CH Eis - Chapter 06 - Environmental Risk Assessment

Chapter 6
Environmental Risk
Assessment
This page has been left intentionally blank
The proposed Chandler Facility – Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................... ii
6 Environmental Risk Assessment ............................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Risk assessment methodology ................................................................................. 6-2
6.4 Pre-mitigation risk assessment ................................................................................ 6-8
6.5 Mitigation and management measures ................................................................... 6-9
6.6 Post mitigation risk assessment ............................................................................. 6-12
6.7 Discussion of risks.................................................................................................. 6-25
6.8 The Proposal’s environmental impact assessment process .................................... 6-28
6.9 Cumulative impacts ............................................................................................... 6-31
6.10 Conclusion............................................................................................................. 6-32
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 6-1 Risk summary of pre-mitigated and post mitigated risks .............................................. 6-26
Figure 6-2 Likelihood of risks pre and post mitigation ................................................................... 6-27
Figure 6-3 Consequence of risks pre and post mitigation .............................................................. 6-27
LIST OF TABLES
Table 6-1 Nature of a hazard .......................................................................................................... 6-3

Table 6-2 Likelihood of a hazard ..................................................................................................... 6-4
Table 6-3 Consequence of a hazard ................................................................................................ 6-5
Table 6-4 Risk significance criteria .................................................................................................. 6-6
Table 6-5 Risk significance matrix ................................................................................................... 6-7
Table 6-6 Risk duration ................................................................................................................... 6-7
Table 6-7 Management and mitigation measures ......................................................................... 6-10
Table 6-8 List of controls and mitigation measures ....................................................................... 6-11
Table 6-9 Confidence descriptors for mitigation options ............................................................... 6-12
Table 6-10 Risk assessment .......................................................................................................... 6-14
Table 6-11 Quantification of pre-mitigated and post mitigated risks by nature ............................. 6-25
Table 6-12 Quantification of pre-mitigated and post mitigated risk............................................... 6-25
Table 6-13 Cumulative impact methodology................................................................................. 6-32
The Chandler Facility - Environmental Impact Statement i

ABBREVIATIONS
BFMP Bushfire Management Plan
BMP Biodiversity Management Plan
CRI Composite Risk Index
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA Environment Protection Authority
NT Northern Territory
SEMP Sediment and Erosion Management Plan
WMP Water Management Plan
The Chandler Facility - Environmental Impact Statement ii

6 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT
6.1 Introduction
Environmental risk assessment is the process undertaken to identify, evaluate and apply mitigation
and control measures to the potential environmental risks of a proposed development. As the
environmental impact assessment for the Proposal included input from a wide range of technical
disciplines, a ‘whole of Proposal’ risk assessment was undertaken to promote a consistent
benchmarking of the identified environmental risks.
A range of hazards were identified by the NT EPA through a preliminary assessment of the Proposal.
The Proposal’s risk assessment has assessed these hazards, as well as others identified by the
proponent during a series of risk workshops.
Risk workshops were undertaken by the proponent at key milestones in the preparation of the EIS
and Proposal design. The results of the workshops were collated into a detailed risk matrix which is
presented in Appendix N.
The objectives and methodologies adopted for the assessment of direct and/or indirect risks during
key phases of the Proposal, namely construction, operation, closure and rehabilitation, are
summarised below.
6.2 Objectives
The Proposal’s environmental risk assessment is undertaken to:
• Identify and discuss potential hazards generated or affected by the Proposal.

• Identify relevant potential direct and indirect consequences of the identified hazards, and
determine their associated likelihood.
• Quantify and qualify risks to identify the key environmental issues that require detailed
assessment, and to provide a mechanism to focus a range of management responses to
adequately manage those risks.
• Identify levels of uncertainty about estimates of risks and the effectiveness of risk controls in
mitigating risk.
• Identify stakeholders who may be subject to residual risks.

• Provide transparent and auditable guidance in decision making for mitigation prioritisation
and escalation.
• Demonstrate that the Proposal represents best practicable technology, implementing Best
Practicable Measures and industry standards, where applicable.
The proposed Chandler Facility – Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6-1

6.3 Risk assessment methodology
The risk assessment methodology has been devised by Tellus based upon the broad definitions and
methodology and principles outlined in AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009. The standardised risk assessment
for the Proposal involved the following steps:
• Assessment criteria
o Develop a series of validated risk matrices.
o Develop look-up tables for likelihood and consequence.
• Establishing the context
o Describe the boundaries of the Proposal, functions and spatial scale for each area.
• Identify the hazard(s)
o The identification of potential environmental hazards associated with various
components (‘aspects’) of the Proposal.
o Identifying the nature of the identified hazards (“beneficial”, “neutral” or “adverse”).
• Analyse the risk (pre-mitigation)
o Assessing the ’likelihood’ of an identified hazard occurring.
o Defining the ‘consequence’ of the hazard occurring, as described by impacts of
health & safety, environmental, financial, project delivery or social impacts.
o As a product of the likelihood and consequence, determining the pre-mitigation
composite risk index (i.e. ‘risk’CRI = likelihood x consequence).
• Identifying required mitigation

o Identify the mitigation required to control the ‘likelihood’ of that risk.
o Identifying the mitigation required to control the ‘consequence’ of that risk.
o Documenting the owner of those mitigation actions, the time and cost implications
and detailing a review date.
• Identify appropriate mitigation and/or management measures

o Discuss appropriate measures within risk workshops.
• Analyse the risk (post mitigation)
o Reassessing the ’likelihood’ of an identified hazard occurring in light of the
implemented mitigation.
o Reassessing the ‘consequence’ of the hazard occurring in light of the implemented
mitigation.
o As a product of the mitigated likelihood and consequence, determining the post-
mitigation composite risk index (i.e. ‘risk’ CRI = likelihood x consequence).

The risks derived through the above methodology are presented on a dimensionless scale of
‘extreme’, ‘high’, medium’ and ‘low’, which may be used within a multi-discipline analysis to provide
a context for the evaluation of impacts which are essentially incomparable. For example, comparing
the changes (both adverse and beneficial) to air quality with changes to other environmental
considerations (e.g. water quality, heritage or noise) or socio economic impacts. The relative risk is
provided as a dimensionless product of the defined values attributed to ‘likelihood’ and
‘consequence’.
The determined risk may be used to highlight the relative environmental risk and to highlight the
general requirement for the application of appropriate controls and mitigation. It is noted that the
above approach is designed to provide an overall impact risk, and is not intended to represent the
defining determination for the requirement for mitigation and control.
A standardised approach to evaluating risk does not replace the methodologies used by technical
disciplines to identify or assess impacts, nor does it replace methods of impact assessment
prescribed by existing guidance. Rather, it adds to the impact assessment by providing clear, more
readily comparable conclusions regarding the significance of impacts.
The environmental and social systems, resources and receptors potentially affected by the Proposal
were defined through desktop based research, field surveys and preliminary consultation with key
agencies within the NT Government, regional stakeholders and local communities. A summary of the
issues raised during consultation and how they were incorporated into the environmental
assessment is provided in Chapter 5.
6.3.1 The nature of an identified hazard
By definition, a ‘hazard’ is described as a source of potential harm, but as the risk assessment
methodology may be used to identify beneficial impacts in this context a ‘hazard’ is identified as
impact of the Proposal (of “beneficial”, “neutral” or “adverse” nature).
For the purposes of this assessment the descriptors presented in Table 6-1 are used to describe the
nature of an identified hazard:
Table 6-1 Nature of a hazard
Nature Descriptor
Beneficial the hazard has a potential beneficial impact upon the environment
Neutral the hazard has neither a beneficial or adverse impact on the environment.
Occasionally, the term ‘benign’ is used. Typically, a hazard will be
categorised as having a neutral nature post-mitigation.
Adverse the hazard has a potentially adverse impact on the environment

