New APPENDIX R: MARINE E Q AND M P · 2019. 11. 28. · m/s Meters per Second MEQMMP Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring and Management Plan ML/Day Megaliters per Day MSL Mean

APPENDIX R: MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MONITORING

AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

CLIENT: TNG Limited

STATUS: Rev 1 REPORT No.: R190199

ISSUE DATE: 18th November 2019

Darwin Processing Facility Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring and

Management Plan

ii TNG Ltd - Darwin Industrial Processing Facility

Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring and Management Plan

17WAU/007 / R190199

Important Note

This report and all its components (including images, audio, video, text) is copyright. Apart from fair

dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright

Act 1968, no part may be reproduced, copied, transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic,

mechanical or graphic) without the prior written permission of O2 Marine.

This report has been prepared for the sole use of the TNG Ltd (herein, ‘the client’), for a specific site

(herein ‘the site’, the specific purpose specified in Section 1 of this report (herein ‘the purpose’). This

report is strictly limited for use by the client, to the purpose and site and may not be used for any other

purposes.

Third parties, excluding regulatory agencies assessing an application in relation to the purpose, may

not rely on this report. O2 Marine waives all liability to any third-party loss, damage, liability or claim

arising out of or incidental to a third-party publishing, using or relying on the facts, content, opinions or

subject matter contained in this report.

O2 Marine waives all responsibility for loss or damage where the accuracy and effectiveness of

information provided by the Client or other third parties was inaccurate or not up to date and was relied

upon, wholly or in part in reporting.

iii TNG Ltd - Darwin Industrial Processing Facility


17WAU/007 / R190199

WA Marine Pty Ltd t/as O2 Marine ACN 168 014 819

Originating Office – Southwest

Suite 5, 18 Griffin Drive, Dunsborough WA 6281

T 1300 739 447 | [email protected]

Version Register

Version Status Author Reviewer Change from

Previous Version

Authorised for Release

(signed and dated)

Rev C Draft R Stevens C Lane NA NA

Rev 0 Draft R Stevens C Lane Updated Figures and

text from review

C Lane 23/10/2019

Rev 1 Final R Stevens S Arena Incorporated client

review comments

C Lane 18/11/2019

Transmission Register

Controlled copies of this document are issued to the persons/companies listed below. Any copy of this

report held by persons not listed in this register is deemed uncontrolled. Updated versions of this report

if issued will be released to all parties listed below via the email address listed.

Name Email Address

Sharon Arena [email protected]

Mitch Ladyman [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


iv TNG Ltd - Darwin Industrial Processing Facility


17WAU/007 / R190199

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronyms/Abbreviation Description

°C Degrees Celsius

µg/L Microgram per Litre

μm Micrometer

ANZG Australia and New Zealand Guidelines

BU Beneficial Uses

CoC Chain of Custody

DGV Default Guideline Values

DO Dissolved Oxygen

EC50 50% Effect Concentration

EMS Environmental Management System

EPA Environmental Protection Authority

EQMF Environmental Quality Management Framework

EQI Environmental Quality Indicator

EQC Environmental Quality Criteria

EQO Environmental Quality Objective

EQG Environmental Quality Guideline

EQS Environmental Quality Standard

FRP Filterable Reactive Phosphorous

GL/year Gigalitres per Year

ha Hectares

HCV High Conservation Value

HD Highly Disturbed

IC50 50% Inhibitory Concentration

kg Kilogram

km Kilometer

km/hr Kilometers per Hour

L Litre

LC50 50% Lethal Concentration

LEP Level of Environmental Protection

LoR Limit of Reporting

m3 Cubic Meters

m3/s Cubic Meters per Second

m Meters

mm Millimeters

mg/kg Milligram per Kilogram

m/s Meters per Second

MEQMMP Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring and Management Plan

ML/Day Megaliters per Day

MSL Mean Sea Level

v TNG Ltd - Darwin Industrial Processing Facility


17WAU/007 / R190199

Acronyms/Abbreviation Description

NATA National Association of Testing Authorities

NOEC No Observed Effect Concentration

NRETAS Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport

NT Northern Territory

NTEPA Northern Territory Environmental Protection Agency

NTU Nephelometric turbidity units

ppt Parts per Thousand

QA/QC Quality Assurance & Quality Control

SMD Slightly to Moderately Disturbed

SPL Species Protection Levels

TSS Total suspended solids

WQPP Darwin Harbour Water Quality Protection Plan

WET Whole of Effluent Toxicity

vi TNG Ltd - Darwin Industrial Processing Facility


17WAU/007 / R190199

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 8

Project Overview 8

Purpose 9

Scope and Objectives 9

2. Project Description 11

Proponent 11

Wastewater Treatment Design Specifications 11

3. Environmental Quality Management Framework 14

Background 14

Beneficial Uses & Environmental Quality Objectives 15

Levels of Ecological Protection 16

Potential Project Marine Environmental Impacts 19

Environmental Quality Indicators 19

Environmental Quality Criteria 20

4. Monitoring and Management 33

Pre-Project Baseline Monitoring 34

Wastewater Treatment Plant Commissioning 44

Marine Environmental Quality Validation 47

Routine Operational Performance Assessment 56

5. MEQMMP Review 67

6. Reference List 68

Figures

Figure 1-1 Proposed Wickham magnetite processing facility location 9

Figure 3-1 Environmental Quality Framework as applied to the Darwin Processing Facility 15

Figure 3-2 Levels of Ecological Protection for the Darwin Processing Facility Outfall area 18

Figure 3-3 Summary of the approach used to define Environmental Quality Guidelines 22

Figure 3-4 Summary of the approach used to define Environmental Quality Standards 27

Figure 4-1 Proposed Pre-Project Baseline Marine Environmental Monitoring Locations 37

Figure 4-2 Contingency management framework during wastewater treatment facility commissioning 47

Figure 4-3 Post-commissioning wastewater quality validation contingency management 55

Figure 4-4 Environmental Monitoring Framework including elevation points when certain EQC are exceeded 58

Figure 4-5 Contingency management framework for routine wastewater discharge quality 60

Figure 4-6 Management Response Framework for assessment of required action from routine and investigative monitoring programs 65

Figure 4-7 Ongoing Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring Contingency Management Actions 66

vii TNG Ltd - Darwin Industrial Processing Facility


17WAU/007 / R190199

Tables

Table 2-1 Marine outfall design parameters 11

Table 2-2 Wastewater constituent design specifications proposed from the wastewater treatment process for marine outfall 12

Table 3-1 Beneficial Uses and Environmental Quality Objectives applicable to the Darwin Harbour Region 16

Table 3-2 Limits of Acceptable Change as defined by NRETAS (2010) adapted from ANZECC (2000) 16

Table 3-3 Potential Impact Pathways for Marine Environmental Quality 19

Table 3-4 Environmental Quality Indicators selected for the Darwin Processing Facility Outfall 19

Table 3-5 Proposed Environmental Quality Guidelines for Water Quality 23

Table 3-6 Environmental Quality Guideline for Toxicants in Sediment 25

Table 3-7 Environmental Quality Standards for Observational indicators 28

Table 3-8 Environmental Quality Standards for Marine Fauna 28

Table 3-9 Environmental Quality Standards for Nutrients and Physico-chemical constituents as defined by Water Quality Objective derived from NRETAS (2010). ND identifies Water Quality Standards not yet defined. 29

Table 3-10 Environmental Quality Standards for elutriate and/or bioavailability testing. NG identified that no guideline has been established. 30

Table 3-11 Environmental Quality Standards for elutriate and toxicity testing 31

Table 3-12 Environmental Quality Standards for toxicants in biota 31

Table 4-1 Elements of the Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring and Management 33

Table 4-2 Monitoring Frequency for the Proposed Phase I Baseline data collection 34

Table 4-3 Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring Locations and Associated Routine Sampling Tasks 36

Table 4-4 Aesthetic observations quick reference guide 38

Table 4-5 Limit of Reporting (LoR), storage and holding time requirements for water and sediment quality laboratory analysis parameters. 42

Table 4-6 Monitoring Frequency for EQC Validation Monitoring 53

Table 4-7 Monitoring Frequency for Ongoing Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring 61

Table 5-1 MEQMMP review timeframes for the Project lifecycle 67

8 TNG Ltd - Darwin Industrial Processing Facility Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring and Management Plan

17WAU/007 / R190199

1. Introduction

Project Overview

TNG Limited (TNG) (the Proponent), proposes to construct and operate the Darwin Processing Facility

(the Project) at Wickham in the Northern Territory (NT) (the Project). The Project is proposed to process

magnetite concentrate (concentrate hereafter) to produce:

Vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) flake– for use in steel, non-ferrous alloys, chemicals, catalysts

and energy storage (vanadium redox batteries);

Titanium dioxide – for use in paint, plastics, paper and inks; and

Ferric oxide – for use in steel making.

The three products will be exported through the Port of Darwin’s East Arm Wharf to international

customers.

The Project is proposed to be located on Lot 1817, Hundred of Ayers, Middle Arm Industrial Precinct,

Wickham, approximately 16 km south east of Darwin, in the NT (Figure 1-1). The site is located

adjacent to the Elizabeth River and encompasses 507 hectares (ha), of which 40 ha is mangrove forest

and intertidal zone, and 467 ha is terrestrial land. The Project and associated access roads, supporting

infrastructure and service comprise a development footprint of approximately 264 ha.

The magnetite concentrate will be produced at TNG’s proposed Mount Peake Project approximately

1,400 km south of Darwin, which is the subject of a separate environmental assessment and approvals

process. The Mount Peake Project will involve the mining of a polymetallic ore body (enriched with

vanadium, titanium and iron) and beneficiation of the ore to produce magnetite concentrate. The

concentrate will be transported by rail from the mine site to the Processing Facility.

An ocean outfall is required as part of the Processing Facility operation to dispose of waste by-products.

The ocean outfall is proposed to discharge approximately 12 GL/year of treated process water into the

Elizabeth River.


17WAU/007 / R190199

Figure 1-1 Proposed Wickham magnetite processing facility location

Purpose

The purpose of this Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring and Management Plan (MEQMMP) is to

provide a suitable and transparent framework to ensure identified marine Beneficial Uses (BUs), as

declared under the Northern Territory Water Act 1992 (NTW Act), of East Arm, Elizabeth River and the

wider Darwin Harbour region are not compromised through implementation of the Project. The

MEQMMP has been developed to provide a flexible management tool which guides marine

environmental quality monitoring and assessment and elicits an appropriate management response

and investigation if established environmental quality criteria are exceeded.

This Plan is a living document which requires ongoing review throughout the lifecycle of the Project,

particularly as key project milestones are reached, or at any time identified key risk profiles change due

to altered site processes.

Scope and Objectives

The scope of this Plan is to establish a framework to ensure that potential risks from the Project do not

compromise the BUs and Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs) of the Elizabeth River, East Arm

and Darwin Harbour region. The approach relies on establishing BUs, EQO and spatially defining the

Levels of Ecological Protection (LEPs) for the Project area and applying a risk-based approach to


17WAU/007 / R190199

monitoring and management. The Plan sets out the process for monitoring and reporting to allow actual

impacts to be assessed against acceptable limits of ecological change during the lifecycle of the Project.

Where results outside the limits of acceptable change are reported, a risk-based response requiring

predetermined management response and investigative monitoring to be implemented is triggered

ensuring the BUs and EQOs have not been compromised.

Specifically, the objectives of this MEQMMP are to:

Identify BUs and clearly define EQOs relevant to the project area;

Spatially define LEPs relevant to the Project area;

Establish Environmental Quality Criteria (EQC) through determining scientifically derived limits

of acceptable change to measurable Environmental Quality Indicators (EQIs) for each of the

BUs;

Establish protocols and procedures associated with the monitoring, management and

reporting on achievement of EQOs and protection of BUs;

Provide a framework to guide management response and required actions in the event

established EQC are exceeded during routine facility operation; and

Ensure collection, analysis and reporting of marine environmental quality data in a consistent

and robust manner.

