was undertaken to identify the amount of each chemical additive

of the hydraulic fracturing fluid system. The results of the mass balance calculations are presented in


C2.5 Fate and Transport Modelling As discussed in Section 7.2 of the RA Compendium, fate and transport modelling was conducted on a





5

Q

uantita

tive R

isk A

ssessm

ent

Quantitative Risk Assessment In accordance with the methodologies presented in Section 8.0 of the RA Compendium, a QRA was

conducted on theoretical datasets for those chemicals identified in the Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing

Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3. The QRA approach evaluates the toxicity of the individual substances,

and characterises the cumulative risks of the total effluent toxicity and ecotoxicity.






Potential complete exposure pathways to the storage of flowback from hydraulically stimulated wells,












the flowback storage tank.


as from piping or a release from the flowback storage tank. These potential releases could



C3.1 Exposure Assessment The purpose of the exposure assessment in the QRA was to predict the magnitude and frequency of

potential human exposure to each COPC following the methodologies presented in Section 8.1 of the

RA Compendium. A conceptual site model (CSM) was developed which describes the potential

receptors and exposure scenarios for the flowback water used in this exposure assessment. The

potential exposures to receptors were evaluated based on the potential for a complete exposure

pathway.

As discussed in Section 8.2 of the RA Compendium, exposure point concentrations (EPCs) were derived

for the theoretical assessment; empirical data were not available for evaluation. The EPCs for the

theoretical assessment were calculated by estimating the mass and discharge flow of the COPCs in the

flowback water.

C3.2 Human Health QRA A human health hazard assessment was conducted according to the methodologies presented in

Section 8.4 of the RA Compendium. The purpose of the hazard assessment process was to summarise

the environmental data, and to address the toxicological assessment of the COPCs that will be evaluated

further in the risk assessment process.

6

Q

uantita

tive R

isk A

ssessm

ent








Ingestion of water:

𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 (𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚/𝐼𝐼𝑚𝑚 − 𝑑𝑑𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑) = (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑥𝑥 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑋𝑋 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑋𝑋 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸) / (𝐵𝐵𝐶𝐶 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴)


𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐼𝐼 (𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚/𝐼𝐼𝑚𝑚 − 𝑑𝑑𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑) = (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑥𝑥 𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐷𝐷 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑥𝑥 𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸) / (𝐵𝐵𝐶𝐶 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴)

Where:











C3.3 Toxicity Assessment A toxicity assessment was conducted to determine the relationship between the dose of a COPC taken





Appendix F8.


exposure scenarios as discussed in Section 8.4 of the RA Compendium. The derivation of Oral

Reference Dose and Drinking Water Guideline Values are presented in Table 4.

C3.4 Exposure Point Concentration As presented above, the exposure scenarios are based on anticipated conditions, and the potential for



conditions within the fracturing fluids flowback storage ponds, and the flowback used in the irrigation

fields.

To assess the potential flux of hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the environment, vendor disclosures for

the hydraulic fracturing fluid systems were reviewed, and the chemical concentrations of key inputs were

determined. It should be also be noted that diethanolamine is a new chemical, and is only included as a

contingency; at this time it is unlikely to be used.

7

Q

uantita

tive R

isk A

ssessm

ent


Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3, as presented in

Appendix C8-Table 1, were used to estimate the potential concentrations in water within the fracturing

fluids sump or flare pit, or flowback storage ponds. Based on stimulation flow back monitoring conducted

by Santos and the QRA completed for the Schlumberger Fluid Systems (Appendix C of the RA

Compendium), 20 percent of the total mass of constituents injected is assumed to be recovered in the

flowback water. This mass is diluted within 150% of the injected volume (the minimum volume that must

be flowed back) to establish an “estimated” concentration (i.e., concentration expected due to full dilution

of the back flow water) within the flowback storage ponds.


of one year of operational activity before transfer or conveyance to the water treatment facilities and or

transferred into Santos water convenyance systems (for treatment) and thereby blended with other CS

water not containing these constituents. To be conservative it has been assumed that the fluids are

stored with ponds with theconcentration of COPCs in the flowback storage pond water adjusted, where





are conducted under aerobic conditions in which a high concentration of the test substance is used, and

biodegradation is measured by non-specific parameters including dissolved organic carbon, biochemical

oxygen demand and carbon dioxide production. Table 6 presents the environmental fate information

that was used to assess biodegradation of COPCs, and that was applied at the time periods of 0, 30,

150 and 300 days from initial flowback.





exceedance of screening levels, is presented in Appendix C8-Table 2.

C3.5 Risk Estimation Risk estimation was performed in accordance with the methodologies outlined in Section 8.4 of the RA

Compendium. The total target risk range for carcinogens was 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6; the target HI for non-

threshold effects is less than or equal to 1.0.

Diethanolamine is the only carcinogenic compound present in the stimulation fluids injected into the

subsurface. The toxicity criteria corresponding to an oral reference dose (Table 4) was derived based

on a cancer slope factor based on the NOAEL (See Diethanolamine in Appendix F8 of the RA

Compendium).

The results of the theoretical assessments for Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM

08-14-3 for the trespasser exposure scenarios (day 0 and day 150, Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing

Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3 events) are summarized in Tables 7 and 8. As discussed above, the

theoretical assessment was only conducted at the well pad sites.

The exposure scenarios include the Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3

event, as presented in Appendix C8-Table 1 for day 0 and day 150 from the flowback storage tank.

The trespasser for day 0 had no unacceptable risks for the Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System

– Well RM 08-14-3 (HI=0.088, Table 7), and for day 150 (HI=0.065, Table 8). There were no

unacceptable risks for either day scenario.

8

Q

uantita

tive R

isk A

ssessm

ent

On this basis and using the theoretical concentrations, on this basis and using the theoretical

concentrations, no adverse effects are predicted on trespassers.

C3.6 Ecological Risk Assessment As discussed in Section 8.5, a screening level ecological risk assessment (ERA) was conducted to



C3.7 Exposure Assessment Terrestrial receptors evaluated in the ERA include domesticated livestock, large mammalian wildlife and







Where:









C3.8 Toxicity Assessment To evaluate the potential for adverse ecological effects, toxicity reference values (TRVs) are selected



adverse effects may occur. The ERA used two types of TRVs (Section 8.5.3 of the RA Compendium).

The first TRV is a concentration-based TRV to evaluate the concentration of the selected COPC in the

surface water and direct exposure by the aquatic ecological receptor. The determination of TRVs for

freshwater was conducted according to the predicted no-effects concentration (PNEC) guidance in the

Environmental Risk Assessment Guidance Manual for Industrial Chemicals prepared by the Australian

Environmental Agency (AEA, 2009). Table 12 presents the COPC, the endpoint, NOEC [milligrams per

litre (mg/L)], assessment factor, and the aquatic PNEC (mg/L). The second TRV is a dose-based TRV

to evaluate the intake dose of the selected COPC from exposure to surface water by ingestion. The

calculated TRVs for each of the mammalian ecological receptors evaluated in the ERA are presented in

the species-specific ecological risk models.

C3.9 Exposure Point Concentration EPCs for the exposure assessment were calculated using the results of theoretical fate and transport


9

Q

uantita

tive R

isk A

ssessm

ent


and mud pits) that were used to estimate the EPCs for the human health receptors. The EPCs for the

ecological receptors were estimated assuming the same Scenarios, with exposure occurring in the

irrigation area where irrigation water may pool and wildlife may drink from the standing water.

Appendix C8-Table 1 presents the calculated EPCs for the ecological receptor exposure scenarios.

The theoretical EPCs for the four exposure time periods (0, 30, 150, and 300 days) were compared to

ecological based toxicity-based screening levels, and the results of this comparison, including the ratio

of exceedance of screening levels, is presented in Appenidix C8-Table 3.

Risks were characterised in accordance with the methodologies discussed in Section 8.5.6 of the RA

Compendium. The resulting ecological hazard quotient must be less than or equal to 1.0 for risks to be

considered acceptable.

C3.10 Estimation of Risk The HI calculated for flowback water for aquatic risk were elevated above the acceptable level for the

majority of COPCs evaluated (Appendix C8-Table 3). Where large discharges of flowback water occur

to surface water and/or flux dilution within the surface-water was insufficient, potential impacts on aquatic




The results of the theoretical assessments for Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM

08-14-3 for the livestock cattle, kangaroo and dingo are summarized in Tables 13 through 18. The

exposure scenarios include the Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3 EPCs

presented in Appendix C8-Table 1 for day 0 and day 150 from the fracturing fluid well flowback. The

modelled risks from Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3 chemicals in the

flowback water were acceptable for the livestock (HI=0.9 to 0.65, Table 13 and 14), kangaroo (HI=0.18

0.13, Table 15 and 16), and dingo (HI=0.075 to 0.054, Table 17 and 18), for all exposure scenarios.

10

S

um

mary

of Q

RA

Fin

din

gs

Summary of QRA Findings The QRA was completed as discussed in Section 8.0 of the RA Compendium. An assessment was

conducted using highly conservative theoretical calculations based on the chemicals utilised by

Schlumberger in hydraulic fracturing. This assessment assumed that a range of theoretical

concentrations of injected chemicals would be present in the flowback water based on biodegradation

rates, where applicable.




Management Plan (WMP). Management of CSG water involves the temporary storage of flowback water

in flowback storage ponds.

The exposure scenario modelled for the QRA was a trespasser being exposed to flowback water under

various EPC scenarios. Based on quantitative risk calculations, the potential risks for the trespasser

were acceptable for the EPC scenarios. There were no carcinogenic risks identified.

The modelled risks from Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3 chemicals in

the flowback water were acceptable for the livestock cattle, kangaroo, and dingo for all EPC exposure

scenarios.




limited.



• Worker training and hazard identification

• Use of appropriate personal protective equipment (gloves, etc.)

• Flowback storage pond fencing to prevent entry of livestock and native fauna and minimise

trespassing

• Use of low permeability materials or dam liners and routine dam inspections to prevent releases from

flowback storage ponds

• Routine operational and security patrols to prevent trespassing.

11

D

irect T

oxic

ity A

naly

sis

Direct Toxicity Analysis As discussed in Section 9.0 of the RA Compendium, a DTA is being conducted to assess the toxicity of

the mixture. Once complete, the results of the analysis will be appended to this document.

12

C

onclu

sio

ns

Conclusions A weight-of-evidence evaluation of potential risks as described in Section 5.0 of the RA Compendium

was performed for the Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3. Based on the

qualitative and quantitative risk characterisations, the overall risk to human health and the environment

is acceptable. Existing operational control activities employed by Santos are in place that will limit the

potential risks to human health and the environment. These measures include:

• Occupational health and safety procedures implemented during hydraulic fracturing operations to


or sediments;

• Environmental authority conditions that preclude the construction of well pads within 100 metres of


• Implementation of spill containment procedures during operations to prevent migration of and


• Disposal or capping of sediments contained within drained mud pits and turkey nests , to prevent


• Fencing of drill pads to prevent trespassers and installation of signs to indicate that the water in the


• Installation and maintenance of fences around the well pad to prevent access to the drill pad by


• Santos operational procedures to ensure well integrity and design of fracture to stay within the target

seam; and

• Mud pits and turkeys nests with clay liners, or similar material, to prevent seepage of flowback water


Monitoring of water supply bores and surface water for a representative suite of chemicals within 2

kilometre of wells (and 200 m vertical separation) that are fractured will be conducted (as needed) to

confirm the conclusion of incomplete exposure pathways and low risk.


employed in hydraulic fracturing. Evaluation of other potential risks associated with hydraulic fracturing

(i.e., noise and vibration) was conducted. Refer to Section 10.0 of the RA Compendium for methodology


13

R

efe

rence

Reference

DEWHA. 2009. Environmental risk assessment guidance manual for industrial chemicals, Department

of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Commonwealth of Australia.

Santos GLNG Projects. 2014. Santos GLNG. Upstream Hydraulic Fracturing Risk Assessment

Compendium of Assessed Fluid Systems.

14

T

able

s

Tables

Page 1 of 2

Table 2: PBT Assessment of the Halliburton RM08-14-3 Fluid System

Substance P/vP criteria fulfilled? B/vB criteria fulfilled? T criteria fulfilled? Overall conclusion

Hydroxypropyl guar

(39421-75-5)

No (screening data estimated) No (screening data available) No (screening data available)


Triethanolamine

(107-71-6)

No (screening data available) No (experimental data available) No (experimental data available)

Not PBT (based on screening and experimental data)

Monoethanolamine borate

(26038-87-9)

No (screening data available) No (screening data available) No (screening data available)


Ulexite

(1319-33-1)

Yes (inorganic salt) No (screening data available) Yes (measured data; human health concerns)

Not PBT (based on screening and measured data)

Ethylene glycol

(107-21-1)

No (screening data available) No (measured data available) No (measured data available)


Diethanolamine

(111-42-2)

No (screening data available) No (screening data available) Human health concerns Not PBT (based on screening and measured data)

Acetic acid

(64-19-2)

No (screening data available) No (screening data available) No (measured data available)


Sodium hydroxide

(1310-73-2)

Not applicable (ionic species ubiquitous in environment)



Not PBT (based screening data and ubiquitous inorganic salt)

Lactose

(63-42-3)



Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate

(12280-03-4)

Yes (inorganic salt) No (screening data available) Yes (measured data; human health concerns)


Crystalline Silica

(14808-60-7)





Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride

(81741-28-8)

Yes (measured data available) No (screening data available) Yes (screening data available)

Not PBT (based on measured and screening data)

Silica dioxide Yes (naturally-occurring inorganic mineral)



Not PBT (based on screening data and physic-chemical properties)

Page 2 of 2


Sodium carbonate

(497-19-8)




Not PBT (based screening data and ubiquitous inorganic salt)

Hemicellulase enzyme

(9012-54-8)




Page 1 of 1


















1.0E-03

Ingestion

Dermal

Page 1 of 1

Table 4: Oral Reference Doses and Drinking Water Guidelines Derived for Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals

Constituent

(CAS No.)

Study Critical Effect/Target Organ(s) NOAEL

(mg/kg-day)

Uncertainty Factors

Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)


Hydroxypropyl guar Rat 2-yr drinking water

General toxicity 1,250 100 12.5 44

Triethanolamine Rat 91-day dietary - 1,000 1,000 1.0 3.5

Monoethanolamine borate 28-day rat oral gavage

None 1,000 1,000 1.0 3.5

Ulexite Rat developmental Fetal body weight changes 10.3a 66 0.2 [boron] 0.7 [boron]

Ethylene glycol 1-year rat (dietary) Kidney toxicity 150 100 1.5 5.3

Diethanolamine 2-yr mouse Choline deficiency 10 - - -

Diethanolamine 2-yr mouse dermal Kidney tumors (male mice) 0.015114 (mg/kg-day)-1*

Not applicable 0.66 μg/kg-day**

0.0023

Lactose 2-year rat dietary Multiple effects in colon/cecum (poor intestinal absorption)

1,000b 1,000 1.0 3.5

Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate

Rat developmental Fetal body weight changes 10.3a 66 0.2 [boron] 0.7 [boron]

Crystalline Silica

NDb ND ND ND ND ND


Rat 90-day drinking water

General toxicity 8.66 1,000 0.009 0.03

Silica dioxide Rat 2-yr dietary None 2,500 100 2.5 0.09

Hemicellulase enzyme 13-week rat (dietary)

Reduced body weight gain 600 1,000 0.6 2

aLOAEL. bNot determined. *Cancer slope factor. **Chronic toxicity value (10-5 cancer risk).

Page 1 of 1

Table 5: Australian Drinking Water Screening Values for Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals

Constituent

(CAS No.)

Drinking Water Screening Guideline Drinking Water Screening Value

Acetic acid pH 6.5 to 8.5

Sodium carbonate Sodium; pH 180 ppm (aesthetic); 6.5 to 8.5

Sodium hydroxide pH 6.5 to 8.5


Page 1 of 1

Hydroxypropyl guar Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Triethanolamine Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Monoethanolamine borate Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

UlexiteSlightly water-soluble inorganic; (borate): not

biodegradable

Ethylene glycol Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Diethanolamine Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Acetic acid Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Sodium hydroxide Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Lactose Estimated: readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate Water-soluble inorganic; (borate): not biodegradable


Non-crystalline silica Water-insoluble mineral; not biodegradable

Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride Inherently biodegradable (half-life = 150 days)a

Sodium carbonate Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Hemicellulase enzyme Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

a Source: EU Guidance Document: Half-life estimates from in vitro biodegradation test results

Table 7 Risk Estimates for Trespasser Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Systemin Well RM 08-14-3 Theoretical Exposure for Day 0

Page 1 of 1

Hazard Quotient


Hydroxypropyl guar 39421-75-5 2.8E+02 NA 12.500 1.6E-02 - 1.3E-03 -

Triethanolamine 107-71-6 1.4E+02 5.1E-05 1.0 8.4E-03 5.50482E-05 8.4E-03 5.5E-05

Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 1.0E+02 NA 1 6.1E-03 - 6.1E-03 -

Ulexite 1319-33-1 1.4E+02 NA 0.2 8.1E-03 - 4.0E-02 -

Ethylene glycol 107-21-1 6.9E+01 9.0E-05 1.5 4.0E-03 4.7E-05 2.7E-03 3.1E-05

Diethanolamine 111-42-2 4.3E+01 4.6E-05 0.66 2.5E-03 1.50038E-05 3.8E-03 2.3E-05

Acetic acid 64-19-2 2.4E+01 5.6E-04 - - - -

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 2.8E+01 NA - - - -

Lactose 63-42-3 7.8E+00 9.2E-09 1 4.5E-04 5.4E-10 4.5E-04 5.4E-10

Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate 12280-03-4 2.2E+00 NA 0.2 1.3E-04 - 6.3E-04 -

Crystalline Silica 14808-60-7 1.2E+01 NA - - - -

Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 3.6E+00 NA 0.009 2.1E-04 - 6.1E-03 -

Silica dioxide 7631-86-9 2.8E+00 NA 2.5 1.7E-04 - 6.1E-03 -

Sodium carbonate 497-19-8 3.1E+00 NA 51.4 1.8E-04 - 6.1E-03

Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 7.6E-01 NA 0.6 4.4E-05 - 6.1E-03


ToxicityDay 0

Halliburton Fluid System - Well RM 08-14-3

Table 8 Risk Estimates for Trespasser Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Systemin Well RM 08-14-3 Theoretical Exposure for Day 150