6.3.2 Evaluating likelihood
The ‘likelihood’ of a hazard and an impact occurring can be described in terms of probability.
Overlaying this is the need to recognise that uncertainty may be associated with potential risks
occurring, particularly during the initial risk assessment process. Where scientific uncertainty exists,
a precautionary approach was taken which identified a higher level of risk. Each identifiable impact
can be assigned a likelihood of occurring, ranging from ‘Remote’ to ‘Almost certain’.
In simplifying the ‘likelihood’ of potential hazards for the purpose of a risk assessment an element of
subjectivity is introduced. The purpose of the risk assessment is not necessarily to agree on the
probability of any particular impact, but to facilitate an understanding of the relative probability of
different impacts.
The pre-mitigation assessment of likelihood needs to account for the probability of an identified
hazard occurring, assuming the incorporation of ‘designed-in’ mitigation, that is, measures that
would be required to comply with legislation, relevant guidance, or otherwise which is intrinsic to
the design specification upon which the development proposal has been based.
Columns two to four in Table 6-2 give descriptions that elaborate on the possible likelihood
categories. These are presented to help view the impact from different perspectives.
Table 6-2 Likelihood of a hazard
Likelihood Description Probability Mid Community

interval outlook
Eliminated Would not occur as a result P0 0.00 Not affected
of being designed out of the
Proposal
Remote May occur only in 0.01<P<0.10 0.05 Few or no people
exceptional circumstances affected or
interested
Unlikely Could occur at some time 0.11<P<0.40 0.25 Some people
affected
Possible Might occur at some time 0.41<P<0.60 0.50 Many people
affected
Likely Will probably occur in most 0.61<P<0.90 0.75 Most people
circumstances affected
Almost certain Is expected to occur in most 0.91<P<1.00 0.95 Almost everyone
circumstances affected

6.3.3 Evaluating consequence
To determine the ‘consequence’ of an identified hazard, clearly described thresholds were

developed which included the scale of potential impact, its geographic extent, duration, ecological
and social sensitivity, reversibility, and potential cumulative effects.
In simplifying the potential ’consequence’ of potential hazards for the purpose of a risk assessment
an element of subjectivity is introduced. The purpose of the risk assessment is not necessarily to
agree on the defined consequence of any particular hazard, but to facilitate an understanding of the
relative impacts.
Consistent with the assumptions for ‘likelihood’, the pre-mitigation assessment of consequence
needs to address the severity of an identified hazard occurring, assuming the incorporation of
‘designed-in’ mitigation, that is, measures would be required to comply with legislation, relevant
guidance, or otherwise which is intrinsic to the design specification upon which the development
proposal has been based.
Table 6-3 provides descriptions that elaborate on the possible consequence categories. These are
presented to help view the impact from different perspectives.
Table 6-3 Consequence of a hazard
Consequence Description (examples)

descriptor Health Environmental Financial Loss Project Social
Delivery
Insignificant No injuries. None Low financial Trivial. Insignificant.
loss.
Minor First aid On-site release Medium Project can be Additional local
treatment. immediately financial loss. completed with engagement.
contained. changes.
Moderate Medical On-site release High financial Project can be Additional
treatment contained with loss. completed with meetings.
required. outside assistance. moderate
changes.
Major Extensive Off-site release with Loss of Project can only Reactive media
injuries. no detrimental production be completed plan, recovery
effects. capability with major plan, working
Major financial changes committees.
loss. (redesign).
Catastrophic Death. Toxic release off- Cessation of Project No social
site with production incapable of licence to
detrimental effect. capability / completion / operate.
Huge financial Unviable.
loss.

6.3.4 Evaluating risk
The risk of an identified hazard (sometimes also called the ‘significance’) was determined as a
product of the likelihood of the hazard and its consequence on the environment, resource, social
value or receptor that it would potentially impact, or as a consequence to the delivery of the
Proposal, assuming that the mitigation required to comply with legislation, relevant guidance and
the design specifications for the Proposal have been implemented.
In order to standardise the significance rating assigned to potential environmental impacts, a matrix
was developed and two multi-disciplinary workshops were held by key members of the EIA team in
May 2015 and again in March 2016. A generic set of risk definitions is provided in Table 6-4 and this
approach enables a consistent description of risks (of either ‘adverse’ or ‘beneficial’ nature). In each
chapter, the significance criteria are made relevant to the topic being considered.
Table 6-4 Risk significance criteria
Significance Criteria
Eliminated As a consequence of mitigation, the likelihood and/or the consequence has been
removed.
Low These impacts are recognisable, but acceptable within the decision-making process.
They are still important in the determination of environmental management
requirements. These impacts tend to be short term, or temporary and at the local
scale.
Medium These impacts are relevant to decision making, particularly for determination of
environmental management requirements. These impacts tend to range from long
to short term, and occur over medium scale areas or focused within a localised area.
Environmental receptors are moderately sensitive, and/or the impacts are of
regional or local significance.
High These impacts are likely to be of importance in the decision-making process. They
tend to be permanent, or otherwise long to medium term, and can occur over large
or medium scale areas. Environmental receptors are high to moderately sensitive,
and/or the impacts are of state significance.
Extreme These impacts are considered critical to the decision-making process. They tend to
be permanent, or irreversible, or otherwise long term, and can occur over large scale
areas. These effects are generally but not exclusively associated with sites and
features of and/or the impacts of national importance. Typically, mitigation
measures are unlikely to remove such effects.

6.3.5 Risk assessment matrix
Based on the assessment of likelihood and consequence, any foreseeable impact can be assigned a
significance of risk, as defined in Table 6-4. The EIS is at this point intended to focus on potentially
significant environmental risks and impacts.
Table 6-5 is to be read as a matrix, with consequence as a scale across the top row and likelihood as
a scale on the left column. Any potential risks that fall in the top right of the matrix are therefore
addressed as key environmental issues requiring detailed environmental assessment in the EIS. Risks
that fall into the bottom right of the matrix are addressed as other issues in the EIS
Table 6-5 Risk significance matrix
Consequence Eliminated Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
Likelihood
Almost certain Eliminated High High High Extreme Extreme
Likely Eliminated Medium Medium High High Extreme
Possible Eliminated Low Medium Medium High High
Unlikely Eliminated Low Low Medium Medium High
Remote Eliminated Low Low Low Medium Medium
Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated
For example, a pre-mitigated hazard may be determined to be “possible” in likelihood and “minor”
in terms of consequence. Using the matrix presented in Table 6-5, the pre-mitigated risk would be
evaluated as being a “medium” risk.
6.3.6 Duration
This assessment also requires consideration of the duration of the impact. The definitions used to
describe the duration of an identified hazard are provided in Table 6-6.
Table 6-6 Risk duration
Duration of environmental effects Period

Temporary Days to months
Short-term Up to 1 year
Medium-term From 1 to 5 years
Long-term From 5 to 30 years (approval period)
Permanent/irreversible Over multiple generations (post Facility closure)
The assessment is further required to assess potential risks in accordance with the EPBC Act
Significant Impact Guidelines for Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES), and as
such mitigation measures may be proposed where the determined risk is less significant and/or
where the duration of effects might be short-term or temporary.

6.3.7 Potential impacts
The preliminary assessment of the Proposal undertaken by the NT EPA identified a range of key
environmental risks. These included:
• Biodiversity. • Human health.

• Groundwater. • Socio-economic values.
• Surface water and flooding. • Closure and rehabilitation.

• Cultural Heritage.
Other risks, such as, fire, air quality, noise and vibration and visual amenity were also identified by
the NT EPA.
The proponent took the above identified risks and developed a comprehensive assessment of each
component. The results of that assessment are presented in the risk matrix in Appendix N. The
assessment took into consideration outline management and mitigation measures including design
changes within the development of the Proposal.
The residual risk assessment undertaken took into consideration additional mitigation measures to
control and manage the ‘likelihood’ and/or ‘consequence’ and thereby reduce the significance of
residual risks.
6.4 Pre-mitigation risk assessment

Each technical discipline considered both direct and indirect impacts of the Proposal by undertaking
the following steps:
• Clearly identifying the cause / effect relationships between each action and impact.
• Taking a conservative approach by assuming the most significant likely magnitude of the
relevant impact.
• Clearly stating factors affecting the worst case and likely case outcomes.
Indirect impacts were considered within the EIA for the Proposal. For example, vibration effects
from the blasting of geological strata during mine shaft construction may potentially permanently
dislodge rocks on surrounding hills which may result in indirect adverse effects on items of cultural
heritage and/or visual amenity.
Refer to Table 6-10 for pre-mitigated risk assessment.

6.5 Mitigation and management measures
6.5.1 Introduction
After pre-mitigation risks were quantified, the proponent discussed and proposed relevant
mitigation and management measures during the risk workshops. The mitigation and environmental
management measures are explained within the following chapters of this EIS:
• Chapter 7 – Biodiversity.
• Chapter 8 – Groundwater.
• Chapter 9 – Surface water.