This Plan is relevant to management, monitoring, assessment and reporting protocols required during

each of the key project phases. The Plan also details the specific process for continual review and

improvement of the Plan as the Project progresses, or at any time key processes alter and new risks

are identified.

To ensure the objectives of this Plan are achieved the following key processes have been defined:

1. Pre-Project Baseline Data Collection;

o Derive locally relevant EQC from baseline data to inform ongoing monitoring and

management.

2. Project Commissioning and Validation;

o Determine the potential whole of effluent toxicity (WET) of the wastewater and the

dilution levels required to achieve the appropriate species protection levels (SPL)

within the outfall mixing zone and the designated LEPs;

o Validate the accuracy of numerical modelling in predicting the extent of the mixing

zone and

o Validate performance of the wastewater outfall diffuser during both commissioning and

operational phases of the Project.

3. Ongoing Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring;

o Monitor and mitigate potential impacts to marine environmental quality throughout the

life of the Project.


17WAU/007 / R190199

2. Project Description

Proponent

The proponent is TNG Limited, referred to herein as the Proponent. Contact details for the Proponent

are as follows:

Paul Burton (Managing Director and CEO)

PO Box 1126

Subiaco WA 6904

Ph: 08 9327 0900

E: [email protected]

Web: www.tngltd.com.au

Wastewater Treatment Design Specifications

The design parameters of the outfall and diffuser are described in Table 2-1.

The outfall concentrations from the treatment facility have been predicted based upon a worst-case

scenario. This will ensure a conservative factor is applied to all predictive modelling and assessment of

impacts. Nearer to construction, these design specifications are likely to significantly reduce as the

preliminary design will have been significantly revised as the engineering and processing design

matures. Concentrations of wastewater constituents currently predicted for marine outfall considered to

have the ability to impact marine environmental quality are presented in Table 2-2.

Table 2-1 Marine outfall design parameters

Design Parameters Details

Location: Darwin Harbour (GD94 MGA Zone 52: 707,990 E; 8,617,566 N)

Water Depth: 8.2m MSL

No. of Ports: 1 Ports

Port Diameter: 250 mm

Port Angle: 90 degrees

Discharge Velocity: 8 m/s

Discharge Flow Rate: 0.89 m3/s

Discharge Volume: 34.6 ML/Day

Discharge Regime: Discharge only on outgoing tide.

Salinity: 12 ppt

Temperature: 50°C


http://www.tngltd.com.au/


17WAU/007 / R190199

Table 2-2 Wastewater constituent design specifications proposed from the wastewater treatment process for

marine outfall

Toxicant Category Toxicant Name Design Specification

(µg/L)

Non-metallic inorganics Ammonia 20

Metals and metalloids Chromium (Crlll) 5

Metals and metalloids Chromium (CrVI) 0.14

Metals and metalloids Cobalt 0.005

Metals and metalloids Copper 0.3

Non-metallic inorganics Cyanide 2

Metals and metalloids Manganese 5

Metals and metalloids Nickel 5

Phenols and xylenols Phenol 270

Metals and metalloids Silver 0.8

Metals and metalloids Thallium 17

Metals and metalloids Vanadium 50

Metals and metalloids Zinc 7

Metals and metalloids Arsenic (III) 2.3

Metals and metalloids Arsenic (V) 13

Metals and metalloids Tin 35

Metals and metalloids Boron 5100

Metals and metalloids Iron 300

Metals and metalloids Aluminium 0.5

Metals and metalloids Barium 10

Halogen Fluoride 10

Non-metallic inorganics Sulphide 1


17WAU/007 / R190199

Toxicant Category Toxicant Name Design Specification

(µg/L)

Non-metallic inorganics Sulphate 20

Non-metallic inorganics Free Chlorine 3

Metals and metalloids Sodium 10

Metals and metalloids Magnesium 10

Metals and metalloids Titanium 10


17WAU/007 / R190199

3. Environmental Quality Management Framework

Background

The Environmental Quality Management Framework (EQMF) process was developed to assist

implementation of the National Water Quality Management Strategy Guidelines No. 4 and 7 (ANZG

2018). This section of MEQMMP outlines how the EQMF framework has been applied to define the

BUs, EQOs and EQCs and the spatial LEPs for the Darwin Processing Facility and outfall area.

Figure 3-1 displays the key structural elements of the EQMF framework relevant to the Darwin

Processing Facility.

3.1.1. Relevant Northern Territory Guidelines

The Northern Territory (NT) Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport

(NRETAS) developed the Water Quality Objectives for the Darwin Harbour Region (NRETAS 2010) to

commence the implementation of the National Water Quality Management Strategy. The key aim of

this document was to identify a ‘suite of Water Quality Objectives that relate to the beneficial uses and

environmental values of the waterways has been developed to provide some preliminary benchmarks

against which various attributes of the health and condition of these waterways can be measured and

reported’ (NRETAS 2010). These Water Quality Objectives, along with the key BUs, were declared by

the NT parliament in NT Government Gazette: no. G27, 7 July 2010.

This supported the development of the Darwin Harbour Water Quality Protection Plan (WQPP) (DLRM

2014) which sought to further implement the national strategy, and in particular the national Framework

for Marine and Estuarine Water Quality Protection, through identification of specific actions relevant to

the protection of the water quality within Darwin Harbour. The WQPP ‘aims to support good

management and sustainable development through its focus on protecting Darwin Harbour waterways

from excessive sediment and nutrient inputs’.

Whilst the WQPP and the declared Water Quality Objectives primarily focus on water quality and key

identified threats such as nutrients and suspended sediment inputs to Darwin Harbour, they are

applicable to the project outfall as primary guidelines for interpretation of water quality criteria relevant

to the Darwin Processing Facility. In lieu of specific sediment guidelines, the approach described by

ANZG (2018) has been applied to the establishment of this MEQMMP.


17WAU/007 / R190199

Figure 3-1 Environmental Quality Framework as applied to the Darwin Processing Facility

Beneficial Uses & Environmental Quality Objectives

Environmental Values are defined in ANZG (2018) as “Particular values or uses of the environment that

are important for a healthy ecosystem or for public benefit, welfare, safety or health and which require

protection from the effects of pollution, waste discharges and deposits”. The NTW Act has defined and

declared each of the NTs environmental values or uses, classifying them as BUs. BUs for Darwin

Harbour were declared in NT Government Gazette: no. G27, 7 July 2010.

NREATAS (2010) defines EQOs for water quality as high level management objectives described as

‘the water quality needed to protect and sustain each of the environmental values and beneficial uses

identified’ and ‘intended for the community, local councils and government agencies to use in catchment

management and land use planning activities’. While this description is primarily focused on water

quality, rather than marine environmental quality, for the purposes of this MEQMMP substitution of

‘marine environmental quality’ in place of ‘water quality’ is in keeping with the philosophy of EQOs in

their application this MEQMMP. EQOs for Darwin Harbour are defined in NRETAS (2010).

Three BUs and four corresponding EQOs apply to the Darwin Harbour area and are presented in Table

3-1.


17WAU/007 / R190199

Table 3-1 Beneficial Uses and Environmental Quality Objectives applicable to the Darwin Harbour Region

Beneficial Uses Environmental Quality Objectives

Environment EQO1: To maintain and protect the ecological condition of marine, estuarine and freshwater ecosystems of the Darwin Harbour Region. EQO1 is split into four sub- objectives, being: High Conservation Value, Slightly to Moderately Disturbed and Highly Disturbed (Refer Section 2.3 below).

Aquaculture EQO2: To maintain water quality for the production and consumption of aquatic foods derived from aquaculture.

Cultural EQO3: To maintain marine, estuarine and fresh water quality so that it is suitable for activities such as swimming and other direct water contact sports.

EQO4: To maintain water quality for the production and consumption of aquatic foods derived from recreational, commercial or indigenous food gathering.

Levels of Ecological Protection

In accordance with NRETAS (2010), the objective for ‘Environment’ is spatially allocated into three

LEPs, being:

High Conservation Value (HCV),

Slightly to Moderately Disturbed (SMD); and

Highly Disturbed (HD).

Each LEP area is assigned an acceptable limit of change as presented in Table 3-2. The spatial

distribution of the LEP enables measurable EQOs to be allocated for areas in accordance with

expectations for ecosystem health condition. For example, important areas for conservation are

assigned a HCV LEP and maintained within the limits of natural variation, whereas large changes from

natural variation may be allowed in small areas assigned a HD LEP, such as around a wastewater

discharge where BUs may not be protected.

Table 3-2 Limits of Acceptable Change as defined by NRETAS (2010) adapted from ANZECC (2000)

Indicator Class Effect Size of Departure from Reference

HCV Systems SMD Systems HD Systems

Toxicants and Nutrients in Water

No change to natural values

95% SPL* 80-90% SPL*

Toxicants in Sediments No change to natural values

>90% SPL*

Physico-chemical No change to natural values

Median lies within 20th/80th percentile of

reference range

Locally determined (10th/90th percentile of range)

Biological No change to natural values

Median lies within 20th/80th percentile of

reference range

Locally determined (10th/90th percentile of range)

* NRETAS (2010) reference from ANZECC (2000) has been revised to conform with ANZG (2018) for the purposes of this Plan.


17WAU/007 / R190199

The proposed spatial designation of LEP boundaries for the Darwin Processing Facility area are

presented in Figure 3-2. The LEP boundaries have been defined and mapped in consideration of the

following key elements:

A HD LEP was determined from modelling by Baird (2019) using the 80th percentile contour

for Wet season temperature as this was identified as the largest overall area from the outfall

where modelled phyisco-chemical parameters reached the LEP required for the SMD

boundary. Baird (2019) determined that after initial mixing (i.e. approximately 30-100m east

and west, respectively, from diffuser), an 80% SPL would be achieved within this HD LEP

zone; and

A SMD LEP was designated for all other waters adjacent to the project area. Based on

preliminary dispersion modelling presented in APM (2019), Baird (2019) determined that a

95% SPL would be achieved at the HD/SMD LEP boundary.


17WAU/007 / R190199

Figure 3-2 Levels of Ecological Protection for the Darwin Processing Facility Outfall area


17WAU/007 / R190199

Potential Project Marine Environmental Impacts

The key potential impacts to marine environmental quality and their respective pathways as determined

through the Environmental Impact Study (APM 2019) for the Project are summarised in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3 Potential Impact Pathways for Marine Environmental Quality

Potential

Environmental

Impact

Potential Environmental

Impact Pathway

Potential Receptor EQO (BU) at Risk

Discharge of nutrients to the marine environment.

Impacted groundwater flows to marine environment

Impacted surface water runoff into marine environment

Treated wastewater outfall discharge direct to marine environment

Marine fauna

Marine flora

Human

Marine water quality

Marine sediment quality

Aquaculture facilities

EQO1 (HD/SMD LEP) (Environment)

EQO3 (Recreational Water Sports)

EQO4 (Aquatic food collection)

Discharge of toxicants to the marine environment.

Impacted groundwater flows to marine environment

Impacted surface water runoff into marine environment


Marine fauna

Marine flora

Human


Marine sediment quality

Aquaculture facilities


EQO2 (Water Quality for Aquaculture)



Discharge of freshwater to the marine environment.


Altered stormwater runoff regime

Marine fauna

Marine flora





Environmental Quality Indicators

EQIs are measurable parameters selected to monitor changes in environmental quality for each EQO.