Page 1 of 1

Hazard Quotient


Hydroxypropyl guar 39421-75-5 2.7E-01 NA 12.500 1.6E-05 - 1.3E-06 -

Triethanolamine 107-71-6 1.4E-01 5.1E-05 1.0 8.2E-06 5.38E-08 8.2E-06 5.4E-08

Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 1.0E-01 NA 1 5.9E-06 - 5.9E-06 -

Ulexite 1319-33-1 1.4E+02 NA 0.2 8.1E-03 - 4.0E-02 -

Ethylene glycol 107-21-1 6.7E-02 9.0E-05 1.5 3.9E-06 4.6E-08 2.6E-06 3.1E-08

Diethanolamine 111-42-2 4.2E-02 4.6E-05 0.66 2.4E-06 1.47E-08 3.7E-06 2.2E-08

Acetic acid 64-19-2 2.3E-02 5.6E-04 - - - -

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 2.8E+01 NA - - - -

Lactose 63-42-3 7.6E-03 9.2E-09 1 4.4E-07 5.3E-13 4.4E-07 5.3E-13

Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate 12280-03-4 2.2E+00 NA 0.2 1.3E-04 - 6.3E-04 -

Crystalline Silica 14808-60-7 1.2E+01 NA - - - -


Silica dioxide 7631-86-9 2.8E+00 NA 2.5 1.7E-04 - 6.1E-03 -

Sodium carbonate 497-19-8 3.1E+00 NA 51.4 1.8E-04 - 6.1E-03

Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 7.4E-04 NA 0.6 4.3E-08 - 6.1E-03


Day 150Toxicity Halliburton Fluid System - Well RM 08-14-3


Page 1 of 1







Ingestion


Page 1 of 1


IR Ingestion rate l/day 3EF Exposure frequency day/yr 10ED Exposure duration yr 15BW Body weight kg 25


Ingestion


Page 1 of 1


IR Ingestion rate l/day 0.75EF Exposure frequency day/yr 10ED Exposure duration yr 15BW Body weight kg 13


Ingestion

Page 1 of 1

Table 12: Aquatic Toxicity Values (PNECs) for Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals

Constituents Endpoint E(L)C50 or NOEC

(mg/L)

Assessment Factor PNECaquatic

(mg/L)

Hydroxypropyl guar 48-hr LC50 (Daphnia) 42 1,000 0.042

Triethanolamine Chronic Daphnia 125 100 1.25

Monoethanolamine borate Acute algae 13 1,000 0.013

Ulexite Species Sensitivity Distribution - - 1.5a,c

0.37b,c

Ethylene glycol Chronic invertebrates 3,469 10 347

Diethanolamine Chronic Daphnia 0.78 50 0.0156

Acetic acid Chronic Daphnia 23 50 0.5

Sodium hydroxide NDd ND ND ND

Lactose Acute fish (QSAR) 81,045 1,000 81

Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate Species Sensitivity Distribution - - 1.5a,c

0.37b,c

Crystalline Silica ND ND ND ND

Tribuyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride Acute Daphnia 0.025 1,000 2.5 x 10-5

Silica dioxide ND ND ND ND

Sodium carbonate Acute Daphnia 200 1,000 0.2

Hemicellulase enzyme Acute fish 330 1,000 0.33

aCanadian water quality guideline for the protection of aquatic life: boron (CCME, 2009). bAustralia and New Zealand freshwater high reliability trigger value for boron (ANZECC, 2000). cValue expressed as B equivalents dND = Not determined.

Table 13 Risk Estimates for Cattle HalliburtonHydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3

Theoretical Exposure for Day 0

Page 1 of 1


Hazard Quotient

Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs Total Intake Incidental Ingestion

Hydroxypropyl guar 39421-75-5 2.8E+02 2.1E+02 2.2E+00 1.0E-02

Triethanolamine 107-71-6 1.4E+02 1.7E+02 1.1E+00 6.7E-03

Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 1.0E+02 1.7E+02 8.1E-01 4.9E-03

Ulexite 1319-33-1 1.4E+02 1.7E+00 1.1E+00 6.3E-01

Ethylene glycol 107-21-1 6.9E+01 2.5E+01 5.4E-01 2.2E-02

Diethanolamine 111-42-2 4.3E+01 1.7E+00 3.3E-01 2.0E-01

Acetic acid 64-19-2 2.4E+01 - - -

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 2.8E+01 - - -

Lactose 63-42-3 7.8E+00 1.7E+02 6.0E-02 3.6E-04

Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate 12280-03-4 2.2E+00 1.7E+00 1.7E-02 9.8E-03

Crystalline Silica 14808-60-7 1.2E+01 - - -

Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 3.6E+00 1.4E+00 2.8E-02 2.0E-02

Silica dioxide 7631-86-9 2.8E+00 4.2E+02 2.2E-02 5.3E-05

Sodium carbonate 497-19-8 3.1E+00 - - -

Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 7.6E-01 1.0E+02 5.9E-03 5.9E-05

Hazard Index

9.0E-01

Day 0 Toxicity

Table 14 Risk Estimates for Cattle HalliburtonHydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3


Page 1 of 1


Hazard Quotient


Hydroxypropyl guar 39421-75-5 2.7E-01 2.1E+02 2.1E-03 1.0E-05

Triethanolamine 107-71-6 1.4E-01 1.7E+02 1.1E-03 6.5E-06

Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 1.0E-01 1.7E+02 7.9E-04 4.8E-06

Ulexite 1319-33-1 1.4E+02 1.7E+00 1.1E+00 6.3E-01

Ethylene glycol 107-21-1 6.7E-02 2.5E+01 5.3E-04 2.1E-05

Diethanolamine 111-42-2 4.2E-02 1.7E+00 3.2E-04 1.9E-04

Acetic acid 64-19-2 2.3E-02 - - -


Lactose 63-42-3 7.6E-03 1.7E+02 5.9E-05 3.5E-07







Hazard Index

6.5E-01

Day 150 Toxicity

Table 15 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo HalliburtonHydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3


Page 1 of 1


Hazard Quotient


Hydroxypropyl guar 39421-75-5 2.8E+02 4.3E+02 9.1E-01 2.1E-03

Triethanolamine 107-71-6 1.4E+02 3.4E+02 4.7E-01 1.4E-03


Ulexite 1319-33-1 1.4E+02 3.5E+00 4.6E-01 1.3E-01



Acetic acid 64-19-2 2.4E+01 - - -


Lactose 63-42-3 7.8E+00 3.4E+02 2.6E-02 7.4E-05







Hazard Index

1.8E-01

Day 0 Toxicity

Table 16 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo HalliburtonHydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3


Page 1 of 1


Hazard Quotient





Ulexite 1319-33-1 1.4E+02 3.5E+00 4.6E-01 1.3E-01



Acetic acid 64-19-2 2.3E-02 - - -


Lactose 63-42-3 7.6E-03 3.4E+02 2.5E-05 7.2E-08







Hazard Index

1.3E-01

Day 150 Toxicity

Table 17 Risk Estimates for Dingo HalliburtonHydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3


Page 1 of 1


Hazard Quotient


Hydroxypropyl guar 39421-75-5 2.8E+02 5.1E+02 4.4E-01 8.7E-04

Triethanolamine 107-71-6 1.4E+02 4.1E+02 2.3E-01 5.6E-04


Ulexite 1319-33-1 1.4E+02 4.2E+00 2.2E-01 5.2E-02



Acetic acid 64-19-2 2.4E+01 - - -


Lactose 63-42-3 7.8E+00 4.1E+02 1.2E-02 3.0E-05







Hazard Index

7.5E-02

Day 0 Toxicity

Table 18 Risk Estimates for Dingo HalliburtonHydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3


Page 1 of 1


Hazard Quotient





Ulexite 1319-33-1 1.4E+02 4.2E+00 2.2E-01 5.2E-02



Acetic acid 64-19-2 2.3E-02 - - -


Lactose 63-42-3 7.6E-03 4.1E+02 1.2E-05 3.0E-08







Hazard Index

5.4E-02

Day 150 Toxicity

15

A

ppendix

1

Appendix 1

Comments:

985.679

Liters % of total volume

96.0%

Proppant type (e.g sand) Proppant Size Kilograms Liters % of total volume

20/40 Sand 20/40 4536 1712 0.174%

16/30 Sand 16/30 81647 30810 3.13%

% of total volume

0.198%

0.160%

0.0952%

0.0660%

0.0531%

0.0467%

0.0293%

0.0168%

0.0100%

0.00383%

0.00338%

0.00329%

0.00288%

0.00105%

0.00091%

0.00038%

Makeup Water 946353

HALLIBURTON CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - ONLY TO BE USED FOR REGULATOR NOTIFICATION (QLD FORMAT)

Santos Queensland PreJob RM08-14-3, 10000 lb 20/40 Sand, 180000 lb 16/30 Sand

Total injected fluid volume (kiloliters):

Comprising of: (Kilograms, liters or kiloliters)

Base Fluid type (e.g. water)

Any wet chemical constitutes: Liters

Water in Products 1949

Hydroxylpropyl guar 1575

Triethanol amine 938

Monoethanolamine borate 651

Ulexite 523

Ethylene glycol 460

Diethanol amine 289

Acetic acid 165

Sodium hydroxide 99

Lactose 38

Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate 33

Sodium carbonate 9.0

Hemicellulase enzyme 3.8

Crystalline silica, quartz 32

Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 28

Silica dioxide 10

16

A

ppendix

C8-T

able

s

Appendix C8-Tables

Table C8-1 Surface Water Quality Data for Theoretical Scenario in Initial Flowback for Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3

Page 1 of 1

Halliburton RM 08-14-3 Half-Life (days) 0 30 150 300

Hydroxypropyl guar 39421-75-5 2,080.0 15 277.33 69.3 0.3 0.0

Triethanolamine 102-71-6 1,075.8 15 143.4 35.9 0.1 0.0

Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 781.4 15 104.2 26.0 0.10 0.00010

Ulexite 1319-33-1 1,038.1 NA 138.4 138.4 138.4 138.4

Ethylene glycol 107-21-1 518.4 15 69.1 17.3 0.067 0.000066

Diethanolamine 111-42-2 319.4 15 42.6 10.6 0.042 0.00004

Acetic acid 64-19-2 176.4 15 23.5 5.9 0.023 0.00002

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 213.0 NA 28.40 28.40 28.40 28.40

Lactose 63-42-3 58.2 15 7.76 1.94 0.01 0.00001

Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate 12280-03-4 16.2 NA 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16

Crystalline Silica 14808-60-7 87.19 NA 11.625 11.62 11.62 11.62

Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 27.36 150 3.648 3.176 1.824 0.912

Silica dioxide 7631-86-9 21.32 NA 2.842 2.842 2.842 2.842

Sodium carbonate 497-19-8 23.11 NA 3.082 3.082 3.082 3.082

Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 5.70 15 0.760 0.190 0.001 0.000




systems (mg/L)






Fate and

Transport

Properties

Table C8-2 Comparison of Estimated Theoretical HalliburtonHydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3

Concentrations to Human Health Drinking Water Guidelines

Page 1 of 1

Halliburton RM 08-14-3 Half-Life (days) 0 30 150 300 0 30 150 300

Hydroxypropyl guar 39421-75-5 2,080.0 15 277.33 69.3 0.3 0.0 44 6.3E+00 1.6E+00 6.2E-03 6.0E-06

Triethanolamine 102-71-6 1,075.8 15 143.4 35.9 0.1 0.0 3.5 4.1E+01 1.0E+01 4.0E-02 3.9E-05

Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 781.4 15 104.2 26.0 0.10 0.00010 3.5 3.0E+01 7.4E+00 2.9E-02 2.8E-05

Ulexite 1319-33-1 1,038.1 NA 138.4 138.4 138.4 138.4 0.7 2.0E+02 2.0E+02 2.0E+02 2.0E+02

Ethylene glycol 107-21-1 518.4 15 69.1 17.3 0.067 0.000066 5.3 1.3E+01 3.3E+00 1.3E-02 1.2E-05

Diethanolamine 111-42-2 319.4 15 42.6 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0023 1.9E+04 4.6E+03 1.8E+01 1.8E-02

Acetic acid 64-19-2 176.4 15 23.5 5.9 0.0 0.0 - - - - -

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 213.0 NA 28.40 28.40 28.40 28.40 - - - - -

Lactose 63-42-3 58.2 15 7.76 1.9E+00 7.6E-03 7.4E-06 3.5 2.2E+00 5.5E-01 2.2E-03 2.1E-06

Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate 12280-03-4 16.2 NA 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16 0.7 3.1E+00 3.1E+00 3.1E+00 3.1E+00

Crystalline Silica 14808-60-7 87.19 NA 11.625 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 - - - - -

Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 27.36 150 3.648 3.176 1.824 0.912 0.03 1.2E+02 1.1E+02 6.1E+01 3.0E+01

Silica dioxide 7631-86-9 21.32 NA 2.842 2.842 2.842 2.842 0.09 3.2E+01 3.2E+01 3.2E+01 3.2E+01

Sodium carbonate 497-19-8 23.11 NA 3.082 3.082 3.082 3.082 180 1.7E-02 1.7E-02 1.7E-02 1.7E-02

Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 5.70 15 0.760 0.190 0.001 0.000 2 3.8E-01 9.5E-02 3.7E-04 3.6E-07

Cumulative Ratio 18,960.9 4,990.0 311.4 262.8

Drinking

Water

Guideline

(mg/L)


Screening Criteria (Ratio greater than one =

unacceptable potential risk)

Temporal Scenario (days)Constituent Name CAS No.Temporal Scenario (days)



systems (mg/L)






Fate and

Transport

Properties

Table C8-3 Comparison of Estimated Theoretical HalliburtonHydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3

Concentrations to Aquatic Life Water Guidelines

Page 1 of 1

Halliburton RM 08-14-3 Half-Life (days) 0 30 150 300 0 30 150 300

Hydroxypropyl guar 39421-75-5 2,080.0 15 277.33 69.3 0.3 0.0 4.2E-02 6.6E+03 1.7E+03 6.4E+00 6.3E-03

Triethanolamine 102-71-6 1,075.8 15 143.4 35.9 0.1 0.0 1.3E+00 1.1E+02 2.9E+01 1.1E-01 1.1E-04

Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 781.4 15 104.2 26.0 0.10 0.00010 1.3E-02 8.0E+03 2.0E+03 7.8E+00 7.6E-03

Ulexite 1319-33-1 1,038.1 NA 138.4 138.4 138.4 138.4 3.7E-01 3.7E+02 3.7E+02 3.7E+02 3.7E+02

Ethylene glycol 107-21-1 518.4 15 69.1 17.3 0.067 0.000066 3.5E+02 2.0E-01 5.0E-02 1.9E-04 1.9E-07

Diethanolamine 111-42-2 319.4 15 42.6 10.6 0.0 0.0 1.6E-02 2.7E+03 6.8E+02 2.7E+00 2.6E-03

Acetic acid 64-19-2 176.4 15 23.5 5.9 0.0 0.0 5.0E-01 4.7E+01 1.2E+01 4.6E-02 4.5E-05

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 213.0 NA 28.40 28.40 28.40 28.40 - - - - -

Lactose 63-42-3 58.2 15 7.76 1.9E+00 7.6E-03 7.4E-06 8.1E+01 9.6E-02 2.4E-02 9.4E-05 9.1E-08

Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate 12280-03-4 16.2 NA 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16 3.7E-01 5.8E+00 5.8E+00 5.8E+00 5.8E+00

Crystalline Silica 14808-60-7 87.19 NA 11.625 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 - - - - -

Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 27.36 150 3.648 3.176 1.824 0.912 2.5E-05 1.5E+05 1.3E+05 7.3E+04 3.6E+04

Silica dioxide 7631-86-9 21.32 NA 2.842 2.842 2.842 2.842 - - - - -

Sodium carbonate 497-19-8 23.11 NA 3.082 3.082 3.082 3.082 2.0E-01 1.5E+01 1.5E+01 1.5E+01 1.5E+01

Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 5.70 15 0.760 0.190 0.001 0.000 0 2.3E+00 5.8E-01 2.2E-03 2.2E-06

Cumulative Ratio 163,827.3 131,804.1 73,372.4 36,875.4




systems (mg/L)






Fate and

Transport

Properties

PNEC

aquatic

(mg/L)





1

APPENDIX C9 Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic

Fracturing Fluid System

2

I

ntr

oduction

Introduction Santos GLNG (Santos) is looking to use a water based (not gel based) Halliburton hydraulic fracturing

fluid system (the fluid system) for development of coal seam gas (CSG) resources in the Surat and

Bowen Basins of Queensland, specifically in the Roma Shallow Gas Project Area (RSGPA). The

disclosure for well Mt Kingsley 6, including a listing of the chemical constituents and percent of total

volume in the fluid system, is provided in Appendix 1. The fluid system components provided in

Appendix 1 comprises only three chemicals: BE-9 Algaecide (a biocide containing tributyl tetradecyl

phosphonium chloride); Fluorescein Dye (sodium fluorescein); and, potassium chloride (KCl) for clay

inhibition. The anticipated chemical composition of the hydraulic fracturing fluid will comprise the

following:

• Water 300,000 gallons

• KCl 100,200 pounds

• BE-9 180 gallons

• Flourescein Dye 5 pounds

As presented in Section 5.0 of the RA Compendium, Santos Ltd. (Santos) used a weight-of-evidence

approach to evaluate the potential for human health and environmental (e.g., ecological) risks as a result

of the hydraulic fracturing processes and the use of the Halliburton Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System in

well Mt Kingsley 6.

EHS Support, LLC (EHS Support) conducted a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) to meet Conditions

49e and 49f of the 2 October 2011 approval under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC 2008/4059) and the Environmental Amendment (EA) conditions to



below. Refer to Section 6.0 through Section 8.0 of the RA Compendium for detailed discussions on the

methodologies employed for the qualitative risk assessment and QRA components, which are


3

Q

ualit

ative R

isk A

ssessm

ent and E

valu

ation


C2.1 Chemicals Evaluated The Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System was assessed. The list of individual

chemicals is presented in Table 1 below. A mass balance of the chemicals is provided as Appendix

C8-Table 1.


Appendix D8 of the RA Compendium. Information regarding the chemical and physical properties of

the individual chemicals listed below as well as the approximate percentage present in the hydraulic


The fluid system does not contain BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes) or polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) based on EHS Support’s understanding that Halliburton has tested all of

their products. Field monitoring will also be conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements. While

none of the fracturing fluid chemicals identified contain BTEX or PAHs, PAHs occur naturally in coal and

it is possible that certain PAHs may naturally be present in the coal seam groundwater used in the

hydraulic fracturing process.


