appendix c assessed hydraulic fracturing fluid … · 2 n c1.0 introduction as presented in section...
TRANSCRIPT
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:
Exposure to COPCs in flowback water released to environment (spill, leak, mud pit, turkey nest
delivery system failure or overflow):
— 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
scenarios, receptors, pathways evaluated (Golder, 2013).
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:
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;
Environmental authority conditions that preclude the construction of well pads within 100 m 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 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;
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
Table 3 Regulatory Screening Values for DERM Specified Analytes
Parameter Drinking Water Guideline Values (mg/L) Stock Watering (mg/L) Aquatic Ecosystems
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
Table 3 Regulatory Screening Values for DERM Specified Analytes
Parameter Drinking Water Guideline Values (mg/L) Stock Watering (mg/L) Aquatic Ecosystems
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
Toxicity80% Mass Returned
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
Specific Frac Stimulation Event MaximumHazard Quotient Hazard Quotient
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
Toxicity20% Mass Returned
Page 1 of 1
Table 15 Risk Estimates for Cattle 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) Sreening Level\
TRVs CADDoral Incidental Ingestion CADDoral Incidental Ingestion
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
Hazard Index Hazard Index3.7E-02 5.1E-02
Toxicity80% Mass Returned
Page 1 of 1
Table 16 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo Schlumberger Theoretical Exposure for 20% Mass Returned
Specific Frac Stimulation Event MaximumHazard Quotient Hazard Quotient
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 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
Hazard Index Hazard Index6.1E-03 8.4E-03
Toxicity20% Mass Returned
Page 1 of 1
Table 17 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo 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) Sreening Level\
TRVs CADDoral Incidental Ingestion CADDoral Incidental Ingestion
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
Hazard Index Hazard Index2.4E-02 3.4E-02
Toxicity80% Mass Returned
Page 1 of 1
Table 18 Risk Estimates for Dingo Schlumberger Theoretical Exposure for 20% Mass Returned
Specific Frac Stimulation Event MaximumHazard Quotient Hazard Quotient
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 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
Hazard Index Hazard Index2.9E-03 4.0E-03
Toxicity20% Mass Returned
Page 1 of 1
Table 19 Risk Estimates for Dingo 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) Sreening Level\
TRVs CADDoral Incidental Ingestion CADDoral Incidental Ingestion
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
Hazard Index Hazard Index1.2E-02 1.6E-02
Toxicity80% Mass Returned
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\
TRVs CADDoral Incidental Ingestion CADDoral Incidental Ingestion
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
Constituent Name Cmax (mg/l) Cmean (mg/l) Sreening Level\
TRVs CADDoral Incidental Ingestion CADDoral Incidental Ingestion
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
Turkey Nest Maximum Concentrations Turkey Nest Mean ConcentrationsHazard Quotient Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name Cmax (mg/l) Cmean (mg/l) Sreening Level\
TRVs CADDoral Incidental Ingestion CADDoral Incidental Ingestion
Aluminium 19.8 4.2E+00 1.7E+01 6.5E-02 3.9E-03 1.4E-02 8.2E-04Arsenic 0.135 1.0E-02 5.0E-03 4.4E-04 8.9E-02 3.3E-05 6.6E-03Barium 1.87 3.8E-01 3.3E+00 6.1E-03 1.8E-03 1.2E-03 3.7E-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 4.8E-03 1.5E-03 2.1E-03 6.4E-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 1.0E-04 4.1E-06 2.6E-05 1.0E-06Cobalt 0.005 2.1E-03 1.0E-04 1.6E-05 1.6E-01 6.9E-06 6.9E-02Copper 0.14 1.0E-02 6.7E-01 4.6E-04 6.9E-04 3.3E-05 5.0E-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 3.0E-05 4.9E-04 1.6E-05 2.7E-04Lithium 0.46 9.8E-02 3.3E-02 1.5E-03 4.5E-02 3.2E-04 9.7E-03Manganese 0.255 4.2E-02 4.0E-01 8.4E-04 2.1E-03 1.4E-04 3.5E-04Molybdenum 0.628 4.7E-02 8.3E-02 2.1E-03 2.5E-02 1.5E-04 1.9E-03Naphthalene 0.0054 5.4E-03 3.3E-01 1.8E-05 5.3E-05 1.8E-05 5.3E-05Nickel (soluble salts) 0.12 8.8E-03 3.3E-01 3.9E-04 1.2E-03 2.9E-05 8.7E-05Selenium 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 8.9E-03 8.9E-04 2.1E-03 2.1E-04Tin 0.004 3.0E-03 1.0E+01 1.3E-05 1.3E-06 9.9E-06 9.9E-07Toluene 0.004 3.0E-03 1.3E+00 1.3E-05 9.9E-06 9.9E-06 7.4E-06TPH Aliphatic C6-9 1.08 2.8E-01 8.3E+01 3.6E-03 4.3E-05 9.2E-04 1.1E-05TPH Aliphatic C10-14 0.68 3.9E-01 1.7E+00 2.2E-03 1.3E-03 1.3E-03 7.7E-04TPH Aliphatic C15-28 1.11 5.0E-01 3.3E+01 3.6E-03 1.1E-04 1.6E-03 4.9E-05TPH Aliphatic C29-36 0.92 2.5E-01 2.0E+02 3.0E-03 1.5E-05 8.3E-04 4.1E-06Uranium 0.002 1.8E-03 5.0E-02 6.6E-06 1.3E-04 5.9E-06 1.2E-04Vanadium 0.14 5.0E-02 1.2E-03 4.6E-04 3.9E-01 1.6E-04 1.4E-01Xylenes (total) 0.014 5.8E-03 3.3E+00 4.6E-05 1.4E-05 1.9E-05 5.7E-06Zinc 0.046 1.9E-02 5.0E+00 1.5E-04 3.0E-05 6.2E-05 1.2E-05
Hazard Index Hazard Index7.3E-01 9.1E-02
ToxicityTurkey Nest
Page 1 of 1
Table 23 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo Empirical Exposure - Pump Flowback
Pump Flowback Maximum Concentrations Pump Flowback Mean Treated ConcentrationsHazard Quotient Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name Cmax (mg/l) Cmean (mg/l) Sreening Level\
TRVs CADDoral Incidental Ingestion CADDoral Incidental Ingestion
Aluminium 2.65 1.1E-01 1.7E+01 8.7E-03 5.2E-04 3.5E-04 2.1E-05Arsenic 0.015 3.5E-03 5.0E-03 4.9E-05 9.9E-03 1.2E-05 2.3E-03Barium 37.9 4.6E+00 3.3E+00 1.2E-01 3.7E-02 1.5E-02 4.6E-03Benzene 0.041 1.5E-02 6.7E-02 1.3E-04 2.0E-03 5.0E-05 7.4E-04Beryllium 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 1.8E-01 5.5E-02 4.5E-02 1.3E-02Cadmium 0.0004 1.0E-04 8.3E-03 1.3E-06 1.6E-04 3.3E-07 3.9E-05Chromium (total) 0.147 1.5E-02 2.5E+01 4.8E-04 1.9E-05 5.0E-05 2.0E-06Cobalt 0.01 1.3E-03 1.0E-04 3.3E-05 3.3E-01 4.3E-06 4.3E-02Copper 0.156 2.2E-02 6.7E-01 5.1E-04 7.7E-04 7.2E-05 1.1E-04Ethylbenzene 0.003 2.4E-03 1.7E+00 9.9E-06 5.9E-06 7.9E-06 4.7E-06Lead 0.035 2.0E-03 6.0E-02 1.2E-04 1.9E-03 6.6E-06 1.1E-04Lithium 2.84 1.5E+00 3.3E-02 9.3E-03 2.8E-01 4.8E-03 1.5E-01Manganese 1.66 4.0E-01 4.0E-01 5.5E-03 1.4E-02 1.3E-03 3.3E-03Molybdenum 0.231 1.6E-02 8.3E-02 7.6E-04 9.1E-03 5.1E-05 6.2E-04Naphthalene 0.231 1.6E-02 3.3E-01 7.6E-04 2.3E-03 5.1E-05 1.5E-04Nickel (soluble salts) 0.051 1.2E-02 3.3E-01 1.7E-04 5.0E-04 4.0E-05 1.2E-04Selenium 0.01 1.0E-02 8.3E-02 3.3E-05 3.9E-04 3.3E-05 3.9E-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 1.1E-01 1.1E-02 4.0E-02 4.0E-03Tin 0.161 3.5E-03 1.0E+01 5.3E-04 5.3E-05 1.2E-05 1.2E-06Toluene 0.094 2.1E-02 1.3E+00 3.1E-04 2.3E-04 6.9E-05 5.2E-05TPH Aliphatic C6-9 0.25 7.9E-02 8.3E+01 8.2E-04 9.9E-06 2.6E-04 3.1E-06TPH Aliphatic C10-14 0.5 2.4E-01 1.7E+00 1.6E-03 9.9E-04 8.0E-04 4.8E-04TPH Aliphatic C15-28 5.16 7.3E-01 3.3E+01 1.7E-02 5.1E-04 2.4E-03 7.2E-05TPH Aliphatic C29-36 3.28 4.5E-01 2.0E+02 1.1E-02 5.4E-05 1.5E-03 7.3E-06Uranium 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 6.6E-05 5.6E-02 4.9E-05 4.2E-02Xylenes (total) 0.031 1.4E-02 3.3E+00 1.0E-04 3.1E-05 4.7E-05 1.4E-05Zinc 0.251 2.2E-02 5.0E+00 8.3E-04 1.7E-04 7.2E-05 1.4E-05
Hazard Index Hazard Index8.1E-01 2.2E-01
ToxicityPump Flowback
Page 1 of 1
Table 24 Risk Estimates for Dingo 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\
TRVs CADDoral Incidental Ingestion CADDoral Incidental Ingestion
Aluminium 19.8 4.2E+00 1.7E+01 3.1E-02 1.9E-03 6.6E-03 3.9E-04Arsenic 0.135 1.0E-02 5.0E-03 2.1E-04 4.3E-02 1.6E-05 3.2E-03Barium 1.87 3.8E-01 3.3E+00 3.0E-03 8.9E-04 5.9E-04 1.8E-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 2.3E-03 7.0E-04 1.0E-03 3.1E-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 4.9E-05 2.0E-06 1.2E-05 5.0E-07Cobalt 0.005 2.1E-03 1.0E-04 7.9E-06 7.9E-02 3.3E-06 3.3E-02Copper 0.14 1.0E-02 6.7E-01 2.2E-04 3.3E-04 1.6E-05 2.4E-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 1.4E-05 2.4E-04 7.7E-06 1.3E-04Lithium 0.46 9.8E-02 3.3E-02 7.3E-04 2.2E-02 1.5E-04 4.6E-03Manganese 0.255 4.2E-02 4.0E-01 4.0E-04 1.0E-03 6.7E-05 1.7E-04Molybdenum 0.628 4.7E-02 8.3E-02 9.9E-04 1.2E-02 7.4E-05 8.9E-04Naphthalene 0.0054 5.4E-03 3.3E-01 8.5E-06 2.6E-05 8.5E-06 2.6E-05Nickel (soluble salts) 0.12 8.8E-03 3.3E-01 1.9E-04 5.7E-04 1.4E-05 4.2E-05Selenium 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 4.3E-03 4.3E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-04Tin 0.004 3.0E-03 1.0E+01 6.3E-06 6.3E-07 4.7E-06 4.7E-07Toluene 0.004 3.0E-03 1.3E+00 6.3E-06 4.7E-06 4.7E-06 3.6E-06TPH Aliphatic C6-9 1.08 2.8E-01 8.3E+01 1.7E-03 2.0E-05 4.4E-04 5.3E-06TPH Aliphatic C10-14 0.68 3.9E-01 1.7E+00 1.1E-03 6.5E-04 6.2E-04 3.7E-04TPH Aliphatic C15-28 1.11 5.0E-01 3.3E+01 1.8E-03 5.3E-05 7.9E-04 2.4E-05TPH Aliphatic C29-36 0.92 2.5E-01 2.0E+02 1.5E-03 7.3E-06 4.0E-04 2.0E-06Uranium 0.002 1.8E-03 5.0E-02 3.2E-06 6.3E-05 2.8E-06 5.7E-05Vanadium 0.14 5.0E-02 1.2E-03 2.2E-04 1.9E-01 7.9E-05 6.8E-02Xylenes (total) 0.014 5.8E-03 3.3E+00 2.2E-05 6.6E-06 9.2E-06 2.8E-06Zinc 0.046 1.9E-02 5.0E+00 7.3E-05 1.5E-05 3.0E-05 6.0E-06
Hazard Index Hazard Index3.5E-01 4.4E-02
ToxicityTurkey Nest
Page 1 of 1
Table 25 Risk Estimates for Dingo Empirical Exposure - Pump Flowback