The EQIs identified for measuring limits of acceptable change with respect to the Darwin Processing

Facility are summarised in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4 Environmental Quality Indicators selected for the Darwin Processing Facility Outfall

Pressure EQI EQO

Discharge of Nutrients Nutrients in water:

- Total N

- NOx

- NH3-N

- Total P


EQO2 (Aquaculture)




17WAU/007 / R190199

Pressure EQI EQO

- FRP

- Chlorophyll a

Discharge of Toxicants Toxicants in water & sediments

- Metals and Metalloids

- Organics

- Hydrocarbons

- Salts

Toxicants in Biota


EQO2 (Aquaculture)



Discharge of Freshwater Physico-chemical constituents in water:

- Dissolved Oxygen

- Salinity

- Temperature

- pH

- TSS


EQO2 (Aquaculture)



Wastewater discharge – combined effects

Biological

- Faunal deaths

- Benthic infauna

Aesthetics

- Odour

- Oil/Grease



Environmental Quality Criteria

EQC are generally quantitative and typically described numerically and used to measure the

performance of environmental management in achieving the EQOs, and protection of the corresponding

BU. For most BUs, EQC for a range of potential indicators can be determined using the default trigger

values or recommended approaches in ANZG (2018). However, some criteria are best derived from

locally relevant guidelines using baseline data, as was applied within NRETAS (2010), with values

derived from this source where possible. For example, some indicators may be seasonally variable and

hence EQC may need to be developed on a seasonal basis. Where baseline data is unavailable, EQC

are established by comparing impacted with un-impacted reference sites. Ideally, the collection of two

years of reference site data is required for the derivation of site specific EQC.

This MEQMMP has been designed with the intent of collecting two years of baseline data prior to

commissioning of the wastewater outfall. The baseline data will then be analysed to inform and update

EQC derived from the default guideline values defined in ANZG (2018). Therefore, an adaptive

management framework can be implemented during the initial years to allow for the performance of the

management plan to be evaluated (i.e. are reference sites suitable, EQC appropriate etc) and collection

of preliminary baseline data with which to derive locally relevant guidelines for the future.

Broadly, the steps undertaken to determine the EQC involved:

1. Identification of the key pressures and threats from impacted wastewater or groundwater

discharge or runoff to marine environmental quality in Elizabeth River and Darwin Harbour

(APM 2019);


17WAU/007 / R190199

2. Selection of relevant EQIs for Elizabeth River and Darwin Harbour; and

3. Setting specific EQC which allow assessment of values being at risk and subject to

unacceptable change to EQIs specific to each EQOs.

The approach adopted in the process of identifying relevant EQIs and establishing associated EQC for

this Plan are consistent with ANZG (2018), NRETAS (2010) and NTEPA (2013). The remainder of this

section outlines the approach taken in defining EQGs for each of the selected EQIs.

EQC are comprised of Environmental Quality Guidelines (EQGs) and more robust Environmental

Quality Standards (EQS) as defined below:

Environmental Quality Guidelines: EQG are threshold numerical values or narrative

statements which if met, indicate that there is a high degree of certainty that the associated

EQO has been achieved. If the EQG is not met, then there is uncertainty as to whether the

associated EQO has been achieved, and a more detailed assessment against an

‘Environmental Quality Standard’ (EQS) is triggered. This assessment is risk-based and

investigative in nature.

Environmental Quality Standards: EQS are threshold numerical values or narrative

statements that indicate a level beyond which there is a significant risk that the associated

EQO has not been achieved and a management response is triggered. The response would

normally focus on identifying the cause/source of the exceedance and eradicating or reducing

the contaminant of concern.

The interrelationship between EQGs and EQS with respect to risk based, tiered monitoring and

management response is described further in Section 4.4.3 and presented graphically in Figure 4-4.

The following section details how EQGs and EQS are derived and display the threshold values for each.

3.6.1. Environmental Quality Guidelines

Interim EQG applicable to the Darwin Processing Facility Project have been developed wherever

possible, using specific values as defined in NRETAS (2010) or applying the default guideline values

specified in ANZG (2018). In accordance with ANZG (2018), the intention is to develop site specific

EQG where default guideline values have been derived through assessment of baseline data collected

in accordance with this Plan. The proposed EQGs applicable to the four EQOs are presented in Table

3-5 and Table 3-6.

For the purposes of protecting the BUs ‘Aquaculture’ and ‘Cultural’ and their respective EQOs 2, 3 and

4, these will be considered to be met with respect to the proposed project if the EQC for EQO1 and BU

‘Environment’ are met. This approach has been adopted as the EQCs established for EQO1 are more

stringent than the typical values for EQOs 2, 3 and 4.

EQG have been derived for EQI constituents within the following groups:

Toxicants in water;

Nutrients in water;

Toxicants in sediments; and

Physico-chemical constituents in water.

The approach used to derive EQG for each EQIs is shown in Figure 3-3.


17WAU/007 / R190199

Figure 3-3 Summary of the approach used to define Environmental Quality Guidelines


17WAU/007 / R190199

Toxicants in Water

EQGs for toxicants in water were derived in accordance with the approach outlined in Figure 3-3 and

are presented in Table 3-5. Specifically, where possible EQG for toxicants in water were derived from

ANZG (2018) default value guidelines for 80%-90% and 95% SPL for the HD and SMD LEPs,

respectively. Upon completion of the baseline data collection phase, EQGs will be derived in

accordance with ANZG (2018) based on comparison against the 20th/80th and 10th/90th percentiles of

natural background concentrations and applied to SMD and HD LEP areas, respectively.

Nutrients in Water

EQG for nutrients in water were derived in accordance with the approach outlined in Figure 3-3 and

are presented in Table 3-5. Specifically, where possible EQG for nutrients in water were derived directly

from NRETAS (2010) Mid Estuary values for SMD systems. For HD systems EQG are proposed to be

based on comparison against the 80th percentile of natural background concentrations to be

established following completion of the baseline data collection phase.

Physico-chemical constituents in water

EQG for physico-chemical constituents in water were derived in accordance with the approach outlined

in Figure 3-3 and are presented in Table 3-5. EQG for physico-chemical constituents in water were

derived directly from NRETAS (2010) Mid Estuary values for SMD systems. For HD systems, or where

no values are provided, EQG are proposed to be based on comparison against the 80th percentile of

natural background concentrations to be established following completion of the baseline data collection

phase.

Table 3-5 Proposed Environmental Quality Guidelines for Water Quality

EQI Units EQG

HD1 SMD2

Toxicants – Metals and Metalloids

Aluminium (μg/L) NG NG

Arsenic (III/V) (μg/L) NG NG

Barium (μg/L) NG NG

Boron (μg/L) NG NG

Cadmium (μg/L) 14-36 5.5

Chlorine (Total Residual) (μg/L) NG 3

Chromium III (μg/L) 49-91 27

Chromium VI (μg/L) 20-85 4.4

Cobalt (μg/L) 14-150 1.0

Copper (μg/L) 3-8 1.3

Cyanide (μg/L) 7-14 7

Fluoride (μg/L) NG NG

Iron (μg/L) NG NG

Lead (μg/L) 6.6-12 4.4


17WAU/007 / R190199

EQI Units EQG

HD1 SMD2

Manganese (μg/L) NG NG

Magnesium (μg/L) NG NG

Mercury (μg/L) 0.7-1.4 0.4

Nickel (μg/L) 200-560 70

Selenium (μg/L) NG NG

Silver (μg/L) 1.8-2.6 1.4

Thallium (μg/L) NG 17

Tin (μg/L) NG 35

Titanium (μg/L) NG NG

Vanadium (μg/L) NG 100

Zinc (μg/L) 23-43 15

Toxicants – Organics

BTEX - Benzene

- Naphthalene

(μg/L) 900-1300

90-120

700

70

Formaldehyde (μg/L) NG NG

Phenol (μg/L) 520-720 400

TRH (μg/L) C6-C9: 25

C10-C14: 25

C15-C28: 100

C29-C36: 100

TRH: 250

C6-C9: 25

C10-C14: 25

C15-C28: 100

C29-C36: 100

TRH: 250

Sulphide (μg/L) NG 1

Sulphate (μg/L) NG NG

Nutrients

Total N (μg/L)

Median within 90th percentile of reference range

270

NOx (μg/L) 17

NH3-N (μg/L) 20

Total P (μg/L) 20

FRP (μg/L) 5

Physico-chemical

DO - Upper

- Lower

% Median within 90th percentile of reference range – upper and

lower

100

80

pH - Upper

- Lower

pH Units Median within 90th percentile of reference range – upper and

lower

8.8

7.0


17WAU/007 / R190199

EQI Units EQG

HD1 SMD2

Salinity - Upper

- Lower

uS/cm Median within 90th percentile of reference range - upper and

lower

Median within 80th percentile of reference range - upper

and lower

Chlorophyll a ug/L Median within 90th percentile of reference range

2

TSS mg/L Median within 90th percentile of reference range

6

Temperature °C Median within 90th percentile of reference range


Notes:

1 Where upper and lower range provided these are derived from 80% and 90% SPL from ANZG (2018) default

guideline values

2 All toxicant values derived from ANZG (2018) 95% SPL default guideline values, nutrients and physico-chemical

values derived from NRETAS (2010) Water Quality Guidelines. TRH do not have a TRH guideline so EQC is based

on the LOR and comparison with reference sites.

Toxicants in Sediments

EQG for toxicants in sediment were derived in accordance with the approach outlined in Figure 3-3

and are presented in are presented in Table 3-6. Specifically, where possible EQG for toxicants in water

were derived from ANZG (2018) default value guidelines. Upon completion of the baseline data

collection phase EQGs will be derived in accordance with ANZG (2018) based on comparison against

the 80th and 90th percentiles of natural background concentrations and applied to SMD and HD LEP

areas, respectively.

Table 3-6 Environmental Quality Guideline for Toxicants in Sediment

EQI Units EQG1

HD SMD

Aluminium mg/kg Median within 90th percentile of reference range


Arsenic (III/V) mg/kg 20 20

Barium mg/kg Median within 90th percentile of reference range


Boron mg/kg Median within 90th percentile of reference range


Cadmium mg/kg 1.5 1.5

Chromium (III/VI) mg/kg 80 80

Cobalt mg/kg Median within 90th percentile of reference range


Copper mg/kg 65 65

Iron mg/kg Median within 90th percentile of reference range


Lead mg/kg 50 50


17WAU/007 / R190199

EQI Units EQG1

HD SMD

Magnesium Median within 90th percentile of reference range


Manganese mg/kg Median within 90th percentile of reference range


Mercury mg/kg 0.15 0.15

Nickel mg/kg 21 21

Selenium mg/kg Median within 90th percentile of reference range


Silver mg/kg 1.0 1.0

Thallium mg/kg Median within 90th percentile of reference range


Tin mg/kg Median within 90th percentile of reference range


Titanium mg/kg Median within 90th percentile of reference range


Vanadium mg/kg Median within 90th percentile of reference range


Zinc mg/kg 200 200

TRH mg/kg C6-C9: 25

C10-C14: 25

C15-C28: 100

C29-C36: 100

TRH: 250

Notes:

1 All toxicant values derived from ANZG (2018) default guideline values. TRH do not have a TRH guideline so EQC

is based on the LOR and comparison with reference sites.

3.6.2. Environmental Quality Standards

The establishment of EQS typically require a robust understanding of the spatial and temporal variation

of the indicators selected through which EQOs can be measured against to ensure the protection of

BUs. This information is currently limited upon which to derive scientifically robust values with the

exception of nutrients and physico-chemical constituents whereby EQS for Water Quality are based

upon the Water Quality Objectives, where applicable, as defined within NRETAS (2010). Where

applicable these EQS have been applied for the SMD LEP. In accordance with ANZG (2018) the

intention is to develop site specific EQS where currently no values have been applied through

assessment of baseline data collected in accordance with this Plan. EQS are typically only applied at

the HD/SMD LEP boundary and to SMD zones and are therefore not defined for HD LEP for most EQIs.

The proposed EQS applicable to the four EQOs are presented in Table 3-9 and Table 3-8.

Four EQOs have been developed for the protection of the three BUs (Table 3-1). As with the EQGs,

EQS are typically relevant to EQO1, as the BUs ‘Aquaculture’ and ‘Cultural’ and their respective EQOs

2, 3 and 4 will typically be met if EQC for BU ‘Environment’ and EQO1 are met. However, ANZG (2018)

and NRETAS (2010) provide guidance for the development of EQS to achieve the EQOs for Aquatic

Food Collection (EQO4) and Aquaculture (EQO2) through measuring toxicants in biota.


17WAU/007 / R190199

Whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing results are not yet available for interpretation and application to

the development of specific EQS, however Section 4.3.4 defines the process of collecting WET testing

results and their application to establishing EQS.

