Appendix U Draft exceedence response plans

Transcription

1 Appendix U Draft exceedence response plans

2 Draft Exceedence Response Plans Rev [0] [April 202]

3 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March 202 TABLE OF CONTENTS.0 EXCEEDENCE RESPONSE PLANS 2.0 RESPONSE PLAN I THRESHOLD VALUES FOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY AND WATER ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES ARE EXCEEDED 2.2 Exceedence Response Plan Phase 2.3 Exceedence Response Plan Phase Exceedence Response Plan Phase RESPONSE PLAN IIA THRESHOLD VALUES FOR AQUIFER DRAWDOWN ARE EXCEEDED 3. Introduction 3.2 Threshold Groundwater Monitoring Program 3.3 Classification of Monitoring Installations 3.4 Exceedence Response Plan Phase Management Process 3.4. Early Warning Monitoring Bore Exceedence Threshold Monitoring Bore Exceedence without Early Warning Monitoring Bore Exceedence Threshold Monitoring Bore Exceedence with previous Early Warning Monitoring Bore Exceedence 4.0 PART IIB THRESHOLD VALUES FOR AQUIFER DRAWDOWN AT GROUNDWATER PRODUCING BORES ARE EXCEEDED 5.0 PART IIC THRESHOLD VALUES FOR GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION ARE EXCEEDED 5. Introduction 5.2 Threshold Development 5.3 Exceedence Response Plan Phase Management Process 5.3 Exceedence Response Plan Phase 2 Management Process 5.4 Exceedence Response Plan Phase 3 Management Process 6.0 PART III SUBSIDENCE OR SURFACE DEFORMATION OCCURS WHICH IMPACTS ON SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY 6. Introduction 6.. Ground Motion Over Time 6..2 Types of Deformation Event 6..3 Ground Motion Monitoring and Management Plan 6..4 General Ground Motion Data Review Process 6.2. Exceedence Response Plan - Phase Exceedence Response Plan - Phase Exceedence Response Plan Phase 3 Management Process 2 of 25

4 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March EXCEEDENCE RESPONSE PLANS This document contains draft exceedence response plans that include mechanisms to avoid, minimise and manage the risks of adverse impacts and response actions and timeframes if: Threshold values for surface water quality and water environmental values specified in the Stage 2 WMMP are exceeded Threshold values specified in the Stage 2 WMMP for aquifer drawdown or groundwater contamination are exceeded Subsidence or surface deformation occurs which impacts on surface or groundwater hydrology These response plans have been developed in accordance with the requirements of Condition 52d i of Approval Referral EPBC QGC uses an adaptive management framework in relation to the management of threshold exceedences. Response Plan I will also be used for planned discharges of treated CSG water from the Woleebee Creek WTP at Glebe Weir on the Dawson River. QGC will develop an REMP for the Dawson River in parallel with EA and BUA conditions. Response Plan IIA has been developed as part of a collaborative effort with the other three major CSG operators in the southern Bowen and Surat Basins.The plan is a draft and will be subject to further monitoring data and QWC modelling results becoming available. Response Plan IIB Aquifer Drawdown is yet to be developed and is subject to the final release of the QWC UWIR. Response Plan IIB Groundwater Contamination and III Subsidence are also in draft. A separate response plan for unforeseen emergency discharges has been developed and is part of the Procedure Site Emergency Response Kenya presented at Appendix S of the Stage 2 WMMP. 5 of 25

5 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March RESPONSE PLAN I THRESHOLD VALUES FOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY AND WATER ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES ARE EXCEEDED 2. Introduction QGC has in place an REMP which monitors surface water quality for the approved temporary discharge of treated CSG water to Wieambilla Creek and in association with SunWater the discharge of treated CSG water to Chinchilla Weir. Where monitoring results from release points at Wieambilla Creek and Chinchilla Weir indicate an exceedence of the investigation and reporting trigger limit for any of the toxicants specified in Tables T- and T-2, a phased Critical Review Process built within a risk assessment framework is to be carried out. This will be aimed at quantifying the risks posed by that toxicant to the aquatic environments, or organisms found in and around the receiving waters at the release point. The Critical Review process is outlined at Figure T-. Table T-: Release Limits: EA PEN for discharge to Wieambilla Creek Release Point Physiochemical Parameters Release Limits Limit Type Monitoring Frequency Sampling Point RP Electrical ConductivityµScm) 300 Maximum Daily during release S RP ph ph unit) Range Daily during release S RP Dissolved Oxygen mgl) 4 Minimum Daily during release S2 RP Temperature ºC) 26 Maximum Daily during release S2 RP Suspended Solids mgl) 45 Maximum Monthly during release S RP Calcium mgl) 2-3 Range Weekly during release S RP Chloride mgl) 42 Maximum Weekly during release S RP Fluoride mgl) Maximum Weekly during release S RP Magnesium mgl) 2-0 Range Weekly during release S RP Sodium mgl) 75 Maximum Weekly during release S RP Sulphate mgl) 4.6 Maximum Weekly during release S RP Chlorophyll-aµgL) NA NA Monitor in REMP As per QGC REMP RP Hardness mgl) 72 Maximum Weekly during release S RP Alkalinity mgl) 7.5 Minimum Weekly during release S RP SAR 4 Maximum Weekly during release S RP Ammonia mgl) 0.9 Maximum Weekly during release S 6 of 25