Pump Flowback Maximum Concentrations Pump Flowback Mean Treated ConcentrationsHazard Quotient Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name Cmax (mg/l) Cmean (mg/l) Sreening Level\
TRVs CADDoral Incidental Ingestion CADDoral Incidental Ingestion
Aluminium 2.65 1.1E-01 1.7E+01 4.2E-03 2.5E-04 1.7E-04 1.0E-05Arsenic 0.015 3.5E-03 5.0E-03 2.4E-05 4.7E-03 5.5E-06 1.1E-03Barium 37.9 4.6E+00 3.3E+00 6.0E-02 1.8E-02 7.3E-03 2.2E-03Benzene 0.041 1.5E-02 6.7E-02 6.5E-05 9.7E-04 2.4E-05 3.6E-04Beryllium 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 8.7E-02 2.6E-02 2.1E-02 6.4E-03Cadmium 0.0004 1.0E-04 8.3E-03 6.3E-07 7.6E-05 1.6E-07 1.9E-05Chromium (total) 0.147 1.5E-02 2.5E+01 2.3E-04 9.3E-06 2.4E-05 9.6E-07Cobalt 0.01 1.3E-03 1.0E-04 1.6E-05 1.6E-01 2.1E-06 2.1E-02Copper 0.156 2.2E-02 6.7E-01 2.5E-04 3.7E-04 3.5E-05 5.2E-05Ethylbenzene 0.003 2.4E-03 1.7E+00 4.7E-06 2.8E-06 3.8E-06 2.3E-06Lead 0.035 2.0E-03 6.0E-02 5.5E-05 9.2E-04 3.2E-06 5.3E-05Lithium 2.84 1.5E+00 3.3E-02 4.5E-03 1.3E-01 2.3E-03 7.0E-02Manganese 1.66 4.0E-01 4.0E-01 2.6E-03 6.6E-03 6.3E-04 1.6E-03Molybdenum 0.231 1.6E-02 8.3E-02 3.7E-04 4.4E-03 2.5E-05 3.0E-04Naphthalene 0.231 1.6E-02 3.3E-01 3.7E-04 1.1E-03 2.5E-05 7.4E-05Nickel (soluble salts) 0.051 1.2E-02 3.3E-01 8.1E-05 2.4E-04 1.9E-05 5.8E-05Selenium 0.01 1.0E-02 8.3E-02 1.6E-05 1.9E-04 1.6E-05 1.9E-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 5.1E-02 5.1E-03 1.9E-02 1.9E-03Tin 0.161 3.5E-03 1.0E+01 2.5E-04 2.5E-05 5.5E-06 5.5E-07Toluene 0.094 2.1E-02 1.3E+00 1.5E-04 1.1E-04 3.3E-05 2.5E-05TPH Aliphatic C6-9 0.25 7.9E-02 8.3E+01 4.0E-04 4.7E-06 1.2E-04 1.5E-06TPH Aliphatic C10-14 0.5 2.4E-01 1.7E+00 7.9E-04 4.7E-04 3.9E-04 2.3E-04TPH Aliphatic C15-28 5.16 7.3E-01 3.3E+01 8.2E-03 2.4E-04 1.1E-03 3.4E-05TPH Aliphatic C29-36 3.28 4.5E-01 2.0E+02 5.2E-03 2.6E-05 7.0E-04 3.5E-06Uranium 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 3.2E-05 2.7E-02 2.4E-05 2.0E-02Xylenes (total) 0.031 1.4E-02 3.3E+00 4.9E-05 1.5E-05 2.3E-05 6.8E-06Zinc 0.251 2.2E-02 5.0E+00 4.0E-04 7.9E-05 3.4E-05 6.9E-06
Hazard Index Hazard Index3.9E-01 1.1E-01
ToxicityPump 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.
Entry (accidental or deliberate) to Turkeys nest or mud pit
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
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
Ingestion, dermal, inhalation
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
Residents: adults and children
Ingestion, dermal, inhalation
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
Aquatic ecosystems Direct exposure Unlikely
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.
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
Waterfrac / Slickwater
WF130 Linear Gel
WF130 Linear Base Gel for Foam Fluid
YF125LG Crosslinked Gel
Waterfrac /Slickwater
WF130 Linear Gel
WF130 Linear Base Gel for Foam Fluid
YF125LG Crosslinked 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
Crystalline silica (cristobalite) 14464-46-1
Crystalline silica (quartz) 14808-60-7
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
Waterfrac / Slickwater
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
Crystalline silica (cristobalite) 14464-46-1
Crystalline silica (quartz) 14808-60-7
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)
Constituent Name CAS No.
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
Table C-2 Surface Water Quality Data for Stimulation Monitoring in Flowback Storage Pond
Parameter Number of Detections Detection Ratio Minimum Maximum Mean
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
Table C-2 Surface Water Quality Data for Stimulation Monitoring in Flowback Storage Pond
Parameter Number of Detections Detection Ratio Minimum Maximum Mean
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
Parameter Number of Detections Detection Ratio Minimum Maximum Mean
Aroclor 1016 0 0/25 NA NA NAAroclor 1221 0 0/25 NA NA NAAroclor 1232 0 0/25 NA NA NAAroclor 1242 0 0/25 NA NA NAAroclor 1248 0 0/25 NA NA NAAroclor 1254 0 0/25 NA NA NAAroclor 1260 0 0/25 NA NA NAAroclor 1262 0 0/25 NA NA NA
Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls 0 0/25 NA NA NA
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
2-Methylnaphthalene 0 0/22 NA NA NAAcenaphthene 0 0/44 NA NA NA
Acenaphthylene 0 0/44 NA NA NAAnthracene 0 0/44 NA NA NA
Benz(a)anthracene 0 0/44 NA NA NABenzo(a)pyrene 0 0/44 NA NA NA
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0 0/44 NA NA NABenzo(g.h.i)perylene 0 0/44 NA NA NA
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0 0/44 NA NA NAChrysene 0 0/44 NA NA NA
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0 0/44 NA NA NAFluoranthene 0 0/44 NA NA NA
Fluorene 0 0/44 NA NA NAIndeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene 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)
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (mg/L)
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/L)
Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (mg/L)
Page 1 of 3
Table C-3 Surface Water Quality Data for Stimulation Monitoring in Initial Flowback
Parameter Number of Detections Detection Ratio Minimum Maximum Mean
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
Total Anions (meq/L) 21 21/42 4.18 729 80.079
Calcium 23 23/44 6 1590 96Magnesium 23 23/44 1 72 9.590909091Potassium 23 23/44 6 18200 1513.545455
Sodium 23 23/44 59 3890 585.9090909Total Cations (meq/L) 21 21/42 4.18 720 74.1395
Ammonia as N 23 23/44 0.02 17.3 2.909090909Dissolved Oxygen (Lab Test) 4 4/25 3.2 9.5 7.35
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
Lithium (Dissolved) 17 17/38 0.006 0.461 0.0759375Manganese (Dissolved) 23 23/44 0.004 0.889 0.357409091
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
Silver (Dissolved) 0 0/39 NA NA NAStrontium (Dissolved) 22 22/43 0.074 74.5 4.354761905
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)
Other Inorganics (mg/L)
Dissolved Metals (mg/L)
Page 2 of 3
Table C-3 Surface Water Quality Data for Stimulation Monitoring in Initial Flowback
Parameter Number of Detections Detection Ratio Minimum Maximum Mean
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
Beryllium (Total) 0 0/40 NA NA NABoron (Total) 16 16/38 0.06 8.14 2.642666667
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
Lithium (Total) 17 17/38 0.008 0.429 0.0785625Manganese (Total) 19 19/40 0.036 0.921 0.485777778
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
Silver (Total) 0 0/40 NA NA NAStrontium (Total) 19 19/40 0.103 82.4 4.986055556
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
Parameter Number of Detections Detection Ratio Minimum Maximum Mean
Aroclor 1016 0 0/16 NA NA NAAroclor 1221 0 0/16 NA NA NAAroclor 1232 0 0/16 NA NA NAAroclor 1242 0 0/16 NA NA NAAroclor 1248 0 0/16 NA NA NAAroclor 1254 0 0/16 NA NA NAAroclor 1260 0 0/16 NA NA NAAroclor 1262 0 0/16 NA NA NA
Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls 0 0/16 NA NA NA
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
2-Methylnaphthalene 0 0/0 NA NA NAAcenaphthene 0 0/74 NA NA NA
Acenaphthylene 0 0/74 NA NA NAAnthracene 0 0/74 NA NA NA
Benz(a)anthracene 0 0/74 NA NA NABenzo(a)pyrene 0 0/74 NA NA NA
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0 0/74 NA NA NABenzo(g.h.i)perylene 0 0/74 NA NA NA
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0 0/74 NA NA NAChrysene 0 0/74 NA NA NA
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0 0/74 NA NA NAFluoranthene 0 0/74 NA NA NA
Fluorene 0 0/74 NA NA NAIndeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene 0 0/74 NA NA NA
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)
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (mg/L)
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/L)
Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (mg/L)
Page 1 of 3
Table C-4 Water Quality Data for Stimulation Monitoring in Pumped Flowback
Parameter Number of Detections Detection Ratio Minimum Maximum Mean
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-
Total Anions (meq/L) 74 74/74 19.8 2080 133.477
Calcium 74 74/74 1 215 54.5946Magnesium 60 60/74 <1 40 8.027Potassium 74 74/74 9 22200 452.5946
Sodium 74 74/74 426 31200 2537.8378Total Cations (meq/L) 74 74/74 19.8 1930 126.7622
Ammonia as N 74 74/74 0.8 44.2 9.4418Dissolved Oxygen (Lab Test) 15 15/15 4.1 10.4 6.6133
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
Lithium (Dissolved) 59 59/59 0.176 2.64 1.4019Manganese (Dissolved) 74 74/74 0.004 1.18 0.2461
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
Silver (Dissolved) 0 0/59 NA NA NAStrontium (Dissolved) 74 74/74 0.032 31.1 9.6296
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)
Other Inorganics (mg/L)
Dissolved Metals (mg/L)
Page 2 of 3
Table C-4 Water Quality Data for Stimulation Monitoring in Pumped Flowback
Parameter Number of Detections Detection Ratio Minimum Maximum Mean
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
Beryllium (Total) 0 0/59 NA NA NABoron (Total) 59 59/59 0.55 55.3 13.5805
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
Lithium (Total) 59 59/59 0.199 2.84 1.4732Manganese (Total) 59 59/59 0.054 1.66 0.4
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
Silver (Total) 0 0/59 NA NA NAStrontium (Total) 59 59/59 0.159 32.4 12.3153
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
YF125LG Crosslinked Gel
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
Crystalline silica (cristobalite) 14464-46-1
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
Constituent Name CAS No.