EQS have been derived for EQI constituents within the following groups:

Elutriate and ecotoxicity testing;

Toxicants in biota;

Nutrients in Water;

Physico-chemical constituents in water;

Marine fauna;

Odour; and

Visual oil/grease.

The approach used to derive EQS for each EQIs is shown in Figure 3-4.

Figure 3-4 Summary of the approach used to define Environmental Quality Standards

Observational Indicators

The following EQS are designed to ensure that the BUs for Environmental and Cultural and their

respective EQOs are not compromised by indicators which are easily observable. These EQS are

presented in Table 3-7.


17WAU/007 / R190199

Table 3-7 Environmental Quality Standards for Observational indicators

EQI Units EQS

Odour Public complaints

No. reported incidents logged in internal

management system

There should be no objectionable odour.

Oil/Grease Public complaints


management system

Oil and petrochemicals should not be noticeable as a visible film on the water nor should they be detectable by odour.

Surface slicks/rubbish Water surfaces should be free of floating debris, dust and other objectionable matter, including substances that cause foaming.

Marine Fauna

EQS for assessing the effects upon animal species or community groups which are susceptible to the

slightest change in stressors are presented in Table 3-8. EQS to determine animal species abundance

should use suitable reference sites to compare the natural condition of habitats with impact sites and

includes measurement of species diversity within communities.

Table 3-8 Environmental Quality Standards for Marine Fauna

EQI Units EQS

Faunal Deaths No. of deaths

Public complaints


management system

There should be no reported incidents of large-scale deaths of marine organisms resulting from un-natural causes

Aquatic Health – Benthic Infauna

No. Organisms/m3

No. Species

Maintain abundance and species diversity at >95% pre-project baseline levels

Maintain protection of >95% of pre-project species diversity

Intertidal Invertebrates No. Organisms/m3

No. Burrows/m3

Maintain organism abundance at >95% pre-project baseline levels

Maintain burrow abundance at >95% pre-project baseline levels

Nutrients and Physico-chemical Constituents in Water

EQS for nutrients and physico-chemical constituents in water were derived in accordance with the

approach outlined in Figure 3-4 and are presented in Table 3-9. Specifically, EQS for nutrients and

physico-chemical constituents in water were derived directly from NRETAS (2010) Mid Estuary values

for SMD systems. No EQS are established for the HD LEP.


17WAU/007 / R190199

Table 3-9 Environmental Quality Standards for Nutrients and Physico-chemical constituents as defined by Water

Quality Objective derived from NRETAS (2010). ND identifies Water Quality Standards not yet defined.

Indicator WQS1

Nutrients

Total N Maintain TN <270 ug/L

NOx Maintain NOx <20 ug/L

NH3-N Maintain Ammonia <20 ug/L

Total P Maintain TP <20 ug/L

FRP Maintain FRP <5 ug/L

Physico-chemical constituents

DO Maintain DO between 80-100% saturation

pH Maintain pH between 7.0-8.5

Chlorophyll a Maintain Chl a <2 ug/L

TSS Maintain TSS 10 mg/L

Notes:

1 All values derived from NRETAS (2010) Water Quality Objectives – Table 8.

Elutriate and Ecotoxicity

Elevated toxicants in sediment will generally be present in a variety of forms, but only the bioavailable

fraction will impact organisms. Elutriate testing and/or bioavailability testing assesses impacts to water

quality. EQS for elutriate and bioavailability testing are established in each LEP area as the ANZG

(2018) 80% SPL and default guideline values for sediments, respectively. If values of the test results

are greater than the 80% SPL or default guideline values (DGV) of ANZG (2018) as shown in Table

3-10 further ecotoxicity or bioaccumulation testing may be required.

Acute and chronic toxicity testing is undertaken when results indicate that water and sediments are

potentially toxic. If bioaccumulating substances are present above the 80%SPL, DGV or DGV-High

levels ANZG (2018) and presented in Table 3-10, bioaccumulation tests are required. Toxicity testing

and bioaccumulation testing involves exposing a minimum of three organisms relevant to Darwin

Harbour ecosystem to different concentrations of potentially toxic water and sediments and measuring

the effect on the test organisms’ ability to survive, grow and reproduce. No EQS apply for the HD LEP.

The EQS for toxicity and bioaccumulation testing is identified for all areas where toxicity is rated as very

significant or significant in any of the tests on any of the samples as shown in Table 3-11.


17WAU/007 / R190199

Table 3-10 Environmental Quality Standards for elutriate and/or bioavailability testing. NG identified that no

guideline has been established.

EQI

EQS1

Elutriate (ug/L) Bioavailability (mg/kg)

80% SPL DGV DGV-H

Aluminium NG Median within 80th percentile of reference range

NG

Arsenic (III/V) NG 20 70

Barium NG Median within 80th percentile of reference range

NG

Boron NG Median within 80th percentile of reference range

NG

Cadmium 36 1.5 10

Chromium (III/VI) 91 (III)

85 (VI)

80 370

Cobalt 150 Median within 80th percentile of reference range

NG

Copper 8 65 270

Iron NG Median within 80th percentile of reference range

NG

Lead 12 50 220

Magnesium NG Median within 80th percentile of reference range

NG

Manganese NG Median within 80th percentile of reference range

NG

Mercury 1.4 0.15 1.0

Nickel 560 21 52

Selenium NG Median within 80th percentile of reference range

NG

Silver 2.6 1.0 4.0

Thallium NG Median within 80th percentile of reference range

NG

Tin NG Median within 80th percentile of reference range

NG

Titanium NG Median within 80th percentile of reference range

NG

Vanadium NG Median within 80th percentile of reference range

NG

Zinc 43 200 410

TRH C6-C9: 25

C10-C14: 25

C15-C28: 100

C29-C36: 100

TRH: 250

C6-C9: 25

C10-C14: 25

C15-C28: 100

C29-C36: 100

TRH: 250

NG

Notes:

1 All toxicant values derived from ANZG (2018) default guideline values. TRH do not have a TRH guideline so EQC is based on the

LOR and comparison with reference sites. EQS for elutriate teats are based upon the 80% SPL.


17WAU/007 / R190199

Table 3-11 Environmental Quality Standards for elutriate and toxicity testing

Constituents Units EQS

HD SMD

Elevated toxicants in sediment (Elutriate testing)

ug/L HD LEP Refer Table 3-5 SMD LEP Refer Table 3-5

Elevated toxicants in sediments (bioavailability testing)

mg/kg HD LEP Refer Table 3-6 SMD LEP Refer Table 3-6

Elevated toxicants in water and sediments (for ecotoxicity and bioaccumulation testing)

Statistical Test Results

(P-Value)

No EQS Apply Any concentrations > controls (treatments or sites)

Toxicants in Biota

Toxicants in biota refer to the accumulation of toxic chemicals in an organism, commonly referred to as

bioaccumulation. Bioaccumulation occurs when an organism absorbs a possibly toxic substance at a

faster rate than that at which the substance is lost. Thus, the longer the biological half-life of a toxic

substance the greater the risk of chronic poisoning, even if the environmental levels of the toxin are not

very high.

EQS for toxicants in biota are presented in Table 3-12. These EQS are derived from the Food

Standards Australia and New Zealand series of codes where applicable to seafood. These EQS are

derived in order to provide a measure of the certainty around the BUs ‘Aquaculture’ and ‘Cultural’ to

ensure that seafood either grown or caught within the SMD LEP are suitable for safe human

consumption. The EQS for toxicants in biota should use suitable reference sites to collect biota to

assess the natural levels of toxicants for comparison with impact sites.

Table 3-12 Environmental Quality Standards for toxicants in biota

Indicator Units WQS

Mollusc Fish Crustacean

Bioaccumulation/bioconcentration

of toxicants

mg/kg Median within 80th percentile of reference

range

Median within 80th percentile of reference

range

Median within 80th percentile of reference

range

Inorganic Arsenic

mg/kg 1.01 2.0 2.0

Cadmium mg/kg 2.02

Copper4 mg/kg 30 2.0 20

Lead mg/kg 2.0 0.5

Mercury3 mg/kg 0.5 1.0

Selenium4 mg/kg 1.0 1.0 2.0

Zinc4 mg/kg 2905 15 40

Notes:

1 Value for inorganic arsenic includes seaweed.

2 Excludes queen scallops and bluff oysters.

3 Standard 1.4.1 clause 6 of the revised Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code outlines protocols for sampling and comparing results against the food standards for mercury. Applicable to rays, sharks and barramundi only.


17WAU/007 / R190199

4 Generally Expected Levels (GELs) provided by FSANZ in the document Generally Expected Levels (GELs) for Metal Contaminants: Additional guidelines to maximum levels in Standard 1.4.1 – Contaminants and Natural Toxicants

5 Applies to oysters only


17WAU/007 / R190199

4. Monitoring and Management

To ensure that defined BUs and EQOs are not compromised through construction, commissioning and

routine operation of the Darwin Processing Facility a comprehensive monitoring and management

program is proposed. The elements of the monitoring and management program as they relate to

potential marine environmental quality impacts from the Darwin Processing Facility are defined in Table

4-1.

Table 4-1 Elements of the Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring and Management

Element Sub-Elements Rationale

Pre-Project Baseline Monitoring

Water Quality Monitoring

Sediment Quality Monitoring

Benthic infauna

Aesthetic Observation

To collect sufficient spatial and temporal data with a high level of replication from which site specific EQGs and EQS will be derived where no guidelines currently exist.

Potential Project impacts have been identified to water and sediment quality, so monitoring has been designed in accordance with ANZG (2018) protocols for monitoring and assessment of these values.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Commissioning

Wastewater discharge quality

Wastewater discharge flowrate

To implement a monitoring and management program for treatment plant commissioning that meets marine environmental quality expectations, whilst providing flexibility during the initial stages of the treatment process to allow a staggered start up and optimisation process.

This program targets the actual water quality being discharged to ensure that the design specifications are being achieved. If water quality of the discharge is achieved, then it is assumed that the EQC within each LEP will be achieved (Note: the below program will validate this assumption)

Marine Environmental Quality Validation

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing

To identify the actual toxicity of the wastewater discharge on local native species.

These results will be used with other monitoring results to validate modelled impact predictions and verify the LEPs and EQCs.

Wastewater Validation Testing

To ensure that the design criteria of the wastewater discharge are being met once routine operations have been established.

These results will be used with other monitoring results to validate modelled impact predictions and verify the LEPs and EQCs.

Model and EQC Validation To provide an assessment of whether the defined EQCs are being met at their respective LEPs and determine if the modelled wastewater constituent concentrations and predicted dilutions are being achieved at the HD-SMD LEP boundary during routine operations.

These results will be used with other monitoring results to validate modelled impact predictions and verify the LEPs and EQCs

Routine Operational Performance Assessment

Treated Water Discharge Quality

To ensure that design specifications for wastewater discharge constituents, as defined through Wastewater Validation Testing, are being achieved through the lifecycle of the Project.

Ongoing Marine Environmental Quality

To verify that impacts from operational activities associated with the Darwin Processing Facility, such as ocean outfall, stormwater runoff or groundwater flows, do not impact marine environmental quality outside the limits of acceptable ecological change associated with the defined LEPs.

The following sections provide a detailed description of the monitoring and management requirements

for each element, including marine environmental quality monitoring, assessment and reporting along

with an overview of required contingency management actions.


17WAU/007 / R190199

Pre-Project Baseline Monitoring

4.1.1. Context

In order to be able to determine impacts upon marine environmental quality from the Darwin Processing

Facility a comprehensive set of EQCs needs to be defined that are specific to the local area within

which the Project will be situated. The pre-project baseline monitoring program aims to collect data from

the local marine environment with which to derive site specific EQCs for which actual Project impacts

can be measured against during commissioning and routine operations. This program is typically

comprised of the following sub-monitoring elements:

Marine Water Quality Monitoring;

Marine Sediments Quality Monitoring;

Benthic Infauna; and

Aesthetic Observations

4.1.2. Purpose

The purpose of this element is to collect sufficient spatial and temporal data with a high level of

replication from which site specific EQGs and EQS will be derived where no guidelines currently exist,

or where default guidelines have bene derived from relevant NT or Australian guidelines. The updated

EQGs and EQS will then be used to define marine environmental performance of the Darwin Processing

Facility during commissioning and routine operations. In accordance with ANZG (2018) a two-year

monitoring timeframe is required to provide a suitable data set for the intended purpose.