6 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March 202 Table T-2: Release Limits: BUA ENBU02708 Discharge of treated water to Chinchilla Weir Characteristic of Resource Quality Limit Limit Type Monitoring Frequency Electrical Conductivity µscm) 500 Maximum Continuous ph ph unit) Range Continuous Total Suspended Solids mgl) 75 Maximum Monthly Calcium mgl) 6 Minimum Weekly Chloride mgl) 35 Maximum Weekly Fluoride mgl) 0.5 Maximum Weekly Magnesium mgl) 4.5 Minimum Weekly Sodium mgl) 95 Maximum Weekly Sulphate mgl) 8.8 Maximum Weekly Total Dissolved Solids mgl) 320 Maximum Weekly Alkalinity mgl) 20 Minimum Weekly SAR 6 Maximum Weekly Boron mgl).0 Maximum weekly in situ, continuous or field monitoring 2.2 Exceedence Response Plan Phase Following initial advice to the Minister, within 0 days of the exceedence, a Phase Desktop Review and written report will be prepared and submitted to SEWPaC within 60 days of the exceedence and address the following: Verification of the exceedence from results of a re-analysis of the sample exceedence and a resampling at the relevant discharge location; Changes in processes natural or anthropogenic) or source water quality in and around the sample area that may have contributed to the exceedence; Likelihood of continued exceedences without further action, considering the sources and pathways identified; Management options to avoid future exceedences; Any additional monitoring required to confirm the significance and duration of the exceedence; Any changes recorded by the Receiving Environment Monitoring Program; and Statement about potential effects on the receiving environment and the need for toxicity assessment. Phase 2 is enacted where the conclusions of the Desktop Review identify an unacceptable risk of an adverse or significant effect on the receiving environment, andor SEWPaC concludes from the report that further investigation is required. 7 of 25

7 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March 202 Figure T-: Surface Water QualityEV Risk Assessment Process 8 of 25

8 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March Exceedence Response Plan Phase 2 Under Phase 2 of the Critical Review Process, an Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment ERA) will be conducted to quantify the risk posed by each and all toxicants that exceed the investigation and reporting trigger limit. This ERA process must follow the hierarchical approach as detailed in the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council s Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, December 2000 ANZECC 2000). Where there is insufficient pre-existing data to accurately quantify or estimate the risk posed by a particular chemical to aquatic organisms, there may be a requirement, at SEWPaC s discretion, to perform a: Toxicological Bioassay TB), designed to demonstrate that a specific toxicant found exceeding the Investigation and Reporting Trigger Limit does not exhibit acute toxicological effects in appropriate test specimens) when exposed to concentrations consistent with those observed in monitoring data for no less than hours, andor Direct Toxicity Assessment DTA), designed to demonstrate that the toxicants in the discharge water as a whole) do not exhibit acute toxicological effects in appropriate test specimens) when exposed to concentrations observed in monitoring data for no less than hours Where a TB or DTA is required, the bioassays are to: be performed on organisms belonging to five taxa from four taxonomical groups as per ANZECC 2000, and be approved by the administering authority. be conducted on discharge water that is a representation of normal plant operations. demonstrate that there is no observable effect in any of the TB or DTA test organisms after 24 hours, and if an observable effect is recorded; then an Incident Management Program IMP) comes into effect; and the outcome of the IMP will be that there is no observable adverse affect in any of the test organisms after an identical or equivalent) TB or DTA is repeated. A written report on the results, or progress of the ERA, must be submitted to the administering authority within 60 days of completion of the TB or DTA. Phase 3 is enacted where the conclusions of the Phase 2 study identify an unacceptable risk of an adverse or significant effect on the receiving environment andor SEWPaC concludes from the report that further investigation is required. 2.4 Exceedence Response Plan Phase 3 As noted, Phase 2 is a tailored program aimed at understanding the impact of the exceedence. Phase 3 is considered a mitigation phase where all investigative options and assessments have been completed. Measures that may be considered during this phase include: The development and implementation of a long-term incident management process Modifications to plant or infrastructure Review of the beneficial reuse practices currently in place. 9 of 25