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)
Waterfrac / Slickwater
WF130 Linear Gel
WF130 Linear Base Gel for Foam Fluid
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
Crystalline silica (cristobalite) 14464-46-1
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)
Constituent Name CAS No.
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
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 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.
A Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA), completed by EHS Support, LLC (EHS Support), supplemented
the qualitative risk assessment (EHS Support, 2013). 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 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).
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
Q
ualit
ative R
isk A
ssessm
ent
and
Evalu
atio
n
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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:
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
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 (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.
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.
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
Exposure to COPCs in flowback water released to environment (spill, leak, mud pit, turkey nest
delivery system failure or overflow):
— 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
scenarios, receptors, pathways evaluated (Golder, 2013).
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:
Delta 140
DeltaFoam 140
Linear Gel
Linear Gel Foamed
Water
Water Foamed.
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 C2-1.
C2.6 Fate and Transport Modelling
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
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.
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. 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 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).
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
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
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 3; EHS Support, 2013).
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 and 2 of the QRA for details
regarding the toxicity assessment of the COPCs (EHS Support, 2013).
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.
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, 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.
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 8;
EHS Support, 2013). 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 C2-
3; Table A-1; EHS Support, 2013). Environmental fate information is provided in Table 9 (EHS Support,
2013).
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 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.
The modelled risks from injected chemicals in the flowback water were all acceptable for each of the
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.
Similarly, 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.
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.
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
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 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:
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;
Environmental authority conditions that preclude the construction of well pads within 100 m 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 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;
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 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
Chemical Study Critical Effect/Target Organ(s)
NOAEL(mg/kg/day)
Uncertainty Factors
Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
Drinking Water Guideline (ppm)
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
Table 2 Australian Drinking Water Screening Values for Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals
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
Table 3 Exposure Assumptions - Trespasser
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
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 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
Table 8 Aquatic Toxicity Values (PNECs)
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
Chemical Endpoint Assessment Factor
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
Table 8 Aquatic Toxicity Values (PNECs)
NOEC PNECaquatic(mg/L) (mg/L)
Chemical Endpoint Assessment Factor
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
Table 9 Environmental Fate Information
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
DeltaFoam 140Hazard Quotient
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
80% Mass Returned Toxicity
Page 1 of 1
Table 17 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo 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 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
20% Mass Returned Toxicity
Page 1 of 1
Table 18 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo DeltaFoam 140 Theoretical Exposure for 80% Mass Returned
DeltaFoam 140Hazard Quotient
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
80% Mass Returned Toxicity
Page 1 of 1
Table 21 Risk Estimates for Dingo 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 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
20% Mass Returned Toxicity
Page 1 of 1
Table 22 Risk Estimates for Dingo DeltaFoam 140 Theoretical Exposure for 80% Mass Returned
DeltaFoam 140Hazard Quotient
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
80% Mass Returned Toxicity
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.
Entry (accidental or deliberate) to Turkeys nest or mud pit
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
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
Ingestion, dermal, inhalation 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.
Flow back water
Seepage of chemicals from mud pit or turkeys nest to a shallow aquifer used downgradient for domestic water supply
Residents: adults and children
Ingestion, dermal, inhalation 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
Aquatic ecosystems Direct exposure Unlikely
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
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
Constituent Name CAS No.
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
Constituent Name CAS No.
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
(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 (%)
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
(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 (%)
Constituent Name CAS No.
Estimated concentration in pre-injection fluid systems (mg/L) DeltaFoam 140
1
Appendix C3 Halliburton CleanStimAUs System
2
I
ntr
odu
ctio
n
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 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.
A Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA), completed by EHS Support, LLC (EHS Support), supplemented
the qualitative risk assessment (EHS Support, 2013). 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 Environmental Amendment (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. “Hydraulic fracturing risk assessment – Human Health and
Ecological Toxicology Assessment - CleanStimAU” Dated November 2013.
EHS Support, Inc. 2013. “Coal Seam Gas Hydraulic Fracturing Quantitative Risk Assessment
Report for Halliburton CleanStimAUS Chemistry Report” Dated 16 July 2013.
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
Q
ualit
ative
Ris
k A
ssessm
ent a
nd
Eva
luatio
n
Qualitative Risk Assessment and Evaluation
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).
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for each of the hydraulic fluid chemicals are included in
Appendix D of this report (Appendix E; Golder, 2012). 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
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.
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 Halliburton fluid systems. The work has involved the following evaluations:
Qualitative Assessment Methodologies
Environmental Hazard Assessment
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.
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 6.2 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 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.
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. 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).
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 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).
C2.6 Fate and Transport Modelling
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.
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, 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.
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. 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 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 C3-1 (Appendix A, Table A-1; EHS Support, 2013).
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 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
uantita
tive
Ris
k A
ssessm
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 mL water) and dermal contact (e.g.,
swimming where the whole body gets wet) for half an hour (Table 4; EHS Support, 2013).
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 and 2 of the EHS Support QRA for
details regarding the toxicity assessment of the COPCs (EHS Support, 2013).
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 HI for non-threshold effects is less
than or equal to 1.0.
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 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).
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 7;
EHS Support, 2013). 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 C3-
1; Table A-1; EHS Support, 2013). Environmental fate information is provided in Table 3 (EHS Support,
2013).
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 Risk
The HI calculated for flowback water for aquatic risk were elevated above the acceptable level for the
majority of COPCs evaluated (Appendix C3-2, Table C-2; 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, 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 (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
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 utilised by Halliburton in hydraulic
fracturing. This assessment assumed that a range of theoretical percentages of injected chemicals
would be present in the flowback 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, 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.
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 minimise 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.
10
D
ire
ct T
oxic
ity A
naly
sis
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.
11
C
onclu
sio
ns
Conclusions A weight-of-evidence evaluation of potential risks as described in Section 5.0 was performed for the
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:
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;
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 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;
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 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
Su
pp
ort
Tab
les
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
Drinking Water Guideline (ppm)
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
Table 2 Australian Drinking Water Screening Values for Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals
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
Table 3 Environmental Fate Information
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
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 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 - - -
Hazard Index 9.0E-02
ToxicityDay
Page 1 of 1
Table 6 Risk Estimates for Trespasser Halliburton CleanStimAUS Theoretical Exposure for Day 150
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 4.7E-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 - - -
Hazard Index 8.8E-02
ToxicityDay 150
Page 1 of 1
Table 7 Aquatic Toxicity Values (PNECs)
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
Chemical Endpoint Assessment Factor
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
CleanStimAUSHazard Quotient
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
CleanStimAUSHazard Quotient
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
CleanStimAUSHazard Quotient
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
CleanStimAUSHazard Quotient
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
CleanStimAUSHazard Quotient
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
Table 16 Risk Estimates for Dingo Halliburton CleanStimAUS Theoretical Exposure for Day 150
CleanStimAUSHazard Quotient
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
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 (%)
Constituent Name CAS No.
Estimated concentration in pre-injection fluid systems (mg/L) DeltaFoam 140
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)
Constituent Name CAS No.
Temporal Scenario (days)
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
Temporal Scenario (days)
PNEC
aquatic
(mg/L)
Ratio of COPC Concentrations and
Screening Criteria (Ratio greater than
one = unacceptable potential risk)
Constituent Name CAS No.
Temporal Scenario (days)
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
1
Appendix C4 Schlumberger Clearfrac XT Fluid System
2
I
ntr
od
uction
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 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.
Key reports and studies previously submitted for these fluid systems comprise:
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.
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
Q
ualit
ative R
isk A
ssessm
ent
and
E
valu
atio
n
Qualitative Risk Assessment and Evaluation
C2.1 Chemicals Evaluated
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).
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 will naturally be present in the coal seam groundwater used
in the hydraulic fracturing process.
Table 1: Hydraulic fracturing chemicals
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
Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-1
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 silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6
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
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 ClearFRAC XT Fluid System. The work has involved the
following evaluations:
Qualitative Assessment Methodologies
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.
Quantitative Risk Assessment Methodologies
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.
Direct Toxicity Testing
Direct Toxicity Assessments of Fluid Systems.
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)
C2.4 Toxicity Assessment
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.
C2.6 Exposure Assessment
As discussed in Section 7.0, 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
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.
C2.7 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. 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.
C2.8 Fate and Transport Modelling
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
Quantitative Risk Assessment In accordance with the methodologies presented in Section 8.0, a QRA was conducted on theoretical
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.
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. Similar to the original formulation, the following are considered 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.
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. 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 the theoretical
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.
C3.2 Human Health QRA
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).
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 Table 2 for details regarding the toxicity
assessment of the ClearFRAC XT chemicals (EHS Support, 2013).
C3.4 Risk Estimation
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.
C3.5 Ecological Risk Assessment
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.
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 minimise 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.
9
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
complete, the results of the analysis will be appended to this document.
10
C
onclu
sio
ns
Conclusions A weight-of-evidence evaluation of potential risks as described in Section 5.0 was performed for the
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:
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;
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 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;
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.
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
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 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.
A Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA), completed by EHS Support, LLC (EHS Support), supplemented
the qualitative risk assessment (EHS Support, 2013). 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 Environmental Amendment (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. “Hydraulic fracturing risk assessment – Human Health and
Ecological Risk Assessment Delta 140” Dated August 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 C2
for discussion of the results of the EHS Support QRA for the original DeltaFoam 140 fluid system.
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
Q
ua
litative R
isk A
ssessm
ent
and
Evalu
atio
n
Qualitative Risk Assessment and Evaluation
C2.1 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 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).
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
Coco dimethylaminopropyl betaine 61789-40-0
Tetrakis (hydroxymethyl) phosphonium sulphate (THPS) 55566-30-8
Sodium hydroxide 1 1310-73-2
Crystalline silica 14808-60-7
Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9
Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7
Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0
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
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 (HHRA)
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 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
C2.5 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. 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).
C2.6 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:
Delta 140
Linear Gel
Water
Acid.
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, 2013)
which is included in Appendix C5-1.
C2.7 Fate and Transport Modelling
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.
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 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.
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. 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 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 C5-2 (Appendix C, Table C-2; EHS Support, 2013).
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 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
uantita
tive
Ris
k A
ssessm
en
t
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 one half hour (Table 3; EHS Support, 2013).
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 and 2 of the EHS Support QRA for
details regarding the toxicity assessment of the COPCs (EHS Support, 2013).
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 HI for non-threshold effects is less
than or equal to 1.0.
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 (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.
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 8;
EHS Support, 2013). 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 C5-
3; Table A-2; EHS Support, 2013). Environmental fate information is provided in Table 9 (EHS Support,
2013).
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 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-4; 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.
The modelled risks from injected chemicals in the flowback water were all acceptable for each of the
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
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 utilised by Halliburton in hydraulic
fracturing. This assessment assumed that a range of theoretical percentages of injected chemicals
would be present in the flowback 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 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.
Similarly, 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.
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 minimise 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.
10
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
complete, the results of the analysis will be appended to this document.
11
C
onclu
sio
ns
Conclusions A weight-of-evidence evaluation of potential risks as described in Section 5.0 was performed for the
Halliburton alternative fluid system (Delta 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:
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;
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 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;
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 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
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
Introduction As presented in Section 5.0 of the Hydraulic Fracturing Risk Assessment Compendium (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 Schlumber YF120Flex with J318 System.
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 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.
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
Q
ualit
ative R
isk A
ssessm
ent
and
Evalu
atio
n
Qualitative Risk Assessment and Evaluation
C2.1 Chemicals Evaluated
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.
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for each of the hydraulic fluid chemicals are included in
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.
Table 1: Hydraulic fracturing chemicals
Chemical CAS Number
Crystalline silica 14808-60-7
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
Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3
Magnesium nitrate 10377-60-3
Potassium hydroxide 1310-58-3
Glycerol 56-81-5
Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0
Cristobalite 14464-46-1
Non-crystalline silica 7631-86-9
5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4
Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3
Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6
2-methyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one 2682-20-4
Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 25038-72-6
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 Schlumberger fluid systems. The work has involved the
following evaluations:
Qualitative Assessment Methodologies
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
Quantitative Risk Assessment Methodologies
Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA)
Quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment for Terrestrial and Aquatic Receptors.