This phase will also allow the fine tuning of sampling methodology to ensure the described practices

are effective when applied under field situations. Any lessons learnt, or alterations to the defined

methodologies will need to be included into a revised version of this MEQMMP.

4.1.3. Pre-Project Baseline Monitoring Program

Sampling Design

Table 4-2 provides a summary of the proposed sampling frequency. Where practical, sampling should

be undertaken on or near to the same date each month/year to allow for consistent comparison of

seasonal trends. Sampling frequency has been determined based on the recommended number of

samples and sample collection frequency specified in ANZG (2018).

Table 4-2 Monitoring Frequency for the Proposed Phase I Baseline data collection

Monitoring Event Frequency Period No. of Sampling Rounds

No. of Samples Collected

Water Sampling Monthly 2 years 24 384

Physico-chemical Profiling Monthly 2 years 24 384

Sediment Sampling Annual 2 years 2 32

Benthic Infauna Annual 2 years 2 32

Aesthetic Observations Monthly 2 years 24 384


17WAU/007 / R190199

The program includes a total of 16 marine environmental quality monitoring locations, including:

Four (4) sites in the HD mixing zone LEP;

Four (4) sites at the HD-SMD LEP boundary;

Four (4) sites adjacent to the project footprint; and

Four (4) sites in SMD LEP (Reference sites).

Details of the 16 monitoring locations and associated routine sampling tasks to be completed at each

location are presented in Table 4-3 and displayed in Figure 4-1.


17WAU/007 / R190199

Table 4-3 Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring Locations and Associated Routine Sampling Tasks

Site

Name Site Reference

Level of

Ecological

Protection

Easting Northing

Routine Sampling Tasks

Aesth

eti

c

Ob

serv

ati

on

s

Ph

ysic

o-c

hem

ical

Wate

r C

olu

mn

Pro

fili

ng

G

en

era

l W

ate

r

Sam

ple

An

aly

sis

Sed

imen

t S

am

plin

g

Ben

hth

ic in

fau

na

OF1-4

These four sites are located within the HD LEP positioned at equal distances between the diffuser and the SMD/HD LEP boundary to the north, east, south

and west.

HD

707936.24E

707986.93E

708011.48E

707988.16E

8617567.77N

8617594.18N

8617566.64N

8617543.20N

X X X X X

BD1-4

These four sites are located along the boundary between the HD and the SMD LEPs representing the

north, east, south and west borders. SMD

707891.28E

707960.19E

708027.07E

707955.89E

8617577.52N

8617631.04N

8617569.50N

8617519.10N

X X X X X

IMP1-4 These four sites are located in the marine environment

directly adjacent to the project footprint. SMD

713744.08E

714552.16E 712531.29E 712449.71E

8613444.22N

8612901.35N 8613598.03N 8612282.02N

X X X X X

REF1-4

REF 1 & 2 are located within East Arm in location unaffected by the discharge as identified by predictive modelling (Baird 2019). These are reference sites for

the outfall monitoring component.

REF 3 & 4 are located within Elizabeth River upstream and downstream of the Project in similar environments. These sites act as reference location for the operational

impact monitoring component.

These four sites are located ~ XXX km within East Arm/Elizabeth River to the west and east of the diffuser

within the SMD LEP.

SMD

716506.87E

710445.59E

709740.74E

704833.12E

8611149.30N

8614453.07N

8617201.06N

8616868.36N

X X X X X


17WAU/007 / R190199

Figure 4-1 Proposed Pre-Project Baseline Marine Environmental Monitoring Locations


17WAU/007 / R190199

Sampling Methodology

Observations

General Observations

The following field observations are to be recorded at each site during each sampling event:

Date and time of sampling at each location;

Person conducting sampling;

Site reference;

GPS coordinates of sampling location;

Tides and water depth at the time of sampling;

Wind speed (km/hr) and direction;

Air temperature (oC) – recorded using a digital thermometer;

Sea state (i.e. wave and swell heights); and

General weather conditions (rain, storms, cloud cover, etc).

Digital photographs should also be taken throughout the monitoring event as weather conditions change

and as required to document any notable site observations. Field logs are to be scanned and saved in

TNG’s records management system and attached as an appendix in the quarterly and annual reports.

Aesthetic Observations

At each sampling location, observations of aesthetic water quality parameters should be recorded for

each of the quick reference guide categories provided in Table 4-4. Aesthetic observations are to

consider waters within an approximate 50 metre radius of the survey vessel.

Table 4-4 Aesthetic observations quick reference guide

Parameter REF 1 2 3 4 5

Nuisance organisms (Surface coverage %) A Nil 1-10 11-50 51-80 100+

Large-scale deaths (Marine fauna) B Nil 1-10 11-51 51-81 100+

Oil/Film (Surface coverage) C Nil 1-10% 11-50% 51-80% 81-100%

Natural reflectance (Diminished) E 81-100% 51-80% 11-50% 1-10% Nil

Objectionable odour F Nil Slight Moderate Strong Offensive

Floating debris, rubbish, surface slicks

(Surface coverage %) G Nil 1-10 11-50 51-80 100+

Water Quality Sampling and Analysis

Physico-chemical Water Column Profiles

A pre-calibrated Water Quality Sonde will be used to collect physico-chemical water quality profiles at

all 16 sampling locations. Physico-chemical water quality profiles will be sampled on incoming and


17WAU/007 / R190199

outgoing tides at each location to ascertain the natural variability experienced. As a minimum, the

following parameters should be measured at 0.5 metre (m) intervals throughout the water column:

Depth (m);

Water temperature (oC);

pH;

Salinity (ppt);

Turbidity (NTU); and

Dissolved oxygen (% saturation & mg/L).

All recorded measurements will be stored on the sonde hand-held unit and downloaded to a secure

server within 24 hours. The data should be immediately assessed to ensure validity and, any erroneous

data should be removed from the analysis as appropriate.

Water Sample Collection

Water samples will be collected at all 16 sampling locations. Water samples will be collected using a

depth-integrated water sampler1 to pump the required volume of water evenly from the water column

between 0.5 m below the surface to 0.5 m above the seabed.

The water sampler will be rinsed with Decon solution (or equivalent) between samples. Water samples

will be collected in suitable (laboratory supplied) bottles and immediately stored on ice for transport to

a National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) accredited laboratory for analysis.

All sample containers will be marked with a unique identifier, the date/time and the sampler’s name and

clarification that the samples are marine water using a waterproof permanent maker. All samples will

then be listed on a Chain of Custody (CoC) form to be included with the samples sent to the laboratories.

Laboratory Analysis

General water sample analysis will be performed on samples collected from all 16 routine monitoring

locations. These samples are required to be analysed by a NATA-accredited laboratory for toxicants,

nutrients and chlorophyll-α. The full analytical suite required is presented as the EQIs listed within Table

3-5 of the MEQMMP.

Field Quality Assurance & Quality Control

All water quality meters are to be in calibration. If monitoring equipment is hired, calibration certificates

are to be provided from the supplier. Calibration records are to be saved and attached as an appendix

to compliance reports.

The following Quality Assurance & Quality Control (QA/QC) Samples should be collected as described

below:

A duplicate sample is to be collected at the same site as two (2) of the primary monitoring

samples. The purpose of the sample is to confirm that the primary laboratory is able to

produce consistent results when analysing the same sample. The site where it was taken is to

1 If a depth-integrated water sampler is not available, a niskin bottle (or equivalent) may be used to sample at surface,

middle and bottom.


17WAU/007 / R190199

be recorded but not reported to the laboratory. Ideally it should be collected at a site that is

expected to have higher levels of contamination (based on historic data and potential sources

of contamination) as this will confirm a wider range of analytes and reduce the level of

instrument error when comparing larger concentrations.

A field split sample is collected at the same site as the duplicates and sent to a secondary

laboratory for analysis. The purpose of this sample is to confirm that intra-laboratory analysis

of the sample produces consistent results.

A rinsate sample is collected to confirm that cross contamination doesn’t occur during the

sampling processes in the field. The rinsate sample should be taken after the decontamination

process of the sample collection container by running deionised water over the container and

collecting it in laboratory provided bottles.

Laboratory Quality Assurance & Quality Control

Laboratories used for water sample analysis must be NATA accredited. Comprehensive QA/QC testing

of water samples should be undertaken in accordance with NATA accreditation and include testing of

laboratory control samples, method blanks, matrix spikes, laboratory duplicates and surrogate recovery

outliers (where applicable).

Sediment Quality Sampling and Analysis

Sample Collection

Sediment samples will be collected at all 16 routine sampling locations. Sediment samples will be

collected using a ‘Van Veen’ grab or equivalent. The grab, plastic tray and other equipment in contact

with the sediment will be rinsed with Decon solution and seawater prior to sampling each site to reduce

potential for contamination. Where insufficient sediment is collected (i.e. less than 1/3rd of grab

volume), the grab will be required to be redeployed. Estimate and record the volume of sediment

collected and empty the grab into a plastic tray to mix and homogenise the sediment. Photograph each

sample once emptied into the plastic tray. Place sample into appropriate sample jars/ containers

provided by laboratory. Containers should be refrigerated or placed into an esky with ice bricks before

frozen at the completion of each sampling day and sent to a NATA approved laboratory.

All sample containers will be marked with a unique identifier, the date/time and the sampler’s name and

clarification that the samples are marine water using a ‘Wet-write’ permanent maker. All samples will

then be listed on a CoC form which will accompany the samples sent to the laboratories.

Laboratory Analysis

Sediment quality sample analysis will be performed on samples collected from all 16 routine monitoring

locations. These samples are required to be analysed by a NATA-accredited laboratory for toxicants.

The toxicological analytical suite is presented within Table 3-6 of the MEQMMP.

Field Quality Assurance & Quality Control

Disposable nitrile gloves should be used during handling of the sediment sample and all equipment in

contact with the sediment should be washed down with Decon solution prior to each sample being

taken. The following QA/QC Samples should be collected as described below:


17WAU/007 / R190199

Triplicate samples (i.e. three separate samples taken with the sediment grab at the same

location) should be taken at two (2) site to determine the variability of the sediment physical

and chemical characteristics.

A field split sample (i.e. one sediment grab sample thoroughly mixed and then split into three

sub-samples) should be collected at collected at one (1) site to assess inter and intra-

laboratory variation, with one of the three samples sent to a second laboratory.

A transport blank (acid-washed silica sand) in a sealed jar should be provided by the

laboratory and taken to site but not opened. The transport blank is sent back to the laboratory

with the other samples and analysed. This blank is used to assess if any contamination is

already present in the acid-washed sand or container.

A method blank (acid-washed silica sand) should be used to assess the potential for

contamination during the sampling process. The method blank should be placed into the ‘van

Veen’ grab and processed identically to the usual sediment samples. The method blank

should be sent to the laboratory and analysed with the other samples to assess presence of

contamination during the processing procedures.

Laboratory Quality Assurance & Quality Control

Laboratories used for sediment toxicity sample analysis must be NATA accredited. Comprehensive

QA/QC testing of sediment samples should be undertaken in accordance with NATA accreditation and

include testing of laboratory control samples, method blanks, matrix spikes, laboratory duplicates and

surrogate recovery outliers (where applicable).

Benthic Infauna

Sample Collection

Sediment samples for benthic infauna analysis will be collected at all 16 locations. Sediment recovery

methods will be the same as the sediment quality recovery methods described above. Three (3)

individual sediment grabs will be required to provide the volume and statistical replication required for

adequate analysis of benthic infauna.

The following sample process/collection steps will occur:

Once the sample has been recovered it will be released from the grab sampler into a suitable

collection tray

Sieve the sediment through a 500 μm sieve using either the saltwater deck wash to remove

fine sediment; and

All material retained on the sieve, such as coarse sediment and benthic infauna, will be

carefully rinsed into two pre-labelled 2kg zip-lock bags and preserved with 95-100% ethanol

solution.