9 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March RESPONSE PLAN IIA THRESHOLD VALUES FOR AQUIFER DRAWDOWN ARE EXCEEDED 3. Introduction QGC has in place a Groundwater Monitoring Program which is intended to monitor groundwater level and quality at a network of monitoring bores on QGC leases and between QGC leases and MNES springs. Through this monitoring network, water level responses for each aquifer of interest can be monitored for drawdown if any). Threshold values for this aquifer drawdown exist for geological strata that: are hydraulically connected or potentially connected to MNES springs are strata from which groundwater is extracted for domestic use, stock watering, irrigation, industrial usage or town water supply. Under its Australian Government EPBC approval conditions, QGC has responsibility for surveying and monitoring of spring clusters at Scott s Creek, Dawson River 8 and Cockatoo Creek. Responsibility is shared with Origin at Dawson River 8Cockatoo Creek spring complexes and Origin and Santos at Scott s Creek springs. It is intended that this unified approach to MNES monitoring will enable a more robust standardised monitoring program to be implemented. Benefits of this collaborative approach among proponents include minimising the footprint in terms of intrusive drilling and a minimum but adequate number of monitoring locations being established. For the purpose of this plan, QGC assumes sole or shared responsibility for the following spring monitoring bores. Table T Early warning and threshold monitoring bores Bores Function Indicative Location QCLNG Tenure Aquifer monitored Spring Complex Monitored Spring Management Responsibilty Cassio GW, GW2 Early Warning 30 km south of Taroom Cassio block Hutton, Precipice Dawson River 8Cockatoo Creek QGC CHAR 583 GW, GW2 Threshold Monitoring 0 km south of Taroom Off tenure Hutton, Precipice Dawson River 8Cockatoo Creek QGC Charlie GW, GW2 Early Warning 40 km northwest of Wandoan Charlie block Hutton, Precipice Scott s Creek QGC Charlotte GW, GW2 Threshold Monitoring 60 km northwest of Wandoan Charlotte block Hutton, Precipice Scott s Creek QGC Indicative monitoring bore locations are shown at Figure T-2. All proposed CSG company monitoring bores in the vicinity of MNES springs are shown at Figure T-3. 0 of 25

10 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March 202 Figure T-2 QGC monitoring bores #)) 2:6 2:,,-.0) > 2:4,;8=6 2:4,;8=, #)) Stage 2 QGC groundwater monitoring bores and VWPs Towns Roads Watercourses Springs for QGC survey Other springs VWP well conversions WCM and shallow aquifers) Pressure monitoring VWPs) # # Shallow formations Deep formations 564 2:6 2:, 0:> 4-: 0-5>, 2>9>8 39>,; 24>>,< 23, 23, # 23< 23) 23>; ; 237 0B>7 # <4=,54= 0. 6:7;.6 4@>6 >:=>:774 Water quality and water level monitoring Condamine Alluvium Mooga Gubberamunda Westbourne Springbok Walloons Eurumbah Hutton Precipice QCLNG EIS Area QGC Field QCLNG PL QCLNG ATP 5=,46:=; 5, 56 9, 96 9) 98 5> , ; 3..<?5@4= ) 5.4>, 3..>) #8 00#, #, # # # 00#6 #6 #) 00#>,8,, 6 ) #,, # 2A>,) 344 <?.9>,, Kilometers Scale :,000,000 A3) # -., of 25

