NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DOCUMENT

EPA Assessment No. 2186 EPBC 2018/8335 Revision 1 – December 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INVITATION TO MAKE A SUBMISSION 6

SCOPING CHECKLIST 8

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 14 1.1 Introduction 14 1.1.1 Background and Context 14 1.2 Overview of the Proposal 14 1.3 Summary of Potential Impacts, Existing and Proposed Mitigations, and Outcomes 15

2. INTRODUCTION 20 2.1 Overview 20 2.2 Purpose and Scope of the Environmental Review Document 20 2.2.1 Infrastructure in Commonwealth Waters 20 2.3 Proponent 21 2.4 Proposal Description (NWS Project Extension Proposal) 21 2.5 Existing NWS Project 25 2.5.1 Existing Environmental Approvals 26 2.6 Excluded from the Proposal 27 2.7 Woodside’s Management System 27 2.7.1 NWS Project Historical Environmental Performance 27 2.8 Proposal Justification 29

3. REGULATORY, LOCAL AND REGIONAL CONTEXT 31 3.1 Regulatory Context 31 3.1.1 Environmental Impact Assessment Process 31 3.1.2 Other Approvals and Regulation 31 3.1.3 Decision-making Authorities 33 3.2 Local and Regional Context 33 3.2.1 Land Use 33 3.2.2 Other Developments in the Region 33

4. RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 36 4.1 Meteorology 36 4.1.1 Temperature 36 4.1.2 Rainfall and Relative Humidity 36 4.1.3 Wind Speed and Wind Patterns 39 4.1.4 Climate Predictions in a Changing Climate 40 4.2 Air Quality 42 4.2.1 Air Quality Effects from Fires 43 4.2.2 Oxides of Nitrogen and Ozone 43 4.2.3 Volatile Organic Compounds (including Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene [BTEX]) 47

4.2.4 Airborne Particulate Matter as PM10 and PM2.5 47 4.2.5 Sulphur Dioxide 48 4.3 Terrestrial Environment 48 4.3.1 Soils and Geology 48 4.3.2 Vegetation and Flora 48 4.3.3 Hydrology 49 4.3.4 Ground Water 49 4.4 Marine Environment 51 4.4.1 Coastal Processes 53 4.4.2 Benthic Habitats 53 4.4.2.1 Mangroves 55 4.4.2.2 Marine Invertebrates 55 4.4.2.3 Coral 55 4.4.2.4 Seagrass 56 2 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

4.4.2.5 Macroalgae 56 4.4.3 Intertidal Mudflats and Sand Flats 56 4.4.4 Shorelines 56 4.4.5 Water and Sediment Quality 56 4.4.5.1 Water Quality and Characteristics 56 4.4.5.2 Sediment Quality 57 4.4.6 Marine Fauna 57 4.4.7 Sensitivity of the Marine Environment 64 4.5 Existing Infrastructure 64 4.6 Social Environment 65 4.6.1 The Burrup Peninsula 67 4.6.2 Heritage Places and Features 67 4.6.3 Vegetation with Heritage Value 67 4.6.4 Heritage Value of the Marine Environment 68

5. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 70 5.1 Overview 70 5.2 Stakeholder Identification 70 5.3 Stakeholder Engagement Process 72 5.4 Stakeholder Consultation 72 5.4.1 Voluntary Social Impact Assessment (SIA) 72 5.4.1.1 SIA Key Findings 72 5.4.2 Environmental Scoping Document 73 5.4.3 Woodside Stakeholder Consultation 73 5.4.4 Indigenous Stakeholders 77 5.4.5 Summary of Stakeholder Feedback 77 5.5 Ongoing Stakeholder Engagement 77

6. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 79 6.1 Introduction 79 6.1.1 Identification of Key Environmental Factors 79 6.1.2 Impact Assessment Approach 79 6.1.2.1 Overview 79 6.1.2.2 Receiving Environment 79 6.1.2.3 Assessment of Impact and Risks 80 6.1.2.4 Existing and Proposed Mitigation Measures 85 6.1.2.5 Predicted Outcome 85 6.2 Principles 85 6.3 Key Environmental Factor – Air Quality (Health & Amenity) 88 6.3.1 EPA Objective 88 6.3.2 Policy and Guidance 88 6.3.3 Receiving Environment 88 6.3.4 Potential Impacts and Risks 90 6.3.4.1 Gaseous Emissions Causing a Reduction in Ambient Air Quality Impacting Human Health 90 6.3.4.2 Changes in Air Quality Causing Deposition on Nearby Heritage Features, Including National Heritage Places 105 6.3.4.3 Degradation of Terrestrial and Nearshore Vegetation of Heritage and Conservation Value due to Deposition of Gaseous Emissions 105 6.3.4.4 Emission of Odorous Substances and Dark Smoke Impacting Public Amenity 105 6.3.5 Existing and Proposed Mitigation 106 6.3.6 Predicted Outcome 108 6.4 Key Environmental Factor – Air Quality (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) 109 6.4.1 EPA Objective 109 6.4.2 Policy and Guidance 109 6.4.3 Receiving Environment 109 6.4.4 Potential Impacts and Risks 111 6.4.4.1 Contribution to global GHG concentrations from Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions 111 6.4.4.2 Climate Change Influenced by Changes to Global GHG Emission Concentrations 116 6.4.5 Existing and Proposed Mitigation 118 6.4.6 Predicted Outcome 119 6.5 Key Environmental Factor – Social Surroundings (Heritage) 120 6.5.1 EPA Objective 120

ontents 6.5.2 Policy and Guidance 120

C 6.5.3 Environment 120 of able T

6.6.6 6.6.5 6.6.4.4 6.6.4.3 6.6.4.2 6.6.4.1 6.6.4 6.6.3 6.6.2 6.6.1 6.6 6.5.6 6.5.5 6.5.4.6 6.5.4.5 6.5.4.4 6.5.4.3 6.5.4.2 6.5.4.1 6.5.4 10. 9. REFERENCES 8.4 8.3 8.2 8.1 Introduction 8. 7.6 Conclusion 7.5 7.4.2 7.4.1.1 7.4.1 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.1 Introduction 7. Appendix HASynthesis ofLiterature onthePotential Impact ofIndustrial AirEmissions onMurujuga Rock Art Appendix GKarratha Plant Wastewater Gas Discharge Modelling Appendix FNWS Project Extension Greenhouse BenchmarkingReport Gas Appendix ENWS Project Extension AirQuality Impact Assessment Appendix DNWS Project Extension MarineEnvironmental Quality Management Plan Appendix CNWS Project Extension Cultural HeritageManagement Plan Appendix BNWS Project Extension Greenhouse Management Plan Gas Appendix ANWS Project Extension AirQuality Management Plan 12. 11. TERMS Predicted Outcome Existing andProposed Mitigation Presence andPotential Migration ofExisting Onshore Contamination Reduction ofWater andSediment Quality andIndirect Impacts to MarineFlora andFauna, Resulting from the from UnplannedDischarges from Offshore orOnshore Accidents orEmergencies Direct Reduction ofWater andSediment Quality andIndirect Impacts to MarineFlora andFauna, Resulting from Maintenance Dredging andShipping Direct Reduction ofWater andSediment Quality andIndirect Impacts to MarineFlora andFauna Resulting Reduction inMarineEnvironment Quality, Resulting from PlannedDischarges to theMarineEnvironment Potential Impacts andRisks Receiving Environment Policy andGuidance EPA Objective Key Environmental Factor –MarineEnvironmental Quality Predicted Outcome Existing andProposed Mitigation Harm to MarineFauna andFlora withHeritageValue (e.g. Odourfrom Atmospheric Emissions) Reduced Amenity to HeritageFeatures OutsidetheDevelopment Envelope asaResult ofOdorous Substances Continued Restricted Access to HeritageFeatures Within theDevelopment Envelope until Around 2070 Direct, Accidental Physical Damageto HeritageFeatures withintheDevelopment Envelope EmissionsDeposition ofGaseous Degradation ofTerrestrial andNearshore Vegetation ofHeritageandConservation Value dueto Accelerated Weathering ofRock Artdueto Industrial Emissions Potential Impacts andRisks EPA Objectives for theKey Environmental Factors Environmental Principles Connections withintheReceiving Environment Existing andProposed Mitigation Measures Overlaps theNational HeritagePlace Direct, Accidental Physical Damage to Petroglyphs withinthePortion oftheDevelopment Envelope that Notable Alteration, Modification, Obscuring,orDiminishingthe Values oftheNational HeritagePlace Industrial AirEmissions CausingAccelerated Weathering ofPetroglyphs Resulting inDegradation, Damage, Relevant Impacts Assessment ofPotential Impacts oftheAction Existing Environmental Values Relevant Policy andGuidance RELEVANT LEGISLATION HOLISTIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT MATTERS OFNATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE APPENDICES NORTH WEST SHELFPROJECT EXTENSION 204 190 210 199 182 173 340 484 459 289 265 237 140 140 140 144 210 149 149 166 184 169 168 145 145 145 145 188 165 142 139 182 182 179 179 176 176 176 135 178 122 122 173 173 173 511 171 3

Table of Contents 4 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Tables Table 1-1: Summary of Potential Impacts described in ERD 15 Table 2-1: Summary of the Proposal 22 Table 2-2: Location and Proposed Extent of Physical and Operational Elements 22 Table 2-3: Summary of Environmental Approvals for the existing NWS Project 26 Table 3-2: Decision-making Authorities Relevant to the Proposal 33 Table 4-1: Wind Speed Comparisons – Burrup Peninsula 2014 40 Table 4-2: Vegetation with Medium or High Sensitivity 49 Table 4-3: EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Results Relevant to the Proposal 58 Table 4-4: Key Information on Marine Turtles in the North West Shelf Marine Region 61 Table 4-5: Marine Environments with Medium or High Sensitivity 64 Table 5-1: Stakeholders and Stakeholder Groups 71 Table 5-2: Stakeholder Consultation Activities to Date 74 Table 6-1: Receptor Sensitivity definitions 81 Table 6-3: Consideration of Environmental Protection Principles 86 Table 6-4: Air Quality Receiving Environment 89 Table 6-5: Scenarios used for Cumulative Air Dispersion Modelling 91 Table 6-6: NEPM (Ambient Air) Standards Relevant to the Proposal1 93 Table 6-7: Summary of TAPM-GRS Results: Discrete Receptor Locations 94 Table 6-8: Summary of TAPM-GRS Results: Grid Receptor Maxima and NEPM (Ambient Air Quality) Standards 94 Table 6-9: Existing and Proposed Additional Mitigation Measures: Air Quality (Health and Amenity) 106 Table 6-10: Air Quality (Health and Amenity) Impact Assessment Summary 108 Table 6-11: Air Quality (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) Receiving Environment 110 Table 6-12: Estimated Summary of Maximum Scope 1 and 2 Emissions for NWS Project Extension1 111 Table 6-13: Emission Factors for the Calculation of Scope 3 GHG Emissions 112 Table 6-14: Estimated Scope 3 Emissions for NWS Project Extension 112 Table 6-15: Estimated Summary of Maximum Scope 3 Emissions for NWS Project Extension1 112 Table 6-16: Percentage Contribution of Maximum Proposal Emissions to Regional, State, National and Global GHG Emissions 113 Table 6-17: KGP LNG facility GHG intensity data for current operations 115 Table 6-18: Existing and Proposed Mitigation Measures: Air Quality (GHG Emissions) 119 Table 6-19: Air Quality (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) Impact Assessment Summary 120 Table 6-20: Social Surroundings Receiving Environment 121 Table 6-21: Summary of Results for Burrup Nitrogen and Sulphur Deposition Monitoring Programs 124 Table 6-22: Scenarios used for Cumulative Air Dispersion Modelling 125 Table 6-23: Summary of Monitoring and Model Results for NO2 Deposition – CBM and Potential Scenarios 130 Table 6-24: 2008 EU Air Quality Standards for the Protection of Vegetation 136 Table 6-25: Summary of TAPM-GRS Results: Grid Receptor Maxima and EU 2008 Standards for Protection of Vegetation 139 Table 6-26: Existing and Proposed Mitigation Measures: Social Surroundings (Heritage) 142 Table 6-27: Social Surrounds (Heritage) Impact Assessment Summary 145 Table 6-29: Average annual concentration of licensed discharge parameters in discharges to the Jetty Outfall 152 Table 6-30: Average concentration of licensed discharge parameters in the Administration Drain 154 Table 6-31: Definition of Allowable Changes to Natural Background Under Levels of Ecological Protection 156 Table 6-32: Results of sediment quality monitoring from within the No Name Bay MEPA 162 Table 6-33: Results of sediment quality monitoring from beyond the No Name Bay MEPA 162 Table 6-35: Marine Environment Quality Impact Assessment Summary 171 Table 7-2: Scenarios used for Air Dispersion Modelling 177 Table 7-3: Existing and Proposed Mitigation Measures: National Heritage Place 179 Table 8-1: How the Proposal Addresses the Environmental Principles 185 ontents C of able T Figure 6-9:CBM–Maximum1-hourAverage SO Figure 6-8:KIO–Maximum1-hourAverage O Figure 6-26: KIO-AnnualAverage NO Figure 8-1: Connections withtheReceiving Environment Figure 7-1: National HeritagePlace DampierArchipelago (includingBurrupPeninsula) Figure 6-31: Locations ChEMMSSampling at NoNameBay Figure 6-30: Habitats withintheAdministration Drain MEPA Figure 6-29: ModelledLevel ofDilutionsfrom Discharges viatheJetty Outfall (RPC2019) Figure 6-28: Habitats withintheJetty Outfall MEPA/LEPA Figure 6-27: Location ofWastewater Discharge Points Figure 6-10: CBM–Maximum24-hour Average SO Figure 6-11: CBM–AnnualAverage SO Figure 2-3: NO Figure 2-2: Regional Location oftheProposal Figure 2-1: NWS Project Extension Proposed Development Envelope Figures Figure 6-7: CBM–Maximum1-hourAverage O Figure 6-6:KIO–AnnualAverage NO Figure 6-5:CBM–AnnualAverage NO Figure 6-17: CBM–NO2Deposition(meq/m2 Figure 6-16: KIO–NO2Deposition(kg/ha/year) Figure 6-15: CBM–NO2Deposition(kg/ha/year) Figure 6-14: Total Nitrogen DepositionObserved onandAround theBurrupPeninsula Figure 6-13: Forecast Consumption Gas intheIEA’s SDS inRelevant Markets (Mtoe) Figure 6-12: GHGBenchmarkingResults Figure 6-25: CBM-AnnualAverage NO Emission Reductions (FBSIA-KIO) Figure 6-24: Histogram -Comparison ofCurrent (CBM) andFuture Approved andReferred Developments withKGP Figure 6-23: Histogram -Comparison ofCurrent (CBM) andFuture Approved andReferred Developments (FBSIA) with KGP Emission Reductions (FBSIAE&A) Figure 6-22: Histogram -Comparison ofCurrent (CBM) andFuture Approved Developments (Pluto LNG Development [Train 2]) Figure 6-21: Histogram -Comparison ofcurrent (CBM) andKGP Emission Reductions (KIO) Figure 6-20: ModelGridPoints Within theNational HeritagePlace oftheDampierArchipelago (includingBurrupPeninsula) (Total measured nitrogen depositionfluxinbrown, withNO2contribution shown inallothercolours) Figure 6-19: Measured andModelledNitrogen Fluxes (meq/m2 Figure 6-18: KIO–NO2Deposition(meq/m2 Figure 6-4: KIO–Maximum1hNO Figure 6-2: RiskMatrix Figure 6-1: Matrix usedto determine impact level, basedonimpact magnitudeandreceptor sensitivity Figure 4-16: SocialEnvironment Figure 4-15: BiologicallyImportant Areas that intercept theproposal development envelope (DoEE,2019c) Figure 4-14: Significant Benthic Habitats oftheDampierArchipelago Figure 4-13: ChEMMSMonitoring Locations andMethodology Figure 4-12: Surface Hydrology oftheBurrupPeninsula Figure 4-11: Woodside AirQuality Monitoring Results 2009–2015: DampierO3 Figure 4-10: Woodside AirQuality Monitoring Results 2009–2015: Karratha O3 Figure 4-9:Woodside AirQuality Monitoring Results 2009–2015: BurrupNO2(NEPM120ppb) Figure 4-8:Woodside AirQuality Monitoring Results 2009–2015: DampierNO2(NEPM120ppb) Figure 4-7: Woodside AirQuality Monitoring Results 2009–2015: Karratha NO2(NEPM120ppb) Figure 4-6:MapoftheRangelandCluster (Source: CSIRO2019) Figure 4-5:MeanDailyWind SpeedandMaximumWind Gust –Karratha Aerodrome 2003–2018 Figure 4-4: Monthly 9amand3pmRelative Humidity –Karratha Aerodrome 1993–2010 Figure 4-3: Monthly Rainfall –Karratha Aerodrome 1972–2018 Figure 4-2: Monthly MeanMaximumandMinimumTemperature –Karratha Aerodrome 1993–2018 Figure 4-1: Existing Meteorological andAmbient AirQuality Monitoring Stations Figure 3-1: Existing andProposed Industrial Facilities Figure 2-4: Regulatory Reportable DarkSmoke Events 2002-2018 X Emissions Intensity 2000-2017 2 concentrations (ppb) (Medium-Term, Best CaseScenario) 2 concentrations (ppb) (Medium-Term, Best CaseScenario) 2 X 2 X concentrations (ppb) (Near-Term, Most Likely Scenario) Concentrations (ppb) (NearTerm, Most Likely Scenario) Concentrations (ppb) Concentrations (ppb) /year) 129 /year) 128 3 Concentrations (ppb) (Medium-Term, Best CaseScenario) 3 Concentrations (ppb) (Near-Term, Most Likely Scenario) 2 Concentrations (ppb) (NearTerm, Most Likely Scenario) 2 Concentrations (ppb) (NearTerm, Most Likely Scenario) /year) –Comparison at (2012/2014 CSIRO) Monitoring Locations. NORTH WEST SHELFPROJECT EXTENSION 100 104 150 130 103 102 134 159 126 163 158 183 138 124 133 133 132 127 137 174 101 114 44 44 50 161 46 46 99 131 66 84 98 54 45 34 39 39 63 83 38 38 24 28 28 97 23 52 37 41 18 5

  Invitation to make a submission

SCOPING CHECKLIST

Task No. Required Work by Proponent Section

Air Quality (Health and Amenity) 1. Characterise the existing environment, identify sensitive receptors and describe Section 4.1 long-term trends for temperature, wind speed, wind direction, humidity and rainfall using local and regional meteorological information. 2. Characterise the existing local and regional ambient air quality using existing Section 4.2 monitoring data, audit results and observations. Supplement this information with data from publicly available reports and studies, including:

+ Aggregated Emission Inventory for the Pilbara Airshed: Emissions Inventory Report 1999/2000 (SKM, 2003) + Pilbara Air Quality Summary Report (DoE, 2004) + Burrup Peninsula Air Pollution Study: Final Report – April 2006 (CSIRO, 2006) 3. Characterise the proposed emissions to air from the NWS Project Extension Proposal Appendix E: NWS by developing an air emission inventory. Project Extension Air Quality Impact Assessment 4. Characterise current and reasonably likely future emissions from other local and Appendix E: NWS regional industrial sources for input into air quality modelling. Project Extension Air Quality Impact Assessment 5. Review publicly available modelling studies and compare results with appropriate Appendix E: NWS air quality standards to screen out pollutants and sources that present a low risk to Project Extension ambient air quality. Air Quality Impact Assessment 6. Undertake air quality modelling to determine impacts to ambient air quality resulting Appendix E: NWS from the NWS Project Extension Proposal. Modelling will consider the following: Project Extension Air Quality Impact + Undertake, and provide information on the results of, a literature review of the Assessment past use of advanced models which included the (then) current and expected future emission sources in the region. + Provide information on the selection and justification of an appropriate model for the region. This justification should focus on the model’s ability to simulate the dispersion and photochemical transformation of the pollutants of concern and should be able to model those pollutants of concern from all industrial sources in the region. + Provide a review of at least 10 years of meteorology. + Reporting of the modelling outcomes will include a discussion of the limitations of the chosen modelling. + Comparisons with relevant ambient air quality criteria for the protection of human health.

7. 12. 11. Air Quality (Greenhouse Emissions) Gas 10. 9. 8. Task No. + + + Air quality modelling(item 6)results to includethefollowing: International LNGdevelopments. from theNWS Project Extension Proposal against comparable Australian and onthegreenhouseBased gasemission characteristics, benchmarktheemissions state, national andinternational greenhouse gasemissions. the NWS Project Extension Proposal andassess therelative contribution to regional, Characterise greenhouse gasemissions direct andindirect (types andvolumes) from + + + + and mitigation measures. Project Extension Proposal that may beexpected after implementing management Predict theextent, severity, andduration ofany residual impacts from theNWS residual impacts are notgreater thanpredicted. This willinclude: Identify management andmitigation measures that willbeimplemented to ensure different scenarios. quantify reductions that are reasonably achievable for future operations under reduction inairemissions ofconcern. Where practicable, useairmodellingto Identify and evaluate potential credible opportunities to achieve along-term

Developing anAirQualityManagementPlanwhichincorporates (i.e. cumulativeimpacts). well ascurrentandreasonablylikelyfutureemissionsidentifiedatitem4above including thosegeneratedbytheNWSProjectExtensionProposalinisolation,as Tables listingthemodelledambientconcentrationsforpollutantsofconcern, impacts). reasonably likelyfutureemissionsidentifiedatitem4above(i.e.cumulative and fortheNWSProjectExtensionProposalinisolation,aswellcurrent Contour plotsforthepollutantsofconcern,whichdescribemodellingscenarios, emissions ofconcern. over timetoachievecontinuousimprovementinthelong-termreductionair Identifying managementandmitigationmeasuresthatcouldbeimplemented continued. implemented forcurrentNWSProjectoperationsandthatareproposedtobe Identifying existingmanagementandmitigationmechanismsthathavebeen Summarising howthemitigationhierarchywillbeaddressed. Monitoring airemissionsandqualitywhererelevant. Art Strategy. an adaptivemanagementprogramwithdueconsiderationoftheMurujugaRock Required Work by Proponent

SCOPING CHECKLIST Report Benchmarking Greenhouse Gas Project Extension Appendix F: NWS Section 6.4.4.1 Section 6.4.4.1 Section 6.3.6 Management Plan Air Quality Project Extension Appendix A:NWS Section 6.3.5 Management Plan Air Quality Project Extension Appendix A:NWS Section 6.3.5 Assessment Air Quality Impact Project Extension Appendix E:NWS Section 9

Scoping Checklist 10 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Task No. Required Work by Proponent Section

13. Identify and justify contemporary best practice management and mitigation Section 6.4.5 measures that will be implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and Appendix B: NWS improve operational efficiency, including: Project Extension + Developing a Greenhouse Gas Management Plan. Greenhouse Gas Management Plan + Summarising how the mitigation hierarchy will be addressed including benchmarking against other facilities where appropriate and where public information is available. + Identifying existing greenhouse gas management and mitigation mechanisms that have been successfully implemented for current operations and that will be continued. + Identifying relevant contemporary best practice management and mitigation measures, including all reasonable and practicable emission reduction equipment and technologies, that can be implemented over time to achieve a long-term reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. 14. Predict the extent, severity, and duration of any residual impacts from the NWS Section 6.4.6 Project Extension Proposal that may be expected after implementing management and mitigation measures. Social Surroundings (Heritage) 15. Describe the existing environment by identifying heritage features, using published Section 4.6.2 sources as well as outcomes from engagement with relevant Aboriginal groups. 16. Characterise the heritage value and sensitivity of vegetation in and/or adjacent to Section 4.6.3 the development envelope using existing monitoring data and consulting with local Aboriginal groups and corporations with an interest in the area. 17. Characterise the heritage value and sensitivity of the marine environment in and/or Section 4.6.4 adjacent to the development envelope using existing monitoring data and consulting with local Aboriginal groups and corporations with an interest in the area. 18. Describe the elements of the Proposal that may affect social surroundings. Section 6.5.4 19. Describe the potential impacts of each element of the Proposal on social Section 6.5.4 surroundings, with an emphasis on: Appendix H: + Potential impacts to petroglyphs from air emissions using: A synthesis of literature on the + publicly available scientific reports on the effects of atmospheric pollution on petroglyphs. potential impact of industrial air + results from air quality modelling of current and predicted future operations, emissions on under different scenarios (Refer to item 6 under Air Quality). Murujuga Rock + Potential impacts to vegetation with heritage values using publicly available Art information, air quality modelling and existing Woodside monitoring data. + Potential impacts to aspects of the marine environment that have heritage value using existing Woodside monitoring data and outcomes of consultation with local Indigenous groups and corporations. + Other aspects with heritage value as identified through consultation with local Aboriginal groups and corporations.

C hecklist coping S

20. 27. 26. 25. 24. 23. Marine Environmental Quality 22. 21. Task No. + + + + + residual impacts are notgreater thanpredicted, including: Identify management andmitigation measures that willbeimplemented to ensure receptors likely to beaffected by thedischarges. Spatially definemarinedischarge mixing zone in relation to key sensitive biological contaminants inthewaste dispersion fields. Predict thespatial extent, temporary variability andconcentration (or magnitude) of environment, includingthrough Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing. Characterise thequality ofthedifferent wastewater discharges to themarine affect marineenvironmental quality. Characterise therelevant activities from theProposal that have thepotential to are notroutinely monitored includingfire-fighting foams. monitoring data and,ifrequired, additionalfieldsurveys for those contaminants that quality) inthearea potentially affected by theProposal using existing operational Characterise theexisting marineenvironmental quality (baselinewater andsediment and mitigation measures. Project Extension Proposal that may beexpected after implementing management Predict theextent, severity, andduration ofany residual impacts from theNWS heritage features andpetroglyphs. and mitigation measures that could beimplemented over timeto reduce impacts to Consult andincorporate feedback from localIndigenousgroups onthemanagement

Identifying management and mitigation measures that will be implemented over time Identifying managementandmitigationmeasuresthatwillbeimplementedovertime to achievealong-termreductioninairemissionsofconcernforpetroglyphs. Identifying managementandmitigationmeasuresthatwillbeimplementedovertime implemented forcurrentoperationsandthatwillbecontinued. Identifying existingmanagementandmitigationmechanismsthathavebeen Summarising howthemitigationhierarchywillbeaddressed. with heritagevalueandaspectsofthemarineenvironment value. to reduce impacts to heritage features within the development envelope, vegetation management programandwhichwillbealignedwiththeMurujugaRockArtStrategy. Developing aCulturalHeritageManagementPlanthatincorporatesan adaptive Required Work by Proponent SCOPING CHECKLIST

Management Plan Quality Environmental Extension Marine NWS Project Appendix D: Section 6.6.4.1 Modelling Discharge Plant Wastewater Karratha Gas Appendix G: Section 6.6.4.1 Management Plan Quality Environmental Extension Marine NWS Project Appendix D: Section 6.6.4.1 Section 6.6.4 Section 4.4 Section 6.5.6 Management Plan Cultural Heritage Project Extension Appendix C:NWS Section 6.5.4 Section 5and Management Plan Cultural Heritage Project Extension Appendix C:NWS Section 6.5.5 Section 11

Scoping Checklist 12 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Task No. Required Work by Proponent Section

28. The baseline data acquisition should be adequate for the derivation of environmental Appendix D: quality criteria for indicators relevant to the discharge(s) e.g. water, sediment and/or NWS Project biological quality indicators. Extension Marine EXECUTIVE Environmental Quality Management Plan SUMMARY 29. Characterise cumulative impacts by developing an inventory of marine discharges Section 6.6.4.1 from other local industrial sources using publicly available monitoring results. Undertake a cumulative impact study if relevant. 30. Identify management and mitigation measures that will be implemented to ensure Section 6.6.5 residual impacts are not greater than predicted, including: Appendix D: + Providing a Marine Environmental Quality Management Plan (MEQMP) that NWS Project includes the following Extension Marine Environmental + An Environmental Quality Plan (EQP) which will be based on the updated Pilbara Coastal Water Quality Consultation Outcomes - Environmental Values Quality and Environmental Quality Objectives (DoE, 2006b). Any departures from the Management Plan Pilbara Coastal Water Quality Consultation Outcomes will be clearly shown and justified with clear rationale. + Environmental quality criteria for indicators relevant to planned discharges. + Spatial definition of the waste discharge point using numerical modelling outputs and the results of any wastewater discharge toxicity testing. + Definition of the boundaries of low or moderate levels of ecological protection surrounding the discharges, depicted using at a suitable scale. + The EQP will identify environmental values to be protected and spatially define the environmental quality objectives (including the levels of ecological protection) that are relevant to the marine environment surrounding the Proposal. + The key sensitive biological receptors likely to be affected by the discharges, described and mapped as an overlay on the EQP (e.g. seagrass and/or coral). + Information to demonstrate that discharges would adequately protect the environmental values and meet the levels of ecological protection assisted to the discharge areas. + An adaptive management program that applies the environmental quality management framework, including monitoring at appropriate sites, designed to ensure the EQP is achieved. + Providing a revised list of contaminants of concern for on-going monitoring and revised set of environmental quality criteria for the assessment and management of the discharge to ensure all relevant environmental values are protected. + Monitoring of the receiving waters at the boundary of each level of ecological protection and at reference sites to ensure compliance with the EQP. + Monitoring marine discharges as relevant. + Summarising how the mitigation hierarchy will be addressed. + Identifying existing management and mitigation mechanisms that have been implemented for current operations and that will be continued. 31. Identify any additional management or mitigation measures, including monitoring, Section 6.6.5

that could be implemented to minimise as far as reasonably practicable residual Appendix D: impacts to marine environmental quality. NWS Project Extension Marine

C hecklist Environmental Quality Management Plan coping S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction This executive summary provides an overview of the information presented in the North West Shelf (NWS) Project Extension Environmental Review Document (ERD) prepared by Woodside Energy Ltd (Woodside), as Operator for and on behalf of the North West Shelf Joint Venture (NWSJV).

1.1.1 Background and Context The NWS Project commenced in 1984 with the commissioning of the Karratha Gas Plant (KGP) in Western Australia (WA). Since then the KGP has undergone several expansions and additional facilities have been installed. At present, and subject to Ministerial Statement 536 (MS 536), the Existing NWS Project processes natural gas and associated fluids from NWSJV field resources to produce up to 18.5 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) of liquefied natural gas (LNG) at the KGP. Woodside now proposes to operate the NWS Project to around 2070 as an LNG facility that is commercially capable of accepting gas for processing from other resource owners. Therefore, this Proposal (the Proposal) will include processing third-party gas and fluids and any remaining or new NWSJV field resources. The Proposal is described further in Section 2.4 and the full Proposal is contained in the North West Shelf Project Extension Proposal Section 38 Referral Supporting Information (Woodside, 2018). The Proposal was referred to the WA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) (EP Act) on 14 November 2018. On 4 December 2018, the EPA determined that the Proposal required assessment under Part IV of the EP Act at the level of Environmental Review – Public Environmental Review with the relevant environmental factors being:

+ Air Quality + Social Surroundings (Heritage) + Marine Environmental Quality. In parallel, the Proposal was referred to the Commonwealth (Cth) Department of the Environment and Energy (DoEE) on 22 November 2018 in accordance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act). On 3 May 2019, the DoEE determined the Proposal to be a controlled action with this controlling provision:

+ National Heritage (EPBC Act Section 15B and 15C), namely the Dampier Archipelago (including Burrup Peninsula). Assessment of the Proposal is being undertaken by the WA EPA on behalf of the DoEE as an accredited assessment.

1.2 Overview of the Proposal To enable the future operation of the NWS Project and the ongoing supply of gas and fluids to domestic and international markets, the Proposal seeks approval to transition the Existing NWS Project facilities to a new phase of the NWS Project; which is commercially capable of accepting gas for processing from other resource owners. The NWS Project Extension Proposal is seeking approval for the:

+ Long-term processing of third-party gas and fluids and NWSJV field resources through the NWS Project facilities, including: + Changes to feed gas composition including changed content of inerts, hydrocarbons and other components. + Changes to the composition of environmental discharges and emissions, although annual volumes of emissions and discharges are expected to be within current levels. + Modifications to the KGP onshore receiving facilities (that would not otherwise be undertaken if not for the Proposal) to accommodate third-party gas and fluids, as well as upgrades to metering to facilitate processing of third-party gas and fluids. + Potential construction of additional operational equipment to accommodate changes to feed gas composition or management of discharges and emissions. + Table 1-1: SummaryofPotential Impacts describedinERD ERD are provided inTable 1-1. A summaryofpotential impacts andrisks,existing andproposed mitigation measures andoutcomes describedinthis 1.3 by theEPBCAct in1999)approval, andEPBCAct authorisations. Ministerial Statements, Commonwealth Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (EPIPAct; superseded No additionsare proposed to thedisturbance footprint currently approved underexisting approvals, including occurring underproposed LNGtolling arrangements. both theprocessing ofthird-party gasandfluidsany remaining ornew NWSJV field resources, withallofthat requests asinglenew approval undertheEPBCAct andasinglenew approval undertheEPAct that willincorporate capable ofaccepting gasfor processing from otherresource owners. Following assessment ofthisERDtheNWSJV Woodside istherefore seekingapproval for theProposal to changeandoperate theKGP sothat itiscommercially of thescope oftheexisting environmental assessment framework andwithintheambitofEPBCAct andEPAct. It isWoodside’s intention that once theProposal isapproved, that approval will take theExisting NWS Project outside Guidance Policy and Objective EPA Air Quality (HealthandAmenity)

+ processing attheNWSProjectfacilities,currentlyexpectedtobeuntilaround2070,including Ongoing operationoftheNWSProject(fromdateapprovalthisProposal)toenablelong-term + + + + +

Ongoing useofexistingNWSProjectfacilitiestoprocessthird-partygasandfluidsNWSJVfieldresources. Inspection, maintenance,andrepair(IMR)improvementprogramsfortrunklines(TL),1TL2TL Maintenance dredgingassociatedwithjettiesandberthingpockets. Proposal. Replacing equipment,plant,andmachineryasrequiredthatwouldnototherwisebereplacedifforthe staged decreaseinkeyemissionsovertime). the NWSProject,willimplementemissionreductionopportunities[describedinSection6]thatresulta Continuation ofemissionsanddischargestotheenvironment(Woodside,asOperatorforonbehalf Monitoring andmanagementofenvironmentalimpacts. Outcomes Summary ofPotential Impacts,Existing andProposed Mitigations, and

EPA policy andguidance: To maintain airquality andminimiseemissions sothat environmental values are protected. + + + + + + + + + Relevant legislation: Other policy andguidance:

National EnvironmentalProtection (NationalPollutantInventory)Measure1998(Cth) National EnvironmentProtection (AirToxics)Measure2011(Cth) National EnvironmentalProtection(AmbientAirQuality)Measure 2016(Cth) National EnvironmentProtectionCouncil(WesternAustralia) Act1996(WA) European UnionAirQualityStandardsfortheProtectionofVegetation (EU,2008) (NSW EPA,2016) Approved MethodsfortheModellingandAssessmentofAir Pollutants inNewSouthWales(NSW) Air QualityModellingGuidanceNotes2006(DoE,2006a) Environmental FactorGuideline:AirQuality(EPA,2016a) Statement ofEnvironmentalPrinciples,FactorsandObjectives(EPA,2018a) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 15 1 EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUMMARY 16 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Air Quality (Health and Amenity)

Potential Gaseous emissions causing a reduction in ambient air quality impacting human health. Impacts Changes in air quality causing deposition on nearby heritage features, including National Heritage Places. and Risks Degradation of terrestrial and nearshore vegetation of heritage and conservation value due to deposition of gaseous emissions. Emission of odorous substances and dark smoke impacting public amenity. Mitigation No significant impacts or risks to Air Quality (Health and Amenity) were identified. No additional management or mitigation measures are required to be implemented to further minimise residual risks.

However, the Proposal provides equipment life and operational opportunities to further minimise NOX and VOC emissions. Woodside will continue emissions monitoring programs during the Proposal through the implementation of the NWS Project Extension Air Quality Management Plan. Outcomes No significant air quality impacts to human health and amenity are expected associated with the ongoing operation of the Proposal. The potential introduction of third-party gas and fluids may cause changes to air emission characteristics. However, these emissions are anticipated to remain similar to current emissions. Analysis of seven years of ambient air monitoring data demonstrate long term cumulative ground level emissions rates below NEPM health standards for the existing operation. Environmental monitoring and existing environmental baseline data which include historical operation of the NWS Project, together with robust and conservative modelling predictions provide evidence to support the predicted outcomes of the Proposal. The Proposal is therefore expected to achieve the EPA’s objective for Air Quality. The residual risk for air emissions potentially impacting on human health was assessed as low. The residual risk of dark smoke emissions potentially impacting public amenity was similarly assessed as low while the residual risk of odorous substances potentially impacting public amenity was assessed as slight.

Air Quality (Greenhouse Gas Emissions)

EPA To maintain air quality and minimise emissions so that environmental values are protected. Objective Policy and EPA policy and guidance: Guidance + Statement of Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives (EPA, 2018a) + Environmental Factor Guideline: Air Quality (EPA, 2016a) Other policy and guidance: + Climate Solutions Package (DoEE, 2019a) + Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Major Projects (DWER, 2019a) Relevant legislation: + National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 (Cth) + Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2001 (Cth) + National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement Determination) 2008 (Cth) + National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Safeguard Mechanism) Rule 2015 (Cth) Potential Contribution to global greenhouse gas concentrations from the emission of Scope 1, Scope 2 and Impacts Scope 3 emissions. and Risks Climate change influenced by changes to global greenhouse gas emission concentrations Mitigation Mitigation measures will be implemented through the NWS Project Extension Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, which includes provisions for identification and implementation of emissions reduction opportunities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

Outcomes Air Quality (Greenhouse Emissions) Gas and Risks Impacts Potential Guidance Policy and Objective EPA Social Surroundings (Heritage) Harm to marinefauna andflora withheritage value from: substances (e.g. odourfrom atmospheric emissions). Reduced amenity to heritagefeatures outsidethedevelopment envelope asaresult ofodorous Continued restricted access to heritagefeatures withinthedevelopment envelope until around 2070. Direct, accidental physical damageto heritagefeatures withinthedevelopment envelope. deposition ofgaseousemission. Degradation ofterrestrial andnearshore vegetation ofheritageandconservation value dueto Accelerated weathering ofrock artdueto industrial emissions. EPA policy andguidance: To protect socialsurroundings from significant harm. EPA’s objective for AirQuality. with theEPAs objective for theAirQuality Factor. The Proposal istherefore expected to achieve the There are noplannedimpacts orrisksassociated withtheProposal that are considered inconsistent but alsothecontinuous reduction inemissions intensity by theNWS Project. compares favourably withmany otherAustralian LNGfacilities. This isinpartdueto designdecisions, In additionto thisglobalcontext, intensity benchmarkingshows theemissions intensity oftheProposal As such,theProposal may result inanet reduction inglobalemissions. emissions by displacinghighercarbonintensive power generation (e.g. coal-gas energy switch). natural gashasthepotential to contribute significantly to the reduction inglobalgreenhouse gas While theProposal willcontribute directly to aslight increase inglobalgreenhouse gasemissions, quantitatively assess theimpact oftheProposal to any regional, state orglobalclimate changes. assessed ascontributing to aslight impact (i.e. increase) to globalemissions. Itwas notpossible to The Proposal willcontribute upto 0.03% ofglobalgreenhouse gasemissions andthiscontribution is + + + + + + + + + + + + + Relevant legislation: Other policy and guidance:

Turbidity frommaintenancedredging. Changes towaterqualityfrom plannedandunplanneddischarges. Environmental ProtectionandBiodiversityConservationAct1999 (Cth) Aboriginal HeritageAct1972(WA) European UnionAirQualityStandardsfortheProtectionofVegetation(EU,2008) Murujuga RockArtStrategy(DWER,2019b) environmental assessmentsundertheEPBCAct(DoE,2016) Engage Early–GuidanceforproponentsonbestpracticeIndigenousengagement Due DiligenceGuidelines(Version3.0)(DPLH,2013) Murujuga NationalParkManagementPlanNo.78(DEC,2013) Australia’s NationalHeritage–ApplyingthePrinciples(DoEE,2008) (EPA, 2004) Guidance fortheAssessmentofEnvironmentalFactorsAboriginalHeritageNo.41 Environmental FactorGuideline–SocialSurroundings(EPA,2016b) Statement ofPrinciples,FactorsandObjectives(EPA,2018a) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 17 1 EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUMMARY 18 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Social Surroundings (Heritage)

Mitigation The NWS Project Extension Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) sets the framework for how Woodside will continue to minimise its impact to the heritage environment to an acceptable level. The implementation of this management plan will ensure that representatives of the Indigenous groups of the area continue to be consulted regarding Woodside’s heritage management activities, impacts, and influence Woodside’s approach to heritage management. In addition, Woodside commits to support the Murujuga Rock Art Strategy and implementation of the Framework (such as maintain emissions contributions below that which lead to unacceptable levels of impacts to rock art). Outcomes Woodside’s approach to the management of Aboriginal heritage has been developed to ensure the requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) and the environmental objectives of the Social Surroundings environmental factor are met. The residual risk to rock art following the implementation of mitigation and management measures including the Murujuga Rock Art Strategy is assessed to be moderate. The residual risk for all other potential impacts is assessed as low for unplanned risks and slight for planned impacts. Based on the current environmental performance of the NWS Project, the continued implementation of existing management measures and the commitment to reassess any potential impacts or risks from the introduction of third-party gas, there were no impacts or risks that the objectives the EPA has established for Social Surroundings (Heritage) would not be achieved.

Marine Environment Quality

EPA To maintain the quality of water, sediment, and biota so that environmental values are protected. Objective Policy and EPA policy and guidance: Guidance + Statement of Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives (EPA, 2018a) + Environmental Factor Guideline – Marine Environmental Quality (EPA, 2016c) + Technical Guidance – Protecting the Quality of Western Australia’s Marine Environment (EPA, 2016d) Other policy and guidance: + Pilbara Coastal Water Quality Consultation Outcomes – Environmental Values and Environmental Quality Objectives (DoE, 2006b) + Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2018) Potential Reduction in marine environment quality, resulting from planned discharges to the marine environment. Impacts Direct reduction of water and sediment quality and indirect impacts to marine flora and fauna, resulting and Risks from maintenance dredging and shipping. Direct reduction of water and sediment quality and indirect impacts to marine flora and fauna, resulting from unplanned discharges from offshore or onshore accidents or emergencies. Reduction of water and sediment quality and indirect impacts to marine flora and fauna, resulting from the presence and potential migration of onshore contamination. Mitigation Mitigation measures will be implemented through the NWS Project Extension Marine Environment Quality Management Plan. Contemporising of the KGP’s waste water treatment system will occur through installation of additional treatment equipment to be installed to further reduce hydrocarbons and heavy metals discharged from the Jetty Outfall. The use of Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) containing firefighting foams at the KGP is being phased out. Outcomes After implementing the proposed mitigation measures, no planned impacts or risks higher than a moderate ranking have been identified. The Proposal is expected to result in planned impacts with the same or lower consequence as those that are presented currently. Three decades of environmental monitoring and existing environmental baseline data provides evidence to support the predicted outcomes of the Proposal. The Proposal is therefore expected to EXECUTIVE SUMMARY achieve the EPA’s objective for Marine Environmental Quality. 1 INTRODUCTION 2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Overview The scope of this ERD is defined by the NWS Project Extension Environmental Scoping Document (ESD), The North West Shelf (NWS) Project is one of the which was approved by the EPA on 29 August 2019 world’s largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) producers, following public review and comment (Woodside, 2019). supplying oil and gas to Australian and International Specifically, the ESD confirms: markets from offshore gas, oil, and condensate fields in the Carnarvon Basin off the north-west coast of + The following three key environmental factors are Australia. For more than 30 years, it has been Western relevant to the Proposal Australia’s (WA) largest producer of domestic gas. + Air Quality Woodside Energy Ltd (Woodside), as Operator for + Social Surroundings (Heritage) and on behalf of the North West Shelf Joint Venture + Marine Environmental Quality. (NWSJV), is (subject to approval of this Proposal) proposing to extend the operating life of the NWS + The Proposal is also subject to this controlling Project through opening the NWS Project facilities for provision under the Commonwealth Environment the long-term processing of third-party gas and fluids. Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) The addition of third-party gas and fluids to NWSJV field resources will see the NWS Project facilities + National Heritage (EPBC Act Section 15B and transition to an LNG Facility which is commercially 15C), namely the Dampier Archipelago (including capable of accepting gas for processing from other Burrup Peninsula). resource owners. This will allow the NWS Project to This document has also been prepared to satisfy the operate until around 2070, and will provide an ongoing requirements of: supply of natural gas, LNG, liquefied petroleum gas + Environmental Impact Assessment (Part IV Divisions (LPG), and condensate to domestic and international 1 and 2) Administrative Procedures 2016 (EPA, markets. The Proposal also provides Woodside with the 2016e) opportunity to contemporise aspects of the Karratha Gas Plant (KGP) to meet current societal expectations + EPA’s Instructions on how to prepare an and reducing emissions and discharges. Environmental Review Document (EPA, 2018b).

2.2.1 Infrastructure in 2.2 Purpose and Scope of Commonwealth Waters the Environmental Review This Proposal does not include infrastructure within Document Commonwealth waters (e.g. North Rankin Complex, Goodwyn A facility, 1TL and 2TL) which are operated This document presents an environmental impact under accepted Environment Plans in accordance with assessment of the Proposal (as defined inSection 2.4) the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage for public review and assessment by the WA (Environment) Regulations 2006. The authorisation of Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and the the Commonwealth Environment Minister under Section Commonwealth (Cth) Department of the Environment 146B of the EPBC Act1 provides that Commonwealth and Energy (DoEE). This Environmental Review petroleum activities undertaken in accordance with Document (ERD) describes the Proposal in detail, the endorsed Program2 (e.g. activities covered by identifies and assesses potential impacts resulting an accepted Environment Plan and Offshore Project from the Proposal and describes the proposed impact Proposal (where relevant)) do not require further avoidance, mitigation, and management measures that approval under Part 9 of the EPBC Act. will be implemented. + + Email: [email protected] Phone: 1800422 977 Environment Manager Anthony McMullen approvals process for thisProposal is: The contact person inrelation to theenvironmental ABN: 63 005482986 Perth WA 6000 11 Mount Street Woodside Energy Ltd Proponent’s details are: operator for andon behalf oftheNWSJV. The The Proponent for thisProposal isWoodside, as 2.3 INTRODUCTION approval for the: owners. The NWS Project Extension Proposal isseeking of accepting gasfor processing from otherresource phase oftheNWS Project whichiscommercially capable transition theExisting NWS Project facilities to anew international markets, theProposal seeksapproval to the ongoingsupplyofgasandfluids to domestic and To enablethefuture operation oftheNWS Project and 2.4

date oftheapprovalthisProposal)toenable Ongoing operationoftheNWSProject(from + + + + facilities, whichincludes and NWSJVfieldresourcesthroughtheNWSProject long-term processingofthird-partygasandfluids

discharge andemissions. composition ormanagementofenvironmental equipment toaccommodatechangesfeedgas Potential constructionofadditionaloperational gas andfluids. metering tofacilitateprocessingofthird-party party gasandfluids,aswellupgradesto if notfortheProposal)toaccommodatethird- facilities (thatwouldnototherwisebeundertaken Modifications totheKGPonshorereceiving expected tobeinlinewithcurrentlevels. volumes ofemissionsanddischargesare discharge andemissions,althoughannual Changes tothecompositionofenvironmental other components. changed contentofinerts,hydrocarbonsand Changes tofeedgascompositionincluding Proponent Project Extension Proposal) Proposal Description (NWS the Proposal are listed inTable 2-1 andTable 2-2. 2-2 The regional location oftheProposal isshown inFigure and EPBCAct authorisations. approvals, includingMinisterial Statements, EPIPAct, disturbance footprint currently approved underexisting No additionalarea isproposed to beaddedto the proposed to beaddedto thedevelopment envelope. Project (Refer to Section 2.5).Noadditionalareas are same development envelope asthat of theexisting NWS Figure 2-1. The Proposal willbecontained withinthe The development envelope oftheProposal isshown in manner. consolidated andenvironmentally effective andefficient for theimpacts to bemanagedinaholistic, site-wide, NWS Project from thedate oftheapprovals to allow approvals are proposed to regulate thewholeof and approvals. New andconsolidated environmental and 536 andequivalent Commonwealth authorisations supersede, existing Ministerial Statements 320, 334,482 could incorporate therelevant conditions from, andthen approvals, where thenew State Ministerial Statement under new Commonwealth andState environmental the Proposal, ifapproved, isproposed to operate 38 Referral SupportingInformation (Woodside, 2018), As describedintheNWS Project Extension Section + + + + including currently expectedtobeuntilaround2070, long-term processingattheNWSProjectfacilities, + . The key physical andoperational characteristics of

nitrogen oxides(NO emission reductionopportunities,including on behalfoftheNWSProject,willimplement environment (Woodside,asoperatorforand Continuation ofemissionsanddischargestothe if notfortheProposal. as requiredthatwouldnototherwisebereplaced Replacement ofequipment,plant,andmachinery jetties andberthingpockets. Maintenance dredgingassociatedwithexisting and 2TL. repair (IMR)andimprovementprogramsfor1TL field resources;Inspection,maintenance,and process third-partygasandfluidsNWSJV Ongoing useofexistingNWSProjectfacilitiesto impacts. Monitoring andmanagementofenvironmental over time). that willresultinastageddecreaseemissions compounds (VOCs)(describedinSection6.3) X ), andvolatileorganic 21 2 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 22 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Table 2-1: Summary of the Proposal

Proposal Title North West Shelf Project Extension

Proponent Name Woodside Energy Ltd, as Operator for and on behalf of the NWSJV

Ongoing operation of the NWS Project to enable the long-term processing of third-party gas Short Description and fluids and NWSJV field resources through the NWS Project facilities until around 2070

Table 2-2: Location and Proposed Extent of Physical and Operational Elements

Element Location Existing NWS Project Change NWS Project Extension Proposal

Physical Elements NWS Project Development 276 ha1 of disturbance No change 276 ha of disturbance within (onshore envelope within a 331 ha a 331 ha development component) development envelope envelope NWS Project Development 104 ha of disturbance No change 104 ha of disturbance within (KBSB, Southern envelope within a 193 ha a 193 ha development Expansion Lease development envelope2 envelope and Access Roads) NWS Project Development 700 ha development No change 700 ha development (offshore envelope envelope (includes envelope (includes 589 ha component; 589 ha pipeline pipeline exclusion zone and State waters) exclusion zone and 111 ha jetty lease) 111 ha jetty lease) Operational Elements3 Reserve source Various North Rankin and NWSJV field NWSJV field resources and Goodwyn gas fields and resources and third-party gas and fluids gas received through third-party gas onshore receipt points and fluids and tie-ins LNG production Development 18.5 mtpa No change 18.5 mtpa capacity envelope CO2 emissions Development 2.9 mtpa (Trains 4 and 5) No change 7.7 mtpa envelope 4.8 mtpa (Trains 1 to 3)4

5 NOX emissions Development Not specified n/a 8,900 tpa envelope Project life n/a 30+ years Additional Up to 2070 40 years

Note 1: This existing disturbance footprint is consistent with Schedule 1 of MS536, being comprised of disturbance within the following lots only: • Karratha Gas Plant: De Wit Location Lot 199 On Plan 216680 [Crown Lease LGE I123606] (236 ha) • Karratha Gas Plant Buffer Zone: De Wit Location Lot 197 Burrup Road, Burrup [Crown Lease LGE I123606] (95 ha)

Note 2: The other onshore components of the existing NWS Project as defined in the Referral include the following lease areas: • Southern Expansion Lease: De Wit Location Lot 379 and Part Lot 380 Burrup Road, Burrup [Crown Lease LGE I161020] (132 ha) • Plant Access Road (Northern and Southern): De Wit Location Lot 655 and Lot 195 Burrup Road, Burrup [Crown Lease LGE I237587] (3 ha) • King Bay Supply Base: De Wit Location Lot 151 and Lot 204 On Plan [Crown Lease LGE I154282] (58 ha)

Note 3: Operational elements that are subject to other environmental regulatory frameworks (e.g. Part V of the EP Act) are not included in the operational elements table. However, this does not preclude potential impacts from those elements of the NWS Project Extension Proposal being considered in this ERD.