Chemical CAS Number

Sodium fluorescein 518-47-8

Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8

Potassium chloride 7447-40-7

C2.2 Risk Assessment Framework and Findings As discussed in Section 5.0 of the RA Compendium, a systematic weight of evidence approach was

utilised to complete the risk assessment for the Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid

System. The work has involved the following evaluations:


• PBT Assessment

• Exposure Assessment

• Mass Balance of Fluid System

• Fate and Transport Modeling.


• Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA)

• Quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment for Terrestrial and Aquatic Receptors.


• Direct Toxicity Assessments of fluid systems.

C2.3 PBT Assessment For the environmental hazard assessment, a PBT (persistence, bioaccumulative, toxicity) assessment

was conducted in accordance with the guidance developed by DEWHA (2009), as presented in the RA

Compendium. The PBT assessment is conducted because of specific concerns for substances that can

be shown to persist for long periods in the environment, to bioaccumulate in food chains, and can give

4

Q

ualit

ative R

isk A

ssessm

ent and E

valu

ation

rise to toxic effects after a longer time and over a greater spatial scale than chemicals without these

properties. These effects may be difficult to detect at an early stage because of long-term exposures at

normally low concentration levels and long life-cycles of species at the top of the food chain.


fracturing chemicals based on PBT potential. As a result of this assessment, no chemical constituents

identified in the Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System were classified as a PBT

chemical, and are therefore not considered to be inherently hazardous. The results of the PBT

Assessment are presented in Table 2.

C2.3 Exposure Assessment As discussed in Section 7.0 of the RA Compendium, the exposure assessment identified receptors




C2.4 Mass Balance of Fluid System A quantitative mass balance calculation was undertaken to identify the amount of each chemical additive

of the hydraulic fracturing fluid system. The results of the mass balance calculations are presented in


C2.5 Fate and Transport Modelling As discussed in Section 7.2 of the RA Compendium, fate and transport modelling was conducted on a





5

Q

uantita

tive R

isk A

ssessm

ent

Quantitative Risk Assessment In accordance with the methodologies presented in Section 8.0 of the RA Compendium, a QRA was

conducted on theoretical datasets for those chemicals identified in the Halliburton Fluorescein Dye

Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System. The QRA approach evaluates the toxicity of the individual







Potential complete exposure pathways to the storage of flowback from hydraulically stimulated wells,












the flowback storage tank.


as from piping or a release from the flowback storage tank. These potential releases could



C3.1 Exposure Assessment The purpose of the exposure assessment in the QRA was to predict the magnitude and frequency of

potential human exposure to each COPC following the methodologies presented in Section 8.1 of the

RA Compendium. A conceptual site model (CSM) was developed which describes the potential

receptors and exposure scenarios for the flowback water used in this exposure assessment. The

potential exposures to receptors were evaluated based on the potential for a complete exposure

pathway.

As discussed in Section 8.2 of the RA Compendium, exposure point concentrations (EPCs) were derived

for the theoretical assessment; empirical data were not available for evaluation. The EPCs for the

theoretical assessment were calculated by estimating the mass and discharge flow of the COPCs in the

flowback water.

C3.2 Human Health QRA A human health hazard assessment was conducted according to the methodologies presented in

Section 8.4 of the RA Compendium. The purpose of the hazard assessment process was to summarise

the environmental data, and to address the toxicological assessment of the COPCs that will be evaluated

further in the risk assessment process.

6

Q

uantita

tive R

isk A

ssessm

ent








Ingestion of water:




Where:











C3.3 Toxicity Assessment A toxicity assessment was conducted to determine the relationship between the dose of a COPC taken





Appendix F9.


exposure scenarios as discussed in Section 8.4 of the RA Compendium. The derivation of Oral

Reference Dose and Drinking Water Guideline Values are presented in Table 4.

C3.4 Exposure Point Concentration As presented above, the exposure scenarios are based on anticipated conditions, and the potential for



conditions within the fracturing fluids flowback storage ponds, and the flowback used in the irrigation

fields.

To assess the potential flux of hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the environment, vendor disclosures for

the hydraulic fracturing fluid systems were reviewed, and the chemical concentrations of key inputs were

determined. It should be also be noted that diethanolamine is a new chemical, and is only included as a

contingency; at this time it is unlikely to be used.

7

Q

uantita

tive R

isk A

ssessm

ent


Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System, as presented in Appendix C8-Table 1,

were used to estimate the potential concentrations in water within the fracturing fluids sump or flare pit,

or flowback storage ponds. Based on stimulation flow back monitoring conducted by Santos and the

QRA completed for the Schlumberger Fluid Systems (Appendix C of the RA Compendium), 20 percent

of the total mass of constituents injected is assumed to be recovered in the flowback water. This mass

is diluted within 150% of the injected volume (the minimum volume that must be flowed back) to establish

an “estimated” concentration (i.e., concentration expected due to full dilution of the back flow water)

within the flowback storage ponds.


of one year of operational activity before transfer or conveyance to the water treatment facilities and or

transferred into Santos water convenyance systems (for treatment) and thereby blended with other CS

water not containing these constituents. To be conservative it has been assumed that the fluids are

stored with ponds with theconcentration of COPCs in the flowback storage pond water adjusted, where





are conducted under aerobic conditions in which a high concentration of the test substance is used, and

biodegradation is measured by non-specific parameters including dissolved organic carbon, biochemical

oxygen demand and carbon dioxide production. Table 5 presents the environmental fate information

that was used to assess biodegradation of COPCs, and that was applied at the time periods of 0, 30,

150 and 300 days from initial flowback.





exceedance of screening levels, is presented in Appendix C8-Table 2.

C3.5 Risk Estimation Risk estimation was performed in accordance with the methodologies outlined in Section 8.4 of the RA

Compendium. The total target risk range for carcinogens was 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6; the target HI for non-

threshold effects is less than or equal to 1.0.



The results of the theoretical assessments for Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid

System for the trespasser exposure scenarios (day 0 and day 150, Halliburton Fluorescein Dye

Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System events) are summarized in Tables 6 and 7. As discussed above, the

theoretical assessment was only conducted at the well pad sites.

The exposure scenarios include the Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System

event, as presented in Appendix C8-Table 1 for day 0 and day 150 from the flowback storage tank.

The trespasser for day 0 had no unacceptable risks for the Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic

Fracturing Fluid System (HI=0.04, Table 6), and for day 150 (HI=0.028, Table 7). There were no

unacceptable risks for either day scenario.

On this basis and using the theoretical concentrations, on this basis and using the theoretical

concentrations, no adverse effects are predicted on trespassers.

8

Q

uantita

tive R

isk A

ssessm

ent

C3.6 Ecological Risk Assessment As discussed in Section 8.5, a screening level ecological risk assessment (ERA) was conducted to



C3.7 Exposure Assessment Terrestrial receptors evaluated in the ERA include domesticated livestock, large mammalian wildlife and







Where:









C3.8 Toxicity Assessment To evaluate the potential for adverse ecological effects, toxicity reference values (TRVs) are selected



adverse effects may occur. The ERA used two types of TRVs (Section 8.5.3 of the RA Compendium).

The first TRV is a concentration-based TRV to evaluate the concentration of the selected COPC in the

surface water and direct exposure by the aquatic ecological receptor. The determination of TRVs for

freshwater was conducted according to the predicted no-effects concentration (PNEC) guidance in the

Environmental Risk Assessment Guidance Manual for Industrial Chemicals prepared by the Australian

Environmental Agency (AEA, 2009). Table 11 presents the COPC, the endpoint, NOEC [milligrams per

litre (mg/L)], assessment factor, and the aquatic PNEC (mg/L). The second TRV is a dose-based TRV

to evaluate the intake dose of the selected COPC from exposure to surface water by ingestion. The

calculated TRVs for each of the mammalian ecological receptors evaluated in the ERA are presented in

the species-specific ecological risk models.

C3.9 Exposure Point Concentration EPCs for the exposure assessment were calculated using the results of theoretical fate and transport



and mud pits) that were used to estimate the EPCs for the human health receptors. The EPCs for the

ecological receptors were estimated assuming the same Scenarios, with exposure occurring in the

9

Q

uantita

tive R

isk A

ssessm

ent

irrigation area where irrigation water may pool and wildlife may drink from the standing water.

Appendix C8-Table 1 presents the calculated EPCs for the ecological receptor exposure scenarios.

The theoretical EPCs for the four exposure time periods (0, 30, 150, and 300 days) were compared to

ecological based toxicity-based screening levels, and the results of this comparison, including the ratio

of exceedance of screening levels, is presented in Appenidix C8-Table 3.

Risks were characterised in accordance with the methodologies discussed in Section 8.5.6 of the RA

Compendium. The resulting ecological hazard quotient must be less than or equal to 1.0 for risks to be

considered acceptable.

C3.10 Estimation of Risk The HI calculated for flowback water for aquatic risk were elevated above the acceptable level for the

majority of COPCs evaluated (Appendix C8-Table 3). Where large discharges of flowback water occur

to surface water and/or flux dilution within the surface-water was insufficient, potential impacts on aquatic




The results of the theoretical assessments for Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid

System for the livestock cattle, kangaroo and dingo are summarized in Tables 12 through 17. The

exposure scenarios include the Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System EPCs

presented in Appendix C8-Table 1 for day 0 and day 150 from the fracturing fluid well flowback. The

modelled risks from Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System chemicals in the

flowback water were acceptable for the livestock (HI=0.15 to 0.14, Table 12 and 13), kangaroo

(HI=0.031 0.029, Table 14 and 15), and dingo (HI=0.013 to 0.012, Table 16 and 17), for all exposure

scenarios.

10

S

um

ma

ry o

f Q

RA

Fin

din

gs

Summary of QRA Findings The QRA was completed as discussed in Section 8.0 of the RA Compendium. An assessment was

conducted using highly conservative theoretical calculations based on the chemicals utilised by

Halliburton in hydraulic fracturing. This assessment assumed that a range of theoretical concentrations

of injected chemicals would be present in the flowback water based on biodegradation rates, where

applicable.




Management Plan (WMP). Management of CSG water involves the temporary storage of flowback water

in flowback storage ponds.

The exposure scenario modelled for the QRA was a trespasser being exposed to flowback water under

various EPC scenarios. Based on quantitative risk calculations, the potential risks for the trespasser

were acceptable for the EPC scenarios. There were no carcinogenic risks identified.

The modelled risks from Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System chemicals in the

flowback water were acceptable for the livestock cattle, kangaroo, and dingo for all EPC exposure

scenarios.

Potential impacts could occur if releases of flowback water were to occur to aquatic environments. Based

on the use of low permeability materials (clay liners) and operational controls that limit the potential for

turkey nest and dam overflows, the potential for these risks are also considered limited.






trespassing

Use of low permeability materials or dam liners and routine dam inspections to prevent releases from

flowback storage ponds


11

D

irect T

oxic

ity A

naly

sis

Direct Toxicity Analysis As discussed in Section 9.0 of the RA Compendium, a DTA is being conducted to assess the toxicity of

the mixture. Once complete, the results of the analysis will be appended to this document.

12

C

onclu

sio

ns

Conclusions A weight-of-evidence evaluation of potential risks as described in Section 5.0 of the RA Compendium

was performed for the Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System. Based on the

qualitative and quantitative risk characterisations, the overall risk to human health and the environment

is acceptable. Existing operational control activities employed by Santos are in place that will limit the

potential risks to human health and the environment. These measures include:

• Occupational health and safety procedures implemented during hydraulic fracturing operations to


or sediments;

• Environmental authority conditions that preclude the construction of well pads within 100 metres of


• Implementation of spill containment procedures during operations to prevent migration of and


• Disposal or capping of sediments contained within drained mud pits and turkey nests , to prevent


• Fencing of drill pads to prevent trespassers and installation of signs to indicate that the water in the


• Installation and maintenance of fences around the well pad to prevent access to the drill pad by


• Santos operational procedures to ensure well integrity and design of fracture to stay within the target

seam; and

• Mud pits and turkeys nests with clay liners, or similar material, to prevent seepage of flowback water


Monitoring of water supply bores and surface water for a representative suite of chemicals within 2

kilometre of wells (and 200 m vertical separation) that are fractured will be conducted (as needed) to

confirm the conclusion of incomplete exposure pathways and low risk.


employed in hydraulic fracturing. Evaluation of other potential risks associated with hydraulic fracturing

(i.e., noise and vibration) was conducted. Refer to Section 10.0 of the RA Compendium for methodology


13

R

efe

rence

Reference

DEWHA. 2009. Environmental risk assessment guidance manual for industrial chemicals, Department

of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Commonwealth of Australia.

Santos GLNG Projects. 2014. Santos GLNG. Upstream Hydraulic Fracturing Risk Assessment

Compendium of Assessed Fluid Systems.

14

T

able

s

Tables

Page 1 of 1

Table 2: PBT Assessment of the Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Fluid System


Potassium chloride

(14808-60-7)

Not applicable (inorganic salt)

No (estimated) No (screening data available)

Not PBT (based on screening data and estimation)


(81741-28-8)

Yes (measured data available)



Not PBT (based on measured and screening data)

Sodium fluorescein

(518-47-8)






Page 1 of 1


















1.0E-03

Ingestion

Dermal

Page 1 of 1

Table 4: Oral Reference Doses and Drinking Water Guidelines Derived for Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals

Constituent

(CAS No.)

Study Critical Effect/Target Organ(s)

NOAEL

(mg/kg-day)

Uncertainty Factors

Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)


Potassium chloride Rat 2-yr dietary None 1,820 100 18 64


Rat 90-day drinking water

General toxicity 8.66 1,000 0.009 0.03

Sodium fluorescein Rabbit developmental

None 250 1,000 2.5 8.8


Page 1 of 1

Potassium chlorideDissociates completely in aqueous media

Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride Inherently biodegradable (half-life = 150 days)a

Sodium fluoresceinNot biodegradable

a Source: EU Guidance Document: Half-life estimates from in vitro biodegradation test results

Table 6 Risk Estimates for TrespasserHalliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Page 1 of 1

Hazard Quotient


Potassium chloride 7447-40-7 5.1E+03 NA 18 3.0E-01 - 1.7E-02 -


Sodium fluorescein 518-47-8 2.6E-01 4.5E-06 2.5 1.5E-05 8.7E-09 6.0E-06 3.5E-09


ToxicityDay 0

Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Fluid System

Table 7 Risk Estimates for TrespasserHalliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Page 1 of 1

Hazard Quotient


Potassium chloride 7447-40-7 5.1E+03 NA 18 3.0E-01 - 1.7E-02 -


Sodium fluorescein 518-47-8 2.6E-01 4.5E-06 2.5 1.5E-05 8.7E-09 6.0E-06 3.5E-09


Day 150Toxicity Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Fluid System


Page 1 of 1







Ingestion


Page 1 of 1




Ingestion


Page 1 of 1




Ingestion

Page 1 of 1

Table 11: Aquatic Toxicity Values (PNECs) for Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals

Constituents Endpoint E(L)C50 or NOEC

(mg/L)

Assessment Factor PNECaquatic

(mg/L)

Potassium chloride Acute Algae 100 1,000 0.1

Tribuyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride Acute Daphnia 0.025 1,000 2.5 x 10-5

Sodium fluorescein Acute Daphnia 337 1,000 0.34

Table 12 Risk Estimates for CattleHalliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Page 1 of 1


Hazard Quotient


Potassium chloride 7447-40-7 5.1E+03 3.0E+02 4.0E+01 1.3E-01


Sodium fluorescein 518-47-8 2.6E-01 7.7E+01 2.0E-03 2.6E-05

Hazard Index

1.5E-01

Day 0 Toxicity

Table 13 Risk Estimates for CattleHalliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Page 1 of 1


Hazard Quotient





Hazard Index

1.4E-01

Day 150 Toxicity

Table 14 Risk Estimates for KangarooHalliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Page 1 of 1


Hazard Quotient





Hazard Index

3.1E-02

Day 0 Toxicity

Table 15 Risk Estimates for KangarooHalliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Page 1 of 1


Hazard Quotient





Hazard Index

2.9E-02

Day 150 Toxicity

Table 16 Risk Estimates for DingoHalliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Page 1 of 1


Hazard Quotient





Hazard Index

1.3E-02

Day 0 Toxicity

Table 17 Risk Estimates for DingoHalliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Page 1 of 1


Hazard Quotient





Hazard Index

1.2E-02

Day 150 Toxicity

15

A

ppendix

1

Appendix 1

Comments:

1182.800

Liters % of total volume

96.0%

Proppant type (e.g sand) Proppant Size Kilograms Liters % of total volume

20/40 Sand 20/40 1361 514 0.0434%

16/30 Sand 16/30 61235 23108 1.95%

% of total volume

1.93%

0.0576%

0.00288%

0.00012%

Makeup Water 1135623

HALLIBURTON CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - ONLY TO BE USED FOR REGULATOR NOTIFICATION (QLD FORMAT)

Santos CSG PreJob Mount Kinsley 6, 3000 lb 20/40 Sand, 135000 lb 16/30 Sand

Total injected fluid volume (kiloliters):

Comprising of: (Kilograms, liters or kiloliters)

Base Fluid type (e.g. water)

Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 34

Sodium fluorescein 1.4

Any wet chemical constitutes: Liters

Potassium chloride 22839

Water in Products 681

16

A

ppendix

C9-T

able

s

Appendix C9-Tables

Table C9-1 Surface Water Quality Data for Theoretical Scenario in Initial Flowback for Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System

Page 1 of 1

Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Half-Life (days) 0 30 150 300

Potassium chloride 7447-40-7 38,425.8 NA 5123.4 5123.4 5123.4 5123.4

Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 27.4 150 3.6 3.2 1.8 0.9

Sodium fluorescein 518-47-8 1.9 NA 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3


Estimated concentration in

pre-injection fluid systems

(mg/L)




FBconcentration (mg/L)/ FB dilution 150% x percent

mass returned (mg/L) x Biodegradation (half life)

Fate and

Transport

Properties

Table C9-2 Comparison of Estimated TheoreticalHalliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid SystemConcentrations to Human Health Drinking Water Guidelines

Page 1 of 1

Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Half-Life (days) 0 30 150 300 0 30 150 300

Potassium chloride 7447-40-7 38,425.8 NA 5123.4 5123.4 5123.4 5123.4 64 8.0E+01 8.0E+01 8.0E+01 8.0E+01

Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 27.4 150 3.6 3.2 1.8 0.9 0.03 1.2E+02 1.1E+02 6.1E+01 3.0E+01

Sodium fluorescein 518-47-8 1.9 NA 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 8.8 2.9E-02 2.9E-02 2.9E-02 2.9E-02

Cumulative Ratio 201.7 186.0 140.9 110.5


Estimated concentration in pre-

injection fluid systems (mg/L)






Fate and

Transport

Properties

Drinking

Water

Guideline

(mg/L)





Table C9-3 Comparison of Estimated TheoreticalHalliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Page 1 of 1

Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Half-Life (days) 0 30 150 300 0 30 150 300

Potassium chloride 7447-40-7 38,425.8 NA 5123.44 5123.4 5123.4 5123.4 1.0E-01 5.1E+04 5.1E+04 5.1E+04 5.1E+04

Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 27.4 150 3.6 3.2 1.8 0.9 2.5E-05 1.5E+05 1.3E+05 7.3E+04 3.6E+04

Sodium fluorescein 518-47-8 1.9 NA 0.3 0.3 0.26 0.25566 3.4E-01 7.5E-01 7.5E-01 7.5E-01 7.5E-01








FBconcentration (mg/L)/ FB dilution 150% x percent

mass returned (mg/L) x Biodegradation (half life)

Fate and Transport

Properties

PNEC

aquatic

(mg/L)

Ratio of COPC Concentrations and Screening

Criteria (Ratio greater than one =



1

APPENDIX C10 Condor Energy Services

Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System

2

In

trodu

ctio

n

Introduction Santos GLNG (Santos) is looking to use a borate, guar-based crosslinked Condor Energy Services hydraulic fracturing fluid system (the fluid system) for development of coal seam gas (CSG) resources in the Surat and Bowen Basins of Queensland. The disclosure for Condor Energy Services hydraulic fracturing fluid system, including a listing of the chemical constituents and percent of total volume in the fluid system, is provided in Appendix 1.