11 Groundwater Project QCLNG Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March 202 Figure T-3 CSG company monitoring bores for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antos Precipice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antos Hutton 8-3J8ECN?G?NC APLNG Precipice 6>A><B84@K F>E8@RK E2).K@:.5.LL25)M..0NH.)2.05.)M990L25N)9209G)9II##5).OAM.I2#)9202L <: =:?@ABCDCEF 2GE?HIFJ8# 6>A><B84@K 4KG8EAPCND?AHQ3R> 4KG8EAPCND?AHQ3R> )M990L25N)920M2IH02).5.I9.H20)M..P#)L9.IHI2#)920O 8-3JODDAH APLNG Hutton?@ABCDCEF?@ABCDCEF : : 2KHDAFAHZCHD?AHK@3KF [3 3 0, AKLFMKDCENAOEFCFJ3 )CHCBCHDFJ4 2GE?HIFJ8# AKLFMKDCENAOEFCFJ3 )CHCBCHDFJ4 >: 2Q ;QST:M::: U=V 2Q ;QST:M::: U=V E2).K@:.5.LL25)M..0NH.)2.05.)M990L25N)9209G)9II##5).OAM.I2#)9202L )M990L25N)920M2IH02).5.I9.H20)M..P#)L9.IHI2#)920O Scale :680,000 A3) 8-3W2KHDAFJ8ECN?G?NC APLNGSantos Precipice 2KHDAFAHZCHD?AHK@3KF 2KHDAFAHZCHD?AHK@3KF 6>A@K :>W:RW<:;< =>FE<K 2Q 4Y;R>S:Y:; ;QST:M::: U=V 4KG8EAPCND?AHQ3R> 8@QE<K 48@>A@6C-K 5 )3 =>FE<K 2GE?HIFJ8# 6>A@K :>W:RW<:;< 4Y;R>S:Y:; 6>A><B84@K 03 =>FA-F@K Z> DXCE 4S@4T@6C-K AKLFMKDCENAOEFCFJ3 8@QE<K 48@>A@6C-K 5 )3 )CHCBCHDFJ4 3 F>E8@RK Z> DXCE 03 =>FA-F@K 4S@4T@6C-K - [3 2KHDAF 2 of W2KHDAFJODDAH QPLNGSantos Hutton [3 :>W:RW<:;< =>FE<K 4Y;R>S:Y:; 6>A@K 8-3J8ECN?G?NC 2KHDAFJODDAH 48@>A@6C-K 5 )3 8@QE<K 2KHDAFJ8ECN?G?NC 2KHDAFJODDAH 03 =>FA-F@K Z> DXCE 4S@4T@6C-K A.0.N.0)S2IH.5 2KHDAFJ8ECN?G?NC F>E8@RK 8-3 =?@ QGC Precipice [3J8ECN?G?NC 2KHDAF ) ) ) 2KHDAF Kilometres ) ) APLNG W2KHDAFJODDAH [3J8ECN?G?NC - 2KHDAF Santos 8-3W2KHDAFJ8ECN?G?NC 8-3W2KHDAFJODDAH [3 QGC 8-3JODDAH 8-3W2KHDAFJ8ECN?G?NC D>E6<>E 2KHDAFAHZCHD?AHK@3KF Santos Conventional Gas 8-3J8ECN?G?NC 8-3JODDAH A.0.N.0)S2IH.5 QGC Hutton [3JODDAH [3JODDAH KE@]KEH?HI4AH?DAE?HI5AECF ARROW 0 KE@]KEH?HI4AH?DAE?HI5AECF ) )E?IICE4AH?DAE?HI5AECF - - ) Monitoring Bores Trigger Early Warning Monitoring Bores ?FDCL2GE?HIJ4AH?DAE?HIHADC\O?ECLOHLCE6# 42#) # Monitoring Wells [3J8ECN?G?NC [3JODDAH 5 ) 8-3W2KHDAFJ8ECN?G?NC 2GE?HI4AH?DAE?HI8EAIEKBBCJ[3 Springs56Impact Mitigation Santos 2GE?HIF#BGKND4?D?IKD?AHJ2KHDAF A.0.N.0)S2IH.5 2GE?HIF#BGKND4?D?IKD?AHJ JODDAH # 85?FDCL2GE?HIJ4AH?DAE?HIHADC\O?ECLOHLCE6# 2GE?HI4AH?DAE?HI8EAIEKBBCJ[3 Spring Monitoring Programme QGC 8-3J8ECN?G?NC 5=209)2590JD.II -3 # 85?FDCL2GE?HIJ4AH?DAE?HIHADC\O?ECLOHLCE6# EPBC Listed Spring Monitoring not required 5 6 under UWIR 2KHDAFJODDAH )E?IICE4AH?DAE?HI5AECF ) - =209)2590JD.II 2KHDAFJ8ECN?G?NC )E?IICE4AH?DAE?HI5AECF KE@]KEH?HI4AH?DAE?HI5AECF Tenement Holder 5 FGH 5 3, ) 2GE?HIF#BGKND4?D?IKD?AHJ2KHDAF Springs Impact Mitigation APLNG ) # ), ) 6JB44B =209)2590JD.II G590J?NG#)=0J.N.0))5).J [3JODDAH Springs Impact Management Strategy # G590J?NG#)=0J.N.0))5).J 25#.K65L)B0H.5J520HD).5?NG#)8.G25) [3J8ECN?G?NC Source: Draft Underground Water Impact Report42#) #2)CHCBCHD5AOHLKE]<:_B5O``CE,6 L2).QH:.5.RR25)?..0SO.)2.05.)?990R25S)9 )?990R25S)920?2@O02).5.@9.O20 -JHKB 4KPAEKDCENAOEFCF 4KPAEAKLF )E?IICE4AH?DAE?HI5AECF #2)CHCBCHD5AOHLKE]<:_B5O``CE 4KPAEKDCENAOEFCF KE@]KEH?HI4AH?DAE?HI5AECF #2)CHCBCHD5AOHLKE]<:_B5O``CE ) A>8<<= 2GE?HIF#BGKND4?D?IKD?AHJ8-3 25#.K65L)B0H.5J520HD).5?NG#)8.G25) 8-3W2KHDAFJODDAH # Watercourses Major EIS Tenement Boundary 20 km Buffer =209)2590JD.II. #. # #) ). Town City )A^HW?D] 85?FDCL2GE?HIJ4AH?DAE?HIHADC\O?ECLOHLCE6# # )A^HW?D] Major Roads 4KPAEAKLF # 2GE?HI4AH?DAE?HI8EAIEKBBCJ[ :.5; 6 # 4KPAEKDCENAOEFCF G590J?NG#)=0J.N.0))5).J F52G2.H@5ID5090J G590J?NG#)=0J.N.0))5).J 25#.K65L)B0H.5J520HD).5?NG#)8.G25) F52G2.H@5ID5090J 0HA59JJ.5=209)2590J 25#.K65L)B0H.5J520HD).5?NG#)8.G25) 2GE?HIF#BGKND4?D?IKD?AHJ8-3 0HA59JJ.5=209)2590J C25. Proposed early warning and trigger monitoring bores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``CE, ) ). 2. # # # # ).- 56 ) # KPAEKDCENAOEFCF 3, - 4KPAEAKLF ) ) 5 4 8EFB )A^HW?D] <: 4KG8EAPCND?AHQ3R> 6BIBEJ84HQ ),. ) 2 # ) F52G2.H@5ID5090J 0HA59JJ.5=209)2590J C25. #, 3) )) ;:?@ABCDCEF # # 6 F52G2.H@5ID5090J 0HA59JJ.5=209)2590J C25. 2 # : 50