This process will be replicated for three (3) individual sediment grabs at each of the benthic infauna

sediment sampling sites.

Equipment required for the benthic infauna sediment sampling includes the following:

Petite Ponar Grab;

Deck winch;


17WAU/007 / R190199

Deck wash hose;

Sample collection tray;

Funnel (x2)

500 μm sieve box;

2kg zip lock sample bags;

Washing bottles;

Decon 90; and

95-100% Ethanol solution.

Sample Preservation, Storage and Holding Times

The Limit of Reporting (LoR), preservation, storage & holding time requirements for each of the

parameters for laboratory analysis is summarised in Table 4-5. The LoRs may be presented to the

laboratory as a minimum value they are required to meet.

Table 4-5 Limit of Reporting (LoR), storage and holding time requirements for water and sediment quality

laboratory analysis parameters.

Constituent LoR Sample holding

times

Sample storage

Water Quality Parameter

Chlorophyll-α 1 μg/L 48 hours Refrigerate.

U/T Nutrient samples must be Frozen if >24

hours before laboratory analysis

Total Nitrogen (Ultra Trace) 50 μg/L 28 days

Total Phosphorus (Ultra Trace) 5 μg/L N/A

Nitrate/Nitrite (Ultra Trace) 2 μg/L 2 days

Ammonia (Ultra Trace) 5 μg/L 24 hours

FRP 5 μg/L N/A

Metals (Cd, Cr III/VI, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb, Se, V); 1 μg/L 6 months

Metals (As III/V) 3 μg/L 6 months

Metals (Fe, Tl) 5 μg/L 6 months

Metals (Hg, Ag) 0.3 μg/L 6 months

Metals (Sn, Ti) 10 μg/L 6 months

Metals (Ba) 50 ug/L 6 months

Metals (Al, Bo, Mg, Zn) 100 ug/L 6 months

TRH (C10-C36) and

TPH (C10-C40)

10-80 μg/L 14 days

BTEXn 1-5 μg/L 14 days

Free Chloride 1 mg/L N/A

Cyanide 5 μg/L 14 Days

Fluoride 100 μg/L 28 Days

Formaldehyde 100 μg/L 14 Days


17WAU/007 / R190199

Constituent LoR Sample holding

times

Sample storage

Sulphide 50 μg/L 7 Days

Sulphate 1000 μg/L 28 Days

Phenol (total) 50 μg/L 28 Days

Sediment Quality Parameter

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 0.0002 mg/kg

(0.02%)

180 days frozen Refrigerate. Freeze if >24 hours before laboratory analysis

TRH (C10-C36) and TPH (C10-C40) 3-5 mg/kg per

fraction

Not specified

BTEXn 0.2-1 mg/kg 14 days

Metals (Ag, As, Ba, Bo, Cd, Cr III/IV, Cu, Mg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Ti, Tl, V, Zn)

0.1-10 mg/kg 6 months

Metals (Al, Fe) 50 mg/kg

6 months

Metals (Hg) 0.01 mg/kg 56 days

Benthic Infauna

Benthic infauna N/A N/A Frozen and preserved with 95-100% ethanol

4.1.4. Data Assessment and Reporting

Data Validation

All data is required to be validated prior to the release of any monitoring reports to confirm that data

has been entered correctly. Data entry is to be checked and verified against raw data logs and

laboratory reports by an independent person.

Quality Control

An assessment of quality control data needs to be undertaken and included in all reports including:

Assessment of field contamination (rinsate, transport blank and method blank);

Assessment of field variability (duplicate and triplicate);

Assessment of lab variability (triplicate); and

Laboratory QA/QC results.

Data Assessment

During this phase no, commissioning or project related operational activities will occur. Therefore, data

collected will not be required to be assessed against the EQCs identified within Section 3.6 to interpret

if BUs and EQOs are being compromised.

At the completion of the two year baseline data collection period a review of the baseline data will be

undertaken to derive and determine site specific EQC for the HD and SMD LEP areas in accordance


17WAU/007 / R190199

with the process outlined in the EQMF (Section 3). Site specific EQC will be incorporated into a revised

version of this MEQMMP once defined.

Reporting

At the completion of each sampling round a brief summary report will be submitted outlining the results

obtained.

A comprehensive report will be compiled at the completion of the two-year data collection period which

will include, but not be limited to:

Summary of the methods applied and any deviations from this MEQMMP;

Timeseries graphs of physicochemical water column profiles;

A table summarising laboratory analysis results;

Timeseries graphs of laboratory analysis results;

An assessment of all data collected against the EQCs;

Presentation of the calculated site specific EQG and EQS in accordance with ANZG (2018);

and

Any actions or recommendations required as a result of field implementation of the Sampling

and Analysis Plan (SAP) and assessment of monitoring data.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Commissioning

4.2.1. Context

In order to gradually run the water treatment process in and bring treatment up to optimal design

specifications, a period of commissioning will be required. During commissioning it is possible that the

wastewater being discharged will not meet the design criteria which was initially used to model the

dilutions and recirculation in order to establish an appropriate mixing zone (HD LEP). The end of the

commissioning period will be determined when engineering and monitoring confirm typical operating

conditions have been achieved for all plant, facilities and associated infrastructure.

Management during commissioning is focused on achieving the desired level of treatment to ensure

constituents within treated wastewater are within the designed specifications. Where desired levels are

not being achieved contingency actions will be put in place to ensure the permanent wastewater

treatment processes are optimised prior to completion of commissioning. These actions that are

implemented during commissioning will ensure that the end point for routine operations is a treatment

process that meets or exceeds the expected targets.

4.2.2. Purpose

The purpose of commissioning monitoring and management is to design a process that meets marine

environmental quality expectations, whilst providing flexibility during the initial stages of the treatment

process to allow a staggered start up and optimisation process. Management triggers have been

designed which provide assurance around protecting marine environmental value, but also to prompt

contingency management responses that alterations to the process, design or operations of the plant

are put into place during this period, thus reducing the potential for long-term issues.


17WAU/007 / R190199

4.2.3. Management Triggers

In order to achieve the purpose, two levels of management triggers have been established which will

inform Management when contingency measures need to be put into place to ensure the treatment

process meets the design specifications. Contingency measures are identified in Section 4.2.6 and are

typically based upon conducting an investigation into the reason why a management trigger was

exceeded and putting appropriate corrective actions in place to reduce re-occurrence and where

possible rectify the situation to ensure optimisation of the process prior to completion of commissioning.

The two levels of management triggers are based upon the maximum instantaneous flow rate and the

maximum predicted design concentration for constituents within the wastewater.

Additional management trigger levels are applicable to the HD / SMD boundary, however these are

detailed within Section 4.2.6.

Management Trigger 1

Management trigger 1 is based upon the maximum instantaneous flow rate of 0.89 m3 during each

discharge period.

The management trigger level will be exceeded if the maximum instantaneous flow rate is exceeded,

thus enacting contingency management as described in Section 4.2.6.


Management trigger 2 is based upon maximum discharge concentrations.

Management trigger 2 values are based upon the maximum expected constituent concentration within

the treated wastewater. These values are to be set at 100% of the expected concentrations. As the

design of the treatment process becomes more detailed these management triggers may be adjusted

according to process improvements which may result in lower design levels for some constituents.

Adjusted management trigger levels will be revised accordingly prior to commissioning to ensure they

are appropriately set. If any management triggers are breached contingency management as described

in Section 4.2.6 will be required.

Management trigger 2 values are defined in Table 2-2.

4.2.4. Wastewater Treatment Plant Commissioning Monitoring Program

WWTP commissioning monitoring will require continuous flow rate monitoring during discharge and

water samples to be collected from the treated water discharge sump outlet weekly.

Two duplicate water samples will be collected each week from the treated wastewater sump directly

prior to discharge. Samples will be collected in accordance with ANZG (2018) requirements for water

quality sampling. QA/QC samples will require a transport blank.

Physico-chemical readings will be taken in-situ with a suitable and calibrated water quality sensor.

Results will be backed up within 24 hours of collection.

Water samples will be sent to a NATA accredited laboratory for analysis and reporting for all water

constituents described in Table 2-2. Laboratory QA/QC requirements will be undertaken in accordance

with the NATA accreditation and reported with the sample results.


17WAU/007 / R190199

4.2.5. Data Assessment and Reporting

Data Validation and Quality Control





Assessment of field contamination (transport blank);

Assessment of variability (replicate);


Data Assessment

Laboratory analysed samples and physico chemical results will be compared with the previously defined

management triggers as soon as practicable. Any elevation will require contingency actions as

described in Section 4.2.6 to be implemented.

Reporting

At the completion of each sampling round a validated laboratory report and interpreted tabulated data

will be submitted to TNG.

An investigation report will be compiled in accordance with TNG Environmental Management System

for any elevated results which requires investigation. Submission to the regulator will be subject to

project approval conditions.

A comprehensive report will be developed at the completion of the commissioning phase which will

include, but not be limited to:





An assessment of all data collected against management triggers;

A review of management trigger exceedances investigations and remedial actions

implemented; and

Any actions or recommendations required as a result of field implementation of the SAP and

assessment of monitoring data.

4.2.6. Contingency Management during Commissioning

In the event that the treatment process is not meeting the desired management trigger levels a range

of operational and design solutions will be investigated. Firstly, depending upon the exceedance, an

investigation needs to be undertaken to determine the cause(s). Once the cause(s) is determined then

appropriate corrective or preventative actions need to be put into place to ensure re-occurrence does

not occur. This system of investigation and implementation of remedial actions will ensure that during


17WAU/007 / R190199

the commissioning phase all possible design modifications are put into place to ensure optimal

performance of the process at the completion of commissioning.

There are several potential operational and design solutions which may be used as contingency

measures in response to management trigger exceedances. Figure 4-2 provides an overview of the

contingency response and management framework to be applied during commissioning of the

wastewater treatment facility.

Figure 4-2 Contingency management framework during wastewater treatment facility commissioning

Marine Environmental Quality Validation

4.3.1. Context

To determine the actual impacts from project related activities a comprehensive marine environmental

quality validation monitoring and management program has been designed. This program is broken

into several smaller components which each have different objectives, methodologies and contingency

actions. These components are:

Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing to determine discharge toxicity;

Effluent validation monitoring to characterise the wastewater discharge against design; and

EQC and modelling validation monitoring within each LEP and at the boundary between the

HD and SMD where the designated mixing zone ends.


17WAU/007 / R190199

Management during validation is focused on ensuring that the predicted levels of impact and defined

LEPs are being achieved and therefore protecting the associated BUs and EQOs. Where desired levels

are not being achieved contingency actions will be put in place to ensure the permanent wastewater

treatment processes are optimised for routine operations and the treatment process either meets or

exceeds the expected design targets.

4.3.2. Purpose

The purpose of wastewater quality validation monitoring and management is to ensure that the

predicted modelling impacts are accurate (model validation) and that actual impacts of the approved

project are within the limits of the defined sites specific EQC. This will ensure that the defined BUs and

EQOs are not compromised through operational activities associated with the Darwin Processing

Facility once typical conditions have been reached (i.e. completion of the commissioning phase).

To achieve the purpose the wastewater quality validation is broken into the following three programs:

1. Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing to determine actual toxicity;

2. Wastewater validation testing to characterise the wastewater from the treatment plant; and

3. EQC validation monitoring at strategically positioned sampling locations within each LEP and

at the boundary of the designated mixing zone to ensure marine environmental quality is

commensurate with the allocated LEP.


In order to achieve the purpose, three levels of management triggers have been established which will

inform Management when contingency measures need to be put into place to ensure the treatment

process meets the design specifications. Contingency measures specific to each validation program

are identified in Section 4.3.7 and are typically based upon conducting an investigation into the reason

why a management trigger was exceeded and putting appropriate corrective actions in place to reduce

re-occurrence and where possible rectify the situation to ensure optimisation of the process prior to

completion of commissioning.