As presented in Section 5.0 of the Upstream Hydraulic Fracturing Risk Assessment Compendium of Assessed Fluid Systems (RA Compendium; Santos GLNG Projects, 2016), Santos Ltd. (Santos) used a weight-of-evidence approach to evaluate the potential for human health and environmental (e.g., ecological) risks as a result of the hydraulic fracturing processes and the use of the Condor Energy Services hydraulic fracturing fluid system.

EHS Support, LLC (EHS Support) conducted a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) to meet Conditions 49e and 49f of the 2 October 2011 approval under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC 2008/4059) and the Environmental Amendment (EA) conditions to assess the toxicity of the mixtures.

The results and conclusions of the qualitative risk assessment components and the QRA are presented below. Refer to Section 6.0 through Section 8.0 of the RA Compendium for detailed discussions on the methodologies employed for the qualitative risk assessment and QRA components, which are referenced in the sections below.

3

Q

ualit

ativ

e R

isk

Asse

ssm

ent a

nd E

valu

atio

n


C2.1 Chemicals Evaluated The Condor Energy Services hydraulic fracturing fluid system was assessed. The list of individual chemicals assessed is presented in Table 1 below. A mass balance of the chemicals is provided as Appendix C10-Table C10-1.

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for each of the hydraulic fluid chemicals are included in Appendix D10 of the RA Compendium. Information regarding the chemical and physical properties of the individual chemicals listed below as well as the approximate percentage present in the hydraulic fracturing system can be found on the MSDSs.

The fluid system does not contain BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes) or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) based on EHS Support’s understanding that Condor Energy has tested all their products. Field monitoring will also be conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements. While none of the fracturing fluid chemicals identified contain BTEX or PAHs, PAHs occur naturally in coal and it is possible that certain PAHs may naturally be present in the coal seam groundwater used in the hydraulic fracturing process.


Chemical CAS Number Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated 68439-46-3 Ethoxylated C11 Alcohol 34398-01-1 Ethylene Glycol 107-21-1 Choline Chloride 67-48-1 Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8 Ammonium Sulphate 7783-20-2 Polyacrylamide 25085-02-3 Sodium polyacrylate 9003-04-7 Sodium bisulfite 7631-90-5 2-Propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt 9003-03-6 Ammonium Persulphate 7727-54-0 Potassium persulfate 7727-21-1 2-Ethoxy-naphthalene 93-18-5 Potassium Hydroxide 1310-58-3 Inorganic Salt 584-08-7 Glycerol 56-81-5 Sodium Tetraborate 1330-43-4 Sodium Hydroxide 1310-73-2 Hemicellulase 9025-56-3 Amylase, Alpha 9000-90-2 Sodium Benzoate 532-32-1 Pottasium Sorbate 24634-61-5 DISTILLATES, HYDROTREATED LIGHT 64742-47-8 Guar Gum 9000-30-0 Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether 9016-45-9 Quaternary ammonium compounds, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethyl, salts with bentonite

68953-58-2

1,6-Hexanediol 629-11-8 HydroChloric Acid 7647-01-0

4

Q

ualit

ativ

e R

isk

Asse

ssm

ent a

nd E

valu

atio

n

Chemical CAS Number Cinnamaldehyde 104-55-2 Tar Bases, Quinoline Derivatives, Benzyl Chloride-Quat 72480-70-7 Castor Oil 61791-12-6 Isopropanol 67-63-0 Pine Oil 8002-09-3 N-Benzyl-Alkylpyridinium Chloride 68909-18-2 Water in Additive 7732-18-5 2-Mercaptoethyl Alcohol 60-24-2 Polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene Block Copolymer 9003-11-6 Diethylene Glycol 111-46-6 Methanol 67-56-1 Formic Acid 64-18-6 Sodium erythorbate 6381-77-7 Acetic Acid 64-19-7 Potassium Chloride 7447-40-7

C2.2 Risk Assessment Framework and Findings As discussed in Section 5.0 of the RA Compendium, a systematic weight of evidence approach was utilised to complete the risk assessment for the Condor Energy Services hydraulic fracturing fluid system. The work has involved the following evaluations:


• PBT Assessment • Exposure Assessment • Mass Balance of Fluid System • Fate and Transport Modelling


• Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) • Quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment for Terrestrial and Aquatic Receptors


• Direct Toxicity Assessments of fluid systems

C2.3 PBT Assessment For the environmental hazard assessment, a PBT (persistence, bioaccumulative, toxicity) assessment was conducted in accordance with the guidance developed by DEWHA (2009), as presented in the RA Compendium. The PBT assessment is conducted because of specific concerns for substances that can be shown to persist for long periods in the environment, to bioaccumulate in food chains, and can give rise to toxic effects after a longer time and over a greater spatial scale than chemicals without these properties. These effects may be difficult to detect at an early stage because of long-term exposures at normally low concentration levels and long life-cycles of species at the top of the food chain.

The PBT approach outlined in Section 6.1 of the RA Compendium was undertaken to rank the hydraulic fracturing chemicals based on PBT potential. As a result of this assessment, no chemical constituents identified in the Condor Energy Services hydraulic fracturing fluid system were classified as a PBT chemical and are therefore not considered to be inherently hazardous. The results of the PBT Assessment are presented in Table 2.

5

Q

ualit

ativ

e R

isk

Asse

ssm

ent a

nd E

valu

atio

n

C2.3 Exposure Assessment As discussed in Section 7.0 of the RA Compendium, the exposure assessment identified receptors potentially exposed to chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) identified for the study and outlined the exposure pathways by which the receptors may come in to contact with the COPCs. A detailed exposure assessment was not conducted in the qualitative risk assessment.

C2.4 Mass Balance of Fluid System A quantitative mass balance calculation was undertaken to identify the amount of each chemical additive of the hydraulic fracturing fluid system. The results of the mass balance calculations are presented in Appendix C10-Table C10-1.

C2.5 Fate and Transport Modelling As discussed in Section 7.2 of the RA Compendium, fate and transport modelling was conducted on a range of key constituents of interest in typical hydraulic fracturing fluid systems. These results provided the framework for assessing potential mobility of all constituents used in hydraulic fracturing. The modelling demonstrated that despite the variability in chemical properties between fluid systems there is limited potential for chemicals to migrate within the coal seams. Refer to Section 7.2 for further details.

6

Q

uant

itativ

e R

isk

Asse

ssm

ent

Quantitative Risk Assessment In accordance with the methodologies presented in Section 8.0 of the RA Compendium, a QRA was conducted on theoretical datasets for those chemicals identified in the Condor Energy Services hydraulic fracturing fluid system. The QRA approach evaluates the toxicity of the individual substances, and characterises the cumulative risks of the total effluent toxicity and ecotoxicity.

Generally, this methodology includes the identification of the hazards posed by constituents in the flowback water, compilation of the toxicity criteria for each constituent, development of exposure models to estimate the daily intake of the constituents, and calculations of individual constituent hazard quotients (daily intake divided by the toxicity criteria) and a cumulative constituent hazard index (HI) for each potentially complete exposure pathway for each human or terrestrial receptor.

Potential complete exposure pathways to the storage of flowback from hydraulically stimulated wells, and potential risks to humans, terrestrial and aquatic receptors from the potential storage and accidental releases are evaluated in the QRA.

No further assessment of groundwater was determined to be necessary due to lack of potentially complete exposure pathways. Detailed operational procedures have been provided that are designed to contain the hydraulic fracturing fluids within the coal sequences, and no connection exists between groundwater in the coal seams and surface-water or springs (and therefore Matters of National Environmental Significance [MNES]). Further, the potential risks to workers involved with the hydraulic fracturing process were not considered as detailed Health and Safety (H&S) procedures are employed to manage exposures. The QRA considered the following specific exposure pathways:

1. Exposure of trespassers to flowback water contained within flowback storage ponds. 2. Exposure of terrestrial receptors (e.g., livestock and wildlife) to flowback water contained within

the flowback storage tank. 3. Exposure of aquatic receptors to flowback water in the situation of an accidental release, such

as from piping or a release from the flowback storage tank. These potential releases could include a failure of containment systems, overtopping of the dam or in an extreme situation (considered highly unlikely) structural failure of the dam itself.

C3.1 Exposure Assessment The purpose of the exposure assessment in the QRA was to predict the magnitude and frequency of potential human exposure to each COPC following the methodologies presented in Section 8.1 of the RA Compendium. A conceptual site model (CSM) was developed which describes the potential receptors and exposure scenarios for the flowback water used in this exposure assessment. The potential exposures to receptors were evaluated based on the potential for a complete exposure pathway.

As discussed in Section 8.2 of the RA Compendium, exposure point concentrations (EPCs) were derived for the theoretical assessment; empirical data were not available for evaluation. The EPCs for the theoretical assessment were calculated by estimating the mass and discharge flow of the COPCs in the flowback water.

C3.2 Human Health QRA A human health hazard assessment was conducted according to the methodologies presented in Section 8.4 of the RA Compendium. The purpose of the hazard assessment process was to summarise the environmental data, and to address the toxicological assessment of the COPCs that will be evaluated further in the risk assessment process.

7

Q

uant

itativ

e R

isk

Asse

ssm

ent

Exposure assumptions for the human trespasser scenario were developed based on default or site-specific assumptions (Section 8.4). This receptor exposure pathway includes a small child to teenager that may come in contact with the above grade water exposure scenario for approximately 20 days/year for a 10-year period with potential incidental ingestion [of 50 millilitres (ML) of water] and dermal contact (e.g., swimming where the whole body gets wet) for one-half hour. The exposure parameters used in the QRA are presented on Table 3.


Ingestion of water:




Where:

AT = averaging time (days) BW = body weight (kg) CF = correction factor (1 x 10-3 l/cm3) CW = concentration in water (mg/l) DP = dermal permeability factor (Kp – cm/hr). ED = exposure duration (years) EF = exposure frequency (day/year) ET = exposure time (hr/day or hours/hours) IR = ingestion rate (l/hr) SA = skin surface area available for contact (cm2/d)

C3.3 Toxicity Assessment A toxicity assessment was conducted to determine the relationship between the dose of a COPC taken into the body, and the probability that an adverse effect will result from that dose. Quantitative estimates of the potency of COPCs include two sets of toxicity values, one for genotoxic carcinogens and one for other non-genotoxic carcinogens and non-carcinogenic effects. As discussed in Section 8.4, detailed toxicological profiles were developed for the chemicals. The toxicological profiles are included as Appendix F10.

The assessment of toxicity of the COPCs was used to develop initial screening criteria for human health exposure scenarios as discussed in Section 8.4 of the RA Compendium. The derivation of Oral Reference Dose and Drinking Water Guideline Values are presented in Table 4.

C3.4 Exposure Point Concentration As presented above, the exposure scenarios are based on anticipated conditions, and the potential for exposure to the theoretical estimate of exposure. EPCs for the exposure assessment were calculated using the results of theoretical fate and transport modelling calculations and the existing environmental conditions within the fracturing fluids flowback storage ponds, and the flowback used in the irrigation fields.

To assess the potential flux of hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the environment, vendor disclosures for the hydraulic fracturing fluid systems were reviewed, and the chemical concentrations of key inputs were determined.

For the theoretical calculations, the mass and estimated chemical concentrations of the COPCs in the Condor Energy Services hydraulic fracturing fluid system, as presented in Appendix C10-Table C10-1,

8

Q

uant

itativ

e R

isk

Asse

ssm

ent

were used to estimate the potential concentrations in water within the fracturing fluids sump or flare pit, or flowback storage ponds. Based on stimulation flow back monitoring conducted by Santos and the QRA completed for the Schlumberger Fluid Systems (Appendix C of the RA Compendium), 20 percent of the total mass of constituents injected is assumed to be recovered in the flowback water. This mass is diluted within 150% of the injected volume (the minimum volume that must be flowed back) to establish an “estimated” concentration (i.e., concentration expected due to full dilution of the back-flow water) within the flowback storage ponds.

The flowback water will be contained within the flowback storage ponds for a projected maximum period of one year of operational activity before transfer or conveyance to the water treatment facilities and or transferred into Santos water conveyance systems (for treatment) and thereby blended with other conveyance systems water not containing these constituents. To be conservative it has been assumed that the fluids are stored with ponds with the concentration of COPCs in the flowback storage pond water adjusted, where applicable, to account for the biodegradation and photolytic degradation of constituents over time. The biodegradation information was obtained from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ready tests (OECD, 1992) that were developed as a first-tier testing scheme to provide preliminary screening of organic chemicals. The ready tests are stringent screening tests that are conducted under aerobic conditions in which a high concentration of the test substance is used, and biodegradation is measured by non-specific parameters including dissolved organic carbon, biochemical oxygen demand and carbon dioxide production. Table 5 presents the environmental fate information that was used to assess biodegradation of COPCs, and that was applied at the time periods of 0, 30, 150 and 300 days from initial flowback.

The water quality data derived using these assumptions for the theoretical COPCs are presented in Appendix C10-Table C10-1.

The theoretical EPCs for the four exposure time periods (0, 30, 150 and 300 days) were compared to human health toxicity-based screening levels, and the results of this comparison, including the ratio of exceedance of screening levels, is presented in Appendix C10-Table C10-2.

C3.5 Risk Estimation Risk estimation was performed in accordance with the methodologies outlined in Section 8.4 of the RA Compendium. The total target risk range for carcinogens was 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6; the target HI for non-threshold effects is less than or equal to 1.0.

The results of the theoretical assessments for Condor Energy Services hydraulic fracturing fluid system for the trespasser exposure scenarios (day 0 and day 150, Condor Energy Services hydraulic fracturing fluid system events) are summarized in Tables 6 and 7. As discussed above, the theoretical assessment was conducted at the well pad sites.

The exposure scenarios include the Condor Energy Services hydraulic fracturing fluid system event, as presented in Appendix C10-Table C10-1 for day 0 and day 150 from the flowback storage tank. The trespasser for day 0 had risks slightly above the target of 1.0 for the Condor Energy Services hydraulic fracturing fluid system (HI=3.6, Table 6), and for day 150 (HI=1.7, Table 7). The elevated HI were due to the dermal exposure pathway for distiilates, hydrotreated light .

On this basis and using the theoretical concentrations, on this basis and using the theoretical concentrations, no adverse effects are predicted on trespassers.

9

Q

uant

itativ

e R

isk

Asse

ssm

ent

C3.6 Ecological Risk Assessment As discussed in Section 8.5, a screening level ecological risk assessment (ERA) was conducted to evaluate the potential for adverse ecological effects to terrestrial and aquatic ecological receptors that may be exposed to residual levels of hydraulic fracturing fluids in surface water used in the CSG fields.

C3.7 Exposure Assessment Terrestrial receptors evaluated in the ERA include domesticated livestock, large mammalian wildlife and small mammalian wildlife. Beef cattle were used to evaluate domesticated livestock, kangaroos evaluated for large mammalian wildlife, and dingos for small mammalian wildlife. Aquatic receptors evaluated included invertebrates and fishes.

The estimate for dose-based or intake rates for the assessment endpoints for wildlife representing domestic livestock and native mammalian species used the following general equation:


Where:






BW = Body weight (kg)

Tables 8 through 10 provide the lift-history input values for ingestion rates, exposure frequency, exposure duration and BW.

C3.8 Toxicity Assessment To evaluate the potential for adverse ecological effects, toxicity reference values (TRVs) are selected as measurement endpoints for the ERA that will be used in the risk analysis. The TRVs are based on COPC levels that imply no adverse effects or levels that represent the lowest concentration at which adverse effects may occur. The ERA used two types of TRVs (Section 8.5.3 of the RA Compendium). The first TRV is a concentration-based TRV to evaluate the concentration of the selected COPC in the surface water and direct exposure by the aquatic ecological receptor. The determination of TRVs for freshwater was conducted according to the predicted no-effects concentration (PNEC) guidance in the Environmental Risk Assessment Guidance Manual for Industrial Chemicals prepared by the Australian Environmental Agency (AEA, 2009). Table 11 presents the COPC, the endpoint, NOEC [milligrams per litre (mg/L)], assessment factor, and the aquatic PNEC (mg/L). The second TRV is a dose-based TRV to evaluate the intake dose of the selected COPC from exposure to surface water by ingestion. The calculated TRVs for each of the mammalian ecological receptors evaluated in the ERA are presented in the species-specific ecological risk models.