12 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March Threshold Groundwater Monitoring Program For each spring cluster, it is proposed that groundwater level monitoring be undertaken at two locations. The first will be close to the area of CSG water extraction at or in the vicinity of tenement boundaries while the second will be located closer to the springs and nominally 20 km from tenement boundaries. The relative locations of monitoring bores, herein referred to as early warning monitoring installations and trigger monitoring installations, respectively, are shown in Figure T-4. This strategy recognises that: near-field responses may provide an early warning of potential far-field effects; it may take many years for far-field responses due to CSG water extraction activities to be observed; this especially applies to groundwater quality changes, and it may be difficult to detect far-field drawdown responses due to CSG activities which may potentially be very slight and less than natural or anthropogenic-induced fluctuations. 3.3 Classification of Monitoring Installations Monitoring installations have been split into two classifications: Early warning monitoring installations providing secondary data in support of observations made at threshold monitoring installations. At these locations, groundwater level changes are expected to be more pronounced in terms of the amplitude of response to CSG water extraction compared with trigger monitoring installations. Trigger monitoring installations monitoring groundwater levels and groundwater quality data in target aquifers in accordance with regulatory requirements. This will enable the accurate comparison of such data against threshold values for which management activities will be initiated in response to threshold exceedences. Observations made at early warning monitoring installations will have a trigger drawdown established, based on a modelled drawdown of 90 of the Cumulative Impact Model drawdown at the monitoring bore location. The drawdown value selected will be subject to the Queensland Water Commission s QWC) nominated percentile exceedence probable maximum drawdown. 3 of 25

13 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March 202 Figure T-4. Cross section showing the relative positions of early warning and threshold monitoring locations in relation to CSG extraction and EPBC springs. 3.4 Exceedence Response Plan Phase Management Process Where monitoring results in the monitoring installations exceed threshold limits, a phased Critical Review Process built within a risk assessment framework will quantify the risks posed by the drawdown exceedence. The Critical Review Process is outlined at Figure T-5. QGC defines an exceedence as: Groundwater levels measured in a monitoring bore that are greater than a trigger value for a continuous period of three months. The response plan can be triggered by two events: when 90 of the estimated drawdown maximum allowable groundwater level threshold value) from the QWC Regional Groundwater Model occurs in an early warning monitoring bore; When a 0.2 m drawdown excluding natural and anthropogenic non CSG) variations) is observed in the trigger monitoring bore The Phase plan process will depend on whether either event has triggered the exceedence 4 of 25