Note 4: NWSJV Additional LNG Facilities Project Public Environment Review / Public Environment Report (Woodside, 1998), as authorised by Ministerial Statement 536

Note 5: This estimate is based on each turbines’ maximum exhaust gas flow rate (from vendor data). It is based on measured exhaust gas concentrations for licence compliance, engineering calculation estimation and NPI Emissions Estimate Techniques. INTRODUCTION 2 INTRODUCTION Figure 2-1: NWS Project Extension Proposed Development Envelope 23 2 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 24 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Figure 2-2: Regional Location of the Proposal INTRODUCTION 2 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + storage, andoffloading facilities: the existing NWS Project includesthesekey processing, the KGP. The onshore andState waters component of field resources to produce up to 18.5 mtpa ofLNG at processes natural gasandassociated fluidsfrom NWSJV present, andsubject to MS536, theexisting NWS Project have beeninstalled since itwas first commissioned. At undergone several expansions andadditionalfacilities platform (now theNorthRankinComplex). The KGP has feed gasandfluidssuppliedfrom theNorthRankin The KGP was originallycommissioned in1984with 2.5 INTRODUCTION the east, andindustrial landto thesouth,ontheseleases: Mermaid Soundto thewest, MurujugaNational Park to Karratha andare boundedby Withnell Bay to thenorth, NWS Project are located approximately 18kmfrom Except for 1TLand 2TL,thesekey components ofthe

flares emergency, operational,andstorageloading power generationandsupportingutilities two jettiesforexportingcondensate,LPG,andLNG LPG, LNG,andcondensatestoragefacilities three LPGfractionationunits six condensatestabilisationunits two domesticgastrains five LNGprocessingtrains (Crown LeaseLGEI237587). Location Lot655and195BurrupRoad, Plant AccessRoad(NorthernandSouthern):DeWit LGE I161020). and PartLot380BurrupRoad,(CrownLease Southern ExpansionLease:DeWitLocationLot379 I123606). 30713, BurrupRoad,(CrownLeaseLGE KGP BufferZone:DeWitLocationLot197onPlan (Crown LeaseLGEI123606). KGP: DeWitLocationLot199onPlan216680 conducting existingNWSProjectactivities. associated infrastructurenecessaryandincidentalto logistics such asdieselstorage,refuelling,pilotage,and an off-sitesupplybase(KBSB),usedforactivities within StatewatersandcrossingonshoretotheKGP two subseatrunklines,describedas1TLand2TL, Existing NWS Project + + + + + + Project: also undertaken asrequired aspartoftheexisting NWS use ofNWS Project facilities, thefollowing activities are the efficient processing of NWSJV field resources and State waters, andonshore to theKGP. Inorder to ensure Rankin Complex inCommonwealth waters, through broadly parallel to eachotherand extend from theNorth KGP through two trunklines(1TLand2TL), whichrun liquid hydrocarbons are thentransported onshore to the facilities inCommonwealth waters. andde-watered Gas Current NWSJV field resources are extracted by offshore Proposal. assessment oftheProposal anduntil approval ofthis environmental assessment framework duringthe changes) willcontinue to operate underthecurrent The Existing NWS Project (andany already approved NWS Project are outsidethescope ofthisProposal. processes. These existing operations oftheExisting already approved ormay beapproved through separate Proposal. This includesimplementing changesthat are will operate upuntil thedate oftheapproval ofthis The Existing NWS Project initscurrent configuration Bunbury Natural Pipeline(DBNGP). Gas supplied to thedomestic market viatheDampierto to international markets. Natural gasfrom theKGP is Marine vessels transport LNG, LPG,andcondensate for export to international anddomestic markets. NWSJV field resources are processed at the KGP

Pipeline LicencesTPL15and16/PL58. KGP LoadingJettiesSeabedLease. Lease LGEI154282). KBSB: DeWitLocationLot151and204(Crown production levels. onshore feedsourcesasnecessarytomaintain Processing (andassociatedtie-ins)fromapproved generation/utilities. storage andoffloadingfacilitiespower infrastructure identifiedaboveaskeyprocessing, end oflifeequipment,plant,machineryandsubsea Modifications to,orreplacementuponreaching facilities. above askeyprocessing,storageandoffloading machinery andsubseainfrastructureidentified improvement programsonequipment,plant, Inspection, maintenance,repair(IMR)and 25 2 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 26 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

2.5.1 Existing Environmental Approvals The existing NWS Project environmental approvals are detailed in Table 2-3. Table 2-3: Summary of Environmental Approvals for the existing NWS Project

Date Application Scope

24 August 1993 Section 38 Establish additional facilities for Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) extraction and export within the existing onshore treatment plant at the Burrup Peninsula. Approved under Ministerial Statement 320. 11 January 1994 Section 46 Amendment to Ministerial Statement 320 Condition 1. Approved under Ministerial Statement 324. 14 July 1998 Section 38 Construction and operation of a 2nd gas trunkline (from offshore NWS facilities to the KGP) and the debottlenecking of the Domestic Gas process. Approved under Ministerial Statement 482. 11 February 2000 Section 38 Additional Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities, including installation of 2 additional processing trains, 4 power generation turbines, 2 jetty/berths, 1 LNG tank, utilities upgrade and dredging/blasting works. Approved under Ministerial Statement 536. 25 February 2005 Section 45C Amendment to Ministerial Statement 536 to increase the amount of additional generating units from an additional two generating units (50 megawatts total) to an additional 4 generating units (120 megawatts total). 7 June 2005 Section 45C Amendment to Ministerial Statement 536 to increase dredged seabed material for shipping lanes, ship berthing basins, and turning circles from 2.7 Million cubic metres to 2.7 Million cubic metres plus approximately 1 Million cubic metres at Star Rock. 29 August 2006 Section 45C Amendment to Ministerial Statement 536 to include:

+ Additional gas powered generation unit (one), 4 additional gas engines, 1 BOG liquefication unit, and 1 inlet air chilling unit. + Additional LNG Production of 11 million tonnes per annum (existing 7.5 mtpa). + Additional Power Supply of approximately 150 megawatts (5 no. gas turbines (GTs)) and approximately 12 megawatts (4 no. gas engines). 18 July 2019 Section 45C Amendment to Ministerial Statement 536 to include:

+ Add to the reserve source listed in Table 1 of Schedule 1 to and gas received through onshore receipt points and tie-ins. + Add to the project facilities column listed in Table 1 of Schedule 1; Onshore receipt points and tie-ins.

Note 1: Ministerial Statements 320 and 334 remain in force but the conditions are replicated in Ministerial Statement 536. INTRODUCTION 2 + + and contractors are expected to work. Environmental the boundarieswithinwhichallWoodside employees how Woodside willdeliver itsbusiness objectives and The Woodside Management System (WMS) defines 2.7 The Proposal doesnotinclude: 2.6 INTRODUCTION outreach programs. including scientific publications andeducational industry andthebroader community inmany formats through ourpartnerships isshared withgovernment, environmental performance. The knowledge generated us to conduct ouractivities responsibly andverify our partnerships andcredible science outcomes enable to understand how theseenvironments function. These of theworld’s leadingscientific research organisations next to uniqueenvironments. We collaborate withsome Many ofouractivities inWestern Australia are located regulatory regime may require. approach nomatter where we are orwhat the and transparency are thekey elements to Woodside’s underpinned by credible science, strong partnerships Robust impact assessment andrisk-management strategies to minimiseourenvironmental footprint. our activities andimplement appropriate mitigation we understand thepotential risksandimpacts of Our environmental management process ensures and improve resources useindesignsandoperation. promoting andpursuing aculture ofenergy efficiency be partofasolutionto climate change. This includes Climate ChangePolicy demonstrates acommitment to Woodside operational control. Inaddition,Woodside and Joint Venture partners engaginginactivities under all Woodside’s activities, andemployees, contractors how theseare to beapplied.The policy isappliedto for achieving theobjectives for theenvironment and environmental performance. Itsets outtheprinciples on theenvironment from itsactivities andto improving Woodside’s commitment to minimisingadverse effects Quality Policy. The policy provides apublicstatement of Woodside’s corporate Health,Safety, Environment and The overall direction for Environment isset through management isoneofthecomponents oftheoverall WMS.

and usingtie-ininfrastructure,whererequired. Separate approvalswillbeobtainedfordeveloping Infrastructure totiegasfieldsourcesinto1TLor2TL. obtained forthedevelopingfields,whererequired. Developing gasfields.Separateapprovalwillbe System Woodside’s Management Excluded from the Proposal shown inFigure 2-4. number ofregulatory reportable darksmoke events as to air, asshown inFigure 2-3 andreduction inthe + been limited to: the opportunity hasarisen;theseincludebuthave not have been incorporated intheNWS Project facilities as Key improvements indesign,processes, andtechnology desired level ofoperational performance. improve reliability at theNWS Project anddeliver the Woodside hasprogressively implemented initiatives to associated withtheNWS Project facilities. managed ormitigated potential environmental impacts results demonstrate that control measures have requirements intenders andcontracts. Monitoring including environmental management andperformance auditing environmental performance, inductions, and Environmental Policy), maintaining hazard registers, include policiesandplans(such asWoodside’s near theNWS Project facilities. These measures associated withsensitive environmental receptors to ensure soundmanagement ofenvironmental issues Various measures have beensuccessfully implemented consistent withourenvironmental approvals. that Woodside hasachieved environmental performance in accordance withCondition 9ofMS536, demonstrate environmental reports for theKGP, submitted to theEPA standards andstatutory obligations. Annual performance consistent withnational andinternational to achieving alevel ofenvironmental management and Woodside, asoperator oftheNWS Project, iscommitted 2.7.1 improvements inemissions, inparticularNO These improvements have resulted inoverall + + + + +

NO Installation ofmoreefficientgasturbines,drylow quickly implementdarksmokeremedialactions. Closer monitoringofdarksmokefromtheflareto the potentialtocausedarksmoke. Proactively identifyingmaintenanceactivitieswith reduce emissionsfromthisprocess. Replacement oftheacidgasremovalsolventto efficiency andreliability. Alterations totheoperatingmodeimprove existing gasturbines. Installation ofleanheadendcombustionlinerson LNG Train5. recovery onLNGTrain4.Installationdrygasseals X burners,drygassealsandcompressorseal Environmental Performance NWS Project Historical X emissions 27 2 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 2 INTRODUCTION outlined inthisProposal) can occur inaway that isacceptable to WA andthe widercommunity. that by continuing to implement itscurrent multi-faceted management strategy, long-term operation oftheplant (as initiatives andreview itsoperations for potential opportunitiesto reduce itsenvironmental footprint. Woodside isconfident Project willbethebasisofongoingmanagement for theProposal. Woodside willcontinue to implement environmental NWSJV field resources through theNWS Project facilities. The successful management strategy used for the existing NWS No new environmental issues are expected to beassociated withthelong-term processing ofthird-party gasand fluidsand and supportto theMurujuga Rock Art Strategy. stakeholders. Woodside actively participates intheMurujugaRock ArtStakeholder Reference Group andprovides funding to keep thepublicupto date withNWS Project operations, includingcurrent andfuture issues ofpotential interest to take place every two months at theKarratha Community LiaisonGroup Forum. Woodside distributes periodicnewsletters Project facilities. Discussions withkey stakeholders from government andcommunity groups intheCity ofKarratha area Woodside alsoengagesproactively in open andtransparent communication withthecommunity regarding theNWS have consistently operated at approximately 30%lower GHGemission intensity thanthat of LNGTrains 1,2and3. (Jacobs, 2019). Furthermore, becauseoftheirmore recent construction andthusmore moderndesign,LNGTrains 4and 5 have improved theGHGefficiency ofthe existing LNG Trains 1,2,and3 from 0.59 t CO2 initial commissioning in1984.Improvement projects andinitiatives implemented to reduce greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions The NWS Project facilities have beenthrough several majordevelopment phasesandextensive debottlenecking since their Figure 2-4: Regulatory Reportable DarkSmoke Events 2002-2018 Figure 2-3: NO 28 NO Emissions Intensity (t NO /kt production) Number of Events x x 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.1 10 12 NORTH WEST SHELFPROJECT EXTENSION 0 0 4 6 8 2 2000/01 2002 X Emissions Intensity 2000-2017 2001/02 2003

2002/03 2004

2003/04 2005

2004/05 2006

2005/06 2007

2006/07 2008

2007/08 2009 Year 2008/09 2010

2009/10 2011

2010/11 2012

2011/12 2013

2012/13 e/t ofLNGto 0.49 tCO 2 2014 2013/14 2015 2014/15 2016 2015/16 2017 2016/17 e/t ofLNG 2018 2017/18 economy andcommunity. locally intheCity ofKarratha, contributing to thelocal operations with441 (64%)oftheseemployees living employs approximately 691 peopleduringnormal investment for theCity ofKarratha. The NWS Project opportunities andassociated economic andsocial The Proposal provides continued employment the development ofotherwisesub-economic reserves. new trunklinesandprocessing facilities andmay enable environmental disturbance associated withconstructing to process new fielddevelopments minimisesthepotential marginal economics. Allowing NWS Project infrastructure Australia have development potential, however have Several offshore gas reserves intheNorth-West of to alower carbonfuture. social investment intheregion, andsupportsthetransition processing facilities, provides ongoingemployment and to bedeveloped withouttheneedfor constructing new Specifically, theProposal allows existing gas resources energy consumers across Australia andinternationally. the NWSJV, thecommunity oftheCity ofKarratha, and The Proposal presents anumberofopportunitiesfor 2.8 INTRODUCTION Proposal Justification and transport sectors (IEA,2019b). replacing more emissions-intensive fuelsintheindustry and balancingpower instead ofbaseload generation and scenario (SDS) particularlyinterms ofproviding peaking an important role intheIEAsustainable development CO reported that coal-to-gas switching helpedavert 95 mt of As anexample, theInternational Energy Agency (IEA) gas burnscleanerthanmost othercarbon-basedfuels. role inmoving towards alower carbonfuture asnatural natural gasasanenergy resource alsoplays animportant ongoing supplyofdomestic gasto WA. Continued useof energy security to energy consumers, includingthe existing NWS Project infrastructure willprovide increased Finally, theability to develop future gasreserves using require upto 1500short-term contractor positions. campaigns typically undertaken twice peryear, whichcan numbers increase furtherduringmajorturnaround roles that are filled by Karratha residents. Contractor offshore roles. We are aware of at least 300 contractor and service provider staff across a range ofonshore and The NWS Project alsoemploys more than1400contractor 2 emissions in2018 (IEA,2019a). Furthermore, gasplays 29 2 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION REGULATORY, LOCAL AND REGIONAL CONTEXT 3. REGULATORY, LOCAL AND REGULATORY, REGIONAL CONTEXT

3.1 Regulatory Context discharges to the marine environment from the LOCAL AND NWS Project to understand the spatial extent of the 3.1.1 Environmental Impact potential impacts to the marine environment from Assessment Process the Proposal (Appendix G). REGIONAL CONTEXT The Proposal was referred to the EPA, under Section In addition to these studies, this ERD has been based on 38 of the WA Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP operational and environmental data obtained since the Act) on 14 November 2018. On 4 December 2018, the commencement of the NWS Project more than 30 years EPA determined that the Proposal required assessment ago. This includes (but is not limited to) heritage surveys under Part IV of the EP Act at the level of Environmental (archaeological and ethnographic), marine monitoring Review – Public Environmental Review. and ambient air monitoring programs. In parallel, the Proposal was referred to DoEE on If the EPA is satisfied that the ERD adequately addresses 22 November 2018 in accordance with the EPBC Act. the requirements set out in the ESD (Woodside, 2019), On 3 May 2019, DoEE determined the Proposal to the EPA will approve the release of the ERD for a be a controlled action, requiring further assessment 6 week public review period. Following the public review by accredited assessment under Part IV of the EP period, the EPA will provide Woodside with a copy of Act, at the level of Environmental Review – Public all submissions received, which are to be addressed in Environmental Review. a ‘Response to Submissions’ document prepared by Woodside to the satisfaction of the EPA. The ESD for the Proposal was prepared by Woodside and approved by the EPA on 29 August 2019 following The EPA will assess the ERD, the submissions received, public review and comment (Woodside, 2019). The and Woodside’s response to submissions when ESD sets out the work required to address potentially preparing its report and recommendations to the significant impacts to the key environmental factors WA Minister for the Environment. The EPA report (air quality, social surroundings [heritage], and marine and recommendations will also be provided to the environmental quality) and the matters of national Commonwealth Minister for the Environment for use in environmental significance (MNES) (national heritage making a decision on the Proposal under the EPBC Act [EPBC Act Section 15B and 15C], namely the Dampier and any conditions that should be applied. Archipelago [including Burrup Peninsula]) relevant to the Proposal. 3.1.2 Other Approvals and Regulation The ERD has been prepared to satisfy the information The NWS Project operates in accordance with a number of requirements of the ESD. In developing this ERD other approvals and regulations. In 1977, the five foundation Woodside conducted several workshops, commissioned NWSJV participants entered into an agreement with the independent studies, and carried out stakeholder WA State Government. The agreement was legislated as consultation. In particular, the following studies were the North West Gas Development (Woodside) Agreement conducted and are appended to this ERD to inform Act 1979 (WA) (State Agreement). The State Agreement assessment: requires the NWSJV participants to submit proposals to the current Minister for State Development, Jobs and Trade + North West Shelf Project Extension Air Quality for developing the project and/or if changes to the original Impact Assessment (Jacobs, 2019a). This assessment approved proposal are proposed. These proposals must included air dispersion and deposition modelling of have regard for protecting and managing the environment, five scenarios to understand the potential impacts to including an ongoing program of investigation and air from the Proposal (Appendix E). monitoring to ascertain the effectiveness of any + Greenhouse Gas Benchmarking Assessment (Jacobs, environmental protection and management measures. 2019). This assessment benchmarked the GHG The proposals required under the State Agreement do not emission performance of the Karratha Gas Plant preclude assessment of the Proposal under the EP Act. (which is a component of the Proposal) against that In addition to the State Agreement, the Proposal of other comparable Australian and International must also comply with aspects of other relevant state LNG facilities (Appendix F). legislation and regulations and is guided by relevant + Karratha Gas Plant Wastewater Discharge Modelling key overarching state policies and strategies. Table 3-1 (RPC, 2019). This modelling project assessed summarises the other approvals and regulations that apply to the Proposal. 32 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Table 3-1: Other Approvals and Regulations

Proposal Activites Land Tenure/ Access Type of Legislation Regulating Regulatory Approval the Activity Body

Physical location of + Crown Lease LGE Tenure + Land Administration Act Department of onshore components I123606 1997 Planning, Lands and Heritage + Crown Lease LGE + Aboriginal Heritage Act I161020 1972 (DPLH) + Crown Lease LGE I237587 + Crown Lease LGE I154282 Operation of KGP + Crown Lease LGE Licence for + Environmental Protection Department I123606 Prescribed Act 1986 of Water and Premise Environmental + Crown Lease LGE + Environmental Protection I161020 Regulations 1987 Regulation (DWER) + Crown Lease LGE I237587 Storage and handling + Crown Lease LGE Dangerous + Dangerous Goods Safety Department of of dangerous goods I123606 Good Site Act 2004 Mines, Industry Licence Regulation and + Crown Lease LGE + Dangerous Goods Safety Safety (DMIRS) I161020 Safety Case (Storage and Handling of Non-explosives) + Crown Lease LGE I237587 Regulations 2007 Dangerous Goods Safety + Crown Lease LGE + I154282 (Major Hazard Facility) Regulations 2007 Physical location of + Seabed Lease Tenure + Land Administration Act DPLH the jetties 1997 + Port Authorities Act 1999 Operation of export + Seabed Lease Jetty + Jetties Act 1926 Department of jetties Licence Transport Physical location of the + Territorial Sea Pipeline Pipeline + Petroleum (Submerged DMIRS subsea trunklines 1TL Licence (TPL) 15 (1TL Licence Lands) Act 1982 and 2TL offshore pipeline + Petroleum (Submerged licence) Lands) (Pipelines) + TPL 16 (2TL offshore Regulations 2007 pipeline licence) + PL 58 (2TL onshore pipeline licence) + 1TL does not require an onshore pipeline licence Operation and + TPL 15 (1TL offshore Environment + Petroleum (Submerged DMIRS maintenance of 1TL pipeline licence) Plan and Lands) Act 1982 and 2TL Oil Spill + TPL 16 (2TL offshore + Petroleum (Submerged pipeline licence) Contingency Lands) (Environment) Plan Regulations 2012 + PL 58 (2TL onshore pipeline licence) + Pollution of Waters by Oil and Noxious Substances + 1TL does not require an onshore pipeline Act 1987

REGULATORY, LOCAL AND REGIONAL CONTEXT licence 3 + + + + + + + + + estate, withproximity to theregion’s deep-water portandWestern Australia’s existing domestic gaspipelinenetwork: At thetimeofwriting,two additionalthird-party developments hadbeenproposed for theBurrupPeninsula industrial The location oftheProposal isshown inFigure 2-2. 3.2 Table 3-2: Decision-making Authorities Relevant to theProposal decision-making authorities(DMAs) relevant to theProposal are listed inTable 3-2. In additionto theWA Minister for Environment, theWA EPA, andtheCommonwealth Minister for Environment, thekey 3.1.3 Existing industrial facilities ontheBurrupPeninsula are shown inFigure 3-1 and include: 3.2.2 use inthewiderarea includesconservation, recreation, tourism, andtraditional usesby Aboriginalpeople. The landuseofthearea immediately surrounding theonshore component oftheProposal iszoned asindustrial. Land 3.2.1 Chief Executive Officer, City of Karratha Chief Dangerous GoodsOfficer, DMIRS Chief Executive Officer, DWER Minister for MinesandPetroleum Minister for State Development, JobsandTrade Decision-making Authority

Rio Tinto’sEastIntercourseIslandandParkerPointshipping terminals forexportingironore. facilities onEastMidIntercourseIslandandMistakenIsland. Dampier Salt,whichhassaltminingoperationsontheeastside oftheBurrupPeninsulaandexport(shipping) diesel, condensate,salt,anhydrousammonia,bulkcargo,andgeneralcargo. Port ofDampier,whichcomprisesprivateportterminals.Mainimport/exportactivitiesincludeironore,LPG,LNG, (production, drilling,andexploration),harbourstugboatsforoilgasvessels. facilitates logisticsandtransportationofmaterialstooffshoreoperations,hasaportforvessels Burrup MaterialFacility,atKingBay,whichstoressparepartsandequipmentforoffshorefacilityoperations, ammonium nitrateandisusedbyminesthroughoutthePilbararegion. Yara PilbaraNitratesTechnicalAmmoniumNitrateplant,ajointventurewithOrica,whichconvertsammoniainto Yara PilbaraFertilisersplant,whichexportsammoniatodomesticandglobalmarketsfromthePortofDampier. infrastructure isnotpartoftheProposalandsubjecttoitsown,separate,approvals. including theplannedexpansionofPlutoLNGDevelopment.TheDevelopmentandassociated Pluto LNGDevelopment,whichcomprisesfacilitiesforprocessingandexportinggasfromoffshorereservoirs, Burrup Peninsula. Potential ureaplantwithaproductioncapacityofapproximately 2mtpaonSitesCandFwithintheBSIA Burrup StrategicIndustrialArea(BSIA)onthePeninsula. Potential methanolplantwithaproductioncapacityofapproximately 5000tonnesperdayonSiteEwithinthe Local andRegional Context Decision-making Authorities Other Developments intheRegion Land Use Planning andDevelopment Act 2005 Dangerous GoodsSafety Act 2004 Environmental Protection Act 1986 Petroleum PipelinesAct 1969 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1982 Act 1979 North West Development Gas (Woodside) Agreement Relevant WA Legislation REGULATORY, LOCAL ANDREGIONAL CONTENT 33 3 REGULATORY, REGULATORY,LOCAL LOCALAND REGIONAL AND REGIONALCONTEXT CONTEXT 34 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

Figure 3-1: Existing and Proposed Industrial Facilities REGULATORY, LOCAL AND REGIONAL CONTEXT 3 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 4. RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

4.1 Meteorology The Burrup Peninsula experiences an arid to tropical climate with two distinct seasons - a hot wet summer with periodic heavy rains, and a mild winter with occasional rainfall. A range of climatic data including temperature, rainfall, and winds, has been collected by the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) station at Karratha Airport (Karratha Aerodrome, Station ID 4083) since 1971. Specific climatic data relevant to the Proposal is described in the following subsections and has been included in the NWS Project Extension Air Quality Impact Assessment (Appendix E).

4.1.1 Temperature The 1993–2018 monthly mean maximum and minimum temperatures for BoM Karratha Aerodrome are shown in Figure 4-2. Over that time, daily maximum and minimum temperatures have ranged from 48 °C in the wet season to 7 °C in the dry season.

4.1.2 Rainfall and Relative Humidity Monthly rainfall statistics for BoM Karratha Aerodrome (for 1972–2018) are shown in Figure 4-3, and monthly mean 9 am and 3 pm relative humidity (RH) statistics for Karratha Aerodrome (for 1993–2010) are shown in Figure 4-4. The rainfall observations clearly show the Burrup Peninsula wet season running from approximately January to June, and the dry season from approximately July to December. Figure 4-1 Existing Meteorological andAmbient AirQuality Monitoring Stations

RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 37 4 Receiving Receiving Environment Environment 4 Receiving Environment 38 Figure 4-3: Monthly Rainfall –Karratha Aerodrome 1972–2018 Figure 4-2: Monthly Mean Maximum andMinimumTemperature –Karratha Aerodrome 1993–2018

Rainfall (mm) Temperature (deg. C) NORTH WEST SHELFPROJECT EXTENSION 200 300 250 350 100 150 50 40 20 30 45 25 35 10 15 0 0 5 Jan Jan Mean rainfall 1972 -2018 Feb Feb Mar Mar Mean maxTemp. 1993 -2018 Apr Apr Highest rainfall 1972 -2018 May May Jun Jun Jul Jul Mean minTemp. 1993 -2018 Aug Aug Highest dailyrainfall 1972 -2018 Sep Sep Oct Oct Nov Nov Dec Dec Figure 4-5. Monthly meandailywindspeedsandmaximumgusts for BoMKarratha Aerodrome for 2003–2018 are shown in 4.1.3 Figure 4-4: Monthly 9amand3pmRelative Humidity –Karratha Aerodrome 1993–2010 Figure 4-5: MeanDailyWind SpeedandMaximum Wind Gust –Karratha Aerodrome 2003–2018

Wing Speed (m/s) Relative Humidity (%) 100 40 40 60 90 80 50 20 20 30 30 70 25 35 10 10 15 0 0 5 Wind SpeedandWind Patterns Jan Jan Feb Feb Mean dailywindspeed (m/s) 2003 -2018 Mar Mar Mean 9amRH(%)1993 -2010 Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Jul Jul Mean 3pmRH(%)1993 -2010 Max windgust (m/s) 2003 -2018 Aug Aug Sep Sep Oct Oct RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT Nov Nov Dec Dec 39 4 Receiving Receiving Environment Environment 40 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Hourly average wind speed statistics calculated from measurements at BoM Karratha Aerodrome and two other weather stations in the Burrup region in 2014, are compared in Table 4-1. Table 4-1: Wind Speed Comparisons – Burrup Peninsula 2014

Statistic BoM Karratha Aerodrome BoM Roebourne BoM Legendre Island

Data capture 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% Maximum (m/s) 13.1 13.4 16.1 90th percentile (m/s) 8.0 7.8 9.7 70th percentile (m/s) 6.2 5.7 7.1 Average (m/s) 5.0 4.5 6.0

Pilbara Cyclones Cyclones have affected the coastal communities of Port Hedland, Karratha, Dampier, and Onslow, and parts of inland Pilbara. Typically, cyclones form over warm ocean waters to the north, intensify before crossing the Pilbara coast, then track south. (BoM, 2019). Heavy rainfall and flooding are the main impacts for most cyclonic events in inland Pilbara. The highest rainfall is usually found along or just east of the track for most systems. The flood potential of a cyclonic system is associated with its track, speed, areal extent, and saturation of catchments from prior rainfall. Rainfall totals >100 mm are common with tropical lows that move over land (BoM, 2019).

4.1.4 Climate Predictions in a Changing Climate Australia has experienced noticeable climate variability and changes in temperature, rainfall, and sea level. To better understand how regional future changes in climate may influence meteorology, the CSIRO has defined likely climate change scenarios for the catchments and bioregions across Australia. Australia has various climates and terrains so Natural Resource Management (NRM) groupings have been utilised to describe how global climate trends may be experienced nationally. The Proposal is located in the Rangelands cluster (see Figure 4-6), which spans a significant portion of Australia. This cluster contains varied landscapes, including the Flinders Ranges, the ranges of the Pilbara and the centre of Australia, Barkly Tableland, and Western Desert (CSIRO, 2019). Small towns, communities, and cattle and sheep grazing are distributed across the cluster. The vegetation also varies, and includes tropical woodlands, shrublands, grasslands, and saltbush (CSIRO, 2019). Water features are intermittent, predominantly comprising coastal rivers in the west and streams that drain into salty lakes (e.g. Kati Thanda–Lake Eyre in South Australia) (CSIRO, 2019). Rainfall systems in this cluster vary seasonally, from monsoonal rainfall events in the north, to low and variable rainfall patterns in the centre and south (CSIRO, 2019). This cluster covers varying landscapes and climate regions, so it is divided into the Rangelands North and Rangelands South sub-clusters (CSIRO, 2019). The NWS Project is in the Rangelands North sub-cluster (Figure 4-6). nvironment E eceiving R 4 Figure theRangeland 4-6:Mapof Cluster (Source: CSIRO 2019)

RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 41 4 Receiving Receiving Environment Environment 42 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

CSIRO have reported that the future climate of the embark on modelling a changing climate scenario is Rangelands cluster can be predicted by understanding impracticable. This would also introduce a high level the climate system, historical trends, and model of uncertainty due to the nature of natural interactions simulations of the climate response to changes in in atmospheric weather patterns, in a unique coastal GHG concentrations (CSIRO, 2019). Significant climate peninsula environment. trends including higher temperatures, increased Long running ambient air monitoring in the Burrup frequency of hot days, decreased rainfall, increased Peninsula Region (2008 – 2015) described further intensity of rainfall events, changes in wind speed, and in Section 4.2 provides a strong empirical dataset reduced humidity are predicted across the Rangelands (ambient air emissions) which includes operation of the cluster (CSIRO, 2019). Proposal in the region over a broad spectrum of climatic Temperatures in the Rangelands cluster have conditions. Inference to potential ambient air trends been monitored by the BoM since national records with varying climate conditions (such as temperature) commenced in 1910. From 1910 to 2013 the mean surface is preferred from this dataset. Ambient results have co- air temperature has increased by 1.0 °C in Rangelands measured meteorological information, and this dataset North and 0.9 °C in Rangelands South (CSIRO, 2019). is therefore independent of modelling uncertainties in Increases in mean maximum and minimum temperature both generating fine-scale meteorological conditions, are predicted, with mean warming predicted to increase and subsequent ambient air predictions based on these. by 0.6 °C to 1.4 °C above the 1986–2005 climate data (CSIRO, 2019). Increases in the hottest temperature reached on the hottest days is also predicted. Alice 4.2 Air Quality Springs, in the Rangelands North sub-cluster, is This section describes existing air quality in the Burrup predicted to have a 45% increase in the number of days Peninsula region. Woodside conducted ambient air above 35 °C by 2090 (CSIRO, 2019). monitoring programs on the Burrup Peninsula from 2008 to 2015; this data was used to supplement A decrease in spring rainfall events is predicted across historical studies to understand the existing air the Rangelands cluster. Changes to rainfall events across quality relevant to the Proposal (Refer to the NWS other seasons are predicted by 2090, but due to natural Project Extension Air Quality Impact Assessment variability an increase or decrease in the frequency of ( ). Prior to these monitoring programs, these events is unknown (CSIRO, 2019). Heavy rainfall Appendix E the Pilbara Air Quality Study (PAQS) was undertaken events are predicted to increase across the Rangelands, by the Government of Western Australia in the early but it is also unknown when these intense rainfall events 2000s (DoE, 2004), which included investigations of might occur (CSIRO, 2019). monitoring data. CSIRO (2006) reported on monitoring Global and regional studies predict a decrease in tropical undertaken specifically to assess the potential for cyclone frequency. Changes in the proportion of intense air pollutant impacts on petroglyphs, including storms and wind speed are uncertain, as little to no measurements of gaseous and particulate pollutants, change has been observed since observations began deposited dust, meteorological parameters, rainwater (CSIRO, 2019). Similarly, for relative humidity and solar composition, and the deposition of nitrogen and sulphur. radiation—little to no change is predicted across the The PAQS established a baseline for future assessments Rangelands North sub-cluster. However, a decrease in such as the Burrup Peninsula air pollution study by relative humidity in summer and autumn is predicted CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research (Gillet, 2008), across the Rangelands. and air dispersion modelling studies to investigate the Evapotranspiration is where water is transferred potential for air quality impacts (e.g. SKM (2009), and from the land to the atmosphere by evaporation. An Air Assessments (2010b)). Other similar air quality increase in evapotranspiration across the North and studies, and their supporting studies and reports, were South Rangelands sub-clusters is predicted in all completed around the same time (refer Appendix E and seasons, especially summer (CSIRO, 2019). Further Appendix H). hydrological and environmental modelling is needed Ambient levels were compared to the National to better understand the changes in soil moisture and Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) evapotranspiration across the Rangelands. Measure (NEPM [Ambient Air Quality]). The National Although the Proposal is located within the Rangelands Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (Cth), allows cluster, it is on the extreme north-western edge the National Environment Protection Council to make of it and in a coastal setting. Therefore, although National Environment Protection Measures (NEPMs).

nvironment these predictions for Rangelands can be useful for NEPMs are a special set of national objectives designed E understanding projected broadscale changes to climate, to assist in protecting or managing particular aspects local variations based on the specific location and nature of the environment. The NEPM [Ambient Air Quality] of the Proposal’s setting and local climatic conditions outlines (set) ambient air quality monitoring protocol

eceiving may occur. Predicting the datasets required to generate that allows for the adequate protection of human health R representative meteorological data to confidently and well-being (NEPC, 2016). 4 One source suggested that thehighest O3 than industrial sources (Golder Associates, 2014). at Karratha in2012 may have beencausedby fires rather than NO2. standard of100ppbbutisproportionately higher the corresponding 1-hrNEPM(Ambient AirQuality) The monitoring results showed that O 3 isalsobelow Quality) standard of120ppbfor NO2(Jacobs, 2019a). observed well below therelevant NEPM(Ambient Air ambient air monitoring showed that NO2istypically to therelevant airquality standards. Data from the Figure 4-11. NO2was monitored to allow comparison analysed for thisERDandare provided inFigure 4-7 to dioxide (NO2)andO3(acquired from 2008to 2015) were monitoring results ofhourlyaverages for nitrogen of Woodside onthe BurrupPeninsula. Ambient air conducted ambient airmonitoring programs onbehalf Between 2008and2015 SKM,Jacobs andEcotech Pandis, 2016). in thepresence ofultraviolet light (Seinfeld and such asVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) andCO NO 4.2.2 carbon monoxide (CO) andOxides ofNitrogen (NO reported to beozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10) Air pollutant levels typically affected by bushfires are noticeably impact theairquality inthePilbara region. Several airquality reports suggest that bushfires 4.2.1 of O3occurs from emissions ofNO O3 isamore complex process. Ingeneral, theproduction Proposal. AlthoughNO X andO3are key pollutants associated withthe Oxides ofNitrogen andOzone Air QualityEffects from Fires X isemitted from theProposal, X andotheremissions levels detected X , ). of theNWS Project was operating at ornearcapacity. ramped upto fullproduction andtheKGP, acomponent the 2014 period whenPluto LNGDevelopment had NO2 standards over themonitoring period.This includes been noexceedances oftheNEPM(Ambient AirQuality) and Figure 4-9(Burrup), demonstrate that there have shown inFigure 4-7 (Karratha), Figure 4-8(Dampier), annual average NO2concentrations (ppb) for theyears 120 ppb. Inspection of themaximumhourlyaverage and Quality) standard for maximumhourlyaverage NO percentile, medianandaverage. The NEPM(Ambient Air 99.9th percentile, 99thpercentile, 90thpercentile, 70th determined from thehourlyaverages are: maximum, 4-8 (Dampier),andFigure 4-9(Burrup). The statistics locations are illustrated inFigure 4-7 (Karratha), Figure average NO2concentrations for thethree monitoring monitoring have beendetermined from thehourly Statistical summariesoftheresults from ambient air determine thesource ofthisanomaly. A detailed analysis by Golder(2014) could not ppb), whichalloccurred on24 and26 October 2012. maximum 4-hourlyaverage O3concentration (80 of theNEPM(Ambient AirQuality) standard for by Golder(2014) identified only four small exceedances of ambient airmonitoring data between 2010 and2013 destroy thehigherconcentrations ofO3there. Areview Therefore, there was less NO2inthetownships to time itreached thetownships ofDampier andKarratha. sources, was dispersed to lower concentrations by the which isassumed to beemitted primarilyby Woodside industrial sources. Oneinterpretation isthat NO2, Road (‘Burrup’)station, located closerto theBurrup Karratha. The opposite was thecasefor theBurrup concentrations ofO3thanNO2inDampierand Ambient airmonitoring results showed higher RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 2 is 43 4 Receiving Receiving Environment Environment 4 Receiving Environment Figure 4-8:Woodside AirQuality Monitoring Results 2009–2015: DampierNO2 Figure 4-7: Woodside AirQuality Monitoring Results 2009–2015: Karratha NO2 44

NO (ppb) NO2 (ppb) 2 NORTH WEST SHELFPROJECT EXTENSION 100 100 40 60 90 80 50 20 30 70 10 40 60 90 80 50 20 30 70 10 0 0 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 (NEPM120 ppb) (NEPM120 ppb) 2013 2013

2014 2014 NO Hourly average NO Hourly average average median 70th %’ile 90th %’ile 99th %’ile 99.9th %’ile maximum 2 average median 70th %’ile 90th %’ile 99th %’ile 99.9th %’ile maximum 2 statistics statistics 2015 2015 Seasonal variation ofNO Figure 4-9: Woodside AirQuality Monitoring Results 2009–2015: BurrupNO2

19-23 ppb). slightly lower (e.g. 1-hrO3duringDecember andMarch 2014 between 32-38 ppb(99.9 percentile), andaverage around around 38-49 ppb(99.9 percentile), andaverage around 23-31 ppb), whilst December to March periodsare typically increases duringSeptember to November at Dampierand Karratha (e.g. 1-hrO3duringSeptember to November 2014 Seasonal variation ofO3duringeachthemonitoring years isless evident thanNO2variation, withslight relative (maximum hourlyaverage, 100ppb) was notexceeded inany hourmeasured over 2009–2015. Karratha (Figure 4-10 ) andDampier(Figure 4-11). The corresponding NEPM(Ambient AirQuality) standard Statistical summariesofresults for hourlyaverage O3concentrations are shown for thetwo monitoring locations: between 5.8-16.8ppb(99.9 percentile), andaverage around 2ppb). and average around 3.5ppb), whilst hotsummerperiodsare lower (e.g. 1-hrNO2duringDecember andJanuary2014 with peaksobserved duringcooler months (e.g. 1-hrNO2duringJulyandAugust 2014 around 18ppb(99.9 percentile),

NO2 (ppb) 100 40 60 90 80 50 20 30 70 10 0 2009 2 duringeachofthemonitoring years isobservable from theambient data set at allstations, 2010 2011 2012 (NEPM120 ppb) 2013 2014 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT NO Hourly average average median 70th %’ile 90th %’ile 99th %’ile 99.9th %’ile maximum 2 statistics 2015 45 4 Receiving Receiving Environment Environment 46 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

120 Hourly average

O3 (ppb) statistics

maximum NEPM O3 HOURLY AVERAGE (100 pb) 100 99.9th %’ile

99th %’ile

90th %’ile 80 70th %’ile

median

average 60 (ppb) 3 O 40

20

0

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Figure 4-10: Woodside Air Quality Monitoring Results 2009–2015: Karratha O3

120 Hourly average

O3 statistics

maximum NEPM O3 HOURLY AVERAGE (100 pb) 100 99.9th %’ile

99th %’ile

90th %’ile 80 70th %’ile

median

average 60 (ppb) 3 O 40

20

0

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 nvironment E Figure 4-11: Woodside Air Quality Monitoring Results 2009–2015: Dampier O3 eceiving R 4 benzene isconsidered a‘trigger pollutant’ for theBTEX with reported emissions ofthesesubstances. Given this, recorded at lower levels than benzene, whichcorrelates found that toluene andxylenes were consistently A review ofallmonitoring results from 2008to 2015 investigation level for benzene of3ppb. and less than 4%oftheNEPM(Air Toxics) monitoring typically less than0.1 ppb(at ornearlevel of detection), monitoring results indicate theannualaverage benzene is operating nearby to themonitoring station). Ambient may includetransient emission sources (such asvehicles causes oftheselocalisedandshort-term elevated levels at Burrup 2instrument (0.04% oftotal hours). Possible Burrup 1instrument (0.03% oftotal hours), and12hours at theBurrupmonitoring station location: 14hours at (2016) assessment criterion for benzene (9ppb) occurred During themonitoring briefexceedances oftheNSW EPA concentrations at bothlocations was 0.1 ppb. The measured 90thpercentile hourlyaverage benzene Environmental Protection Authority (NSW EPA), 2016). NSW EPA assessment criterion is9ppb(NSW exceeded 3ppb. For comparison, the corresponding at DampierandKarratha from 2008to 2010 never measured at thelocaltownship airquality stations Maximum hourlyaverage concentrations ofbenzene hourly average concentrations. and were usedto assist withinterpretation ofmeasured out hourlyaverage concentration assessment criteria NSW EPA Assessment Criteria are relevant asthey set human healtheffects thanshorter term averages. The averages becausetheseare more readily related to (Air Toxics) sets outstandards for longterm (annual) for assessing dailyandannualaverages. The NEPM Protection (Air Toxics) Measure’ (NEPM[Air Toxics]) average concentrations andthe‘National Environment Assessment Criteria) for assessing maximumhourly of AirPollutants inNew SouthWales’ (NSW EPA ‘Approved Methods for theModellingandAssessment The relevant standards whenassessing BTX are the xylene emissions. significantly lower thaneitherbenzene, toluene, or demonstrates that ethylbenzene emissions are historic emissions reports (e.g. NPI)oftheProposal programs, dueto technical limitations. Areview of measured aspartofhistoric ambient airmonitoring level relevant to theProposal. xylene compounds (BTX) asanindicator for VOC risk determine theambient level ofbenzene, toluene, and Ambient airmonitoring data were alsoassessed to 4.2.3 3 been used inthecharacterisation of thelocal andregional ambient airquality. The Burrup Peninsula AirPollution Study: FinalReport –April 2006 (CSIRO, 2006) hasbeenreviewed to assist withriskscreening of BTEX andhasnot Ethylbenzene, andXylene [BTEX]) (including Benzene, Toluene, Volatile Organic Compounds 3 Ethylbenzene was not activity inthePilbara airshed mainlycontributed to other partsofAustralia. values are typical ofPM10 matter less than10 Iron, 2019). On9May 2019, very highPM10 published onlinecanbeusedfor assessment (Pilbara review at thetimeofwriting.However, recent data Tinto, 2015). Monitoring reports were notavailable for King Bay, Wickham, Point andRoebourne Samson (Rio Rio Tinto conducts PMmonitoring at Dampier, Karratha, providing context oftheexisting airquality. characterised by highlevels ofPM,whichisrelevant to emission from theProposal, theexisting environment is Although Particulate Matter (PM)isnotahigh 4.2.4 (99.9% ofhours). the NSW EPA Assessment Criteria for almost allthetime station—showed that BTX concentrations were below capture was less than75% for eachambient monitoring monitoring results for 2009—theonlyyear where data A statistical summaryofthehourlyaverage BTX xylene are alsobelow theassessment criteria. the assessment criteria thentoluene, ethylbenzene and group ofVOCs, meaningthat ifbenzene islower than ranging between 30and40 wind speedsinJanuary, withtypical dailyconcentrations industry. The PM10 particulate emissions from bushfires, dust storms, andsome and airquality impacts, withthelatter likely dueto local record provides information abouttheclean-air background Peninsula canbedrawn from inspecting thisrecord. The conclusions aboutthevariations inPM10 Dampier from 2001 to 2004(SKM, 2005).Somebroad series plotofdailyPM10 Environment Protection Statement” provides ausefultime The “DampierPort Increase inThroughput –120mtpa with amedianoraverage closerto 20 air background’ PM10 for Karratha (10Aprilto 10May 2019) indicates the‘clean- was theprobable cause. Areview of30days ofPM10 suggests aregional dust elevation from natural causes measurements, taken by several monitors onthisday, and Roebourne. The strong correlation between these observed at Dampier, Karratha, Wickham, Point Samson, concentrations varied between 10and20 season withcorresponding lower windspeeds,typical daily from ~5–10 exceedances peryear. Mid-year, duringthedry matter asPM10 (SKM, 2006)reviewed monitoring results for particulate The Pluto LNGDevelopment Cumulative AirQuality Study NEPM (Ambient AirQuality) standard of50 as PM Airborne Particulate Matter . The study found that existing concentrations peaked duringhigher 10 µ andPM m indiameter) concentrations were levels are approximately 10 measured by Hamersley Iron at concentrations measured in µ g/m RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 2.5 3 . Exceedances ofthe µ on the Burrup ontheBurrup g/m µ g/m (particulate µ 3 g/m industrial industrial . These 3 . 3 µ ranged g/m data 3 , 47