C3.9 Exposure Point Concentration EPCs for the exposure assessment were calculated using the results of theoretical fate and transport modelling calculations. The potentially affected flowback water that represents complete exposure pathways for the ecological receptors includes the surface water systems (e.g., flowback storage ponds and mud pits) that were used to estimate the EPCs for the human health receptors. The EPCs for the ecological receptors were estimated assuming the same Scenarios, with exposure occurring in the

10

Q

uant

itativ

e R

isk

Asse

ssm

ent

irrigation area where irrigation water may pool and wildlife may drink from the standing water. Appendix C10-Table C10-1 presents the calculated EPCs for the ecological receptor exposure scenarios. The theoretical EPCs for the four exposure time periods (0, 30, 150, and 300 days) were compared to ecological based toxicity-based screening levels, and the results of this comparison, including the ratio of exceedance of screening levels, is presented in Appendix C10-Table C10-3.

Risks were characterised in accordance with the methodologies discussed in Section 8.5.6 of the RA Compendium. The resulting ecological hazard quotient must be less than or equal to 1.0 for risks to be considered acceptable.

C3.10 Estimation of Risk The HI calculated for flowback water for aquatic risk were elevated above the acceptable level for the majority of COPCs evaluated (Appendix C10-Table C10-3). Where large discharges of flowback water occur to surface water and/or flux dilution within the surface-water was insufficient, potential impacts on aquatic receptors could occur. As noted in the toxicity assessment section above, the lack of a robust aquatic toxicological database resulted in highly conservative aquatic screening values for the theoretical exposure scenario COPCs to be conservatively very low.

The results of the theoretical assessments for Condor Energy Services hydraulic fracturing fluid system for the livestock cattle, kangaroo and dingo are summarized in Tables 12 through 17. The exposure scenarios include the Condor Energy Services hydraulic fracturing fluid system EPCs presented in Appendix C10-Table C10-1 for day 0 and day 150 from the fracturing fluid well flowback. The modelled risks from Condor Energy Services hydraulic fracturing fluid system chemicals in the flowback water were slightly above the target of 1.0 for the cattle (HI=2.1, Table 12), but were acceptable for the modelled values for day 150 (HI = 0.024, Table 13), and all exposure scenarios for the kangaroo (HI=0.44 0.005, Table 14 and 15), and dingo (HI=0.18 to 0.002, Table 16 and 17).

11

Su

mm

ary

of Q

RA

Find

ings

Summary of QRA Findings The QRA was completed as discussed in Section 8.0 of the RA Compendium. An assessment was conducted using highly conservative theoretical calculations based on the chemicals utilised by Schlumberger in hydraulic fracturing. This assessment assumed that a range of theoretical concentrations of injected chemicals would be present in the flowback water based on biodegradation rates, where applicable.

Consistent with the risk assessment and groundwater fate and transport modelling conducted by Golder, no potentially complete exposure pathways were identified for groundwater. Potential exposures are limited to the aboveground storage and handling of flowback water as part of the CSG Water Management Plan (WMP). Management of CSG water involves the temporary storage of flowback water in flowback storage ponds.

The exposure scenario modelled for the QRA was a trespasser being exposed to flowback water under various EPC scenarios. Based on quantitative risk calculations, the potential risks for the trespasser were slightly unacceptable for the EPC scenarios. The QRA used very conservative exposure assumptions. There were no carcinogenic risks identified.

The modelled risks from Condor Energy Services hydraulic fracturing fluid system chemicals in the flowback water were unacceptable for the livestock cattle on day 0, but were acceptable for cattle on day 150, and all EPC exposure scenarios for the kangaroo, and dingo.

Similarly, potential impacts could occur if releases of flowback water were to occur to aquatic environments. Based on the use of low permeability materials (clay liners) and operational controls that limit the potential for turkey nest and dam overflows, the potential for these risks are also considered limited.

A combination of management and operational controls are being implemented to eliminate and control the potential for exposures. These include:

• Worker training and hazard identification • Use of appropriate personal protective equipment (gloves, etc.) • Flowback storage pond fencing to prevent entry of livestock and native fauna and minimise

trespassing • Use of low permeability materials or dam liners and routine dam inspections to prevent releases from

flowback storage ponds • Routine operational and security patrols to prevent trespassing

12

C

oncl

usio

ns

Conclusions A weight-of-evidence evaluation of potential risks as described in Section 5.0 of the RA Compendium was performed for the Condor Energy Services hydraulic fracturing fluid system. Based on the qualitative and quantitative risk characterisations, the overall risk to human health and the environment is acceptable. Existing operational control activities employed by Santos are in place that will limit the potential risks to human health and the environment. These measures include:

• Occupational health and safety procedures implemented during hydraulic fracturing operations to prevent workers from making direct contact with chemicals during spills and when handling flowback water or sediments

• Environmental authority conditions that preclude the construction of well pads within 100 metres of a watercourse of water body

• Implementation of spill containment procedures during operations to prevent migration of and exposure to chemicals

• Disposal or capping of sediments contained within drained mud pits and turkey nests, to prevent exposure to contaminates in windborne dust

• Fencing of drill pads to prevent trespassers from entering and installation of signs to indicate that the water in the turkey nests and mud pit is not potable and may contain contaminants

• Installation and maintenance of fences around the well pad to prevent access to the drill pad by livestock and large native fauna

• Santos operational procedures to ensure well integrity and design of fracture to stay within the target seam

• Mud pits and turkey nests with clay liners, or similar material, to prevent seepage of flowback water into underlying aquifers

Monitoring of water supply bores and surface water for a representative suite of chemicals within 2 kilometres of the wells (and 200 m vertical separation) that are fractured will be conducted (as needed) to confirm the conclusion of incomplete exposure pathways and low risk.

No additional risks, other than those previously discussed, were identified with the chemicals or systems employed in hydraulic fracturing. Evaluation of other potential risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (i.e., noise and vibration) was conducted. Refer to Section 10.0 of the RA Compendium for methodology specifics and results of this evaluation.

13

R

efer

ence

Reference

Australian Environmental Agency (AEA). (2009). Environmental Risk Assessment Guidance Manual for Industrial Chemicals. Commonwealth of Australia

DEWHA. 2009. Environmental risk assessment guidance manual for industrial chemicals, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Commonwealth of Australia.

OECD. 1992. Guideline for Testing of Chemicals. Ready Biodegradability. Adopted by the Council on 17th July 1992.

Santos GLNG Projects. 2016. Santos GLNG. Upstream Hydraulic Fracturing Risk Assessment Compendium of Assessed Fluid Systems.

14

Ta

bles

Tables

Page 1 of 5

Table 2 Condor Water Treatment PBT Assessment

Condor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Acetic acid (64-19-7)


No (acetate is naturally found in biological organisms)


Not PBT (based on screening and experimental data; naturally found in organisms)

Acrylamide/sodium acrylate copolymer (25085-02-3)

Yes (polymer, not readily biodegradable)

No (polymer, physico-chemical properties)


No (based on polymer, physico-chemical properties)

Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated (68439-46-3)



Yes (experimental data available)


Ammonium persulfate (7727-54-0)




Not PBT (based on screening data and ubiquitous inorganic salt)

Ammonium sulfate (7783-20-2)





Amylase, alpha (9000-90-2)





Castor oil, ethoxylated (61791-12-6)





Choline chloride (67-48-1)





Cinnamaldehyde (104-55-2)





Diethylene glycol (111-46-6)





Page 2 of 5


Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light (64742-47-8)


Yes (modeling data available)

No (screening and experimental data available

Not PBT (based on modeling, screening and experimental data)

Ethoxylated C11 alcohol (34398-01-1)





2-Ethyoxynaphthalene (93-18-5)





Ethylene glycol (107-21-1)





Formic acid (64-18-6)





Glutaraldehyde (111-30-8)





Glycerol (56-81-5)





Guar gum (9000-30-0)

No (estimated) No (based on physico-chemical properties)

Potentially Yes (based on experimental data)

Not PBT (based on estimation, physico-chemical properties, experimental data)

Hemicellulase (9025-56-3)


No (based on physico-chemical properties)



1,6-Hexanediol (629-11-8)





Hydrochloric acid (7647-01-0)





Isopropanol (67-63-0)





Page 3 of 5


2-Mercaptoethyl alcohol (60-24-2)





Methanol (67-56-1)





N-benzyl-alkylpyridium chloride (68909-18-2)

No data. No (screening data available)



Quat. Ammonium compds, bis (hydrogenated tallow alkyl) dimethyl, salts with bentonite (68955-58-2)


No (based on physico-chemical properties)



Pine oil (8002-09-3)


Potentially yes (screening data available on components)



Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether (9016-45-9)





Polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymer (9003-11-6)




No (based on polymer, physico-chemical properties)

Potassium carbonate (584-08-7)

Not applicable (ionic species from inorganic salt is ubiquitous in environment)

No (ionic species) No experimental data available)

Not PBT (based on experimental data and ionic species)

Potassium chloride (7447-40-7)




Page 4 of 5


Potassium hydroxide (1310-73-2)




Potassium persulfate (7727-21-1)





Potassium sorbate (24634-61-5)





2-Propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt (9003-03-6)




Not PBT based on physico-chemical properties and experimental data)

Sodium benzoate (532-32-1)





Sodium bisulfite (7631-90-5)





Sodium erythrobate (6381-77-7)





Sodium hydroxide (1310-72-2)




Sodium polyacrylate ((9003-04-7)




Not PBT based on physico-chemical properties and experimental data)

Sodium tetraborate decahydrate (1303-96-4)


No (ionic species) Yes (known or presumed human reproductive toxicant - GHS Cat. 1B)


Page 5 of 5


Tar bases, quinoline deriv., benzyl chloride – Quat. (72480-70-7)

No data No data No data No data

PBT = persistence, bioaccumulative, toxicity

Table 3 Exposure Assumptions - TrespasserCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


















1.0E-03

Ingestion

Dermal

Page 1 of 1

Page 1 of 4

Table 4 Condor Oral Reference Doses and Drinking Water Guidelines Condor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System

Constituent (CAS No.) Study Critical Effect/Target Organ(s) NOAEL

(mg/kg-day) Uncertainty

Factors

Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg-

day)

Drinking Water Guideline

(mg/L) Acrylamide/sodium acrylate copolymer (25085-02-3)

2-yr rat dietary No systemic effects. 5,000 100 50 175

Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated (68439-46-3) 90-day rat dietary No systemic effects. 150 300 0.5 1.8

Amylase, alpha (9000-90-2)

13-wk rat oralgavage No systemic effects. 1,110 300 4 13

Castor oil, ethoxylated (61791-12-6) 13-wk dietary No systemic effects. 2,500 300 8 28

Choline chloride (67-48-1) Human study Slight hypotensive effect 107a 2 50b 175b

Cinnamaldehyde (104-55-2) 2-yr mouse dietary ↓ body weights 125 100 1.0 4

Diethylene glycol (111-46-6) 225-d rat dietary Kidney toxicity 105 100 1.0 3.5


13-wk rat oralgavage No systemic toxicity 1,000 300 3 12

Ethoxylated C11 alcohol (34398-01-1) 90-day rat dietary No systemic effects. 150 300 0.5 1.8

2-Ethyoxynaphthalene(93-18-5) 90-day rat dietary No systemic effects. 5 300 0.02 0.07

Ethylene glycol (107-21-1) 2-yr rat dietary Kidney toxicity 150c 10 15 53

Formic acid (64-18-6) 1-yr. dietary ↓ body weights 220 100 2 7

Page 2 of 4



Factors


day)


(mg/L) Glutaraldehyde (111-30-8)

2-yr rat drinking water

↓ body wt. gain, food consumption

4 100 0.04 0.14

Glycerol (56-81-5) 90-d rat dietary Liver 4,580 1,000 4.6 16

Guar gum (9000-30-0) 2-yr rat dietary ↓ body weights 1,250 100 13 46

Hemicellulase (9025-56-3)

13-wk rat oral gavage None 1,000 1,000 1.0 3.5

1,6-Hexanediol (629-11-8) 90-d rat oral gavage ↓ body weights 400 300 1.0 3.5

Isopropanol (67-63-0)

Rat 2-generation reproductive Decrease male mating index 420d 1,000 0.4 1.4

2-Mercaptoethyl alcohol (60-24-2) OECD 422 Liver, heart, reproductive

effects 15 300 0.05 0.18

Methanol (67-56-1)

Mouse developmental Increased cervical ribs per litter 43.1 mg/Le 100 2e 7


f - - - - -

Pine oil (8002-09-3) Rat developmental

↓ body weight gain and food consumption (maternal); ↓

fetal body weights, malformations, delayed

ossification

50 (maternal,

developmental) 300 0.17 0.6


f - - - - -

Page 3 of 4



Factors


day)


(mg/L) Polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymer (9003-11-6)

2-yr rat dietary Reduced body weight gain 2,500 100 25 88

Potassium chloride (7447-40-7) 2-yr rat dietary None 1,820 100 18 63

Potassium sorbate (24634-61-5) 2-yr rat dietary Spleen, focal fatty changes 1,000 100 10 35

2-Propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt (9003-03-6)

4-wk rat dietary No systemic toxicity 1,136 1,000 1.0 3.5


12-wk rat dietary ↓ Food efficiency 2,500 300 8 29

Sodium benzoate (532-32-1) 90-d rat dietary Mortality; ↓ body weights 3,145 300 10 35

Sodium bisulfite (7631-90-5)

2-yr rat dietary study None 523 100 5 18


10-wk mouse drinking water Spleen, kidney, liver effects 4,250 300 14 49

Sodium polyacrylate ((9003-04-7) 28-d rat dietary None 1,136 1000 1 4

Sodium tetraborate decahydrate (1303-96-4) Rat developmental ↓ Fetal body weights 10.3g 66 0.2 0.7


e - - - - -

Page 4 of 4

aLOAEL. bValue for choline. cHuman Equivalent Dose derived from benchmark dose and PBPK modeling. dPoint of departure calculated for benchmark dose modeling. eThe Point of Departure (POD) value is the internal Cmax methanol blood concentration obtained using BMD analysis from an inhalation study. fNo data. gBMDL50 (U.S. EPA IRIS).

Australian Drinking Water Guidance Values

Constituent (CAS No.) Drinking Water Guideline Drinking Water Guidance Value

Acetic acid (64-19-7) pH 6.5 to 8.5

Ammonium persulfate (7727-54-0) Sulfate 500 mg/L (health) and 250 mg/L (aesthetics)

Ammonium sulfate (7783-20-2) Sulfate 500 mg/L (health) and 250 mg/L (aesthetics)

Hydrochloric acid (7647-01-0) pH; chloride 6.5 to 8.5; 250 mg/L (aesthetics)

Potassium carbonate (584-08-7) pH 6.5 to 8.5

Potassium hydroxide (1310-73-2) pH 6.5 to 8.5

Potassium persulfate (7727-21-1) Sulfate 500 mg/L (health) and 250 mg/L (aesthetics)

Sodium hydroxide (1310-72-2) Sodium; pH 180 mg/L (aesthetic); 6.5 to 8.5

Table 5 Environmental Fate InformationCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System

Acetic acid

Dissociates completely in aqueous media; acetate ion

is readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Acrylamide/sodium acrylate copolymer Not biodegradable.

Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Ammonium persulfate Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Ammonium sulfate Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Amylase, alpha Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Castor oil, ethoxylated Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Choline chloride Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Cinnamaldehyde Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Diethylene glycol Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light Inherently biodegradable (half-life = 150 days)a

Ethoxylated C11 alcohol Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

2-Ethoxynaphthalene Not readily biodegradable.

Ethylene glycol Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Formic acid Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Glutaraldehyde Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Glycerol Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Guar gum Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Hemicellulase Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

1,6-hexanediol Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Hydrochloric acid Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Isopropanol Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

2-Mercaptoethyl alcohol Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Methanol Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

N-benzyl-alkylpyridium chloride No data.

Quat. Ammonium compds. Bis (hydrogenated tallow

alkyl) dimethyl, salts with bentoniteOrganic component: not readily biodegradable.

Pine oil Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymer Not biodegradable.

Potassium chloride Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Potassium hydroxide Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Potassium persulfate Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Potassium sorbate Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

2-Propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt Not readily biodegradable

Sodium benzoate Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Sodium bisulfite Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Sodium erythrobate Readily biodegradable (half-life = 15 days)a

Sodium hydroxide Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Sodium polyacrylate Not readily biodegradable

Sodium tetraborate decahydrate Dissociates completely in aqueous media

Tar bases, quinoline deriv., benzyl chloride - Quat. No data

aEU Guidance Document: Half-life estimates from in

vitro biodegradation test results

Page 1 of 1

Table 6 Risk Estimates for TrespasserCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Toxicity

Hazard Quotient


Acetic Acid 64-19-7 99.857 5.6E-04 - 5.8E-03 0.000426748 NA NA

Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated 68439-46-3 16.64 4.8E-04 5.0E-01 9.7E-04 5.9993E-05 1.9E-03 1.2E-04

Ammonium Persulphate 7727-54-0 14.947 NA 7.1E+01 8.7E-04 - 1.2E-05 -

Ammonium Sulphate 7783-20-2 33.67 NA 7.1E+01 2.0E-03 - 2.7E-05 -

Amylase, Alpha 9000-90-2 0.7133 2.2E-228 4.0E+00 4.2E-05 1.188E-230 1.0E-05 3.0E-231

Castor Oil 61791-12-6 0.8521 4.7E-05 8.0E+00 5.0E-05 3.01891E-07 6.2E-06 3.8E-08

Choline Chloride 67-48-1 9.6 8.5E-07 5.0E+01 5.6E-04 6.20816E-08 1.1E-05 1.2E-09

Cinnamaldehyde 104-55-2 0.9317 7.1E-03 1.0E+00 5.4E-05 5.00459E-05 5.4E-05 5.0E-05

Diethylene Glycol 111-46-6 0.1418 2.0E-05 1.0E+00 8.3E-06 2.13821E-08 8.3E-06 2.1E-08

DISTILLATES, HYDROTREATED LIGHT 64742-47-8 532.57 2.3E+00 3.0E+00 3.1E-02 9.200813605 1.0E-02 3.1E+00

Ethoxylated C11 Alcohol 34398-01-1 49.9 4.8E-04 5.0E-01 2.9E-03 0.000179979 5.8E-03 3.6E-04

2-Ethoxy-naphthalene 93-18-5 0.6340 5.1E-02 2.0E-02 3.7E-05 0.000245948 1.8E-03 1.2E-02

Ethylene Glycol 107-21-1 0.1408 9.0E-05 1.5E+01 8.2E-06 9.61196E-08 5.5E-07 6.4E-09

Formic Acid 64-18-6 6.2 3.6E-05 2.0E+00 3.6E-04 1.70975E-06 1.8E-04 8.5E-07

Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8 176.4 2.5E-04 4.0E-02 1.0E-02 0.000337143 2.6E-01 8.4E-03