14 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March of 25

15 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March Early Warning Monitoring Bore Exceedence Where 90 of the estimated drawdown from the QWC s Regional Groundwater Model occurs in an early warning monitoring bore,, initial advice to QGC management and SEWPaC will occur within 0 days of QGC becoming aware of the exceedence. A Phase Desktop Review and written report must be prepared and submitted to SEWPAC within 60 days of the initial advice and address the following: Verification of the exceedence from results of a manual standing water level measurement at the monitoring bore; Assessment and verification of groundwater level trend type using the approved trend assessment procedure; Identification of potential causes that may have contributed to the exceedence; Likelihood of continued exceedences without further action; Management options to avoid future exceedences; Any additional monitoring required to confirm the significance and duration of the exceedence Advice on the need for additional cumulative regional modelling or any recommended changes to the Groundwater Monitoring Plan; and Statement about potential drawdowns at trigger monitoring bores or effects on MNES andor non-csg groundwater users and the need for further assessment at springs. Recommendations for any Phase 2 work would be identified in the Phase report. No mitigation works would be expected to be proposed Trigger Monitoring Bore Exceedence without Early Warning Monitoring Bore Exceedence In this case, initial advice to QGC management and SEWPaC of an exceedence within 0 days of QGC becoming aware of the exceedence. A Phase Desktop Review and written report must be prepared and submitted to SEWPAC within 60 days of the first such exceedence and address the following: Verification of the exceedence from the results of a manual standing water level measurement at the monitoring bore; Assessment and verification of groundwater level trend type using the approved trend assessment procedure; Identification of potential causes that may have contributed to the exceedence; Likelihood of continued exceedences Recommended actions Recommendations for any Phase 2 work would be identified in the Phase report. No mitigation works would be expected to be proposed. For any subsequent exceedence where there has been no early warning monitoring bore exceedence, SEWPAC will be advised within 28 days of QGC becoming aware of the exceedence. 6 of 25

16 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March Threshold Monitoring Bore Exceedence with previous Early Warning Monitoring Bore Exceedence In this case, initial advice would be provided to QGC management and to SEWPAC of an exceedence within 0 days of QGC becoming aware of the exceedence. The Phase Desktop Review and written report in this instance must be prepared and submitted to SEWPAC within 60 days of the exceedence and address the following: Verification of the exceedence from the results of a manual standing water level measurement at the monitoring bore; Assesment and verification of groundwater level trend type using the approved trend assessment procedure; Identification of potential causes that may have contributed to the exceedence; Assessment of likelihood of continued exceedences by additional groundwater modelling to better predict impacts) without further action; Outline management options to avoid future exceedences; Any additional monitoring required to confirm the significance and duration of the exceedence Any changes recorded by the Groundwater Monitoring Plan; and Statement about potential effects on MNES andor non-csg groundwater users and the need for further assessment at springs. Recommendations for any Phase 2 work would be identified in the Phase report. This could involve the installation of monitoring bores close to springs and further groundwater modelling. Mitigation works could also be proposed. 4.0 PART IIB THRESHOLD VALUES FOR AQUIFER DRAWDOWN AT GROUNDWATER PRODUCING BORES ARE EXCEEDED This response plan will be developed following the release of the QWC s Underground Water Impact Report. The plan will however incorporate the following steps; Incident report to QGC management and DERM within 0 days Initiation of Response Plan Investigation of likely drawdown causes. This will include a review of data; ascertain the sourcescauses of the exceedence Negotiations to rectify the drawdown and make good with the water user. 7 of 25

17 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March PART IIC THRESHOLD VALUES FOR GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION ARE EXCEEDED 5. Introduction QGC interprets this requirement as relating to the need to have a response plan in place in the unlikely event there are changes in groundwater quality due to inter-aquifer leakage. Accordingly, the response plan is designed to address threshold value exceedences by indicator parameters ph, total dissolved salts, bicarbonate, chloride) for the following locationsactivities: monitored water quality at springs; regional groundwater monitoring bores; Groundwater threshold values will be highly dependent on the location within the formation where groundwater is monitored. Groundwater threshold values will be developed in three stages; Stage Regional specific default groundwater quality threshold values will be developed based on existing groundwater quality information. Timing April 203. Stage 2 Initial site specific monitoring bore groundwater threshold values will be developed based on a minimum of three baseline analyses for bores constructed in 20202, where the resultant threshold values are consistent with the regional default groundwater threshold values or judged appropriate based on hydrochemical model development. Timing April 203. Stage 3 Final monitoring bore specific groundwater threshold values will be developed based on a minimum of three baseline analyses for bores constructed in 203, where the resultant threshold values are consistent with the regional default groundwater threshold values or judged appropriate based on hydrochemical model development. Timing end October Threshold Development Groundwater thresholds will be developed for key indicator parameters such as ph, TDS, bicarbonate and chloride by December 203. Note that this approach is consistent with the site specific adaptive management process which QGC will to develop across all operations. The current proposed investigation threshold is a 25 change in values from reading toreading for EC, bicarbonate and chloride and a change of.5 ph units from the upper baseline value. 8 of 25