Direct Toxicity Testing
Direct Toxicity Assessments of fluid systems.
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.
C2.4 Exposure Assessment
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.
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 system. The results of the mass balance calculations are
presented in Appendix C6-1.
C2.6 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 detail.
5
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 theoretical
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.
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 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.
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. 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 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. 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
Ris
k A
ssessm
en
t
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.
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. 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.
C3.5 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 HI for non-threshold effects is less
than or equal to 1.0.
No carcinogenic compounds are present in the stimulation fluids injected into the subsurface and as a
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.
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.
8
Q
uantita
tive
Ris
k A
sse
ssm
ent
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:
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.
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. 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
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.
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.
C3.10 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 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
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 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 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.
There were no carcinogenic risks identified.
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.
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.
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
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 was performed for the
Schlumberger YF120Flex with J318 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:
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;
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 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;
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.
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)
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)
No (screening data available) No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
2,2,2-nitrilotriethanol (102-71-6)
No (screening data available)
No (experimental data available)
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)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data and
ubiquitous inorganic salt)
Potassium hydroxide (1310-58-3)
Not applicable (ionic species ubiquitous in
environment)
No (essential ions to biological systems; actively
regulated)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data and
ubiquitous inorganic salt)
Glycerol (56-81-5)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available) No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
Hydrochloric acid (7647-01-0)
Not applicable (ionic species ubiquitous in
environment)
No (essential ions to biological systems; actively
regulated)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data and
ubiquitous inorganic salt)
2 of 3
Substance P/vP criteria fulfilled? B/vB criteria fulfilled? T criteria fulfilled? Overall Conclusion
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)
Yes (naturally-occurring inorganic mineral)
No (water-insoluble mineral; not bioavailable)
No (water-insoluble mineral; not bioavailable)
Not PBT (based on physico-chemical properties)
Magnesium nitrate (10377-60-3)
Not applicable (ionic species ubiquitous in
environment)
No (Mg is an essential ion to biological systems; nitrate
ions are water-soluble)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data and
ubiquitous inorganic salt)
Non-crystalline silica (7631-86-9)
Not applicable (inorganic substances ubiquitous in the
environment)
Not applicable (inorganic substances ubiquitous in the
environment)
No (screening data available)
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)
No (experimental data available)
No (experimental data available)
Yes (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening and experimental
data)
Magnesium silicate hydrate [talc] (14807-96-6)
Yes (naturally-occurring inorganic mineral)
No (water-insoluble mineral; not bioavailable)
No (water-insoluble mineral; not bioavailable)
Not PBT (based on physico-chemical properties)
Magnesium chloride (7786-30-3)
Not applicable (ionic species ubiquitous in
environment)
No (essential ions to biological systems; actively
regulated)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data and
ubiquitous inorganic salt)
Cristobalite
(14464-46-1)
Yes (naturally-occurring inorganic mineral)
No (water-insoluble mineral; not bioavailable)
No (water-insoluble mineral; not bioavailable)
Not PBT (based on physico-chemical properties)
Crystalline Silica Yes (naturally-occurring No (water-insoluble mineral; No (water-insoluble Not PBT (based on physico-
3 of 3
Substance P/vP criteria fulfilled? B/vB criteria fulfilled? T criteria fulfilled? Overall Conclusion
(14808-60-7) inorganic mineral) not bioavailable) mineral; not bioavailable)
chemical properties)
Table 3 Exposure Assumptions - Trespasser
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
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
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
CF Conversion factor l/cm3
1.0E-03
Ingestion
Dermal
Page 1 of 1
Table 4 Oral Reference Doses and Drinking Water Guidelines Derived for Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals
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
Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer
(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
Table 5 Australian Drinking Water Screening Values for Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals
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
Table 6 Environmental Fate Information
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
Source: EU Guidance Document: Half-life estimates from in vitro biodegradation test results
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
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+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
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
IR Ingestion rate l/day 86
EF Exposure frequency day/yr 15
ED Exposure duration yr 8
BW Body weight kg 454
AT-NC Averaging time - noncancer days 2,920
Ingestion
Page 1 of 1
Table 10 Exposure Assumptions - Kangaroo
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
IR Ingestion rate l/day 3
EF Exposure frequency day/yr 10
ED Exposure duration yr 15
BW Body weight kg 25
AT-NC Averaging time - noncancer days 5,475
Ingestion
Page 1 of 1
Table 11 Exposure Assumptions - Dingo
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
IR Ingestion rate l/day 0.75
EF Exposure frequency day/yr 10
ED Exposure duration yr 15
BW Body weight kg 13
AT-NC Averaging time - noncancer days 5,475
Ingestion
Page 1 of 1
Table 12 Aquatic Toxicity Values (PNECs)
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
Table 14 Risk Estimates for Cattle Schlumberger
YF120Flex with J318 Theoretical Exposure for Day 150
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+00 2.1E+02 1.1E-02 5.5E-05
Potassium borate 1332-77-0 1.5E+03 1.7E+00 1.2E+01 6.8E+00
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
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-02 1.3E+03 1.1E-04 8.5E-08
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 1.0E-45 3.3E-01 8.2E-48 2.5E-47
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 1.0E-46 3.3E-01 8.1E-49 2.4E-48
Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 25038-72-6 1.5E-01
Hazard Index
6.8E+00
Day 150 Toxicity
Page 1 of 1
Table 15 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo 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 4.3E+02 4.9E+00 1.1E-02
Potassium borate 1332-77-0 1.5E+03 3.5E+00 4.9E+00 1.4E+00
Cholinium chloride 67-48-1 1.5E+03 9.7E+03 4.9E+00 5.1E-04
2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 1.5E+02 3.4E+02 4.9E-01 1.4E-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 2.8E+03 4.9E-02 1.8E-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 8.6E+02 4.9E-03 5.7E-06
5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.5E+00 -
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 6.9E-01 4.9E-04 7.1E-04
Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 25038-72-6 1.5E-01
Hazard Index
1.4E+00
Day 0 Toxicity
Page 1 of 1
Table 16 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo Schlumberger
YF120Flex with J318 Theoretical Exposure for Day 150
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+00 4.3E+02 4.8E-03 1.1E-05
Potassium borate 1332-77-0 1.5E+03 3.5E+00 4.9E+00 1.4E+00
Cholinium chloride 67-48-1 1.5E+00 9.7E+03 4.8E-03 5.0E-07
2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 1.5E-01 3.4E+02 4.8E-04 1.4E-06
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-02 2.8E+03 4.8E-05 1.7E-08
Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 1.5E+01
Cristobalite 14464-46-1 1.5E+00
Non-crystalline silica 7631-86-9 1.5E+00 8.6E+02 4.9E-03 5.7E-06
5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.0E-45 -
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 1.0E-46 6.9E-01 3.4E-49 5.0E-49
Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 25038-72-6 1.5E-01
Hazard Index
1.4E+00
Day 150 Toxicity
Page 1 of 1
Table 17 Risk Estimates for Dingo Halliburton CleanStimAUS 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 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
Cholinium chloride 67-48-1 1.5E+03 1.1E+04 2.4E+00 2.1E-04
2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 1.5E+02 4.1E+02 2.4E-01 5.8E-04
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 3.2E+03 2.4E-02 7.3E-06
Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 1.5E+01
Cristobalite 14464-46-1 1.5E+00
Non-crystalline silica 7631-86-9 1.5E+00 1.0E+03 2.4E-03 2.3E-06
5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.5E+00 8.1E-01 2.4E-03 2.9E-03
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 8.1E-01 2.4E-04 2.9E-04
Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 25038-72-6 1.5E-01
Hazard Index
5.8E-01
Day 0 Toxicity
Page 1 of 1
Table 18 Risk Estimates for Dingo Halliburton CleanStimAUS Theoretical Exposure for Day 150
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+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
Cholinium chloride 67-48-1 1.5E+00 1.1E+04 2.3E-03 2.0E-07
2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 1.5E-01 4.1E+02 2.3E-04 5.7E-07
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-02 3.2E+03 2.3E-05 7.1E-09
Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 1.5E+01
Cristobalite 14464-46-1 1.5E+00
Non-crystalline silica 7631-86-9 1.5E+00 1.0E+03 2.4E-03 2.3E-06
5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.0E-45 8.1E-011.7E-48
2.0E-48
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 1.0E-46 8.1E-01 1.7E-49 2.0E-49
Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 25038-72-6 1.5E-01
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)
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
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
Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 67-48-1 1.1 NA 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Constituent Name CAS No. Temporal Scenario (days)
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
Page 1 of 1
16
A
ppe
ndix
C6
-3
Appendix C6-3
Table C6-3 Comparison of Estimated Theoretical Schlumberger
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)
Ratio of COPC Concentrations and
Screening Criteria (Ratio greater than one
= unacceptable potential risk)
Temporal Scenario (days)Constituent Name CAS No. Temporal Scenario (days)
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
Page 1 of 1
1
APPENDIX C7 Schlumberger Sapphire LF System
2
I
ntr
odu
ctio
n
Introduction As presented in Section 5.0 of the Hydraulic Fracturing Risk Assessment Compendium (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 Schlumber Sapphire LF System.
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 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.
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
Q
ualit
ative
Ris
k A
ssessm
ent a
nd
Eva
luatio
n
Qualitative Risk Assessment and Evaluation
C2.1 Chemicals Evaluated
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.
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for each of the hydraulic fluid chemicals are included in
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.
Table 1: Hydraulic fracturing chemicals
Chemical CAS Number
Crystalline silica 14808-60-7
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
Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3
Magnesium nitrate 10377-60-3
Cristobalite 14464-46-1
5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4
Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3
Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6
2-methyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one 2682-20-4
Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 25038-72-6
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 Schlumberger fluid systems. The work has involved the
following evaluations:
Qualitative Assessment Methodologies
PBT Assessment
Exposure Assessment
Mass Balance of Fluid System
Fate and Transport Modeling.
Quantitative Risk Assessment Methodologies
Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA)
Quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment for Terrestrial and Aquatic Receptors.
Direct Toxicity Testing
4
Q
ualit
ative
Ris
k A
ssessm
ent a
nd
Eva
luatio
n
Direct Toxicity Assessments of fluid systems.
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 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.
C2.4 Exposure Assessment
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.
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 system. The results of the mass balance calculations are
presented in Appendix C7-1.
C2.6 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 detail.
5
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 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.
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 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.
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. 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 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. 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
Ris
k A
ssessm
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.
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. 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
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.
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 C7-1.
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 C7-2. There were no exceedance of the
screening levels based either on an individual comparison, or on a cumulative comparison.
C3.5 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 HI for non-threshold effects is less
than or equal to 1.0.
No carcinogenic compounds are present in the stimulation fluids injected into the subsurface and as a
result, only non-carcinogenic risks were calculated.
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.
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.
8
Q
uantita
tive
Ris
k A
ssessm
ent
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:
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.
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. 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
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 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.
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.
C3.10 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
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 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
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 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 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.
There were no carcinogenic risks identified.
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.
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.
11
D
ire
ct T
oxic
ity A
naly
sis
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.
12
C
onclu
sio
ns
Conclusions A weight-of-evidence evaluation of potential risks as described in Section 5.0 was performed for the
Schlumberger Sapphire LF 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:
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;
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 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;
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.