The three levels of management triggers are based upon the maximum instantaneous flow rate, the

maximum predicted design concentration for constituents within the wastewater and the EQC defined

within Section 3.6 for the constituents being monitored. The management trigger levels are detailed

below.



discharge period.








17WAU/007 / R190199








Management Trigger 3 are defined as the EQCs and are based upon assessment against water quality

samples collected within the LEPs and at the boundary of the designated mixing zone.

Water quality samples collected from designated sample locations are to be assessed against the

defined EQCs. Validation monitoring will ensure that the defined LEPs and the mixing zone have been

accurately modelled and that the EQCs are effective in achieve the EQOs and protecting the BUs.

Where an exceedance of any of the EQCs occur contingency management as described in Section

4.3.7 will be required. The EQCs relevant for assessment for management trigger level 3 are defined

in Table 3-5, Table 3-7, Table 3-8 and Table 3-9.

4.3.4. Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing

Purpose

The purpose of WET testing is to identify the specific toxicity of the wastewater discharge under

accredited laboratory conditions, using indigenous selected species. Results are to be assessed

against the established EQC defined for the mixing zone boundary (i.e. interface between the HD and

SMD LEPs) to ensure they are appropriately defined based upon predictive modelling. Where

inconsistencies are identified EQCs or the spatial boundaries of LEPs will be revised accordingly.

Sampling Design

WET testing will be undertaken near completion of commissioning of the wastewater treatment facility

when water quality of the discharge is considered to be within design specifications and therefore

representative of actual conditions experienced during routine operations. WET testing will be

conducted twice on samples taken directly from the waste-water discharge sump namely:

1. towards the finalisation of treatment plant commissioning to identify the potential

toxicity of the effluent under normal operating conditions; and

2. within 12 months of commission to validate routine operational discharge.

Additional WET testing will also be required at any time during which the wastewater treatment process

is altered in any way, thus potentially altering the levels of constituents and therefore potentially the

toxicity within the discharge stream.

The proposed WET testing sampling program will involve two processes namely:

1. Range finding test for toxicity to determine if the effluent is toxic and if so, determine

the appropriate concentration range for subsequent tests, and


17WAU/007 / R190199

2. Definitive toxicity testing to determine the 50% Effect Concentration (EC50), 50%

Inhibitory Concentration (IC50), 50% Lethal Concentration (LC50) and No Observed

Effect Concentration (NOEC) values of effluent for selected species.

WET testing is proposed to be undertaken on a minimum of five (5) locally relevant species from four

(4) taxonomic groups. Testing will be in accordance with laboratory NATA accredited methodologies

and in accordance with ANZG (2018) toxicity sampling and testing protocols. The proposed tests and

locally relevant species identified for WET testing are listed below:

1. 72-hr microalgal growth inhibition test: Nitzschia closterium.

2. 48-hour larval abnormality test: Saccostrea echinata.

3. 72-hr larval development test: Heliocidaris tuberculata.

4. 96-hr acute toxicity test: Penaeus monodon.

5. 96-hr Fish Imbalance test: Lates calcarifer.

The above tests will be validated closer to the time in collaboration with the preferred laboratory to

ensure appropriateness of the selected tests and to determine availability of the selected species. If

new tests or other species are identified in collaboration with the laboratory then the above WET tests

may be revised accordingly.


Samples for WET testing will be collected directly from the treated wastewater sump at the point directly

before it enters the discharge pipe. Samples will be collected in laboratory supplied sample containers

and in accordance with sampling instructions and ANZG (2018) protocols. Typically, this involves filling

plastic sample bottles (~2.5 L) from the treated wastewater sump once normal operational processes

are established and normal discharges are occurring. Samples are typically required to be chilled and

transported to the laboratory within stipulated timeframes. Diluent water will be collected from a source

within the SMD LEP that has been determined to have no impacts from the outfall discharge (i.e.

through interpreting modelling results) from a depth equal to the outfall diffuser. Samples will be

transported directly to the laboratory to ensure ecotoxicity testing can occur as soon as practicable after

sample collection.

Data Assessment and Reporting

WET testing results may be used to re-run the predictive modelling and refine the spatial application of

the mixing zone and designation of the LEPs.







Data Assessment


17WAU/007 / R190199

Ecotoxicity testing results will be entered into a software program (e.g. BurrilOZ) to calculate the value

required to achieve a 95% SPL at the boundary of the HD LEP, or mixing zone. These results will be

used to validate, or as a basis for review, of the defined spatial LEPs applicable to the mixing zone.

Reporting

At the completion of each WET Testing round a validated laboratory report and interpreted tabulated

results will be submitted to TNG.

A summary report will be compiled at the completion of any WET testing requirements which will




An interpretation of the raw date from the software program used (i.e. BurrilOZ);

Analysis of results against predictive modelling with respect to dilution contour modelling and

spatial allocation of LEPs with the mixing zone boundary required to meet the 95% SPL; and



4.3.5. Wastewater Validation Testing

Purpose

The purpose of wastewater validation testing is to ensure that the optimal design targets for wastewater

constituents are being achieved once the Project has completed commissioning. Ongoing wastewater

validation testing will also allow the variation within concentrations of wastewater constituents to be

characterised, thus allowing a definitive prediction of the levels of impacts from routine discharge to be

predicted.

Sampling Design

Wastewater validation monitoring will require continuous flow rate monitoring during discharge and

water samples to be collected from the treated wastewater sump prior to discharge weekly for a period

of six weeks post commissioning. Samples will be collected concurrently with the marine environmental

quality monitoring surveys so that the actual discharge waters can be compared against the water

quality results obtained at sampling location around the outfall.


Two duplicate grab samples will be collected each week from the treated wastewater sump directly

prior to discharge. Samples will be collected in accordance with ANZG (2018) requirements for water

quality sampling. QA/QC samples will including a transport blank.

Physico-chemical readings will be taken in-situ with a suitable and calibrated water quality sensor.

Results will be backed up within 24 hours of collection.

Water samples will be sent to a NATA accredited laboratory for analysis and reporting for all water

constituents described in Table 2-2. Laboratory QA/QC requirements will be undertaken in accordance

with the NATA accreditation and reported with the sample results.


17WAU/007 / R190199










Data Assessment

Laboratory analysed samples and physico-chemical results will be compared with the previously

defined management triggers as soon as practicable. Any elevation will require contingency actions as

described in Section 4.3.7 to be implemented.

At the completion of the six week period and in combination with WET testing and marine environmental

quality monitoring data, wastewater treatment samples will be used to remodel and predict (with more

accuracy) the number of dilutions to assess the EQCs are being achieved at the HD/SMD LEP

boundary.

Reporting






A comprehensive report will be developed at the completion of the validation monitoring which will








implemented; and

Any actions or recommendations required as a result of field implementation of the MEQMMP

and assessment of monitoring data.


17WAU/007 / R190199

4.3.6. Environmental Quality Criteria Validation Monitoring

Purpose

The purpose of the marine environmental criteria validation is to provide an assessment of whether the

defined EQCs are being met at their respective LEPs. Results will also be used to determine if the

modelled wastewater constituent concentrations and predicted dilutions are being achieved at the HD-

SMD LEP boundary.

Sampling Design

Table 4-6 provides a summary of the proposed sampling frequency.

Table 4-6 Monitoring Frequency for EQC Validation Monitoring

Monitoring Event Frequency Commencement Completion

Water Sampling Bi-annually Start of Commissioning End of Commissioning

Physico-chemical Profiling Bi-annually Start of Commissioning End of Commissioning

Aesthetic Observations Bi-annually Start of Commissioning End of Commissioning

Water Sampling Weekly End of Commissioning 6 weeks post commissioning

Physico-chemical Profiling Weekly End of Commissioning 6 weeks post commissioning

Aesthetic Observations Weekly End of Commissioning 6 weeks post commissioning





Four(4) sites in SMD LEP (Reference sites).




Sampling methodologies for the following activities will be conducted in accordance with the protocols

outlined within Section 4.1.3:

General Observations;

Aesthetic Observations;

Physico-chemical Water Column Profiles; and

Water Sample Collection.


17WAU/007 / R190199


Data Validation




Quality Control




Assessment of lab variability (triplicate);


Data Assessment

Compliance with the defined EQCs for the respective LEP at each sample location will be assessed

through a comparison of the median results for each parameter from the commissioning and six-week

post-commissioning phases. Data from the commissioning phase and medians for each parameter

calculated from the six week dataset for each site from the post commissioning phase will be compared

directly to the EQC as defined within Table 3-5, Table 3-7, Table 3-8 and Table 3-9. Results for each

individual site will be compared to the relevant guideline value or the relevant Reference percentile.

Reference percentiles will be calculated from the six-week median for each individual Reference site.

Reporting






A comprehensive report will be compiled at the completion of the validation phase which will include,

but not be limited to:







implemented; and




17WAU/007 / R190199

4.3.7. Contingency Management





not occur. This system of investigation and implementation of remedial actions will ensure that during

the post-commissioning phase all possible design modifications are put into place to ensure optimal

performance of the process for ongoing operations.



contingency response and management framework to be applied during post-commissioning of the


Figure 4-3 Post-commissioning wastewater quality validation contingency management


17WAU/007 / R190199

Routine Operational Performance Assessment

4.4.1. Context

To determine any actual impacts from routine operational activities associated with the Darwin

Processing Facility a comprehensive marine environmental quality monitoring and management

program has been designed. This program is broken into two smaller components which each have a

different purpose, methodologies and contingency actions. These components include:

Ongoing assessment of discharge wastewater quality against WWTP design specifications;

and

Ongoing marine environmental quality monitoring to ensure that potential impacts from

operational activities are occurring within the limits of acceptable change allocated within each

spatial LEP.

Management during ongoing operations will be focused on ensuring that the predicted levels of impact

within the defined LEPs are being achieved and therefore protecting the associated BUs and EQOs.

Where desired levels are not being achieved contingency actions will be put in place to ensure the

impacts are restricted, investigated and remediated through implementing a course of actions. At this

stage compliance reporting requirements will also be stipulated, with outcomes from these monitoring

programs reported against their objectives and criteria and submitted, as required, to the regulator.

4.4.2. Purpose

The purpose of the routine operational performance assessment is to determine if typical operational

activities associated with the Darwin Processing Facility are compliant with defined management

triggers and that no temporal impacts are being observed. To determine if operations are impacting

marine environmental quality the following two monitoring and assessment programs will be

implemented:

1. Wastewater Discharge Quality; and

2. Ongoing Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring.


In order to achieve the purpose, three levels of management triggers have been established which will

inform management when contingency measures need to be put into place to ensure that ongoing

operations do not impact marine environmental quality so that the BUs and EQOs defined for the Project

area are not compromised. Contingency measures specific to each assessment program are identified

in Sections 4.4.4 and 4.4.5 and are typically based upon conducting an investigation into the reason

why a management trigger was exceeded and putting appropriate corrective actions in place to reduce

re-occurrence.

The three levels of management triggers are based upon the maximum instantaneous flow rate, the

maximum predicted design concentration for constituents within the wastewater and the EQC defined

within Section 3.6 for the constituents being monitored. These levels are detailed below.


17WAU/007 / R190199



discharge period.














Management Trigger 3 are defined as the EQCs and are based upon assessment against water quality

samples collected within the LEPs and at the boundary of the designated mixing zone.

Water quality samples collected from designated sample locations are to be assessed against the

defined EQCs. Validation monitoring will ensure that the defined LEPs and the mixing zone have been

accurately modelled and that the EQCs are effective in achieve the EQOs and protecting the BUs.

Where an exceedance of any of the EQCs occur contingency management as described in Section

4.3.7 will be required. The EQCs relevant for assessment for management trigger level 3 are defined

as:

EQGs:

o Table 3-5 Proposed Environmental Quality Guidelines for Water Quality; and

o Table 3-6 Environmental Quality Guideline for Toxicants in Sediment.

EQS:

o Table 3-7 Environmental Quality Standards for Observational indicators;

o Table 3-8 Environmental Quality Standards for Marine Fauna;

o Table 3-9 Environmental Quality Standards for Nutrients and Physico-chemical

constituents as defined by Water Quality Objective derived from NRETAS (2010). ND

identifies Water Quality Standards not yet defined.;

o Table 3-10 Environmental Quality Standards for elutriate and/or bioavailability testing.

NG identified that no guideline has been established.;

o Table 3-11 Environmental Quality Standards for elutriate and toxicity testing; and

o Table 3-12 Environmental Quality Standards for toxicants in biota.


17WAU/007 / R190199

Figure 4-4 Environmental Monitoring Framework including elevation points when certain EQC are exceeded

4.4.4. Wastewater Discharge Quality

Purpose

The purpose of wastewater discharge quality testing is to ensure that design specifications for

wastewater discharge constituents, as verified through Wastewater Validation Testing, are achieved

through the lifecycle of the Project. This assessment will include monitoring and assessment of the

following against defined management triggers:

Flow volumes, flow rates of the discharge;

Nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) load being discharged;

The concentration of toxicants in the discharge; and

The concentration of process additive chemicals in the discharge.

Sampling Design and Methodology

Wastewater discharge quality monitoring will be conducted in accordance with Section 4.3.5 with the

following deviation:

Samples are to be collected biannually for a period of two years, or as applicable under

Project approval conditions


17WAU/007 / R190199


Data collected will require immediate comparison with management triggers identified above. Any

elevation will require contingency actions as described below.









Data Assessment

Laboratory analysed samples and physico-chemical results will be compared with the previously

defined management triggers as soon as practicable. Any elevation will require contingency actions as

described below to be implemented.

Reporting






A comprehensive report will be developed at the completion of the monitoring program which will








implemented; and

Any actions or recommendations required as a result of field implementation of the MEQMMP

and assessment of monitoring data.

Contingency Management





17WAU/007 / R190199


not occur. This system of investigation and implementation of remedial actions will ensure that optimal

performance of the process continues through the lifecycle of the project.



contingency response and management framework to be applied during routine operation of the


Figure 4-5 Contingency management framework for routine wastewater discharge quality

4.4.5. Ongoing Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring

Purpose

The purpose of the ongoing marine environmental quality monitoring program is to collect quantitative

data to provide an assessment against defined management triggers to ensure that impacts from

operational activities associated with the Darwin Processing Facility, such as ocean outfall, stormwater

runoff or groundwater flows, do not impact marine environmental quality outside the limits of acceptable

ecological change associated with the defined LEPs.


17WAU/007 / R190199

Sampling Design

Table 4-7 provides a summary of the proposed sampling frequency. Sampling frequency has been

determined based on the lower level of associated risk presented by ongoing operational activities

present to marine environmental quality if the commissioning and validation assessments are

successful.

Table 4-7 Monitoring Frequency for Ongoing Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring

Monitoring Event Frequency Commencement

Water Sampling Annually Post six-week validation period

Physico-chemical Profiling Annually Post six-week validation period

Sediment Sampling Annually Post six-week validation period

Benthic Infauna Annually Post six-week validation period

Aesthetic Observations Annually Post six-week validation period





Four(4) sites in SMD LEP (Reference sites).




Sampling methodologies for the following activities will be conducted in accordance with the protocols

outlined within Section 4.1.3:

General Observations;

Aesthetic Observations;

Physico-chemical Water Column Profiles;

Water Sample Collection;

Sediment Sample Collection; and

Benthic Infauna Sampling.

In addition, the following methodology for toxicants in biota will apply.

Toxicants in Biota

Bioaccumulation is a late stage testing and monitoring methodology within the phased approach

described in Figure 4-4. The objective of monitoring is to determine if toxicants are bioaccumulating at

a rate that could affect marine life and/or result in seafood not safe for human consumption.


17WAU/007 / R190199

Initially, a desktop study is required to determine the likelihood/risk of contaminant bioaccumulation.

The desktop study would review the concentrations of the contaminant that has exceeded the

bioavailable EQSs and whether or not the contaminant is likely to bioaccumulate in locally relevant

species. Guidance procedures and assessment for bioaccumulation testing can be found in Simpson

et al. (2005) and Simpson et al. (2008), and in the ASTM International guide E1688 (2016), Standard

Guide for Determination of the Bioaccumulation of Sediment-Associated Contaminants by Benthic

Invertebrates.

Two methods can be used for monitoring toxicants in biota:

Field collected and caged/transplanted organisms; and

Laboratory bioaccumulation test sampling.

Direct field collected and caged/transplanted organisms involve measuring the toxicants accumulating

in tissues of organisms at the affected site and comparing with the same species in one or more suitable

reference sites. Field collected samples rely on existing information on the concentrations of

contaminants that have exceeded the relevant EQSs prior to the detection of elevated levels, whereas

caged/transplanted organisms involves the deployment of relevant species (usually filter-feeding

bivalves) at the affected and reference sites to measure the change in the contaminants that have

exceeded the relevant EQC over time. An appropriate gut depuration interval is generally required

(typically 24 hours) prior to analysis although the specific requirements should be discussed with the

laboratory.

Laboratory bioaccumulation tests generally run for 28 days and use several test species. At least two

bioaccumulation tests should occur, preferably on a bivalve mollusc and burrowing polychaete

(Simpson et al., 2005). The requirements for these species are similar to toxicity testing in that each

species should provide adequate biomass for analysis, ingest water/sediments and be efficient

metabolisers of contaminants. However, the organisms do not need to be sensitive to the contaminants

that are under investigation for bioaccumulation potential.

The location, nature and frequency of reactive monitoring required will be tailored to collect the

appropriate information required to inform any management responses to specific events. Monitoring

sites are likely to be targeted to areas of concern with the possible inclusion of extra reference sites

and the duration of reactive monitoring is likely to be acute. Consideration will be afforded to the

utilisation of historical data as well as physical and chemical sediment data.

For any contaminant where bioaccumulated concentrations are statistically greater than that measured

in the controls, bioaccumulation is a possible concern.


Data Validation




Quality Control



17WAU/007 / R190199



Assessment of lab variability (triplicate); and


Data Assessment

Laboratory analysed samples and in-situ collected results will be compared with the previously defined

management triggers as soon as practicable to ensure that the appropriate levels of laboratory

assessment are undertaken in accordance with Figure 4-4.

Elevated results will be assessed in accordance with Figure 4-6 to determine the level of management

actions or investigative monitoring required.

Reporting


for any elevated results which requires management response in accordance with Figure 4-6.

Submission to the regulator will be subject to project approval conditions.

A comprehensive report will be developed at the completion of each monitoring round which will include,

but not be limited to:







implemented; and



Contingency Management

In the event that Project related operational activities result in elevation of the defined management

triggers tiered risk based investigative monitoring will be required as defined within Figure 4-6. Figure

4-4 provides a flowchart to guide the interpretation required based upon the level of investigative

monitoring, while Figure 4-7 provides the management contingency actions required.

Firstly, depending upon the exceedance, an investigation needs to be undertaken to determine the

cause(s). Due to the nature of the monitoring program potential causes can be isolated from the

following two point sources:

1. Wastewater discharge water quality;

2. Operational based (i.e. processing plant point source impacting adjacent SMD LEP through

terrestrial pathways)

Once the cause(s) is determined then appropriate corrective or preventative actions need to be put into

place to ensure re-occurrence does not occur. This system of investigation and implementation of


17WAU/007 / R190199

remedial actions will ensure that optimal environmental performance continues through the lifecycle of

the Project.


17WAU/007 / R190199

Figure 4-6 Management Response Framework for assessment of required action from routine and investigative monitoring programs


17WAU/007 / R190199

Figure 4-7 Ongoing Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring Contingency Management Actions


17WAU/007 / R190199

5. MEQMMP Review

This MEQMMP is designed as a living document which will require ongoing review to ensure it continues

to remain relevant to the Project and aligns with industry best practice. This plan will require a series of

scheduled reviews, as well as ad-hoc reviews if any process or operational change has the ability to

alter the risk profile to marine environmental quality. This Plan should be incorporated into TNGs Project

Management System as a controlled document and revised throughout the lifecycle of the Project in

accordance with Table 5-1 and relevant Project approval conditions.

Table 5-1 MEQMMP review timeframes for the Project lifecycle

Timing Rationale

Scheduled Review

Upon receipt of Approval Conditions Approval and Licenses obtained will required a comprehensive review of this MEQMMP to ensure all relevant aspects are covered within this Plan to ensure compliance.

Upon completion of Baseline Data Assessment

This will be required to ensure the EQCs are updated, along with any other findings that required update upon completion of the baseline data collection phase.

Upon Completion of Commissioning This will typically be required to update management triggers associated with the discharge design parameters for wastewater constituents.

Upon Completion of Validation assessment

A comprehensive review of the LEPs and EQC will be required based upon data obtained during this phase. A comprehensive review of the entire MEQMMP will be required to ensure adequacy for management of the ongoing marine environmental quality with respect to the final operational Processing Facility.

Annually during routine operations At the completion of annual reporting requirements any recommendations for alteration of the MEQMMP will need to be incorporated into a revised version suitable for the next 12 months of operations.

Ad-Hoc Review

Any time operational activities significantly alter

Operational changes to the project may result in an altered risk profile. Therefore, the MEQMMP will require a review to ensure that it remains fit-for-purpose for altered operational conditions.

Any time WWTP design or processes alter

Process or design alterations changes to the WWTP may result in an altered risk profile. Therefore, the MEQMMP will require a review to ensure that it remains fit-for-purpose for altered operational conditions.

During review of the MEQMMP consideration should be given to (but not limited to):

Overall effectiveness of the Plan;

Appropriateness of BU, EQO and LEP;

To refine EQC with compiled baseline data set;

New threats that may be identified to marine environmental quality;

Lessons learned during sampling or analysis;

Changes in industry best practice;

Changes in environmental risk; and

Any changes in methodology or equipment used.


17WAU/007 / R190199

6. Reference List

ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water

Quality. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) &

Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ).

ANZG (2018). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Australian

and New Zealand Governments and Australian state and territory governments, Canberra, ACT,

Australia. Viewed October 2019, http://www.waterquality.gov.au/guidelines/anz-fresh-marine

APM (2019). Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Darwin Processing Facility. Unpublished report

prepared on behalf of TNG Limited

ASTM (2016). Standard Guide for Determination of the Bioaccumulation of Sediment-Associated

Contaminants by Benthic Invertebrates. ASTM International.

Baird (2019). TNG Darwin Harbour Processing Facility Outfall: Pollutant Outfall Modelling Report.

Unpublished report prepared on behalf of TNG Limited.

DAWG (2018). National Water Quality Management Strategy. Department of Agriculture and Water

Resources.

DLRM (2014). Darwin Harbour Water Quality Protection Plan. Northern Territory Department of Land

Resources Management.

NRETAS (2010). Water Quality Objectives for the Darwin Harbour Region: Background Document.

Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport.

NTEPA (2013). Guidelines on Mixing Zones. Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority.

Simpson, SL, Batley, GE, Chariton AA, Stauber JL, King CK, Chapman JC, Hyne RV, Gale SA, Roach

AC and Maher WA (2005). Handbook for Sediment Quality Assessment. CSIRO, Bangor NSW.

Simpson, SL, Batley, GE and Chariton, AA. (2008). Revision of the ANZECC/ARMCANZ sediment

quality guidelines. Draft, CSIRO Land and Water Report No. 8/07, August 2008. Prepared for the

Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Heritage, Water and the Arts. These guidelines

are currently under development. Reference to this report is also taken to refer to the final version

of the sediment quality guidelines which, as part of revisions to the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000a,

b) guidelines, under the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS), will be made

available, as revision supplements, through the NWQMS website.

http://www.waterquality.gov.au/guidelines/anz-fresh-marine

A TNG Ltd - Darwin Industrial Processing Facility Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring and Management Plan

17WAU/007 / R190199

Documents

New APPENDIX R: MARINE E Q AND M P · 2019. 11. 28. · m/s Meters per Second MEQMMP Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring and Management Plan ML/Day Megaliters per Day MSL Mean