18 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March Exceedence Response Plan Phase Management Process Where trigger thresholds have been exceeded QGC management and SEWPaC will be advised within 0 days of QGC becoming aware of the exceedence. Subsequently a Phase Desktop Review and written report must be prepared and submitted to SEWPAC within 90 days of the exceedence being identified and address the following: Verification of the change in concentration causing an exceedence. This would at least involve re sampling and analysis of the location of interest; Review and assessment of the processes that may have contributed to the change; Likelihood of continued threshold exceedences without further action; Management options to avoid future exceedences; Any additional monitoring required to confirm the significance and duration of the exceedence; Any other changes recorded by the relevant monitoring program; and Statement about potential effects on the receiving environment and the need for further investigationassessment. Statement about potential effects on MNES andor non-csg groundwater users and the need for further assessment at springs. Recommendations for any Phase 2 work would be identified in the Phase report. 5.4 Exceedence Response Plan Phase 2 Management Process Phase 2 is enacted where the conclusions of the Desktop Review and the additional monitoring works defined above identify an unacceptable risk of an adverse or significant effect on the receiving environment, stakeholder, andor SEWPaC concludes from the report that further investigation is required. The current proposed Phase 2 process involves conducting a full risk assessment and the development of a conceptual model where sources, pathways and receptors are formally identified and assessed. In some instances the aquifers of interest are at some considerable depth with minimal connection to receptors. So while a threshold may have been exceeded the risk of the exceedence to receptors of concern could be minimal. A conceptual model and risk based approach defines the relationships between these three elements, which needs to be correctly defined before any mitigation or management plans are developed. 9 of 25

19 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March 202 This conceptual model and risk assessment process would typically involve: Spatial definition of the area where the groundwater thresholds have been exceeded; Assessment of the geological hydrogeological conditions in that area and within the lithologies identified. Also review any pressure or water level data at this time to determine any changes in hydraulic conditions; A review of the geochemical conditions and an assessment of reactions that may be occurring that may be the cause of the change in water quality; Assessment of how and at the rate at which the inter aquifer leakage may be occurring via mass balanceflux assessments); Definition of the groundwater users in and around the area, their location relative to the area where the threshold exceedence occurred. Consideration will also be given to what this water is used for stock, irrigation etc); Development of a conceptual model for the area where all the study areas defined above are drawn together; Completion of a risk assessment based on these findings; Statement about potential effects on the receiving environment and the need for further investigationassessment; Statement about potential effects on MNES andor non-csg groundwater users and the need for further assessment at springs. Should this threshold exceedence be found to be a function of slowly evolving changes in aquifer water quality over time then QGC propose to adopt an adaptive management approach to the threshold. In such a case the derivation of the threshold would be revisited and a new threshold would be derived that more accurately allows for this naturally evolving system. 5.4 Exceedence Response Plan Phase 3 Management Process This could involve installation of monitorng bores close to springs and further groundwater modelling. This process is presented in the attached flow chart at Figure T-6 20 of 25

20 2 of 25 Groundwater Project QCLNG Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March 202

21 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March PART III SUBSIDENCE OR SURFACE DEFORMATION OCCURS WHICH IMPACTS ON SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY 6. Introduction Currently QGC is in a data collection phase with regard to ground motion. The derivation of area specific triggers in relation to ground motion will be completed once the baseline program is complete and the adjoining programs have also been advanced in support of this process. However the absence of trigger values does not preclude the development of a response plan should the trigger values being derived be exceeded in the future. 6.. Ground Motion Over Time Should ground motion occur this motion is predicted to advance at a very slow rate over long time periods. This is due to the depths that the CSG process is occurring at, the competency of the rock the abstraction is occurring from as well as the competency of the overlying material. Settlement rates are estimated to be in the order of m for the WCMs for the lifetime of the project, with movement in the Springbok unit that overlays the WCMs estimated at less than 5 mm. These longer timeframes have been considered in the development of this response plan Types of Deformation Event While ground motion is expected to be very limited and occur over long timeframes QGC has tentatively identified the following deformation events that may require a risk management and a formal response: Movement in and around MNES or areas identified as a sensitive receptor; Movement in and around existing surface infrastructure; Defined cracking cracks in roads etc); General ground motion Ground Motion Monitoring and Management Plan In order to monitor and assess potential deformation relating to ground motion QGC are developing a ground motion monitoring and management plan General Ground Motion Data Review Process As detailed in the ground motion monitoring and management plan ground motion data will be reviewed every three years with a formal report generated every five years. There will be no reviews possible outside this period as satellite data compilation occurs over bi yearly periods. 6.2 Exceedence Response Plan Golder Associates, of 25