• Chapter 10 – Historic and Cultural Heritage.
• Chapter 11 – Human Health.
• Chapter 12 – Economic and Social.

• Chapter 13 – Closure and Rehabilitation.
• Chapter 14 – Bushfire.
• Chapter 15 – Air quality.
• Chapter 16 – Noise and vibration.
• Chapter 17 – Visual amenity.

• Chapter 18 – Other impacts.
• Chapter 18 – Cumulative impacts.
• Chapter 20 – Environmental management.
6.5.2 Key considerations
Key considerations for preferred mitigation measures were to:
• Respond to the appropriate level in the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ i.e. avoid; minimise;
rehabilitate; manage; offset or compensate.
• Discuss if mitigation measures were reasonable and appropriate in terms of effort and
expense to the significance and nature of the identified potential impact.
The level of mitigation measures proposed should respond to the significance of the relevant risks
identified. For example, an impact considered to be of extreme significance would need to be met
with a high level of mitigation that avoids, eliminates or makes provisions for offsetting (if required).
Conversely, an impact that was considered to be of low significance may either not require
mitigation or only require management by control of impacts through day to day management with
occasional monitoring required as validation, for example. It is worth noting that a low significance

risk does not exclude the provision of mitigation, and the risk assessment demonstrates that a range
of mitigation options would be provided to manage low significance risks.
6.5.3 Mitigation approach
Table 6-7 provides a summary of the approach that was implemented when developing mitigation
and management measures. This approach ensured that the level of mitigation proposed for each
impact was appropriate and in proportion to the level of impact significance.
Table 6-7 Management and mitigation measures
Initial impact Mitigation response

significance
rating
Eliminated No mitigation or management is typically required because the risk has been removed
by either removing the risk through design changes and/or consultation with key
stakeholders.
Low Management of impacts should be addressed in day to day management.
Monitoring may be required to validate that impacts are low.
Medium Management of impact will be required and closely monitored to check that impacts are
not more severe than predicted.
Replacement may be required where consequence of the action on resources of low or
moderate value is extreme (i.e. complete loss of the resource).
Rehabilitate disturbed areas is likely and monitoring required to check effectiveness of
mitigation measures.
High High impacts must be avoided where ever possible and otherwise offset or fully
compensated.
An environmental bond must be in place.
Ongoing monitoring is recommended to confirm effectiveness of mitigation and
management measures.
Extreme Risks must be designed out, eliminated or fully offset or compensated with offset and /
or compensation measures in place before the project proceeds.
International and national standards will need to be complied with and specialists with
internationally or nationally recognised expertise should be involved in development and
implementation of mitigation and offsetting.
High level of ongoing monitoring is required to confirm effectiveness of mitigation
measures and whether additional mitigation or other corrective actions are required.
As previously stated, the pre-mitigation risk assessment assumes the incorporation of ‘designed-in’
mitigation that is required to comply with legislation, relevant guidance, or otherwise which is
intrinsic to the design specification upon which the Proposal has been based.
Once mitigation and management measures were identified, post-mitigation risks (sometimes called
‘residual risks’) were assessed. By managing the likelihood and consequence of a risk occurring
through mitigation and/or management measures, the residual consequence of the same risk

occurring after mitigation would mean it would be managed (minimised or eliminated). The
assessment of, and compliance with, international and national standards was undertaken in
development and implementation of Proposal’s mitigation and management techniques.
6.5.4 List of control and/or management measures
Future controls and mitigation measures that were identified during the risk workshops and factored
into the assignment of the risk levels are listed in Table 6-8. Please note that the table is indicative
only and the measures included in Table 6-8 are further detailed in Chapter 20 and would be further
developed through detailed design and associated management plans.
Table 6-8 List of controls and mitigation measures
Category Environmental control and/or mitigation measure

Occupational health and Personal protection equipment including equipment used in hazardous
safety requirement locations
Occupational health screening and monitoring i.e. periodic blood testing,
lung function etc.
Testing for particulates and gases
Provisions of full time emergency services
Enforcement of safe working practices
Provision of adequate safety measures for electrical equipment, working at
height, confined spaces and other hazardous work conditions
Construction and operation Monitoring of groundwater conditions
Monitoring of surface water conditions
Monitoring of air quality conditions
Enforcement of policies and procedures for management of hazardous
materials including chemical, fuels and explosives
Effective contractor management
Material Safety Data Sheets
Surface water run-off management
Bushfire buffer zones and hazard reduction measures
Effective communication with key stakeholders
Provisions of adequate ventilation, dust extraction and standard duct control
and operating procedures for enclosed spaces
Implementation of appropriate stock / land use management system
Recycling materials where appropriate
Requirement to undertake further modelling (groundwater)
Above ground designs of surface infrastructure including aspect, wind
directions, lighting
Standards Compliance with Australian Dangerous Goods for transport of all hazardous
goods
Compliance with all applicable Australian (and other) Standards
Design of plant and Design in accordance with standards and conditions of consent
equipment Design for correct capacity
Design to include environment and climate considerations.
Certification ISO 9001
ISO 14001
Other Tellus plans and Enforce all environmental management plans
polices Enforce all operational policies, such as employment policies, which will be
required to be adopted as a minimum by all contractors and sub-contractors

Following the identification and recording of appropriate mitigation and management measures, a
post mitigation risk assessment was undertaken to determine the magnitude and consequence of
residual risks (see Table 6-10).
6.5.5 Confidence
The confidence of mitigation is assigned according to the descriptors in Table 6-9.
Table 6-9 Confidence descriptors for mitigation options
Confidence descriptor Examples

High • Proven Best Practice Measures (BPM).
• Best Available Technology (BAT).
• Environmentally Sound Management (ESM).
• Policy and guidance.
Moderate • Effective mitigation strategy and considered standard practice.
• Is not documented as Best Practice Measures, Best Available Technology,
Environmentally Sound Management, or satisfying all requirements of
policy and guidance.
Low • Technology has not been demonstrated in industry.
• Not yet tried and/or tested.
6.6 Post mitigation risk assessment

Following the adoption of mitigation and environmental management measures, a second iteration
of the risk assessment was undertaken to account for the potential effect of the adopted measures
to control the likelihood and consequence of each risk. This is the post mitigation risk assessment.
Table 6-10 summarises the results of the pre-mitigation and post-mitigation risk assessment
undertaken against the Proposal’s identified risks. To promote transparency, each identified hazard
is assessed as a pre-mitigation’ risk, the proposed mitigation measures to be adopted, and then
sequentially as the post-mitigation risk.
For the pre-mitigation and post-mitigation summary, Table 6-10 summarises:
• Likelihood, as defined in Table 6-2.
• Consequence, as defined in Table 6-3.
• Risk significance, as defined in Table 6-4 and determined from Table 6-5.
• Nature, as defined in Table 6-1.
• Duration, as defined Table 6-6.

Table 6-10 also summarises the environmental management and/or mitigation measures the
proponent would adopt to avoid, reduce or minimise environmental risks. A confidence level (see
Table 6-9) rating is assigned to each mitigation measure.

Table 6-10 Risk assessment
Risk identified Hazard identified by the Pre-mitigated risks Mitigation Post-mitigated risks Risk
by NT EPA Proponent in the EIS outcome
during Mitigation to Mitigation to
Risk Risk
preliminary Likelihood Consequence Nature Duration reduce reduce Confidence Likelihood Consequence Category Duration
ranking ranking
assessment likelihood consequence
Biodiversity Loss of habitat and/or Biodiversity