13
T
ab
les
Tables
1 of 2
Table 2. PBT Assessment of the Sapphire LF Fluid System
Substance P/vP criteria fulfilled? B/vB criteria fulfilled? T criteria fulfilled? Overall Conclusion
Sodium carboxymethylcellulose (9004-32-4)
Yes (water-soluble polymer)
No (polymer; not bioavailable) No (polymer; not bioavailable)
Not PBT (based on physico-chemical
properties)
2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethylethanaminium chloride
(Choline chloride) (67-48-1)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available) No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
2,2,2-nitrilotriethanol (102-71-6)
No (screening data available)
No (experimental data available)
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)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data and
ubiquitous inorganic salt)
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)
Yes (naturally-occurring inorganic mineral)
No (water-insoluble mineral; not bioavailable)
No (water-insoluble mineral; not bioavailable)
Not PBT (based on physico-chemical
properties)
Magnesium nitrate (10377-60-3)
Not applicable (ionic species ubiquitous in
environment)
No (Mg is an essential ion to biological systems; nitrate ions
are water-soluble)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data and
ubiquitous inorganic salt)
5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothazolo-3-one/2-methyl-2h-isothiasol-3-one
[3:1]
(55965-84-9)
No (experimental data available)
No (experimental data available)
Yes (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening and
experimental data)
2 of 2
Substance P/vP criteria fulfilled? B/vB criteria fulfilled? T criteria fulfilled? Overall Conclusion
Magnesium silicate hydrate [talc] (14807-96-6)
Yes (naturally-occurring inorganic mineral)
No (water-insoluble mineral; not bioavailable)
No (water-insoluble mineral; not bioavailable)
Not PBT (based on physico-chemical
properties)
Magnesium chloride (7786-30-3)
Not applicable (ionic species ubiquitous in
environment)
No (essential ions to biological systems; actively regulated)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data and
ubiquitous inorganic salt)
Cristobalite
(14464-46-1)
Yes (naturally-occurring inorganic mineral)
No (water-insoluble mineral; not bioavailable)
No (water-insoluble mineral; not bioavailable)
Not PBT (based on physico-chemical
properties)
Crystalline Silica (14808-60-7)
Yes (naturally-occurring inorganic mineral)
No (water-insoluble mineral; not bioavailable)
No (water-insoluble mineral; not bioavailable)
Not PBT (based on physico-chemical
properties)
Table 3 Exposure Assumptions - Trespasser
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
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
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
CF Conversion factor l/cm3
1.0E-03
Ingestion
Dermal
Page 1 of 1
Table 4 Oral Reference Doses and Drinking Water Guidelines Derived for Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals
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
Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer
(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
Table 5 Australian Drinking Water Screening Values for Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals
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
Table 6 Environmental Fate Information
Crystalline Silica Water-insoluble mineral; not biodegradable
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
Source: EU Guidance Document: Half-life estimates from in vitro biodegradation test results
Page 1 of 1
Table 7 Risk Estimates for Trespasser Schlumberger Sapphire LF Theoretical Exposure for Day 0
Sapphire LF
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) PC (cm/hr) RfDo CADDoral CADDderm Incidental Ingestion Dermal
Crystalline silica 14808-60-7 1.2E+02 NA - - - - -
Sodium carboxymethylcellulose 9004-32-4 1.4E+01 NA - - - - -
2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethylethanaminium chloride (Choline
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
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) PC (cm/hr) RfDo CADDoral CADDderm Incidental Ingestion Dermal
Crystalline silica 14808-60-7 115.2 NA - - - - -
Sodium carboxymethylcellulose 9004-32-4 14.4 NA - - - - -
2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethylethanaminium chloride (Choline
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
Table 9 Exposure Assumptions - Cattle
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
IR Ingestion rate l/day 86
EF Exposure frequency day/yr 15
ED Exposure duration yr 8
BW Body weight kg 454
AT-NC Averaging time - noncancer days 2,920
Ingestion
Page 1 of 1
Table 10 Exposure Assumptions - Kangaroo
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
IR Ingestion rate l/day 3
EF Exposure frequency day/yr 10
ED Exposure duration yr 15
BW Body weight kg 25
AT-NC Averaging time - noncancer days 5,475
Ingestion
Page 1 of 1
Table 11 Exposure Assumptions - Dingo
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
IR Ingestion rate l/day 0.75
EF Exposure frequency day/yr 10
ED Exposure duration yr 15
BW Body weight kg 13
AT-NC Averaging time - noncancer days 5,475
Ingestion
Page 1 of 1
Table 12 Aquatic Toxicity Values (PNECs)
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
Table 13 Risk Estimates for Cattle Schlumberger
Sapphire LF Theoretical Exposure for Day 0
Sapphire LF
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs TI Incidental Ingestion
Crystalline silica 14808-60-7 1.2E+02
Sodium carboxymethylcellulose 9004-32-4 1.4E+01
2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethylethanaminium chloride (Choline
chloride)67-48-1 1.4E+01 4.7E+03 1.1E-01 2.4E-05
Diammonium peroxidisulphate 7727-54-0 1.4E+00
2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 1.4E+00 1.7E+02 1.1E-02 6.7E-05
Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1.4E-01
Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 25038-72-6 1.4E-01
Magnesium nitrate 10377-60-3 1.4E-02
5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.4E-02 3.3E-01 1.1E-04 3.4E-04
Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 1.4E-02
2-methyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one 2682-20-4 1.4E-03 3.3E-01 1.1E-05 3.4E-05
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
Table 14 Risk Estimates for Cattle Schlumberger
Sapphire LF Theoretical Exposure for Day 150
Sapphire LF
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs TI Incidental Ingestion
Crystalline silica 14808-60-7 1.2E+02
Sodium carboxymethylcellulose 9004-32-4 1.4E+01
2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethylethanaminium chloride (Choline
chloride)67-48-1 1.4E-02 4.7E+03 1.1E-04 2.3E-08
Diammonium peroxidisulphate 7727-54-0 1.4E+00
2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 1.4E-03 1.7E+02 1.1E-05 6.6E-08
Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1.4E-01
Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 25038-72-6 1.4E-01
Magnesium nitrate 10377-60-3 1.4E-02
5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.0E-47 3.3E-01 7.9E-50 2.4E-49
Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 1.4E-02
2-methyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one 2682-20-4 1.0E-48 3.3E-01 7.9E-51 2.4E-50
Cristobalite 14464-46-1 1.4E-03
Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 1.4E-03
Hazard Index
8.9E-08
Day 150 Toxicity
Page 1 of 1
Table 15 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo Schlumberger
Sapphire LF Theoretical Exposure for Day 0
Sapphire LF
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs TI Incidental Ingestion
Crystalline silica 14808-60-7 1.2E+02
Sodium carboxymethylcellulose 9004-32-4 1.4E+01
2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethylethanaminium chloride (Choline
chloride)67-48-1 1.4E+01 9.7E+03 4.7E-02 4.9E-06
Diammonium peroxidisulphate 7727-54-0 1.4E+00
2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 1.4E+00 3.4E+02 4.7E-03 1.4E-05
Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1.4E-01
Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 10377-60-3 1.4E-01
Magnesium nitrate 14464-46-1 1.4E-02
5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.4E-02 6.9E-01 4.7E-05 6.9E-05
Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 1.4E-02
2-methyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one 14807-96-6 1.4E-03 6.9E-01 4.7E-06 6.9E-06
Cristobalite 2682-20-4 1.4E-03
Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 25038-72-6 1.4E-03
Hazard Index
9.4E-05
Day 0 Toxicity
Page 1 of 1
Table 16 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo Schlumberger
Sapphire LF Theoretical Exposure for Day 150
Sapphire LF
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs TI Incidental Ingestion
Crystalline silica 14808-60-7 1.2E+02
Sodium carboxymethylcellulose 9004-32-4 1.4E+01
2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethylethanaminium chloride (Choline
chloride)67-48-1 1.4E-02 9.7E+03 4.6E-05 4.8E-09
Diammonium peroxidisulphate 7727-54-0 1.4E+00
2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 1.4E-03 3.4E+02 4.6E-06 1.3E-08
Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1.4E-01
Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 10377-60-3 1.4E-01
Magnesium nitrate 14464-46-1 1.4E-02
5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.0E-47 6.9E-01 3.3E-50 4.8E-50
Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 1.4E-02
2-methyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one 14807-96-6 1.0E-48 6.9E-01 3.3E-51 4.8E-51
Cristobalite 2682-20-4 1.4E-03
Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 25038-72-6 1.4E-03
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
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs TI Incidental Ingestion
Crystalline silica 14808-60-7 1.2E+02
Sodium carboxymethylcellulose 9004-32-4 1.4E+01
2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethylethanaminium chloride (Choline
chloride)67-48-1 1.4E+01 1.1E+04 2.3E-02 2.0E-06
Diammonium peroxidisulphate 7727-54-0 1.4E+00
2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 1.4E+00 4.1E+02 2.3E-03 5.6E-06
Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1.4E-01
Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 10377-60-3 1.4E-01
Magnesium nitrate 14464-46-1 1.4E-02
5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.4E-02 8.1E-01 2.3E-05 2.8E-05
Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 1.4E-02
2-methyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one 14807-96-6 1.4E-03 8.1E-01 2.3E-06 2.8E-06
Cristobalite 2682-20-4 1.4E-03
Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 25038-72-6 1.4E-03
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
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs TI Incidental Ingestion
Crystalline silica 14808-60-7 1.2E+02
Sodium carboxymethylcellulose 9004-32-4 1.4E+01
2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethylethanaminium chloride (Choline
chloride)67-48-1 1.4E-02 1.1E+04 2.2E-05 1.9E-09
Diammonium peroxidisulphate 7727-54-0 1.4E+00
2,2`,2"-nitrilotriethanol 102-71-6 1.4E-03 4.1E+02 2.2E-06 5.5E-09
Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 1.4E-01
Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer 10377-60-3 1.4E-01
Magnesium nitrate 14464-46-1 1.4E-02
5-chloro-2-methyl-2h-isothiazolol-3-one 26172-55-4 1.0E-47 8.1E-01 1.6E-50 2.0E-50
Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 1.4E-02
2-methyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one 14807-96-6 1.0E-48 8.1E-01 1.6E-51 2.0E-51
Cristobalite 2682-20-4 1.4E-03
Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 25038-72-6 1.4E-03
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
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
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
Constituent Name CAS No.Temporal Scenario (days)
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
Page 1 of 1
15
A
pp
en
dix
C7-2
Appendix C7-2
Table C7-2 Comparison of Estimated Theoretical Schlumberger
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
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
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
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
Constituent Name CAS No. Temporal Scenario (days)
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
Page 1 of 1
16
A
ppe
nd
ix C
7-3
Appendix C7-3
Table C7-3 Comparison of Estimated Theoretical Schlumberger
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
2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethylethanaminium chloride (Choline
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)
Ratio of COPC Concentrations and
Screening Criteria (Ratio greater than
one = unacceptable potential risk)
Temporal Scenario (days)Constituent Name CAS No. Temporal Scenario (days)
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
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
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 E
valu
ation
Qualitative Risk Assessment and Evaluation
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.
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for each of the hydraulic fluid chemicals are included in
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
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 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.
Table 1: Hydraulic fracturing chemicals
Chemical CAS Number
Hydroxypropyl guar 39421-75-5
Triethanolamine 107-71-6
Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9
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:
Qualitative Assessment Methodologies
• PBT Assessment
• Exposure Assessment
• Mass Balance of Fluid System
• Fate and Transport Modeling.
Quantitative Risk Assessment Methodologies
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 Testing
• 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 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
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.
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 C8-Table 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 detail.
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.
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.
6
Q
uantita
tive R
isk A
ssessm
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.
Calculation of intake of COPCs was performed using the equations presented below:
Ingestion of water:
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 (𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚/𝐼𝐼𝑚𝑚 − 𝑑𝑑𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑) = (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑥𝑥 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑋𝑋 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑋𝑋 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸) / (𝐵𝐵𝐶𝐶 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴)
Dermal contact with water:
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐼𝐼 (𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚/𝐼𝐼𝑚𝑚 − 𝑑𝑑𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑) = (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑥𝑥 𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐷𝐷 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑥𝑥 𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸) / (𝐵𝐵𝐶𝐶 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴)
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 F8.