22 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March Exceedence Response Plan - Phase Should a ground motion event be recorded during the data review process, either via the radar satellite program or physical observation, the following response process has been developed. A Desktop Review and written report will prepared and submitted to SEWPAC within a nominated number of days of the exceedence and address the following: QGC will advise SEWPaC within 0 days of unexpected ground motion being detected. QGC will undertake a Phase investigation which will include: o o o o o Ground motion data review including all historical records; Assess any changes to natural surface environments occurring independently of CSG activities increased erosion due to vegetation loss, changes in drainage or rainfall patterns etc) or changes in anthropogenic factors in the areas of interest; Report to SEWPaC in the area of interest Included in this report will be a statement about potential effects on the receiving environment and the need for further investigationassessment Statement about potential effects on MNES andor non-csg groundwater users and the need for further assessment at springs Recommendations for any Phase 2 work would be identified in the Phase report Exceedence Response Plan - Phase 2 Phase 2 is enacted where the conclusions of the Desktop Review identify an unacceptable risk of an adverse or significant effect on the receiving environment, stakeholder, andor SEWPaC concludes from the report that further investigation is required. The timeframe for Phase 2 depends on the specific exceedence, but considering the timeframes involved with the monitoring and measurement of ground motion response in this phase is expected to be six months at a minimum. QGC propose for Phase 2 to consist of the following in relation to ground motion:. Notify ecological and environmental teams of the motion. Commission ecological hydrological studies to assess the impact of this motion as necessary; Review current field survey plan and commission new field survey plans to include the area of interest as required; Once ecologicalhydrological impact studies are available submit to SEWPaC with a update; Examine the potential use of corner reflectors or an increase in radar satellite coverage. Statement about potential effects on the receiving environment and the need for further investigationassessment; Statement about potential effects on MNES andor non-csg groundwater users and the need for further assessment at springs. The studies referred to above are proposed to consist of: 23 of 25

23 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March 202 Surface waterhydrologicecologic assessment of all surface waterways within the suspected deformation area. Through this process sensitive surface water bodies and waterways will be identified and quantified. Once these have been identified these features will be surveyed in detail by survey field teams. Assessment of all road bridges and major intersections within the suspected deformation area and ensure accurate surveys for these features are completed. Any surface cracks or deformation of the road surface will also be recorded. Assessment of any major man made structures that exist within the suspected deformation area such as large barns, grain silos etc). These structures will also be surveyed in detail and any defects or surface deformations noted. Once these assessments are completed QGC will catalogue those features according to environmental and community risk and then implement an ongoing detailed satellite and ground truthing monitoring program for these locations. Should Phase 2 yield inconclusive findings then it is intended to revisit the meothodologies utilised for the investigation, review their suitability in light of the findings and potentially engage in a revised study schedule andor aquifer assessment programs. QGC will inform the Minister via letter of the revsision to the investigation process and a revised monitoring schedule as necessary. Should this threshold exceedence be found to be a fuction of slowly evolving changes in ground surface elevations over time then QGC propose to adopt an adaptive management approach to the threshold. In such a case the derivation of the threshold would be reassessed and a new threshold derived Exceedence Response Plan Phase 3 Management Process Phase 3 is enacted where the conclusions of the Phase 2 investigation and the additional monitoring works defined above continue to identify an unacceptable risk of an adverse or significant effect on the receiving environment, andor SEWPaC concludes from the report that further investigationmonitoring is required. Measures that may be considered during this phase could include: The development and implementation of a long term incident management process; A modification of radar and field survey programs to enable more regular reporting for the area of interest; Numerical groundwater head modelling and ground motion estimation; Review potential modifications to water abstraction within aquifers and the area of interest to assess ground response; The continuation of field survey, ecological and hydrological assessment programs until the ground motion in the area of interest stabilises. Investigation of ground stabilisation solutions; Potential repair or relocation of any impacted infrastructure. This process is presented in the attached flow chart at Figure T of 25

24 Stage Groundwater Monitoring Bore Aquifer Testing Revision B March 202 Figure T-7 Ground Motion Exceedence Response Action Process 25 of 25