4 Receiving Receiving Environment Environment 48 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

emissions of PM2.5 and PM10, with PM exceeding NEPM Proposal, based on assessment of ambient levels and (Ambient Air Quality) advisory criteria (SKM, 2006) contribution to those emissions by the Proposal. stated that higher PM10 concentrations were observed on days of high wind speeds. On these days the PM2.5/ PM10 fraction was reduced from ~ 50% to ~ 20%, indicating 4.3 Terrestrial Environment windblown dust caused the high PM10 concentrations, as the small particle fraction is higher in smoke emissions. 4.3.1 Soils and Geology The Burrup Peninsula is part of a spine of Archaean A review by Air Assessments (Air Assessments, 2010a) igneous rocks that includes granophyres, gabbros, indicated that measurements of PM10 at Dampier tend and small granite exposures (Woodside, 2006). The to be high, and ‘exceed the NEPM (Ambient Air Quality) disturbance footprint occupies a granitic land system with standard’. (Air Assessments, 2010a) indicated the major heavily weathered, shallow, red sandy soils, comprising a sources of PM in the Burrup region are: smoke from fires, mixture of boulders, cobbles, gravels, and silty sand. Soils dust from natural sources and iron ore stockpiling, and reach a depth of up to 2 m in lower alluvial slopes, which ship-loading operations at the ports of Dampier and may also contain stony clay colluvial infills. Cape Lambert. Emissions of PM from the onshore gas plants were recognised as small and of little relevance in The surface soils within the disturbance footprint have comparison with these other sources. been heavily modified by cutting, filling, and levelling to enable construction of level, sealed areas of hard An independent review of PM2.5 monitoring results standing for roads, storage tanks, processing equipment acquired at Karratha, Dampier and Burrup monitoring etc, as well as drainage features to contain and direct stations from December 2011 to December 2012 was surface water flows (and consequently reduce rainwater conducted by Golder for the Pluto LNG Development infiltration) in the event of seasonal heavy rainfall. The (Golder, 2014). Although a number of exceedances of KGP sits on a raised platform of fill material. The existing NEPM advisory criteria for PM2.5 were recorded at the topsoil, erosional deposits and in-situ weathering profiles three locations, based on back-trajectory analysis, flare were excavated to expose ‘fresh’ bedrock. The bedrock rate, black smoke and PM2.5 concentrations, Golder (2014) surface was subsequently used as the base on which concluded there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the fill platform was constructed using the excavated air emissions from the Pluto LNG Development were material, together with additional material from local not associated with the exceedances. Iron ore handling sources. Typically, this material consisted of coarse was stated as a probable cause of exceedances of PM2.5 angular gravel, cobbles, and boulders of granophyre standards detected at Dampier monitoring station. debris. Whilst the depth of fill is variable, boreholes drilled within the platform by URS suggest that it ranges 4.2.5 Sulphur Dioxide from 4 m – 11.5 m depth (Woodside, 2006). A review of sulphur dioxide (SO2) ambient air monitoring results on Burrup Peninsula was undertaken by Air 4.3.2 Vegetation and Flora Assessments (Air Assessments, 2010b) which has The Proposal is within the Roebourne subregion of the been used to determine levels of SO2 in the existing air Pilbara Bioregion as defined by the Interim Biogeographic quality. This report was used as SO2 was not monitored Regionalisation of Australia (DSEWPC, 2012a). Vegetation in the ambient air monitoring programs. To understand of the Roebourne subregion is generally characterised by SO2 levels, the ambient air monitoring report (Air quaternary alluvial, colluvial coastal, and subcoastal plains Assessments, 2010b) applied conservative assumptions to that support grass savannah, hummock grasses, and dwarf several fixed industrial emissions sources, noting very low shrub steppe of Acacia stellaticeps or A. pyrifolia and A. sulphur in fuel concentrations. For this reason, estimates inaequilatera (Astron, 2018). The uplands are dominated for exhaust SO2 for most sources were assessed as by Triodia hummock grasslands and Eucalyptus victrix or being at or near the limit of detection, thus a reasonable Corymbia hamersleyana woodlands that are supported by estimate for an annual average was 0.1 ppb (the NEPM ephemeral drainage lines (Astron, 2018). (Ambient Air Quality) standard for annual SO2 is 20 ppb). Maximum hourly average concentrations would not be Although some vegetation is located within the Proposal expected to exceed 10 ppb for most locations away from development envelope, online flora and vegetation engine exhausts on ships, the most significant source in databases do not identify any threatened ecological the region. The comparable maximum hourly average communities, threatened flora or priority flora within the NEPM (Ambient Air Quality) standard is 200 ppb. development envelope. Five flora species listed as Priority 3 flora by the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation

nvironment and Attractions (DBCA) and one species listed as Priority E Summary 4 are known to occur on the Burrup Peninsula within a 10 In summary, the review of air quality monitoring data km radius of KGP. These are Eragrostis surreyana, Schoenus for the Burrup Peninsula study area showed that NO2, punctatus, Stackhousia clementii, Terminalia supranitifolia,

eceiving and O3 are the health pollutants most relevant to the Vigna triodiophila and Rhynchosia bungarensis. Two R 4 Table 4-2: Vegetation withMediumorHighSensitivity of thevegetation hasbeendetermined basedonits where native vegetation hasbeenretained. The sensitivity clearing activities have occurred, to very goodorexcellent assumed to range from completely degraded where The exact vegetation condition isunknown, butitis communities; andBurrupPeninsula rock pilecommunities. on theBurrupPeninsula: BurrupPeninsula rock pool Priority 1ecological communities are known to occur long-term subsurface water storage. The granophyre the presence ofgranophyre at shallow depthsprevents recharge ofgroundwater duringrainfall events; however, Burrup Peninsula are highlypermeableandallow the The soilsandunderlyingweathered bedrock onthe (Woodside, 2006). aquifers occur aslocalisedsystems withregional flow planes, andcavities oftherock mass. Fractured rock isolated pockets, located inrock fractures, joints, bedding Groundwater aquifers ontheBurrupPeninsula occur as waterholes andgorges. periods that stop stream flow andthe recharge ofdeeper rainfall andshort-duration events are followed by dry lines andnumerous gullies(Figure 4-12). These high- water flows are channelledoff steep slopes into drainage topography oftheBurrupPeninsula issuchthat surface experienced ashigh-flow, short-period events. The general freshwater flows inthe region are variable andare often relies oninputsduringthewet season.Consequently, Peninsula haslimited surface freshwater suppliesand As withmuchofthewiderPilbara region, theBurrup 4.3.3 Aboriginal peopleincluding: Vegetation that contains plants usedby + + + + + + + + + + Vegetation Description pool communities Burrup Peninsula: BurrupPeninsula rock Vegetation that includesorishabitat for: pile communities Burrup Peninsula: BurrupPeninsula rock

Solanum sp. Avicennia marinaFicusbrachypoda Acacia pyrifolia Acacia coriacea Rhynchosia bungarensis Vigna triodiophila Terminalia supranitifolia Stackhousia clementii Schoenus punctatus Eragrostis surreyana Hydrology Peninsula the Aboriginalgroups oftheBurrup ongoing connection to thelandfor have heritage value andprovides an This vegetation isconsidered to Priority 3orPriority 4by DBCA Named flora speciesare listed as Reason for Sensitivity Priority Ecological Community Priority Ecological Community no coastal aquifers hydraulically connected to thesite. groundwater underlyingtheNWS Project andthere are There are noenvironmental values associated with 4.3.4 fresh surface water exist within the development envelope. flow onaseasonalbasis.Nopermanent natural bodiesof been truncated ormodifiedandmay contain water and/or across thedevelopment envelope, someofwhichhave Nevertheless, several remnant creeks andgulliesoccur was heavily altered by theconstruction oftheKGP. The natural topography ofthedevelopment envelope (Woodside, 2006). and subject to gradual drainage andevaporation perched water tables.Instead, thiswater willbeephemeral Little groundwater flow is expected to occur from the groundwater movement (Woodside, 2006). limited openpathways governs therate andnature of orientation, interconnectivity andpermeability ofthese mass withlimited openfractures/joints. Therefore, the at depthisexpected to beagenerally tight, solidrock considered to beofhighormediumsensitivity. also classed as‘sensitive’. Table 4-2 details thevegetation used by Aboriginalgroups orthat hasheritagevalue is Similarly, vegetation andfloraas that hasbeenidentified community lists isclassed as‘sensitive vegetation’. threatened orlisted onDBCA’s Priority flora andecological and flora that islisted under State or Federal legislation as conservation significance and/or heritage value. Vegetation Ground Water Yes of thedevelopment envelope No. Noknown records within2km of thedevelopment envelope No. Noknown records within2km of thedevelopment envelope No. Noknown records within2km Development Envelope Within orAdjacent to RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 49 4 Receiving Receiving Environment Environment 50 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION nvironment E Figure 4-12: Surface Hydrology of the Burrup Peninsula eceiving R 4 + + + the following parameters: includes anannualsurveillance monitoring program of ChEMMS was initiated by theNWSJV inJune1985and indicate impacts arisingfrom operation oftheProposal. program monitors for environmental changesthat may Monitoring ofMermaidSound(ChEMMS) program. This environment aspartoftheChemicalandEcological and biologicalmonitoring oftheintertidal andsubtidal development envelope, Woodside undertakes chemical environment withinandadjacent to theProposal To monitor thehealthanddetect changesinthemarine Coastal Regionalisation ofAustralia (DEH,2006). (NWMR) asdefinedundertheIntegrated Marineand which isapartofthewiderNorthWest MarineRegion the NWS andare contiguous withtheNWS province, islands (includingtheDampierArchipelago) are partof coastal habitats alongthePilbara coast andnearshore in thebroader DampierArchipelago. The marineand infrastructure liewithinthewaters ofMermaidSound The trunklines(1TLand2TL) andnearshore marine 4.4 undertaken at several sites, including: Monitoring for theChEMMSprogram iscurrently

Coral health(conductedeveryfiveyears). Mangrove health. mud whelks. hydrocarbons) insamplesofsediments,oystersand Contaminant concentrations(e.g.metals, Marine Environment + + been includedinthisERD. the ChEMMSprogram andotherrelevant sources have inform thisERD. The latest data andinformation from ChEMMS program were not considered necessary to additional monitoring orstudies beyond theexisting the NWS Project facilities are beinginitiated. Therefore, observed andnosignificant changes to theoperation of No significant environmental changeshave been environment through theChEMMSprogram isongoing. well understood. Monitoring for changesinthemarine surrounding thedevelopment envelope isregarded as of potential contamination inthemarineenvironment Tourism, Science andInnovation. Asaresult, thelevels Agreement report submitted to Department ofJobs, Environment Report submitted to DWER andtheState ChEMMS results are reported eachyear intheAnnual subject to change. of theChEMMSprogram. Assuch,thesesites may be appropriate andcontinue to meet therequirements monitoring sites are reviewed to confirm they are As partofChEMMSprogram reviews, thecurrent Locations ofmonitoring sites are shown inFigure 4-13.

Hearson Cove. Watering Cove,CowrieNorthBurrup,and Reference sitesatConzincBay,Withnell discharges). ecological protectionzonesinthevicinityofplanned (including attheboundaryoflowormoderate Potential impactsitesaroundtheKGPandKBSB RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 51 4 Receiving Receiving Environment Environment 52 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION nvironment

E Figure 4-13 ChEMMS Monitoring Locations and Methodology eceiving R 4 around theislandsare complex (Woodside, 2015). However, secondary circulation canoccur becauseflows m/s duringspringtidesand0.1 m/s duringneaptides. offshore inMermaidSound,tidal currents are ~ 0.2 currents, exceeding 2m/s (Woodside, 2015). Further between AngelandDolphinIslandshave thestrongest The channelsconnecting MermaidSoundandNickol Bay channel southofRosemary Island(Jones, 2004). between Eaglehawk andEnderby Islandsandthe of MermaidSound,and0.3 to 0.4 m/s inthechannel ranging from 0.4 to 0.5 m/s at theseaward reaches and someoftheislandsexperience strong tidalspeeds, The offshore entrances oftheDampierArchipelago direction at comparable speeds(Pearce et al,2003). (Pearce et al,2003). Ebbtidesflow intheopposite the Intercourse Islandsat thesouthofarchipelago Mermaid SoundandStrait, converging near and are channelledthrough theislandsandalong spring tide, tidesflow inasouth-easterly direction large-scale ocean circulation (Jones, 2004).Ona by thelayout oftheislands,tides,localwinds,and Currents intheDampierArchipelago are influenced events (Pearce et al,2003). significantly raised during storm surges and cyclonic 2003). Sealevels above predicted tidalheights canbe greater than6mnorthofBroome (Pearce et al, from less than2msouth-west ofBarrow Islandto 5.1 m,withinaregion that hasarange oftidalheight are influenced by semidiurnaltides,which range up to The DampierArchipelago andthesurrounding islands excess of8mheight canbeproduced. season (December to April),whenswell conditions in and extreme windsare more frequent duringcyclone north. (Woodside, 2015). Intense low-pressure systems shores oftheBurrupPeninsula andtheislandsto its result incalmermarineconditions dueto thewestern Archipelago, whilethepredominantly winter easterlies result inincreased wave action withintheDampier et al,2003). Predominately westerly windsinsummer their heights typically reduce by at least 50%(Pearce move down MermaidSoundfrom theopenocean, Dampier Archipelago (Pearce et al,2003). Aswaves a low, consistent, longwave form that reaches to the during winter, whichgenerates swell andcancreate August). Storm events form inthelower IndianOcean 1 to 2m,whichrisesto 3mduringwinter (June to south-west direction withanaverage swell height of envelope are characterised by waves mainlyfrom a Coastal processes inthevicinity ofthedevelopment 4.4.1 well developed along the Pilbara coastline andinclude Intertidal andshallow subtidalhabitats are extensive and 4.4.2 Coastal Processes Benthic Habitats above, that occur nearthedevelopment envelope. benthic communities usingthehabitats described The following subsections discuss thevarious acknowledging theconfidence ofthesemay belower. Woodside may refer to more detailed habitat maps, 2017). Where impacts to localisedfeatures are required, based onexpert assessment ofthefeature (MScience, cases, thespatial extent offeatures was modified confidence classification of data layers but,insome The expert advice was generally usedto modify the Dampier Archipelago andsurrounding CapeLambert. in thebenthic primaryproducing habitats withinthe was performed by incorporating advice from anexpert validity. Afinalassessment ofthe combined spatial data available satellite imageryto increase confidence intheir boundaries offeatures were modifiedbasedonthe imagery to confirm their validity. Insomecases,the features were checked against high-resolution satellite layer conflicts hadbeen resolved, randomly selected confidence values were modified accordingly. Once all classification between grouped layers andthe feature The finalshapefile was assessed for conflicts inhabitat grouping individualhabitat layers into onespatial file. (MScience, 2017). The finalhabitat file was produced by it andthefeature iscorroborated by two data sources) justified basedonthesurvey methods used to describe 5 -data ishighlyreliable andtheextent ofthefeature is assigned (ranging from 1–data shouldberejected to data layers aconfidence value for each feature was features. onthedata Based source andagreement of congruence intheextent andplacement ofhabitat split into individualhabitat types andevaluated for data for theregion were overlayed. Habitat layers were the map, anextensive range ofexisting habitat maps/ significant habitats ofMermaidSound.Indeveloping maps andisusedto show withhighconfidence the an amalgamation ofanumberprevious studies and Sound ispresented inFigure 4-14. The habitat mapis A mapofsignificant benthic habitats inMermaid and pass through two smallareas of subtidal reef platform. trunklines (1TLand2TL) traverse siltandsandsubstrates and theshippingchannelare located. The NWS Project the nearshore areas where thejetties, berthingpockets and macroalgae at MermaidSound;andsilt substrate in Creek andvarious otherbeaches;corals, seagrasses, comprise ofmangroves at NoNameCreek, NorthEast The habitats surrounding thedevelopment envelope reefs, androcky shores (Pearce et al,2003). habitats, includingsoftsediments andsandybeaches, rocks, andhasahighdiversity ofnearshore marine major islandsandmany smallerislands(islets) and The DampierArchipelago comprises more than40 ephemeral seagrass beds(Wells et al,2003). mangroves, coral androcky reefs, algae, mudflats and RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 53 4 Receiving Receiving Environment Environment 54 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION nvironment

E Figure 4-14 Significant Benthic Habitats of the Dampier Archipelago eceiving R 4 factors outsideWoodside’s control (Advisian, 2018a). variation, responses to climate fluctuations, orother sites, andtherefore are likely to bedueto natural occurred across allmonitoring sites, includingreference cover increased between 2015 and2017. These changes cover recorded between 2014 and2015, thecanopy Although there was ashort-term decrease incanopy can beattributed to theNWS Project (Advisian, 2017). data in2017 shows nochangesinmangrove healththat part oftheChEMMSprogram. Areview oftheChEMMS and at NoNameCreek. This stand hasbeenstudied as that exist adjoiningsandybeachesnearNoNameBay envelope area isstands ofAvicennia andRhizophora The nearest mangrove community to thedevelopment exaristata, Aegialitis annulata, mangrove occur intheDampierregion: Avicennia marina, from erosion by stabilising sediments. Sixspeciesof grounds andnurseries; they alsoprotect coastal areas recognised asbeingimportant habitats for fish feeding tidal creeks, andsheltered bays. Mangroves are typically restricted to sheltered areas suchasestuaries, The geographic distribution ofmangrove habitat is habitats from development pressures (Woodside, 2006). protecting thesecommunities, habitats, anddependent documentation hasbeenestablished by theEPA for Pilbara coastline isrecognised andspecificguidance significance oftropical arid zone mangroves alongthe sea snakes, turtles,andbirds (Wells et al,2003). The providing habitat for fauna speciesincludingfish, ecosystem, contributing to primaryproductivity and Mangroves are animportant partofthecoastal 4.4.2.1 the development envelope Woodside monitors oysters To understand the healthofmarineinvertebrates near important speciesintheregion. of thesetaxa are commercially andrecreationally (family Myctophidae) (Beckley et al,2009).Some taxa suchastunas(family Scombridae) andlanternfish assemblages are dominated by deepwater andpelagic west snappers (family Lethrinidae), whileoffshore damselfish (family Pomacentridae) andnorth- shallow reef fishes suchasblennies(family Blenniidae), ichthyoplankton assemblage ischaracterised by as corals andfishes (Sampey et al,2004). The inshore stages ofmany organisms (i.e. meroplankton) such The zooplankton intheregion includesthelarval echinoderm species(Woodside, 2006). 1227 mollusc,438 crustacean, 275 sponge, and286 been recorded intheDampierArchipelago, including More than2226 speciesofmarineinvertebrates have and diverse group oftropical invertebrate species. areas oftheDampierArchipelago supportanabundant The widevariety ofsuitablehabitats inthenearshore 4.4.2.2 Marine Invertebrates Mangroves Ceriops tagal, andRhizophora stylosa. Aegiceras corniculatum, Bruguiera of colonies showing signsofanthropogenic damage. all sites was positive, witharelatively small number that theoverall healthofthecorals monitored across A review of theChEMMSdata collected in2017 indicates substrata suchasPrecambrian rock (Jones, 2004). development; rather they grow by encrusting solid Peninsula coast show little evidence ofreef The coral communities alongthe mainlandBurrup spill, sedimentation, andcyclones (Pearce et al,2003). communities, which are sensitive to events suchasoil and theBurrupPeninsula form ecologically important subtidal slopesthat fringeshorelines inMermaidSound anchoring. Coral communities colonising therocky damaged by weather, predators, dredging, fishing, and to natural andanthropogenic influences, andcanbe outer harbour(Woodside, 2006).Corals are sensitive wave-tolerant clearwater speciesfurtheroffshore inthe dominated by sediment-tolerant speciesthat shiftto gradient inwhichnearshore orinnerharbourreefs are Distribution ofcoral communities shows astrong of 20km. the closest to thedevelopment envelope, at adistance Kendrew Islands(Woodside, 2015); Rosemary Islandis seaward slopesofDelambre, Legendre, Rosemary, and assemblages oftheDampierArchipelago are onthe to occur inWA (URS,2004).The most diverse coral of the318hermatypic speciesfrom 70 genera known Dampier Archipelago, representing alarge proportion scleractinian (soft) corals are found throughout the of 229speciesbothscleractinian (hard) andnon- inshore reef system (Blakeway et al,2005).Atotal marine environment hasahighspeciescount for an which supportvarious coral species,andthenearshore The Pilbara region contains anassortment ofsubstrates, substratum (Woodside, 2006). because they establish andgrow onexisting hard low water. These fringingreefs are nottruecoral reefs and are typically found between 2mand10mean the shorelines ofislandsandtheBurrupPeninsula, predominantly occur asnarrow linearfeatures fringing Coral communities oftheDampierArchipelago 4.4.2.3 distant from NorthEast Creek andNoNameCreek. has beenseenacross most sites, includingreference sites and nickel concentrations (Advisian, 2018a). This increase parameters, except for agradual increase inchromium whelks in2017 didnotshow anincreasing trend inany in mangroves. Analysis ofcontaminant levels inmud Mud whelksare gastropod snailsfound abundantly (Advisian, 2018a). all sites, following asimilartrend to previous years with results generally showing slight fluctuation at analysed in2017 have notshown anincreasing trend, Contaminant levels inoysters for theparameters and mudwhelksaspartoftheChEMMSprogram. Coral RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 55 4 Receiving Receiving Environment Environment 56 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Analysis of the most recent coral monitoring data 4.4.3 Intertidal Mudflats and Sand Flats (Advisian, 2018b) demonstrates little variation in coral The intertidal zone of the Dampier Archipelago is cover between this most recent survey and the previous characterised by wide sandflats and mudflats, rocky surveys, indicating no significant impact associated with shores, coral reefs and mangroves, all of which support the NWS Project to date. abundant and diverse invertebrate fauna. Intertidal mudflat and sandflats generally support an abundant 4.4.2.4 Seagrass and species-rich invertebrate fauna including molluscs, Seagrasses depend on light and suitable sea polychaete worms and crustaceans, which are a food temperatures and conditions, and are generally found in source for foraging migratory birds (CALM, 2005). coastal waters at depths up to 10 m (Woodside, 2006). Seagrasses in the Dampier Archipelago are generally 4.4.4 Shorelines sparse, occurring in low abundance on shallow sandy The shorelines in the Dampier Archipelago include a sediments in sheltered areas and interspersed with other diverse range of geomorphic units including: benthic communities and habitats. The predominant species is Halophila, which is typically restricted to a 6 m + intertidal rocky shores depth contour (Woodside, 2006) . + subtidal rocky shores Seagrasses are found in the inner harbour of Mermaid + intertidal limestone pavements Sound, including Withnell Bay, with the closest + subtidal limestone pavements occurrence about 1.8 km from the development intertidal flats envelope. It is highly unlikely that seagrasses are present + in offshore areas of the region beyond ~50 m depth, + intertidal beaches mainly due to light attenuation. + subtidal shoals Sheltered flats and larger bays in the Dampier + subtidal plains (Jones, 2004). Archipelago support sparse meadows of seagrass, The habitats immediately surrounding the development occurring in low abundance of shallow sandy sediments envelope comprise rocky shorelines and the sandy (McMahon et al, 2017). Seagrass meadows are more beaches at No Name Bay (Woodside, 2015). The area abundant between Keast and Legendre Islands north is underlain by granophyre bedrock, which is a fine- of the Burrup Peninsula, and between West Intercourse grained acid igneous rock with similar mineralogical and Island and Cape Preston. Recorded occurrences of chemical properties to granite (Woodside, 2015). Due to Halophila species in the Dampier Archipelago fluctuate the nature of its formation, granophyre is a very hard. depending on factors such as salinity, success of seed set and colonisation, temperature, and grazing by 4.4.5 Water and Sediment Quality dugongs (Woodside, 2006). 4.4.5.1 Water Quality and Characteristics 4.4.2.5 Macroalgae Mean water temperature of the nearshore waters of the Macroalgae, or seaweeds, generally require a hard Dampier Archipelago range from 22.5 °C in July/August substrate, sufficient sunlight, and water clarity and so to 30.4 °C in February. Nearshore waters are typically are generally limited to shallow water. In nearshore more saline although dilution of surface water occurs areas, macroalgae are most commonly found on shallow during periods of cyclonic activity and heavy rainfall. limestone pavements located throughout the Dampier Water turbidity increases from the clear, oceanic waters Archipelago and along coastal areas of the Pilbara. offshore to relatively turbid waters inshore (Pearce et al, 2003). The higher level of turbidity in the nearshore Large expanses of macroalgae are prevalent along the environment is predominantly related to the continual seaward side of West Intercourse Island, approximately resuspension of fine sediment material through natural 17 km away from NWS Project, extending south-west inputs such as winds, tidal currents, and wave energy, along the coast to Cape Preston and beyond, and on which is exacerbated in shallow areas where strong several shallow reef flats on the western and eastern tidal flows exist (such as through Flying Foam Passage) margins of Mermaid Sound. or where a high volume of vessel movements occur. The most abundant group of macroalgae in the region Monitoring at 25 sites (outside dredging periods) spread is brown algae; in particular, species from the genus throughout Mermaid Sound for dredging associated Sargassum, Dictyopteris, and Padina are very common. with the Pluto LNG Development found that long-term nvironment The most common species of green algae in the median turbidity (recorded as nephelometric turbidity E unit [NTU]) ranged from 2 to 3.2 NTU (Woodside, 2006). Dampier Archipelago include Caulerpa species and calcareous Halimeda species. Various red algae are also A study measuring dissolved concentrations of found in the Dampier Archipelago, including corallines, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc, total eceiving

R calcified red algae, and algal turf (Woodside, 2006). mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 4 (Woodside, 2006). concentrations withintheDampierArchipelago variability are evident innutrient andchlorophyll-a the marineenvironment. Highspatial andseasonal may contribute significant amounts ofnutrients into trichodesmium ormangrove mudflat cyanobacterium occasions, bloomsofnitrogen-fixing microbes suchas oligotrophic (deficient inplant nutrients). However, on Waters intheDampierArchipelago are considered the distance from shore andlackofterrigenous inputs. Coastal waters are expected to beofhighquality given adjacent nearshore waters (Wenziker et al,2006). study found nodetectable levels oforganics inthe and ARMCANZ(ANZECC andARMCANZ,2018). The recommended guidelinesandapproaches in ANZECC Protection (LEP) (99%speciesprotection) basedonthe met theguidelinesfor a‘high’ Level ofEcological found that water quality intheDampierArchipelago phenols, BTEX chemicals,andpetroleum hydrocarbons undertaken onsamplesexceeding thetriggerlevel (i.e., present (DEC, 2006).Additional dilute acidtesting was shown naturally elevated levels ofnickel andchromium nickel). Previous studies oftheDampierregion have mercury), Cowrie Cove (for nickel) andKingBay (for Bay (for chromium, nickel), NorthEast Creek (for nickel, (2000) triggerlevels. Exceptions to thisincludeWithnell predominantly below theANZECC andARMCANZ In 2017, metals withinsurveyed sediments were annual ChEMMSprogram. a decisionto cease monitoring for TBT aspartofthe Archipelago for many years. In2015, OEPA endorsed concentrations have beendecliningintheDampier paints onshipshave beenbannedsince 2008andTBT of concern) andare acceptable for ocean disposal.TBT (TBT) theonlyanthropogenically sourced contaminant (Commonwealth ofAustralia, 2002), withtributyltin National Ocean DisposalGuidelines for Dredged Material be generally clean(i.e. below thescreening levels ofthe 2005). Sediments inMermaidSoundare considered to with industrial development (Stoddart andAnstee, riverine inputsandthecontrols ondischarges associated guideline values. This hasbeenattributed to thelackof Dampier Archipelago beyond relevant environmental anthropogenic contaminants insediments ofthe studied extensively. These studies have rarely found Sediment quality intheDampierArchipelago hasbeen 4.4.5.2 Sediment Quality resident wetland birds (See Section 4.4.6.5). intertidal habitats suitablefor migratory shorebirds and and DampierArchipelago containing arange of species, withthecoastal fringesofthe BurrupPeninsula open water foraging habitat for numerous seabird envelope are partoftheDampierArchipelago’s coastal The marinewaters within theNWS Project development potential to beneartheProposal. found that anumberofprotected speciesoffauna have and areview ofotherpubliclyavailable information has development envelope (with a2kmbuffer) (Table 4-2) An EPBCAct Protected Matters Search ofthe 4.4.6 therefore noincrease inthesevalues isexpected. phased outandonlyusedinemergency situations, (HEPA, 2018). The useofPFAS/PFOA at theKGP isbeing level (2mg/kg) insoilfor theprotection ofhumanhealth 0.001 mg/kg, whichissignificantly below thetrigger Creek Beachdetected PFAS at amaximumvalue of the presence ofPFAS. taken Samples at NorthEast sampling andanalysis at NoNameBay didnotdetect and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (DER,2016). Sediment on theAssessment andManagement of Perfluoroalkyl contaminants, inaccordance withtheInterim Guideline collected andanalysed for thefullsuite ofPFAS/PFOA beyond theimmediate plant boundary. Sediments were substances/ perfluorooctanoic acid(PFAS/PFOA) detect thepresence ofper- andpoly-fluoroalkyl In 2017, aoneoffinvestigation was undertaken to from theseconcentrations ofmetals. there isnoimmediate riskto thereceiving environment and ARMCANZ(2000)guidelinetriggerlevels. Assuch, as rooted plants (mangroves), iswell below theANZECC filter feeders (oysters) andgrazers (mudwhelks) as well absorbed by benthic biota,includingsurface-dwelling in thesediment, theamount whichisavailable to be as whilethere isanotablepresence ofthese metals bioavailable nickel andmercury isapositive outcome, what extent metals are mineralised. The low amounts of dilute acidextractable metals provides information asto Comparisons between total metal concentrations and the water orduringpassage through anorganism gut. recognised asbioavailable dueto noteasilydissolving in were very low. Mineralised forms ofmetals are not concentrations ofthesemetals inanavailable state nickel, chromium andmercury) whichindicated that Marine Fauna RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 57 4 Receiving Receiving Environment Environment 58 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Table 4-3: EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Results Relevant to the Proposal

Species Status EPBC Act

Birds Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper Migratory Anous stolidus Common Noddy Migratory Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift Migratory Ardenna pacificaWedge-tailed Shearwater Migratory Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone Migratory Calidris acuminate Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Migratory Calidris alba Sanderling Migratory Calidris canutus Red Knot Endangered, Migratory Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper Critically Endangered, Migratory Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper Migratory Calidris ruficollis Red-necked Stint Migratory Calidris subminuta Long-toed Stint Migratory Calidris tenuirostris Great Knot Critically Endangered, Migratory Calonectris leucomelas Streaked Shearwater Migratory Charadrius leschenaultii Greater Sand Plover, Large Sand Plover Vulnerable, Migratory Charadrius mongolus Lesser Sand Plover, Mongolian Plover Endangered, Migratory Charadrius veredus Oriental Plover, Oriental Dotterel Migratory Fregata ariel Lesser Frigatebird, Least Frigatebird Migratory Glareola maldivarum Oriental Pratincole Migratory Hydroprogne caspia Caspian Tern Migratory Limicola falcinellus Broad-billed Sandpiper Migratory Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit Migratory Limosa lapponica bauera Bar-tailed Godwit (bauera), Vulnerable Western Alaskan Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica menzbieri Bar-tailed Godwit (menzbieri), Critically Endangered Northern Siberian Bar-tailed Godwit Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant Petrel Endangered, Migratory Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew, Far Eastern Curlew Critically Endangered, Migratory Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel Migratory Onychoprion anaethetus Bridled Tern Migratory Pandion haliaetus Osprey Migratory Pezoporus occidentalis Night Parrot Endangered Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked Phalarope Migratory Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden Plover Migratory Pluvialis squatarola Grey Plover Migratory Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe Endangered Sterna dougallii Roseate Tern Migratory nvironment

E Sternula nereis nereis Australian Fairy Tern Vulnerable Thalasseus bergii Crested Tern Migratory Tringa brevipes Grey-tailed Tattler Migratory eceiving R 4 + + + +

Australian population. humpback whales isgenetically distinct from theeastern under theEPBCAct. The west coast population of Humpback whalesare listed asvulnerable andmigratory Humpback Whale These four speciesare describedinmore detail below. including: areas [BIA]) inthearea orthat are considered ‘iconic’ interactions (e.g. through biologicallyimportant have beenidentified ashaving ecologically significant the development envelope, includingfour speciesthat within thevicinity oftheState waters component of number ofmarinemammalspeciesthat may occur An EPBCAct Protected Matters search identified a Marine Mammals Reptiles Tursiops aduncusSpotted Bottlenose Dolphin Sousa chinensisIndo-Pacific HumpbackDolphin Megaptera novaeangliae HumpbackWhale Dugong dugon Mammals Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper Tringa totanus Common Redshank, Redshank Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper, Little Greenshank Tringa nebulariaCommon Greenshank, Greenshank Species Rhincodon typus Whale Shark Pristis zijsron Green Sawfish, Dindagubba,NarrowsnoutSawfish Pristis clavate Dwarf Sawfish,Sawfish Queensland Pelagic Manta Ray, Oceanic Manta Ray Manta birostris Giant Manta Ray, Chevron Manta Ray, Pacific Manta Ray, Prince Alfred’s Ray, Resident Manta Ray Manta alfredi Reef Manta Ray, Coastal Manta Ray, Inshore Manta Ray, Carcharodon carcharias White Shark,Great White Shark Carcharias taurus Grey Nurse Shark Anoxypristis cuspidate Narrow Sawfish, KnifetoothSawfish Fish Natator depressus Flatback Turtle Eretmochelys coriacea Hawksbill Turtle Chelonia mydas Green Turtle Caretta caretta Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle, Luth Aipysurus apraefrontalis Short-nosed Seasnake

Dugong (dugon). Indian Oceanbottlenosedolphin(Tursiopsaduncus) Indo-Pacific humpbackdolphin(Sousachinensis) Humpback whale(Megapteranovaeangliae) Loggerhead Turtle they have beensighted indepthsranging from 1to 40m regions, inless than20mdepth(DoE, 2019) although occasionally riverine habitats intropical andsubtropical coastal areas, residing inshallow coastal, estuarine, and Indo-Pacific humpbackdolphins typically inhabit Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin (Figure 4-15). a migratory BIAfor HumpbackWhales (DoEE,2019c) Some oftheProposal infrastructure islocated within to breeding andcalvinggrounds, andresting areas. The northernmigration duringJulymoves furtheroffshore which istraversed by 1TLand2TL(DEH,2005). areas, includingafemale andcalfhumpbackresting area, waters oftheDampierArchipelago are usedasresting traverses theDampierArchipelago (DoEE,2019b). Inshore late August/early September) iscloserto themainlandand (DoEE, 2019b). The southernmigration route (peakingin generally migrates alongthecoast ~20kmfrom shore The west coast population ofthehumpbackwhale Migratory Migratory Vulnerable, Migratory Migratory Migratory Migratory Migratory Migratory Vulnerable, Migratory Vulnerable, Migratory Vulnerable, Migratory Migratory Migratory Vulnerable, Migratory Vulnerable Migratory Vulnerable, Migratory Vulnerable, Migratory Vulnerable, Migratory Endangered, Migratory Endangered, Migratory Critically Endangered Status EPBCAct RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

59

4 Receiving Receiving Environment Environment 60 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

in other areas such as Ningaloo Reef and Exmouth including Rosemary, East Lewis, West Lewis, Keast, Gulf. Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins forage in a range Legendre, and Little Rocky Islands (Woodside, 2015). of habitats including coastal lagoons, enclosed bays, Dugongs have also been known to occur in shallow around islands and reefs (Woodside, 2015). This species sheltered bays of the Burrup Peninsula and the mainland is classified as migratory under the EPBC Act and is coast such as Regnard Bay and Nickol Bay, as well as the known to inhabit the northern Australian coastline, seaward side of the Hamersley Shoal at the entrance of with its distribution appearing to extend as far south as the Mermaid Sound (Woodside, 2015). Exmouth Gulf (Woodside, 2015). Although frequently Although the nearshore areas near the development sighted in the Pilbara region, this species occurs in low envelope contain seagrass habitats that may represent numbers and is widely spread (Woodside, 2015). Given habitat for dugongs, the area does not constitute critical its affinity for shallow coastal waters, this species has the potential to occur within the development envelope in habitat. The closest dugong BIA is at Exmouth Gulf more any season. than 235 km away from the Proposal. Dugong feeding grounds occur around Angel and Gidley Islands and Indian Ocean Bottlenose Dolphin sightings have occurred in this area, 1TL and 2TL traverse the seabed adjacent (Woodside, 2006). Additional Bottlenose dolphins are distributed continuously sightings/feeding grounds are located around Malus, around Australia. The Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphin East Lewis, and West Lewis Islands, with the closest is considered to be a warm water subspecies of the feeding area on East Lewis Island, approximately 10 km common bottlenose dolphin, and occupies inshore away from the Proposal. waters, often in depths of less than 10 m (Chevron, 2010). Although it may use a range of habitats (including estuaries and nearshore environments), it mostly Turtles frequents open coastal waters (DoE, 2019). This species An EPBC Act Protected Matters search identified five is classified as migratory under the EPBC Act and is marine turtle species that may occur within or near the known to occur from Shark Bay north to the western edge of the Gulf of Carpentaria (Woodside, 2015). In the development envelope; the vulnerable and migratory Pilbara region, this species occurs in low numbers and is Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas), the endangered and widely dispersed (Woodside, 2015). Given its affinity for migratory Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), shallow coastal waters, this species has the potential to the endangered and migratory Loggerhead Turtle occur within the development envelope in any season. (Caretta caretta), the vulnerable and migratory Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys coriacea), and the vulnerable and migratory Flatback Turtle (Natator Dugongs depressus). These five marine turtle species are also Dugongs are associated with tropical and subtropical classified as threatened under the BC Act. coastal waters, particularly shallow, protected waters Of these species, four (Green, Loggerhead, Flatback, such as sheltered bays, mangrove channels, and in the and Hawksbill) have significant nesting beaches along lee of large inshore islands the mainland coast and islands in the Pilbara region The EPBC Act lists dugongs as marine and migratory, including the Dampier Archipelago (Woodside, 2015). and they are specially protected under the Biodiversity There are areas known to be important marine turtle Conservation Act 2016 (WA) (BC Act). Dugongs are aggregation areas within the Dampier Archipelago, large herbivorous marine mammals that feed on in waters surrounding Rosemary, Hauy, Legendre, seagrass beds and macroalgae in coastal areas, with and Delambre Islands. There are also BIAs within the availability of food resources thought to drive their the development envelope for Flatback, Green, and migration patterns (DoEE, 2019d). The dugong has a Hawksbill turtles (Woodside, 2006) (Figure 4-15). widespread distribution throughout the Pilbara region, Flatback turtles are known to have major nesting at which includes the Dampier Archipelago, Barrow Island, Delambre Island; and Hawksbill turtles are known to the Montebello Islands, Lowendal Island, and Exmouth have major nesting areas on Rosemary and Delambre Gulf (DoEE, 2019d). Inside the Dampier Archipelago, Islands with the largest nesting aggregation recorded at dugongs have been recorded near various islands, Rosemary Island. nvironment E eceiving R 4 Based on:RecoveryBased Planfor Marine Turtles inAustralia 2017–2027 (DoEE,2017) Table 4-4: Key Information onMarineTurtles intheNorthWest ShelfMarineRegion Turtle Leatherback Turtle Flatback Turtle Hawksbill Turtle Loggerhead Green Turtle Species Turtle in WA. nesting activity No confirmed Nesting: period inJanuary. March withpeak November to Nesting: January. October to with peakin All year round Nesting: January. December to early period from late late March. Peak Late October to Nesting: March September to Approximately Breeding: January to April. period from March. Peak November to Nesting: December. September to Approximately Breeding: Key Season invertebrates. other soft-bodied on jellyfishand the openocean feeding mainlyin Carnivorous – corals, andjellyfish. cucumbers, soft prey suchassea on soft-bodied feeding mainly Carnivorous – and shellfish. algae, softcorals, also seagrasses, Mainly sponges– crustaceans. on molluscsand feeding mainly Carnivorous – algae. Seagrasses and Diet North West ShelfMarineRegion. Major nesting sites: Noknown nesting sites withinthe East Coast waters. Marine Region butmore commonly found inAustralian Distribution: May beencountered inNorthWest Shelf temperate waters. Preferred habitat: Nearshore, coastal tropical and Archipelago. Island, theLowendal Islands, andislandsoftheDampier include Thevenard Island,theMontebello Islands,Varanus Bells BeachnearWickham). Othersignificant rookeries nesting sites at Cemetery BeachinPort Hedlandand (Mundabullangana Station nearCapeThouin, and smaller Pilbara region are Barrow Islandandthemainlandcoast Major nesting sites: The largest nesting sites ofthe Islands to Exmouth. Distribution: NorthWest ShelfMarineRegion: Lacepede soft-bottomed habitats ofoffshore islands. Preferred habitat: Nearshore andoffshore subtidaland and someislandsintheMontebello group. rookeries includeVaranus IslandintheLowendal group, significant rookery in WA is at Rosemary Island.Other region centred around theDampierArchipelago. The most Major nesting sites: There isasinglebreeding stock inthe to DampierArchipelago. Distribution: NorthWest ShelfMarineRegion: SharkBay Preferred habitat: Rocky andcoral reef habitats. Lowendal Islands,andDampierArchipelago. Pilbara. Late summernesting recorded for Barrow Island, records from Varanus andRosemary Islandsinthe Cape andtheMuiron Islands.There have beenoccasional along theGnaraloo andNingaloocoast to NorthWest Major nesting sites: Principallyfrom DirkHartog Island, Dampier Archipelago. to NorthWest Capeandasfar northasMuiron Islandsand Distribution: NorthWest ShelfMarineRegion: SharkBay pastures, andestuaries. Preferred habitat: Rocky andcoral reefs, seagrass Cape. Dampier Archipelago, Lacepede Islands,andNorthWest Muiron Islands,someislandsofthe Major nesting sites: Montebello Islands,Barrow Island, coast to Lacepede Islands. Distribution: NorthWest ShelfMarineRegion: Ningaloo zone. reef, seagrass, andnearshore reef habitats inthephotic Preferred habitat: Estuarine, rocky andcoral Key Habitats RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 61 4 Receiving Receiving Environment Environment 62 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Tracking data for post-nesting Green, Hawksbill and + 106 soft-bottom species Flatback turtles recorded for the Pilbara region show + 67 pelagic species (Hutchins, 2004). that turtles travelling from nesting sites to foraging grounds would travel through to east or south of Barrow Areas of greater topographic diversity, such as those Island and the Dampier Archipelago, and north of along the northern edge of the Dampier Archipelago, Broome to foraging grounds. However, Hawksbill turtles generally host a greater diversity of fish species generally travelled south to the coastal island chain (Hutchins, 2004). south of Barrow Island (Woodside, 2015). A number of teleost fish species have been identified This tracking data also indicates the three marine turtle in the EPBC Act Protected Matters search for the species recorded for the Pilbara region travel and forage Proposal, including 29 species of pipefish, six species of in coastal waters that are relatively shallow: seahorse, and one sea dragon species. These species are commonly found in seagrass and sandy habitats close + Hawksbill turtles: less than 10 m deep to islands or reefs and have potential to be found in the + Green turtles: less than 25 m deep development envelope. + Flatback turtles: less than 70 m deep Vulnerable marine shark species potentially occurring (Woodside, 2015). near the Proposal include the grey nurse shark There is a potential for turtles to occasionally navigate (Carcharias taurus), the great white shark (Carcharodon through the development envelope in any season due to carcharias), the green sawfish (Pristis zijsron), the dwarf their occurrence in coastal waters and breeding activity sawfish (Pristis clavata) and manta rays. within the Dampier Archipelago. Beaches within the development envelope have not been identified as being biologically important nesting beaches, but occasional Seabirds and Shorebirds nesting has been observed. A large number of seabird and shorebird species (or species habitat) may occur near the Proposal; these include species classified as threatened and migratory Sea Snakes under the EPBC Act or specially protected under the BC Two families of sea snake are found in Australian Act (WA). Most species identified are also migratory, so waters—the true sea snakes (family Hydrophidae) their presence would only be expected during part of and sea kraits (family Laticauda) (Commonwealth the year (Woodside, 2006) . of Australia, 2012). Sea snakes show diversity across A search of the DBCA NatureMap database and the various habitat types, including coral reefs, deep inter- EPBC Act Protected Matters search tool indicated that reef areas, rocky substrates, and muddy substrates at least 59 bird species could be present at the Burrup (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012). Although sea Peninsula and the surrounding islands of the Dampier snakes are air-breathing, they can dive to depths of Archipelago. The coastlines in the archipelago include around 100 m, so may utilise habitat up to 100 m deep (DBCA, 2015). a diverse range of geomorphic units, which provide diverse habitat types attracting a range of migratory Sixteen sea snake species were identified as potentially shorebirds and resident wetland birds. Furthermore, occurring in the Proposal area. One of these species— small islands in the area provide important nesting the short-nosed sea snake (Aipysurus apraefrontalis), and refuge sites (DSEWPC, 2012b). Conzinc Island, is classified as critically endangered under the EPBC Act which is the closest island to the Proposal trunklines and threatened under the BC Act. The short-nosed sea is a (predominantly) winter nesting site for a range snake has a widespread distribution and inhabits reef of seabirds including the wedge-tailed shearwater flats and shallow waters up to 10 m depth (DoEE, 2019e). (Puffinus pacificus), roseate tern (Sterna dougallii), and fairy tern (Sterna nereis) (CALM, 2000). Sharks and Fish Several migratory, marine, and conservation significant Shallow water (less than 30 m depth) fish species have bird species were identified as potentially occurring near been recorded in the waters of the Dampier Archipelago, the Proposal area through EPBC Act searches (Table comprising: 4-2). Due to the high-flow, short-duration freshwater events on the Burrup Peninsula, migratory wetland + 456 coral reef species species identified in the searches are unlikely to occur + 116 mangrove species near the Proposal, other than as occasional visitors. nvironment E eceiving R 4 Figure 4-15: Biologically Important Areas that intercept theproposal development envelope (DoEE,2019c)

RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 63 4 Receiving Receiving Environment Environment 64 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

4.4.7 Sensitivity of the Marine by or important to the local Aboriginal groups of the Environment Burrup Peninsula are considered to be sensitive. In The sensitivity of the marine environment has been particular, areas of habitat for dugongs and turtles, determined using the environmental values and Levels nesting areas for turtles and seabirds, and areas used Of Protection (LEP) identified by the Pilbara Coastal for customary fishing (including fish traps, spearing Water Quality Consultation Outcomes – Environmental and line fishing) and gathering are of importance to Values and Environmental Quality Objectives (DoE, Aboriginal people. The Flying Foam Edible Oyster 2006b). Areas of maximum ecological protection are Project, a joint venture between the Murujuga considered to have a high sensitivity as they generally Aboriginal Corporation, Maxima Pearling Company, incorporate pristine areas with no existing impact. Areas Pilbara Development Commission, Fisheries Research of moderate ecological protection are not considered and Development Commission and City of Karratha, to be sensitive environments due to the presence of has also been assigned a high level of sensitivity. elevated or high levels of contaminants. Table 4-5 details the marine environments considered to Areas that provide habitat for marine species used be of high or medium sensitivity.

Table 4-5: Marine Environments with Medium or High Sensitivity

Description Reason for Sensitivity

Areas identified in DoE (2006b) as having the These areas show no detectable change from the natural Maximum LEP. variation of the environment. Maximum LEP areas are considered pristine and include marine parks. They are considered highly sensitive. Areas identified in DoE (2006b) as having the These regions typically retain all ecosystem function, High LEP. however are influenced by anthropogenic influences such as mobilisation of sediments from ship movements or dredging. They are considered to have a moderate sensitivity. Habitat for marine fauna used by Aboriginal people Dugongs and turtles are hunted by Aboriginal people as a including: customary food source. They are considered highly sensitive.

+ Dugongs. + Turtles. Turtle nesting beaches and seabird nesting areas. Eggs are collected by Aboriginal people as a customary food source. They are considered highly sensitive. Customary fishing and gathering areas. Areas used by Aboriginal people that provide an ongoing connection to the land and traditional ways of life. They are considered highly sensitive. Flying Foam Oyster Project. Production of edible oysters for commercial sale. This area is also within a Maximum LEP. They are considered highly sensitive.