Risk
(Chapter 7) mortality of threatened Possible Major High Adverse Long term Management BMP Moderate Unlikely Major Medium Adverse Long term
reduced
fauna species Plan (BMP)
Removal of vegetation Almost Almost Risk
Moderate High Adverse Long term BMP BMP Moderate Minor High Adverse Long term
certain certain reduced
Loss of fauna habitat
Almost Almost Risk
from removal of Moderate High Adverse Long term BMP BMP Moderate Minor High Adverse Long term
vegetation
Habitat fragmentation
Almost Risk
from removal of Moderate High Adverse Temporary BMP BMP Moderate Possible Moderate Medium Adverse Long term
certain reduced
vegetation
Fauna displacement
Risk
injury or mortality from Possible Moderate Medium Adverse Temporary BMP BMP Moderate Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Short term
reduced
removal of vegetation
Fauna strike (vehicle) Traffic
Speed Risk
Possible Catastrophic High Adverse Temporary Management Moderate Unlikely Catastrophic High Adverse Temporary
restrictions reduced
Plan
Removal of vegetation Almost Risk
Minor High Adverse Temporary BMP BMP Moderate Possible Minor Medium Adverse Short term
resulting in edge effects certain reduced
Altered hydrology Water Detailed
Risk
leading to flora mortality Possible Minor Medium Adverse Long term Management engineering Moderate Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Long term
reduced
and loss of habitat Plan design
Groundwater abstraction
Water
(at 50 m below ground Not Risk
Remote Minor Low Neutral Long term Management Bore design Moderate Eliminated Insignificant Eliminated Neutral
level) impacting applicable reduced
Plan
vegetation
Contamination of soil Sediment and
Bunding and
and water Erosion Not Risk
Possible Minor Medium Adverse Temporary detailed Moderate Eliminated Minor Eliminated Neutral
Management applicable reduced
engineering
Plan (SEMP)
Erosion and Bunding and
Risk
sedimentation of soils Likely Major High Adverse Temporary SEMP detailed Moderate Unlikely Major Medium Adverse Temporary
reduced
engineering
Dust deposition from Air Quality
Almost Risk
vehicle traffic and Minor High Adverse Short term Management AQMP Moderate Possible Minor Medium Adverse Temporary
certain reduced
earthworks Plan (AQMP)
Construction light, noise Noise
Almost Risk
and vibration Minor High Adverse Temporary Management NMP Moderate Likely Minor Medium Adverse Temporary
certain reduced
Plan (NMP)
Operational light, noise Almost Risk
Minor High Adverse Long term NMP NMP Moderate Likely Minor Medium Adverse Long term
and vibration certain reduced
Introduction and spread Weed Weed
Risk
of weeds and invasive Likely Minor Medium Adverse Short term Management Management Moderate Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Short term
reduced
species Plan Plan
Increased predator Pest
Risk
species Likely Minor Medium Adverse Short term Management PMP Moderate Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Short term
reduced
Plan (PMP)
Increased introduced Risk
Likely Minor Medium Adverse Short term PMP PMP Moderate Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Short term
fauna reduced

Risk Risk
ranking ranking
Bushfire Bushfire
Risk
Possible Catastrophic High Adverse Short term Management BFMP Moderate Possible Minor Medium Adverse Short term
reduced
Plan (BFMP)
Salt erosion and spoil Risk
Likely Catastrophic Extreme Adverse Temporary SEMP SEMP Moderate Remote Major Medium Adverse Temporary
erosion reduced
Soil compaction and Risk
Possible Minor Medium Adverse Short term SEMP SEMP Moderate Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Short term
topsoil loss reduced
Groundwater Changes to groundwater Water
Almost Do not over Risk
(Chapter 8) levels Minor High Adverse Long term Management Moderate Possible Minor Medium Adverse Short term
certain abstract reduced
Plan (WMP)
Changes to groundwater Risk
Possible Minor Medium Adverse Short term WMP WMP Moderate Remote Minor Low Adverse Short term
chemistry reduced
Changes to groundwater Risk
Possible Moderate Medium Adverse Long term WMP WMP Moderate Remote Minor Low Adverse Long term
flow (direction) reduced
Contamination of Design of Design of
Horseshoe Bend Shale decline and decline and
aquatards from drilling shafts in line shafts in line Not Risk
Remote Major Medium Adverse Temporary High Eliminated Major Eliminated Neutral
activities with best with best applicable reduced
practice practice
techniques techniques
Contamination of Langra Design of Design of
aquifer from drilling decline and decline and
activities shafts in line shafts in line Not Risk
with best with best applicable reduced
practice practice
Hermannsberg decline and decline and
Formation groundwater shafts in line shafts in line Not Risk
from drilling activities with best with best applicable reduced
practice practice
Stairway Sandstone decline and decline and
groundwater from shafts in line shafts in line Not Risk
Remote Minor Low Adverse Temporary High Eliminated Minor Eliminated Adverse
drilling activities with best with best applicable reduced
practice practice
Contamination of Jay Design of Design of
Creek Limestone decline and decline and
groundwater from shafts in line shafts in line Not Risk
Remote Minor Low Adverse Temporary Moderate Eliminated Minor Eliminated Adverse
drilling activities with best with best applicable reduced
practice practice
Contamination of
Titjikala water supply Not Not
Eliminated Catastrophic Eliminated Neutral No pathway No pathway Moderate Eliminated Catastrophic Eliminated Neutral Risk same
through loss of applicable applicable
containment
Contamination of Alice
Not Not
Springs aquifer through Eliminated Catastrophic Eliminated Neutral No pathway No pathway Moderate Eliminated Catastrophic Eliminated Neutral Risk same
applicable applicable
loss of containment

Risk Risk
ranking ranking
Contamination of Great
Not Not
Artesian Basin through Eliminated Major Eliminated Neutral No pathway No pathway Moderate Eliminated Major Eliminated Neutral Risk same
loss of containment
Contamination of Water Water
Not Same level
livestock through loss of Eliminated Major Eliminated Neutral Management Management Moderate Eliminated Major Eliminated Neutral Risk same
applicable of risk
containment Plan Plan
Uncontrolled inflow of Surface water Surface water
Risk
groundwater during Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Temporary design / design / Moderate Remote Minor Low Adverse Temporary
reduced
construction bunding bunding
Uncontrolled inflow of Surface water Surface water
Risk
groundwater during Remote Catastrophic Medium Adverse Temporary design / design / Moderate Remote Major Medium Adverse Temporary
reduced
operations bunding bunding
Engineered uses of Management Management of
Almost Almost Risk
naturally occurring Major Extreme Adverse Long term of saline waters saline waters / Moderate Minor High Adverse Long term
corrosive groundwater / desalination desalination
Over abstraction of Do not over Do not over
groundwater leading to abstract abstract
local or regional demand demand
Risk
drawdown Remote Minor Low Adverse Long term requirement requirement Moderate Eliminated Minor Eliminated Neutral Short term
reduced
and undertake and undertake
groundwater groundwater
monitoring monitoring
Lack of groundwater for Water Water
Not Risk
supply Remote Major Medium Adverse Long term Management Management Eliminated Eliminated Minor Eliminated neutral
applicable reduced
Plan Plan
Surface water Surface water ingress
into decline area and Risk
Likely Moderate High Adverse Temporary SEMP SEMP Moderate Remote Moderate Low Adverse Temporary
(Chapter 9) general mining reduced
infrastructure
Contaminated surface Water Water
water runoff off-site Management Management Risk
Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Temporary Moderate Remote Minor Low Adverse Temporary
Plan and Plan and reduced
bunding bunding
Salt dissolution and Water Water
transport off-site Management Management Risk
Likely Major High Adverse Long term Moderate Remote Minor Low Adverse Temporary
Plan and Plan and reduced
bunding bunding
Flash flooding into mine Storm water Storm water
Risk
infrastructure area Possible Major High Adverse Temporary drains / flood drains / flood Moderate Remote Moderate Low Adverse Temporary
reduced
relief relief
Flooding of access/haul Risk
Likely Moderate High Adverse Temporary SEMP SEMP Moderate Possible Minor Medium Adverse Temporary
roads reduced
Soil erosion leading to
Risk
excess sedimentation in Possible Major High Adverse Long term SEMP SEMP Moderate Remote Minor Low Adverse Temporary
reduced
watercourses
Contamination of
regional surface waters
Not Risk
(Hugh and Finke Rivers) Remote Major Medium Adverse Short term No pathway No pathway Moderate Eliminated Major Eliminated Adverse
applicable reduced
through loss of
containment

Risk Risk
ranking ranking
Contamination of Hugh Water

Not Not Risk
River through loss of Remote Major Medium Adverse Short term Management SEMP Moderate Eliminated Major Eliminated
applicable applicable reduced
containment Plan
Contamination of Finke Water
Not Not Risk
River through loss of Remote Major Medium Adverse Short term Management SEMP Moderate Eliminated Major Eliminated
containment Plan
Altered hydrology Water
Almost Almost Risk
surrounding Maryvale Moderate High Adverse Short term Management SEMP Moderate Minor High Adverse Short term
Hills Plan
Altered hydrology Water
Almost Almost
surrounding the mine Major Extreme Beneficial Long term Management SEMP Moderate Major Extreme Beneficial Long term Risk same
certain certain
infrastructure area Plan
Historic and Physical disturbance to Cultural
cultural known sites heritage field
heritage surveys / Cultural
Cultural heritage field
Medium Risk
(Chapter 10) Likely Moderate High Adverse Heritage surveys / CHMP Moderate Eliminated Moderate Eliminated Neutral Short term
term reduced
Management /TO
Plan (CHMP) involvement
/TO
involvement
Physical disturbance to Medium CHMP / TO CHMP / TO
Remote Moderate Low Adverse Moderate Remote Moderate Low Adverse Temporary Risk same
unknown sites term involvement involvement
Loss of trees (>5m) of Pre-clearance Pre-clearance
Almost Almost Risk
value to traditional Moderate High Adverse Short term tree survey / tree survey / Moderate Minor High Adverse Short term
owners TO involvement TO involvement
Loss of scarred trees CHMP/ TO CHMP / TO Risk
Unlikely Moderate Medium Adverse Long term Moderate Remote Moderate Low Adverse Temporary
involvement involvement reduced
Disturbance of sensitive Blasting
Not Vibration Not
land at the decline entry Eliminated Minor Eliminated Neutral Management Moderate Eliminated Minor Eliminated Neutral Risk same
applicable assessment applicable
Plan
Human health Exposure from dry waste Risk
Unlikely Moderate Medium Adverse Long term AQMP AQMP Moderate Remote Moderate Low Adverse Temporary
and safety reduced
Exposure from wet Risk
Unlikely Moderate Medium Adverse Long term AQMP AQMP Moderate Remote Moderate Low Adverse Temporary
(Chapter 11) waste reduced
Exposure from fuel spills Emergency spill
Remote Minor Low Adverse Long term Training Moderate Remote Minor Low Adverse Temporary Risk same
response
Exposure from surface Enclosure air
Remote Minor Low Adverse Long term AQMP Moderate Remote Minor Low Adverse Temporary Risk same
traffic fumes extraction
Vehicle collision with Traffic
Risk
pedestrians (above and Likely Catastrophic Extreme Adverse Long term Management TMP Moderate Unlikely Catastrophic High Adverse Temporary
reduced
below ground) Plan (TMP)
Vehicle accidents (above Risk
Likely Catastrophic Extreme Adverse Long term TMP TMP Moderate Unlikely Catastrophic High Adverse Long term
and below ground) reduced
Exposure from mine gas Almost Risk
Minor High Adverse Long term Emission design AQMP Moderate Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Temporary
extraction certain reduced
Ventilation failure Backup power
Medium supplies, Risk
Likely Moderate High Adverse AQMP Moderate Unlikely Moderate Medium Adverse Temporary
term management reduced
systems

Risk Risk
ranking ranking
Underground vehicle fire Emergency

Use of battery
Response Risk
Likely Major High Adverse Long term vehicles / Moderate Unlikely Major Medium Adverse Temporary
Management reduced
isolation areas /
Plan (ERMP)
Underground vehicle Almost Ventilation Risk
Major Extreme Adverse Long term ERMP Moderate Remote Major Medium Adverse Temporary
exhaust exposure certain design reduced
Heat stress above and Ventilation
below ground Almost design and Risk
Moderate High Adverse Long term ERMP Moderate Unlikely Moderate Medium Adverse Long term
certain temperature reduced
controls
Construction accidents - Traffic
Risk
surface infrastructure Possible Catastrophic High Adverse Long term Management ERMP Moderate Remote Catastrophic Medium Adverse Long term
reduced
Plan (TMP)
Construction accidents -
Risk
underground Possible Catastrophic High Adverse Long term TMP ERMP Moderate Remote Catastrophic Medium Adverse Long term
reduced
infrastructure
Uncontrolled gas release Ventilation
- underground pressure design / Health Risk
Unlikely Catastrophic High Adverse Long term ERMP Moderate Remote Catastrophic Medium Adverse Temporary
release and Safety Plan reduced
/ AQMP
- underground ignition design / Health Risk
and Safety Plan reduced
/ AQMP
- underground design / Health Risk
asphyxiation and Safety Plan reduced
/ AQMP
Waste stability with heat Waste Zoning Waste Zoning Risk
Unlikely Major Medium Adverse Long term Moderate Eliminated Major Eliminated Neutral Long term
Guide Guide reduced
Bites / stings Health and
Almost Safety Risk
Catastrophic Extreme Adverse Long term HSMP Moderate Unlikely Moderate Medium Adverse Long term
certain Management reduced
Plan (HSMP)
Drugs and alcohol abuse Almost Risk
Major Extreme Adverse Long term HSMP HSMP Moderate Remote Major Medium Adverse Long term
certain reduced
Strata / ground stability Detailed
Risk
Unlikely Catastrophic High Adverse Long term geotechnical CEMP Moderate Remote Catastrophic Medium Adverse Long term
reduced
design
Mine drill and blasting Blasting
Not Not
Eliminated Insignificant Eliminated Neutral Management CEMP Moderate Eliminated Insignificant Eliminated Neutral Risk same
Plan
Ignition of flammable Risk
Possible Major High Adverse Short term HSMP ERMP Moderate Unlikely Major Medium Adverse Short term
materials reduced
Fall from height Medium Medium Risk
Possible Catastrophic High Adverse HSMP ERMP Moderate Unlikely Catastrophic High Adverse
term term reduced
Electrical incident Risk
Possible Major High Adverse Short term HSMP ERMP Moderate Unlikely Major Medium Adverse Short term
reduced
Exposure from Naturally
Waste Zoning Not Risk
Occurring Radioactive Unlikely Major Medium Adverse Long term HSMP Moderate Eliminated Major Eliminated Neutral
Guide applicable reduced
Material (NORM)

Risk Risk
ranking ranking
Socio Community acceptance Community Community Risk

Possible Major High Adverse Long term Moderate Remote Moderate Low Adverse Short term
economics of the Proposal (Titjikala) consultation consultation reduced
Community acceptance
Community Community Risk
(Chapter 12) of the Proposal (Alice Likely Major High Adverse Long term Moderate Unlikely Moderate Medium Adverse Short term
consultation consultation reduced
Springs)
Regional acceptance of
Community Community Risk
the Proposal Unlikely Major Medium Adverse Long term Moderate Remote Moderate Low Adverse Temporary
consultation consultation reduced
(NT/Australia)
Not mining salt (no Not Community Community Not
Eliminated Insignificant Eliminated Neutral Moderate Eliminated Insignificant Eliminated Neutral Risk same
product export) applicable consultation consultation applicable
Not mining salt (no Not Community Community Not
product local) applicable consultation consultation applicable
Not mining salt (tourism) Not Community Community Not
applicable consultation consultation applicable
Not mining salt Not Community Community Not
(employment) applicable consultation consultation applicable
Not mining salt Not Community Community Not
(royalties) applicable consultation consultation applicable
Employment Community Community
opportunities - Almost engagement engagement Almost
Major Extreme Beneficial Long term Moderate Major Extreme Beneficial Long term Risk same
construction certain and training and training certain
programs programs
opportunities - Almost engagement engagement Almost
Major Extreme Beneficial Long term Moderate Major Extreme Beneficial Long term Risk same
operations certain and training and training certain
programs programs
opportunities - ancillary Almost engagement engagement Almost Risk
Moderate High Beneficial Long term Moderate Major Extreme Beneficial Long term
employment certain and training and training certain reduced
programs programs
Closure and Room seal failure Design Rehabilitation Risk
Possible Minor Medium Adverse Long term Moderate Remote Minor Low Adverse Long term
rehabilitation specifications Closure Plan reduced
Accident during surface Health and Health and
(Chapter 13) to underground Remote Catastrophic Medium Adverse Short term Safety Mgmt Safety Mgmt Moderate Remote Catastrophic Medium Adverse Short term Risk same
decommissioning Plan Plan
Shaft seals fail Design Rehabilitation Not Risk
Remote Major Medium Adverse Short term Moderate Eliminated Moderate Eliminated Adverse
specifications Closure Plan applicable reduced
Decline seals fail Not Design Design Not Risk
Remote Insignificant Low Neutral Moderate Eliminated Insignificant Eliminated Neutral
applicable specifications specifications applicable reduced
No surface remediation Rehabilitation Rehabilitation
Risk
(environmental) Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Long term and Closure and Closure Moderate Remote Minor Low Adverse Long term
reduced
Plan Plan
No surface remediation Rehabilitation Rehabilitation
Risk
Unlikely Major Medium Adverse Long term and Closure and Closure Moderate Remote Major Medium Adverse Long term
reduced
Plan Plan
No groundwater Rehabilitation Rehabilitation
Risk
monitoring Remote Moderate Low Adverse Long term and Closure and Closure Moderate Remote Minor Low Adverse Long term
reduced
Plan Plan
No gas monitoring is Institutional Institutional
Not Risk
undertaken Remote Minor Low Adverse Long term control control Moderate Eliminated Minor Eliminated Adverse
applicable reduced
management management