Glycerol 56-81-5 287.6 3.4E-05 4.6E+00 1.7E-02 7.37259E-05 3.6E-03 1.6E-05

Guar Gum 9000-30-0 564.2 NA 1.3E+01 3.3E-02 - 2.5E-03 -

Hemicellulase 9025-56-3 3.8 1.1E-114 1.0E+00 2.2E-04 3.2617E-116 2.2E-04 3.3E-116

1,6-Hexanediol 629-11-8 15.98 3.5E-04 1.0E+00 9.3E-04 4.18065E-05 9.3E-04 4.2E-05

HydroChloric Acid 7647-01-0 364.3 2.3E-03 7.1E+01 2.1E-02 0.006212671 3.0E-04 8.7E-05

Inorganic Salt 584-08-7 97.1 2.2E-08 - 5.7E-03 1.61168E-08 NA NA

Isopropanol 67-63-0 39.9 1.4E-01 4.0E-01 2.3E-03 0.043641234 5.8E-03 1.1E-01

2-Mercaptoethyl Alcohol 60-24-2 0.7063 5.3E-04 5.0E-02 4.1E-05 2.84478E-06 8.2E-04 5.7E-05

Methanol 67-56-1 0.4017 3.3E-04 2.0E+00 2.3E-05 9.90472E-07 1.2E-05 5.0E-07

N-Benzyl-Alkylpyridinium Chloride 68909-18-2 0.63401 6.2E-03 - 3.7E-05 2.97947E-05 NA NA

Pine Oil 8002-09-3 0.8432 3.0E-02 1.7E-01 4.9E-05 0.000190591 2.9E-04 1.1E-03

Polyacrylamide 25085-02-3 24.7 NA 5.0E+01 1.4E-03 - 2.9E-05 -

Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether 9016-45-9 165.9 4.9E-03 - 9.7E-03 0.006148192 NA NA

Polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene Block Copolymer 9003-11-6 0.6942 NA 2.5E+01 4.0E-05 - 1.6E-06 -

Potassium Chloride 7447-40-7 16.5 NA 1.8E+01 9.6E-04 - 5.3E-05 -

Potassium Hydroxide 1310-58-3 84.7 NA - 4.9E-03 - NA -

Potassium persulfate 7727-21-1 1.57045 NA 7.1E+01 9.2E-05 - 1.3E-06 -

Potasium Sorbate 24634-61-5 0.1555 2.8E-05 1.0E+01 9.1E-06 3.26127E-08 9.1E-07 3.3E-09

2-Propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt 9003-03-6 0.6340 NA 1.0E+00 3.7E-05 - 3.7E-05 -

Quaternary ammonium compounds, bis(hydrogenated

tallow alkyl)dimethyl, salts with bentonite68953-58-2 166.4 NA 8.0E+00 9.7E-03 - 1.2E-03 -

Sodium Benzoate 532-32-1 0.1708 1.1E-05 1.0E+01 1.0E-05 1.36913E-08 1.0E-06 1.4E-09

Sodium bisulfite 7631-90-5 0.9383 NA 5.0E+00 5.5E-05 - 1.1E-05 -

Sodium erythorbate 6381-77-7 5.325 1.1E-06 1.4E+01 3.1E-04 4.50643E-08 2.2E-05 3.2E-09

Sodium Hydroxide 1310-73-2 162.05 NA 5.1E+01 9.4E-03 - 1.8E-04 -

Sodium polyacrylate 9003-04-7 3.867 NA 1.0E+00 2.3E-04 - 2.3E-04 -

Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate 1303-96-4 540.9 NA 2.0E-01 3.2E-02 - 1.6E-01 -


Day 0Condor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System

Page 1 of 1

Table 7 Risk Estimates for TrespasserCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Toxicity

Hazard Quotient


Acetic Acid 64-19-7 0.09752 5.6E-04 - 5.7E-06 4E-07 NA NA

Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated 68439-46-3 0.01625 4.8E-04 5.0E-01 9.5E-07 5.9E-08 1.9E-06 1.2E-07

Ammonium Persulphate 7727-54-0 14.947 NA 7.1E+01 8.7E-04 NA 1.2E-05 NA

Ammonium Sulphate 7783-20-2 33.67 NA 7.1E+01 2.0E-03 NA 2.7E-05 NA

Amylase, Alpha 9000-90-2 0.0006965 2.2E-228 4.0E+00 4.1E-08 1.2E-233 1.0E-08 2.9E-234

Castor Oil 61791-12-6 0.0008321 4.7E-05 8.0E+00 4.9E-08 2.9E-10 6.1E-09 3.7E-11

Choline Chloride 67-48-1 0.009399 8.5E-07 5.0E+01 5.5E-07 6.1E-11 1.1E-08 1.2E-12

Cinnamaldehyde 104-55-2 0.0009099 7.1E-03 1.0E+00 5.3E-08 4.9E-08 5.3E-08 4.9E-08

Diethylene Glycol 111-46-6 0.0001384 2.0E-05 1.0E+00 8.1E-09 2.1E-11 8.1E-09 2.1E-11

DISTILLATES, HYDROTREATED LIGHT 64742-47-8 266.29 2.3E+00 3.0E+00 1.6E-02 4.6E+00 5.2E-03 1.5E+00

Ethoxylated C11 Alcohol 34398-01-1 0.04876 4.8E-04 5.0E-01 2.8E-06 1.8E-07 5.7E-06 3.5E-07

2-Ethoxy-naphthalene 93-18-5 0.6340 5.1E-02 2.0E-02 3.7E-05 2.5E-04 1.8E-03 1.2E-02

Ethylene Glycol 107-21-1 0.0001375 9.0E-05 1.5E+01 8.0E-09 9.4E-11 5.3E-10 6.3E-12

Formic Acid 64-18-6 0.006043 3.6E-05 2.0E+00 3.5E-07 1.7E-09 1.8E-07 8.3E-10

Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8 0.1723 2.5E-04 4.0E-02 1.0E-05 3.3E-07 2.5E-04 8.2E-06

Glycerol 56-81-5 0.2808 3.4E-05 4.6E+00 1.6E-05 7.2E-08 3.6E-06 1.6E-08

Guar Gum 9000-30-0 0.5510 NA 1.3E+01 3.2E-05 NA 2.5E-06 NA

Hemicellulase 9025-56-3 0.003678 1.1E-114 1.0E+00 2.1E-07 3.2E-119 2.1E-07 3.2E-119

1,6-Hexanediol 629-11-8 0.01560 3.5E-04 1.0E+00 9.1E-07 4.1E-08 9.1E-07 4.1E-08

HydroChloric Acid 7647-01-0 364.3 2.3E-03 7.1E+01 2.1E-02 6.2E-03 3.0E-04 8.7E-05

Inorganic Salt 584-08-7 97.1 2.2E-08 - 5.7E-03 1.6E-08 NA NA

Isopropanol 67-63-0 0.0 1.4E-01 4.0E-01 2.3E-06 4.3E-05 5.7E-06 1.1E-04

2-Mercaptoethyl Alcohol 60-24-2 0.0007 5.3E-04 5.0E-02 4.0E-08 2.8E-09 8.0E-07 5.6E-08

Methanol 67-56-1 0.0003923 3.3E-04 2.0E+00 2.3E-08 9.7E-10 1.1E-08 4.8E-10

N-Benzyl-Alkylpyridinium Chloride 68909-18-2 0.63401 6.2E-03 - 3.7E-05 3.0E-05 NA NA

Pine Oil 8002-09-3 0.0008235 3.0E-02 1.7E-01 4.8E-08 1.9E-07 2.8E-07 1.1E-06

Polyacrylamide 25085-02-3 24.7 NA 5.0E+01 1.4E-03 NA 2.9E-05 NA

Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether 9016-45-9 0.2 4.9E-03 - 9.4E-06 6.0E-06 NA NA

Polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene Block Copolymer 9003-11-6 0.6942 NA 2.5E+01 4.0E-05 NA 1.6E-06 NA

Potassium Chloride 7447-40-7 16.5 NA 1.8E+01 9.6E-04 NA 5.3E-05 NA

Potassium Hydroxide 1310-58-3 84.7 NA - 4.9E-03 NA NA NA

Potassium persulfate 7727-21-1 1.57045 NA 7.1E+01 9.2E-05 NA 1.3E-06 NA

Potasium Sorbate 24634-61-5 0.0001519 2.8E-05 1.0E+01 8.9E-09 3.2E-11 8.9E-10 3.2E-12

2-Propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt 9003-03-6 0.6340 NA 1.0E+00 3.7E-05 NA 3.7E-05 NA


tallow alkyl)dimethyl, salts with bentonite68953-58-2 166.4 NA 8.0E+00 9.7E-03 NA 1.2E-03 NA

Sodium Benzoate 532-32-1 0.0001668 1.1E-05 1.0E+01 9.7E-09 1.3E-11 9.7E-10 1.3E-12

Sodium bisulfite 7631-90-5 0.9383 NA 5.0E+00 5.5E-05 NA 1.1E-05 NA

Sodium erythorbate 6381-77-7 0.005200 1.1E-06 1.4E+01 3.0E-07 4.4E-11 2.2E-08 3.1E-12

Sodium Hydroxide 1310-73-2 162.05 NA 5.1E+01 9.4E-03 NA 1.8E-04 NA

Sodium polyacrylate 9003-04-7 3.867 NA 1.0E+00 2.3E-04 NA 2.3E-04 NA

Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate 1303-96-4 540.9 NA 2.0E-01 3.2E-02 NA 1.6E-01 NA


Day 150Condor Energy Services Hydraulic fracturing Fluid System

Page 1 of 1

Table 8 Exposure Assumptions - CattleCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System







Ingestion

Page 1 of 1

Table 9 Exposure Assumptions - KangarooCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System




Ingestion

Page 1 of 1

Table 10 Exposure Assumptions - DingoCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System




Ingestion

Page 1 of 1

Page 1 of 3

Table 11 Condor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System

ANZECC Water Quality Guideline (2000)

Constituent (CAS No.) Substance Freshwater Trigger

Value Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated (68439-46-3) Alcohol ethoxylates 140 μg/L

Ethoxylated C11 alcohol (34398-01-1) Alcohol ethoxylates 140 μg/L

Sodium tetraborate decahydrate (1303-96-4)

Boron 370 μg/L

PNECwater Values

Constituents Endpoint E(L)C50 or

NOEC (mg/L)

Assessment Factor

PNECwater (mg/L )

Acetic acid (64-19-7)

Acute fish or Daphnia 300.82 100 3.0

Acrylamide/sodium acrylate copolymer (25085-02-3)

Acute fish 100 1,000 0.1

Ammonium persulfate (7727-54-0) Acute fish 76.3 100 0.8

Ammonium sulfate (7783-20-2) Chronic fish 3.12 50 0.06

Amylase, alpha (9000-90-2) Acute algae 5.2 100 0.05

Castor oil, ethoxylated (61791-12-6) Acute fish 45 100 0.45

Choline chloride (67-48-1) Chronic Daphnia 30 100 0.3

Cinnamaldehyde (104-55-2) Acute fish 4.15 100 0.04

Diethylene glycol (111-46-6) Chronic algae 2,700 100 27


-a - - -

2-Ethyoxynaphthalene (93-18-5) Acute algae 3.9 100 0.04

Ethylene glycol (107-21-1) Acute fish 100 10 10

Formic acid Acute fish 100 100 1

Page 2 of 3


NOEC (mg/L)

Assessment Factor

PNECwater (mg/L )

(64-18-6) Glutaraldehyde (111-30-8) Chronic algae 0.025 10 0.0025

Glycerol (56-81-5) Acute Daphnia 10,000 1,000 10

Guar gum (9000-30-0) Acute Daphnia 6.2 1,000 0.006

Hemicellulase (9025-56-3) Acute fish 52.1 100 0.5

1,6-Hexanediol (629-11-8) Acute Daphnia 500 100 5

Hydrochloric acid (7647-01-0) -a - - -

Isopropanol (67-63-0) Chronic Daphnia 30 100 0.3

2-Mercaptoethyl alcohol (60-24-2) Chronic Daphnia 0.063 50 0.0013

Methanol (67-56-1) Acute Daphnia 10,000 1,000 10


Acute algae 0.47 1,000 0.005


Chronic Daphnia 3.2 50 0.06

Pine oil (8002-09-3) Acute fish 18.4 1,000 0.02


Chronic Daphnia 0.285 50 0.006

Polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymer (9003-11-6)

Acute aquatic organisms 100 1,000 0.1

Potassium carbonate (584-08-7) -a - - -

Potassium chloride (7447-40-7) Acute algae 100 1,000 0.1

Potassium hydroxide (1310-73-2) -a - - -

Potassium persulfate (7727-21-1) Acute fish 76.3 100 0.8

Potassium sorbate (24634-61-5) Chronic Daphnia 8.46 50 0.17

2-Propenoic acid, Chronic Daphnia 12 10 1.2

Page 3 of 3


NOEC (mg/L)

Assessment Factor

PNECwater (mg/L )

homopolymer, ammonium salt (9003-03-6) Sodium benzoate (532-32-1) Acute algae 30.5 100 0.3

Sodium bisulfite (7631-90-5) Chronic Daphnia 8.3 10 0.8


Acute fish, Daphnia, algae 100 100 1

Sodium hydroxide (1310-72-2) -a - - -

Sodium polyacrylate (9003-04-7) Chronic Daphnia 12 10 1.2


No data - - -

aNot calculated.

Table 12 Risk Estimates for CattleCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Condor Energy System Hydraulic


Hazard Quotient


Acetic Acid 64-19-7 1.0E+02 NA 7.8E-01 NA

Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated 68439-46-3 1.7E+01 2.5E+01 1.3E-01 5.2E-03

Ammonium Persulphate 7727-54-0 1.5E+01 NA 1.2E-01 NA

Ammonium Sulphate 7783-20-2 3.4E+01 NA 2.6E-01 NA

Amylase, Alpha 9000-90-2 7.1E-01 1.8E+02 5.6E-03 3.0E-05

Castor Oil 61791-12-6 8.5E-01 4.2E+02 6.6E-03 1.6E-05

Choline Chloride 67-48-1 9.6E+00 NA 7.5E-02 NA

Cinnamaldehyde 104-55-2 9.3E-01 2.6E+01 7.3E-03 2.8E-04

Diethylene Glycol 111-46-6 1.4E-01 1.7E+01 1.1E-03 6.3E-05

DISTILLATES, HYDROTREATED LIGHT 64742-47-8 5.3E+02 1.7E+02 4.1E+00 2.5E-02

Ethoxylated C11 Alcohol 34398-01-1 5.0E+01 2.5E+01 3.9E-01 1.6E-02

2-Ethoxy-naphthalene 93-18-5 6.3E-01 8.3E-01 4.9E-03 5.9E-03

Ethylene Glycol 107-21-1 1.4E-01 NA 1.1E-03 NA

Formic Acid 64-18-6 6.2E+00 3.7E+01 4.8E-02 1.3E-03

Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8 1.8E+02 6.7E-01 1.4E+00 2.1E+00

Glycerol 56-81-5 2.9E+02 7.6E+02 2.2E+00 2.9E-03

Guar Gum 9000-30-0 5.6E+02 2.1E+02 4.4E+00 2.1E-02

Hemicellulase 9025-56-3 3.8E+00 1.7E+02 2.9E-02 1.8E-04

1,6-Hexanediol 629-11-8 1.6E+01 6.7E+01 1.2E-01 1.9E-03

HydroChloric Acid 7647-01-0 3.6E+02 NA 2.8E+00 NA

Inorganic Salt 584-08-7 9.7E+01 NA 7.6E-01 NA

Isopropanol 67-63-0 4.0E+01 NA 3.1E-01 NA

2-Mercaptoethyl Alcohol 60-24-2 7.1E-01 NA 5.5E-03 NA

Methanol 67-56-1 4.0E-01 NA 3.1E-03 NA

N-Benzyl-Alkylpyridinium Chloride 68909-18-2 6.3E-01 NA 4.9E-03 NA

Pine Oil 8002-09-3 8.4E-01 8.3E+00 6.6E-03 7.9E-04

Polyacrylamide 25085-02-3 2.5E+01 8.3E+02 1.9E-01 2.3E-04

Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether 9016-45-9 1.7E+02 NA 1.3E+00 NA

Polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene Block Copolymer 9003-11-6 6.9E-01 4.2E+02 5.4E-03 1.3E-05

Potassium Chloride 7447-40-7 1.6E+01 3.0E+02 1.3E-01 4.2E-04

Potassium Hydroxide 1310-58-3 8.5E+01 NA 6.6E-01 NA

Potassium persulfate 7727-21-1 1.6E+00 NA 1.2E-02 NA

Potasium Sorbate 24634-61-5 1.6E-01 1.7E+02 1.2E-03 7.3E-06

2-Propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt 9003-03-6 6.3E-01 1.9E+02 4.9E-03 2.6E-05

Quaternary ammonium compounds, bis(hydrogenated tallow a 68953-58-2 1.7E+02 4.2E+02 1.3E+00 3.1E-03

Sodium Benzoate 532-32-1 1.7E-01 5.2E+02 1.3E-03 2.5E-06

Sodium bisulfite 7631-90-5 9.4E-01 8.7E+01 7.3E-03 8.4E-05

Sodium erythorbate 6381-77-7 5.3E+00 8.7E+02 4.1E-02 4.8E-05

Sodium Hydroxide 1310-73-2 1.6E+02 NA 1.3E+00 NA

Sodium polyacrylate 9003-04-7 3.9E+00 1.9E+02 3.0E-02 1.6E-04

Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate 1303-96-4 5.4E+02 NA 4.2E+00 NA


Day 0 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1

Table 13 Risk Estimates for CattleCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Condor Energy System Hydraulic


Hazard Quotient


Acetic Acid 64-19-7 9.8E-02 NA 7.6E-04 NA

Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated 68439-46-3 1.6E-02 2.5E+01 1.3E-04 5.1E-06




Castor Oil 61791-12-6 8.3E-04 4.2E+02 6.5E-06 1.6E-08

Choline Chloride 67-48-1 9.4E-03 NA 7.3E-05 NA




Ethoxylated C11 Alcohol 34398-01-1 4.9E-02 2.5E+01 3.8E-04 1.5E-05

2-Ethoxy-naphthalene 93-18-5 6.3E-01 8.3E-01 4.9E-03 5.9E-03


Formic Acid 64-18-6 6.0E-03 3.7E+01 4.7E-05 1.3E-06

Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8 1.7E-01 6.7E-01 1.3E-03 2.0E-03