4.5 Existing Infrastructure + Existing discharges from onshore infrastructure specifically An important feature of the marine receiving environment in the context of this ERD is the existing + Licenced discharge of treated stormwater and NWS Project infrastructure. The following paragraphs treated wastewater from the jetty outfall into describe the infrastructure that interacts with the marine Mermaid Sound. environment and the processes in place to manage + Stormwater, site run-off, and treated effluent discharges to the marine environment. from the sewage treatment plant and The existing NWS Project infrastructure that interacts with demineralisation plant into the administration drain and then into No Name Creek.

nvironment the marine environment includes, but is not restricted to: E + Sewage discharges and site run off from King Bay + Existing offshore infrastructure within State Supply Base. waters, which includes two jetties, two trunklines, jetty outfall, and dredged channels within the The existing marine environment, which broadly eceiving

R Port of Dampier. maintains a high level of environmental quality, is 4 frequent vessel movements. onshore infrastructure andisregularly disturbed by support vessels to transit to andfrom theNWS Project’s to allow LNG,LPG,condensate vessels andlogistical The benthic environment hasbeenhistorically dredged important coastal processes. that sustain significant marineecosystems and Archipelago have areas ofhighenvironmental quality environment. The MermaidSoundandDampier terminals inthearea alsodefinethe existing marine Port ofDampierandindependent RioTinto shipping unrelated to theProposal, shippingactivity from the including thepresence oftheProposal. Although characterised by shippingandindustrial activities contain aprolific anddiverse range ofAboriginal wider western Pilbara region andDampierArchipelago From anAboriginalcultural heritage perspective, the (Heritage Council, 2016). of importance to theNorthwest ExploringExpedition 2016); and Watering Cove isalso listed asahistoric site Expedition ledby F.T. Gregory in1861 (HeritageCouncil, as ahistoric landingplace oftheNorthwest Exploring at least 5kmfrom theProposal. Hearson Cove islisted on theeastern coastline oftheBurrupPeninsula and These sites are Watering Cove and Hearson Cove, both registered sites are east ofthedevelopment envelope. 2019 indicated that thetwo closest non-Aboriginal A search oftheWA State HeritageRegister on6May preparation for thisanticipated expansion. power, water, andsewerage have allbeenupgraded in continued growth, andcity infrastructure suchas 31% over thelast ten years. Forecasted figures indicate residents, whichrepresents anincrease inpopulation of The City ofKarratha ishometo approximately 22,200 national economy eachyear (City ofKarratha, 2018). ports andcontributes approximately $8.76 billionto the and west, theCity ofKarratha ishometo four industrial Hedland to theeast, andtheIndianOcean to thenorth the Shire ofAshburton to thesouth,Town ofPort administrative area oftheCity ofKarratha. Boundedby Dampier and18kmnorth-west ofKarratha, withinthe The NWS Project islocated 10kmnorth-east of 4.6 Social Environment envelope. Place are located in relation to thedevelopment the MurujugaNational Park and the National Heritage NWS Project leaseboundary. Figure 4-16 shows where Heritage Place is150mor more from theedgeof telecommunications lease. Further south,theNational Road, andover asection oftheMount Wongama the north-east at Withnell Bay, at Mount Wongama Place overlaps theonshore NWS Project leasearea in envelope. The boundaryoftheNational Heritage Peninsula; (Figure 4-16 ), are east ofthedevelopment Place oftheDampierArchipelago (includingBurrup Murujuga National Park andthelisted National Heritage submerged heritagefeatures. al, 2007). Records have notconfirmed thepresence of presence of134sites currently preserved insitu(Mott et sites withinthedevelopment envelope confirmed the development envelope. AnauditofAboriginalheritage Aboriginal heritagesite types, insideandadjacent the operation oftheNWS Project have identified a range of State records andtheNWSJV’s own surveys duringthe landscape. content, technique, antiquity, anddistribution across the the petroglyphs vary considerably intheirmotifsubject the range ofanthropomorphic figures isdiverse and geometric andamorphousdesigns.At anational level, anthropomorphic andzoomorphic figures and petroglyphs feature arange ofmotiftypes including square kilometre (Bird andHallam,2006).The a density ofbetween 17and76 heritagesites per to onemillionpetroglyphs (Vinnicombe, 2002) at including theBurrupPeninsula, may contain up It hasbeenestimated that theDampierArchipelago, envelope. submerged heritagefeatures inornearthedevelopment Archaeology database didnotidentify any listed 2016). However, theWestern Australia Maritime areas surrounding theDampierArchipelago (MAC, there may alsobesubmerged heritagefeatures inthe that occurred 9,000 –6,000 years agoandtherefore heritage features are thought to pre-date sea-level rises artefact scatters, quarries,andgrindingpatches. These ethnographic sites, standing stones, shellmiddens, represented intheregion includesrock artsites, heritage sites andobjects. Aboriginalheritage RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 65 4 Receiving Receiving Environment Environment 66 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION nvironment

E Figure 4-16: Social Environment eceiving R 4 area withtheDBCA(MAC, 2018). near thedevelopment envelope, andco-manages the freehold titleto theMurujugaNational Park, whichlies Wong-Goo-Tt-Oo People (MAC, 2018). MAC maintains Yaburara People, theYindjibarndi People, andthe the NgarlumaPeople, theMardudhunera People, the This corporation represents five traditional groups— Industrial Estates Agreement withtheWA Government. was formed asapartoftheBurrupandMaitland In 2003, theMurujugaAboriginalCorporation (MAC) land anditsresources (MAC, 2019). dreamtime stories, customs, andlocalknowledge ofthe Peninsula, whichprovides arecord ofAboriginallore, and spiritualconnection to therock artoftheBurrup The Traditional Owners ofMurujugahave adeepcultural and to Aboriginalpeoplemore broadly (DWER, 2019b). significant cultural value to Traditional Ownergroups diverse collections ofrock artintheworld, whichhave Dampier Archipelago have oneofthelargest andmost The BurrupPeninsula andsurrounding islandsofthe collection ofrock art(intheform ofpetroglyphs). Burrup Peninsula ismost widelyknown for itslarge In thecontext ofAboriginalcultural heritage, the and thePilbara (City ofKarratha, 2019). of a30,000 year relationship between Aboriginalpeople Peninsula hasasignificant cultural heritage, with evidence traditionally referred to asMurujuga.The Burrup The Proposal islocated ontheBurrupPeninsula, 4.6.1 (Burrup Peninsula andHearson Cove). on theState HeritageRegister asPlace Number08663 listing, alarge area oftheBurrupPeninsula isregistered in Section 7.Inadditionto theNational HeritagePlace National HeritagePlace undertheEPBCAct is included information onthestatus, features, andprotection ofthe Burrup Peninsula) National HeritagePlace’. Further Place in2007 asthe‘DampierArchipelago (including heritage features ledto itslisting asaNational Heritage between individualsandgroups, therichness ofthe Although thevalue oftheBurrupPeninsula varies throughout thedevelopment ofthisERD. from engagement withrelevant Aboriginalgroups archaeological andethnographic surveys, and outcomes published sources, outcomes of Woodside-commissioned government heritage databases, publiclyavailable the BurrupPeninsula for thisERD, Woodside used To characterise theheritageplaces and features of foraging activities (HeritageCouncil, 2017). quarries, grindingpatches, andcoastal fishingand sites, standing stones, shellmiddens,artefact scatters, features andsites includepetroglyph sites, ethnographic significant cultural value to Aboriginalpeople. These Aboriginal heritageplaces andfeatures, whichhold The BurrupPeninsula hasasubstantial amount of 4.6.2 The BurrupPeninsula Heritage Places andFeatures development envelope Woodside usedpubliclyavailable and sensitivity ofvegetation inandadjacent to the Burrup Peninsula. To characterise theheritagevalue Vegetation withheritagevalue isalsofound onthe 4.6.3 any additionalheritage features relevant to theProposal. throughout thepreparation ofthisERDdidnotidentify Engagement withrelevant Aboriginalgroups between Aboriginalpeopleandcountry. showcase tens ofthousandsyears ofconnection spiritual insights into thelife ofancient peoplesand ancestors. They depict significant social,economic, and Aboriginal peopletoday to thetraditions oftheir is ofsignificant cultural heritage value, connecting extensive petroglyph collection ontheBurrupPeninsula on granophyric rhyodacite (Vinnicombe, 2002). The a fine-grained rock. Most ofthepetroglyphs are found Peninsula are coarse-grained, whilethegranophyre is magma cools. The granites andgabbro oftheBurrup gneissic granites, andgabbro) formed whenmolten of igneousrocks (granophyric rhyodacite, granites, petroglyphs are found ontheweathered rock surfaces (rubbing, incising,scraping) (SECRC, 2018). The hammering (pecking,pounding,bruising)andabrading were created by removing partofarock surface by rock types. The imagesdepicted by thepetroglyphs (Gregory, 2009;Mulvaney, 2011), andare onarange of Peninsula are estimated to beupto 30,000 years old art isdifficult to date, the petroglyphs ontheBurrup human figures in complex group scenes. Although rock fauna, extinct mammals,snakes, andreptiles, aswell as petroglyphs depict arange ofterrestrial andmarine per square kilometre (Bird andHallam,2006).The 2002) at adensity ofbetween 17and76 heritagesites contain upto onemillionpetroglyphs (Vinnicombe, Archipelago, includingtheBurrupPeninsula—may Archipelago, ithasbeenestimated that theDampier Peninsula, andsurrounding islandsoftheDampier Outside theProposal development envelope, theBurrup published andare notgiven indetail inthisdocument. some features, theexact heritagesite locations are not development envelope. Dueto thecultural sensitivity of and report onthecondition ofthesites withinthe Owners andaqualifiedarchaeologist to inspect, monitor, heritage site auditsare conducted withTraditional heritage management requirements. AnnualAboriginal include NWS Project-related activities andongoing are heldwithTraditional Owners, anddiscussions heritage sites andquarterly heritageupdate meetings 2007). Woodside maintains adatabase ofAboriginal Aboriginal heritagesites preserved insitu(Mott et al, development envelope confirmed thepresence of134 An auditofAboriginalheritagesites withinthe inside andadjacent to thedevelopment envelope. identified a range ofAboriginalheritagesite types, State records andWoodside’s own surveys have Vegetation withHeritage Value RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 67 4 Receiving Receiving Environment Environment 68 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

published sources, results of the ethnographic surveys The relationship Aboriginal peoples have with the and audits undertaken in June and October 2018 and marine environment began thousands of years ago and reported in November 2018 (IHS, 2018), and outcomes Aboriginal groups continue to rely on the coastal and of engagement with relevant Aboriginal groups. As marine environments of the region for their cultural discussed in Section 4.3.2, vegetation that contains identity, wellbeing, and their domestic and commercial STAKEHOLDER plants used by Aboriginal people is considered to be economies (Smyth, 2007). ‘sensitive’ vegetation. As stated in Section 4.6.2, the petroglyphs on the Many plants found on the Burrup Peninsula are used by Burrup Peninsula contain many depictions of marine Aboriginal people, including Acacia coriacea (used for fauna, including those hunted for food by the Aboriginal ENGAGEMENT spears and boomerangs), A. pyrifolia (Kanji Bush, edible peoples of the area (IHS, 2018). Midden sites have also seeds and gum), Avenica marina (edible seeds), Ficus been found, indicating shellfish foraging (IHS, 2018). brachypoda (Rock Fig, edible fruit) and various Solanum Aboriginal peoples have traditionally used and continue species (Bush Tomato, edible fruit) (City of Karratha, to use the marine environment for a diverse range of 2013). The Murujuga Cultural Management Plan (MAC, aquatic and customary fishing activities, including: 2016) also emphasises the heritage value of vegetation + hunting (dugongs, turtles) on the Burrup Peninsula identifying that some trees provide medicine for colds and flus, shade for shelter, + egg collecting (turtles, seabirds) and ceremonial tools; examples include Jami bush used + capturing fish (spearing, reef trapping, herding, line to treat aches, pains, and cuts; mangroves used for fishing, collecting in stone fish traps, poisoning) fishing; and spinifex seeds used to make damper. + gathering shellfish and other marine resources. The 2018 ethnological surveys and audits conducted Customary fishing is done in accordance with relevant by Woodside with Traditional Owners and a qualified Aboriginal laws and customs to satisfy personal, archaeologist and anthropologists identified two bush- domestic, ceremonial, educational, or non-commercial medicine plants growing at Withnell Bay—one is used as communal needs, using various technologies and a healing balm for physical injuries and colds, and is also practices, including spears, specially designed a spiritual protection for people visiting country; the boomerangs, and traps. other is used to settle the stomach and is also a source of food (IHS, 2018). The Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation has entered into a joint venture partnership with Maxima Pearling Engagement with relevant Aboriginal groups Company, Pilbara Development Commission, Fisheries throughout the preparation of this ERD did not Research and Development Commission and City of identify any additional vegetation with heritage Karratha for a trial rock oyster farm to determine if values. safe edible oysters can be produced in the Dampier Archipelago. The trial was established in 2017 in Flying 4.6.4 Heritage Value of the Marine Foam Passage (between Angel and Dolphin Islands) and Environment repurposes the pearl farming licences held by Maxima The Aboriginal groups whose traditional country Pearling Company. includes the Burrup Peninsula have connections to and Engagement with relevant Aboriginal groups uses for the sea, including coastal areas adjacent to the throughout the preparation of this ERD did not identify development envelope. To characterise the heritage value any additional heritage values or sensitivities of the and sensitivity of the marine environment, Woodside marine environment. used publicly available published sources, results from ethnographic surveys conducted in June and October 2018 and reported in November 2018, and outcomes of engagement with relevant Aboriginal groups. nvironment E eceiving R 4 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 5. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

5.1 Overview Woodside has been part of the Australian community for more than 60 years and has been operating on the Burrup Peninsula for more than 30 years. Woodside has well-established relationships with the Pilbara community, and regularly engages with stakeholders through various forums on a broad range of issues, including potential environmental and social impacts associated with its operations. Key to understanding local issues are mechanisms such as the Karratha Community Liaison Group, which holds quarterly meetings with a range of local government, State Government, and industry representatives. Woodside also has an established office in Karratha, which provides an avenue for locals to discuss any issues in person. Stakeholder consultation and engagement is an integral component of the environmental impact assessment and environmental approvals process. This section describes Woodside’s approach, as Operator for and on behalf of the NWSJV, to stakeholder consultation broadly and for the Proposal specifically. Woodside’s objectives for stakeholder consultation are to:

+ Improve stakeholder awareness and understanding of the Proposal. + Provide stakeholders with opportunities to obtain information about the Proposal including the physical, ecological, socio-economic and cultural environment that may be affected, the potential impacts that may occur, and the prevention and mitigation measures proposed to avoid or minimise those impacts. + Gain feedback from stakeholders on their concerns in regard to the Proposal and where possible, address stakeholder concerns through further activities, or by implementing additional mitigation measures. Stakeholder engagement in relation to this Proposal includes engagement with identified stakeholders undertaken as part of a voluntary NWS Project Extension Social Impact Assessment (SIA) (Advisian, 2019).

5.2 Stakeholder Identification The process for stakeholder consultation as undertaken by Woodside as the Operator of the NWS Project included the identification of stakeholders and their relevance to the Proposal.

Table 5-1 on the next page outlines a summary of stakeholders and stakeholder groups. Stakeholders were identified as a result of Woodside’s current and ongoing activities, direct engagements with government agencies and regulators and via community engagements and forums. individually listed above. Note: Membersof State andFederal Parliament includingMinisters and Shadow Ministers were identified andengagedaccordingly however are not Table 5-1: Stakeholders andStakeholder Groups Department ofPrimeMinister andCabinet Biosecurity Department ofAgriculture andWater Resources – Australian Industry Participation Authority Department ofEnvironment andEnergy (DoEE) (DoIIS) Department ofIndustry, Innovation andScience Australian MarineOilSpillCentre (AMOSC) Association (APPEA) Australian Petroleum Production andExploration Commonwealth FisheriesAssociation Western Australia FishingIndustries Council (WAFIC) Greenpeace Conservation Council ofWA World Wildlife Fund Australian Conservation Foundation Karratha Tourism and Visitor Centre Karratha Community LiaisonGroup Ngarluma AboriginalCorporation (NAC) Murujuga AboriginalCorporation (MAC) Regional Development Australia Department ofEducation Department ofPlanning,LandsandHeritage(DPLH) (DJTSI) Department ofJobs,Tourism, Science andInnovation Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Business /Tourism /Peak Bodies/Education providers /Community Groups Traditional OwnerGroups /IndigenousStakeholders WA State /Local Government Agencies Commonwealth Government Agencies Fisheries Industry NGOs Department ofForeign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Australian FisheriesManagement Authority (AFMA) National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator (NOPTA) Management Authority (NOPSEMA) National Offshore PetroleumSafety andEnvironmental Various oilandgasoperators Chamber ofMinerals andEnergy ofWestern Australia (CME) AFMA (see above) Marketforces Friends ofAustralian Rock Art(FARA) The Wilderness Society ofWA Local education providers Local service providers Mardudhunera Ngarluma, Yindjibarndi, Wong-Goo-Tt-Oo, Yaburara and Five languagegroups withinterests over theBurrup: Ngarluma Yindjibarndi Foundation Ltd (NYFL) City ofKarratha Pilbara Development Commission Department ofWater andEnvironmental Regulation (DWER) Department ofTransport (DoT) (DMIRS) Department ofMines,Industry Regulation andSafety STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 71 5 STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENGAGEMENT 72 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

5.3 Stakeholder Engagement + ports Process + regional development Woodside, as Operator for and on behalf of the NWSJV, + service providers including community, has undertaken a phased stakeholder engagement education, health. program for the Proposal, which will continue The overall sentiment from stakeholders who were throughout the environmental impact assessment engaged in 2018 and 2019 for the SIA recognised that process. This program is based on utilising existing Karratha Local Government Area (LGA) had undergone relationships and engaging more broadly with parties a series of peaks and troughs of economic activity and likely to have an interest in the Proposal. Stakeholders expressed a desire to leverage the long-term nature include DMAs, other relevant State and Commonwealth of Woodside’s activities and operations to ensure the government agencies, local government authorities, ongoing sustainability of the Karratha region. There was the local community, environmental non-governmental a general interest in understanding local employment organisations, academics, and research organisations. and training opportunities, especially for Indigenous Stakeholder activities to date have included: stakeholders. Some stakeholders also raised matters of potential impacts to rock art. The key findings of the SIA + social impact assessment are outlined below. + social impact management planning 5.4.1.1 SIA Key Findings + economic impact assessment For existing NWS operations, Woodside has committed + one-on-one engagement to transitioning towards a predominantly residential + broad stakeholder forums workforce, based in the Karratha LGA. The operations workforce is anticipated to be a continuation of existing + targeted correspondence numbers, skill-sets and roles, including operators, + hard-copy and electronic communication materials maintainers, engineering, logistics, asset management, + advertising, media and social media. technical and functional support until around 2070.

Table 5-2 summarises the stakeholder consultation Economic Development, Employment and Skills relevant to this Proposal. Development Woodside’s proposal to extend the life of the NWS 5.4 Stakeholder Consultation Project to approximately 2070 and their existing policy to implement a predominantly residential 5.4.1 Voluntary Social Impact workforce stands to provide direct long-term economic Assessment (SIA) development opportunities to the State, regional and local Karratha economies. Woodside commissioned a voluntary NWS Project Extension SIA of the Proposal to support internal There is a real opportunity for the community to decision-making. The SIA represents a separate process continue to benefit from the project in the long-term, to the broader stakeholder engagement undertaken by including participation by local businesses in the supply Woodside. The SIA was finalised in 2019 (Advisian, 2019). chain and continued opportunities for local training and employment. Stakeholder engagement as part of the SIA process was undertaken in December 2018 and April 2019 in order to: Population growth + Provide details of the proposed NWS Project SIA consultations identified a clear desire for long- Extension, as part of broader Woodside activities. term sustained population growth in the Karratha LGA. + Better understand stakeholder and community The move to a predominantly residential Karratha perceptions of the potential impacts and benefits of based workforce was well-received by stakeholders. the proposed NWS Project Extension There was a recognition that the impact of various factors including fluctuating populations due to + Verify baseline data, collect further baseline data resources development needs to be managed better against some indicators and identify local values, into the future. attitudes and aspirations.

Stakeholder groups consulted included: Housing and accommodation

+ local Chamber of Commerce Strong stakeholder sentiment exists in the Karratha LGA around FIFO and housing. It is acknowledged that + Indigenous organisations there is a sector of the community that is vulnerable to + local businesses housing availability and affordability. It is recognised that + local government staff and councillors there will need to be continued planning and transparent STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 5 ability to participate incommunity life. workforce rosters, that canplay apartinperson’s revealed that challengesexist for dueto construction and connectedness. However, SIAconsultations and organisations to improve community vibrancy continues to integrate andparticipate inlocalgroups This willoccur asthelong-term residential workforce positively impact community amenity andlifestyle. predominantly residential workforce isexpected to increase asaresult oftheimplementation ofa The extended timeframe andpotential population Community amenity andlifestyle accommodation planning. residential footprint to supporteffective regional communication withtheKarratha LGA ontheWoodside management. mitigation measures includingcultural heritage stakeholders expressed aninterest inunderstanding management andstakeholder engagement. Some of theBurrupPeninsula require careful andongoing Impacts, bothreal orperceived to thecultural heritage Section 7.3. for Aboriginalcommunities. This isdiscussed furtherin The BurrupPeninsula isahighlysignificant cultural area Indigenous Cultural Heritage andRelations important. health andmonitoring andcommunications willbe Managing thisperception through regular occupational health impacts associated withflaringandemissions. stakeholders perceive that there may becommunity sponsorship orinfrastructure investment. Some for longer-term investment, rather thancontinued long term socialchangeandexpressed apreference want to seeacommitment from Woodside to support Roebourne. Consultations confirmed that stakeholders will continue to widen,specificallyin reference to Indigenous communities withintheKarratha LGA socioeconomic indicators ofIndigenousandnon- Stakeholders raised aconcern that thegapbetween Community safety wellbeing andresilience included asappendices. and mitigation measures, withthemanagement plans Section 6details the impacts andrisksoftheProposal cultural heritagemanagement. issues ofairquality andassociated healthconcerns and on theenvironment androck art(cultural heritage), related to thepotential impacts ofindustrial emissions Via theirsubmissions, stakeholders raised matters required work to beundertaken. preliminary key environmental factors andoutlinesthe and describestheextent oftheProposal, identifies the ESD, whichwas madepublicontheEPA’s website Interested partieswere encouraged to comment on comment periodfor theProposal’s ESD. From 6Juneto 20June2019, theEPA heldapublic 5.4.2 Section 6. the Proposal andmitigation measures are detailed in Further information regarding impacts andrisksof be contained withinsocialimpact management plans. Mitigation andmanagement measures proposed will Proposed approach to mitigation andmanagement November 2018. in relation to theProposal following thereferral in Table 5-2 outlinesengagements that beenundertaken community forums, emails,letters orphonecalls. of engagement includingviaface-to-face meetings, The approach to consultation hasutilisedmultiplemethods environmental NGOs. Indigenous groups, academics,research authoritiesand and Commonwealth), thelocalcommunity, local government agenciesandauthorities(Local, State include decision-makingauthorities,otherrelevant process to that describedin 5.4.1. These stakeholders the Proposal, notingthat thisisaseparate andbroader engagements withrelevant stakeholders inrelation to Woodside hascontinued to undertake abroad range of 5.4.3 Environmental Scoping Document Consultation Woodside Stakeholder STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 73 5 STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENGAGEMENT 74 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Table 5-2: Stakeholder Consultation Activities to Date

Stakeholder Date Issues / topics raised Proponent response / (by who proponent outcome or stakeholder) (response or outcome undertaken (or proposed) by the proponent (referring to relevant environmental factor/s)

Murujuga Aboriginal January 2019 Proponent: The Proposal Outcome: Proponent to Corporation (MAC) and environmental approvals continue engagement around process. the Proposal, environmental approvals and specifically to engage on cultural heritage management. Department of Industry, January 2019 Proponent: The Proposal Outcome: Ongoing engagement Innovation and Science and environmental approvals related to the Proposal and status process. of environmental approvals. Department of Transport February Proponent: The Proposal Outcome: Ongoing engagement 2019 and environmental approvals related to the Proposal and status process. of environmental approvals. City of Karratha February Proponent: The Proposal Outcome: Ongoing engagement 2019 and environmental approvals related to the Proposal and status process. of environmental approvals. Karratha Community March 2019 Proponent: The Proposal Outcome: Continued Liaison Group including and environmental approvals engagement relevant to the representatives from NYFL, process. Proposal, environmental City of Karratha, LandCorp, WA approvals process and timing of Police, Department of Local public comment period. Government and Communities, Pilbara Ports, Karratha Districts Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Regional Development Australia, Pilbara Development Commission and Dampier Community Association Representatives from March 2019 Proponent: The Proposal and Outcome: Proponent to Ngarluma, Yindjibarndi, environmental approvals. continue engagement around Yaburara/Mardudhunera, the Proposal, environmental Wong-Goo-Tt-Oo approvals and cultural heritage management. Murujuga Aboriginal March 2019 Proponent: The Proposal and Outcome: Proponent to Corporation (MAC) environmental approvals. continue engagement around the Proposal, environmental approvals and cultural heritage management. Environmental Protection March 2019 Proponent: The Proposal and Outcome: Ongoing engagement Authority environmental approvals. related to the Proposal and status of environmental approvals. Department of Environment March 2019 Proponent: The Proposal and Outcome: Ongoing engagement and Energy environmental approvals. related to the Proposal and status of environmental approvals. Public community engagement May 2019 Proponent: The Proposal and Outcome: Ongoing engagement - Broad range of community environmental approvals. related to the Proposal and status stakeholders of environmental approvals. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 5

Community Association Commission andDampier Australia, Pilbara Development Industry, Regional Development Chamber ofCommerce and Pilbara Ports, Karratha Districts Government andCommunities, Police, Department ofLocal City of Karratha, LandCorp, WA representatives from NYFL, Liaison Group including Karratha Community Wong-Goo-Tt-Oo Mardudhunera, Ngarluma, Yaburara/ Representatives from NYFL Yindjibarndi Foundation Ltd Representatives from Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation (MAC) Representatives from Murujuga City ofKarratha –councillors Stakeholder June 2019 June 2019 May 2019 May 2019 May 2019 Date World HeritageValues. of Karratha Plant. Raised Gas with regards to current footprint clarity onextent ofProposal, Stakeholder Group: Sought approvals process. and environmental Proponent: The Proposal Middens. values includingRock Artand Raised aspects withheritage footprint ofKarratha Plant. Gas with regards to current clarity onextent ofProposal, Stakeholder Group: Sought heritage values. heritage andIndigenous including matters ofnational and environmental approvals, Proponent: The Proposal heritage values. heritage andIndigenous including matters ofnational and environmental approvals, Proponent: The Proposal Archaeology. Raised issue ofSubmerged Stakeholder Group: heritage values. heritage andIndigenous including matters ofnational and environmental approvals, Proponent: environmental approvals. Proponent: The Proposal and Issues /topics raised (by whoproponent or stakeholder) The Proposal cultural heritagemanagement. environmental approvals and engagement around Proponent to continue current footprint underProposal. no changeto Karratha Plant Gas Outcome: Proponent confirmed related to theProposal. Outcome: Ongoingengagement Values. management andWorld Heritage approvals, cultural heritage Proposal, environmental engagement related to the Proponent to continue footprint underProposal. to thecurrent Karratha Plant Gas that there would notbeachange Outcome: Proponent confirmed Proposal. not impacted /relevant to the Submerged Archaeology was Proponent confirmed that management. Proposal andcultural heritage engagement related to the Outcome: Proponent to continue of environmental approvals. related to theProposal andstatus Outcome: Ongoingengagement undertaken (or proposed) by the proponent (referring to relevant Proponent response / environmental factor/s) STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT (response oroutcome outcome 75 5 STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENGAGEMENT 76 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Stakeholder Date Issues / topics raised Proponent response / (by who proponent outcome or stakeholder) (response or outcome undertaken (or proposed) by the proponent (referring to relevant environmental factor/s)

Environmental Protection August Proponent: Attended Board Outcome: ESD finalised. Authority 2019 meeting to discuss NWS Project Extension ESD. NAC Board meeting September Proponent: The Proposal, Outcome: Proponent to continue 2019 environmental approvals and engagement around Proposal, heritage matters. environmental approvals and cultural heritage management. Representatives from Ngarluma, September Proponent: The Proposal, Outcome: Proponent to continue Yaburara/Mardudhunera, Wong- 2019 environmental approvals and engagement around Proposal, Goo-Tt-Oo heritage matters. environmental approvals and cultural heritage management. Karratha Community September Proponent: Update on Outcome: Ongoing engagement Liaison Group including 2019 Woodside’s activities, related to the Proposal and status representatives from NYFL, including the Proposal and of environmental approvals, City of Karratha, LandCorp, WA environmental approvals. noting public comment period Police, Department of Local timeframes. Government and Communities, Pilbara Ports, Karratha Districts Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Regional Development Australia, Pilbara Development Commission and Dampier Community Association STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 5 + + + + how theaspects have beenconsidered by theProposal: context ofTraditional Owners seekingto understand value. Pleasenote that theaspects were raised inthe date regarding theconservation ofaspects withheritage The following items have beenraised inconsultations to community andthelanguagegroups. also consults more broadly withrepresentatives of information necessary inorder to respond. Woodside ensure allstakeholders are provided withallrelevant of session asthey ariseandwe usebest endeavours to with ourIndigenousstakeholders, invite questions out how to engageandhow often, we have regular meetings of Indigenousgroups andseekseachgroup’s advice on Model ofengagement. Woodside recognises interests the National Heritageprovisions andtheEngageEarly stakeholders undertaken by Woodside isconsistent with The process ofconsultation withIndigenous concerns to beunderstood. be asked, responses provided andany outstanding processes, provided theopportunity for questions to overview oftheenvironmental assessment andapproval values. These engagements provided adetailed national heritagevalues, includingIndigenousheritage stakeholders inrelation to any potential impacts to Specific engagements were undertaken withIndigenous 5.4.4 National HeritagePlace ontheDampierArchipelago. including Indigenousheritagevalues, ofthelisted Extension Proposal onthenational heritagevalues, potential impacts oftheNorthWest ShelfProject held withIndigenousstakeholders inrelation to any any consultations. Specificengagements have been other aspects were identified by Traditional Owners in have identified vegetation withheritage values. No part ofthesocialsurroundings. Ethnographic surveys surveys have alsoidentified a range ofaspects as existing operations. Archaeological andethnographic heritage surveys andprocesses established aspartof relevant to theProposal, particularlyfrom theexisting not raised specificallyduring stakeholder consultations surroundings. Woodside hasidentified otheraspects The aspects outlinedabove allfall withinsocial offshore, are proposed aspartofthisapproval. as noadditionaldisturbance areas, eitheronshore or are notrelevant to theNWS Project Extension Proposal however potential impacts to submerged archaeology raised inconsultation withTraditional Owners to date, Concerns over Submerged Archaeology have been

other archaeology). aspects includingrockart,accesstosites,floraand Impacts ofexpandedfootprint(acombination Middens Rock Art World HeritageValues Indigenous Stakeholders + + + engagement to inform andconsult: proposed NWS Project Extension. This includesongoing with stakeholders throughout allphasesofthe standard operating practices, will continue to engage development oftheERD, Woodside, aspart ofits In additionto activities undertaken to supportthe input into theenvironmental impact assessment. offers stakeholders anopportunity to provide formal This ERDhasbeen released for publicreview, which 5.5 relevant to cultural heritage. understanding mitigation measures andmanagement (with afocus onrock art)andexpressed aninterest in Stakeholders alsoraised issues ofnational heritage specific focus onemployment for Karratha locals. employment andtraining opportunitiesinPilbara, witha generated orsustained for localbusinesses aswell as understanding thepossible opportunities that may be Proposal, have reinforced stakeholders interest in public comment periodontheESD, regarding the The stakeholder consultations to date, includingthe 5.4.5 approach. the environmental approvals process andmitigation Burrup Peninsula includingupdates ontheProposal, the five languagegroups whohave aninterest over the ongoing andregular basiswithMAC, NYFL,NAC and Woodside corporate meetings are alsoheldonan Management Plan(AppendixC). the attached NWS Project Extension Cultural Heritage comment periodfor theERD, includingdiscussion on Further engagement isplannedaspartofthepublic expanded, we take thesematters seriously. clarification that theProposal footprint willnotbe concerns are raised inbroader terms, suchasseeking culturally significant matters. Therefore, whenissues or Aboriginal peopleto discloseinformation abouthighly recognises that itmay notalways beappropriate for engagement withAboriginalstakeholders, Woodside Noting ourapproach to continued andregular not required undertheProposal. that anincrease oftheexisting footprint oftheKGP is footprint oftheKGP was to increase. Itshouldbenoted would require specific consultation ifthe existing to date have reinforced that Indigenousstakeholders focused oncultural heritagemanagement. Discussions Traditional Owners andcustodians, withdiscussions This includesconsultation withstakeholders including

ongoing socialinvestment inrelevantcommunities. onshore supplychainandlogistics supportlocations stakeholders aboutkeymilestones andactivities Engagement Ongoing Stakeholder Summary ofStakeholder Feedback STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 77 5 STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES ENVIRONMENTAL AND FACTORS

6.1 Introduction The impact assessment approach undertaken for this PRINCIPLES Proposal includes the following steps: 6.1.1 Identification of Key 1. Identify aspects (i.e. results of planned or unplanned Environmental Factors Proposal activities that have the potential to impact on AND FACTORS Following referral of the Proposal under Section 38 the environment). of the EP Act, the EPA determined the Key Environmental 2. Identify the receptors (i.e. physical, biological, cultural Factors relevant for the assessment of the Proposal are: or human elements of the environment that may be + Air Quality impacted by Proposal aspects). + Social Surrounding (Heritage) 3. Assess the receptor sensitivity (i.e. the sensitivity/ vulnerability/importance of the receptor) as either Marine Environmental Quality. + high, medium or low value. These environmental factors are described in 4. Assess the magnitude (i.e. no lasting effect, slight, Sections 6.3 to Section 6.6. minor, moderate, major or catastrophic) of the credible Woodside’s impact assessment approach focuses environmental impacts and risks from each aspect primarily on the above environmental factors but based on the extent, duration, frequency and scale. has also had regard for other factors that may be 5. Assign an impact level to each environmental impact impacted by the Proposal. This approach has led to based on the receptor sensitivity and the magnitude of consideration of impacts to amenity (such as through the expected impact. odorous emissions) and culturally significant vegetation. 6. Assign an environment risk rating to each Woodside’s approach to impact assessment for this environmental risk based on the receptor sensitivity Proposal is outlined in Section 6.1.2. and magnitude of the potential impact; and the likelihood of occurrence. 6.1.2 Impact Assessment Approach 7. Use the impact and risk levels to assess the Proposal 6.1.2.1 Overview against the EPBC Act Significant Impact Criteria and The environmental impact and risk assessment the WA EPA Objectives. presented in this document was undertaken in accordance with Woodside’s Impact Assessment 6.1.2.2 Receiving Environment Procedure (Woodside, 2016a), Environment Impact The existing environment of the Proposal was defined in Assessment Guideline (Woodside, 2017a) and Risk order to identify environmental receptors that have the Management Procedure (Woodside, 2017b). These potential to interact with the Proposal, including: documents support the implementation of impact and + physical characteristics of the environment risk assessment and set out the broad principles and (e.g. seabed and water quality) high-level steps for assessing environmental impacts + ecological characteristics of the environment and risks across the lifecycle of Woodside’s activities. (e.g. benthic communities, fish, seabirds, marine This process provides the inputs to the assessment of reptiles and marine mammals) the impact and risks presented in this ERD. + socio-economic and cultural characteristics of the Within this process, a distinction is made between an environment (e.g. heritage, fishing, shipping and ‘impact’ and a ‘risk’ as follows: tourism).

+ Environmental Impact: An expected change to the A description of the receiving environment is presented environment, whether adverse or beneficial, wholly in Section 4. Information on the existing environment or partially resulting from the planned routine and has been primarily drawn from existing and recent studies completed by Woodside and other relevant non-routine project activities (e.g. routine liquid references. These studies have enabled Woodside to build discharges). a detailed understanding of the receiving environment + Environmental Risk: An unplanned event or incident of the Proposal to enable identification of the potential which has the potential to impact the achievement environmental impacts and assessment and selection of of the stated environmental objectives. the appropriate measures to mitigate potential impacts. 80 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

6.1.2.3 Assessment of Impact and Risks Relevant impacts and risks identified in the environmental scoping phase and presented in the NWS Project Extension Proposal Environmental Scoping Document (Woodside, 2019) and have been reviewed and refined during the preparation of the ERD.

6.1.2.3.1 Impact Assessment Methodology The following section outlines definitions used by Woodside to determine the following:

+ Sensitivity of the receptor: this includes consideration of the quality of the receiving environment, the biodiversity of the receiving environment and the ability for the receiving environment to recover. + Magnitude of the risk or impact: this includes consideration of the temporal and geographical extent of the risk or impact. + Impact Level: This is determined based on a predefined matrix comparing the sensitivity of the receptor and magnitude of the impact.

6.1.2.3.2 Sensitivity of Receptor The sensitivity of the receptor is described as low, medium or high based on the definitions and example criteria set out in Table 6-1. This is then combined with the magnitude of the impact to determine the impact level.

6.1.2.3.3 Magnitude Magnitude is a measure of the predicted change likely to occur as a result of the impact, rated as being negligible, slight, minor, moderate, major or catastrophic. The key drivers for defining the magnitude of an impact are the expected duration and scale of the predicted change. Where relevant, the magnitude of an impact can also take into account the frequency or repetitiveness of the change and whether it has a local, regional or international ‘extent’. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 Table 6-1: Receptor Sensitivity definitions

Environmental Aspect Receptor Sensitivity

Low Medium High

Highly degraded, low biodiversity value Natural ecosystem, species, habitat including Highly valued ecosystems, species, habitats or ecosystems or those with a high recovery ecosystems with slight disturbance/ degradation physical or biological attributes or those with a capacity. or those with a moderate recovery capacity. low recovery capacity. Soil and Groundwater + Brackish groundwater + Natural state + Drinking/domestic water + Barren/industrial land + Agricultural land + Supports area/species of ecological importance (including baseflow to + Non-aquifer + Springs and wells a watercourse) Marine Sediment + Existing Port + Natural state + Supports area/species of ecological importance (BPPH) + Contaminated sediment Water Quality + Existing Port + Natural state + Drinking water/ domestic water + Polluted watercourse + Industrial water source (power station) + Supports area/ species of ecological importance + Supports unique industry (fishery, aquaculture) Air Quality + Existing pollution (industrial air shed) + Flora/Fauna of moderate susceptibility/ + Ecological sites (rock art) designated at (including odour) moderate tolerance of air emissions (crops) national/international level + Areas where people might be expected to pass through, but exposure for any extended + Areas or buildings where occasional longer + Flora/Fauna of very high susceptibility/very period is unlikely periods of exposure may occur low tolerance of air emissions (mangroves) + Residential buildings where near-constant presence of people is possible and long-term ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS exposure is likely Ecosystems/ habitats + Commonly occurring habitats (abyssal plain), + Sites of local biodiversity value but not intact, + Habitats recognised as intact or unique not subject to significant decline fragile or unique (open water, nearshore) (wetlands) or areas recognised as having high environmental value (Coral reef, + Pre-disturbed/ degraded habitats (existing infrastructure/ development) mangroves) + Protected area designation Species + Widespread common species (Plankton, + Regionally important population of a + Species listed at a national/international level seagulls) species, either because of population size or (Blue whale, migratory birds, significant part distributional context (Pelagic/ demersal fish, of life cycle, critical species) reptiles) Ecosystem Services + No third-party use + Other users (shared, routine use, tourism) + Multiple dependent/subsistence users, high

cultural value 81 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 6 ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 82 Table 6-2: Magnitude definitions NORTH WEST SHELFPROJECT EXTENSION Environmental Magnitude Aspect No lasting effect Slight Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

Typical parameters / Typical parameters / Typical parameters / Typical parameters / Typical parameters / Typical parameters / criteria criteria criteria criteria criteria criteria Extent: Localised Extent: Extent: Extent: Extent: Regional Extent: Regional Near-field Near-field Far-field Temporal Recovery: Temporal Recovery: Temporal Recovery: Temporary (<1 month Temporal Recovery: Temporal Recovery: Temporal Recovery: Long term (10-50 years Permanent (>50 years for recovery) Short term (<1 year for Short term (1-2 years Medium term (2-10 for recovery) for recovery) recovery) for recovery) years for recovery) Water Quality Temporary Short-term Short-term Medium-term Long-term Permanent contamination that is contamination (levels contamination (levels contamination (levels contamination (levels contamination (levels localised above relevant above relevant significantly above significantly above significantly above standards &/or standards &/or relevant standards) on a relevant standards) on a relevant standards) on a background) on a near- background) on a near- far-field scale regional scale regional scale field scale field scale Air Quality Temporary impact to Slight, short-term Air quality significantly Air quality significantly Air quality significantly Air quality significantly environment that is impact to the above relevant above relevant above relevant above relevant localised environment on a near- standards causing standards causing standards causing long- standards causing field scale Short-term impact medium term impact term impact to local permanent impact to local ecosystem to local ecosystem ecosystem function to local ecosystem function or human function or human or human health on a function or human health on a near-field health on a far-field regional scale health on a regional scale scale scale Ecosystems/ habitats Temporary impact Slight, short-term Short-term impact to Medium-term impacts Long-term impacts Permanent impact to (hours to a 1 month) to localised effect on ecosystem/habitat to ecosystem/habitat to ecosystem/habitat ecosystem/habitat ecosystem or habitat ecosystem/habitat service on a near-field service on a far-field service on a regional service on a regional that is localised service on a near-field scale scale scale scale scale Species Temporary impact Slight, short-term Short-term impact to Medium-term impact to Long-term impact Permanent impact (<1 month) localised impact on population on a near- population on a far-field of population on a or eradication of to species that is species on a near-field field scale scale regional scale population on a localised scale regional scale matrix, shown inFigure 6-2: severe; very high;moderate; andlow. The following riskcategories may beassigned for unplannedevents, as pertheriskbandsshown ontheWoodside risk assign ariskranking. the receiving environment. The likelihood oftheimpact occurring, andtheconsequence oftheimpact are thenusedto the samemethodology asfor aplannedimpact, considering themagnitudeofpotential impact andsensitivity of (0), highlyunlikely (1),unlikely (2),possible (3),likely (4) orhighlylikely (5).The riskconsequence isdetermined using quantitative data orusingmodelledprobabilities. The likelihood ofariskevent occurring canbeconsidered remote Depending onthenature oftherisk,likelihood willbedetermined usingeitherexperience, publishedindustry the riskranking. incident occurs. Inthiscase, alikelihood ofthemost credible worst-case outcome istaken into account to determine methodology usedfor plannedimpacts, dueto therequirement to consider thelikelihood that theunplannedevent or is considered arisk.The methodology usedto evaluate therating ofanenvironmental riskisslightly differently thanthe Where animpact isnotplannedto occur andrelies onfailure ofoneormore mitigative barriers to eventuate, theevent 6.1.2.3.5 Figure 6-1: Matrix used to determine impact level, based onimpact magnitudeandreceptor sensitivity. Negligible (F). Note: The following impact levels may beassigned for theenvironmental impacts: Catastrophic (A), Major(B), Moderate (C), Minor(D), Slight (E), minor, slight andnegligible. impacts alignswiththeconsequence levels usedfor evaluating risksandranges from catastrophic, major, moderate, and thereceptor sensitivity, assigning thefieldsinmatrix shown inFigure 6-1. The impact levels usedfor evaluating An impact level isappliedto eachenvironmental impact basedonthemagnitude(extent, nature, scale) oftheimpact 6.1.2.3.4 No lasting effect Major Slight Minor Magnitude Catastrophic Moderate Risk Assessment Methodology Impact Level Low D B C E F F Receptor Sensitivity Medium D A B C E F High D A A B C E ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS Catastrophic (A) Impact Level Negligible (F) Moderate (C) Minor (D) Slight (E) Major (B) 83 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 84 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Figure 6-2: Risk Matrix ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 + + + + + + + + residual risk. and proposed mitigation measures willmanageenvironmental impacts andrisksto alevel that presents nosignificant Environmental Management Planshave beenprepared for eachenvironmental factor to demonstrate how existing MNES) and/or theWestern Australian EPA Objectives. significance oftheseisthensummarisedinthe context oftheEPBC Act Significant Impacts Criteria (in relation to by summarisingtheidentified impacts and residual risksthat may remain after applyingthemitigation hierarchy. The In accordance withtheEPA Administrative Procedures (2016e), thisERDseeksto conclude eachimpact assessment 6.1.2.5 mitigation measures have beencategorised inaccordance with thehierarchy ofcontrols: factors. Asdefined by Woodside’sSafety Health, andEnvironment RiskAssessment Guideline(Woodside, 2017c), proposed mitigation measures have beenidentified for eachpotential impact andrisk to the relevant environmental In order to ensure theProposal isimplemented inamannerthat meets theEPA’s environmental objectives, existing and 6.1.2.4 Table 6-3 lists theseenvironmental protection principles,whichwere considered throughout thepreparation ofthisERD. These are: Section 4AoftheEPAct sets outtheenvironmental protection principlesofanenvironmental impact assessment. 6.2

the principleofwasteminimisation. the principleofconservationbiologicaldiversityandecologicalintegrity principles relatingtoimprovedvaluation,pricing,andincentivemechanisms the principleofintergenerationalequity the precautionaryprinciple Rehabilitate -includesmethodstoenablerecoveryfromtheimpactofanevent. aspects suchasmanagementsystemsandworkinstructionsusedtomitigateenvironmentalexposurehazards. Minimise –reductionofahazardorsubstitutionwithlesshazardousone.Alsoconsidersprocedural Avoid -eliminationoftheriskbyremovinghazard. Principles Predicted Outcome Existing andProposed Mitigation Measures ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS 85 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 86 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Table 6-3: Consideration of Environmental Protection Principles

Principle Consideration

The precautionary principle The NWS Project has been operating for more than three decades and over this time Woodside has developed a Where there are threats of serious or irreversible robust understanding of how the NWS Project interacts damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be with the environment. Significant operational and used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental monitoring data collected in this time environmental degradation. provides a scientific basis for how the Proposal interacts In application of this precautionary principle, decisions with the existing environment. should be guided by: In addition, Woodside commissioned air dispersion and a. Careful evaluation to avoid, where practicable, deposition modelling, and marine dispersion modelling serious or irreversible damage to the environment. for the Proposal to further understand discharges and emissions from the Proposal. b. An assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options. In relation to impacts on the Burrup Peninsula rock art from industrial emissions, the past 15 years has seen numerous studies being conducted to investigate the potential for industrial emissions to impact on the Burrup Peninsula rock art. During this period, the NWS Project has operated within the same emissions profile as presented in this Proposal. No published peer reviewed studies identified measurable or observable changes to condition and the integrity of the rock art as a result of industrial emissions. As such, significant accelerated weathering impacting on the distinguishability of petroglyphs across the region is not expected to occur as a result of the Proposal. As part of the implementation of the NWS Project Extension Air Quality Management Plan (Appendix A), Woodside will continue to evaluate new information as it emerges and ensure an adaptive approach to the management of emissions and discharges as required to avoid significant impacts. The principle of intergenerational equity The principle of intergenerational equity is upheld by the Proposal from two perspectives. The present generation should ensure that the health, diversity, and productivity of the environment is Firstly, the Proposal will be implemented with mitigation maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future measures that ensure the environment is maintained generations. for future generations. Management plans have been development for each key environmental factor to demonstrate how existing and proposed mitigation measures will manage environmental impacts and risks to an acceptable level. Secondly, developing natural gas as an energy resource plays an important role in moving towards a lower carbon future and mitigating the intermittency associated with some renewable energy sources while more carbon- intensive fuel sources are phased out, thus providing increased energy security to future generations. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6

5 4 4. 3. 2. 1. incentive mechanisms Principles relating to improved valuation, pricing,and discharge into theenvironment. taken to minimise thegeneration of waste andits All reasonable andpracticable measures shouldbe The principleofwaste minimisation integrity shouldbeafundamental consideration. Conservation of biological diversity andecological diversity andecological integrity The principleoftheconservation ofbiological Based onthepercentageBased of reported emissions from KGP over thefive-year average, covering to 2017/18 the 2013/14 financial years. onthepercentageBased of reported emissions from KGP over thefive-year average, covering to 2017/18 the 2013/14 financial years. Environmental goals,havingbeenestablished, and assetstheultimatedisposalofanywaste. and services,includingtheuseofnaturalresources based onthefulllifecyclecostsofprovidinggoods The usersofgoodsandservicesshouldpayprices containment, avoidance,andabatement. pollution andwasteshouldbearthecostof The polluterpaysprinciples–thosewhogenerate valuation ofassetsandservices. Environmental factorsshouldbeincludedinthe environmental problems. to developtheirownsolutionsandresponses placed tomaximisebenefitsand/orminimisecosts market mechanisms,whichenablethosebest byestablishingincentivestructures,including should bepursuedinthemostcost-effectiveway, Principle

abatement. Woodside bears thecost ofcontainment, avoidance, and Where emissions anddischarges are plannedto occur, licence fees. environment underPart V oftheEPAct through annual pay for emissions to airanddischarges to themarine In additionto theabove, Woodside isalsorequired to reduce thedischarge ofenvironmental contaminants. will alsoinstall additionalwater polishingequipment to emissions by 31December 2030. Inaddition,Woodside NO to therock art.Woodside hasproposed to reduce and therefore reduce theriskofsignificant impacts practicable measures to minimiseemissions to air Woodside willcontinue to take reasonable and discharges from theProposal. under Part VoftheEPAct) to manageemissions and to operate under, anOperational Licence (issued waste regulations. Woodside alsohas,andwillcontinue of appropriately andinaccordance withtheapplicable waste isminimised.Generated waste willbedisposed during theoperation oftheNWS Project to ensure and willcontinue to beundertaken by Woodside All reasonable andpracticable measures have been the basisofongoingmanagement oftheProposal. management strategy usedfor theNWS Project willbe or ecological integrity. The successful environmental decades withnoongoingimpact to biologicaldiversity The NWS Project hasoperated for more thanthree emissions by 40% using resources. Woodside proposes to reduce NO reducing emissions anddischarges aswell asefficiently Woodside iscommitted to preventing pollutionby emissions and discharges. potential opportunities to improve efficiency and reduce environmental initiatives andreview operations for Furthermore, Woodside willcontinue to implement quality andprotect rock art. emissions by 31December 2030 to maintain environment X emissions by 40% ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS 4 andsubstantially reduce VOC Consideration 5 andsubstantially reduce VOC X

87 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 88 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

6.3 Key Environmental Factor – + European Union Air Quality Standards for the Air Quality (Health & Amenity) Protection of Vegetation (EU, 2008) Relevant Legislation 6.3.1 EPA Objective + National Environment Protection Council (Western Australia) Act 1996 (WA) To maintain air quality and minimise emissions so that environmental values are protected (EPA, 2016a). + National Environmental Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure (Cth). 6.3.2 Policy and Guidance + National Environment Protection (Air Toxics) EPA Policy and Guidance Measure (Cth). + Statement of Environmental Principles, Factors + National Environmental Protection (National and Objectives (EPA, 2018a) Pollutant Inventory) Measure 1998 (Cth) + Environmental Factor Guideline – Air Quality Section 10 details how this legislation, policy and (EPA, 2016a) guidance relates to the Proposal.

Other Policy and Guidance 6.3.3 Receiving Environment + Air Quality Modelling Guidance Notes 2006 This section identifies the elements of the receiving (DoE, 2006a) environment that are directly and indirectly related to + Approved Methods for the Modelling and the Air Quality (Health and Amenity) environmental Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales factor. Refer to Section 4 for detailed description of (NSW) (NSW EPA, 2016) each relevant receptor of the receiving environment. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6

Table 6-4: Air Quality Receiving Environment

Receving Envrionment Contribution to GHGConcentrations Marine Fauna withHeritage Value Vegetation withHeritage Value (Relevant to Human Health) Seabirds andShorebirds National Heritage Place (Relevant to Amenity) Terrestrial Vegetation Marine Invertebrates Heritage Features Sediment Quality Marine Mammals Sharks andFish Water Quality Macroalgae Sea Snakes Air Quality Air Quality Mangroves Shorelines Activity Seagrass Turtles Coral

Ongoing emissions to air Extension Proposal until from theNWS Project around 2070. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –AIRQUALITY        Introduction ofthird-party may causechangesto air emission characteristics. gas andfluids,which        89 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 90 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

6.3.4 Potential Impacts and Risks NO2 has been demonstrated to increase the effects of exposure to other pollutants such as O3, and small These activities associated with the Proposal have the (inhalable) particles (USEPA, 2016). Short-term potential to affect air quality: exposures to SO2 can harm the human respiratory + Ongoing emissions to air from the NWS Project system and make breathing difficult. People with Extension Proposal until around 2070. asthma, particularly children, are sensitive to these + Introduction of third-party gas and fluids, which may effects of SO2 (USEPA, 2019a). The health effects of cause changes to air emission characteristics. exposure to ozone include irritation of eyes and air passages, decreased lung function and development, The potential impacts to air quality include: adverse effects on pulmonary function and aggravation + Gaseous emissions causing a reduction in ambient of asthmatic conditions (USEPA, 2019b). air quality impacting human health. Air Dispersion Modelling + Changes in air quality causing deposition on nearby An air quality study and risk assessment was undertaken heritage features, including national heritage places. based on a broad survey of Burrup Peninsula air + Degradation of terrestrial and nearshore vegetation quality studies, historical ambient monitoring records, of heritage and conservation value due to deposition estimates of cumulative emission inventories and of gaseous emissions. other information. An air quality impact assessment + Emission of odorous substances and dark smoke (Appendix E) was undertaken for key parameters impacting public amenity. applicable to contribution by the Proposal to understand cumulative potential air quality impacts to human health. 6.3.4.1 Gaseous Emissions Causing a Reduction in Ambient Air Quality Impacting Human Health Air dispersion models combine simulations of regional and local meteorology with complex physics and Description of Potential Impact chemistry of air pollution processes to provide the The principal emissions from the Proposal in terms best predictions of the dispersion of air emission. The of potential air quality impacts will arise from the air quality impact assessment for the Proposal utilised combustion of fuel gas in gas turbines for power the CSIRO Atmospheric Research Air Dispersion Model generation, flaring associated with the gas processing ‘TAPM-GRS’ (The Air Pollution Model – Generic Reaction plant, and gas conditioning process vents (such as Set), (Hurley et al, 2008), using a 2014 meteorological for CO2 removal from reservoir gas Acid Gas Removal dataset. Further information regarding modelling Unit [AGRU]). The most significant products of gas methodologies are included in the NWS Project combustion and facility emissions include: carbon Extension Air Quality Impact Assessment (Appendix E). dioxide (CO2), oxides of nitrogen (NO ), carbon X The air quality impact assessment modelled the monoxide (CO), methane, and unburnt volatile organic following pollutants that have potential to impact human compounds (VOCs). Ventilation readily disperses CO health in the region relevant to the Proposal: emissions relative to criteria. There may also be traces of particulate and sulphur dioxide (SO2) associated + NOX (modelled as NO2 to enable assessment against with the Proposal, but such emissions are generally relevant health standards) considered negligible due to the firing of very low + Ozone (O3) sulphur content natural gas in a controlled environment. + SO2. NOX will be the predominant emission from the facility associated with air quality potentially impacting human Based on the risk assessment (Refer to Section 4.2 and health with applicable nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and ozone Appendix E), VOCs (including BTEX) were excluded (O3) health criteria. Ozone is not emitted directly from from the modelling for the Proposal. Ambient air the Proposal but is formed through anthropogenic monitoring undertaken during 2009-2015 showed that sources via chemical reactions between oxides of emissions of BTX (monitored as indicators of VOCs nitrogen and other pollutants such as VOCs and CO with associated health criteria) had insignificant air in the presence of ultraviolet light. quality effects at the sensitive receptor locations of Dampier, Karratha and Burrup Road. For the great Health effects of elevated NO2, SO2 and O3 are majority of the time, BTX concentrations were much well documented. High concentration of NO2 can lower than heath thresholds. Therefore, modelling BTX irritate airways in the human respiratory system. ground concentrations was not warranted as part of Such exposures over short periods can aggravate the air quality impact assessment. Estimates for total respiratory diseases (e.g. asthma) leading to respiratory VOC emissions were included in the modelling for their symptoms (such as coughing, wheezing or difficulty influence on photochemistry. breathing) (USEPA, 2016). Longer exposures to elevated concentrations of NO2 may contribute to Airborne particulate matter (PM) as PM10 and PM2.5 from the development of asthma and potentially increase the Proposal was not modelled. Although exceedances

ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS susceptibility to respiratory infections (USEPA, 2016). of ambient air quality standards for these air quality 6 Table 6-5:Scenarios usedfor Cumulative AirDispersionModelling The airquality impact assessment considered the relation to thesesources (refer to Section 4.2). of particulate matter from theProposal are negligiblein burns, raised dust, andotherindustrial sources. Emissions primarily dueto smoke from bushfires and controlled pollutants occur ontheBurrupPeninsula, they are reductions inplace (FBSIAE&A) approved facilities operating, withproposed emission Future BurrupStrategic Industrial Area withexisting and Current (CBM) Baseline Scenario place (KIO) Current withproposed Baseline emission reductions in Description reduction. significant reduction inNO cumulative emissions from theProposal operating witha This isthemedium-term, most likely scenario. Itconsiders concepts representing feasible andsignificant NO conservatively reflect likely improvement opportunity The KGP data for modellingwere modified to region. emissions most applicableto theBSIAandnearby sources, andtheexisting, built,industrial facilities and + + + + + + + + + time ofwritingthisERD(Pluto LNGDevelopment [Train 2]). facilities, andfuture BSIAdevelopment approved at the operating withasignificant reduction inNO It considers cumulative emissions from theProposal region to useasabaselinefor assessment. These include: emissions most applicableto theBSIAandnearby Project andtheexisting, built,industrial facilities and It considers cumulative emissions from thecurrent NWS currently operating onandaround theBurrupPeninsula. the contribution to ambient airquality from industry This isthenear-term, most likely scenario. Itpredicts from proposed NO demonstrates the benefitsgainedinambient airquality This isthemedium-term, best-case scenario. It

were includedinthemodelling. on theBurrupPeninsula. The scenarios listed inTable 6-5 Burrup Peninsula. Allscenarios includeshippingactivities current andpotential future industrial facilities onthe emissions from several operational scenarios representing All shippingberthsatCapeLambert. All shippingberthsontheBurrupPeninsula EDL WestKimberleyPowerPlant ATCO KarrathaPowerStation Santos DevilCreekPowerStation Pilbara IronYurralyiMayaPowerStation Ammonium Plant Yara TechnicalAmmoniumNitrateandLiquid Woodside PlutoLNGDevelopment(Train1) NWS Project;KGP ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –AIRQUALITY X reductions outlinedinSection. 6.3.5 X emissions, existing operating X for KGP X

91

6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 92 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Scenario Description

Future Burrup Strategic Industrial Area State (FBSIA), This is the long-term, worst-case scenario. It considers with existing, approved and referred facilities operating cumulative emissions from the Proposal operating

with no reduction in NOX emissions, existing operating facilities, and reasonably foreseeable future BSIA; approved development (Pluto LNG Development [Train 2]) and, referred developments (but not assessed or approved) at the time of writing this ERD. The latter developments are represented by indicative Urea and Methanol Plants. Future Burrup Strategic Industrial Area state (existing, This is a long-term, possible case scenario. It considers approved and referred) with proposed emission cumulative emissions from the Proposal operating with a

reductions in place (FBSIA-KIO) significant reduction in NOX emissions, existing operating facilities, and future developments approved at the time of writing this ERD (Pluto LNG Development [Train 2]) and BSIA developments referred (but not assessed or approved) at the time of writing this ERD. The latter reasonably foreseeable future developments are represented by indicative Urea and Methanol Plants.

Model input emissions inventories were developed based SO2, hydrogen sulphide (H2S), methane and VOC (including on reasonable and conservative emissions estimates, BTEX)) is inherently limited through integrated facility considering available datasets, design data, monitoring design envelope (i.e. there are engineering limitations data and for proposed developments and modifications; regarding the range to which the facility design margins can preliminary design data based on concept and early ‘front accept and/or process feed gas composition variations). end engineering design’ (FEED) assumptions. Third party Potential air emission characteristic changes from the emissions were represented based on consideration of introduction of third-party gas will be managed in line publicly available literature and input following consultation with the Woodside management system to ensure with some parties. that the environmental objectives and legislative To confirm that TAPM-GRS performance was fit for requirements are met. This assessment will include purpose, modelled baseline (CBM) results were compared the identification of appropriate management and to measured results from Woodside ambient air monitoring mitigation controls to ensure impacts and risks are programs. When compared to ambient air monitoring minimised. Therefore, the likelihood of any impact on the results for NO2 and O3 from 2014, when the NWS Project receiving environment due to the introduction of third- and Pluto LNG Development began operating together party gas is negligible and residual impacts after the at or near capacity, model results were found to support application of stated mitigations are not significant. actual results and the TAPM-GRS model was therefore deemed suitable and with an accuracy appropriate for the Air Dispersion Assessment Criteria assessment of the Proposal. The WA EPA provides guidance for assessing the potential impacts of a proposal on air quality in the All scenarios assumed the Proposal operating with a feed Environmental Factor Guideline: Air Quality (EPA, gas of a similar composition to the NWS Project. The 2016a); although this guideline does not specify air majority of air emissions of relevance to the Proposal are quality standards for assessment, it does provide the emitted directly (NO , SO2) or indirectly (O3) from the X following considerations: combustion of natural gas. + Whether numerical modelling and other analyses Although, changes to feed gas composition have the to predict potential impacts have been undertaken potential to vary the make-up of fuel gas, and gas using recognised standards with accepted inputs conditioning process performance, the subsequent and assumptions. impacts on associated air emissions is limited, or controlled through engineering and operational controls. In the case + Whether existing background air quality, including natural variations, has been established through of NOX, the emission of these products from combustion does not materially vary based on feed gas composition monitoring and accepted proxy data. within the NWS Project system design and operational + Whether analysis of potential health and amenity envelope. Potential variations in combustion and gas impacts has been undertaken using recognised conditioning process performance, which has the potential criteria and standards, where relevant, informed by ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS to impact emissions performance (such as for CO2, CO, Australian and international standards. 6 Note 1: Table 6-6:NEPM(Ambient Air)Standards Relevant to theProposal adequate protection ofhumanhealthandwellbeing. Air Quality) isambient airquality that allows for the desired environmental outcome oftheNEPM(Ambient accepted for airquality impact assessments inWA. The the EPA, theNEPM(Ambient AirQuality) istypically In theabsence ofspecificairquality standards from benefits gainedinambient airquality from theproposed medium-term, best casescenario (KIO) presents the the continuation ofthecurrent emissions situation. The The near-term, most likely scenario (CBM) represents scenarios are presented inFigure Figure 6-9to 6-11. and annualaverage SO2 concentrations for thetwo Finally, plotsofthemaximum1-hour, maximum24-hour scenarios are presented inFigure 6-7 andFigure 6-8. 4-hour O3predicted concentrations for thetwo Similarly, plotsofthemaximum1-hourand scenarios are presented inFigure 6-3 Figure to 6-6. most likely (CBM) andmedium-term best case(KIO) average NO2predicted concentrations for thenear-term 6-5. Contour plotsofthemaximum1-hourandannual was conducted for allthescenarios listed inTable Cumulative atmospheric modellingfor theProposal Air DispersionModellingResults Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) as Ozone (O3) Photochemical oxidants Sulphur dioxide (SO 2)

Air Emission amendment hasnot beenformalised thisERDhasonlyconsidered the2015 standards, whichwere inforce at thetimeof writingthisERD. It isnoted that theCommonwealth of Australia haspublishedaNotice of Intention to vary theNEPM(Ambient AirQuality). However, asthat Averaging period 4 hours 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour 1 year 1 year 1 day Maximum concentration area) are outlined inTable 6-8. grid receptor maxima(any location withinthestudy Karratha are summarisedinTable 6-7 whilst singlepoint results received at theresidential areas ofDampierand future cumulative emissions scenarios. Predicted model (Ambient AirQuality) standards for allcurrent and predicted levels ofNO2,O3andSO2 are below NEPM Results from airdispersion modellingshow that Proposal combustion orprocessing equipment. shipping activities andisnotasignificant emission from expected asSO2 isprimarilyassociated withregional lower intheKIOmodel.SO2 remains consistent, asis locations onthegrid,NO2andO3concentrations are facilities withintheBSIAandnearby region. At all concepts, together withtheexisting, built,industrial representation offeasible andsignificant NO from theProposal operating withaconservative standards shown inTable 6-6. against therelevant NEPM(Ambient AirQuality) for theProposal, modelledpredictions were assessed assess potential ground-level concentrations (GLCs) are thusdifferent for various pollutants. Therefore, to based oncriticalexposure timesfor healthimpacts and Measurement andconcentration averaging periodsare NO ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –AIRQUALITY X reductions. Itconsiders cumulative emissions standard 200 ppb 100 ppb 120 ppb 80 ppb 80 ppb 30 ppb 20 ppb 1 Maximum allowable exceedances 1 day ayear 1 day ayear 1 day ayear 1 day ayear 1 day ayear None None X reduction 93 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 94 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Table 6-7: Summary of TAPM-GRS Results: Discrete Receptor Locations

Monitoring CBM KIO FBSIA-E&A FBSIA FBSIA-KIO NEPM Station (Ambient Air Quality) Standards

Maximum 1-hour average NO2 (ppb) AQ Karratha 24.8 16.1 17.5 28.3 20.9 120 AQ Dampier 24.8 18.2 19.0 25.8 19.5 120 Annual average NO2 (ppb) AQ Karratha 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.9 30 AQ Dampier 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.7 30 Maximum 1-hour average O3 (ppb) AQ Karratha 57.9 55.0 55.2 61.2 55.8 100 AQ Dampier 55.4 53.2 53.7 56.5 54.4 100 Maximum 4-hour (stepwise) average O3 (ppb) AQ Karratha 56.3 51.2 51.8 59.1 53.8 80 (moving average) AQ Dampier 52.5 50.5 51.0 53.6 51.8 80 (moving average) Maximum 1-hour average SO2 (ppb) AQ Karratha 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 200 AQ Dampier 12.9 13.3 13.3 12.9 13.3 200 Maximum 24-hour average SO2 (ppb) AQ Karratha 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 80 AQ Dampier 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 80 Annual average SO2 (ppb) AQ Karratha 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 20 AQ Dampier 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 20

Table 6-8: Summary of TAPM-GRS Results: Grid Receptor Maxima and NEPM (Ambient Air Quality) Standards

Assessment CBM KIO FBSIA-E&A FBSIA FBSIA-KIO NEPM Parameter (units) (Ambient Air Quality) Standard

Max. 1-hour NO2 (ppb) 42.6 29.1 30.7 43.9 32.4 120 Annual NO2 (ppb) 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.6 5.7 30 Max. 1-hour O3 (ppb) 61.8 59.2 60.0 63.0 61.0 100 Max. 4-hour (stepwise 58.2 55.3 56.1 59.7 57.4 80 avg) O3 (ppb) (moving average) Max. 1-hour SO2 (ppb) 18.1 18.2 18.2 18.1 18.2 200 Max. 24-hour SO2 (ppb) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 80 Annual SO2 (ppb) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 20 ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 Urea Plant andMethanol Plant. The onlydifference latter developments are represented by anindicative currently referred butnotassessed orapproved. The Pluto LNGDevelopment [Train 2])anddevelopments facilities, future developments currently approved (i.e. scenarios considered theProposal, existing operating foreseeable BSIAthird party developments. Both future cumulative outcomes whichincludereasonably scenarios (FBSIAand FBSIA-KIO) to test potential The modellingstudy considered two longterm emission in SO2 indicators. NEPM (Ambient AirQuality) standards, andnochange is aslight reduction compared to baselineinO3against 23% reduction at Dampiercompared to baseline. There maximum 1-hourNO2concentration at Karratha anda E&A scenario predicting anoverall 29%reduction ofthe 1-hour NO2concentrations from KIO), withtheFBSIA (between 4%-9%increase for singlepoint maximum of Pluto LNGDevelopment (Train 2)hasasmalleffect ERD (i.e. Pluto LNGDevelopment [Train 2]).Inclusion developments approved at thetimeofwritingthis Project sources, existing operating facilities, andfuture (including Cumulative Impacts) The reduction inNO Quality) standards at Karratha andDampier. being between 2and5%oftheNEPM(Ambient Air percentage of1-hourSO2 concentrations are very low, NO2 concentrations at Karratha andDampier. Maximum 20% oftheNEPMcriteria are predicted for the1-hour of theNEPM.Maximumpercentages ofapproximately areas ofDampierandKarratha between 55 and70% criteria, withmaxima(1-hourand4-hour)at residential concentrations ofO3have thehighest percentage ofthe (Ambient AirQuality) standards. Predicted ambient the short-term willnotgenerate exceedances ofNEPM industry operating ontheBurrupPeninsula now andin scenario (CBM) show that industrial emissions from Results for thenear-term, most likely operational Interpretation ModellingResults of Assessment ofPotential Impacts operating withasignificant reduction inNO considers cumulative emissions from theProposal medium term. The modellingscenario FBSIAE&A that suchdevelopments will be implemented inthe (WA)) butnotimplemented, as itisreasonably possible developments currently approved (undertheEPAct it isappropriate to alsoconsider emissions from When considering medium-term operational scenarios, Karratha anda27% reduction at Dampier. 35% reduction ofthemaximumNO2concentration at X emissions (KIO) isreflected ina

X from NWS is 74% oftherelevant standard and 67% at Dampier. The predicted maximum4-houraverage O3at Karratha 3% and6%oftheannualNEPMat respective locations. at Dampier, withmaximumannualaverages between at Karratha is23.6% oftherelevant standard and 21.5% standards. The predicted maximum1-houraverage NO 2 of Karratha andDampierare allwell below therelevant the predicted NEPMindicators at theresidential areas modelled scenarios. Ofparticular importance, isthat for theshort-term, mediumterm andlong-term relevant healthstandards (NEPM[Ambient AirQuality]) The modelledlevels ofNO2,O3andSO2 are below the not factored into themodellingscenarios. m/m (measured by mass). This emissions reduction was fuel that contains amaximumsulphurcontent of0.5% operating anywhere inAustralia willberequired to use Pollution from Ships) Act 1983(Cth), allshipsandvessels accordance withtheProtection of theSea (Prevention of the implementation oflow sulphurfuellegislation. In to significantly reduce from 1January2020 due to should alsobenoted that SO2 emissions are expected the relevant NEPM(Ambient AirQuality) standards. It conservative assumption, SO2 remained well below hours perday, every day oftheyear. Even withthis with ancillaryenginesrunningcontinuously; i.e. 24 A shipwas assumed to bedocked at alltheseberths the BurrupPeninsula, andfive berths at CapeLambert. estimates, withemissions modelledfor all(13)berthson All modelsincludedconservative shippingemissions to ambient airneartheProposal isshippingactivities. in fuel),andshipping.The largest contributor ofSO2 both industrial emissions points (with very low sulphur with aconservative (over-estimate) assumption for standards are similaracross allmodelledscenarios, Values oftheSO2 NEPM(Ambient AirQuality) reduction inambient airlevels ofNO2andO3. proposed emission reduction measures will achieve a net operations (CBM). onthis,itisexpected Based that the less than,orvery similarto, thosepredicted for current NEPM indicators for theFBSIA-KIO scenario are either for current operations (CBM). However, thepredicted There isaslight increase over concentrations predicted the relevant NEPM(Ambient AirQuality) standards. that inallinstances theambient airquality isbelow represent thelong-term, worst-case) demonstrate The results from theFBSIAscenario (considered to sources. KIO appliesasignificant reduction inNO are alignedwithcurrent emissions (CBM), whileFBSIA- from theScenario FBSIAscenario isthat emissions rates between thetwo scenarios istheprojected emissions ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –AIRQUALITY X from KGP 95 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 96 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Figure 6-3: CBM – Maximum 1h NO2 concentrations (ppb) (Near Term, Most Likely Scenario) ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 Figure KIO–Maximum 6-4: 1hNO

2 concentrations (ppb) (Medium-Term, Best Case Scenario) ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –AIRQUALITY 97 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 98 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Figure 6-5: CBM – Annual Average NO2 concentrations (ppb) (Near-Term, Most Likely Scenario) ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 Figure KIO–Annual Average 6-6: NO

2 concentrations (ppb) (Medium-Term, Best Case Scenario) ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –AIRQUALITY 99 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 100 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Figure 6-7: CBM – Maximum 1-hour Average O3 Concentrations (ppb) (Near-Term, Most Likely Scenario) ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 Figure KIO–Maximum 6-8: 1-hourAverage O

3 Concentrations (ppb) (Medium-Term, Best Case Scenario) ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –AIRQUALITY 101 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 102 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Figure 6-9: CBM – Maximum 1-hour Average SO2 Concentrations (ppb) (Near Term, Most Likely Scenario) ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 Figure 610:CBM–Maximum 24-hour Average SO

2 Concentrations (ppb) (NearTerm, Most Likely Scenario) ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –AIRQUALITY 103 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 104 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Figure 6-11: CBM – Annual Average SO2 Concentrations (ppb) (Near Term, Most Likely Scenario) ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 and othersources ofreduction inambient airquality. impacts resulting from theinteraction withtheProposal health. This assessment considers potential cumulative reducing airquality to alevel causingimpacts thehuman that there isalow any exposure duration islimited. Therefore, itisassessed activities are frequently conducted intheregion, but from residential areas, tourism andotherrecreational in thearea andemissions occur asignificant distance assessed asmedium.While there isexisting industry as beinghighlyunlikely. The receptor sensitivity is considering theexisting mitigations was assessed no lasting effect. The likelihood ofthisimpact arising Air Quality (humanhealth)was assessed ashaving the potential impact from theProposal to ambient scenarios against relevant healthassessment criteria, comparison ofarange ofairdispersion modelling onexistingBased airquality monitoring data anda Assessment ofPotential Impacts levels, odouremissions ofsulphurous compounds (H of potential trace odorants. Dueto theselow sulphur emissions points designedto ensure adequate dispersion the NWS Project gasreserve sources is very low, with 61,000 ppb(USDoHHS, 2007). The sulphurcontent of thresholds (e.g. odourthreshold for benzene ofaround Burrup ambient monitoring results well below odour summarised inSection 4.2andSection 6.3.4.1 with in terms ofriskto humanhealth.These emissions are VOCs (includingBTEX) emissions are key airemissions and sulphurous compounds (such H2S). with theProposal canincludeVOCs (including BTEX) Potential trace levels ofodorous substances associated potential to causenuisance orpublicamenity concerns. Unreasonable emissions ofodorous substances have the Odorous Substances Description ofPotential Impact 6.3.4.4 Section 6.5.4.2. to depositionofgaseousemissions isdiscussed in vegetation ofheritageandconservation value due and risksfrom degradation ofterrestrial andnearshore A descriptionandassessment ofthepotential impacts 6.3.4.3 Section 6.5.4.1. around thedevelopment envelope isdiscussed in of nitrogen andsulphuronheritagefeatures inand and risksfrom changesto airquality causingdeposition A descriptionandassessment ofthepotential impacts 6.3.4.2 are notexpected to beofthemagnitude sufficientto Smoke Amenity Impacting Public Emission Odorous of Substances andDark due to Emissions Gaseous Depositionof Vegetation Heritage of andConservation Value Degradation Terrestrial of andNearshore Heritage Places Nearby Heritage Features, IncludingNational Changes inAirQuality Causing Depositionon riskofemissions from theProposal 2 S) S) Assessment ofPotential Impacts andRisks with theconsequence having nolasting event. causing impacts to humanhealthisconsidered remote 6.3.4.3 respectively. The likelihood ofdarksmoke vegetation are describedinSection 6.3.4.1 andSection durations. Potential impacts to human healthandnearby matter isreleased at low concentrations for short Dark smoke events are infrequent andparticulate matter, theimpact isprimarilyto visualamenity. to healthorvegetation dueto therelease ofparticulate can release particulate matter that may causeimpacts temperature combustion offlared gas. While darksmoke Dark smoke canbecausedby theincomplete orlow Dark Smoke envelope remains at anacceptable level. and amenity riskoutsideoftheNWS Project development management andmitigation controls to potential odour assessment willincludetheidentification ofappropriate objectives andlegislative requirements are met. This management system to ensure that theenvironmental third-party gaswillbemanagedinlinewiththeWoodside emission characteristic changesfrom theintroduction of substances released from theNWS Project. Potential air the NWS Project orincrease concentrations ofodorous of trace sulphurcompounds ingasto beprocessed through There isariskthat third-party feed gasmay alter thelevels cause nuisance oramenity concerns. to conduct preventative maintenance. The occurrence disposing ofhydrocarbons inplant upset conditions or Project dueto unavoidable activities, suchassafely events are predicted to occur eachyear at theNWS or eliminate darksmoke events, butasmallnumberof All reasonably practical measures are taken to minimise Dark Smoke low would have nolasting effect. Therefore, there isonlya odour from theProposal andany potential exposure visitors to theBurrupPeninsula would experience any (10 kmfrom KGP) andKarratha (18kmfrom KGP) orthe is considered highlyunlikely that the residents ofDampier significant risk to public orheritage values inthe region. It odour emissions are notexpected, nordothey posea exhaust equipment. Hence, unreasonable ornuisance specification, process controls anddesignofemissions design, suchlow sulphurous feed gascomposition for odourisinherently managedthrough facility history withoutreports ofnuisance odours. Potential The NWS Project hasexperienced alongoperational Odorous Substances use oftheBurrupPeninsula for bothrecreation andtourism. of theMurujugaNational Park closeto the Proposal andthe of thereceptor isassessed asmediumdueto thepresence For bothodorous substances and darksmoke, thesensitivity result ofairemissions from theProposal. heritage features outsidethedevelopment envelope asa ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –AIRQUALITY

risk ofloss ofpublic amenity orreduced amenity to 105 , 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 106 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

of these events is minimised and controlled through dark smoke events would cause impact levels to visual maintenance planning and operational practices. Dark amenity greater than slight. smoke events are monitored and reported in accordance with the Part V Operating Licence conditions. The 6.3.5 Existing and Proposed Mitigation planned impacts from dark smoke events would result in The existing and proposed avoidance, mitigation and a loss of amenity to residents of Karratha and Dampier contingency measures applicable to the management and visitors to the Burrup Peninsula and impact level of impacts to Air Quality (Health and Amenity) arising of this loss of amenity is assessed as slight, given from the Proposal are summarised in Table 6-9. Detailed its infrequent short term nature. The risk to human description of measures is provided in the NWS Project health arising from dark smoke is low. It is unlikely Extension Air Quality Management Plan (Appendix A). that unplanned potentially larger or more frequent

Table 6-9: Existing and Proposed Additional Mitigation Measures: Air Quality (Health and Amenity)

Impact Existing Mitigation Measures Proposed Mitigation Measures

Gaseous emissions Avoid Avoid causing a reduction + Design measures implemented + No additional measures are proposed. in ambient air quality to ensure adequate dispersion of impacting human health Minimise odorous emissions from exhausts and vent points. + Adopt practicable and efficient technologies to reduce air emissions from the Proposal as + Buffer zone established around described in the NWS Project Extension Air site where no access is permitted. Quality Management Plan (Appendix A) + Condensate tanks installed with + Monitor ambient concentrations of relevant sealed rims to avoid loss of VOCs emissions, that contribute to human health to atmosphere. risks, from the Proposal as described in Minimise the NWS Project Extension Air Quality Management Plan ( ) + Continuation of the facility Appendix A emissions testing and verification + Woodside has identified and evaluated programs as described in the credible opportunities to achieve a long-term NWS Project Extension Air reduction in air emissions and as a result

Quality Management Plan is making a commitment to reduce NOX (Appendix A). emissions from the Proposal by 40%1 and substantially reduce VOC emissions + Continue to implement the Woodside management system by 31 December 20302. which includes procedures to + Implement the NWS Project Extension Air assess changes in feed gas Quality Management Plan (Appendix A) which sources. includes provisions for monitoring ambient air concentrations of relevant emissions that Rehabilitate contribute to human health risks and for + Not applicable for this impact. assessing changes in feed gas composition. Rehabilitate + Not applicable for this impact. Changes in air quality Refer to the mitigation measures in Section 6.5.4.1. causing deposition on nearby heritage features, including national heritage places Degradation of Refer to the mitigation measures in Section 6.5.4.2. terrestrial and nearshore vegetation of heritage and conservation value due to deposition of gaseous emissions

Note 1: Based on the percentage of reported emissions from the KGP over the five-year annual average, covering the 2013/2014 to 2017/2018 financial years.

Note 2: Woodside is undertaking further studies at the KGP to identify and evaluate credible opportunities to achieve a long-term reduction in air emissions,

and confirm the selection of improvement options to achieve the percentage emissions reductions. For NOX emission reductions, Woodside is ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS reviewing current best practice in low NOX technology available for gas turbines. The most recent LNG trains (Trains 4 and 5) constructed at the KGP

are already equipped with low NOX technology. For VOC emission reductions, opportunities are being reviewed to determine where current best practice technology can be applied within the constraints of an existing plant and brownfield environment. Woodside anticipates that these studies 6 will be completed in 2020, with a status update to be provided in the relevant Annual Environmental Report.

amenity smoke impacting public substances anddark Emission ofodorous Impact + + + + + + Minimise Rehabilitate + + + + + Avoid

Existing Mitigation Measures sealed rimstoavoidlossofVOCs Condensate tanksinstalledwith away fromplantboundary. sewage treatmentplant)located Sources ofpotentialodour(e.g. site wherenoaccessispermitted. Buffer zoneestablishedaround and ventpoints. odorous emissionsfromexhausts to ensureadequatedispersionof Design measuresimplemented Continuation ofthefacility Not applicableforthisimpact hydrocarbons. complete combustionofheavy may bereleased,tofacilitate periods wheredarksmoke Assist gasutilisedduring minimising darksmoke. ensure adequatecombustionand maintenance offlaretipsto Regular inspectionand monitoring andreporting. Emissions performance smoke. for reportsofodourordark incident investigationprocedure Public complaintsprocessand sources. assess changesinfeedgas which includesproceduresto Woodside managementsystem Continue toimplementthe (Appendix A). Quality ManagementPlan NWS ProjectExtensionAir programs asdescribedinthe emissions testingandverification to atmosphere.

ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –AIRQUALITY

+ + + + Rehabilitate Minimise Avoid

Not applicableforthisimpact nuisance-causing emissions. in feedgascompositionthatmaychange contains proceduresforassessingchanges Quality ManagementPlan(AppendixA)which Implement theNWSProjectExtensionAir No additionalmeasuresareproposed. Murujuga RockArtStakeholderReferenceGroup. Art Strategy(DWER,2019b)asamemberofthe Support implementationoftheMurujugaRock Proposed Mitigation Measures 107 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 108 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

6.3.6 Predicted Outcome to further reduce air emissions are illustrated to predict a net reduction in ambient air ground level concentrations After implementing the proposed mitigation measures, of the key pollutants of NO2 and O3 for future cumulative the planned impacts and risks associated with the emissions scenarios in and around the BSIA. ongoing emissions to air from the Proposal until around 2070 and the potential introduction of third-party gas No significant air quality impacts to human health and and fluids (which may cause changes to air emission amenity are expected associated with the ongoing characteristics) are assessed as having an residual operation of the Proposal. Analysis of seven years of environment impact rating not greater than slight, or ambient air monitoring data demonstrate long term residual risks greater than low. Woodside considers that cumulative ground level emissions rates below NEPM this indicates the residual impacts and risks associated health standards. with the proposal are broadly aligned with the EPA’s Woodside will continue emissions monitoring programs objective for Air Quality. There were no impacts or risks during the Proposal through the implementation of the identified that would mean that the EPA Objectives for NWS Project Extension Air Quality Management Plan Air Quality are not achieved. (Appendix A). This management plan leverages facility Potential air emission characteristic changes from the technical emissions control technologies and sets out a introduction of third-party gas will be managed in line suite of operational management practices and contains with the Woodside management system to ensure provisions for measuring and managing emissions from that the environmental objectives and legislative the Proposal (such as point source emissions verification requirements are met. This assessment will include and ambient air monitoring). the identification of appropriate management and Environmental monitoring and existing environmental mitigation controls to ensure impacts and risks remains baseline data—which include historical operation of the below levels considered to be significant. Therefore, NWS Project—together with robust and conservative Woodside has a high level of confidence in these residual modelling predictions, provide evidence to support the risk rankings. The implementation of the NWS Project predicted outcomes of the Proposal. Extension Air Quality Management Plan (Appendix A) and other management measures (summarised in Table There were no identified changes to existing NWS 6-9) will continue to reduce any residual impacts on infrastructure from the Proposal that would increase human health and amenity within and outside the NWS the planned impacts to Air Quality beyond those from Project development envelope. existing operations. No additional management or mitigation measures are Refer to Section 6.5.4.1 for potential impacts associated required to be implemented to further minimise residual with accelerated weathering to rock art from industrial risks. However, the Proposal provides equipment life emissions.

and operational opportunities to further minimise NOX and VOC emissions. As such, Woodside is committed A summary of the impact assessment outcomes used to 6 derive this outcome is provided in Table 6-10. to reducing NOX emissions by 40% , and substantially reduce VOCs by 31 December 2030. These opportunities

Table 6-10: Air Quality (Health and Amenity) Impact Assessment Summary

Impact Receptor Magnitude Likelihood Impact Level/ Sensitivity (unplanned Environment Risk impacts only) Rating

Emission of odorous substances Medium Planned – Slight N/A Impact level - Slight and dark smoke impacting public amenity Unplanned - Minor Highly Unlikely Risk rating - Low Gaseous emissions causing a Medium No lasting effect Unlikely Risk rating - Low reduction in ambient air quality impacting human health Changes in air quality causing Refer to Section 6.5 deposition on nearby heritage features, including national heritage places Degradation of terrestrial and Refer to Section 6.5 nearshore vegetation of heritage and conservation value due to deposition of gaseous emissions ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 Based on the percentage of reported emissions from KGP over the five year average, covering the 2013/14 to 2017/18 financial years. 6 + + + + EPA Policy andGuidance 6.4.2 environmental values are protected (EPA, 2016a). To maintain airquality andminimise emissions so that 6.4.1 6.4 Other Policy and Guidance

(DWER, 2019a) Greenhouse GasEmissionsforMajorProjects Climate SolutionsPackage(DoEE,2019a) 2016a) Environmental FactorGuideline:AirQuality(EPA, Objectives (EPA,2018a) Statement ofEnvironmentalPrinciples,Factorsand Gas Emissions)Gas – AirQuality(Greenhouse Key Environmental Factor Policy andGuidance EPA Objective ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –GREENHOUSEGAS EMISSIONS + environment. description ofeachrelevant receptor ofthereceiving environmental factor. Refer to Section 4for detailed to theAirQuality (Greenhouse Emissions) Gas environment that are directly andindirectly related This section identifies theelements ofthe receiving 6.4.3 guidance relates to theProposal. Section 10details how thislegislation, policy and 6.4.2.4.1 + + +

National GreenhouseandEnergyReporting (Safeguard Mechanism)Rule2015(Cth) National GreenhouseandEnergyReporting (Measurement Determination)2008(Cth) National GreenhouseandEnergyReporting Act 2001(Cth) Carbon Credits(CarbonFarmingInitiative) Act 2007(Cth) Relevant Legislation Receiving Environment

109 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 6 ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 110 Table 6-11 Air Quality (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) Receiving Environment NORTH WEST SHELFPROJECT EXTENSION Receving Envrionment Contribution to GHGConcentrations Marine Fauna withHeritage Value Vegetation withHeritage Value (Relevant to Human Health) Seabirds andShorebirds National Heritage Place (Relevant to Amenity) Terrestrial Vegetation Marine Invertebrates Heritage Features Sediment Quality Marine Mammals Sharks andFish Water Quality Macroalgae Sea Snakes Air Quality Air Quality Mangroves Shorelines Activity Seagrass Turtles Coral

Ongoing emissions to air Extension Proposal until from theNWS Project around 2070.  Introduction ofthird-party may causechangesto air emission characteristics gas andfluids,which  Note 3: Note 2: Table 6-12: Estimated SummaryofMaximumScope 1and2Emissions for NWS Project Extension + + + + + + + Potential impacts from GHGemissions may include: emissions include: The components oftheProposal that may result inGHG 6.4.4 9 8 7 Note 1: onshore terminal at theKGP to thefiscalmetering point include emissions generated between thetrunkline For thepurposeofthisdocument, Scope 1emissions in Table 6-12 andTable 6-15. sources are describedfurtherbelow andare summarised 7.7 mtpa CO2e. Details ontheScope 1,2and3emission Scope 2GHGemissions from theProposal willbeupto onLNGproductionBased of18.5mtpa, theScope 1and from: The Proposal contributes to globalGHGconcentrations Description Potential of Impacts 6.4.4.1

CO Scope 1and2Emissions

electricity (Scope2 Indirect emissionsfromtheconsumptionof (Scope 3 and customeruseofproductssoldbytheProposal Indirect emissionsfromactivitiessuchastransport other products(Scope1 Direct emissionsfromtheproductionofLNGand GHG emissionconcentrations. Climate changeinfluencedbychangestoGlobal Scope 1,2and3emissions. Contribution toglobalGHGconcentrationsfrom cause changestoairemissioncharacteristics. Introduction ofthird-partygasandfluids,whichmay Extension Proposaluntilaround2070. Ongoing emissionstoairfromtheNWSProject Scope 3GHGemissions are indirect GHGemissions other than Scope 2emissions that are generated inthewidereconomy (Clean Energy Regulator, 2019) Regulator, 2019) Scope 2GHGemissions are theemissions released to theatmosphere from theindirect consumption of anenergy commodity (Clean Energy (Clean Energy Regulator, 2019) Scope 1GHGemissions are theemissions released to theatmosphere asadirect result of anactivity, orseries of activities at afacility level Annual Scope 1andScope 3 2e Emissions Maximum direct (Scope 1and2)GHGemissions are based oncurrent limits described inprevious environmental assessment documentation Maximum Scope 1and2emissions are based on50 years of operation at fullcapacity for theKGP. Itisexpected that GHGemissions would Average emissions have not been forecasted dueto potential changesto future gassources to beprocessed by theNWS Project. Woodside submitted for theNWS Project underthe EPAct (Woodside, 1998). decline towards theendof project life. owners. Therefore itismore accurate to refer to maximum annualandlife of theproject emissions. proposes to operate theNWS Project asanLNGfacility that iscommercially capable of accepting gasfor processing from other resource Scope 1,Scope 2andScope 3emissions Contribution to globalGHGconcentrations from Potential ImpactsandRisks 9 emissions). Emissions 3 8 emissions). 7 emissions). Annual GHGEmissions ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –GREENHOUSEGAS EMISSIONS (mtpa) 7.70 + + + + + Scope 1emissions associated withtheProposal include: Scope 1Emissions introduction ofthird party gasandfluids. section cover allpotential future emissions from the for eachproduct. Scope 1emissions describedinthis associated withtheProposal. There are currently nootherScope 2emissions emissions detailed above. this electricity generation isconsidered intheScope 1 site andtherefore GHGemissions associated with All electricity consumed at theKGP isgenerated on 2018 NGERS report. approximately 0.002 mtpa, asreported inthe2017 - from electricity consumed at KBSB. This accounts for Scope 2emissions associated withtheProposal are Scope 2Emissions

Flaring: burninghydrocarbonsthroughtheflare. generate electricitytoruntheProposal. generators thatusegasfromtheProposalto Electricity generation:operatinggasturbine processing. other incidentalsubstancesassociatedwithgas venting someresidualmethane,VOCsand from thegasstreamthroughAGRUs,including Acid gasremoval:removingandventingofCO2 natural gas. compressors usedtocompressrefrigerantliquefy Gas turbinecompressors:operatinggas safety vents. Proposal, suchasflanges,valves,andprocess atmosphere fromvariousareasthroughoutthe Fugitive emissions:smallemissionsofgastothe GHG Emissions over 50year life ofproject 385.00 1 2 (mt) 111 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 112 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Emissions from Third Party Consumption Determination. NGER end point fuel combustion factors GHG emissions associated with the consumption of have been used for third-party consumption of LPG LNG is expected to predominately occur internationally and Condensate. The transportation and distribution and therefore, emissions associated with LNG shipping, emissions associated with these products are considered regasification, distribution and combustion have been to be negligible when compared to the total Scope estimated using emissions factors sourced from the 3 emissions estimate and therefore have not been Ecoinvent v3.5 database. included in the below calculations. For GHG emissions associated with the consumption of The Scope 3 consumption emissions (Table 6-14) of Domgas, an emission factor has been developed based each product have been calculated using the emission on NGER that considers both distribution and final end factors defined inTable 6-13 above. Maximum annual point fuel combustion of natural gas. Fugitive emissions production rates for each product (converted to energy associated with Domgas during transmission (along the content) from the Proposal were assumed when Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline) have been estimating Scope 3 emissions. estimated in accordance with the NGER Measurement

Table 6-13: Emission Factors for the Calculation of Scope 3 GHG Emissions

Scope 3 Sources Emission Factor Reference

LNG 3.13 kg CO2e/kg LNG1 Ecoinvent v3.5 Database LPG 60.6 kg CO2e/GJ NGER (Determination) Schedule 1 and S3.80 Domgas 57.35 kg CO2e/GJ2 NGER (Determination) Schedule 1 Condensate 61.3 kg CO2e/GJ NGER (Determination) Schedule 1

Note 1: Ecoinvent v3.5 emissions factor of 3.13 kg CO2e/kg LNG represents an increase in 8.6% from the NGERs (Determination) Schedule 1 factor of 2.88 kg CO2e/kg LNG. The additional emissions account for other emission sources, including transport, regasification and distribution. Note 2: Emission factor includes end user combustion and distribution losses.

Table 6-14: Estimated Scope 3 Emissions for NWS Project Extension

Scope 3 Sources Maximum Annual GHG Emissions (mtpa)1

LNG 57.91 LPG 1.72 Domgas 10.38 Condensate 10.18

Note 1: Maximum Scope 3 GHG emissions associated with third party consumption of products are based on the LNG nameplate capacity of 18.5 mtpa as set out in Schedule 1 of MS536 (as amended). As condensate, LPG and Domestic Gas products do not have regulated production limits, maximum emissions have been based on the highest reported annual production rate for each product over the past five financial years (2013/14 – 2017/18), as reported under NGERS.

Table 6-15: Estimated Summary of Maximum Scope 3 Emissions for NWS Project Extension1

Annual GHG Emissions GHG Emissions over (mtpa) 50 year life of project2 (mt)

CO2e Emissions 80.19 4009.31

Note 1: Maximum Scope 3 emissions are based on 50 years of operation at full capacity for the KGP. It is expected that GHG emissions would decline towards the end of project life.

Note 2: Average emissions have not been forecasted due to potential changes to future gas sources to be processed by the NWS Project. Woodside proposes to operate the NWS Project as an LNG facility that is commercially capable of accepting gas for processing from other resource owners. Therefore it is more accurate to refer to maximum annual and life of the project emissions. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 Reporting Act 2007 (Cth). basis undertheNational Greenhouse andEnergy and downstream processing facilities onanannual to report actual GHGemissions for bothupstream acceptable level. Inaddition,operators are required as low asreasonably practicable andwillbeofan impacts andrisksoftheactivity willbereduced to which requires ademonstration that environmental Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 (Cth) the accepted Environment Planinaccordance with facilities) are required to operate underan the KGP (includingexisting NWS Project offshore All upstream facilities supplyinggasandfluidsto not underassessment aspartofthisProposal. extraction andprocessing of gasandfluidsare GHG emissions associated withtheupstream Upstream Emissions Note 4: Note 3: Note 2: Note 1: Emissions Table 6-16: Percentage Contribution ofMaximumProposal Emissions to Regional, State, National andGlobalGHG 2030 (2°CPathway) Baseline) 2030 (Current Policy 2030 (1.5°CPathway) Western Australia Baseline) 2030 (NoPolicy 2017 Actual Global (NDCScenarios) Regional Australia Offshore Petroleum andGreenhouse Gas emissions only. the 2030 emissions forecasts are United Nations Environment Program projections onlyandtotal globalGHGemissions reflect anthropogenic emissions. Emission estimated have beenreferenced from theUNEnvironment Emissions Report 2018 Gap (UNEP, 2018). Itshouldbe noted that Five United Nations Environment Program NDCScenarios have beenused to represent current and future proposed globalgreenhouse gas the United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change(UNFCCC) andtheKyoto Protocol (KP). 2017 Total Greenhouse Emissions Gas for Australia. Sources from theAustralian National Inventory Submitted Report 2017 under (DoEE,2019f). 2017 Greenhouse Emissions Gas for Western Australia (Commonwealth of Australia, 2019a) record for GHGemissions inthePilbara region. per annumfrom theupstream offshore operations hasbeenassumed. This estimatation isinherently uncertain asthere isnodefinitive public include integrated upstream offshore facilities that feed into onshore processing plants located inthePilbara. For theNWS Project, 1 mtpa of CO2e been definedasemissions occurring withinthePilbara region of Western Australia. Due to thenature of thedata available, regional emissions also Therefore, thiscalculation isasubset of GHGemissions inthePilbara region andonlyreflects industrial scale emitters. Regional emissions have and Energy Reporting Safeguard facility reported emissions (2017/2018 FY)for facilities that emitmore than100,000 tonnes of CO2e perannum. As there isnodefinitive public record of GHGemissions inthePilbara region, quantification ofemissions isbased onthe National Greenhouse 1 4 Total GHGEmissions (mtpa) 40,000 65,000 59,000 24,000 53,500 534.7 88.5 25.9 2 3

ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –GREENHOUSEGAS EMISSIONS Proposed NWS Project Direct Emissions 7.7 mtpa CO 2e (Scope 1&2) + + + + Determined Contribution (NDC)Scenarios: four United Nations Environment Program Nationally global emissions are shown against 2017 actuals andthe the success ofvarious measures to reduce emissions, As future globalemissions may vary dependingon context ofdomestic andglobalanthropogenic emissions. and indirect (Scope 1,2and3)emissions are putinto the Proposal, total direct (Scope 1and2)aswell asdirect To inform theassessment oftheimpact ofemissions from Emissions Contribution to Regional, State, National andGlobal Extension

29.75 % 0.03 % 0.03 0.02 % 0.02 8.70 % 0.01 % 0.01 % 0.01 0.01 % 0.01 1.44 % 2030 (1.5°CPathway). 2030 (2°CPathway) 2030 (CurrentPolicyBaseline) 2030 (NoPolicyBaseline) Proposed NWS Project 87.89 mtpa CO2e (Scope 2&3) 1, All Emissions Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Extension 0.22 % 0.37 % 0.37 0.14 % 0.16 % 0.15 % 113 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 114 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Contribution to Australia’s Emissions (Measurement) Determination 2008 (Cth). GHG intensity Under the Paris Agreement, Australia has a target of has been calculated for emissions associated with gas reducing emissions by 26 – 28% below 2005 levels processing at the LNG facility and does not include by 2030. Australia stated in its Nationally Determined emissions associated with the upstream extraction of Contribution that it would develop its target into an the natural gas or the downstream combustion of the emissions budget covering the period of 2021 – 2030. LNG. The following emissions were excluded from the The target trajectory for this period is 4,800 mt in order benchmarking assessment: to reach the 26% reduction target (DoEE, 2018). Scope 1 + GHG emissions from upstream operations associated and 2 GHG emissions from the Proposal are expected to with the extraction and compression of raw gas contribute to 1.6% of this cumulative emissions budget. (i.e. upstream of the Trunkline Onshore Terminals Australia’s emissions projections 2018 (DoEE, 2018) ([TOT1 and TOT2]). provides an indicative summary of how Australia + Scope 2 emissions. is tracking to achieve its Nationally Determined + Scope 3 emissions. Contribution. Projected emissions to 2030 from the LNG sector (direct combustion and fugitive) are included in + Emissions associated with handling, transport and use the methodology used to underpin these projections. of gas product downstream of the fiscal product meter. The methodology is based on an export capacity of The benchmarking has not included proposed future 80 mtpa of LNG in 2020 with the addition of one new mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions. LNG train in the mid-2020’s (DoEE, 2018). Mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions The emissions reduction task to achieve the 2030 target are assessed annually and will be implemented in is currently 328 mtCO2e. The Australian government accordance with internal decision criteria which takes has outlined a plan to closing this gap in the Climate into account a number of economic and environmental Solutions Package (Commonwealth of Australia, 2019b). considerations. The methodology for choosing LNG facilities against Benchmarking Against Other LNG Facilities which to benchmark the Proposal included assessing The comparison parameter most commonly used to the location, age, and capacity of each facility, and benchmark GHG emissions from LNG facilities is ‘GHG whether enough publicly available data about emissions intensity’ (i.e. the tonnes of GHG emitted per tonne and LNG production was available. Nine Australian of LNG produced). GHG emissions are expressed in and eight international facilities were selected for the CO2e, where the CO2e emissions are an aggregate of benchmarking study, which represents nearly half of GHG emissions including carbon dioxide, methane and the LNG facilities globally. Data has been preferentially nitrous oxide, calculated as an equivalent CO2 emission extracted from Environmental Impact Statement by factoring in the global warming potential (GWP) of greenhouse gas information where applicable. each constituent gas. GWP is applied in accordance with National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting

KGP excluding reservoir CO KGP reservoir CO

Figure 6-12 GHG Benchmarking Results ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 years asnewer liquefaction trains have beenadded. Qatargas facility hasdecreased progressively over the Trains 1to 5.Like theProposal, theGHGintensity ofthe is 0.41 tCO2e/t LNG,whichisvery similarto that ofKGP GHG intensity for thisfacility (combined Trains 1to 7) a total ofseven liquefaction trains (Trains 1to 7).The content. This facility comprises four LNGplants, with facility ofsimilarageand hasasimilarreservoir CO2 is most comparable to KGP Trains 1to 5asitisalarge Of theinternational LNGfacilities, theQatargas facility and 5. are onlyusedfor power generation for KGP Trains 4 generation at Wheatstone LNG;aero-derivative turbines aero-derivative turbinesfor bothrefrigeration andpower Wheatstone. Aninfluencing factor may betheuseof attributable to reservoir CO2, isslightly higherthan The GHGintensity oftheProposal, excluding emissions for theAustralian facilities. for KGP Trains 1to 5are slightly higherthanthe average The GHGintensity, excluding CO2 reservoir emissions, Australian facilities analysed (0.31 tCO2-e /tLNG). KGP Trains 4and5islower thantheaverage for the When reservoir CO2 isexcluded, theGHGintensity of been commissioned recently (i.e. inthelast five years). relatively highLNGproduction capacitiesandhave LNG, andQueenslandCurtisbothofwhichhave lower thanKGP Trains 4and5are Australia-Pacific facilities analysed the average (0.44 t CO2e /tLNG)for theAustralian Trains 4and5,for KGP Trains 1to 5,are lower than The benchmarkingshows that theemissions for KGP Trains 1to 3. were designedwithlower emissions intensities thanKGP acknowledges that KGP Trains 4and5are newer and parts. Assessing theProposal from thisperspective is shown inTable 6-17, separated into thesethree 4 and5;KGP Trains 1to 5.The emissions intensity Proposal inthree parts:KGP Trains 1to 3;KPGTrains The benchmarkingshown inFigure 6-12 assesses the Table 6-17: KGP LNGfacility GHGintensity data for current operations 10 Karratha Plant T4-T5 Gas Karratha Plant T1-T3 Gas Karratha Plant T1-T5 Gas LNG Facility Capture andStorage of reservoir CO2. and earlyengineeringdesigns.Gorgon LNGemissions intensity represents thefacility operating emissions at thetimeof publication, withoutCarbon The calculated average excludes theBarossa–Caldita LNGGHG intensity asthedata ispreliminary estimates onlybased onearlyreservoir modelling 10 . Facilities withGHGintensities LNG Production 2017 -2018 mtpa Rate 8.40 8.22 16.6 ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –GREENHOUSEGAS EMISSIONS Reservoir CO 2 of similarage. similar to thosefacilities located inasimilarclimate and GHG performance oftheProposal was found to bevery When assessed against international LNGfacilities, the proposed Barossa-Caldita LNGfacility isexcluded. Australian facilities assessed, even whenthehighCO2 KGP islower thantheaverage intensity for thenine and international LNGfacilities. The GHGintensity for performance oftheProposal issimilarto both Australian Overall, thecurrent andfuture projected GHG affect theemissions ofotherentities. The sensitivity of community, company, country, etc) willmixwithand and therefore emissions from asingleentity (individual, GHGs accumulate over timeandmixonaglobalscale are notfurtherassessed. The IPCC (2014) notes that Therefore regional, state andnational GHGcontributions to GHGemissions istherefore theglobalatmosphere. context ofglobalemissions andthereceptor relevant emissions contribution needsto beconsidered in The impact associated withtheProposal’s GHG trends (asillustrated inTable 6-16). emission concentrations, dependingonfuture emissions to between 0.01% and0.03% ofannualglobalGHG from theProposal donotexceed 7.7 mtpa. This equates will beputinplace to ensure total direct emissions existing NWSJV gasresources, mitigation measures third-party gasresources could vary from that ofthe composition (andothercompositional elements) of characteristics oftheNWS Project. AlthoughtheCO2 will notincrease theexisting annualGHGemissions these hydrocarbons, inaccordance withtheProposal, party gasorfluidsandsubsequent processing of of theNWS Project orfuture introduction ofthird- the EPAct (Woodside, 1998).The ongoingoperation documentation submitted for theNWS Project under previously beendescribedinenvironmental assessment Total direct (Scope 1)emissions of7.7 mtpa CO2e has Assessment Potential of Impacts andRisks 0.09 0.09 0.09 GHG Intensity (tCO2e /tLNG) Reservoir CO 2 LNG Facility, Excluding 0.40 0.26 0.32 Total LNG Facility 0.49 0.35 0.41

115 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 116 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

this receptor (global atmosphere) is assessed as medium 6.4.4.2 Climate Change Influenced by Changes given the global nature of the issue and the range of to Global GHG Emission Concentrations airsheds, of varying air quality and GHG emissions Description of Potential Impacts sources, encompassed. Any direct impact associated with the direct emission of GHGs from the Proposal are GHG emissions from the Proposal are detailed in above. negligible when assessed in isolation. Section 6.4.4.1 Woodside acknowledges that groups such as The relationship between GHG emission concentrations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and and their influence on climate change is discussed in CSIRO have established a link between an increase in Section 6.4.4.2. global GHG emission concentrations and changes in The NWS Project (current and future projected) global climatic conditions. GHG performance is similar to both Australian and GHG are those gases that, when emitted into the international LNG facilities. During the implementation atmosphere, absorb infrared radiation and release this of this Proposal, Woodside will continue to identify energy as heat (CSIRO, 2015). Increased anthropogenic opportunities to reduce GHG emissions, through emissions since the pre-industrial era are considered measures such as the optimisation of the existing likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed process or implementation of the technological trend in increasing global average temperatures (IPCC, solutions. Woodside has demonstrated continuous 2014). This increase in temperature is projected to have improvements in greenhouse emissions from NWS an adverse effect on natural ecosystems, as a result of Project, with the emissions intensity of LNG production reductions in the bioclimatic range within which a given decreasing 0.60t CO2e/t LNG in 2000 prior to species or ecological community exists, and human construction of LNG Train 4, to an intensity of 0.41t health, due to increased risk of injury and death due CO2e/t LNG in 2018, equating to a reduction of 30% in to more extreme weather events (intense heatwaves, emissions intensity over this time. droughts, fires and storms), increased risk of food, water While the Proposal will contribute directly to global and vector (e, g, mosquito) borne diseases, changed GHG emissions, it should be noted that gas significantly food security and water scarcity (IPCC, 2014). contributes to reducing net emissions and improving Carbon, in the form of CO , is commonly recognised as access to a reliable modern energy supply (e.g. 2 one of the principal agents of global climate change renewable energy) (IPCC, 2014). According to the IPCC (CSIRO, 2015), with the combustion of fossil fuels most (2014) electricity generated from gas has on average commonly cited as the key contributing factor (IPCC, half the GHG emissions of electricity generated from 2014). The current focus on climate change, its causes coal. The IEA has calculated that the coal-to-gas and remediation measures, is a global phenomenon. switching helped avert 95 mt of CO2 emissions in 2018. Furthermore, gas plays an important role in the IEA The IPCC Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report (IPCC, sustainable development scenario (SDS) particularly in 2014) states that ‘the globally averaged combined terms of providing peaking and balancing power instead land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated of baseload generation and replacing more emissions- by a linear trend show a warming of 0.85 C over intensive fuels in the industry and transport sectors the period 1880 to 2012’ and that with this there (IEA, 2019b). Woodside estimates of its global GHG have been observable impacts to sea levels, ocean emission contribution do not account for the potential temperatures, and the cryosphere”. These changes benefits that could be attributed to gas. Woodside is have been attributed to the increase in concentration of actively working to create and expand markets where greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon dioxide, in the LNG substantially reduces emissions and where lower atmosphere. emissions alternatives are unlikely to displace LNG. Regulatory Framework The potential magnitude of the NWS Project’s Owing to the global nature of GHG emissions, a contribution to global GHG emissions is assessed national and global response is required in order to as slight given the above information and the small address the potential influence of climate change from percentage of the contribution when compared to total changes to GHG emission concentrations. Australia global GHG emissions. The Proposal’s GHG emissions has established the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) are managed through the dedicated GHG Management as part of the Commonwealth Government’s Climate Plan. With the implementation of the GHG Management Solutions Package (formally Direct Action Plan), which Plan, which includes identification and implementation has a primary goal to deliver on Australia’s nationally of opportunities to reduce emissions, together with the determined contribution under the Paris Agreement, to complex interaction of GHG emissions in the atmosphere ‘reduce emissions by 26-28 per cent below 2005 levels and the potential for gas to contribute to a reduction by 2030’. The ERF has three key elements: crediting, in net global GHG emissions, the residual impact is purchasing, and safeguarding emission reductions. The

ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS assessed as low. Safeguard Mechanism seeks to impose limits on large 6 Safeguard Mechanism,asdescribedabove. the State GHGpolicy through itscompliance withthe is conditioned. Woodside proposes to contribute to who willconsider thispolicy andhow the approval GHG emissions to theMinister for theEnvironment make itsrecommendation onamajorproposal involving aspiration ofnet zero emissions by 2050. The EPA will contribution towards achieving theState Government’s gas management planthat details theproponent’s emit significant emissions to develop agreenhouse by theEPA. The policy requires proponents that CO its net emissions below acurrent baselineof7.57 mtpa Safeguard Mechanism,theNWS Project must maintain net emissions to below adefinedbaseline. Underthe emitters ofGHGto measure, report andmanagetheir which provides aframework for Australia’s largest The NWS Project issubject to theSafeguard Mechanism (Australian Government, 2016). business-as-usual levels elsewhere intheeconomy” displaced by significant increases inemissions above paid for through theEmissions Reduction Fund are not Safeguard Mechanismisto “ensure emissions reductions are kept below adefinedbaseline. The intent ofthe GHG-emitting facilities to ensure that net emissions 11 energy source, gasisexpected to play akey role in of worldwide livingstandards. As acleanandreliable clean andreliable energy isparamount to thelifting domestic andinternational markets. The provision of necessary to enabletheprovision ofnatural gasto emissions from theProposal, theseemissions are While itisplannedthat there willbedirect GHG Natural gasinthecontext ofglobalemissions emissions policy Western Australian government announced itsGHG (or equivalent future agreements). InAugust 2019, the commitments madeundertheParis Climate Agreement implemented inthefuture to achieve any additional change to Safeguard Mechanismbaselinesmay be circumstances. Woodside anticipates subsequent entitled to applyfor abaselinevariation incertain Facilities subject to thesafeguard mechanismare within thescope oftheProposal, i.e. offshore facilities). NWS Project facilities (some ofwhichare notincluded greenhouse gasemissions of more than 7.7 mtpa. The baseline established undertheSafeguard Mechanism isseparate from thekey characteristic of theProposal whichwillnot leadto direct 2e 11 . This baselinerepresents allemissions from the 12 for majorprojects beingassessed ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –GREENHOUSEGAS EMISSIONS 2017 and2040. consumption inthese markets grows by 130%between under theSDS andthe modellingdemonstrates gas The Proposal willsupplygasinto markets modelled which istheendofmodelledperiod(Figure 6-13 ). natural gascontinues to increase until at least 2040 The SDS shows that thetotal globalconsumption of rise to 1.7-1.8 °C” (IEA,2019a). based onlimitinglong-term globalaverage temperature “lower thanmost publisheddecarbonisation scenarios pollution. GHGemissions projections intheSDS are 2030 andreducing thesevere healthimpacts ofair climate change, providing universal energy access by system that satisfies thethree objectives ofmitigating Development Scenario (SDS), which describes an energy (WEO). Since 2017 theWEO hasincludedaSustainable Each year theIEApublishesaWorld Energy Outlook source to help resolve intermittency issues (IEA,2018). renewable penetration intheform ofareliable power this firmingcapacity, gas-fired power allows high electricity demandfluctuates (IEA,2018). By providing system stability whenrenewable power generation or renewables, asitcanbequicklyturnedonto provide power source, gas-fired power isanidealpartnerwith et.al., 2019). Asareadily dispatchable andreliable and solarcanbeintermittent orinconsistent (Heiligtag capacity factor, asrenewable power suchasfrom wind the widespread deployment ofrenewables isthelow renewable energy. Akey technical challengeassociated fuels, natural gassupportstheenhanced uptake of In additionto directly displacinghigheremissions fossil (IEA, 2019a). switching helpedavert 95 MTofCO 2 emissions in2018 coal (IPCC, 2014). According to theIEA,coal-to-gas half theGHGemissions ofelectricity generated from IPCC, electricity generated from gashasonaverage significantly” by switching to gas. According to the emissions from energy supplycanbereduced The IPCC’s 2014 Synthesis Report stated that “GHG burning). higher carbonintensive power generation (e.g. coal to thereduction inglobalGHGemissions by displacing addition, gashasthepotential to contribute significantly the future energy mix(asapartnerto renewables). In 117 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 118 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

SDS gas consumption in relevant NWS Project Extension market (Mtoe)

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0 2017 2025 2030 2040

China India Japan SE Asia

Figure 6-13: Forecast Gas Consumption in the IEA’s SDS in Relevant Markets (Mtoe)

6.4.4.2.1 Assessment of Potential Impacts and Risks that global climate change may lead to impacts on As noted in the Climate Change 2014: Synthesis the environment of Western Australia. CSIRO has Report (IPCC, 2014) GHGs accumulate over time published what this impact may look for each national and mix on a global scale. While greenhouse gas resource management region with all regions predicted concentrations globally are not homogenous due to experience a changing climate and with all regions to local meteorological conditions, the atmospheric being vulnerable to the impacts of that changing climate concentration of carbon dioxide has been observed (CSIRO, 2019). Potential climate change predictions as being generally well mixed (IPCC 2014). Woodside relevant to the Pilbara region, in which the Proposal is has not identified any published, peer reviewed, located, are described in Section 4.1.4. scientific literature that has identified a link between greenhouse gas emissions from a particular source and 6.4.5 Existing and Proposed Mitigation a corresponding change in local climatic conditions. For The existing and proposed avoidance, mitigation and this reason, it is not possible to make an assessment of contingency measures applicable to the management any impact to climate change arising from the Proposal of impacts to Air Quality (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) to the local receiving environment or any individual arising from the Proposal are summarised in Table 6-18. receptor. Woodside has incorporated a suite of contemporary More generally, a report by Australia’s Biodiversity best practice management and mitigation measures and Climate Change Advisory Group (Steffen et al, (each included as Management Actions) to ensure 2009) in 2009 gives a summary of potential impacts ongoing, long-term reductions in Greenhouse Gas to marine and terrestrial species, habitats and emissions will be achieved. A detailed description of ecosystems across Australia. CSIRO has predicted measures is provided in the NWS Project Extension Greenhouse Gas Management Plan (Appendix B). ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 6.4.6 Table 6-18: Existing andProposed Mitigation Measures: AirQuality (GHG Emissions) beyond thecontrol oftheProposal. considered uncertain, dueto thewiderange ofvariables emissions. However, thelikelihood ofthis outcome is Proposal may result inanet reduction inglobalGHG generation (e.g. coal-gas energy switch). Assuch,the emissions by displacing highercarbonintensive power contribute significantly to the reduction inglobalGHG provision ofnatural gasinto markets hasthepotential to increase inglobalgreenhouse gasemissions, the While theProposal willcontribute directly to aslight Proposal to any local,state orglobalclimate changes. not possible to quantitatively assess theimpact ofthe slight impact (i.e. increase) to globalemissions. Itwas and thiscontribution isassessed ascontributing to a will contribute upto 0.03% ofglobalGHGemissions Objectives for AirQuality are notachieved. The Proposal impacts orrisksidentified that would meanthat theEPA with theEPA’s objective for AirQuality. There were no risks associated withtheproposal are broadly aligned considers that thisindicates theresidual impacts and than alow no plannedimpacts orriskswitharesidual riskhigher After implementing theproposed mitigation measures, emission concentrations Contribution to globalGHG Emission Concentrations by Changesto GlobalGHG Climate ChangeInfluenced Predicted Outcome riskrating have beenidentified. Woodside Impact + + + + + + + Rehabilitate Minimise Avoid

Not applicableforthisimpact. relevant baselines. manage netemissionstobelow which includesrequirementsto (Safeguard Mechanism)Rule2015 Greenhouse andEnergyReporting Continue tocomplywiththeNational gas sources. Procedures toassesschangesinfeed Continue toimplementWoodside annually. Continue tosetfuelandflaretargets Energy ManagementPlan. Continue toimplementtheKGP and energyefficiency. opportunities toimproveproduction which identifiesandimplements Optimisation ReferencePlan Continue toimplementthe Gas ManagementPlan(AppendixB). NWS ProjectExtensionGreenhouse emissions havebeendiscussedinthe the KGPLNGtrainstoavoidGHG Elements includedinthedesignof Existing Mitigation Measures ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –GREENHOUSEGAS EMISSIONS derive thisoutcome are provided inTable 6-19. A summaryofthe impact assessment outcomes usedto to climate change influenced by theseemissions. planned impacts to globalgreenhouse gasemissions or infrastructure from theProposal that would increase the There were noidentified changes to existing NWS with theserequirements. that apply to GHGemissions andwillcontinue to comply Woodside hasidentified the existing Federal regulations intensity are anticipated to beachieved inthefuture. Plan (AppendixB)andfurtherreductions inemissions NWS Project Extension Greenhouse Management Gas measures willcontinue to beimplemented through the relating to GHGemission reduction. These mitigation utilising themitigation measures that are inplace achieved by theNWS Project. These have beenachieved but alsothecontinuous reduction inemissions intensity LNG facilities. This isinpartdueto designdecisions, favourably withmany otherdomestic andinternational shows theemissions intensity oftheProposal compares In addition to this global context, intensity benchmarking + + + + + + Minimise Avoid Rehabilitate

emissions performance. implemented toimproveGHG and technologies,thatcouldbe emission reductionequipment of reasonableandpracticable Undertake 5-yearlyassessment CO2e fromtheKGPby2030. avoid, reduceoroffset330,000tpaof Woodside ismakingacommitmentto emissions reductions. equipment andtechnologiesforGHG and practicableemissionsreduction Woodside hasidentifiedallreasonable exceeding 7.7mtpa. 1 emissionsfromtheProposal gas compositiontopreventScope and monitoringchangesinfeed emissions reductionopportunities identification andimplementationof emissions fromtheProposalincluding provisions formanagingGHG Plan (AppendixB),whichcontains Greenhouse GasManagement Implement NWSProjectExtension No additionalmeasuresareproposed. No additionalmeasuresareproposed. Proposed Mitigation Measures 119 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 120 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Table 6-19: Air Quality (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) Impact Assessment Summary

Impact Receptor Magnitude Likelihood Impact Level Sensitivity (unplanned impacts only)

Contribution to global GHG concentrations from Scope 1, Medium Slight N/A Slight Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions Climate Change Influenced by Changes to Global GHG Emission Not able to be assessed Concentrations

6.5 Key Environmental Factor – Other Policy and Guidance Social Surroundings (Heritage) + Australia’s National Heritage – Applying the Principles (DoEE, 2008) 6.5.1 EPA Objective + Murujuga National Park Management Plan No. 78 To protect social surroundings from significant harm (DEC, 2013) (EPA, 2016b). + Due Diligence Guidelines (Version 3.0) (DPLH, 2013) Note: The Environmental Factor Guideline – Social + Engage Early – Guidance for proponents on best Surroundings (EPA, 2016b) acknowledges that social practice Indigenous engagement for environmental surroundings include: Aboriginal heritage and culture; assessments under the EPBC Act (DoE, 2016) natural and historical heritage; amenity; and economic + Murujuga Rock Art Strategy (DWER, 2019b) surroundings. For this ERD the only aspect of the social surroundings environmental factor that is relevant to + European Union Air Quality Standards for the the Proposal is Aboriginal heritage and culture. This Protection of Vegetation (EU, 2008) was determined by the EPA and is consistent with the Relevant Legislation referral decision dated 4 December 2018, and the ESD + Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) (Woodside, 2019). + Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) 6.5.2 Policy and Guidance Section 10 details how this legislation, policy and EPA Policy and Guidance guidance relates to the Proposal. + Statement of Principles, Factors and Objectives (EPA, 2018a) 6.5.3 Environment + Environmental Factor Guideline – Social This section identifies the elements of the receiving Surroundings (EPA, 2016b) environment that are directly and indirectly related to + Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental the Social Surroundings (Heritage) environmental factor. Factors – Assessment of Aboriginal Heritage No. 41 Refer to Section 4 for detailed description of each (EPA, 2004) relevant receptor of the receiving environment. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6

Table 6-20: Social Surroundings Receiving Environment

Receving Envrionment Vegetation withHeritage Value (Relevant to HumanHealth) Marine Fauna withHeritage Seabirds andShorebirds National Heritage Place (Relevant to Amenity) Terrestrial Vegetation Marine Invertebrates Contribution to GHG Heritage Features Sediment Quality Marine Mammals Sharks andFish Concentrations Water Quality Macroalgae Sea Snakes Air Quality Air Quality Mangroves Shorelines Activity Seagrass Turtles Value Coral

Proposal until around to airfrom theNWS Ongoing emissions Project Extension 2070     and activity ofpeople, Continued presence and equipment in the development vehicles, vessels, envelope. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS    operation oftheNWS discharges from the Ongoing marine Project facilities    121 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 122 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

6.5.4 Potential Impacts and Risks In addition to its heritage management activities and recognition of the national heritage values, Woodside The following activities associated with the Proposal have has also supported appropriate scientific monitoring the potential to affect social surroundings (heritage): of air emissions in and around the Burrup Peninsula. + Ongoing emissions to air from the Proposal until Woodside’s approach to monitoring and air emissions around 2070. management practices has also been informed by + Continued presence and activity of people, vehicles, third-party studies including the work undertaken vessels, and equipment in the development by the Burrup Rock Art Monitoring Management envelope. Committee (BRAMMC) which was established in 2002 to address the uncertainty and lack of available scientific Ongoing marine discharges from the Proposal until + information, and to assess whether there has been any around 2070. change to the petroglyphs over and above that due to The potential impacts to social surroundings (heritage) natural weathering. that are assessed in this ERD are: Over the past 15 years, numerous studies have been + Accelerated weathering of rock art due to industrial conducted to investigate the potential for industrial emissions. emissions from new and existing industrial development + Degradation of terrestrial and nearshore vegetation on the Burrup Peninsula to impact on the Burrup of heritage and conservation value due to deposition Peninsula rock art, including: of gaseous emission. + Air quality monitoring and modelling studies to aid + Direct, accidental physical damage to heritage in the assessment of the potential for air pollution features within the development envelope. from industrial activities on the Burrup Peninsula to impact petroglyphs. + Continued restricted access to heritage features within the development envelope until around 2070. + Studies of microbial diversity on the petroglyphs to investigate whether rock surfaces closer to + Reduced amenity to heritage features outside industrial emissions sources host different microbial the development envelope as a result of odorous communities, which could affect petroglyph substances (e.g. odour from atmospheric emissions). weathering. + Harm to marine fauna and flora with heritage value + Studies analysing colour changes in the petroglyphs from: and spectral mineralogy analysis to obtain more precise + Changes to water quality from planned and measurements of composition or colour changes (this unplanned discharges. study compared southern sites near industry with sites + Turbidity from maintenance dredging. further north on the Burrup Peninsula). No published peer reviewed studies identified measurable 6.5.4.1 Accelerated Weathering of Rock Art due to or observable changes to the condition and integrity Industrial Emissions of rock art as a result of industrial emissions. Woodside Description of Potential Impacts recognises some anecdotal evidence and stakeholder The presence of heavy industry on the Burrup Peninsula concerns have been raised regarding observable changes has generated concerns that industrial emissions may may have occurred to the rock art. It should be noted that lead to an accelerated weathering or deterioration of there is an absence of readily observed change to rock, rock art (petroglyphs). These concerns centre on the and rock art over the 15-year period during which the peer reviewed studies have been undertaken, and that during issue that deposition of NOX, SOX and ammonia (NH3) from anthropogenic industrial sources have the potential this time, the NWS Project operated with emissions to increase the acidity of the rock surface through rates comparable to the Proposal. As such, significant chemical and/or biological processes. Key emissions accelerated weathering affecting the distinguishability of as they relate to this Proposal’s power generation and petroglyphs across the region is not expected to occur as a result of the Proposal. process emissions include NOX, VOCs (pertaining to photochemical intensity of NO/NO2 formation), and a It is noted that there have been criticisms of the very minor contribution of SO2. methodologies used and the interpretation of the The concerns are that acidic conditions may then findings from some of these research studies and alter the natural state of weathering for rock, making monitoring programs that have been established to colour variations and depth of petroglyphs difficult to detect changes in petroglyphs and potential accelerated distinguish from the rest of the rock surface. A synthesis weathering. Inadequacies were identified such as in of literature on the potential impact of industrial air the statistical analysis of the annual colour change and emissions on Murujuga rock art is provided in Appendix spectral mineralogy monitoring data, and application H and should be read in conjunction with this section. of critical load thresholds applied to nitrogen and sulphur deposition monitoring results. Uncertainties ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6

ensure that suchriskisminimised. Preventative andmanagement controls are presented to Peninsula. Assuch,itisassessed furtherthrough thisERD. impacts onrock artandtheheritagevalues oftheBurrup of concern from somestakeholders inrelation to potential Surroundings (Heritage). Additionally, there isahighlevel potential accelerated weathering, result inriskto social This uncertainty, together withtheorisedpathways for + + + + Program Tender Documentation (DWER, 2019c) is acknowledged intheMurujugaRock ArtMonitoring which impacts to rock artmay occur. This complexity determination ofacriticalload ofaciddepositionat and potential for accelerated weathering) andthe and detecting change(bothnatural weathering rate, therefore exist regarding techniques for monitoring 12 are to: and theBurrupPeninsula. Key aspects oftheStrategy Aboriginal rock artlocated ontheDampierArchipelago long-term framework to guidetheprotection ofthe community andindustry. The Strategy outlinesa and inconsultation withstakeholders, includingthe (MAC), representing theTraditional Owners ofMurujuga, partnership withtheMurujugaAboriginalCorporation implementation oftheStrategy, to beundertaken in Regulation (DWER) hasprimaryresponsibility for the Strategy. The Department ofWater andEnvironmental Government isimplementing theMurujugaRock Art state, national andinternational heritage value, theWA Peninsula to Aboriginalpeopleandofitssignificant spiritual significance ofthe rock artontheBurrup and theincreased recognition ofthecultural and In acknowledgement ofcontinuing publicconcerns Murujuga Rock Art Strategy

which involvekeystakeholders. Establish governancecommunicationprocesses quality criteria. program andmanagementagainstenvironmental implementation ofthemonitoringandanalysis Commission scientificstudiestosupportthe change isoccurringtotherockartonMurujuga. monitoring andanalysistodeterminewhether Develop andimplementarobustprogramof required toprotecttherockartfromharm. harmful effectsandifmanagementactionsare information, whichwillprovidewarningofpotential guidelines andstandards,basedonsoundscientific Framework whichincludesthedevelopmentof Establish anEnvironmentalQualityManagement links between changein theintegrity orcondition of therock artandanexternal variable suchasanthropogenic emissions.” changes inthesystem inputs (increases inanthropogenic emissions andatmospheric deposition),there willbechallengesinidentifying definitive causal characteristics of rock weathering where thesystem response (weathering /alteration /degradation of therock art)may benot beproportional to The Customer also acknowledges that, given thecomplexities of thesystem, theinteractions between thesystem variables, andthenon-linear, dynamic temporal andspatial scales. Itwillbeimportant that theMurujugasite isconsidered asa‘system’ inthebroadest sense. extrinsic (environmental) andintrinsic (characteristics of therock androck art,includingits weathering history) factors that operate over different “The Customer [DWER] acknowledges that theintegrity orcondition of therock artonMurujugaisacomplex response to interactions between 12 . ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –SOCIAL SURROUNDINGS deposit from measured orestimated gaseousNO2. and monitoring are basedon‘velocity’ assumptions to dry deposition.DepositionofNO2inbothmodelling against ground level monitoring result data ofNO2 deposition estimates, theanalysis includesacomparison To supportcomparison withpredicted (modelled) NO2 (asasub-component oftotal depositionflux). the BurrupPeninsula, aswell asmodellingestimates of deposition fluxes ofnitrogen andsulphurmonitoring on Peninsula. Assessment includesacomparative review of and potential future emissions scenarios ontheBurrup modelling undertaken to represent arange ofcurrent existing data-sets ofmonitoring programs, andTAPM assessment (AppendixE)was undertaken to consider As presented inSection 6.3,anairquality impact Existing andPredicted AirQuality (Deposition) Extension AirQuality Management Plan(AppendixA). the Strategy andisfurtherdescribedintheNWS Project deposition monitoring program to beestablished under to supportthecoordinated approach for atmospheric Art Monitoring Program. Itisalso Woodside’s intention provide fundingassociated withtheMurujugaRock of theMurujugaRock ArtReference Group andwill the MurujugaRock ArtStrategy through membership Woodside willactively supporttheimplementation of 2019b). on BurrupPeninsula from industrial emissions” (DWER, managing environmental quality to protect therock art risk-based andadaptive framework for monitoring and The Strategy isintended to provide a“transparent, species inrainwater. The study showed that thetotal wet SO (rainwater) phases(Gillett, 2008).This includedNO2, all nitrogen andsulphurspeciesinthegas andaqueous 2007–2008 by calculating thewet anddrydepositionof sulphur at several measurement sites in2004–2005 and determined total depositionfluxofnitrogen and On theBurrupPeninsula, CSIRO(Gillett, 2008) and sulphurspeciesinthegasaqueousphases. calculating thewet anddrydepositionofallnitrogen deposition, aciddepositionfluxes canbemeasured by of time(Gillett, 2008).To specificallyunderstand acid rainwater to anarea ofground over aparticularperiod deposition ofmass intheform ofgas,particleor Deposition fluxprovides anunderstanding ofthe - Existing Deposition Fluxes Nitrogen of andSulphurMonitoring 2, nitricacid,andammoniagases,someother

123 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 124 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

and dry deposition flux of nitrogen and sulphur ranged data ranged from 12% to 20% NO2 contribution to total from 19.8-31.6 milliequivalents per square metre per year deposition flux, and 4% to 7% for SO2 (Gillett, 2008). (meq/m2/year) over the two monitoring periods. Units Woodside engaged CSIRO to carry out a study to of ‘meq/m2/year’ were used to enable comparisons with determine the nitrogen deposition flux (between previous monitoring results, where a milliequivalent February 2012 and June 2014) on and around the Burrup is one thousandth of a chemical equivalent (e.g. Peninsula before and after the commissioning of the equivalent units of a standard neutralising chemical). Pluto LNG Development (Gillett, 2014). A summary An ‘equivalent’ of an ion is the mass in grams of the ion of results for the ranges of total measured nitrogen divided by its molecular weight and multiplied by the and sulphur fluxes is provided inTable 6-21, including charge on the ion (Gillett, 2014). relative contribution from dry NO2 fraction. Figure Based on 2004–2005 data, dry deposition of NO2 was 6-14 (from Gillett, 2014) illustrates box plots of total estimated to contribute to between 16% and 36% of total nitrogen deposition observed on and around the Burrup deposition flux in the region (Gillett, 2008), and SO2 6% Peninsula between 2004 and 2014. to 8%, the rest is contributed to by various other forms Inspection of deposition results shows they have been of nitrogen and sulphur species (such as is ammonia/ reasonably consistent over a long period of sampling. ammonium, nitric acid, and nitrate). The 2007–2008

Table 6-21: Summary of Results for Burrup Nitrogen and Sulphur Deposition Monitoring Programs

Monitoring Program Analyte Range of Deposition Dry Deposition NO2 Fraction (Excluding Background Sites)

2004 – 2005 and Total nitrogen and sulphur 19.8 – 31.6 meq/m2/year 16% - 36% of total N and S 2007 – 2008 2008 – 2009 Total nitrogen 18.4 – 32.9 meq/m2/year 19% - 29% of total N only 2012 – 2014 Total nitrogen 17.1 – 28.8 meq/m2/year 17% - 34% of total N only

40

Median yearly fluxes Background 1 30 yr -2

20

Nitrogen deposition flux meq m 10

0 2004/05 2007/08 2008/09 2012/14

Figure 6-14: Total Nitrogen Deposition Observed on and Around the Burrup Peninsula Note: The box is defined by the lower and upper quartiles, lines in the boxes are median fluxes and the whiskers are the minimum and maximum fluxes. No upper stems are shown for 2004/05 and 2007/08 as are within the box. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 Table 6-22: Scenarios usedfor Cumulative AirDispersionModelling predict otherspecies,norsuitablyapproximated for with thephotochemical modeleithernotableto provides for estimation ofNO2andSO2 deposition, standards basedonairborneconcentrations only. TAPM for depositionhave greater uncertainties thanthe to accurately quantify, andtherefore thestandards and Pandis, 2016). These parameters are difficult substance ofinterest, andotherparameters (Seinfeld near ground level, adepositionvelocity for the airborne substances usinganairborneconcentration Air dispersion modelscalculate surface depositionfor Predicted NO2 Depositionof facilities operating approved andreferred (FBSIA), withexisting, Industrial Area State Future BurrupStrategic place (FBSIA-KIO) emission reductions in referred) withproposed (existing, approved and Industrial Area state Future Burrup Strategic reductions inplace (KIO) proposed emission Current with Baseline Current (CBM) Baseline (FBSIA E&A) reductions inplace proposed emission facilities operating, with existing andapproved Industrial Area with Future BurrupStrategic Scenario Proposal operating withnoreduction inNO This isthelong-term, worst-case scenario. Itconsiders cumulative emissions from the LNG Development [Train 2]). facilities, andfuture BSIAdevelopment approved at thetimeofwritingthisERD(Pluto are represented by indicative Urea andMethanol Plants. at thetimeofwritingthis ERD. The latter reasonably foreseeable future developments Development [Train 2])andBSIAdevelopments referred (butnotassessed orapproved) facilities, andfuture developments approved at thetime ofwritingthisERD(Pluto LNG Proposal operating withasignificant reduction inNO This isalong-term, possible case scenario. Itconsiders cumulative emissions from the indicative Urea andMethanol Plants. approved) at thetimeofwritingthisERD. The latter developments are represented by (Pluto LNGDevelopment [Train 2]),andreferred developments (butnotassessed or reasonably foreseeable future BSIA;approved development BSIAapproved development reduction inNO It considers cumulative emissions from theProposal operating withasignificant + + + + + + + + + opportunity concepts representing feasible andsignificant NO The KGP data for modellingwere modified to conservatively reflect likely improvement emissions most applicableto theBSIAandnearby region. ambient air quality from proposed NO This isthemedium-term, best-case scenario. Itdemonstrates thebenefits gainedin use asabaselinefor assessment. These include: industrial facilities andemissions most applicableto theBSIAandnearby region to considers cumulative emissions from thecurrent NWS Project andtheexisting, built, air quality from industry currently operating onandaround theBurrupPeninsula. It This isthenear-term, most likely scenario. Itpredicts thecontribution to ambient the Proposal operating withasignificant reduction inNO This isthemedium-term, most likely scenario. Itconsiders cumulative emissions from

All shippingberthsatCapeLambert All shippingberthsontheBurrupPeninsula EDL WestKimberleyPowerPlant ATCO KarrathaPowerStation Santos DevilCreekPowerStation Pilbara IronYurralyiMayaPowerStation Yara TechnicalAmmoniumNitrateandLiquidPlant Woodside PlutoLNGDevelopment(Train1) NWS Project;KGP X for KGP sources, andtheexisting, built,industrial facilities and ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –SOCIAL SURROUNDINGS cumulative airdispersion modelling. The scenarios listed inTable 6-22 were includedinthe impact threshold. of anestablished total (or NO2)depositionfluxpotential monitoring data, andarange ofscenarios intheabsence A comparative approach istaken between existing Proposal representing onlyaminorSO2 contribution). a smallfraction oftotal depositionflux (with the focuses onnitrogen deposition,withSO2 representing air dispersion modellingundertaken for theProposal potential aerosol andrainfall-based mechanisms). The Burrup conditions (e.g. ammonia,nitricacid,andother Description X reductions outlinedinSection. 6.3.5 X emissions, existing operating facilities, and X emissions, existing operating X emissions, existing operating X reduction. 125 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 126 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Predicted NO2 deposition rate (as a sub-component of nitrogen and sulphur depositional flux) contour plots are presented from Figure 6-15 to Figure 6-18 for CBM and KIO in both units of kg/hectare/year and meq/m2/year.

Figure 6-15: CBM – NO2 Deposition (kg/ha/year) ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 Figure 6-16: KIO–NO2

Deposition(kg/ha/year) ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –SOCIAL SURROUNDINGS 127 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 128 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Figure 6-17: CBM – NO2 Deposition (meq/m2/year) ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 Figure 6-18: KIO–NO2

Deposition(meq/m 2 /year) ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –SOCIAL SURROUNDINGS 129 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 130 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Modelled outputs for NO2 deposition were compared against the measured total, and NO2 component of total nitrogen deposition (2012/2014) as an indicator of alignment of the CBM and potential scenario modelling with the measured baseline (Table 6-23 and Figure 6-19). Table 6-23: Summary of Monitoring and Model Results for NO2 Deposition – CBM and Potential Scenarios.

Parameter 1I Gap Ridge 2I Fertiliser 3I BMF 4I KGP 5I Dom 6BBackgnd. Plant

Monitoring 2012/2014 (CSIRO, 2014) – all units are meq/m2/year Total nitrogen 25.5 23.9 28.8 17.9 17.1 9.8 flux Dry NO2 4.4 4.0 7.7 4.4 5.8 1.3 deposition Scenario Model Results (the Proposal) – all data are NO2 deposition (meq/m2/year) CBM 1.8 8.5 5.0 5.7 6.2 approx. 1.0 KIO 1.6 7.8 4.7 5.2 5.9 approx. 1.0 FBSIA E&A 1.7 8.8 4.9 5.7 7.0 approx. 1.0 FBSIA 2.0 11.6 5.8 6.8 8.8 approx. 1.0 FBSIA-KIO 1.8 10.9 5.6 6.4 8.5 approx. 1.0

Notes:

Superscript ‘B’ denotes background monitoring site; superscript ‘I’ indicates monitor in industrial area.

Site 1: Gap Ridge accommodation camp west of Karratha; Site 2 near Yara TAN plant; Site 3 within King Bay Supply Facility, 4 and 5 located near Pluto LNG.

Modelled results for background were from southern-most parts of study grid; it is expected these low, but non-zero values due to modelled biogenic NOX emissions over land (nil emissions modelled over water).

35

Mess: Total nitrogen flux 30

Mess: NO2 dry deposition Mod: CBM 25 Mod: FBSIA

Mod: FBSIA-KIO /year) 3 Mod: FBSIA E&A 20

15

10 Nitrogen Deposition Flux (mEq/m Nitrogen

5

0 1. Gap Ridge 2. Fertiliser Plant 3. BMF 4. KGP 5. Dom 6. Background Monitoring Site 2012/2014

Figure 6-19: Measured and Modelled Nitrogen Fluxes (meq/m2/year) – Comparison at (2012/2014 CSIRO) Monitoring Locations. (Total measured nitrogen deposition flux in brown, with NO2 contribution shown in all other colours) ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6

Figure 6-20: Model GridPoints Within theNational Heritage Place theDampierArchipelago of (including BurrupPeninsula) found to over-estimate potential SO Model representation ofshippingemissions was also Proposal’s very smalleffect onthebaselinein region. scenarios found to bewere almost identical, dueto the SO values isvalid for Proposal scenarios. therefore comparative interpretation ofthemodelled the modelledvalues are considered to becredible and are ofasimilarorder to monitored values, indicating that six locations shows estimated depositionrates for NO2 comparison ofmodellingversus monitored results at the As illustrated inTable 6-23 andFigure 6-19, the Heritage Place oftheDampierArchipelago (including was appliedto select modelvalues withintheNational To aidvisualrepresentation ofdeposition,adata filter Deposition Scenario Comparative Analysis (refer to AppendixE). 2 depositionrates were modelled,withallemissions 2 anddeposition ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –SOCIAL SURROUNDINGS emission scenarios. between CBMandeachofthepotential cumulative boundaries (Figure 6-20), to illustrate thedifferences model gridpoints withintheNational HeritagePlace for NO2 illustrated inFigure 6-20. Histograms ofthemodelresults 310 clippedpoints withintheNational HeritagePlace are The modellingstudy area gridreceptor points refined to existing emissions represented by CBM. variance ofoverall NO2depositionsvalues compared to scenarios) were analysed to determine potential number offuture reasonably foreseeable development Proposal (CBM representing existing operations, and scenario outputsfor NO2depositionassociated withthe potential rock artreceptors). Cumulative modelling or inlanddepositiondata estimates less applicableto (e.g. to eliminate interpretation influence of ‘over-water’ Burrup Peninsula) (Commonwealth ofAustralia, 2019) deposition(meq/m 2 /year) were created for the 131 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 132 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Model results comparing NO2 deposition between CBM + Comparison of current (CBM) and future approved and each of the other modelled scenarios within the and referred developments with KGP emission National Heritage Place are provided in the following reductions (FBSIA-KIO) (Figure 6-24). series of frequency distribution histograms: Histograms have been provided to assist in illustrating + Comparison of current (CBM) and KGP emission relative increase or decrease in deposition rates reductions (KIO) (Figure 6-21). spatially across the National Heritage Place (i.e. where the frequency of higher deposition rates compared to + Comparison of current (CBM) and future approved CBM shift to lower rate frequencies; an overall spatial developments (Pluto LNG Development) with KGP reduction in deposition rate may be expected across the emission reductions (FBSIA E&A) (Figure 6-22). National Heritage Place). + Comparison of current (CBM) and future approved and referred developments (FBSIA) (Figure 6-23).

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15 Relative frequency (0-1) frequency Relative

0.1

0.05

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2 NO2 deposition (meq/m /year) CBM Relative Frequency KIO Relative Frequency

Figure 6-21: Histogram - Comparison of current (CBM) and KGP Emission Reductions (KIO) ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 Emission Reductions (FBSIA E&A) Figure 6-22: Histogram -Comparison Current of (CBM) andFuture Approved Developments (Pluto LNGDevelopment [Train 2])withKGP Figure 6-23: Histogram -Comparison Current of (CBM) andFuture Approved andReferred Developments (FBSIA)

Relative frequency (0-1) Relative frequency (0-1) 0.05 0.25 0.35 0.05 0.25 0.35 0.15 0.15 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 CBM Relative Frequency CBM Relative Frequency 5 5 NO NO 2 2 deposition(meq/m deposition(meq/m 6 6 ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –SOCIAL SURROUNDINGS 7 7 FBSIA Relative Frequency FBSIA E&ARelative Frequency 2 8 2 8 /year) /year) 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14

133 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 134 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15 Relative frequency (0-1) frequency Relative

0.1

0.05

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2 NO2 deposition (meq/m /year) CBM Relative Frequency FBSIA-KIO Relative Frequency

Figure 6-24: Histogram - Comparison of Current (CBM) and Future Approved and Referred Developments with KGP Emission Reductions (FBSIA-KIO)

Comparative analysis of modelled NO2 deposition values reduction of deposition is expected across the as a sub-component of overall nitrogen and sulphur National Heritage Place for this scenario. deposition indicates that: + Reasonably foreseeable future BSIA development + For all scenarios, the majority of the NO2 deposition scenarios: FBSIA and FBSIA-KIO show relative results for the grid receptors within the National marginal increases in deposition frequencies Heritage Place fall within the range of 1-4 meq/m2/ above 3 meq/m2/year compared to current levels. year. The increase is estimated to be influenced by the + NO2 deposition in all scenarios as projected at addition of potential indicative future point sources historical monitoring locations broadly align with in combination with natural topography, and wind measured dry NO2 deposition, indicating likely direction; whereby spatially distributed point comparable total nitrogen deposition may be emission sources featuring lower temperature, expected to be aligned with historical deposition discharge velocities, height and plume buoyancy measurements. Rock art impact assessment studies may be increasing model ground level estimates. occurred throughout historical monitoring periods where the range of measured total deposition was Assessment of Potential Impacts broadly consistent. and Risks + KGP emission reductions (KIO) generally results in an observable reduction of deposition frequencies Woodside’s approach to the management of Aboriginal above 2 meq/m2/year compared with CBM across heritage has been developed to ensure the requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) and the the National Heritage Place. Implementation of NOX reduction opportunities are expected to materially environmental objectives of the Social Surroundings reduce NO2 maximum concentrations, as well an environmental factor are met. overall reduction in annual nitrogen deposition In relation to impacts on the Burrup Peninsula rock art across the National Heritage Place. from industrial emissions, the past 15 years has seen + Future approved developments (Pluto LNG numerous studies being conducted to investigate Development [Train 2]) with KGP emission the potential for industrial emissions to impact on reductions (FBSIA E&A) shows a nominally the Burrup Peninsula rock art. During this period, the consistent and slightly lower deposition frequencies NWS Project has operated within the same emissions 2 ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS than CBM above 2 meq/m /year. An overall profile as presented in this Proposal. No published 6 Framework andMonitoring Program (DWER, 2019c) The implementation oftheMurujugaRock ArtStrategy, remains at anacceptable level. to rock art).This willensure that riskisminimisedand below that whichleadto unacceptable levels ofimpacts Framework (such as,maintain emissions contributions Murujuga Rock ArtStrategy andimplementation ofthe facility life extension. Woodside commits to supportthe emissions reduction opportunitiesafforded through managing emissions from theProposal andsignificant This ERDcommits to provisions for measuringand accelerated weathering, andstakeholder concern. date, acknowledging theorisedpathways for potential monitoring andanalysis techniques anddata-sets to- to minimiseriskassociated withuncertainties andwith Preventative andmanagement controls are presented expected to occur asaresult oftheProposal. distinguishability ofpetroglyphs across theregion isnot significant accelerated weathering impacting onthe the rock artasaresult ofindustrial emissions. Assuch, observable changesto thecondition andintegrity of peer reviewed studies identified measurable or 14 13 identified emissions reductions opportunities. The NWS Project willremain thesameorreduced through of industrial emissions, andair emissions from the to thecondition andintegrity oftherock artasaresult been noidentified measurable orobservable changes impact to therock artisassessed asminorthere has is assessed ashigh.The magnitudeof any potential Aboriginal peoplemore broadly, thereceptor sensitivity cultural value to Traditional Ownergroups andto collections ofrock artintheworld andhassignificant largest andmost diverse, uniqueandhighlyvalued National HeritagePlace, isrecognised asoneofthe As theBurrupPeninsula ispartoftheEPBCAct listed harm associated withindustrial emissions. that therock artisprotected from potentially significant derived from soundscientific information, willensure management program usingguidelinesandstandards, avoided. The implementation oftherisk-based, adaptive significant impact due to accelerated weathering is and response mechanismsto ensure that long-term art inparticularallows for earlywarning indicators industrial emissions. Monitoring ofrock, androck rock artandifthischangeisbeingaccelerated by will determine whether changeisoccurring to the proposed robust program ofmonitoring andanalysis investigation andmanagement where required. The and accelerated weathering andallow for timely potential pathways linkingindustrial emissions will remove muchoftheuncertainty surrounding Based onthepercentageBased of reported emissions from KGP over thefive year average, covering to 2017/18 the 2013/14 financial years. Australian Government andstakeholders to emerging issues andrisks (DWER, 2019c). the natural weathering /alteration /degradation of therock art.This willenabletimelyandappropriate management responses by theWestern rock artandwhether therock artisbeing subject to accelerated change;specifically to determine whether anthropogenic emissions are accelerating The purpose of theMurujugaRock Art Monitoring Program isto monitor, evaluate andreport on changesandtrends intheintegrity orcondition of the 13

ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –SOCIAL SURROUNDINGS acceptable level. will ensure that airemissions willbemanagedto an proposes to reduce NO risk ofsignificant impacts to the rock art. Woodside minimise emissions to airandtherefore reduce the will take reasonable andpracticable measures to and application ofthehierarchy ofcontrols, Woodside In accordance withtheprincipleofwaste minimisation is considered to benotsignificant. Monitoring Program, isassessed to bemoderate, which the MurujugaRock ArtStrategy, Framework and of mitigation andmanagement measures, including residual riskto rock artfollowing theimplementation in Withnell Bay, andisusedto settle thestomach (IHS,2018) country (IHS,2018). Bushgum(bush lollies) alsogrows and isalsoaspiritualprotection for peoplevisiting is usedasahealingbalmfor physical injuriesandcolds, as ‘minjari’or‘jami’growing at Withnell Bay. This plant and auditsidentified abushmedicineplant referred to (City ofKarratha, 2013). The 2018 ethnographic surveys various Solanum species(BushTomato, ediblefruit) seeds), Ficusbrachypoda (Rock Fig,ediblefruit)and Bush, edibleseedsandgum),Avicennia marina (edible (used for spears andboomerangs), A.pyrifolia (Kanji the localIndigenousgroups, includingAcacia coriacea which provide sources offood and bush-medicinefor The vegetation oftheBurrupPeninsula includesplants drought (UKDoETR,1994). increase susceptibility to stressful conditions suchas increased depositionofNO International studies have shown that theemission and gaseous emission arisingfrom theProposal. value isassessed asapotential impact associated with and nearshore vegetation ofheritageandconservation Degradation and/or healthdeterioration ofterrestrial Description Potential of Impacts 6.5.4.2 plan together withtheNO the Proposal. The implementation ofthismanagement provisions for measuringandmanagingemissions from of operational management practices andcontains emissions control technologies andsets outasuite A). This management planleverages facility technical Extension AirQuality Management Plan(Appendix through theimplementation oftheNWS Project Woodside willmonitor airemissions duringtheProposal substantially reduce VOCs by 31December 2030. due to Emissions Gaseous Depositionof Vegetation Heritage of andConservation Value Degradation Terrestrial of andNearshore X emissions by 40% X andVOC reductions X andSO2 onvegetation can 14 , and 135 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 136 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

The Murujuga Cultural Management Plan (MAC, 2016) Table 6-24: 2008 EU Air Quality Standards for the describes how the plants of the Murujuga land and sea Protection of Vegetation provide many sources of food and jami. These include examples such as the Bloodwood tree (Corymbia opaca) Air EU Air Quality Standard and Coolibah leaves, which can be used to make a Pollutant Standard Adopted for decongestant for colds; Corkwood tree flowers for sweet Assessment, nectar; the Jami bush to treat aches, pains, and cuts; Annual Average burning mangrove leaves to keep sand flies away; and 3 using spinifex seeds to make damper (MAC, 2016). If NOX 30 µg/m , annual 16 ppb at 30° C the deposition of gaseous emissions adversely impacts (15 ppb as NO2 this vegetation, Aboriginal cultural associations with the at 0° C) land, such as gathering activities for flora as bush tucker SO2 20 µg/m3, annual 8 ppb at 30° C and medicine may be affected. (7 ppb at 0° C)

There is limited information available regarding the Source: EU, 2008 impacts of atmospheric deposition on Australia flora Air dispersion models calculate surface deposition for and vegetation in arid conditions and very little is known airborne substances using an airborne concentration regarding air pollution impacts on vegetation occurring near ground level, a deposition velocity for the on the Burrup Peninsula. In general, studies overseas substance of interest, and other parameters (Seinfeld have found the low levels of NOX can be a useful source and Pandis, 2016). These parameters are difficult to of nutrient for nitrate dependent plants although if accurately quantify, and therefore the standards for the uptake of NO2 exceeds the plant’s requirements deposition (e.g. to compare to µg/m3 values) have there may be metabolic effects as the plants dispose of greater uncertainties than the standards based on surplus nitrogen (Bell and Treshow, 2002). airborne concentrations (ppb) only. Air Dispersion Modelling Air Dispersion Modelling Results An air quality impact assessment utilising the CSIRO Dispersion modelling for the Proposal was conducted for Atmospheric Research air dispersion model ‘TAPM-GRS’, all the scenarios listed in Table 6-5. The most relevant was undertaken to understand the contribution that the scenarios for understanding impact to vegetation are Proposal is likely to make to ambient air quality with the near-term, most likely scenario (the CBM model) and subsequent potential impacts on vegetation of heritage the medium-term, best-case scenario (the KIO model). and conservation value. Contour plots of the annual average concentration of

The setup and operation of the TAPM-GRS for the NOX for these two operational scenarios are presented Proposal, including sensitivity tests undertaken with in Figure 6-25 and Figure 6-26. Annual average SO2 the model setups, are described in detail in Appendix concentrations for the CBM scenario are presented

E. The study considered the emissions of NOX, and SO2 in Figure 6-3 in Section 6.3 which shows there is from several operational scenarios representing current no change in the emission of SO2 between the two and potential future industrial facilities on the Burrup scenarios. As such, one contour plot is provided for the Peninsula until 2070. All scenarios include shipping annual average SO2. activities on the Burrup Peninsula. The scenarios included in the modelling are listed in Table 6-5 and described in Section 6-3.

Air Dispersion Assessment Criteria Air quality standards for protecting vegetation have been set out by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2000), and the European Union (EU, 2008). Although these standards were developed for protecting vegetation in Europe, they have had wider application and are typically used when assessing proposals in WA. To understand the potential impacts of the Proposal on nearby vegetation, the more-recent EU standards were adopted (Table 6-24). The units used in the EU standards were converted to parts per billion (ppb) to allow comparison with the

results from the NOX and SO2 dispersion modelling conducted for the Proposal. A temperature of 30° C was used for this conversion, which is the typical ambient temperature relevant to the Proposal. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 Figure 6-25: CBM-Annual Average NO

X Concentrations (ppb) ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –SOCIAL SURROUNDINGS 137 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 138 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Figure 6-26: KIO - Annual Average NOX Concentrations (ppb) ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 The maximumannualaverage concentrations for NO Interpretation ofModellingResults Assessment Potential of Impacts andRisks activities). The likely impacts includedamageorloss, on heritagefeatures, orspillsfrom operational over heritagefeatures, objects accidentally dropped leaving rubbishat thesesites], drivingofvehicles [climbing on/over ormarkingheritagefeatures or workforce (e.g. inappropriate humanbehaviour occur through direct interactions with NWS Project Direct, accidental damageto heritagefeatures could Description Potential of Impact 6.5.4.3 All predicted concentrations ofNO Assessment ofPotential Impacts andRisks All predicted values ofNO with ongoingemissions from theProposal. recoverability, resulting inalow residual riskassociated would beslight dueto thelocalisednature andhigh an impact occurring ishighlyunlikely andany impact having amoderate sensitivity, however thelikelihood of heritage orconservation significance is recognised as heritage orconservation significance. Vegetation of risk reduction for potential impacts to vegetation of presented inSection 6.3.5for airemissions alsoprovide the Proposal. Management andmitigation measures are notexpected dueto emissions contribution from vegetation ofheritageorconservation significance Vegetation (EU, 2008),assuchsignificant impacts to the EUAirQuality Standards for theProtection of (the EUstandard of20 therefore well below theEU(2008)standard of16ppb Vegetation Table 6-25: SummaryofTAPM-GRS Results: GridReceptor MaximaandEU2008Standards for Protection of Protection ofVegetation for modelledcumulative emission scenarios are summarisedinTable 6-25 . well below therelevant EU(2008)standard of8ppb. annual average SO2 values are less than5ppb, whichis everywhere withinthecalculation grid.Allmaximum scenario (KIO) are below 50%ofthevegetation criterion likely scenario (CBM) andthemedium-term, best-case ambient concentrations for boththenear-term, most 16 ppbusingthetemperature 30° C).Furthermore, Annual NO Annual SO Assessment Parameter Features withintheDevelopment Envelope Direct, Accidental Physical Damageto Heritage 2 X (ppb) (ppb) µ CBM g/m 4.5 7.7 X are less than10ppband 3 hasbeenconverted to X andSO2 are below KIO 4.5 7.4 FBSIA- E&A X 4.5 7.7 andSO2 ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –SOCIAL SURROUNDINGS compared withtheEUAirQuality Standards orthe through construction andoperation oftheNWS Project. of theProposal, whichhasalready beendisturbed Burrup Peninsula are withinthedevelopment envelope A smallpercentage oftheheritage features ofthe Assessment Potential of Impacts andRisks management requirements. NWS Project-related activities andongoingheritage with Traditional Owners, anddiscussions include Quarterly heritageupdate meetings are also held permanent damagewas detected (IHS,2018). generally therock artisingoodcondition andno at anumber ofheritagefeatures andconcluded that localised contamination, suchasrubbishaccumulation, The 2018 AnnualAboriginalHeritage Site Audit identified condition ofthesites withinthedevelopment envelope. archaeologist andinspect, monitor, andreport onthe are conducted withTraditional Owners anda qualified what impacts, ifany, may beoccurring. These site audits features withinthedevelopment envelope to monitor Woodside conducts regular auditsoftheheritage the heritagefeatures. undergoes site inductions that includeinformation about contractors andvisitors whoenter theKGP site authorised otherwise. Furthermore, allpersonnel, and personnel must stay onroads unless specifically activities. Roads withintheplant site are clearlymarked with theheritagefeatures to conduct operational Project personnel donotneedto directly interact areas have beendesignedandconstructed sothat clearing orconstruction activities. Existing operational there isnoriskofdisturbance to heritage features dueto change inthecurrent disturbance envelope, therefore site. Implementation oftheProposal doesnotrequire a heritage sites that exist within theKGP development Woodside maintains adatabase ofknown Aboriginal significance ofthesite. the significance ofwhich would dependuponthe FBSIA 9.0 4.5 FBSIA- KIO 4.5 8.8 EU Standard Adopted for (7 ppb at 0° C,or20 (15 ppb asNO2at 0° C,or 16 ppb at 30° C 8 ppb at 30° C Assessment 30 µ g/m 3 ) µ g/m 3 ) 139 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 140 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

As a result, the receptor sensitivity of these receptors of the Burrup Peninsula have ongoing connections to is assessed as medium. Given the continuation of the the sea and coastal areas adjacent to the development current, established management measures (Table envelope. This includes traditional (customary) fishing, 6-26) and the results of regular site audits conducted hunting and gathering activities. Marine fauna exploited to date, it is concluded that significant, permanent, by Aboriginal groups, and therefore considered to accidental damage to heritage features located within have heritage value, include dugongs (hunting), turtles NWS Project development envelope due to the Proposal (hunting and egg collection), seabirds (egg collection), is highly unlikely and the risk of direct, accidental or shellfish (collecting) and various marine fish (spearing, physical damage to heritage features is considered low. line fishing, reef trapping, fish traps). Seeds of the White Mangrove (Avicennia marina subsp. 6.5.4.4 Continued Restricted Access to Heritage Features Within the Development Envelope marina) are collected for food and the wood may be until Around 2070 used for boomerangs. No other marine flora has been identified as being used by Aboriginal people or as Description of Potential Impact having heritage value. Disruption in connection to culturally significant sites Changes to marine water quality from both planned and within the KGP fenced area may occur due to continued unplanned discharges, or through increased turbidity restricted access until around 2070. The significance during maintenance dredging may impact on those of the loss of connection would depend upon the marine flora and fauna identified as having heritage significance of the sites and how frequently access is not value. permitted or is limited.

Heritage features within the fenced area of the Proposal Changes to Water Quality from Planned and Unplanned include petroglyph sites, ceremonial/restricted access Discharges sites, ethnographic sites, standing stones, shell middens, A detailed description and assessment of the potential artefact scatters, quarries, grinding patches, and coastal impacts and risks to marine flora and fauna with fishing and foraging opportunities. heritage value from changes to water quality from There is a process in place to permit Traditional Owners planned and unplanned discharges is discussed in to access culturally significant sites within the KGP Sections 6.6.4.1 and 6.6.4.4 respectively. A summary of fenced area. Woodside has previously received requests this information is provided below. from Traditional Owners for ongoing access to the Planned Discharges heritage features within the NWS Project leases and The ongoing discharge of treated wastewater and welcomes such requests in the future. Access is provided stormwater to the marine environment from the on an ‘as requested’ basis, although on-site activities Proposal has the potential to reduce water and sediment occurring at the time of the requested access may quality through toxicity of physical or chemical stressors influence the areas that can be visited, the number of present in the discharged water. Indirect impacts to visitors, and/or the duration of the visit. marine flora and fauna may result from decreased water and sediment quality. Assessment of Potential Impacts and Risks Woodside will continue to work with the Traditional Introducing any third-party gas and fluids could change Owners to provide access to culturally significant sites the characteristics of the marine discharges from whenever practicable. It is therefore, highly unlikely that the Proposal. Third-party gas could have a different significant Aboriginal cultural associations linked to chemical composition, thus potentially changing the the Heritage features located within the NWS Project chemical composition of discharges to the Jetty Outfall. development envelope, will be impacted by the Proposal The Proposal will not lead to changes to the quality and the residual risk is considered low. of water discharged from the Administration Drain, or stormwater runoff. 6.5.4.5 Reduced Amenity to Heritage Features Outside the Development Envelope as a Result Planned discharges from the NWS Project to the marine of Odorous Substances (e.g. Odour from environment have been ongoing continuously for over Atmospheric Emissions) thirty years without a significant reduction in marine A description and assessment of the potential impacts environment quality. Impacts associated with marine and risks from odorous substances on heritage features discharges are predicted to be highly localised to within outside the development envelope is discussed in specified zones of reduced ecological protection that Section 6.3.4.4. have been agreed with stakeholders and incorporated into an Environment Quality Plan. No direct or indirect 6.5.4.6 Harm to Marine Fauna and Flora with Heritage death, or loss of fauna or flora with heritage value, has Value been predicted to occur as a result of the proposal. This As discussed in Section 4.6.4, the Aboriginal groups is described in further detail in Section 6.6.4. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 proximity oftherelease site inrelation to theshoreline. characteristics ofthedischarge, time of year and discharge very muchdependonthenature, size, and The environmental impacts resulting from anunplanned offshore trunkline. would beassociated withaloss ofcontainment from the considered to beequivalent to orlower thanthosethat environment instantaneously. Therefore, impacts are lower and would notbedischarged to themarine reaching themarineenvironment would besignificantly that for atrunklineloss ofcontainment, butthevolumes The chemicalcomposition ofthespillissameas from theslugcatcher orcondensate loadingsystem. condensate to theground from aloss ofcontainment The worst-case credible event would result inaloss of both primaryandsecondary containment measures. reaching theenvironment asthisrequires afailure of which significantly reduces thelikelihood ofaspill to relevant standards andisinspected andmaintained, (including secondary containment) hasbeendesigned stored onshore. Onshore NWS Project infrastructure volumes ofenvironmentally hazardous materials to be Operations associated with theProposal require large ocean currents. potential to betransported over longdistances via oil could befar-reaching, ashydrocarbons have the containment indicates that surface slicksandentrained Waters Trunklines EP). Modellingofthesubsealoss of Trunklines (State Waters) Environment Plan,(State managed through theimplementation oftheNWS The impacts ofthisevent are describedindetail and + + + + discharges include: accidents oremergencies. Causesofunplannedoffshore discharges to themarineenvironment asaresult of Proposal have thepotential to result inunplanned Activities withinstate waters associated withthe Unplanned Discharges impact onmarineflora or fauna withheritage value. negligible. The activity willtherefore nothave asignificant processing ofthird-party gasandfluids, was assessed as inclusive ofpotential future changesresult from environment quality from ongoingplanneddischarges, The magnitudeofpotential impacts to marine up to 6,500m second NWS Project trunkline (2TL), whichcontains would arisefrom aloss ofcontainment from the The largest credible impact to themarineenvironment

Loss ofcontainmentfromatrunkline. of grounding). Loss ofmarinevesselseparation(i.e.collision system. A lossofcontainmentfromthecondensateloading decks totheocean. Spills ofhydrocarbonsorchemicalsfromvessels 3 ofcombined gasandcondensate. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –SOCIAL SURROUNDINGS or fauna withheritagevalue. therefore nothave asignificant impact onmarine flora dredging was assessed asslight. The activity will The magnitudeofpotential impacts from maintenance Dredging 2009(DEWHA,2009). levels listed intheNational Assessment Guidelinesfor dredge spoilhave historically beenbelow thescreening studied extensively. The level ofcontaminants inthe The quality ofsediments likely to bedredged have been turbidity levels from dredging anddisposaloperations. temporary increases insuspendedsediments and dredging inMermaidSoundrelate to near-field and The most likely impacts associated withmaintenance Sea DumpingPermit. the DOEEinaccordance withconditions oftherelevant dredging program, theresults ofwhichwere provided to impacts were observed asaresult ofthismaintenance in 2016, when 350,000 m The most recent maintenance dredging was undertaken is notpredicted to changeasaresult oftheProposal. and 10years. The frequency ofmaintenance dredging channels hasoccurred at afrequency ofbetween five Historically, maintenance dredging ofNWS shipping sufficient depth forships tosafely traverse the area. envelope willcontinue to berequired. This isto maintain basins andberthingpockets withinthedevelopment Maintenance dredging oftheshippingchannels,turning this information isprovided below. dredging isdiscussed inSection 6.6.4.2. Asummaryof heritage value from turbidity from maintenance impacts andrisksto marineflora and fauna with A detailed descriptionandassessment ofthepotential Turbidity from Maintenance Dredging or fauna withheritage value. therefore nothave asignificant impact onmarineflora residual riskthanmoderate. Unplanneddischarges will assessed andnonewere assessed ashaving ahigher A range ofotherpossible unplannedevents have been including flora and fauna withheritage value, may occur. did occur, moderate impacts onmarineecosystems, place to prevent thisevent occurring. Ifsuchanaccident range ofpreventative andmanagement measures are in spill (trunklinerupture) occurring ishighlyunlikely asa The likelihood oftheworst-case credible hydrocarbon 3 ofmaterial was dredged. No 141 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 142 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

6.5.5 Existing and Proposed Mitigation The existing and proposed mitigation measures applicable to the management of impacts to Social Surroundings (Heritage) arising from the Proposal are summarised in Table 6-26. Detailed description of measures is provided in the NWS Project Extension Air Quality Management Plan (Appendix A) and the NWS Project Extension Cultural Heritage Management Plan (Appendix C). Table 6-26: Existing and Proposed Mitigation Measures: Social Surroundings (Heritage)

Impact Existing Mitigation Measures Proposed Mitigation Measures

Accelerated weathering Avoid Avoid of rock art due to + Gaseous emissions will result from the + No additional measures are proposed. industrial emissions proposal and cannot be avoided. Minimise Minimise + Adopt practicable and efficient + Continuation of the facility emissions technologies to reduce air emissions testing and verification programs from the Proposal as described in the as described in the NWS Project NWS Project Extension Air Quality Extension Air Quality Management Plan Management Plan (Appendix A). ( ). Appendix A + Monitor ambient concentrations of + Continue to implement the Woodside relevant emissions, that contribute to management system which includes human health risks, from the Proposal procedures to assess changes in feed as described in the NWS Project gas sources. Extension Air Quality Management Plan ( ). Rehabilitate Appendix A

+ Reduce NOX emissions by 40% of + Not applicable for this impact. the current emissions baseline15 by 31 December 2030 and substantially reduce VOCs by 31 December 2030. + Implement the updated NWS Project Extension Cultural Heritage Management Plan (Appendix C) which outlines an adaptive management plan addressing the potential impact to rock art from industrial emissions. + Support implementation of the Murujuga Rock Art Strategy (DWER, 2019b) as a member of the Murujuga Rock Art Stakeholder Reference Group. Rehabilitate + No additional measures are proposed.

ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 15 Based on the percentage of reported emissions from KGP over the five year average, covering the 2013/14 to 2017/18 financial years. 6

16 emissions to depositionofgaseous conservation value due of heritageand and nearshore vegetation Degradation ofterrestrial development envelope features withinthe damage to heritage Direct, accidental physical Based onthepercentageBased of reported emissions from KGP over thefive year average, covering to 2017/18 the 2013/14 financial years. Impact + + + + + + + + + + Minimise Rehabilitate Rehabilitate Avoid Avoid

(Appendix A). Extension AirQualityManagementPlan as describedintheNWSProject testing andverificationprograms Continuation ofthefacilityemissions impacts. relevant EUstandardsforvegetation resultant depositionarebelowthe Modelling indicatesthatemissionand the Proposalandcannotbeavoided. Gaseous emissionswillresultfrom heritage features. Independent annualauditsofthe sites. Maintain aregisterofknownAboriginal about theheritagefeatures. site inductionsincludeinformation Burrup Peninsulathroughcompulsory of theculturalheritagefeatureson Educate personnelonthesensitivity features toconductroutineactivities. to directlyinteractwiththeheritage NWS Projectpersonneldonotneed Operational areasaredesignedsothat physically byafence. Restrict accesstotheKGPsite where appropriate. areas attheendoftheiroperationallife, Progressively rehabilitatedisturbed actions asrequired. annual auditsandimplementcorrective Evaluate outcomesofindependent gas sources. procedures toassesschangesinfeed management systemwhichincludes Continue toimplementtheWoodside Existing Mitigation Measures ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –SOCIAL SURROUNDINGS

+ + + + + + + Rehabilitate Minimise Avoid Rehabilitate Minimise Avoid +

Reduce NO No additionalmeasuresproposed. Management Plan(AppendixA). NWS ProjectExtensionAirQuality from theProposalasdescribedin technologies toreduceairemissions Adopt practicableandefficient No additionalmeasuresareproposed. No additionalmeasuresproposed. required processes. equivalent tocurrent,internally physical damagetoheritagefeatures includes provisionsformanaging Management Plan(AppendixC)which Project ExtensionCulturalHeritage Implement theupdatedNWS No additionalmeasuresareproposed. vegetation. air emissionstolimitimpacts includes provisionsformanaging Management Plan(AppendixC)which Project ExtensionCulturalHeritage Implement theupdatedNWS 31 December2030. the currentemissionsbaseline Proposed Mitigation Measures X emissionsby40%of 16 by

143 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 144 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Impact Existing Mitigation Measures Proposed Mitigation Measures

Continued restricted Avoid Avoid access to heritage + As this is a continuation of current + As this is a continuation of current features within the practices/situation, avoidance is not practices/situation, avoidance is not development envelope applicable for this impact. applicable for this impact. until around 2070 Minimise Minimise + Provide access for Traditional Owners + Implement the updated NWS to Aboriginal cultural heritage sites Project Extension Cultural Heritage within the Proposal development Management Plan (Appendix C) which envelope when requested. includes provisions for managing access to heritage features within the + Maintain established consultation forums with Traditional Owners and development envelope equivalent to custodians. current, internally required processes. Rehabilitate Rehabilitate No additional measures proposed. + Re-establish Traditional Owner access + to the development envelope following Decommissioning of the Proposal. Reduced amenity Refer to the mitigation measures for odour and dark smoke in Section 6.3.5 to heritage features outside the development envelope as a result of nuisance-causing emissions and discharges (e.g. odour from atmospheric emissions) Indirect impacts to Refer to the mitigation measures in Section 6.6.5 marine fauna and flora with heritage value

6.5.6 Predicted Outcome The NWS Project Extension Cultural Heritage Management Plan (Appendix C) sets the framework for Based on the current environmental performance of how Woodside will continue to minimise its impact to the NWS Project (see Section 2.5), the continued the heritage environment. The implementation of this implementation of existing management measures management plan will ensure that representatives of the and the commitment to reassess any potential impacts Indigenous groups of the area continue to be consulted or risks from the introduction of third-party gas, there regarding Woodside’s heritage management activities were no impacts or risks higher than a moderate ranking and impacts, and influence Woodside’s approach identified. Woodside considers that this indicates the to heritage management. Regular heritage update residual impacts and risks associated with the Proposal meetings are also held with Traditional Owners, and are broadly aligned with the EPA’s objective for Social discussions include NWS Project-related activities and Surroundings. There were no impacts or risks identified ongoing heritage management requirements. that would mean that the EPA objectives for Social A summary of the impact assessment outcomes used to Surroundings (Heritage) would not be achieved. derive this outcome are provided in Table 6-27. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 + + + Table 6-27: SocialSurrounds (Heritage) Impact Assessment Summary EPA Policy andGuidance 6.6.2 that environmental values are protected (EPA, 2016c). To maintain thequality ofwater, sediment, andbiotaso 6.6.1 6.6 deposition ofgaseousemission and conservation value dueto nearshore vegetation ofheritage Degradation ofterrestrial and development envelope to heritagefeatures within the Direct, accidental physical damage due to industrial emissions Accelerated weathering ofrock art atmospheric emissions) substances (e.g. odourfrom envelope asaresult ofodorous features outsidethedevelopment Reduced amenity to heritage 2070 development envelope until around to heritagefeatures within the Continued restricted access flora withheritage value Harm to marinefauna and

Environmental Quality(EPA,2016c). Environmental FactorGuideline–Marine Objectives (EPA,2018a). Statement ofEnvironmentalPrinciples,Factorsand Western Australia’sMarineEnvironment(EPA,2016d). Technical Guidance–ProtectingtheQualityof Marine Environmental Quality Key Environmental Factor – Policy andGuidance EPA Objective Impact (See Section 6.3) See Section 6.6 Sensitivity Receptor Moderate Medium Medium Medium High Magnitude + + relevant receptor ofthereceiving environment. Refer to Section 4for detailed descriptionofeach the MarineEnvironmental Quality environmental factor. environment that are directly and indirectly related to Table 6-28 identifies theelements ofthe receiving 6.6.3 guidance relates to theProposal. Section 10details how thislegislation, policy and Other Policy andGuidance

Environmental QualityObjectives(DoE,2006b). Outcomes –EnvironmentalValuesand Pilbara CoastalWaterQualityConsultation Marine WaterQuality(ANZECCandARMCANZ,2018). Australian andNewZealandGuidelinesforFresh Slight Slight Slight Minor Minor Receiving Environment ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS impacts only) Highly Unlikely Highly Unlikely Highly unlikely (unplanned Likelihood Unlikely N/A Risk Rating -Low Risk Rating -Low Risk Rating -Low Impact Level/ Environment Impact Level - Risk Rating Risk Rating - Moderate Slight 145 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 6 ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 146 Table 6-28 Marine Environment Quality Receiving Environment NORTH WEST SHELFPROJECT EXTENSION Receving Envrionment Vegetation withHeritage Value (Relevant to HumanHealth) Marine Fauna withHeritage Seabirds andShorebirds National Heritage Place (Relevant to Amenity) Terrestrial Vegetation Marine Invertebrates Contribution to GHG Heritage Features Sediment Quality Marine Mammals Sharks andFish Concentrations Water Quality Macroalgae Sea Snakes Air Quality Air Quality Mangroves Shorelines Activity Seagrass Turtles Value Coral

treated wastewater to Ongoing discharge of Mermaid Soundand No NameCreek     of stormwater to the marine environment Ongoing discharge    Maintenance dredging berthing pockets at the KGP andKBSB of thejetties and          

Receving Envrionment Vegetation withHeritage Value (Relevant to HumanHealth) Marine Fauna withHeritage Seabirds andShorebirds National Heritage Place (Relevant to Amenity) Terrestrial Vegetation Marine Invertebrates Contribution to GHG Heritage Features Sediment Quality Marine Mammals Sharks andFish Concentrations Water Quality Macroalgae Sea Snakes Air Quality Air Quality Mangroves Shorelines Activity Seagrass Turtles Value Coral

Ship loadingandship movements at the KGP andKBSB ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –MARINEENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY      from offshore accidents Unplanned discharges or emergencies (e.g. hydrocarbon loss of vessel orpipeline containment)               or emergencies (e.g. onshore accidents hydrocarbon spill) discharges from Unplanned               147 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 6 ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 148

Receving Envrionment NORTH WEST SHELFPROJECT EXTENSION Vegetation withHeritage Value (Relevant to HumanHealth) Marine Fauna withHeritage Seabirds andShorebirds National Heritage Place (Relevant to Amenity) Terrestrial Vegetation Marine Invertebrates Contribution to GHG Heritage Features Sediment Quality Marine Mammals Sharks andFish Concentrations Water Quality Macroalgae Sea Snakes Air Quality Air Quality Mangroves Shorelines Activity Seagrass Turtles Value Coral

Presence andpotential migration ofonshore contamination               that are assessed inthisERDare: The potential impacts to marineenvironmental quality + + + + + + + + Quality: have thepotential to affect MarineEnvironmental The following activities associated withtheProposal 6.6.4

from planneddischargestothemarineenvironment. Reduction inMarineEnvironmentQuality,resulting emergencies (e.g.hydrocarbonspill). Unplanned dischargesfromonshoreaccidentsor spills). emergencies (e.g.vesselandpipelinehydrocarbon Unplanned dischargesfromoffshoreaccidentsor pockets andtheKGPKBSB. Maintenance dredgingofjettiesandberthing environment. Ongoing dischargeofstormwatertothemarine third-party gasandfluids). discharge characteristicsduetotheintroductionof Administration Drain(includingchangestomarine to MermaidSoundviatheJettyOutfalland Ongoing dischargeoftreatedwastewater contamination. presence andpotentialmigrationofonshore KBSB. Ship loadingandshipmovementsattheKGP Potential ImpactsandRisks ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –MARINEENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY + + + within thedevelopment envelope. marine environment viadrains and diversions constructed the onshore NWS Project infrastructure canenter the Drain, asshown inFigure 6-27 . Stormwater run-offfrom discharge points—the Jetty Outfall andtheAdministration The Proposal hastwo existing licenced wastewater and sediment quality. marine flora and fauna may result from decreased water present inthedischarged water. Indirect impacts to quality through toxicity ofphysical or chemicalstressors Proposal hasthepotential to reduce water andsediment stormwater to themarineenvironment from the The ongoingdischarge oftreated wastewater and Description Source of Impact of 6.6.4.1

onshore contamination. from thepresenceandpotentialmigrationof indirect impactstomarinefloraandfauna,resulting Reduction ofwaterandsedimentquality accidents oremergencies. from unplanneddischargesoffshoreoronshore indirect impactstomarinefloraandfauna,resulting Direct reductionofwaterandsedimentquality from maintenancedredgingandshipping. indirect impactstomarinefloraandfauna,resulting Direct reductionofwaterandsedimentquality Marine Environment Resulting from PlannedDischarges to the Reduction inMarineEnvironment Quality, 149 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 150 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

The Proposal will not lead to changes to the quality of water discharged from the Administration Drain, or stormwater runoff. The assessment of impacts from these discharges only considers the impact of the continuation of these activities as part of the Proposal. The Proposal has the potential to alter the quality of discharges from the Jetty Outfall and these changes and impacts of ongoing discharge from the Jetty Outfall are included within the impact assessment. A description of each planned discharge precedes the description of potential impacts from these discharges. Where applicable, dilution modelling and toxicity testing has been used to inform the assessment of potential impacts.

The aspects of the receiving environment relevant to planned discharge to the marine environment are shown in Table 6-28. No significant benthic primary producer habitats (seeFigure 4-14) are within the immediate receiving environment of the planned discharge points and all discharges are diluted to a level expected to achieve a ‘high’ level of ecological protection (as defined in EPA, 2016d) before discharges may potentially contact with these habitats – meaning there is no risk to these ecosystems.

Figure 6-27 Location of Wastewater Discharge Points ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 effluent inmarine environments. and sensitivity astest speciesfor assessing discharge of robust test protocols, andknown reproducibility relevance, known sensitivity to contaminants, availability These specieswere selected basedontheirecological of tropical andtemperate Australian marinespecies. test includedeight toxicity tests incorporating arange collected from thejetty outfall inJune2018. This WET WET testing was conducted onasampleofwater Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing. Themost recent discharges from theJetty Outfall undergo regular In additionto regular chemicalcharacterisation, present inthewaste stream. contaminants are alignedto theactual contaminants gas operations, to ensure theregularly monitored contaminants that could beassociated withoiland The extensive test suite isinformed by alist of extended suite ofpotential chemicalcontaminants. discharged viatheJetty Outfall isanalysed for an basis. Every year, arepresentative sampleofwater acute toxicity, withtheremaining reviewed onaregular licence parameters identified aspotentially driving approval to discharge isinformed by asubset ofthe from thissamplingisshown inTable 6-29 . Internal Operational Licence, andthelast 8years ofresults 18 contaminants, inaccordance withtheKGP Part V Each batch discharge isanalysed for thepresence of LNG jetty, known astheJetty Outfall (Figure 6-27). discharged to adiffuserlocated onBerth1ofthe KGP and tested against internal discharge limitsbefore being and analysis. Water inthisfinalholdingbasinissampled to allow for thecollection ofpre-discharge sampling final holdingbasin to facilitate afinal treatment step and collected water, abuffer tank to balance inflows anda of above-ground holdingbasinsfor holdingtreated of underground pipesfor water collection, aseries The OCWcomprises two networks (LNGandDomgas) and potentially contaminated water generated onsite. system to collect, treat, anddischarge contaminated, The KGP usesanoil-contaminated water (OCW) Jetty Outfall Discharges &Characteristics ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –MARINEENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MEPA boundaryfor themajority ofconditions. in thiscircumstance, thedischarge would bewithinthe This isshown inFigure 6-23 anddemonstrates that even double (PC99value of0.18%, equivalent to 560dilutions). potential impacts ifthetoxicity ofthedischarge was to dilution modellingwas also performed to understand the minimum of600mthedischarge point. Discharge a highlevel ofecological protection required withina This iswell withintherequirement oftheEQP to maintain occurring within300minmost scenarios (Figure 6-3 ). achieved within400mofthedischarge point, although wastewater, equivalent to 280dilutions) isconsistently the 99%speciesprotection value (PC99 value of0.36% 1:100. The modelshowed dilutionsufficient toachieve of theJetty Outfall LEPA andMEPA was aminimumof discharge event. The modelleddilutionat theboundary extent ofmixingthat willbeachieved from any given each modellingrunoverlaid to present themost likely was modelled150separate timeswiththeresults from circumstance, thejetty outfall typical discharge event a two year data set ofactual weather conditions. Inthis and weather conditions that are randomly selected from model runs.Eachmoderunisdoneutilisingsets ofwind created by overlaying theresult ofmultipleindividual stochastic model(AppendixG).Stochastic modelsare discharges to thejetty outfall were modelledusinga Typically expected dilutionvalues expected from 1:59 and1:280respectively. This equates to corresponding safe dilutionestimates of 99% ofspecies[(PC99)value of0.36% wastewater]. wastewater] andaconcentration that isprotective of protective of95% ofspecies[(PC95) value of1.7% distribution in2018 includedaconcentration that is The guidelinevalues derived from thespeciessensitivity (EC while the5-minute Microtox test was theleast sensitive EC fish embryo development test (EC50 (EC concentration ofeffluent. Thesea urchin fertilisation test KGP effluent, with EC50 Toxicity was observed inalleight tests conducted onthe 10 50 50 value of9.6%) were most sensitive to theeffluent, value of65% andEC10 value of12%andEC10 values ranging from 12%to 65% value of1.9%)andthe7-day value of22%). value of12%and 151 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 6 ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 152 Table 6-29 Average annual concentration of licensed discharge parameters in discharges to the Jetty Outfall NORTH WEST SHELFPROJECT EXTENSION Parameters Unit 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

a-MDEA mg/L

Note 1 – Not measured in this period. + + + water from theseKGP sources: the discharge point. The Administration Drain receives public access ispermitted withinaminimumof1.5km exclusion zone that appliesto theNWS Project andno at NoNameBay. NoNameBay iswithinthegeneral culvert, beyond whichwater flows into theopenocean mangrove-fringed watercourse that terminates ina drain that discharges into NoNameCreek, anunlined The Administration Drain isaconcrete-lined open Administration Drain Discharges andCharacteristics have all naturally re-colonised NoNameCreek, whichis lined Administration Drain. These mangroves andreeds exists between theintertidal region andtheconcrete- (where there istidalinfluence) andadense reed bed No NameCreek isdenselyinhabited by mangroves

Stormwater run-off. plant (DWP). Brine dischargedfromthewaterdemineralisation (STP). Treated sewagefromthetreatmentplant ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –MARINEENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY average results ofthissamplingare shown inTable 6-30. identified inthe KGP Part VOperational Licence andthe Drain are analysed for thepresence of18contaminants Monthly samplesofdischarges to theAdministration potentially contaminated stormwater. of contaminants by thereverse osmosisprocess and matter indischarge from theSTP, andconcentration are associated withemissions from nutrients/organic for potential impacts onmarineenvironmental quality the STP, DWP, andsite run-off. Cause–effect pathways The Administration Drain receives wastewater from understood. contaminants inthisdischarge are less complex andwell as, beingprimarilyasewage discharge, thenature of to theAdministration Drain hasnotbeenconducted Part VoftheEPAct). Toxicity testing ofdischarges identified inthe KGP Operational Licence (issued under Drain are analysed for thepresence of18contaminants Monthly samplesofdischarges to theAdministration NWS Project. an artificial waterway constructed aspartofthe existing 153

6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 6 ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 154 Table 6-30: Average concentration of licensed discharge parameters in the Administration Drain NORTH WEST SHELFPROJECT EXTENSION Parameter Units 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

COD mg/L 17.9 50.5 24 17.2 18 16.8 11.9 18.1 Conductivity µS/cm 1,807 1,849 2,239 1,639 2,380 2,010 1,715 1,485 Total Nitrogen mg/L 11.3 11.4 7.3 5.2 19.2 29 20.4 5.1 Total mg/L 0.5 0.8 1 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.4 0.6 Phosphorous pH mg/L 8.6 8.8 8.8 9.1 8.4 8.5 8.7 8.9 Sulphate mg/L 224.8 226.8 563.3 296.2 492.9 319.5 252.3 220.7 Sulphide mg/L 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.5 0.1 Surfactants mg/L 45.7 4 19 17.5 7.8 9.5 8.1 1.1 Total Suspended mg/L 16.7 11.8 33.4 13 12 39.2 18.2 250.3 Solids Turbidity NTU 3.9 4.7 8.5 4 5.8 7.5 4.7 68.9 aMDEA mg/L

nd = no data, this section. considered to be slight andisnotdiscussed furtherin potential impact from thedischarge ofstormwater are vacuum sucker trucksandportablewater pumps.The diverted into theOCWsystem, for example by utilising specification. Any contaminated water canbemanually limits andproactively discharged ifwithintherequired water withinweirs issampledagainst internal discharge discharged. Priorto any majorpredicted rainfall event, sampled for thepresence ofcontaminants before itis weirs whichallow stormwater to becollected and chemicals. Many stormwater drainage points alsohave may potentially becontaminated slightly withoilor machinery) canoccur intheseareas sostormwater operational activities (e.g. drivingvehicles, operating there isnoplannedsource ofcontamination, however, collected inthismannerfrom areas oftheplant where prevent itfrom beingdischarged. Stormwater isonly sumps, whichcancollect andtrap oilyresidue and Many ofthestormwater drains have underflow/overflow marine environment viaaseriesofdrainage points. Stormwater collected onthesite isdischarged to the constituents isprovided to Woodside. Ifaconstituent that the Proposal for processing, asummaryofthegas/fluid equipment. Before accepting any new gasorfluidsinto constrained by theengineeringdesign oftheProposal the introduction ofany third-party gasand fluidsare also Marine discharges that vary inconstituent content dueto environmental standards. and to confirm adherence to internal and external conducted to monitor long-term trends inwater quality the environment. Inaddition,long-term samplingis to ensure that water issuitableto bedischarged to routine andperiodicsamplingregime that isundertaken Quality Management Plan(AppendixD)details the The NWS Project Extension MarineEnvironmental are unrelated to thenatural gasprocessing equipment. result theintroduction ofthird-party gasorfluidsasthey Drain orstormwater runoffare predicted to changeasa No changesto discharges from eithertheAdministration chemical composition ofdischarges to theJetty Outfall. chemical composition, thuspotentially changingthe the Proposal. Third-party gascould have adifferent the characteristics ofthemarinedischarges from Introducing any third-party gasandfluids could change from theIntroduction Third of andFluids party Gas Potential Changesto Discharge Characteristics Resulting ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –MARINEENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY levels ofecological protection. allowable changesto natural background undercertain coastal waters. Table 6-31 shows adescriptionofthe (2006b) EQMF astheapproved EQP for thePilbara Environment (EPA, 2016d) that hasestablished theDoE – Protecting theQuality ofWestern Australia’s Marine Subsequently, theEPA haspublishedTechnical Guidance and pollution(DoE,2006b). marine environment from theeffects of waste inputs for thePilbara region to helpmanageandprotect the Environmental Quality Management Framework (EQMF) Quality Objectives, aimedat establishing an Outcomes Environmental Values andEnvironmental published thePilbara Coastal Water Quality Consultation In 2006,theWA Department ofEnvironment (DoE) to ensure theEnvironment Quality Planisachieved. Management Plan(AppendixD)hasbeenestablished achieved (EPA, 2016d). AMarineEnvironment Quality (including levels ofecological protection) shouldbe zones where theenvironmental quality objectives values that applyto anarea andspatially mapsthe (EQP). An EQP is aplanthat identifies theenvironmental accordance withtherelevant Environment Quality Plan The zone ofimpact for planneddischarges isdone in assessment ofthezone ofimpact ofthesedischarges. from planneddischarges hasbeeninformed by an The potential impacts to marineenvironment quality Direct Impacts to Water Quality Description Potential of Impacts from MarineDischarges stated mitigations are notsignificant. negligible andresidual impacts after theapplication of due to theintroduction ofthird-party gasandfluidsis of any impact onthereceiving marineenvironment and riskremains at anacceptable level. The likelihood management andmitigation controls to ensure impacts assessment willincludetheidentification ofappropriate objectives andlegislative requirements are met. This system to ensure that theexisting EQP, environmental managed inlinewiththeWoodside management introduction ofthird-party gasandfluidswillbe Potential discharge characteristic changesfrom the treatment ofthechangedeffluents. a management ofchangeprocess to enableefficient the water stream after processing, thenthiswould trigger third-party gas/fluid andhasthepotential to remain in is notcurrently processed intheWWTP ispresent inthe 155 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 156 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Table 6-31: Definition of Allowable Changes to Natural Background Under Levels of Ecological Protection

LEP Definition

Low Allows large changes in abundance and biomass of marine life, biodiversity, and rates of ecosystem processes, but only within a confined area. Moderate Applied to relatively small areas within inner ports and adjacent to heavy industrial premises where pollution from current and/or historical activities may have compromised a high LEP. High Allows for small measurable changes in the quality of water, sediment, and biota, but not to a level that changes ecosystem processes, biodiversity, or abundance and biomass of marine life beyond the limits of natural variation. Maximum Activities to be managed so that there were no changes beyond natural variation in ecosystem processes, biodiversity, abundance, and biomass of marine life or in the quality of water, sediment, and biota.

The EQP establishes required levels of protection for The benthic habitats occurring within both the LEPA regions immediately surrounding planned discharges and MEPA are all classified as ‘silt’ Figure( 6-28). While from the Proposal. LEPs aren’t defined by current certain silty habitats may support biodiverse faunal condition, however are intended to represent long- assemblages in Mermaid Sound, the majority of the term objectives for environmental quality (EPA 2016d). seabed within the Jetty Outfall MEPA has previously However, these LEPs have been in place at the Proposal been dredged to create the shipping channels and for many years and ongoing environmental monitoring turning basins required for LNG tankers to approach the has demonstrated they are consistently achieved. For product loading berths. this reason, the LEP zones established in the EQP are Typically expected dilution values expected from considered appropriate to define the zone of impact discharges to the jetty outfall were modelled using a used in describing potential impacts from planned stochastic model (Appendix G). The modelled dilution marine discharges. An exception to this is the definition at the boundary of the Jetty Outfall LEPA and MEPA of a small area around the Administration Drain. was a minimum of 1:100. The model showed dilution Originally assigned a Low LEP within the EQP (DOE, sufficient to achieve the 99% species protection value 2006b), the Environment Quality Criteria included within (PC99 value of 0.36% wastewater, equivalent to 280 the MEQMP are established to achieve a Moderate Level dilutions) are consistently achieved within 400 m of of Ecological Protection at the Administration Drain the discharge point, although occurring within 300 m release point. in most scenarios (Figure 6-3). This is well within the As part of the Proposal, Woodside has developed an requirement of the EQP to maintain a high level of NWS Project Extension Marine Environment Quality ecological protection required within a minimum of Management Plan (Appendix D) to ensure requirements 600 m of the discharge point. Discharge dilution of the EQP are consistently and reliably achieved by the modelling was also performed to understand the Proposal. There are no foreseen deviations from the EQP potential impacts if the toxicity of the discharge from the implementation of the management plan. was to double (PC99 value of 0.18%, equivalent to 560 dilutions). This is shown in Figure 6-23 and Potential Impacts to Water Quality from Jetty Outfall demonstrates that even in this circumstance, the Discharges discharge would be within the MEPA boundary for the There is a zone of Low Ecological Protection Area majority of conditions. (LEPA), an area within which a low level of ecological protection is maintained extending 70 m in all Direct Impacts to Sediment Quality from Jetty Outfall directions from the discharge point. Beyond this, a Discharges Moderate Ecological Protection Area (MEPA) has Potential impacts to sediments may occur from been established that extends 250 m beyond the planned discharges, which contain substances such as turning basins and berthing pockets surrounding hydrocarbons and heavy metals which can deposit and the KGP LNG loading jetty, excluding areas where accumulate in sediments. However, the low volume of this is within 200 m of the shoreline. This shoreline this discharge and low concentration of contaminants protection has been established to protect the corals impacting the sediments and frequent monitoring that are known to inhabit the rocky coastline of the of sediment quality eliminates the potential for any Pilbara region. While not a uniform shape, the MEPA significant impacts occurring. extends a minimum of 600 m from the jetty diffuser Sediment quality near the jetty outfall is monitored ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS in all directions. annually as part of the ChEMMS program. The extensive 6 impact sites withintheJetty Outfall MEPA boundary. Hydrocarbons (PAHs) were found inany sediments at well below guidelinevalues. NoPolycyclic Aromatic with amaximumconcentration of7mg/kg, whichis concentrations were slightly elevated at four locations, located withintheMEPA boundary, however TPH the limitsofreporting at most subtidalsediment sites, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)were allbelow reference sites to thenatural presence ofthismetal. known to exceed guidelinevalues andundisturbed Background concentrations ofnickel inthePilbara are values recorded for previous surveys (Advisian, 2018a). ARMCANZ, 2018) triggerlevels andwere similarto the respective ANZECC/ARMCANZ (ANZECC and indicated that allmetals, excluding nickel, were below impacts onecosystem function. The results from 2018 slight level, withnoevidence oflongterm orpotential contamination likely to causeany impacts above a data record shows theabsence ofany sediment ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –MARINEENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 157 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 158 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Figure 6-28 Habitats within the Jetty Outfall MEPA/LEPA ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6

Figure 629: ModelledLevel Dilutionsfrom of Discharges viatheJetty Outfall 2019) (RPC ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –MARINEENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 159 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 160 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Potential Impacts to Water Quality from Administration between the Administration Drain discharge point and Drain Discharges NNB means that there is insufficient water volume to Under the existing EQP (i.e. DOE 2006b), there is a LEPA reach the marine environment unless carried with the centred on the location where the Administration Drain outgoing tide. It must first mix with the incoming tide, discharges into No Name Bay. As part of development within NNC, for this to occur. of the MEQMP, improvements to treatment systems NNC is densely inhabited by mangroves (where there is and results from historic monitoring, it is considered tidal influence) and a dense reed bed exists between the appropriate to assign this region as a MEPA and impacts are assessed on this basis. The MEPA is located within intertidal region and the concrete-lined Administration the broader High Ecological Protection Area (HEPA) that Drain. These mangroves and reeds have all naturally extends to most of the Port of Dampier. re-colonised NNC, which originally existed as an intertidal creek system which was altered as part of The Administration Drain discharges into a 300 m long the original KGP development. unlined channel known as No Name Creek (NNC) which is tidally inundated with each high tide. Water in NNC can The modelling results demonstrate discharges from the only flow into the receiving marine environment, No Name Administration Drain receive approximately 150 to 830 Bay (NNB), via a series 10” culverts that pass the boundary dilutions (including the 12.5 dilutions received in the road at the western edge of the Karratha Gas Plant. Inner Channel) when it first enters the Bay (depending on the tidal discharge rate). Thereafter, it is dispersed The Administration Drain discharges into a tidally by tide and wind towards the west. At 70 m from the influenced bay (No Name Bay) consisting of mudflats discharge location concentrations range from 0% and sand flats that are typical of the region. There is (dilution not applicable) on the flood tide to around a stand of mangroves lining the NNB, as well as an artificially constructed rock embankment that has been 0.08% (1:1,200 dilutions) on the ebb tide (Appendix G). colonised by intertidal organisms typical of the region. Stochastic modelling was not undertaken for the When water is flowing into NNC (with the incoming tide) Administration Drain discharge, as the nature of the discharges from the Administration Drain are prevented receiving environment (into a shallow bay, close to by the inflowing tide from entering the marine the shoreline) means tidal forcing is the primary factor environment. It is not until the tide begins to recede determining dilution rates. Tidal cycles are predictable that the now diluted wastewater can flow into NNB. and conservative tidal scenario was used to determine At low tide, the tidal flat extends at least 100 m from the minimum number of expected dilutions at the MEPA the point where NNC outflows to NNB and ~500 m from boundary. A minimum of 150 dilutions are expected to the Administration Drain discharge point. The distance be achieved at the MEPA boundary in all scenarios. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 Figure 6-30 Habitats withintheAdministration Drain MEPA

ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –MARINEENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 161 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 162 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Direct Impacts to Sediment Quality from Administration Sampling locations near the Administration Drain Drain discharges. Outfall to Ocean within No Name Bay are shown in Potential impacts to sediment quality may arise from Figure 6-31. planned discharges from the Administration Drain due A summary of the maximum concentrations of to the presence of nutrients, heavy metals of residual oil sampled parameters within the No Name Bay MEPA present in the discharge. boundary are shown in Table 6-32 and values for Sediment quality monitoring occurs within and beyond No Name Bay MEPA are shown in Table 6-33. immediately beyond the proposed Moderate Ecological No contaminant concentration levels above guideline Protection Area (MEPA). The MEPA extends 70 m from values have been identified through this sampling where the Administration Drain discharges to the ocean. program, however, some levels are elevated slightly Sediment quality monitoring includes sampling for above background levels. the presence of contaminants including heavy metals, Oysters at this location have been sampled since 1995. chemicals and hydrocarbons. At each intertidal sediment There have been no recorded exceedances of Food monitoring site, sediment samples are taken from the Standards Australia New Zealand Maximum Safe Eating surface layer (1 – 5 cm) of the seabed, for subtidal values for any oysters sampled at the No Name Bay sediments, samples are taken from a 10 – 15 cm depth monitoring site (which have been established for relevant using a Van Veen Grab. Oyster health is also monitored substances including mercury, lead and cadmium). These beyond the MEPA. This is done by collecting oysters and FSANZ values represent levels below which seafood is sampling their tissue for the presence of heavy metals considered safe for human consumption. above natural levels.

Table 6-32: Results of sediment quality monitoring from within the No Name Bay MEPA

Parameters Unit 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Guideline Value

Cadmium mg/kg 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.12 0.05 0.05 0.05 1.5 Chromium mg/kg 7.2 6 9.8 36 19 22.8 23.9 80 Copper mg/kg 10 11 10 8.8 1.9 2.1 2.4 65 Lead mg/kg 1.7 6.4 4.1 3.9 2.3 2.6 2.5 50 Mercury mg/kg 0.0051 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.0051 0.01 0.0051 0.15 TPH ug/kg 21 <100 <100 68 <100 .89 2.02 280 aMDEA mg/kg <.5 <.5 <.5 0.19 <.5 <10 <10 NA

Note 1: Result below detection. Value stated as half limit of detection.

Table 6-33: Results of sediment quality monitoring from beyond the No Name Bay MEPA

Parameters Unit 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Guideline Value

Cadmium mg/kg 0.051 0.051 0.2 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 1.5 Chromium mg/kg 3.4 8.1 16 20 15 16.4 5.1 80 Copper mg/kg 8.2 14 7.5 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.8 65 Lead mg/kg 2.2 9.3 3.3 2 2.3 2.5 2.5 50 Mercury mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.15 TPH ug/kg <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 8 4 280 aMDEA mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Note 1: Result below detection. Value stated as half limit of detection.

NA: Not sampled in this period. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6

Figure 6-31 Locations ChEMMSSampling at NoNameBay ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –MARINEENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 163 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 164 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Indirect Impacts to Marine Flora and Fauna given the presence of daily shipping operations (relevant to jetty outfall) or lack of sufficient depth (relevant to Benthic Primary Producer Habitats the admin drain). No impacts to BPPH (e.g. corals and seagrass) are predicted as a result of ongoing planned discharges into Furthermore, it should be noted that the threshold Mermaid Sound from the Proposal. This is because these concentrations and the subsequent mixing zone have habitats are not present within the distance below which been determined through the application of chronic discharges achieve sufficient dilution to achieve a high exposure ecotoxicological tests on marine fauna (over level of ecological protection. days) and therefore if marine fauna are transient within the receiving environment adjacent to the discharge The marine habitats potentially impacted (i.e. as they location, they are unlikely to be exposed to sufficient are within the LEPA/MEPA) by discharges from the concentrations or for a sufficient duration to elicit a toxic Jetty Outfall are limited to bare silt in areas that have response. Behavioural responses, such as avoidance, been previously dredged and are subject to future may be exhibited by mobile organisms. maintenance dredging. In addition, the predicted toxicity effects on marine The marine habitats potentially impacted by discharges fauna within this area of influence is considered from the Administration Drain are tidal mud flats and conservative as the actual discharge durations (and mangroves within No Name Bay. possible exposure timeframes) are inherently limited Mangroves given the nature and location of the discharges to considerably less than those used to determine chronic Mangrove habitats can be sensitive to changes in water toxicological effects. quality, but ongoing discharges from the Administration Drain have not been linked to any impact from previous Impacts on water quality and marine fauna are assessed discharges. as part of the ChEMMS program by analysing oyster tissue. The most recent results showed that potential The health of the mangroves has been continually contaminants, such as TPH levels, Polycyclic Aromatic monitored annually for the past 30 years, in accordance Hydrocarbons (PAH) concentrations, and heavy metals with the ChEMMS program. Currently, mangrove health were all below relevant guideline values (e.g. safe eating is monitored annually using the Normalised Difference levels). This indicates that potential for impacts from Vegetative Index (NDVI) assessed using images ongoing planned marine discharges to occur beyond the captured from drone imagery. There have been no low and medium ecological protection areas established anthropogenically derived changes to mangrove health under the environment quality plan is very low. in No Name Bay identified through these surveys.

The apparent maintenance of water quality and Cumulative Impacts sediment quality in Mermaid Sound appears to be Cumulative impacts may occur when current or future reflected in the health of the marine biota in the area. activities are near each other and their zones of impact During the 2017 survey of mangrove health, none have the potential to overlap. The Proposal is within of the parameters monitored indicated any impacts the Port of Dampier, in which other industrial activities that could be attributed to the NWS Project facilities. occur. When comparing impact and reference sites since 2014, all sites showed variation in canopy cover and As outlined in the Environment Quality Plan (DoE, these changes are likely due to natural variation rather 2006b) that applies to all industrial activities in the than related to works occurring near the impact sites Port of Dampier, a high level of ecological protection (Advisian, 2018b). Similarly, qualitative comparisons is required to be maintained within the majority of the of surveyed coral habitats between the 2017 survey Port, except within the immediate proximity of shipping and previous surveys shows little variation in habitat activities or industrial discharges. composition, indicating an absence of any significant The nearest other area source of planned industrial impact. impact with the Port of Dampier occurs at the Pluto LNG Loading Facility, where a MEPA is in place immediately Marine Fauna around the LNG loading jetty. The nearest planned Any potential for toxicity to marine organisms would industrial discharge occurs approximately 6 km away, be expected to be limited to surface waters within the from Multi User Brine Return Line, operated by the described zones of impact (LEPA/MEPA) assigned to Water Corporation in accordance with Ministerial each discharge, and therefore these concentrations Statement 594. will only potentially affect a limited number of marine fauna species and individuals (e.g. cetaceans, turtles All wastewater discharges from the Proposal have and pelagic fish) which are transient through the region, undergone dilution modelling, which showed dilution including those with heritage value. Cetaceans are highly sufficient to achieve a high level of ecological unlikely to be present in the vicinity of the discharges, protection is achieved within either 70 m/ 600 m of ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 via theJetty Outfall. loading ofhydrocarbons andheavy metals discharged targeting furtherreductions intheenvironmental equipment isto beinstalled aspartoftheProposal, environment quality, additionalwater treatment To furtherreduce potential impacts to marine significant impact onMarineEnvironment Quality. was notassessed. The activity willtherefore nothave a These impacts are planned,solikelihood of theoutcome third-party gasandfluids, was assessed asnegligible. of potential future changesresult from processing of environment quality from ongoingdischarges, inclusive The magnitudeofpotential impacts to marine relevant to allmarinedischarges was assessed aslow localised to withinthesezones, thereceptor sensitivity protection, andimpacts are predicted to behighly limited to withinareas withdefinedlevels ofecological environment quality. Asthereceiving environment is 30 years withoutasignificant reduction inmarine environment have beenongoingcontinuously for over Planned discharges from theNWS Project to themarine Assessment Potential of Impacts Proposal. zones ofimpact are predicted to occur asaresult ofthe of different wastewater discharges orfrom overlapping Therefore, nocumulative impacts, eitherfrom mixing may leadto cumulative impacts. to below limitsofdetection before any interaction that highly likely that allcontaminants would likely bediluted with thenearest otherdischarge located 6kmaway. Itis would beany cumulative impact from thesedischarges, It was therefore considered highlyunlikely that there the Administration Drain andJetty Outfall respectively. from dredging operations—the most sensitive are habitats andspeciesthat are sensitive to disturbance Within MermaidSoundthere are various marine maintenance dredging isrequired. cyclone frequency, may increase thefrequency at which as aresult oftheProposal. External factors, suchas of maintenance dredging isnotpredicted to change frequency ofbetween five and ten years. The frequency shipping channelshashistorically occurred at a the area. Historically, maintenance dredging ofNWS maintain sufficient depth forships tosafely traverse remove siltthat depositsintheseareas, inorder to envelope willcontinue to berequired. This isdoneto basins andberthingpockets withinthedevelopment Maintenance dredging oftheshippingchannels,turning Maintenance Dredging Description Impacts of 6.6.4.2 Dredging andShipping and Fauna Resulting from Maintenance Quality andIndirect Impacts to MarineFlora Direct Reduction Water of andSediment ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –MARINEENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY . conditions oftherelevant SeaDumpingPermit. of whichwere provided to theDOEEinaccordance with result ofthismaintenance dredging program, theresults monitoring ofimpacts. Noimpacts were observed asa management measures relating to prevention and this dredging program andwas subject to specific impacts to coral habitats were identified as partof 2009) andare sampledbefore disposal.Potential Assessment Guidelinesfor Dredging 2009(DEWHA, been below thescreening levels listed intheNational within thedevelopment envelope have historically dredged. The level ofcontaminants inthedredge spoil + + + + which can: turbidity levels from dredging anddisposaloperations, temporary increases insuspended sediments and dredging inMermaidSoundrelate to near-field and The most likely impacts associated withmaintenance this factor was notconsidered relevant to theProposal. would result inadirect impact orremoval ofBPPHso is nodredging required aspartoftheProposal that Communities andHabitats (EPA, 2016d). However, there issued Technical Guidance –Protection ofBenthic unacceptable losses ofBPPHinState waters, theEPA Benthic PrimaryProducer Habitats (BPPHs). To avoid KBSB andtake onsupplies andfuel. tugs andpilotvessels regularly arrive anddepartthe infrastructure willalsooccur. Offshore support vessels, with inspection andmaintenance ofpipelinesorwharf these vessels. Occasional vessel movements associated envelope. This includesarrival, berthinganddeparture of the dedicated berthslocated withinthedevelopment loading LNG,LPG,andcondensate onto tankers at Shipping activities associated withtheProposal include Ship Loading andShipMovements at theKGP and KBSB when approximately 350,000 m every five to ten years, withthelast occurring in2016 Maintenance dredging occurs infrequently, generally impacted. mangroves orseagrass habitats may potentially be corals. Dependingonthelocation ofspoildisposal, potential to indirectly impact sensitive BPPH,including Turbidity associated withmaintenance dredging hasthe

previously contaminatedsedimentsthatwerepart associated withthepotentialresuspensionof Cause toxicologicaleffectstomarineorganisms knock-on effectsformarineecosystemproductivity. marine organisms,resultingineutrophicwaterswith Increase organicmatterandnutrientavailabilityto sediments intothewatercolumn. levels duetothereleaseofpotentiallyorganic-rich Cause localisedandtemporaryreductioninoxygen temporarily reducingproductivityandgrowthrates. light penetrationthroughthewatercolumn,thereby Result inadverseeffectstomarinebiotabyreducing of dredgingordisposaloperations. 3 ofmaterial was 165

6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 166 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Hydrocarbon products are loaded onto vessels and held already subject to frequent turbidity (i.e. from shipping). onboard as fuel. Unplanned impacts associated with ship The potential impacts associated with the ongoing loading are covered in Section 6.6.4.3. requirement to maintenance dredging of NWS shipping channels, etc. and disposal of dredge spoil are therefore The Proposal does not include any changes to shipping assessed as slight. activity beyond the existing capacity of the existing infrastructure (berths, wharves and jetties). Ongoing Any future dredging activities will continue to be shipping activities conducted in support of the Proposal, conducted in accordance with an activity-specific Sea within the development envelope, will lead to continued Dumping Permit administered by the DoEE. generation of produce propeller wash, which will Under the Proposal, the nature of shipping activities result in sediment resuspension (and deposition) and are not expected to change or lead to an increase in increased turbidity. environmental impact compared to existing operations. The ChEMMS program is designed to detect any impacts Impacts from existing shipping activities are considered on corals that may occur as a result of ongoing turbidity slight which has been verified through existing associated with shipping activity. environmental monitoring programs which will continue to be implemented as part of the Proposal. The ongoing Discharges from these vessels may lead to a reduction in planned impacts to marine environmental quality from marine water quality within the immediate vicinity of the ship loading and ship movements are consistent with vessel. All discharges are performed in accordance with those from existing activities and are therefore assessed Australian Marine Orders and any specific requirements as slight. implemented by the Dampier Port Authority. Any impacts associated with these discharges are expected 6.6.4.3 Direct Reduction of Water and Sediment Quality to be slight, highly localised and temporary. and Indirect Impacts to Marine Flora and Fauna, Resulting from Unplanned Discharges from The corals along the Burrup coastline are dominated Offshore or Onshore Accidents or Emergencies by Turbinaria, Porites, and Faviidae species, which can tolerate high sediment loads (Advisian, 2018b). Any Description of Potential Impacts ongoing turbidity impacts generated by export shipping There are no planned impacts resulting from unplanned activities are expected to have a negligible effect on discharges from offshore or onshore accidents or coral; sedimentation impacts were more regularly emergencies. The risk associated with these events, observed at reference sites rather than impact sites which accounts for both the potential consequence and (Advisian, 2018b). likelihood, is assessed below. No major differences in living hard coral were identified Unplanned Discharges from Offshore Infrastructure between the impact sites and reference sites during the 2017 ChEMMS surveys. Qualitative comparison between Activities within State waters associated with the the 2017 ChEMMS survey and the previous survey (2011) Proposal have the potential to result in unplanned shows little variation in habitat composition, indicating discharges to the marine environment as a result of the absence of any detectable change resulting from accidents or emergencies. No actions associated with increased turbidity (Advisian, 2018a). the Proposal were identified as having the potential to materially change either the magnitude of the Assessment of Potential Impacts consequence, or likelihood of the occurrence, of any unplanned discharge event. The Proposal will continue to All maintenance dredging and shipping activities will conduct activities that present these risks and associated occur in designated shipping areas that have previously potential impacts are described and assessed below. been dredged, or subject to regular ongoing impact from shipping, and as such the sensitivity of the Causes of unplanned offshore discharges include; receiving environment is assessed as low. + Spills of hydrocarbons or chemicals from vessels The quality of sediments likely to be dredged have decks to the ocean. been studied extensively and the level of contaminants + A loss of containment from the condensate loading in the dredge spoil within the development envelope system. have historically been below the screening levels listed in the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging + Loss of marine vessel separation (i.e. vessel collision 2009 (DEWHA, 2009) so the magnitude of planned of grounding). impacts from maintenance dredging is assessed + Loss of containment from a trunkline. as slight. No potential significant future changes to The largest credible impact to the marine environment sediment quality (within areas subject to maintenance would arise from a loss of containment from the second dredging) as a result of the Proposal or other regional NWS Project trunkline (2TL), which contains 6,500 m3 industrial activities were identified. Any impacts that do of combined gas and condensate. The impacts of this occur, will occur very infrequently and to areas that are event are described in detail and managed through the ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 a potentially majorconsequence butisassessed as loss ofavessel fuelinventory was assessed ashaving considered credible. Avessel collision resulting inthe product inventory (e.g. LPG,condensate) was not environment. Avessel collision leadingto theloss of grounding, have thepotential to impact themarine Spills from vessel decks,ordueto vessel collision or Environment Plan. scenario described in theNWS Trunklines (State Waters) event isless thantheimpact oftheloss ofcontainment volumes that could bedischarged, theimpact ofthis the hydrocarbon spilled.Dueto thelower potential of spillresponse activities, andthepersistence of of thecontacted receiving environment, effectiveness on thevolume ofthehydrocarbon release, sensitivity measures fail. The environmental impact willdepend and emergency intervention (e.g. isolation valves) system ispossible iftheproduct-loading infrastructure A loss ofcontainment from thecondensate loading with thisevent isassessed asmoderate. assessed asbeinghighly unlikely andtheriskassociated are inplace that meanthelikelihood ofsuchanevent is an event, extensive preventative and mitigative controls Despite thesignificant (major)potential impact ofsuch EP andtherefore are notdescribedinfurtherdetail here. this event are describedintheState Waters Trunklines Further detail onthe potential impacts associated with the DampierArchipelago. sensitive nearshore and shoreline habitats, particularly, environment. However, longterm impacts may occur at term environmental impact onthe offshore deepwater waters. Insummary, there isunlikely to beamajorlong- Islands)Sandy andany sensitive receptors intheopen off Onslow (includingSerrurier, Thevenard andGreat and theNorthern,MiddleSouthernIslandGroup Marine Park [AMP]), Barrow andMontebello Islands Dampier Archipelago (andtheadjacent Australian will includethesensitive marineenvironments ofthe from aNWS Project trunkline, thezone ofimpact In theunlikely event ofamajorhydrocarbon spill transported over longdistances viaocean currents. reaching, ashydrocarbons have thepotential to be that surface slicksandentrained oilcould befar- Modelling ofthesubsealoss ofcontainment indicates within 2TL. of containment causedby afullrelease oftheinventory modelling ofthepotential impacts from asubsealoss The State Waters Trunklines EPpresents quantitative Regulation andSafety (DMIRS). and isapproved by theDepartment ofMines,Industry, the Petroleum Pipelines(Environment) Regulations 2012 (Submerged Lands) (Pipelines) Regulations 2007 and has beenprepared inaccordance withthePetroleum Environment Plan,(State Waters Trunklines EP) which implementation oftheNWS Trunklines (State Waters) ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –MARINEENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (Unauthorised Discharges) Regulations 2004. Act 2003 (WA) and/or Environmental Protection managed inaccordance withtheContaminated Sites environment would berequired to bereported and A release ofhazardous materials into theonshore in thepreceding section. from theoffshore trunkline, which have been discussed that would beassociated withaloss ofcontainment are considered to beequivalent to orlower thanthose marine environment instantaneously. Therefore, impacts significantly lower and would notbedischarged to the the volumes reaching themarineenvironment would be the samecharacteristics asthat withinthetrunkline, but period ofbetween weeks andyears). The product isof hydrocarbons reaching themarineenvironment (over a system, resulting inamaximumof1,000 tonnes of received onshore at theProposal) orcondensate loading from theslugcatcher (where gasandliquidsare condensate to theground from aloss ofcontainment The worst-case credible event would result inaloss of with aSafety Case, approved by DMIRS. Regulations 2007 (WA). KGP ismanagedinaccordance with Dangerous GoodSafety (MajorHazard Facilities) or environmentally hazardous goodsandcomplies as aMajorHazard Facility andthestorage ofdangerous and secondary containment measures. KGP isclassified environment asthisrequires afailure ofbothprimary significantly reduces thelikelihood ofaspill reaching the standards andisinspected andmaintained, which secondary containment) hasbeendesignedto relevant Onshore NWS Project infrastructure (including indirectly through groundwater flows. the marineenvironment directly viasurface run-offor secondary containment, have thepotential to enter be stored onshore. These materials, ifspiltoutside volumes ofenvironmentally hazardous materials to Operations associated with theProposal require large Unplanned Discharges from Onshore Infrastructure spills have occurred inthePort since itwas established. existing regulation andnovessel collisions resulting in within thePort ofDampierissubject to significant likelihood ofsuchanevent isHighlyUnlikely. Shipping vessel collisions could potentially bemoderate, butthe and location ofthespillevent. Spillsresulting from Receptor responses willvary dependingonthesize marine water quality are chemical(includingtoxicity). main effects commonly associated withthesespillson resulting inrapidly dilutionto low concentrations. The impact reduced by smallvolumes andrapid dispersion marine environment ifspilled,withthepotential for less than50L) orlikely to have little to noeffect onthe vessel decksare eitherheldinlow quantities (usually spill. However, hydrocarbons andchemicalspresent on reduce water quality temporarily inthevicinity ofthe hydrocarbons orchemicalsfrom vessel deckscould being highlyunlikely. The unintentional release of 167 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 168 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Assessment of Potential Impacts and Risks courses, including No Name Creek, North East Creek, The environmental impacts resulting from an unplanned and North East Creek Beach. There are no identified discharge very much depend on the nature, size, and beneficial users of groundwater below the Proposal, characteristics of the discharge, time of year and as given its coastal location and specific topography, proximity of the release site in relation to the shoreline. as all groundwater below the site is expected to flow The likelihood of the worst-case credible hydrocarbon towards the ocean. The emergence of this groundwater spill (trunkline rupture) occurring is highly unlikely as and release into the marine environment may lead to a a range of preventative and management measures potential reduction in water or sediment quality. are in place to prevent this event occurring. If such an accident did occur, moderate impacts on marine Contamination has been identified as emerging ecosystems may occur. Impacts are limited as the spilled in the marine environment, with elevated levels of hydrocarbon would be condensate, which has a lower hydrocarbons and heavy metals having been detected long-term residual impact in the environment when within No Name Creek and North East Creek Beach. No compared to a product such as crude oil. The highest bio-available heavy metals above environmental trigger sensitivity environments potentially contacted by the values have been identified at any sampled locations. worst-case hydrocarbon release were assessed as PFAS contamination that exceeds the 95% species being highly sensitive. The magnitude of any impact is protection trigger levels has been detected in three mitigated through the implementation extensive oil spill contingency planning arrangements. The residual risk groundwater monitoring wells. The use of PFAS at the of the worst case credible offshore or onshore accident site is being phased out and no planned release of PFAS or emergency loss of containment event is assessed as containing substances to unsealed surfaces (i.e. for moderate. training) is permitted at the site, unless in emergency situations. Smaller spills from onshore and offshore infrastructure may have a relatively higher likelihood of occurring There is no planned source of onshore contamination than a trunkline loss of containment but any associated associated with the Proposal and no ongoing impact will be significantly lower and are unlikely to contribution to existing contamination. The ongoing extend to areas of high sensitivity. A range of possible presence and operation of the infrastructure associated unplanned events have been assessed and none were with the Proposal will continue to present an unlikely risk assessed as having a higher residual risk than moderate. of new contamination occurring. Remedial actions to address historic contamination have been implemented. 6.6.4.4 Reduction of Water and Sediment Quality and The presence of existing onshore contamination is Indirect Impacts to Marine Flora and Fauna, Resulting from the Presence and Potential currently being managed in accordance with the Migration of Existing Onshore Contamination Contaminated Sites Act 2003 (WA).

Description of Potential Impacts Assessment of Potential Impacts and Risks Historic leaks and spills, as well as the use of foams Existing contamination within the development containing PFAS within the development envelope envelope may migrate to the marine environment and have resulted in contamination of the site and water it is assessed as likely that this contamination will result underlying the site. Contamination is monitored through in slight impacts to sediment quality in the immediate regular groundwater monitoring of the extensive network of groundwater monitoring bores. vicinity of the KGP should that migration occur. The likelihood of existing contamination impacting water Monitoring of groundwater within the development quality, or sediments, beyond the immediate plant envelope has detected PFAS in groundwater in the boundary has a low environmental risk. north-east and eastern boundaries of the development envelope. This is likely associated with the historic use Activities associated with the Proposal were not of fluorinated firefighting foams on the site. The use assessed as having any planned interaction (e.g. of firefighting foams containing PFAS at the KGP is contributing to or accelerating migration of) with currently being phased out. Site policies now prohibit existing contamination. Potential environmental impacts the testing of firefighting foams containing fluorinated are only associated with the potential migration of substances on unsealed ground. Any water used in existing contamination. With the identified existing and foam testing is collected and disposed of at licenced planned mitigation measures, the ongoing use of NWS third-party facilities. There is a potential for foam to infrastructure will continue to present an unlikely risk contaminate groundwater and sediments only during of new contamination occurring, with the maximum the release of firefighting foam in an emergency. impact of this potential assessed as slight. The residual Contaminated groundwater may reach the marine risk is therefore considered low. Remediation of existing

ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS environment by seeping into natural surface water contamination is not currently deemed feasible. 6 Table 6-34: Existing andProposed Mitigation Measures: MarineEnvironmental Quality existing impacts, soinmany casesexisting mitigation measures are suitableto minimiseresidual risks. impact marineenvironmental quality are shown inTable 6-34. The Proposal presents aminimalpredicted changeto Existing andproposed mitigation measures that willbeimplemented sothat theProposal managesitspotential to 6.6.5 marine environment discharges to the resulting from planned environment quality, Reduction inmarine dredging andshipping from maintenance and fauna, resulting impacts to marineflora quality andindirect water andsediment Direct reduction of Impact Existing andProposed Mitigation Minimise Proposal andcannotbeavoided. Marine discharges willresult from the Avoid Avoid + + + + + + + + + + Rehabilitate Minimise Rehabilitate + +

Not applicablefor thisimpact. navigation requirements. the developmentenvelopeundermarine Ship movementsarerestrictedwithin activity cannotbeavoided. potential impactsassociatedwiththis the jettyandexportfacilities.Assuch, ensure continuingsafeoperationof Maintenance dredgingisrequiredto Not applicableforthisimpact. program establishedtodetect Continue thescientificmonitoring have beenminimised. where hydrocarbon/chemicalspillrisks Stormwater runofflimitedtoplantareas treatment beforedischarge. All sewageissubjecttotertiary only minorvolumesofwaterdischarged. produced wateroccursoffshorewith Bulk dewateringanddischargeof accordance withpermitconditions. issued byDoEEandconducted in accordance withaSeaDumping Permit All dredgingtobeconductedin early warningsignsofpotentialimpacts. program (ChEMMS)establishedtodetect Continue thescientificmonitoring gas sources. procedures toassesschangesinfeed management systemwhichincludes Continue toimplementtheWoodside plans. Operational wastewatermanagement Continue toimplementexisting early warningsignsofpotentialimpacts. Existing Mitigation Measures ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS –MARINEENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

+ + + + + Rehabilitate Minimise Avoid

No additionalmeasuresareproposed. Jetty Outfall. and heavymetalsdischargedfromthe installed tofurtherreducehydrocarbons Additional treatmentequipmenttobe for alllicencedwastewaterdischarges. contains environmentalqualitycriteria Management Plan(AppendixD),which Extension MarineEnvironmentQuality Implement theNWSProject No additionalmeasuresareproposed. Not applicableforthisimpact. Proposed Mitigation Measure 169 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS 170 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Impact Existing Mitigation Measures Proposed Mitigation Measure

Potential direct Avoid + No additional measures are proposed. reduction of water + Monitoring and maintenance of offshore and sediment quality infrastructure in line with the NWS and indirect impacts Trunklines State Waters Operations to marine flora and Environment Plan. fauna, resulting from unplanned discharges Minimise from offshore or + Continue the scientific monitoring onshore accidents or program (ChEMMS) established to emergencies detect early warning signs of potential impacts. + Continue to implement the NWS Trunklines State Waters Operations Environment Plan. Rehabilitate + Unplanned incidents are managed through implementation of Woodside’s Oil Pollution Emergency Arrangements, the NWS Trunklines State Waters Operations Environment Plan and the KGP Emergency Management Plan. Reduction of water Avoid Avoid and sediment quality + Management of existing onshore + The use of firefighting foams containing and indirect impacts to contamination in line with the PFAS to be phased out. marine flora and fauna, Groundwater Management Plan to resulting from the Minimise reduce the risk of this contamination presence and potential migrating into the marine environment. + No additional measures are proposed. migration of onshore contamination Minimise Rehabilitate + All hydrocarbons stored in accordance + No additional measures proposed. with the requirements of the site Safety Case and required legislation. + Continue the scientific monitoring program established to detect early warning signs of potential impacts. + Planned discharge (i.e. for training) of any firefighting foam onto unsealed ground is not permitted. All waste from training to be collected and disposed of correctly. + Continue to implement the existing Groundwater Management Plan to monitor and detect groundwater contamination. Rehabilitate + Comply with the requirements of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 and Environmental Protection (Unauthorised Discharge) Regulations 2004. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS 6 Note 1: Table 6-35: MarineEnvironment Quality Impact Assessment Summary significant. Contemporising ofthe KGP’s waste water residual risksto below alevel that would beconsidered are required to beimplemented to furtherreduce No additionalmanagement ormitigation measures achieved. EPA Objectives for MarineEnvironment Quality are not no impacts orrisksidentified that would meanthat the objective for MarineEnvironmental Quality. There were with theproposal are broadly alignedwiththeEPA’s this indicates theresidual impacts andrisksassociated ranking have beenidentified. Woodside considers that no plannedimpacts orriskshigherthanamoderate After implementing theproposed mitigation measures, 6.6.6 contamination Presence andpotential migration ofonshore loading including maintenance dredging andship Shipping andshippingrelated activities hydrocarbon spills) Vessel hydrocarbon spill,pipelinerupture, onshore accidents oremergencies (e.g. Unplanned discharges from offshore or quality from third party gas/fluids including changesto future discharge administration drain andstormwater, environment from jetty outfall, Planned discharges to themarine receptors are not predicted. Within MEPA zones surrounding discharges. Highlevel of ecological protection maintained beyond here so impacts to highersensitivity Predicted Outcome Impact Sensitivity Receptor Medium Medium High Low 1 derive thisoutcome are provided inTable 6-35. A summaryoftheimpact assessment outcomes usedto support thepredicted outcomes oftheProposal. environmental baselinedata provides evidence to Three decadesofenvironmental monitoring andexisting from operation ofthe NWS Project. with thesameorlower consequence asthosethat result The Proposal isexpected to result inplannedimpacts Jetty Outfall. hydrocarbons andheavy metals discharged from the treatment equipment to beinstalled to furtherreduce treatment system willoccur through installation of Magnitude Moderate Slight Slight Slight ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLESANDFACTORS impacts only) Highly Unlikely (unplanned Likelihood Unlikely N/A N/A Risk Rating -Low Impact Level/ Environment Risk Rating Risk Rating - Negligible Moderate Slight 171 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALPRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESAND ANDFACTORS FACTORS MATTERS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE MATTERS OF 7. MATTERS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

7.1 Introduction + The place has outstanding heritage value to the NATIONAL nation because of the place’s importance in the Woodside referred the NWS Project Extension Proposal course, or pattern, of Australia’s natural or cultural to the DoEE (EPBC Reference 2018/8335) in November history. 2018. In May 2019 the DoEE determined the Proposal to be a controlled action with assessment undertaken + The place has outstanding heritage value to SIGNIFICANCE the nation because of the place’s possession by the State of Western Australia as an accredited assessment under the provisions of Section 87 (4) of the of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of EPBC Act. The controlling provision for the Proposal is: Australia’s natural or cultural history. + The place has outstanding heritage value to the + National Heritage Places (EPBC Act Sections 15B and nation because of the place’s potential to yield 15C), namely the Dampier Archipelago (including information that will contribute to an understanding Burrup Peninsula). of Australia’s natural or cultural history. In addressing the controlling provision, this section has + The place has outstanding heritage value to been written in accordance with the EPA ‘Instructions the nation because of the place’s importance in on how to Prepare an Environmental Review Document’ demonstrating the principal characteristics of: (EPA, 2018b). There are elements in common between assessing impacts on the National Heritage Place as + A class of Australia’s natural or cultural places, or required under the EPBC Act and impacts on social + A class of Australia’s natural or cultural surroundings as required under the EP Act (see Section environments. 3.1.1 for the relevant EPA environmental factor). To inform the assessment of impacts of the Proposal on the + The place has outstanding heritage value to National Heritage Place, information may be duplicated the nation because of the place’s importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical from Section 6.5 in this section and cross-referenced to other sections where appropriate. achievement at a particular period. (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007). Gazette Notice No. S127 describes the values of the 7.2 Relevant Policy and Guidance National Heritage Place, and how those values meet These policy and guidance documents are relevant to the criteria listed above. This description is weighted assessing the impacts of the Proposal on MNES: towards the heritage value of the rock art (in the form of petroglyphs) in the National Heritage Place, with + Significant Impact Guideline 1.1 – Matters of National particular emphasis on the: Environmental Significance (DoEE, 2013) + weathering of the petroglyphs + Australia’s National Heritage – Applying the Principles (DoEE, 2008) + history depicted in the petroglyph illustrations + Murujuga Rock Art Strategy (DWER, 2019b) + diversity of the petroglyphs + unique complexity of the illustrations on the 7.3 Existing Environmental Values petroglyphs + contribution that the illustrations on the petroglyphs Description of the National Heritage Place have made to understanding Australia’s cultural The Dampier Archipelago (including Burrup Peninsula) history was gazetted as a National Heritage Place in July 2007 + contribution that the illustrations on the petroglyphs (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007). The National have made to understanding Australia’s natural Heritage Place covers an area of roughly 36,860 ha history. including areas on the Burrup Peninsula and surrounding Gazette Notice No. S127 also recognises the high islands. The National Heritage Place is directly adjacent density of standing stones, stone pits, and circular to, and in some areas overlaps, the NWS development stone arrangements in the National Heritage Place, envelope, as shown in Figure 7-1. which contribute to the significance that the National The National Heritage Place met five of the eight criteria Heritage Place has for Aboriginal cultural heritage set for listing as a national heritage place: (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007). 174 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Figure 7-1: National Heritage Place Dampier Archipelago (including Burrup Peninsula) MATTERS NATIONAL OF SIGNIFICANCE 7 Table 7-1: Values oftheNational HeritagePlace across Australia), particularlybecauseofthecreativity the artisunique(compared to otherrock engravings the Pilbara. The quality ofthepetroglyphs ishighand shows connections between Aboriginalpeoplesacross (DoEE, 2007). The rock artisalsosignificant asit aspects ofeveryday life ofthetraditional ancestors images relating to sacred ceremonies, andshow various purposes—they depict spiritfigures, contain Traditional Owners describethepetroglyphs ashaving created by pecking,pounding,rubbing,andengraving. of petroglyphs inAustralia. These petroglyphs were of petroglyphs) andcontains thelargest collection its large collection ofAboriginalrock art(intheform The National HeritagePlace ismost widelyknown for National HeritagePlace against thelisting criteria. (DoEE, 2007). Table 7-1 details thespecific values ofthe the spiritsofNgkurr, Bardi, andGardi still live there created by ancestral beingsduringtheDreamtime and the areas withintheNational HeritagePlace were of years (DoEE,2007). Local Aboriginalgroups believe occupation by Aboriginalpeoplefor tens ofthousands Aboriginal cultural value. There isevidence of 1,550 kmnorthofPerth, WA, andhassignificant The National HeritagePlace islocated approximately 7.3.1.1.1 natural orcultural history. that willcontribute to anunderstanding ofAustralia’s because oftheplace’s potential to yieldinformation The place hasoutstanding heritagevalue to thenation cultural history. rare or endangered aspects ofAustralia’s natural or because oftheplace’s possession ofuncommon, The place hasoutstanding heritagevalue to thenation pattern, ofAustralia’s natural orcultural history because oftheplace’s importance inthecourse, or The place hasoutstanding heritagevalue to thenation Values of theNational Heritage Place Listing Criteria and most exciting region ofrock engravings inAustralia. the Pilbara, anarea describedaswithoutdoubt therichest key site for establishing the sequence ofengraved motifsin forms uniqueto thearea. Ithasthepotential to become a major artprovinces inthePilbara aswell asanumberof figures (anthropomorphs) characteristic ofmost ofthe The DampierArchipelago contains engravings ofhuman Pilbara style provinces, occurs intheDampierArchipelago. representatives ofhumanfigures characteristic oftheother diversity indepictions ofthehumanform, whichalsoinclude distinct regional engraving styles inthePilbara, thegreatest the Pilbara exceptional. Althoughthere are anumberof complex scenes that makes theAboriginalengravings in and theway inwhichthey are sometimes arranged in (anthropomorphs), many ofwhichare indynamicattitudes, It isthediversity ofrepresentations ofthehumanform the riseofsealevels at theendoflast Ice Age. Australia’s cultural history through theAboriginalresponses to provide anoutstanding visualrecord ofthecourse of types offaunal engravings ontheDampierArchipelago species level. The different degrees of weathering ofparticular marine fauna many ofwhichcanbeidentified to genusor executed imagesofawiderange ofterrestrial, avian and The engravings ontheDampierArchipelago include finely relevant receptor. and theNational HeritagePlace, asawhole, isthe Any potential impacts from theProposal willbeindirect National HeritagePlace thanhas already beenapproved. include any additionaldisturbance to any partofthe of theNational HeritagePlace. The Proposal doesnot The development envelope overlaps asmallportion 2007). sites, artefact scatters, andgrindingpatches (DoEE, quarries, middens,fishtraps, rock shelters, ceremonial significant to Aboriginalcultural heritage, including The National HeritagePlace alsocontains othersites populations (DoEE,2007). rain ceremonies, or‘thalu’ sites that increased species’ sacred sites thought to beusedfor ceremonies, suchas while yet others are ancient Aboriginalceremonial and life, suchaswater holes,soaks,andcampingareas, thought to markareas that were important to everyday and stone cairns(DoEE,2007). Somestone sites are stone arrangements, fishtraps, stone pits,hunting hides, Heritage Place, includingstanding stones, complex Significant stone sites also exist throughout theNational human figure imagery(DoEE,2007) demonstrated andthefinedetails shown inanimaland (Commonwealth ofAustralia, 2007) Description ofValues MATTERS ORNATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE 175 7 MATTERS MATTERS OF NATIONALOF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE 176 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Listing Criteria Description of Values (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007)

The place has outstanding heritage value to the nation The rock engravings on the Dampier Archipelago include because of the place’s importance in demonstrating an extraordinarily diverse range of animal and human the principal characteristics of: figures which are characteristic of regional styles that occur elsewhere in the Pilbara. (i) a class of Australia’s natural or cultural places, or (ii) a class of Australia’s natural or cultural environments The place has outstanding heritage value to the nation The rock engravings in the Dampier Archipelago show because of the place’s importance in demonstrating a exceptional creative diversity when compared with the other high degree of creative or technical achievement at a art provinces in the Pilbara or rock engravings elsewhere in particular period. Australia.

7.4 Assessment of Potential petroglyphs. These concerns centre on the issue that Impacts of the Action deposition of NOX, SOX and NH3 from anthropogenic industrial sources has the potential to increase the 7.4.1 Relevant Impacts acidity of the rock surface through chemical and biological processes. Key emissions as they relate to In accordance with DoEE ‘Matters of National this Proposal’s power generation and process emissions Environmental Significance – Significant Impact include NOX, VOCs (which affect the photochemical Guideline 1.1’, the Proposal may have a significant impact intensity of NO/NO2 formation) and very minor on the National Heritage Place if “there is a real chance contribution of SO2. or possibility that it will cause: The concerns are that acidic conditions may then alter + one or more of the National Heritage values to be lost the natural state and rate of weathering of the rock, + one or more of the National Heritage values to be making colour variations and depth of petroglyphs degraded or damaged difficult to distinguish from the rest of the rock surface. Over the past 15 years, numerous studies have been + one or more of the National Heritage values to be conducted to investigate the potential for industrial notably altered, modified, obscured or diminished” emissions from new and existing industrial development (DoEE, 2013). on the Burrup Peninsula to impact on the Burrup The National Heritage values of the National Heritage Peninsula rock art, including: Place are described in Section 7.3 above and relate specifically to the petroglyphs, standing stones, stone + Air quality monitoring and modelling studies to pits and circular stone arrangements found within the assess the potential for air pollution from industrial boundary of the National Heritage Place. activities on the Burrup Peninsula to impact petroglyphs. In the context of the National Heritage values, the + Studies of microbial diversity on the petroglyphs following impacts are considered relevant: to investigate whether rock surfaces closer to + Industrial air emissions causing accelerated industrial emissions sources host different microbial weathering of petroglyphs resulting in degradation, communities, which could affect petroglyph damage, notable alteration, modification, obscuring, weathering. or diminishing of the values of the National Heritage + Studies analysing colour changes in the petroglyphs Place. and spectral mineralogy analysis to obtain more + Direct, accidental physical damage to petroglyphs precise measurements of composition or colour within the portion of the development envelope that changes (this study compared southern sites near overlaps the National Heritage Place. industry with sites further north on the Burrup Peninsula). 7.4.1.1 Industrial Air Emissions Causing Accelerated Weathering of Petroglyphs Resulting in No published peer reviewed studies identified measurable Degradation, Damage, Notable Alteration, or observable changes to the condition and integrity of Modification, Obscuring, or Diminishing the the rock art as a result of industrial emissions. It is noted Values of the National Heritage Place that there have been criticisms of the methodologies used Description of the Potential Impact and the interpretation of the findings from some of these research studies and monitoring programs that have The presence of heavy industry on the Burrup Peninsula been established to detect changes in petroglyphs and

MATTERS NATIONAL OF SIGNIFICANCE has generated concerns that industrial emissions may potential accelerated weathering. Uncertainties therefore lead to an accelerated weathering or deterioration of 7 Table 7-2: Scenarios usedfor AirDispersionModelling potential impacts to thepetroglyphs asaresult of there isahighlevel ofstakeholder concern surrounding Heritage Place. Additionally, itisacknowledged that obscuring, ordiminishingofthevalues oftheNational degradation, damage, notablealteration, modification, that industrial emissions from theProposal could cause potential accelerated weathering presents apossibility This uncertainty, together withtheorisedpathways for Documentation (DWER, 2019c). in theMurujugaRock ArtMonitoring Program Tender rock artmay occur. This complexity isacknowledged a criticalloadofaciddepositionat whichimpacts to for accelerated weathering) andthedetermination of change (bothnatural weathering rate, andpotential exist regarding techniques for monitoring anddetecting E&A) proposed emission reductions inplace (FBSIA existing andapproved facilities operating, with Future Burrup Strategic Industrial Area with Future Cumulative Emissions reductions inplace (KIO) Current withproposed Baseline emission Current (CBM) Baseline Current Cumulative Emissions Scenario a significant reduction inNO It considers cumulative emissions from theProposal operating with reductions outlinedinSection 6.3.5. significant reduction inNO cumulative emissions from theProposal operating witha This isthemedium-term, most likely scenario. Itconsiders the benefitsgainedinambient airquality from proposed NO This isthemedium-term, best-case scenario. Itdemonstrates These include: the BSIAandnearby region to useasabaselinefor assessment. existing, built,industrial facilities andemissions most applicableto cumulative emissions from thecurrent NWS Project andthe operating onandaround theBurrupPeninsula. Itconsiders contribution to ambient airquality from industry currently This isthenear-term, most likely scenario. Itpredicts the + + + + + + + + + significant NO likely improvement opportunity concepts representing feasible and The KGP data for modellingwere modified to conservatively reflect and thenearby region. built, industrial facilities andemissions most applicableto theBSIA ERD (Pluto LNGDevelopment ([Train 2]). and future BSIAdevelopment approved at thetime of writingthis

Main shippingberthsatCapeLambert. All shippingberthsontheBurrupPeninsula EDL WestKimberleyPowerPlant ATCO KarrathaPowerStation Santos DevilCreekPowerStation Pilbara IronYurralyiMayaPowerStation Yara TechnicalAmmoniumNitrateandLiquidPlant Woodside PlutoLNGDevelopment(Train1) NWS Project;KGP SO five scenarios modelledare provided inTable 7-2. in presented inSection 6.5.4.1. Briefdescriptionsofthe Place. Detailed information inrelation to thismodelling acidic compounds inrelation to theNational Heritage to predict theProposal’s contribution to depositionof Modelling offive emissions scenarios was undertaken Assessment Potential of Impacts andRisks 6.5.4.1. compounds onrock surfaces isprovided inSection Further information onhow industrial emissions ofNO industrial airemissions. X X reduction. andNH3may influence thedepositionofacidic X Description emissions, existing operating facilities, X for KGP sources, and theexisting, MATTERS ORNATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE X

177 X

7 MATTERS MATTERS OF NATIONALOF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE 178 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Scenario Description

Future Burrup Strategic Industrial Area State This is the long-term, worst-case scenario. It considers cumulative

(FBSIA), with existing, approved and referred emissions from the Proposal operating with no reduction in NOX facilities operating emissions, existing operating facilities, future BSIA approved development (Pluto LNG Development [Train 2]) and referred developments (but not assessed or approved) at the time of writing this ERD (proposed Perdaman Urea Plant and Wesfarmers Methanol Plant). The later developments are represented by indicative Urea and Methanol Plants. There are no other reasonably foreseeable proposals that can be included in the modelling. Future Burrup Strategic Industrial Area This is a long-term, possible case scenario. It considers cumulative state (existing, approved and referred) emissions from the Proposal operating with a significant reduction in

with proposed emission reductions in NOX emissions, existing operating facilities, and future developments place (FBSIA-KIO) approved at the time of writing this ERD (Pluto LNG Development [Train 2]) and BSIA developments referred (but not assessed or approved) at the time of writing this ERD. The latter developments are represented by indicative Urea and Methanol Plants.

Comparative analysis of modelled NO2 deposition values temperature, discharge velocities, height and plume as a sub-component of overall nitrogen and sulphur buoyancy may be increasing model ground level deposition indicates that: estimates. Woodside recognises anecdotal evidence and + For all scenarios, the majority of the NO2 deposition results for the grid receptors within the National stakeholder concerns that observable changes to Heritage Place fall within the range of 1-4 meq/m2/ the petroglyphs may have occurred. Noting that no year. published peer reviewed studies identified measurable + NO2 deposition in all scenarios as projected at or observable changes to the condition and integrity historical monitoring locations broadly align with of the rock art as a result of industrial emissions, and that during the timeframe of the studies undertaken, measured dry NO2 deposition, indicating likely comparable total nitrogen deposition is expected to the NWS Project operated with emissions rates the align with historical deposition measurements. Rock same as those proposed for this Proposal, accelerated art impact assessment studies occurred throughout weathering affecting the distinguishability of historical monitoring periods where the range of petroglyphs across the region is not expected to occur measured total deposition was broadly consistent. as a result of the Proposal. The Proposal is therefore unlikely to significantly impact the values of the + KGP emission reductions (KIO) generally results in National Heritage Place. an observable reduction of deposition frequencies above 2 meq/m2/year compared with CBM across 7.4.2 Direct, Accidental Physical the National Heritage Place. Implementation of NO X Damage to Petroglyphs within reduction opportunities are expected to materially the Portion of the Development reduce NO2 maximum concentrations, as well an overall reduction in annual nitrogen deposition Envelope that Overlaps the across the National Heritage Place. National Heritage Place Description of Potential Impacts + Future approved developments (Pluto LNG Development (Train 2)) with KGP emission Direct, accidental damage to the petroglyphs within reductions (FBSIA E&A) shows a nominally the portion of the development envelope that is within consistent and slightly lower deposition frequencies the boundaries of the National Heritage Place could than CBM above 2 meq/m2/year. An overall occur through direct interactions with NWS Project reduction of deposition is expected across the workforce and visitors. This could include obscuring National Heritage Place for this scenario. of petroglyphs with paint or other materials (for example during survey activities) or physical damage + FBSIA and FBSIA-KIO show relative marginal to the rock (for example, accidental dropped objects increases in deposition frequencies above 3 meq/ damaging the rock). m2/year compared to current levels. The increase is estimated to be influenced by the possible addition Assessment of Potential Impacts and Risks of future point sources in combination with natural Woodside maintains a database of known Aboriginal topography, and wind direction; whereby spatially heritage sites which exist within the KGP development

MATTERS NATIONAL OF SIGNIFICANCE distributed point emission sources featuring lower envelope and operational areas have been designed and 7 Table 7-3: Existing andProposed Mitigation Measures: National HeritagePlace management measures andtheresults ofregular site Given thecontinuation ofthecurrent, established damage was detected (IHS,2018). the rock artisingoodcondition andnopermanent Aboriginal HeritageSite Audit concluded that generally sites withinthedevelopment envelope. The 2018 Annual to inspect, monitor, andreport onthecondition ofthe with Traditional Owners andaqualifiedarchaeologist annual Aboriginalheritagesite auditsare conducted what impacts, ifany, may beoccurring. Inaddition, features withinthedevelopment envelope to monitor Woodside conducts regular auditsoftheheritage do notneedto directly interact withthepetroglyphs. constructed sothat Project personnel andsite visitors afforded through facility life extension. Woodside and significant emissions reduction opportunities measuring andmanagingemissions from theProposal stakeholder concern. This ERDcommits to provisions for potential accelerated weathering, andhighlevel of sets to-date, acknowledging theorisedpathways for with monitoring andanalysis techniques anddata- to minimiseriskassociated withuncertainties and Preventative andmanagement controls are presented expected to occur asaresult oftheProposal. distinguishability ofpetroglyphs across theregion isnot significant accelerated weathering impacting onthe rock artasaresult ofindustrial emissions. Assuch, changes to thecondition andtheintegrity ofthe reviewed studies identified measurable orobservable as thoseplannedfor thisProposal. Nopublishedpeer Project operated withemissions rates that are thesame weathering ofpetroglyphs. Duringthisperiod,theNWS National HeritagePlace, namelythrough accelerated on theBurrupPeninsula to impact onthe values ofthe emissions from new and existing industrial development conducted to investigate thepotential for industrial Over thepast 15years, numerous studies have been 7.6 Overlaps theNational HeritagePlace of theDevelopment Envelope that to Petroglyphs withinthePortion Direct, Accidental Physical Damage National HeritagePlace or DiminishingtheValues ofthe Alteration, Modification, Obscuring, Degradation, Damage, Notable Petroglyphs Resulting in Accelerated Weathering of Industrial AirEmissions Causing Conclusion Impact Refer to mitigation measures inSection 6.5.4.3 Refer to mitigation measures inSection 6.5.4.1 Exiting Mitigation Measures National HeritagePlace are summarisedinTable 7-3 . applicable to themanagement ofimpacts to the The existing andproposed mitigation measures 7.5 The residual riskto thevalues oftheNational Heritage harm associated withindustrial emissions. that therock art is protected from potentially significant derived from soundscientific information, willensure management program usingguidelinesandstandards, avoided. The implementation oftherisk-based, adaptive ensure that damagedueto accelerated weathering is early warning indicators andresponse mechanisms to Monitoring ofrock, androck artinparticularallows for change isbeingaccelerated by industrial emissions. whether changeisoccurring to therock artandifthis program ofmonitoring andanalysis willdetermine management where required. The proposed robust weathering andallow for timelyinvestigation and pathways linkingindustrial emissions andaccelerated remove muchoftheuncertainty surrounding potential Framework andMonitoring Program (DWER, 2019c) will The implementation oftheMurujugaRock ArtStrategy, acceptable level. will ensure that riskisminimisedandremains at an lead to unacceptable levels ofimpacts to rock art).This maintain emissions contributions below that which and implementation oftheFramework (such as commits to supporttheMurujugaRock ArtStrategy highly unlikely andany riskofimpact are considered low. of theNational HeritagePlace, dueto theProposal, is development envelope that iswithintheboundaries damage to petroglyphs withintheportionof audits conducted to date, itisconcluded that permanent Mitigation Measures Existing andProposed Proposed Mitigation Measures MATTERS ORNATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE 179 7 MATTERS MATTERS OF NATIONALOF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE 180 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Place following the implementation of mitigation measures, including the Murujuga Rock Art Strategy, is assessed to be moderate in relation to industrial emissions causing accelerated weathering. The adaptive management approach proposed in the NWS Project Extension Cultural Heritage Management Plan (Appendix C) will further ensure that management and mitigation measures are revised as additional scientific knowledge is obtained and the potential impact pathway(s) better understood. As a result, no significant impact to the values of the National Heritage Place is expected. In relation to impacts from direct, accidental physical damage of Petroglyphs, after implementing the mitigation measures, no significant impact to the values of the National Heritage Place is expected and the residual risk is assessed to be low. As residual impacts to the values of the National Heritage Place are not expected to be significant, as assessed against the criteria defined in Significant Impact Guideline 1.1, no offsets have been proposed. MATTERS NATIONAL OF SIGNIFICANCE 7 HOLISTIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT 8. HOLISTIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.1 Introduction There are also connections between air quality, flora and vegetation, and social surroundings (heritage) This section assesses holistically the potential impacts of with several plant species found on the Burrup known the Proposal on the whole environment. In accordance to be utilised by Aboriginal people for a range of with ‘Instructions on how to prepare an environmental uses including food, medicine, tools and weapons. review document’ (EPA, 2018b) this section describes This vegetation may be impacted through deposition the connections and interactions between the caused by air emissions from the Proposal. The environmental factors relevant to the Proposal and potential impacts of air emissions from this Proposal discusses the predicted outcomes of the Proposal in on this vegetation are considered in the social relation to the environmental principles and the EPA’s environmental objectives. surroundings (heritage) section of this ERD (Section 6.5.4.2).

8.2 Connections within the Additional connections and interactions between air quality and social surrounding (heritage) relate Receiving Environment to the potential for industrial air emissions to cause The key environmental factors relevant to this Proposal deposition of acidic compounds on the rocks of the have several connections and interactions between Burrup Peninsula, resulting in accelerated weathering each other and other parts of the environment. Figure of rock art. While no published peer reviewed studies 8-1 shows the Proposal’s key environmental factors and identified measurable or observable changes to the how these interact. condition and integrity of the rock art as a result of There are various connections and interactions industrial emissions, Woodside recognises that some between the social surroundings and marine anecdotal evidence and stakeholder concerns have environmental quality factors. In particular, these two been raised regarding observable changes. This ERD factors are connected through the cultural relationship considers the potential for impacts to rock art from that Traditional Owners have with the marine industrial emissions in the social surrounding (heritage) environment and where marine fauna has cultural section (Section 6.5.4.1). In addition, the emission of heritage value. Discharges to the marine environment odorous substances has the potential to impact the (both planned and unplanned) therefore have the amenity of areas outside of the Proposal’s development potential to interact with the environmental values of envelope, including the Murujuga National Park, and is both factors. addressed in Section 6.5.4.5.

Air Quality Social Surroundings (Heritage) Marine Environment Quality

Offshore benthic habitats include The existing air quality is characterised by The Burrup Peninsula has a large collection of Aborignal heritage sites. mangroves, coral and rocky reefs, algae and bush fires and existing industrial emissions ephemeral seagrass beds. on the Burrup Peninsula. Large collection of rock art (petroglyphs), