Review of publicly available Australian information The chemicals reported through the survey were compared with publicly available information on the websites of the following: Queensland Government Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP 2014b) – identified 55 chemicals Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA 2012) – identified 55 chemicals National Toxics Network (Lloyd-Smith and Senjen 2011) – identified 23 chemicals various companies involved in the coal seam gas sector in Australia – identified 52 chemicals. A further 10 chemicals not reported in the survey were identified through this review. Additional information provided by industry Additional information on the use of 23 of the 113 chemicals was provided by companies in May and June 2015 to better inform the assessment of the environmental risks. This included: volumes and concentrations transported handling procedures including packaging, transport, distribution and quantities and concentrations stored and used, and concentrations of chemicals in fracturing fluids drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations, and the locations of chemical stores and operational sites. Possible limitation of the methodology Completion of the survey was voluntary and it is possible that not all companies involved in coal seam gas activities in Australia responded or responded in full. However, chemicals reported through the survey were compared with publicly available Australian sources ensuring a comprehensive list of chemicals to be considered by the Assessment. Further, survey responses were received from the hydraulic fracturing service providers that conducted the majority, if not all, of the hydraulic fracturing activities in Australia. Also, the coal seam gas site operators that provided information are considered to be the companies involved in coal seam gas extraction and production in Australia during the survey period 2010 to 2012.
Provide information for any additional chemicals (other than water) used in hydraulic fracturing fluids or pre-treatments used within the past 2 years (e.g. proppants, pH adjusters, viscosity agents, radiological isotopes used for monitoring, etc.). Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) Number Chemical Name Physical state as delivered to site. If in solid form, note type of solid (i.e. pellets, crystalline or fine powder) Concentration (g/kg or g/L) delivered to the site Container size Concentration (g/kg or g/L) after final dilution prior to injection Total volume (L) or mass (kg) per year of the chemical imported or manufactured or bought locally Function e.g. e.g. hydrochloric acid e.g. liquid e.g. 1000 L e.g. pH adjuster Question 4 Provide comment on trends in substitution of chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids/pre-treatments and examples where substitutions have occurred.
Monitoring and remediation Question 1 For chemicals in hydraulic fracturing formulations or pre-treatments, provide the proportion of injected chemical mass RECOVERED in flowback and/or produced waters. Please also note the source of data – estimated or from monitoring and also details of the method or technique. Formulation or pre-treatment or individual chemical Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) Number (if appropriate) Proportion (%) of injected mass RECOVERED in flowback and/or produced waters Method of determination (estimated or from monitoring) Analytical method/monitoring technique e.g. hydrochloric acid e.g. 7647-01-0 e.g. 70% e.g. monitoring Question 2 For GEOGENIC CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS (e.g. NATURALLY OCCURRING OR NEWLY FORMED trace metals, organics, salts, radionuclides, etc.) mobilised as a result of hydraulic fracturing, provide data from any monitoring or estimations of the presence of these chemicals in flowback and/or produced waters. Please also note the analytical method or monitoring technique. Geogenic chemical/chemical group Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) Number (if appropriate) Maximum concentration in flowback and/or produced waters (ng/L) Method of determination (estimated or from monitoring) Analytical method/monitoring technique e.g. lead e.g. 7439-92-1 e.g. 7 ng/L e.g. monitoring Question 3
Appendix C – Studies reported in the survey C 1 lists the published and / or unpublished studies on human health and / or environmental impacts of chemicals used in drilling or hydraulic fracturing or found in flowback and / or produced water as provided by three companies. C 1 List of studies Author and year Title Link (if available) Allen, B, Gentry, R, Shipp, A and Van Landingham, C 1995 ‘Calculation of benchmark doses for reproductive and developmental toxicity observed after exposure to isopropanol’, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, vol. 28, pp. 38-44. n.s. Alpha Environmental Consultants September 2009 Technical consulting reports prepared in support of the Draft supplemental generic environmental impact statement for natural gas production in New York State. Bevan, C 2001 ‘Monohydric alcohols – C1 to C6’, in Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 5th edition. n.s. C, Tyler, TR, Gardiner, TH, Kapp, RW, Andrews, L and Beyer, BK 1995 ‘Two-generation reproduction toxicity study with isopropanol in rats’, Journal of Applied Toxicology, vol. 15, pp. 117-23. n.s. Biesinger, KE, Lemke, AE, Smith, WE and Tyo, R 1976 ‘Comparative toxicity of polyelectrolytes to selected aquatic animals’, Journal – Water Pollution Control Federation, vol. 48, pp. 183-7. Cited in New Zealand (NZ) Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) regulations – Chemical Classification and Information Database (CCID): Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 2009 Scientific criteria document for the development of the Canadian water quality guidelines for boron, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. n.s. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Database for REACH registrations. Environmental Risk Sciences March 2012 Human health and ecological risk assessment – hydraulic fracturing (unpublished report)