Glycerol 56-81-5 2.8E-01 7.6E+02 2.2E-03 2.9E-06

Guar Gum 9000-30-0 5.5E-01 2.1E+02 4.3E-03 2.1E-05

Hemicellulase 9025-56-3 3.7E-03 1.7E+02 2.9E-05 1.7E-07

1,6-Hexanediol 629-11-8 1.6E-02 6.7E+01 1.2E-04 1.8E-06



Isopropanol 67-63-0 3.9E-02 NA 3.0E-04 NA


Methanol 67-56-1 3.9E-04 NA 3.1E-06 NA


Pine Oil 8002-09-3 8.2E-04 8.3E+00 6.4E-06 7.7E-07


Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether 9016-45-9 1.6E-01 NA 1.3E-03 NA






2-Propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt 9003-03-6 6.3E-01 1.9E+02 4.9E-03 2.6E-05Quaternary ammonium compounds, bis(hydrogenated tallow

alkyl)dimethyl, salts with bentonite 68953-58-21.7E+02 4.2E+02 1.3E+00 3.1E-03



Sodium erythorbate 6381-77-7 5.2E-03 8.7E+02 4.0E-05 4.6E-08

Sodium Hydroxide 1310-73-2 1.6E+02 NA 1.3E+00 NA




Day 150 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1

Table 14 Risk Estimates for KangarooCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Condor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing

Fluid System

Hazard Quotient


Acetic Acid 64-19-7 1.0E+02 NA 3.3E-01 NA

Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated 68439-46-3 1.7E+01 5.2E+01 5.5E-02 1.1E-03




Castor Oil 61791-12-6 8.5E-01 8.6E+02 2.8E-03 3.3E-06

Choline Chloride 67-48-1 9.6E+00 NA 3.2E-02 NA




Ethoxylated C11 Alcohol 34398-01-1 5.0E+01 5.2E+01 1.6E-01 3.2E-03

2-Ethoxy-naphthalene 93-18-5 6.3E-01 1.7E+00 2.1E-03 1.2E-03


Formic Acid 64-18-6 6.2E+00 7.6E+01 2.0E-02 2.7E-04

Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8 1.8E+02 1.4E+00 5.8E-01 4.2E-01

Glycerol 56-81-5 2.9E+02 1.6E+03 9.5E-01 6.0E-04

Guar Gum 9000-30-0 5.6E+02 4.3E+02 1.9E+00 4.3E-03

Hemicellulase 9025-56-3 3.8E+00 3.4E+02 1.2E-02 3.6E-05

1,6-Hexanediol 629-11-8 1.6E+01 1.4E+02 5.3E-02 3.8E-04



Isopropanol 67-63-0 4.0E+01 NA 1.3E-01 NA


Methanol 67-56-1 4.0E-01 NA 1.3E-03 NA


Pine Oil 8002-09-3 8.4E-01 1.7E+01 2.8E-03 1.6E-04


Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether 9016-45-9 1.7E+02 NA 5.5E-01 NA








tallow alkyl)dimethyl, salts with bentonite 68953-58-2

1.7E+02 8.6E+02 5.5E-01 6.4E-04



Sodium erythorbate 6381-77-7 5.3E+00 1.8E+03 1.8E-02 9.7E-06

Sodium Hydroxide 1310-73-2 1.6E+02 NA 5.3E-01 NA




Day 0 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1

Table 15 Risk Estimates for KangarooCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Condor Energy Services Hydraulic


Hazard Quotient


Acetic Acid 64-19-7 9.8E-02 NA 3.2E-04 NA

Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated 68439-46-3 1.6E-02 5.2E+01 5.3E-05 1.0E-06




Castor Oil 61791-12-6 8.3E-04 8.6E+02 2.7E-06 3.2E-09

Choline Chloride 67-48-1 9.4E-03 NA 3.1E-05 NA



DISTILLATES, HYDROTREATED LIGHT 64742-47-8 2.7E+02 3.4E+02 8.8E-01 2.5E-03

Ethoxylated C11 Alcohol 34398-01-1 4.9E-02 5.2E+01 1.6E-04 3.1E-06

2-Ethoxy-naphthalene 93-18-5 6.3E-01 1.7E+00 2.1E-03 1.2E-03


Formic Acid 64-18-6 6.0E-03 7.6E+01 2.0E-05 2.6E-07

Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8 1.7E-01 1.4E+00 5.7E-04 4.1E-04

Glycerol 56-81-5 2.8E-01 1.6E+03 9.2E-04 5.9E-07

Guar Gum 9000-30-0 5.5E-01 4.3E+02 1.8E-03 4.2E-06

Hemicellulase 9025-56-3 3.7E-03 3.4E+02 1.2E-05 3.5E-08

1,6-Hexanediol 629-11-8 1.6E-02 1.4E+02 5.1E-05 3.7E-07



Isopropanol 67-63-0 3.9E-02 NA 1.3E-04 NA


Methanol 67-56-1 3.9E-04 NA 1.3E-06 NA


Pine Oil 8002-09-3 8.2E-04 1.7E+01 2.7E-06 1.6E-07


Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether 9016-45-9 1.6E-01 NA 5.3E-04 NA







Quaternary ammonium compounds, bis(hydrogenated tallow 68953-58-2 1.7E+02 8.6E+02 5.5E-01 6.4E-04



Sodium erythorbate 6381-77-7 5.2E-03 1.8E+03 1.7E-05 9.5E-09

Sodium Hydroxide 1310-73-2 1.6E+02 NA 5.3E-01 NA




Day 150 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1

Table 16 Risk Estimates for DingoCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Condor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid

Hazard QuotientConstituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs Total Intake Incidental IngestionAcetic Acid 64-19-7 1.0E+02 NA 1.6E-01 NAAlcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated 68439-46-3 1.7E+01 6.1E+01 2.6E-02 4.3E-04Ammonium Persulphate 7727-54-0 1.5E+01 NA 2.4E-02 NAAmmonium Sulphate 7783-20-2 3.4E+01 NA 5.3E-02 NAAmylase, Alpha 9000-90-2 7.1E-01 4.5E+02 1.1E-03 2.5E-06Castor Oil 61791-12-6 8.5E-01 1.0E+03 1.3E-03 1.3E-06Choline Chloride 67-48-1 9.6E+00 NA 1.5E-02 NACinnamaldehyde 104-55-2 9.3E-01 6.2E+01 1.5E-03 2.4E-05Diethylene Glycol 111-46-6 1.4E-01 4.3E+01 2.2E-04 5.3E-06

DISTILLATES, HYDROTREATED LIGHT 64742-47-8 5.3E+02 4.1E+02 8.4E-01 2.1E-03

Ethoxylated C11 Alcohol 34398-01-1 5.0E+01 6.1E+01 7.9E-02 1.3E-032-Ethoxy-naphthalene 93-18-5 6.3E-01 2.0E+00 1.0E-03 4.9E-04Ethylene Glycol 107-21-1 1.4E-01 NA 2.2E-04 NAFormic Acid 64-18-6 6.2E+00 8.9E+01 9.8E-03 1.1E-04Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8 1.8E+02 1.6E+00 2.8E-01 1.7E-01Glycerol 56-81-5 2.9E+02 1.9E+03 4.5E-01 2.5E-04Guar Gum 9000-30-0 5.6E+02 5.1E+02 8.9E-01 1.8E-03Hemicellulase 9025-56-3 3.8E+00 4.1E+02 6.0E-03 1.5E-051,6-Hexanediol 629-11-8 1.6E+01 1.6E+02 2.5E-02 1.6E-04HydroChloric Acid 7647-01-0 3.6E+02 NA 5.8E-01 NAInorganic Salt 584-08-7 9.7E+01 NA 1.5E-01 NAIsopropanol 67-63-0 4.0E+01 NA 6.3E-02 NA2-Mercaptoethyl Alcohol 60-24-2 7.1E-01 NA 1.1E-03 NAMethanol 67-56-1 4.0E-01 NA 6.3E-04 NAN-Benzyl-Alkylpyridinium Chloride 68909-18-2 6.3E-01 NA 1.0E-03 NAPine Oil 8002-09-3 8.4E-01 2.0E+01 1.3E-03 6.6E-05Polyacrylamide 25085-02-3 2.5E+01 2.0E+03 3.9E-02 1.9E-05Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether 9016-45-9 1.7E+02 NA 2.6E-01 NAPolyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene Block Copolymer 9003-11-6 6.9E-01 1.0E+03 1.1E-03 1.1E-06

Potassium Chloride 7447-40-7 1.6E+01 7.4E+02 2.6E-02 3.5E-05Potassium Hydroxide 1310-58-3 8.5E+01 NA 1.3E-01 NAPotassium persulfate 7727-21-1 1.6E+00 NA 2.5E-03 NAPotasium Sorbate 24634-61-5 1.6E-01 4.1E+02 2.5E-04 6.1E-072-Propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt 9003-03-6 6.3E-01 4.6E+02 1.0E-03 2.2E-06

Quaternary ammonium compounds, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethyl, salts with bentonite

68953-58-2 1.7E+02 1.0E+03 2.6E-01 2.6E-04

Sodium Benzoate 532-32-1 1.7E-01 1.3E+03 2.7E-04 2.1E-07Sodium bisulfite 7631-90-5 9.4E-01 2.1E+02 1.5E-03 7.0E-06Sodium erythorbate 6381-77-7 5.3E+00 2.1E+03 8.4E-03 4.0E-06Sodium Hydroxide 1310-73-2 1.6E+02 NA 2.6E-01 NASodium polyacrylate 9003-04-7 3.9E+00 4.6E+02 6.1E-03 1.3E-05Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate 1303-96-4 5.4E+02 NA 8.6E-01 NA


Day 0 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1

Table 17 Risk Estimates for DingoCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Condor Energy Services Hydrualic Fracturing Fluid System

Hazard QuotientConstituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs Total Intake Incidental IngestionAcetic Acid 64-19-7 9.8E-02 NA 1.5E-04 NAAlcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated 68439-46-3 1.6E-02 6.1E+01 2.6E-05 4.2E-07Ammonium Persulphate 7727-54-0 1.5E+01 NA 2.4E-02 NAAmmonium Sulphate 7783-20-2 3.4E+01 NA 5.3E-02 NAAmylase, Alpha 9000-90-2 7.0E-04 4.5E+02 1.1E-06 2.4E-09Castor Oil 61791-12-6 8.3E-04 1.0E+03 1.3E-06 1.3E-09Choline Chloride 67-48-1 9.4E-03 NA 1.5E-05 NACinnamaldehyde 104-55-2 9.1E-04 6.2E+01 1.4E-06 2.3E-08Diethylene Glycol 111-46-6 1.4E-04 4.3E+01 2.2E-07 5.1E-09DISTILLATES, HYDROTREATED LIGHT 64742-47-8 2.7E+02 4.1E+02 4.2E-01 1.0E-03Ethoxylated C11 Alcohol 34398-01-1 4.9E-02 6.1E+01 7.7E-05 1.3E-062-Ethoxy-naphthalene 93-18-5 6.3E-01 2.0E+00 1.0E-03 4.9E-04Ethylene Glycol 107-21-1 1.4E-04 NA 2.2E-07 NAFormic Acid 64-18-6 6.0E-03 8.9E+01 9.6E-06 1.1E-07Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8 1.7E-01 1.6E+00 2.7E-04 1.7E-04Glycerol 56-81-5 2.8E-01 1.9E+03 4.4E-04 2.4E-07Guar Gum 9000-30-0 5.5E-01 5.1E+02 8.7E-04 1.7E-06Hemicellulase 9025-56-3 3.7E-03 4.1E+02 5.8E-06 1.4E-081,6-Hexanediol 629-11-8 1.6E-02 1.6E+02 2.5E-05 1.5E-07HydroChloric Acid 7647-01-0 3.6E+02 NA 5.8E-01 NAInorganic Salt 584-08-7 9.7E+01 NA 1.5E-01 NAIsopropanol 67-63-0 3.9E-02 NA 6.2E-05 NA2-Mercaptoethyl Alcohol 60-24-2 6.9E-04 NA 1.1E-06 NAMethanol 67-56-1 3.9E-04 NA 6.2E-07 NAN-Benzyl-Alkylpyridinium Chloride 68909-18-2 6.3E-01 NA 1.0E-03 NAPine Oil 8002-09-3 8.2E-04 2.0E+01 1.3E-06 6.4E-08Polyacrylamide 25085-02-3 2.5E+01 2.0E+03 3.9E-02 1.9E-05Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether 9016-45-9 1.6E-01 NA 2.6E-04 NAPolyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene Block Copolymer 9003-11-6 6.9E-01 1.0E+03 1.1E-03 1.1E-06Potassium Chloride 7447-40-7 1.6E+01 7.4E+02 2.6E-02 3.5E-05Potassium Hydroxide 1310-58-3 8.5E+01 NA 1.3E-01 NAPotassium persulfate 7727-21-1 1.6E+00 NA 2.5E-03 NAPotasium Sorbate 24634-61-5 1.5E-04 4.1E+02 2.4E-07 5.9E-102-Propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt 9003-03-6 6.3E-01 4.6E+02 1.0E-03 2.2E-06Quaternary ammonium compounds, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethyl, salts with bentonite 68953-58-2 1.7E+02 1.0E+03 2.6E-01 2.6E-04

Sodium Benzoate 532-32-1 1.7E-04 1.3E+03 2.6E-07 2.1E-10Sodium bisulfite 7631-90-5 9.4E-01 2.1E+02 1.5E-03 7.0E-06Sodium erythorbate 6381-77-7 5.2E-03 2.1E+03 8.2E-06 3.9E-09Sodium Hydroxide 1310-73-2 1.6E+02 NA 2.6E-01 NASodium polyacrylate 9003-04-7 3.9E+00 4.6E+02 6.1E-03 1.3E-05Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate 1303-96-4 5.4E+02 NA 8.6E-01 NA


Day 150 Toxicity

Page 1 of 1

15

Ap

pend

ix 1

Appendix 1

CAS Number68439-46-3

34398-01-1

107-21-1

67-48-1

111-30-8

7783-20-2

25085-02-3

9003-04-77631-90-5

9003-03-67727-54-0

7727-21-1

93-18-51310-58-3584-08-756-81-51330-43-41310-73-2

9025-56-39000-90-2

532-32-1

24634-61-5 64742-47-89000-30-09016-45-968953-58-2629-11-87647-01-0104-55-272480-70-761791-12-667-63-08002-09-368909-18-27732-18-560-24-29003-11-6111-46-667-56-164-18-66381-77-764-19-77447-40-7

[insert volume]*Note: display all values to 3 significant figures.

Total

0.00%Calculated %

100.00%

Potassium Chloride 24.806 0.0062%Acetic Acid 283.500 0.0713%

Formic Acid 15.120 0.0038%Sodium erythorbate 13.228 0.0033%

Diethylene Glycol 0.378 0.0001%Methanol 1.512 0.0004%

2-Mercaptoethyl Alcohol 1.890 0.0005%Polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene Block Copolymer 1.890 0.0005%

N-Benzyl-Alkylpyridinium Chloride 1.890 0.0005%Water in Additive 2752.357 0.6925%

Isopropanol 151.484 0.0381%Pine Oil 2.646 0.0007%

Tar Bases, Quinoline Derivatives, Benzyl Chloride-Quat2.646 0.0007%Castor Oil 2.646 0.0007%

HydroChloric Acid 945.000 0.2378%Cinnamaldehyde 2.646 0.0007%

Quaternary ammonium compounds, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethyl, salts with bentonite496.125 0.1248%1,6-Hexanediol 49.613 0.0125%

Guar Gum 1681.864 0.4231%Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether 496.125 0.1248%

DISTILLATES, HYDROTREATED LIGHT 1984.500 0.4993%Pottasium Sorbate 0.340 0.0001%

Amylase, Alpha 1.701 0.0004%

Sodium Benzoate 0.340 0.0001%

Sodium Hydroxide 226.800 0.0571%

Hemicellulase 11.227 0.0028%

Glycerol 680.400 0.1712%Sodium Tetraborate 680.400 0.1712%

Potassium Hydroxide 119.070 0.0300%Inorganic Salt 119.070 0.0300%

Potassium persulfate 1.890 0.0005%

2-Ethoxy-naphthalene 1.890 0.0005%

2-Propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt 1.890 0.0005%Ammonium Persulphate 22.504 0.0057%

Sodium polyacrylate 9.450 0.0024%Sodium bisulfite 1.890 0.0005%

Ammonium Sulphate 56.700 0.0143%

Polyacrylamide 56.700 0.0143%

Choline Chloride 26.082 0.0066%

Glutaraldehyde 496.125 0.1248%

Ethylene Glycol 0.378 0.0001%

Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated 49.613 0.0125%

Ethoxylated C11 Alcohol 148.838 0.0374%

Sand 20/40 141428.571 53357.701 13.424%

Any wet chemical constitutes: Litres % of total volume

Proppant type (e.g. sand) Proppant size Kilograms Litres % of total volumeSand 40/70 3401.361 1283.254 0.323%

Comprising of:Base fluid type (e.g. water) Litres % of total volumeMakeup Water 331180.513 83.323%

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - ONLY TO BE USED FOR REGULATOR NOTIFICATION (QLD FORMAT)

5/25/2018Comments: 20# Borate XL system with Acid Spearhead

Santos Limited Pre Job Fairview Generic Condor Energy Servies Fluid System Disclosure

Total injected fluid volume (kilolitres): 397.468

16

Ap

pend

ix C

10-T

able

s

Appendix C10-Tables

Table C10‐1 Surface Water Quality Data for Theoretical Scenario in Initial Flowback Condor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System

Condor Fluid System Half-Life (days) 0 30 150 300 DISTILLATES, HYDROTREATED LIGHT 64742-47-8 3994.3 150 532.57 463.63 266.29 133.141,6-Hexanediol 629-11-8 119.83 15 15.98 3.994 0.01560 0.000015242-Ethoxy-naphthalene 93-18-5 4.7551 NA 0.6340 0.6340 0.6340 0.63402-Mercaptoethyl Alcohol 60-24-2 5.2972 15 0.7063 0.1766 0.0007 0.00002-Propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt 9003-03-6 4.7551 NA 0.6340 0.6340 0.6340 0.6340Acetic Acid 64-19-7 748.93 15 99.857 24.964 0.09752 0.00009523Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated 68439-46-3 124.82 15 16.64 4.161 0.01625 0.00001587Ammonium Persulphate 7727-54-0 112.106 NA 14.947 14.947 14.947 14.947Ammonium Sulphate 7783-20-2 252.50 NA 33.67 33.67 33.67 33.67Amylase, Alpha 9000-90-2 5.3495 15 0.7133 0.1783 0.0006965 0.0000006802Castor Oil 61791-12-6 6.3909 15 0.8521 0.2130 0.0008321 0.0000008126Choline Chloride 67-48-1 72.182 15 9.6 2.406 0.009399 0.000009178Cinnamaldehyde 104-55-2 6.9880 15 0.9317 0.2329 0.0009099 0.0000008886Diethylene Glycol 111-46-6 1.06324 15 0.1418 0.0354 0.0001384 0.0000001352Ethoxylated C11 Alcohol 34398-01-1 374.46 15 49.9 12.5 0.04876 0.00004762Ethylene Glycol 107-21-1 1.05563 15 0.1408 0.03519 0.0001375 0.0000001342Formic Acid 64-18-6 46.410 15 6.2 1.547 0.006043 0.000005901Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8 1323.1 15 176.4 44.1 0.1723 0.0001682Glycerol 56-81-5 2156.9 15 287.6 71.9 0.2808 0.0002743Guar Gum 9000-30-0 4231.4 15 564.2 141.0 0.5510 0.0005381Hemicellulase 9025-56-3 28.245 15 3.8 0.942 0.003678 0.000003592HydroChloric Acid 7647-01-0 2732.5 NA 364.3 364.3 364.3 364.3Inorganic salt 584-08-7 727.96 NA 97.1 97.1 97.1 97.1Isopropanol 67-63-0 299.56 15 39.9 10.0 0.0 0.0Methanol 67-56-1 3.0128 15 0.4017 0.1004 0.0003923 0.0000003831N-Benzyl-Alkylpyridinium Chloride 68909-18-2 4.7551 NA 0.63401 0.63401 0.63401 0.63401Pine Oil 8002-09-3 6.3243 15 0.8432 0.2108 0.0008235 0.0000008042Polyacrylamide 25085-02-3 185.45 NA 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether 9016-45-9 1244.5 15 165.9 41.5 0.2 0.0Polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene BlockCopolymer 9003-11-6 5.2068 NA 0.6942 0.6942 0.6942 0.6942

Potassium Chloride 7447-40-7 123.573 NA 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5Potassium Hydroxide 1310-58-3 635.09 NA 84.7 84.7 84.7 84.7Potassium persulfate 7727-21-1 11.7784 NA 1.57045 1.57045 1.57045 1.57045Pottasium Sorbate 24634-61-5 1.16662 15 0.1555 0.03889 0.0001519 0.0000001483Quaternary ammonium compounds, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethyl, salts with bentonite

68953-58-2 1248.2 NA 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4

Sodium Benzoate 532-32-1 1.28131 15 0.1708 0.04271 0.0001668 0.0000001629Sodium bisulfite 7631-90-5 7.0375 NA 0.9383 0.9383 0.9383 0.9383Sodium erythorbate 6381-77-7 39.935 15 5.325 1.331 0.005200 0.000005078Sodium Hydroxide 1310-73-2 1215.40 NA 162.05 162.05 162.05 162.05Sodium polyacrylate 9003-04-7 29.006 NA 3.867 3.867 3.867 3.867Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate 1303-96-4 4057.1 NA 540.9 540.9 540.9 540.9


Estimated concentration in pre-injection fluid

systems (mg/L)

Fate and Transport Properties

Estimated Initial Mud Pit Concentration in flowback (150% of injected fluid volume) per coal seam per 20% of mass


Page 1 of 1

Table C10‐2 Comparison of Estimated Theoretical Condor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System

Concentrations to Human Health Drinking Water Guidelines

Condor Fluid System Half-Life (days) 0 30 150 300 0 30 150 300DISTILLATES, HYDROTREATED LIGHT 64742-47-8 3994.3 150 532.57 463.63 266.29 133.14 12 4.4E+01 3.9E+01 2.2E+01 1.1E+011,6-Hexanediol 629-11-8 119.83 15 15.98 3.994 0.01560 0.00001524 3.5 4.6E+00 1.1E+00 4.5E-03 4.4E-062-Ethoxy-naphthalene 93-18-5 4.7551 NA 0.6340 0.6340 0.6340 0.6340 0.07 9.1E+00 9.1E+00 9.1E+00 9.1E+002-Mercaptoethyl Alcohol 60-24-2 5.2972 15 0.7063 0.1766 0.0007 0.0000 0.18 3.9E+00 9.8E-01 3.8E-03 3.7E-062-Propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt 9003-03-6 4.7551 NA 0.6340 0.6340 0.6340 0.6340 3.5 1.8E-01 1.8E-01 1.8E-01 1.8E-01Acetic Acid 64-19-7 748.93 15 99.857 24.964 0.09752 0.00009523 NA NA NA NA NAAlcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated 68439-46-3 124.82 15 16.64 4.161 0.01625 0.00001587 1.8 9.2E+00 2.3E+00 9.0E-03 8.8E-06Ammonium Persulphate 7727-54-0 112.106 NA 14.947 14.947 14.947 14.947 250 6.0E-02 6.0E-02 6.0E-02 6.0E-02Ammonium Sulphate 7783-20-2 252.50 NA 33.67 33.67 33.67 33.67 250 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 1.3E-01Amylase, Alpha 9000-90-2 5.3495 15 0.7133 0.1783 0.0006965 0.0000006802 13 5.5E-02 1.4E-02 5.4E-05 5.2E-08Castor Oil 61791-12-6 6.3909 15 0.8521 0.2130 0.0008321 0.0000008126 28 3.0E-02 7.6E-03 3.0E-05 2.9E-08Choline Chloride 67-48-1 72.182 15 9.6 2.406 0.009399 0.000009178 175 5.5E-02 1.4E-02 5.4E-05 5.2E-08Cinnamaldehyde 104-55-2 6.9880 15 0.9317 0.2329 0.0009099 0.0000008886 4 2.3E-01 5.8E-02 2.3E-04 2.2E-07Diethylene Glycol 111-46-6 1.06324 15 0.1418 0.0354 0.0001384 0.0000001352 3.5 4.1E-02 1.0E-02 4.0E-05 3.9E-08Ethoxylated C11 Alcohol 34398-01-1 374.46 15 49.9 12.5 0.04876 0.00004762 1.8 2.8E+01 6.9E+00 2.7E-02 2.6E-05Ethylene Glycol 107-21-1 1.05563 15 0.1408 0.03519 0.0001375 0.0000001342 53 2.7E-03 6.6E-04 2.6E-06 2.5E-09Formic Acid 64-18-6 46.410 15 6.2 1.547 0.006043 0.000005901 7 8.8E-01 2.2E-01 8.6E-04 8.4E-07Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8 1323.1 15 176.4 44.1 0.1723 0.0001682 0.14 1.3E+03 3.2E+02 1.2E+00 1.2E-03Glycerol 56-81-5 2156.9 15 287.6 71.9 0.2808 0.0002743 16 1.8E+01 4.5E+00 1.8E-02 1.7E-05Guar Gum 9000-30-0 4231.4 15 564.2 141.0 0.5510 0.0005381 46 1.2E+01 3.1E+00 1.2E-02 1.2E-05Hemicellulase 9025-56-3 28.245 15 3.8 0.942 0.003678 0.000003592 3.5 1.1E+00 2.7E-01 1.1E-03 1.0E-06HydroChloric Acid 7647-01-0 2732.5 NA 364.3 364.3 364.3 364.3 250 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 1.5E+00Inorganic Salt 584-08-7 727.96 NA 97.1 97.1 97.1 97.1 NA NA NA NA NAIsopropanol 67-63-0 299.56 15 39.9 10.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.9E+01 7.1E+00 2.8E-02 2.7E-05Methanol 67-56-1 3.0128 15 0.4017 0.1004 0.0003923 0.0000003831 7 5.7E-02 1.4E-02 5.6E-05 5.5E-08N-Benzyl-Alkylpyridinium Chloride 68909-18-2 4.7551 NA 0.63401 0.63401 0.63401 0.63401 NA NA NA NA NAPine Oil 8002-09-3 6.3243 15 0.8432 0.2108 0.0008235 0.0000008042 0.6 1.4E+00 3.5E-01 1.4E-03 1.3E-06Polyacrylamide 25085-02-3 185.45 NA 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 175 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 1.4E-01Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether 9016-45-9 1244.5 15 165.9 41.5 0.2 0.0 NA NA NA NA NA

Polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene Block Copolymer 9003-11-6 5.2068 NA 0.6942 0.6942 0.6942 0.6942 88 7.9E-03 7.9E-03 7.9E-03 7.9E-03

Potasium Sorbate 24634-61-5 1.16662 15 0.1555 0.03889 0.0001519 0.0000001483 35 4.4E-03 1.1E-03 4.3E-06 4.2E-09Inorganic Salt 7447-40-7 123.573 NA 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 63 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 2.6E-01Potassium Hydroxide 1310-58-3 635.09 NA 84.7 84.7 84.7 84.7 NA NA NA NA NAPotassium persulfate 7727-21-1 11.7784 NA 1.57045 1.57045 1.57045 1.57045 250 6.3E-03 6.3E-03 6.3E-03 6.3E-03Quaternary ammonium compounds, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethyl, salts with bentonite

68953-58-2 1248.2 NA 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 29 5.7E+00 5.7E+00 5.7E+00 5.7E+00

Sodium Benzoate 532-32-1 1.28131 15 0.1708 0.04271 0.0001668 0.0000001629 35 4.9E-03 1.2E-03 4.8E-06 4.7E-09Sodium bisulfite 7631-90-5 7.0375 NA 0.9383 0.9383 0.9383 0.9383 18 5.2E-02 5.2E-02 5.2E-02 5.2E-02Sodium erythorbate 6381-77-7 39.935 15 5.325 1.331 0.005200 0.000005078 49 1.1E-01 2.7E-02 1.1E-04 1.0E-07Sodium Hydroxide 1310-73-2 1215.40 NA 162.05 162.05 162.05 162.05 180 9.0E-01 9.0E-01 9.0E-01 9.0E-01Sodium polyacrylate 9003-04-7 29.006 NA 3.867 3.867 3.867 3.867 4 9.7E-01 9.7E-01 9.7E-01 9.7E-01Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate 1303-96-4 4057.1 NA 540.9 540.9 540.9 540.9 0.7 7.7E+02 7.7E+02 7.7E+02 7.7E+02

Cumulative Ratio 2,160.0 1,133.8 793.1 791.7

Estimated concentration in pre-injection fluid systems

(mg/L)Fate and Transport

Properties


returned calculated using equation: Mud Pitcon = FBconcentration (mg/L)/ FB dilution 150% x percent mass


Ratio of COPC Concentrations and Screening Criteria (Ratio greater than one

= unacceptable potential risk)Temporal Scenario (days)

Drinking Water

Guideline (mg/L)Constituent Name CAS No.


Page 1 of 1

Table C10‐3 Comparison of Estimated Theoretical Condor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System


Condor Fluid System Half-Life (days) 0 30 150 300 (mg/l) 0 30 150 300DISTILLATES, HYDROTREATED LIGHT 64742-47-8 3994.3 150 532.57 463.63 266.29 133.14 NA NA NA NA NA1,6-Hexanediol 629-11-8 119.83 15 15.98 3.994 0.01560 0.00001524 5 3.2E+00 8.0E-01 3.1E-03 3.0E-062-Ethoxy-naphthalene 93-18-5 4.7551 NA 0.6340 0.6340 0.6340 0.6340 0.04 1.6E+01 1.6E+01 1.6E+01 1.6E+012-Mercaptoethyl Alcohol 60-24-2 5.2972 15 0.7063 0.1766 0.0007 0.0000 0.0013 5.4E+02 1.4E+02 5.3E-01 5.2E-042-Propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt 9003-03-6 4.7551 NA 0.6340 0.6340 0.6340 0.6340 1.2 5.3E-01 5.3E-01 5.3E-01 5.3E-01Acetic Acid 64-19-7 748.93 15 99.857 24.964 0.09752 0.00009523 3 3.3E+01 8.3E+00 3.3E-02 3.2E-05Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated 68439-46-3 124.82 15 16.64 4.161 0.01625 0.00001587 0.14 1.2E+02 3.0E+01 1.2E-01 1.1E-04Ammonium Persulphate 7727-54-0 112.106 NA 14.947 14.947 14.947 14.947 0.8 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01Ammonium Sulphate 7783-20-2 252.50 NA 33.67 33.67 33.67 33.67 0.06 5.6E+02 5.6E+02 5.6E+02 5.6E+02Amylase, Alpha 9000-90-2 5.3495 15 0.7133 0.1783 0.0006965 0.0000006802 0.05 1.4E+01 3.6E+00 1.4E-02 1.4E-05Castor Oil 61791-12-6 6.3909 15 0.8521 0.2130 0.0008321 0.0000008126 0.45 1.9E+00 4.7E-01 1.8E-03 1.8E-06Choline Chloride 67-48-1 72.182 15 9.6 2.406 0.009399 0.000009178 0.3 3.2E+01 8.0E+00 3.1E-02 3.1E-05Cinnamaldehyde 104-55-2 6.9880 15 0.9317 0.2329 0.0009099 0.0000008886 0.04 2.3E+01 5.8E+00 2.3E-02 2.2E-05Diethylene Glycol 111-46-6 1.06324 15 0.1418 0.0354 0.0001384 0.0000001352 27 5.3E-03 1.3E-03 5.1E-06 5.0E-09Ethoxylated C11 Alcohol 34398-01-1 374.46 15 49.9 12.5 0.04876 0.00004762 0.14 3.6E+02 8.9E+01 3.5E-01 3.4E-04Ethylene Glycol 107-21-1 1.05563 15 0.1408 0.03519 0.0001375 0.0000001342 10 1.4E-02 3.5E-03 1.4E-05 1.3E-08Formic Acid 64-18-6 46.410 15 6.2 1.547 0.006043 0.000005901 1 6.2E+00 1.5E+00 6.0E-03 5.9E-06Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8 1323.1 15 176.4 44.1 0.1723 0.0001682 0.0025 7.1E+04 1.8E+04 6.9E+01 6.7E-02Glycerol 56-81-5 2156.9 15 287.6 71.9 0.2808 0.0002743 10 2.9E+01 7.2E+00 2.8E-02 2.7E-05Guar Gum 9000-30-0 4231.4 15 564.2 141.0 0.5510 0.0005381 0.006 9.4E+04 2.4E+04 9.2E+01 9.0E-02Hemicellulase 9025-56-3 28.245 15 3.8 0.942 0.003678 0.000003592 0.5 7.5E+00 1.9E+00 7.4E-03 7.2E-06HydroChloric Acid 7647-01-0 2732.5 n 364.3 364.3 364.3 364.3 NA NA NA NA NAInorganic Salt 584-08-7 727.96 NA 97.1 97.1 97.1 97.1 NA NA NA NA NAIsopropanol 67-63-0 299.56 15 39.9 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3E+02 3.3E+01 1.3E-01 1.3E-04Methanol 67-56-1 3.0128 15 0.4017 0.1004 0.0003923 0.0000003831 10 4.0E-02 1.0E-02 3.9E-05 3.8E-08N-Benzyl-Alkylpyridinium Chloride 68909-18-2 4.7551 NA 0.63401 0.63401 0.63401 0.63401 0.005 1.3E+02 1.3E+02 1.3E+02 1.3E+02Pine Oil 8002-09-3 6.3243 15 0.8432 0.2108 0.0008235 0.0000008042 0.02 4.2E+01 1.1E+01 4.1E-02 4.0E-05Polyacrylamide 25085-02-3 185.45 NA 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 0.1 2.5E+02 2.5E+02 2.5E+02 2.5E+02Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether 9016-45-9 1244.5 15 165.9 41.5 0.2 0.0 0.006 2.8E+04 6.9E+03 2.7E+01 2.6E-02

Polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene Block Copolymer 9003-11-6 5.2068 NA 0.6942 0.6942 0.6942 0.6942 0.1 6.9E+00 6.9E+00 6.9E+00 6.9E+00

Potasium Sorbate 24634-61-5 1.16662 15 0.1555 0.03889 0.0001519 0.0000001483 0.17 9.1E-01 2.3E-01 8.9E-04 8.7E-07Potassium Chloride 7447-40-7 123.573 NA 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 0.1 1.6E+02 1.6E+02 1.6E+02 1.6E+02Potassium Hydroxide 1310-58-3 635.09 NA 84.7 84.7 84.7 84.7 NA NA NA NA NAPotassium persulfate 7727-21-1 11.7784 NA 1.57045 1.57045 1.57045 1.57045 0.8 2.0E+00 2.0E+00 2.0E+00 2.0E+00Quaternary ammonium compounds, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethyl, salts with bentonite

68953-58-2 1248.2 NA 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 0.06 2.8E+03 2.8E+03 2.8E+03 2.8E+03

Sodium Benzoate 532-32-1 1.28131 15 0.1708 0.04271 0.0001668 0.0000001629 0.3 5.7E-01 1.4E-01 5.6E-04 5.4E-07Sodium bisulfite 7631-90-5 7.0375 NA 0.9383 0.9383 0.9383 0.9383 0.8 1.2E+00 1.2E+00 1.2E+00 1.2E+00Sodium erythorbate 6381-77-7 39.935 15 5.325 1.331 0.005200 0.000005078 1 5.3E+00 1.3E+00 5.2E-03 5.1E-06Sodium Hydroxide 1310-73-2 1215.40 NA 162.05 162.05 162.05 162.05 NA NA NA NA NASodium polyacrylate 9003-04-7 29.006 NA 3.867 3.867 3.867 3.867 1.2 3.2E+00 3.2E+00 3.2E+00 3.2E+00Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate 1303-96-4 4057.1 NA 540.9 540.9 540.9 540.9 0.37 1.5E+03 1.5E+03 1.5E+03 1.5E+03



Ratio of COPC Concentrations and Screening Criteria (Ratio greater than one

= unacceptable potential risk)


PNEC Aquatic



Fate and Transport Properties


returned calculated using equation: Mud Pitcon = FBconcentration (mg/L)/ FB dilution 150% x percent mass


Page 1 of 1

Date post:	06-Jul-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phamnga
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

APPENDIX C ASSESSED HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUID … · 2 n C1.0 Introduction As presented in Section...

Documents