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. 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
For the theoretical calculations, the mass and estimated chemical concentrations of the COPCs in the
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.
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 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
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 C8-Table 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 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
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:
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.
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 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
modelling calculations. The potentially affected flowback water that represents complete exposure
9
Q
uantita
tive R
isk A
ssessm
ent
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
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
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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
prevent workers from 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 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;
• 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.
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.
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
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)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
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)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
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)
Not PBT (based on screening and measured data)
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)
Not PBT (based on screening and measured data)
Sodium hydroxide
(1310-73-2)
Not applicable (ionic species ubiquitous in environment)
No (essential ions to biological systems; actively regulated)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based screening data and ubiquitous inorganic salt)
Lactose
(63-42-3)
No (screening data available) No (screening data available) No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate
(12280-03-4)
Yes (inorganic salt) No (screening data available) Yes (measured data; human health concerns)
Not PBT (based on screening and measured data)
Crystalline Silica
(14808-60-7)
Yes (naturally-occurring inorganic mineral)
No (water-insoluble mineral; not bioavailable)
No (water-insoluble mineral; not bioavailable)
Not PBT (based on physico-chemical properties)
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)
No (water-insoluble mineral; not bioavailable)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data and physic-chemical properties)
Page 2 of 2
Substance P/vP criteria fulfilled? B/vB criteria fulfilled? T criteria fulfilled? Overall conclusion
Sodium carbonate
(497-19-8)
Not applicable (ionic species ubiquitous in environment)
No (essential ions to biological systems; actively regulated)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based screening data and ubiquitous inorganic salt)
Hemicellulase enzyme
(9012-54-8)
No (screening data available) No (screening data available) No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
Table 3 Exposure Assumptions - Trespasser
Page 1 of 1
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
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
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
CF Conversion factor l/cm3
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)
Drinking Water Guideline (ppm)
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
Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride
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
Table 6 Environmental Fate Information
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
Crystalline Silica Water-insoluble mineral; 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
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) PC (cm/hr) RfDo CADDoral CADDderm Incidental Ingestion Dermal
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
Hazard Index 8.8E-02
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
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) PC (cm/hr) RfDo CADDoral CADDderm Incidental Ingestion Dermal
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 - - - -
Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 1.8E+00 NA 0.009 1.1E-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 7.4E-04 NA 0.6 4.3E-08 - 6.1E-03
Hazard Index 6.5E-02
Day 150Toxicity Halliburton Fluid System - Well RM 08-14-3
Table 9 Exposure Assumptions - Cattle
Page 1 of 1
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
IR Ingestion rate l/day 86
EF Exposure frequency day/yr 15
ED Exposure duration yr 8
BW Body weight kg 454
AT-NC Averaging time - noncancer days 2,920
Ingestion
Table 10 Exposure Assumptions - Kangaroo
Page 1 of 1
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
IR Ingestion rate l/day 3EF Exposure frequency day/yr 10ED Exposure duration yr 15BW Body weight kg 25
AT-NC Averaging time - noncancer days 5,475
Ingestion
Table 11 Exposure Assumptions - Dingo
Page 1 of 1
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
IR Ingestion rate l/day 0.75EF Exposure frequency day/yr 10ED Exposure duration yr 15BW Body weight kg 13
AT-NC Averaging time - noncancer days 5,475
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
Halliburton Fluid System - Well RM 08-14-3
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
Theoretical Exposure for Day 150
Page 1 of 1
Halliburton Fluid System - Well RM 08-14-3
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs Total Intake Incidental Ingestion
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 - - -
Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 2.8E+01 - - -
Lactose 63-42-3 7.6E-03 1.7E+02 5.9E-05 3.5E-07
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 1.8E+00 1.4E+00 1.4E-02 9.8E-03
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 7.4E-04 1.0E+02 5.8E-06 5.8E-08
Hazard Index
6.5E-01
Day 150 Toxicity
Table 15 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo HalliburtonHydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3
Theoretical Exposure for Day 0
Page 1 of 1
Halliburton Fluid System - Well RM 08-14-3
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs Total Intake Incidental Ingestion
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
Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 1.0E+02 3.4E+02 3.4E-01 1.0E-03
Ulexite 1319-33-1 1.4E+02 3.5E+00 4.6E-01 1.3E-01
Ethylene glycol 107-21-1 6.9E+01 5.2E+01 2.3E-01 4.4E-03
Diethanolamine 111-42-2 4.3E+01 3.4E+00 1.4E-01 4.1E-02
Acetic acid 64-19-2 2.4E+01 - - -
Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 2.8E+01 - - -
Lactose 63-42-3 7.8E+00 3.4E+02 2.6E-02 7.4E-05
Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate 12280-03-4 2.2E+00 3.5E+00 7.1E-03 2.0E-03
Crystalline Silica 14808-60-7 1.2E+01 - - -
Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 3.6E+00 3.0E+00 1.2E-02 4.0E-03
Silica dioxide 7631-86-9 2.8E+00 8.6E+02 9.3E-03 1.1E-05
Sodium carbonate 497-19-8 3.1E+00 - - -
Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 7.6E-01 2.1E+02 2.5E-03 1.2E-05
Hazard Index
1.8E-01
Day 0 Toxicity
Table 16 Risk Estimates for Kangaroo HalliburtonHydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3
Theoretical Exposure for Day 150
Page 1 of 1
Halliburton Fluid System - Well RM 08-14-3
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs Total Intake Incidental Ingestion
Hydroxypropyl guar 39421-75-5 2.7E-01 4.3E+02 8.9E-04 2.1E-06
Triethanolamine 107-71-6 1.4E-01 3.4E+02 4.6E-04 1.3E-06
Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 1.0E-01 3.4E+02 3.3E-04 9.7E-07
Ulexite 1319-33-1 1.4E+02 3.5E+00 4.6E-01 1.3E-01
Ethylene glycol 107-21-1 6.7E-02 5.2E+01 2.2E-04 4.3E-06
Diethanolamine 111-42-2 4.2E-02 3.4E+00 1.4E-04 4.0E-05
Acetic acid 64-19-2 2.3E-02 - - -
Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 2.8E+01 - - -
Lactose 63-42-3 7.6E-03 3.4E+02 2.5E-05 7.2E-08
Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate 12280-03-4 2.2E+00 3.5E+00 7.1E-03 2.0E-03
Crystalline Silica 14808-60-7 1.2E+01 - - -
Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 1.8E+00 3.0E+00 6.0E-03 2.0E-03
Silica dioxide 7631-86-9 2.8E+00 8.6E+02 9.3E-03 1.1E-05
Sodium carbonate 497-19-8 3.1E+00 - - -
Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 7.4E-04 2.1E+02 2.4E-06 1.2E-08
Hazard Index
1.3E-01
Day 150 Toxicity
Table 17 Risk Estimates for Dingo HalliburtonHydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3
Theoretical Exposure for Day 0
Page 1 of 1
Halliburton Fluid System - Well RM 08-14-3
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs Total Intake Incidental Ingestion
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
Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 1.0E+02 4.1E+02 1.6E-01 4.1E-04
Ulexite 1319-33-1 1.4E+02 4.2E+00 2.2E-01 5.2E-02
Ethylene glycol 107-21-1 6.9E+01 6.1E+01 1.1E-01 1.8E-03
Diethanolamine 111-42-2 4.3E+01 4.1E+00 6.7E-02 1.7E-02
Acetic acid 64-19-2 2.4E+01 - - -
Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 2.8E+01 - - -
Lactose 63-42-3 7.8E+00 4.1E+02 1.2E-02 3.0E-05
Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate 12280-03-4 2.2E+00 4.2E+00 3.4E-03 8.2E-04
Crystalline Silica 14808-60-7 1.2E+01 - - -
Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 3.6E+00 3.5E+00 5.8E-03 1.6E-03
Silica dioxide 7631-86-9 2.8E+00 1.0E+03 4.5E-03 4.4E-06
Sodium carbonate 497-19-8 3.1E+00 - - -
Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 7.6E-01 2.4E+02 1.2E-03 4.9E-06
Hazard Index
7.5E-02
Day 0 Toxicity
Table 18 Risk Estimates for Dingo HalliburtonHydraulic Fracturing Fluid System – Well RM 08-14-3
Theoretical Exposure for Day 150
Page 1 of 1
Halliburton Fluid System - Well RM 08-14-3
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs Total Intake Incidental Ingestion
Hydroxypropyl guar 39421-75-5 2.7E-01 5.1E+02 4.3E-04 8.5E-07
Triethanolamine 107-71-6 1.4E-01 4.1E+02 2.2E-04 5.5E-07
Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 1.0E-01 4.1E+02 1.6E-04 4.0E-07
Ulexite 1319-33-1 1.4E+02 4.2E+00 2.2E-01 5.2E-02
Ethylene glycol 107-21-1 6.7E-02 6.1E+01 1.1E-04 1.8E-06
Diethanolamine 111-42-2 4.2E-02 4.1E+00 6.6E-05 1.6E-05
Acetic acid 64-19-2 2.3E-02 - - -
Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 2.8E+01 - - -
Lactose 63-42-3 7.6E-03 4.1E+02 1.2E-05 3.0E-08
Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate 12280-03-4 2.2E+00 4.2E+00 3.4E-03 8.2E-04
Crystalline Silica 14808-60-7 1.2E+01 - - -
Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 1.8E+00 3.5E+00 2.9E-03 8.2E-04
Silica dioxide 7631-86-9 2.8E+00 1.0E+03 4.5E-03 4.4E-06
Sodium carbonate 497-19-8 3.1E+00 - - -
Hemicellulase enzyme 9012-54-8 7.4E-04 2.4E+02 1.2E-06 4.8E-09
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
Constituent Name CAS No.Temporal Scenario (days)
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 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)
Ratio of COPC Concentrations and
Screening Criteria (Ratio greater than one =
unacceptable potential risk)
Temporal Scenario (days)Constituent Name CAS No.Temporal Scenario (days)
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 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
Constituent Name CAS No.Temporal Scenario (days)
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
PNEC
aquatic
(mg/L)
Ratio of COPC Concentrations and
Screening Criteria (Ratio greater than one =
unacceptable potential risk)
Temporal Scenario (days)
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
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 E
valu
ation
Qualitative Risk Assessment and Evaluation
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.
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for each of the hydraulic fluid chemicals are included in
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
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 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.
Table 1: Hydraulic fracturing chemicals
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:
Qualitative Assessment Methodologies
• PBT Assessment
• Exposure Assessment
• Mass Balance of Fluid System
• Fate and Transport Modeling.
Quantitative Risk Assessment Methodologies
• Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA)
• Quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment for Terrestrial and Aquatic Receptors.
Direct Toxicity Testing
• 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.
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 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
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.
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 C8-Table 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 detail.
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
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.
6
Q
uantita
tive R
isk A
ssessm
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.
Calculation of intake of COPCs was performed using the equations presented below:
Ingestion of water:
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 (𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚/𝐼𝐼𝑚𝑚 − 𝑑𝑑𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑) = (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑥𝑥 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑋𝑋 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑋𝑋 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸) / (𝐵𝐵𝐶𝐶 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴)
Dermal contact with water:
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐼𝐼 (𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚/𝐼𝐼𝑚𝑚 − 𝑑𝑑𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑) = (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑥𝑥 𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐷𝐷 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑥𝑥 𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸) / (𝐵𝐵𝐶𝐶 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴)
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 F9.
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. 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
For the theoretical calculations, the mass and estimated chemical concentrations of the COPCs in the
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.
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 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
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 C8-Table 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 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.
No carcinogenic compounds are present in the stimulation fluids injected into the subsurface and as a
result, only non-carcinogenic risks were calculated.
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
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:
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 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
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
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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
prevent workers from 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 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;
• 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.
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.