Risk Risk
ranking ranking
No institutional control Institutional Institutional

Risk
period monitoring Possible Moderate Medium Neutral Long term control control Moderate Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Long term
reduced
Future land uses (other Institutional Institutional
Risk
land grazing) Remote Insignificant Low Adverse Temporary control control Moderate Eliminated Insignificant Eliminated Neutral Temporary
reduced
Earthquakes Geotechnical
Remote Insignificant Low Adverse Long term Detailed design Moderate Remote Insignificant Low Adverse Long term Risk same
assessment
Climate change Post
Detailed design
Possible Insignificant Low Adverse Long term operational risk Moderate Possible Insignificant Low Adverse Long term Risk same
/
assessment
Human intrusion Rehabilitation Institutional
Not Not Risk
Remote Minor Low Adverse Short term and Closure control Moderate Eliminated Minor Eliminated
Plan management
Bushfire Natural bushfires Risk
Possible Major High Adverse Short term BFMP BFMP Moderate Unlikely Major Medium Adverse Short term
occurring reduced
(Chapter 14) Back burning on
surrounding pastoral Possible Major High Adverse Short term BFMP BFMP Moderate Possible Major High Adverse Short term Risk same
land
Hot works resulting in Risk
Possible Major High Adverse Short term BFMP BFMP Moderate Unlikely Major Medium Adverse Short term
spontaneous ignition reduced
Smoking cigarettes Likely Major High Adverse Short term BFMP BFMP Moderate Likely Major High Adverse Short term Risk same
Increased ignition Risk
Likely Major High Adverse Short term BFMP BFMP Moderate Unlikely Major Medium Adverse Short term
sources reduced
Flammable and/or Risk
Likely Major High Adverse Short term BFMP BFMP Moderate Unlikely Major Medium Adverse Short term
volatile fuels reduced
Air quality Construction phase CEMP, CEMP,
impacts (construction Almost mitigation mitigation Almost Risk
Moderate High Adverse Short-term High Insignificant High Adverse Short-term
(Chapter 15) traffic in Alice Springs) certain measures measures certain reduced
identified identified
(A) (D) (E) Emissions to air
(combustion gases and AQMP, USEPA Tier 4
particulates) from including emission Risk
Likely Major High Adverse Long-term High Likely Minor Medium Adverse Long-term
mining activities (NO2 at stockpile standards, reduced
Chambers Pillar management stockpile
Campsite) (B) (F)
Loss of containment of 1 waste handling
TEU of product salt at procedures and
EMS (including
the Chandler Facility restrictive load
EMP), in-cab
impacting all receptors management to Risk
Possible Insignificant Low Adverse Temporary collision Moderate Unlikely Insignificant Low Adverse Temporary
(C) manage the reduced
avoidance &
volumes of
communication
similar
materials

Risk Risk
ranking ranking

TEU of solid waste (as procedures and
EMS (including
beryllium) at the restrictive load
EMP), in-cab
Chandler Facility management to Risk
affecting all receptors manage the reduced
avoidance &
volumes of
communication
similar
materials
Simultaneous loss of waste handling
containment of 2 TEU of procedures and
EMS (including
solid waste (as restrictive load
EMP), in-cab
beryllium) at Chandler management to Risk
Unlikely Insignificant Low Adverse Temporary collision Moderate Remote Insignificant Low Adverse Temporary
Facility manage the reduced
avoidance &
volumes of
communication
similar
materials
TEU liquid/sludge waste procedures and
EMS (including
(as formaldehyde) at the restrictive load
EMP), in-cab
Chandler Facility management to Risk
Possible Minor Medium Adverse Temporary collision Moderate Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Temporary
impacting Chambers manage the reduced
avoidance &
Pillar Campground volumes of
communication
similar
materials
containment of 2 TEU procedures and
EMS (including
liquid/sludge waste (as restrictive load
EMP), in-cab
formaldehyde) at management to Risk
Unlikely Moderate Medium Adverse Temporary collision Moderate Remote Moderate Low Adverse Temporary
Chandler Facility manage the reduced
avoidance &
volumes of
communication
similar
materials
Loss of containment of 1 EMS (including
TEU of product salt at EMP), in-cab
Risk
Apirnta Facility Possible Insignificant Low Adverse Temporary collision 0 Moderate Unlikely Insignificant Low Adverse Temporary
reduced
avoidance &
communication
EMS (including
beryllium) at Apirnta restrictive load
EMP), in-cab
Facility management to Risk
manage the reduced
avoidance &
volumes of
communication
similar
materials

Risk Risk
ranking ranking

EMS (including
EMP), in-cab
beryllium) at Apirnta management to Risk
avoidance &
volumes of
communication
similar
materials
EMS (including
(as formaldehyde) at restrictive load
EMP), in-cab
Apirnta Facility management to Risk
manage the reduced
avoidance &
volumes of
communication
similar
materials
Loss of containment of 1 EMS (including
TEU of product salt at EMP), in-cab
Risk
Apirnta Facility Possible Insignificant Low Adverse Temporary collision 0 Moderate Unlikely Insignificant Low Adverse Temporary
reduced
avoidance &
communication
EMS (including
beryllium) at Apirnta restrictive load
EMP), in-cab
Facility management to Risk
manage the reduced
avoidance &
volumes of
communication
similar
materials
EMS (including
EMP), in-cab
avoidance &
volumes of
communication
similar
materials
EMS (including
(as formaldehyde) at restrictive load
EMP), in-cab
Apirnta Facility management to Risk
manage the reduced
avoidance &
volumes of
communication
similar
materials

Risk Risk
ranking ranking

EMS (including
EMP), in-cab
avoidance &
volumes of
communication
similar
materials
Noise and Blasting activities result Blasting Construction
Almost Risk
vibration in increased noise levels Insignificant High Adverse Temporary Management Environmental Moderate Likely Insignificant Medium Adverse Temporary
certain reduced
) Plan Mgmt Plan
(Chapter 16 Blasting activities result Blasting Construction
Almost Risk
in vibration Major Extreme Adverse Temporary Management Environmental Moderate Unlikely Major Medium Adverse Temporary
certain reduced
Plan Mgmt Plan
Blasting activities result
Blasting Construction
in vibration on known Risk
Possible Major High Adverse Long term Management Environmental Moderate Remote Major Medium Adverse Long term
items of cultural heritage reduced
Plan Mgmt Plan
significance
Construction and Construction
Almost Noise Mgmt Risk
operation noise Moderate High Adverse Temporary Environmental Moderate Possible Minor Medium Adverse Temporary
certain Plan reduced
Mgmt Plan
Visual Visibility of above Consultation
Almost Landscape Risk
amenity ground infrastructure Minor High Adverse Long term with Traditional Moderate Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Long term
certain Mgmt Plan reduced
Owners
(Chapter 17) Visibility of decline entry Consultation
Minor High Adverse Long term with Traditional Moderate Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Long term
Owners
Visibility of spoil Consultation
stockpiles Minor High Adverse Long term with Traditional Moderate Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Long term
Owners
Visibility of run of mine Consultation
salt stockpile Minor High Adverse Long term with Traditional Moderate Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Long term
Owners
Visibility of Consultation
detention/sedimentation Minor High Adverse Long term with Traditional Moderate Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Long term
ponds Owners
Visibility of access roads Consultation
Minor High Adverse Permanent with Traditional Moderate Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Long term
Owners
Visibility of Consultation
accommodation village Minor High Adverse Long term with Traditional Moderate Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Long term
Owners
Subsidence causing Consultation
Landscape Risk
changes to land form Unlikely Moderate Medium Adverse Permanent with Traditional Moderate Unlikely Minor Low Adverse Long term
Mgmt Plan reduced
Owners

Note (A) Please note that Air Quality impacts have been assessed in the Technical Paper as risks for a range (or scale) of incidents, which are also categorised in terms of likelihood using industry definitions and statistical
frequencies (defined as frequent, likely, occasional, unlikely, remote, incredible). Essentially the Air Quality Risk Assessment utilises a 3-dimensional risk assessment (sensitivity x consequence x likelihood), which
for the purposes of presenting a holist EIS risk chapter, needs to be presented as a 2-dimenisonal risk assessment (likelihood x consequence).
(B) The risk assessment for mining activities is evaluated against a ‘likely’ likelihood, as the relevant metrics are short-term in nature (hourly to annual average statistics) when compared to the life of mine and the risks
associated with accidental loss of containment.
(C) The risks associated with loss of containment have been assessed against ‘possible’ and ‘unlikely’ likelihood events.
(D) The definitions of likelihood used in this Chapter and in the Air Quality Risk Assessment are marginally different. For clarity, the following equivalence has been used:
Table 6.2 descriptor AQRA descriptor
Almost certain Frequent
Likely Likely
Possible Occasional
Unlikely Unlikely
Remote Remote
(E) The definitions of consequence used in this Chapter and in the Air Quality Risk Assessment are marginally different. For clarity, the following equivalence has been used:
Table 6.3 descriptor AQRA descriptor
Catastrophic } Substantial (>100% ST criterion)
Major } Substantial (>50% ST criterion)
Moderate Moderate (<25% ST criterion)
Minor Slight (>10% ST criterion)
Insignificant Negligible (<10% ST criterion)
(F) The pre-mitigation risk of ‘high’ is derived from the predicted 1-hour NO2 impact at Chambers Pillar Campsite. The post-mitigated risk of ‘medium’ is derived from a conservative prediction of the 24-hour PM10
impacts at a number of off-site locations. The post-mitigated NO2 consequence is ‘insignificant’.

6.7 Discussion of risks
The preliminary review of the Proposal undertaken by the NT EPA identified eight ‘key
environmental risks’ and four ‘other risks’. The risk assessment undertaken by the proponent
quantified a total of 136 hazards after two Proposal risk workshops.
The presentation of pre-mitigation and post mitigation risks associated with the Proposal are
summarised in Table 6-10.
As discussed in Section 6.3.1, in the context of the EIS, a ‘hazard’ is identified as impact of the
Proposal, and may be of “beneficial”, “neutral” or “adverse” in nature. Of the 136 hazards
identified, the pre-mitigation and post-mitigation breakdown illustrated in Table 6-11 by nature is
observed.
Table 6-11 Quantification of pre-mitigated and post mitigated risks by nature
Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation
Risk summary
Count Count
Adverse 118 106
Neutral 14 26
Beneficial 4 4
Total 136 136
As may be deduced from Table 6-11 the number of ‘adverse’ nature risks reduce from 118 (pre-
mitigation) to 106 (post mitigation) and the number of ‘neutral’ nature risks increases from 14 (pre-
mitigation) to 26 (post mitigation). Essentially this illustrates that 12 adverse risks have been
eliminated to become ‘neutral’ in nature.
All risks identified by the proponent have been quantified using the methods detailed above and
summarised in Table 6-12 and Figure 6-1.
Table 6-12 Quantification of pre-mitigated and post mitigated risk
Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation
Risk summary
Count Count
Extreme 11 4
High 54 12
Medium 31 38
Low 29 51
Eliminated 11 31
Total 136 136

60
54
51
50
40 38
31 31
29
30
20
11 12 11
10
4
0
Eliminated Low Medium High Extreme
Post-Mit Pre-Mit
Figure 6-1 Risk summary of pre-mitigated and post mitigated risks
Figure 6-1 shows that with mitigation in place, a further 20 risks are eliminated from the total 136
risks identified at pre-mitigation stage. In addition, the number of low risks increased from 29 to 51,
high risks decreased from 54 to 12 and extreme risks also decreased from 11 to 4. It is further noted
that the 4 remaining ‘extreme’ risks are all “beneficial” in nature, relating to:
• Surface water: altered hydrology surrounding the infrastructure site.

• Socio-economics: employment opportunities – construction.
• Socio-economics: employment opportunities – operational.

• Socio-economics: employment opportunities – ancillary employment.
Following the analysis of mitigation and site specific environmental management measures and/or
changes to design, the post mitigation assessment summarised in Figure 6-2 concludes the Proposal
would:
• Increase the likelihood of ‘eliminated’ risk from 11 in pre-mitigation to 31 in post mitigation.
• Increase the likelihood of ‘low’ risk from 29 at pre-mitigation to 51 in post mitigation.

• Increase the likelihood of ‘medium’ risk from 31 at pre-mitigation to 38 in post mitigation.
• Decrease the likelihood of ‘high’ risk from 54 at pre-mitigation to 12 in post mitigation.

• Decrease the likelihood of ‘extreme’ risk from 11 at pre-mitigated risks to 4 in post
mitigation
Generally there is a clear trend to reduce the majority of adverse nature ‘high’ and ‘extreme’ risks,
and through targeted mitigation reduce these risks to ‘medium’, ‘low’ and ‘eliminated’.

The risk summary outlined above is a product function of likelihood and consequence, and the
mitigation identified targets either likelihood, consequence, or both factors to some degree
(although not necessarily equally).
The effect of mitigation upon ‘likelihood’ is illustrated in Figure 6-2.
50
45 43
40 38
35 33
31 31
30
25 23
20
20 18
15 11 10
9
10 5
5
0
Eliminated Remote Unlikely Possible Likely Almost certain
Pre-Mitigation Post-Mitigation
Figure 6-2 Likelihood of risks pre and post mitigation
Similarly, the consequence of the identified risks is reduced following the implementation of
mitigation and environmental management measures (see Figure 6-3).
50 50
45
39
40
34
35 32
30
25
25 23 23
20 16 17
15 13
10
5
0
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
Pre-Mitigation Post-Mitigation
Figure 6-3 Consequence of risks pre and post mitigation

6.8 The Proposal’s environmental impact assessment process
6.8.1 Background
A Notice of Intent was lodged on 16 November 2012 with the NT Government, Environment
Protection Authority.
An EPBC Act referral was lodged December 2012 with the then Commonwealth Department of
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (now Department of the
Environment and Energy). The Proposal was determined to be a controlled action under the EPBC
Act. The relevant controlling provision is listed threatened species and communities (section 18 and
18A).
In March 2013, the NT EPA decided that the Proposal required assessment under the NT
Environmental Assessment Act at the level of an EIS. Draft Guidelines for Preparation of an EIS were
issued by the NT EPA for public comment on the 22 June, 2013. Comments closed 5 July, 2013, and
Final Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (the ‘EIS Guidelines’)
were issued by the NT EPA on 19 July, 2013.
In 2016, a variation to the 2013 final EIS Guidelines was submitted to the NT EPA. This EIS has been
prepared to address the requirements set out in the Terms of Reference for the Preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement – Chandler Salt Mine (the ‘Terms of Reference’) issued by the NT
EPA on 23 September, 2016, under the EA Act.
6.8.2 What is Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process that aims to improve the environmental design
of a development proposal and provide decision-makers with sufficient information about the
environmental effects of implementing a proposal (IEMA 2008).
Development consent for projects that are likely to have significant effects on the environment
should be granted only after an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of those
projects has been carried out.
An EIS sets out the results of the EIA process. The EIS is submitted with an application for planning
permission and provides environmental information about the scheme, including a description of
the development, its predicted environmental impacts and the measures proposed to amend any
adverse effects.
6.8.3 The EIA process for the proposal
Volume 3 presents the core of the impact assessment contained within this EIS, covering a wide
range of technical disciplines. To enable a valid comparison to be made of the significance of impacts,
a generally consistent approach has been applied to each technical issue contained within Volume 2.
In summary, this process involved:

• Establishing baseline conditions for each issue being discussed.
• Using the proposal description plus the construction, operational and decommissioning
methodologies to understandthe proposal, its potential impacts, but also the mitigation
inherent in the design.
• Assessing the potential impacts of the proposal using a consistent methodology for
describing impacts.
• Describing the impacts without any additional mitigation.
• Describing the proposed mitigation for the particular issue being discussed.
• Describing the residual impacts that are anticipated to remain once additional mitigation is
implemented.
This translates to a chapter format that is generally as follows:
• Introduction.
• Methodology.
• Existing environment (baseline conditions).
• Assessment of risk during construction.

• Assessment of risk during operation.
• Assessment of risk during closure and rehabilitation.
• Mitigation and monitoring.

• Summary of risk assessment.
• Conclusion.
The mitigation and management measures are summarised in Chapter 21 (Environmental
management). The mitigation and management measures would be included in the construction,
operational and decommissioning environmental management plans for the proposal.
Overall, the approach taken through the process of developing the environmental impact
assessment was to firstly prevent or avoid significant impacts through design changes early in the
proposal process, then seek to reduce impacts through the implementation of mitigation prescribed
in management plans and, finally, where impacts cannot be adequately mitigated and residual
impacts predominate, to compensate for the impact (i.e. through the provision of offsets).
6.8.4 Scoping
Issues and risks to be assessed were identified using a number of related processes. The EIS
Guidelines provide the overall framework of specific matters to be addressed by the EIS.

A risk assessment process was also undertaken at the start of the assessment to help prioritise key
issues and to develop the scope of the specialist investigations to be undertaken to support the
preparation of the EIS.
Government and community stakeholders were also consulted to help identify their key issues,
attitudes and concerns regarding the Proposal. Details regarding consultation is provided in
Chapter 5.
6.8.5 Existing environment
Establishing the existing environment or baseline conditions involved a wide range of activities
including:
• Review of published material (databases, reports, journals, etc.) and mapping from a range of
sources.
• Undertaking issue-specific site surveys for key issues identified in the Proposal’s ToR.
• Consultation with local, state and Commonwealth government agencies.
• Consultation with Traditional Owners and pastoralists.
6.8.6 Approach to impact assessment
A specific set of descriptors were developed to describe impacts in the EIS. This involves two the
following aspects:
• Significance assessment - a generic set of significance criteria is defined (see Table 6-4) and
enables consistent description of adverse and beneficial impacts. In each chapter the
significance criteria are made relevant to the topic being considered. This assessment also
requires consideration of the duration of the impact (see Table 6-6), and the relevant EPBC
Act Significant Impact Guidelines for Matters of National Environmental Significance.
• Risk rating - using the risk framework detailed in Table 6-5, the overall impact is assessed by
assessing the consequence of a hazard and its likelihood.
• Duration – As described in Table 6-6.

The approach ultimately assesses the residual risk taking into consideration any proposed mitigation
measures identified as necessary to lower the significance, frequency or risk of an impact occurring
Table 6-10).

6.8.7 Mitigation
As stated previously, the mitigation inherent in the design is included in the initial assessment of
impacts. Following this, where necessary, additional mitigation is proposed for the Proposal (i.e.
during detailed design) in order to reduce the significance or likelihood of an identified impact
occurring. In describing mitigation measures in each chapter of the impact assessment within this EIS,
the following is considered:
• A description of the predicted effectiveness of the mitigation measures.

• Any statutory or policy basis for the mitigation measures or offsets (if required).
• Whether the mitigation could be implemented by the proponent, or whether other parties
were necessary for it to take effect.
The mitigation information has been used to inform and develop the relevant draft management plans
attached to the EIS including:
• Environmental Management Plan.

• Waste Management Plan.
• Water Management Plan.

• Biodiversity Management Plan.
• Social Impact Management Plan.
• Rehabilitation and Closure Plan.
6.9 Cumulative impacts

Cumulative impacts can be defined as impacts on the environment, which result from the
incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future
actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes those other actions (Carroll et al. 2009).
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place
over a period of time or from a combination of concurrent effects from a single action. They can be
additive, synergistic or interactive and can result in impacts that are larger, more significant and
longer lasting than is the case with individual impacts and their effects. There is no defined process
for undertaking cumulative impact assessments within Australia. Considerations related to
cumulative impacts are included in the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Regulations 2000. They state the need to assess cumulative impacts in relation to
World Heritage Areas and Ramsar sites but do not provide any guidance on scoping and carrying out
the CIA.
Table 6-13 describes the approach taken for the Proposal in determining potential cumulative
impacts.

Table 6-13 Cumulative impact methodology
Method Comment
Spatial Setting boundaries is the process of establishing the limits of the area to be assessed for
boundaries cumulative impacts and the identification of activities within this boundary. The primary
spatial boundary for the CIA is the project footprint – this is the area that is under project
control and responsibility, i.e. the Project Area. However, boundaries can vary from issue to
issue and need to reflect ecosystem requirements rather than artificial boundaries.
Temporal Cumulative impacts during the construction phase are likely to be short-term and localised
boundaries to the Project footprint and immediate surrounds. Operation phase impacts are more likely
to be medium to long-term (e.g. continuing for more than two years after the activity has
ceased, or ongoing) and to extend beyond the Project footprint.
Project Cumulative impacts have been addressed separately within each of the individual chapters
approach in order to reflect the differing spatial and temporal boundaries of each environmental
aspect.
6.10 Conclusion
This environmental impact assessment process undertaken for this EIS has included a
comprehensive risk assessment. The outcomes of the detailed risk assessment, the methods used to
identify Proposal risks and, initiatives taken by the proponent to mitigate them, can demonstrate
that:
• The proponent is aware of risks associated with all predictable aspects of the Proposal.
• The proponent has or will continue to undertake necessary studies to quantify risks.
• Prevention and mitigation of risks have been addressed in conceptual design.
• Risks can and would be managed effectively during construction, operation,

decommissioning, closure and post-closure phases of the Proposal.
• Risks will continue to be assessed through the development of the Proposal i.e. in detailed
design.
The information contained in this Chapter and in Appendix S has been provided to assist the reader
understand the likelihood and consequence of each risk presented by the Proposal. The ranking of
risks has been justified by adopting National standards. Supporting EIS studies, such as the
operational and post-closure risk assessments (refer to Appendix F and G respectively) have
provided sufficient quantitative analysis to indicate whether level of risks is likely to be acceptable,
tolerable or non-existent. As indicated in Section 6.7, the implementation of appropriate mitigation
and/or environmental management measures has reduced both the likelihood and consequence of
Proposal risks.
Where uncertainty did exist for some risks, the proponent adopted the precautionary principle to
ensure a conservative level was assessed.

CH Eis - Chapter 06 - Environmental Risk Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CH Eis - Chapter 06 - Environmental Risk Assessment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CH Eis - Chapter 06 - Environmental Risk Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 6

The proposed Chandler Facility – Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 6-1 Nature of a hazard .......................................................................................................... 6-3

The Chandler Facility - Environmental Impact Statement i

BMP Biodiversity Management Plan

CRI Composite Risk Index

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environment Protection Authority

SEMP Sediment and Erosion Management Plan

WMP Water Management Plan

The Chandler Facility - Environmental Impact Statement ii

• Identify and discuss potential hazards generated or affected by the Proposal.

• Identify stakeholders who may be subject to residual risks.

The proposed Chandler Facility – Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6-1

• Identifying required mitigation

• Identify appropriate mitigation and/or management measures

The proposed Chandler Facility – Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6-2

6.3.1 The nature of an identified hazard

Table 6-1 Nature of a hazard

The proposed Chandler Facility – Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6-3

Table 6-2 Likelihood of a hazard

Likelihood Description Probability Mid Community

The proposed Chandler Facility – Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6-4

To determine the ‘consequence’ of an identified hazard, clearly described thresholds were

Table 6-3 Consequence of a hazard

Consequence Description (examples)

The proposed Chandler Facility – Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6-5

Table 6-4 Risk significance criteria

The proposed Chandler Facility – Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6-6

Table 6-5 Risk significance matrix

Consequence Eliminated Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

Table 6-6 Risk duration

Duration of environmental effects Period

The proposed Chandler Facility – Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6-7

• Biodiversity. • Human health.

• Surface water and flooding. • Closure and rehabilitation.

6.4 Pre-mitigation risk assessment

Refer to Table 6-10 for pre-mitigated risk assessment.

The proposed Chandler Facility – Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6-8

• Chapter 9 – Surface water.

• Chapter 12 – Economic and Social.

• Chapter 17 – Visual amenity.

6.5.2 Key considerations

Key considerations for preferred mitigation measures were to:

The proposed Chandler Facility – Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6-9

6.5.3 Mitigation approach

Table 6-7 Management and mitigation measures

Initial impact Mitigation response

The proposed Chandler Facility – Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6-10

6.5.4 List of control and/or management measures

Table 6-8 List of controls and mitigation measures

Category Environmental control and/or mitigation measure

The proposed Chandler Facility – Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6-11

The confidence of mitigation is assigned according to the descriptors in Table 6-9.

Table 6-9 Confidence descriptors for mitigation options

Confidence descriptor Examples

6.6 Post mitigation risk assessment