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
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
Substance P/vP criteria fulfilled? B/vB criteria fulfilled? T criteria fulfilled? Overall conclusion
Potassium chloride
(14808-60-7)
Not applicable (inorganic salt)
No (estimated) No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data and estimation)
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)
Sodium fluorescein
(518-47-8)
Yes (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
Table 3 Exposure Assumptions - Trespasser
Page 1 of 1
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
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
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
CF Conversion factor l/cm3
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)
Drinking Water Guideline (ppm)
Potassium chloride Rat 2-yr dietary None 1,820 100 18 64
Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride
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
Table 5 Environmental Fate Information
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
Theoretical Exposure for Day 0
Page 1 of 1
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) PC (cm/hr) RfDo CADDoral CADDderm Incidental Ingestion Dermal
Potassium chloride 7447-40-7 5.1E+03 NA 18 3.0E-01 - 1.7E-02 -
Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 3.6E+00 NA 0.009 2.1E-04 - 2.4E-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
Hazard Index 4.0E-02
ToxicityDay 0
Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Fluid System
Table 7 Risk Estimates for TrespasserHalliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System
Theoretical Exposure for Day 150
Page 1 of 1
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) PC (cm/hr) RfDo CADDoral CADDderm Incidental Ingestion Dermal
Potassium chloride 7447-40-7 5.1E+03 NA 18 3.0E-01 - 1.7E-02 -
Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 1.8E+00 NA 0.009 1.1E-04 - 1.2E-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
Hazard Index 2.8E-02
Day 150Toxicity Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Fluid System
Table 8 Exposure Assumptions - Cattle
Page 1 of 1
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
IR Ingestion rate l/day 86
EF Exposure frequency day/yr 15
ED Exposure duration yr 8
BW Body weight kg 454
AT-NC Averaging time - noncancer days 2,920
Ingestion
Table 9 Exposure Assumptions - Kangaroo
Page 1 of 1
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
IR Ingestion rate l/day 3EF Exposure frequency day/yr 10ED Exposure duration yr 15BW Body weight kg 25
AT-NC Averaging time - noncancer days 5,475
Ingestion
Table 10 Exposure Assumptions - Dingo
Page 1 of 1
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
IR Ingestion rate l/day 0.75EF Exposure frequency day/yr 10ED Exposure duration yr 15BW Body weight kg 13
AT-NC Averaging time - noncancer days 5,475
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
Theoretical Exposure for Day 0
Page 1 of 1
Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Fluid System
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs Total Intake Incidental Ingestion
Potassium chloride 7447-40-7 5.1E+03 3.0E+02 4.0E+01 1.3E-01
Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 3.6E+00 1.4E+00 2.8E-02 2.0E-02
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
Theoretical Exposure for Day 150
Page 1 of 1
Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Fluid System
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs Total Intake Incidental Ingestion
Potassium chloride 7447-40-7 5.1E+03 3.0E+02 4.0E+01 1.3E-01
Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 1.8E+00 1.4E+00 1.4E-02 9.8E-03
Sodium fluorescein 518-47-8 2.6E-01 7.7E+01 2.0E-03 2.6E-05
Hazard Index
1.4E-01
Day 150 Toxicity
Table 14 Risk Estimates for KangarooHalliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System
Theoretical Exposure for Day 0
Page 1 of 1
Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Fluid System
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs Total Intake Incidental Ingestion
Potassium chloride 7447-40-7 5.1E+03 6.3E+02 1.7E+01 2.7E-02
Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 3.6E+00 3.0E+00 1.2E-02 4.0E-03
Sodium fluorescein 518-47-8 2.6E-01 1.6E+02 8.4E-04 5.3E-06
Hazard Index
3.1E-02
Day 0 Toxicity
Table 15 Risk Estimates for KangarooHalliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System
Theoretical Exposure for Day 150
Page 1 of 1
Halliburton Fluorescein Dye Fluid System
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs Total Intake Incidental Ingestion
Potassium chloride 7447-40-7 5.1E+03 6.3E+02 1.7E+01 2.7E-02
Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 1.8E+00 3.0E+00 6.0E-03 2.0E-03
Sodium fluorescein 518-47-8 2.6E-01 1.6E+02 8.4E-04 5.3E-06
Hazard Index
2.9E-02
Day 150 Toxicity
Table 16 Risk Estimates for DingoHalliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System
Theoretical Exposure for Day 0
Page 1 of 1
Halliburton Fluid System - Well RM 08-14-3
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs Total Intake Incidental Ingestion
Potassium chloride 7447-40-7 5.1E+03 7.4E+02 8.1E+00 1.1E-02
Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 3.6E+00 3.5E+00 5.8E-03 1.6E-03
Sodium fluorescein 518-47-8 2.6E-01 1.9E+02 4.0E-04 2.2E-06
Hazard Index
1.3E-02
Day 0 Toxicity
Table 17 Risk Estimates for DingoHalliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System
Theoretical Exposure for Day 150
Page 1 of 1
Halliburton Fluid System - Well RM 08-14-3
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs Total Intake Incidental Ingestion
Potassium chloride 7447-40-7 5.1E+03 7.4E+02 8.1E+00 1.1E-02
Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 1.8E+00 3.5E+00 2.9E-03 8.2E-04
Sodium fluorescein 518-47-8 2.6E-01 1.9E+02 4.0E-04 2.2E-06
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
Constituent Name CAS No.Temporal Scenario (days)
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 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
Constituent Name CAS No.Temporal Scenario (days)
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
Drinking
Water
Guideline
(mg/L)
Ratio of COPC Concentrations and
Screening Criteria (Ratio greater than one =
unacceptable potential risk)
Temporal Scenario (days)
Table C9-3 Comparison of Estimated TheoreticalHalliburton Fluorescein Dye Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System
Concentrations to Aquatic Life 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 5123.44 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
Cumulative Ratio 197,172.4 178,280.9 124,203.8 87,719.4
Constituent Name CAS No.Temporal Scenario (days)
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
PNEC
aquatic
(mg/L)
Ratio of COPC Concentrations and Screening
Criteria (Ratio greater than one =
unacceptable potential risk)
Temporal Scenario (days)
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
Qualitative Risk Assessment and Evaluation
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.
Table 1: Hydraulic fracturing chemicals
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:
Qualitative Assessment Methodologies
• PBT Assessment • Exposure Assessment • Mass Balance of Fluid System • Fate and Transport Modelling
Quantitative Risk Assessment Methodologies
• Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) • Quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment for Terrestrial and Aquatic Receptors
Direct Toxicity Testing
• 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.
Calculation of intake of COPCs was performed using the equations presented below:
Ingestion of water:
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 (𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚/𝐼𝐼𝑚𝑚 − 𝑑𝑑𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑) = (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑥𝑥 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑋𝑋 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑋𝑋 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸) / (𝐵𝐵𝐶𝐶 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴)
Dermal contact with water:
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐼𝐼 (𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚/𝐼𝐼𝑚𝑚 − 𝑑𝑑𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑) = (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑥𝑥 𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐷𝐷 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑥𝑥 𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸) / (𝐵𝐵𝐶𝐶 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴)
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:
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 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
Substance P/vP criteria fulfilled? B/vB criteria fulfilled? T criteria fulfilled? Overall conclusion
Acetic acid (64-19-7)
No (screening data available)
No (acetate is naturally found in biological organisms)
No (experimental data available)
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 (polymer, physico-chemical properties)
No (based on polymer, physico-chemical properties)
Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated (68439-46-3)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
Yes (experimental data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
Ammonium persulfate (7727-54-0)
Not applicable (ionic species ubiquitous in environment)
No (essential ions to biological systems; actively regulated)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data and ubiquitous inorganic salt)
Ammonium sulfate (7783-20-2)
Not applicable (ionic species ubiquitous in environment)
No (essential ions to biological systems; actively regulated)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data and ubiquitous inorganic salt)
Amylase, alpha (9000-90-2)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
Castor oil, ethoxylated (61791-12-6)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
Choline chloride (67-48-1)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
Cinnamaldehyde (104-55-2)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
Yes (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
Diethylene glycol (111-46-6)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
Page 2 of 5
Substance P/vP criteria fulfilled? B/vB criteria fulfilled? T criteria fulfilled? Overall conclusion
Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light (64742-47-8)
Yes (screening data available)
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)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
Yes (experimental data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
2-Ethyoxynaphthalene (93-18-5)
Yes (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
Ethylene glycol (107-21-1)
No (screening data available)
No (experimental data available)
No (experimental data available)
Not PBT (based on screening and experimental data)
Formic acid (64-18-6)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
Glutaraldehyde (111-30-8)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
Yes (experimental data available)
Not PBT (based on screening and experimental data)
Glycerol (56-81-5)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
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 (screening data available)
No (based on physico-chemical properties)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
1,6-Hexanediol (629-11-8)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
Hydrochloric acid (7647-01-0)
Not applicable (ionic species ubiquitous in environment)
No (essential ions to biological systems; actively regulated)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data and ubiquitous inorganic salt)
Isopropanol (67-63-0)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
No (experimental data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
Page 3 of 5
Substance P/vP criteria fulfilled? B/vB criteria fulfilled? T criteria fulfilled? Overall conclusion
2-Mercaptoethyl alcohol (60-24-2)
No (experimental data available)
No (screening data available)
Yes (experimental data available)
Not PBT (based on screening and experimental data)
Methanol (67-56-1)
No (screening data available)
No (experimental data available)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening and experimental data)
N-benzyl-alkylpyridium chloride (68909-18-2)
No data. No (screening data available)
Yes (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
Quat. Ammonium compds, bis (hydrogenated tallow alkyl) dimethyl, salts with bentonite (68955-58-2)
Yes (screening data available)
No (based on physico-chemical properties)
No (experimental data available)
Not PBT (based on screening and experimental data)
Pine oil (8002-09-3)
No (screening data available)
Potentially yes (screening data available on components)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening and experimental data)
Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether (9016-45-9)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
Yes (experimental data available)
Not PBT (based on screening and experimental data)
Polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymer (9003-11-6)
Yes (polymer, not readily biodegradable)
No (polymer, physico-chemical properties)
No (screening data available)
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)
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)
Page 4 of 5
Substance P/vP criteria fulfilled? B/vB criteria fulfilled? T criteria fulfilled? Overall conclusion
Potassium hydroxide (1310-73-2)
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 persulfate (7727-21-1)
Not applicable (ionic species ubiquitous in environment)
No (essential ions to biological systems; actively regulated)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data and ubiquitous inorganic salt)
Potassium sorbate (24634-61-5)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
2-Propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt (9003-03-6)
Yes (polymer, not readily biodegradable)
No (polymer, physico-chemical properties)
No (experimental data available)
Not PBT based on physico-chemical properties and experimental data)
Sodium benzoate (532-32-1)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
Sodium bisulfite (7631-90-5)
Not applicable (ionic species ubiquitous in environment)
No (essential ions to biological systems; actively regulated)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data and ubiquitous inorganic salt)
Sodium erythrobate (6381-77-7)
Yes (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
No (screening data available)
Not PBT (based on screening data)
Sodium hydroxide (1310-72-2)
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)
Sodium polyacrylate ((9003-04-7)
Yes (polymer, not readily biodegradable)
No (polymer, physico-chemical properties)
No (experimental data available)
Not PBT based on physico-chemical properties and experimental data)
Sodium tetraborate decahydrate (1303-96-4)
Not applicable (ionic species from inorganic salt is ubiquitous in environment)
No (ionic species) Yes (known or presumed human reproductive toxicant - GHS Cat. 1B)
Not PBT (based on experimental data and ionic species)
Page 5 of 5
Substance P/vP criteria fulfilled? B/vB criteria fulfilled? T criteria fulfilled? Overall conclusion
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
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
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
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
CF Conversion factor l/cm3
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
Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light (64742-47-8)
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
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) 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
N-benzyl-alkylpyridium chloride (68909-18-2)
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
Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether (9016-45-9)
f - - - - -
Page 3 of 4
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) 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
Quat. Ammonium compds, bis (hydrogenated tallow alkyl) dimethyl, salts with bentonite (68955-58-2)
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
Sodium erythrobate (6381-77-7)
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
Tar bases, quinoline deriv., benzyl chloride – Quat. (72480-70-7)
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
Theoretical Exposure for Day 0
Toxicity
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) PC (cm/hr) RfDo CADDoral CADDderm Incidental Ingestion Dermal
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 -
Hazard Index 3.6E+00
Day 0Condor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System
Page 1 of 1
Table 7 Risk Estimates for TrespasserCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System
Theoretical Exposure for Day 150
Toxicity
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) PC (cm/hr) RfDo CADDoral CADDderm Incidental Ingestion Dermal
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
Quaternary ammonium compounds, bis(hydrogenated
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
Hazard Index 1.7E+00
Day 150Condor Energy Services Hydraulic fracturing Fluid System
Page 1 of 1
Table 8 Exposure Assumptions - CattleCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
IR Ingestion rate l/day 86
EF Exposure frequency day/yr 15
ED Exposure duration yr 8
BW Body weight kg 454
AT-NC Averaging time - noncancer days 2,920
Ingestion
Page 1 of 1
Table 9 Exposure Assumptions - KangarooCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
IR Ingestion rate l/day 3EF Exposure frequency day/yr 10ED Exposure duration yr 15BW Body weight kg 25
AT-NC Averaging time - noncancer days 5,475
Ingestion
Page 1 of 1
Table 10 Exposure Assumptions - DingoCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System
Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units Parameter Value
IR Ingestion rate l/day 0.75EF Exposure frequency day/yr 10ED Exposure duration yr 15BW Body weight kg 13
AT-NC Averaging time - noncancer days 5,475
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
Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light (64742-47-8)
-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
Constituents Endpoint E(L)C50 or
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
N-benzyl-alkylpyridium chloride (68909-18-2)
Acute algae 0.47 1,000 0.005
Quat. Ammonium compds, bis (hydrogenated tallow alkyl) dimethyl, salts with bentonite (68955-58-2)
Chronic Daphnia 3.2 50 0.06
Pine oil (8002-09-3) Acute fish 18.4 1,000 0.02
Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether (9016-45-9)
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
Constituents Endpoint E(L)C50 or
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
Sodium erythrobate (6381-77-7)
Acute fish, Daphnia, algae 100 100 1
Sodium hydroxide (1310-72-2) -a - - -
Sodium polyacrylate (9003-04-7) Chronic Daphnia 12 10 1.2
Tar bases, quinoline deriv., benzyl chloride – Quat. (72480-70-7)
No data - - -
aNot calculated.
Table 12 Risk Estimates for CattleCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System
Theoretical Exposure for Day 0
Condor Energy System Hydraulic
Fracturing Fluid System
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs Total Intake Incidental Ingestion
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
Hazard Index 2.1E+00
Day 0 Toxicity
Page 1 of 1
Table 13 Risk Estimates for CattleCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System
Theoretical Exposure for Day 150
Condor Energy System Hydraulic
Fracturing Fluid System
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs Total Intake Incidental Ingestion
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
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 7.0E-04 1.8E+02 5.4E-06 2.9E-08
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
Cinnamaldehyde 104-55-2 9.1E-04 2.6E+01 7.1E-06 2.8E-07
Diethylene Glycol 111-46-6 1.4E-04 1.7E+01 1.1E-06 6.2E-08
DISTILLATES, HYDROTREATED LIGHT 64742-47-8 2.7E+02 1.7E+02 2.1E+00 1.2E-02
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
Ethylene Glycol 107-21-1 1.4E-04 NA 1.1E-06 NA
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
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 3.9E-02 NA 3.0E-04 NA
2-Mercaptoethyl Alcohol 60-24-2 6.9E-04 NA 5.4E-06 NA
Methanol 67-56-1 3.9E-04 NA 3.1E-06 NA
N-Benzyl-Alkylpyridinium Chloride 68909-18-2 6.3E-01 NA 4.9E-03 NA
Pine Oil 8002-09-3 8.2E-04 8.3E+00 6.4E-06 7.7E-07
Polyacrylamide 25085-02-3 2.5E+01 8.3E+02 1.9E-01 2.3E-04
Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether 9016-45-9 1.6E-01 NA 1.3E-03 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 1.5E-04 1.7E+02 1.2E-06 7.1E-09
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 Benzoate 532-32-1 1.7E-04 5.2E+02 1.3E-06 2.5E-09
Sodium bisulfite 7631-90-5 9.4E-01 8.7E+01 7.3E-03 8.4E-05
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
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
Hazard Index 2.4E-02
Day 150 Toxicity
Page 1 of 1
Table 14 Risk Estimates for KangarooCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System
Theoretical Exposure for Day 0
Condor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing
Fluid System
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs Total Intake Incidental Ingestion
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
Ammonium Persulphate 7727-54-0 1.5E+01 NA 4.9E-02 NA
Ammonium Sulphate 7783-20-2 3.4E+01 NA 1.1E-01 NA
Amylase, Alpha 9000-90-2 7.1E-01 3.8E+02 2.3E-03 6.1E-06
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
Cinnamaldehyde 104-55-2 9.3E-01 5.3E+01 3.1E-03 5.8E-05
Diethylene Glycol 111-46-6 1.4E-01 3.6E+01 4.7E-04 1.3E-05
DISTILLATES, HYDROTREATED LIGHT 64742-47-8 5.3E+02 3.4E+02 1.8E+00 5.1E-03
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
Ethylene Glycol 107-21-1 1.4E-01 NA 4.6E-04 NA
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
HydroChloric Acid 7647-01-0 3.6E+02 NA 1.2E+00 NA
Inorganic Salt 584-08-7 9.7E+01 NA 3.2E-01 NA
Isopropanol 67-63-0 4.0E+01 NA 1.3E-01 NA
2-Mercaptoethyl Alcohol 60-24-2 7.1E-01 NA 2.3E-03 NA
Methanol 67-56-1 4.0E-01 NA 1.3E-03 NA
N-Benzyl-Alkylpyridinium Chloride 68909-18-2 6.3E-01 NA 2.1E-03 NA
Pine Oil 8002-09-3 8.4E-01 1.7E+01 2.8E-03 1.6E-04
Polyacrylamide 25085-02-3 2.5E+01 1.7E+03 8.1E-02 4.7E-05
Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether 9016-45-9 1.7E+02 NA 5.5E-01 NA
Polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene Block Copolymer 9003-11-6 6.9E-01 8.6E+02 2.3E-03 2.7E-06
Potassium Chloride 7447-40-7 1.6E+01 6.3E+02 5.4E-02 8.7E-05
Potassium Hydroxide 1310-58-3 8.5E+01 NA 2.8E-01 NA
Potassium persulfate 7727-21-1 1.6E+00 NA 5.2E-03 NA
Potasium Sorbate 24634-61-5 1.6E-01 3.4E+02 5.1E-04 1.5E-06
2-Propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt 9003-03-6 6.3E-01 3.9E+02 2.1E-03 5.3E-06
Quaternary ammonium compounds, bis(hydrogenated
tallow alkyl)dimethyl, salts with bentonite 68953-58-2
1.7E+02 8.6E+02 5.5E-01 6.4E-04
Sodium Benzoate 532-32-1 1.7E-01 1.1E+03 5.6E-04 5.2E-07
Sodium bisulfite 7631-90-5 9.4E-01 1.8E+02 3.1E-03 1.7E-05
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
Sodium polyacrylate 9003-04-7 3.9E+00 3.9E+02 1.3E-02 3.3E-05
Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate 1303-96-4 5.4E+02 NA 1.8E+00 NA
Hazard Index 4.4E-01
Day 0 Toxicity
Page 1 of 1
Table 15 Risk Estimates for KangarooCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System
Theoretical Exposure for Day 150
Condor Energy Services Hydraulic
Fracturing Fluid System
Hazard Quotient
Constituent Name CAS No. Cfrac (mg/l) TRVs Total Intake Incidental Ingestion
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
Ammonium Persulphate 7727-54-0 1.5E+01 NA 4.9E-02 NA
Ammonium Sulphate 7783-20-2 3.4E+01 NA 1.1E-01 NA
Amylase, Alpha 9000-90-2 7.0E-04 3.8E+02 2.3E-06 6.0E-09
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
Cinnamaldehyde 104-55-2 9.1E-04 5.3E+01 3.0E-06 5.7E-08
Diethylene Glycol 111-46-6 1.4E-04 3.6E+01 4.6E-07 1.3E-08
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
Ethylene Glycol 107-21-1 1.4E-04 NA 4.5E-07 NA
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
HydroChloric Acid 7647-01-0 3.6E+02 NA 1.2E+00 NA
Inorganic Salt 584-08-7 9.7E+01 NA 3.2E-01 NA
Isopropanol 67-63-0 3.9E-02 NA 1.3E-04 NA
2-Mercaptoethyl Alcohol 60-24-2 6.9E-04 NA 2.3E-06 NA
Methanol 67-56-1 3.9E-04 NA 1.3E-06 NA
N-Benzyl-Alkylpyridinium Chloride 68909-18-2 6.3E-01 NA 2.1E-03 NA
Pine Oil 8002-09-3 8.2E-04 1.7E+01 2.7E-06 1.6E-07
Polyacrylamide 25085-02-3 2.5E+01 1.7E+03 8.1E-02 4.7E-05
Polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether 9016-45-9 1.6E-01 NA 5.3E-04 NA
Polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene Block Copolymer 9003-11-6 6.9E-01 8.6E+02 2.3E-03 2.7E-06
Potassium Chloride 7447-40-7 1.6E+01 6.3E+02 5.4E-02 8.7E-05
Potassium Hydroxide 1310-58-3 8.5E+01 NA 2.8E-01 NA
Potassium persulfate 7727-21-1 1.6E+00 NA 5.2E-03 NA
Potasium Sorbate 24634-61-5 1.5E-04 3.4E+02 5.0E-07 1.5E-09
2-Propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt 9003-03-6 6.3E-01 3.9E+02 2.1E-03 5.3E-06
Quaternary ammonium compounds, bis(hydrogenated tallow 68953-58-2 1.7E+02 8.6E+02 5.5E-01 6.4E-04
Sodium Benzoate 532-32-1 1.7E-04 1.1E+03 5.5E-07 5.1E-10
Sodium bisulfite 7631-90-5 9.4E-01 1.8E+02 3.1E-03 1.7E-05
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
Sodium polyacrylate 9003-04-7 3.9E+00 3.9E+02 1.3E-02 3.3E-05
Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate 1303-96-4 5.4E+02 NA 1.8E+00 NA
Hazard Index 5.0E-03
Day 150 Toxicity
Page 1 of 1
Table 16 Risk Estimates for DingoCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System
Theoretical Exposure for Day 0
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
Hazard Index 1.8E-01
Day 0 Toxicity
Page 1 of 1
Table 17 Risk Estimates for DingoCondor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System
Theoretical Exposure for Day 150
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
Hazard Index 2.0E-03
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
Constituent Name CAS No. Temporal Scenario (days)
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
returned calculated using equation: Mud Pitcon =
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
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)
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.
Temporal Scenario (days)
Page 1 of 1
Table C10‐3 Comparison of Estimated Theoretical Condor Energy Services Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System
Concentrations to Aquatic Life Water Guidelines
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
Cumulative Ratio 198,988.2 53,785.1 5,573.2 5,384.3
Temporal Scenario (days)
Ratio of COPC Concentrations and Screening Criteria (Ratio greater than one
= unacceptable potential risk)
Constituent Name CAS No.Temporal Scenario (days)
PNEC Aquatic
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
returned calculated using equation: Mud Pitcon = FBconcentration (mg/L)/ FB dilution 150% x percent mass
returned (mg/L) x Biodegradation (half life)
Page 1 of 1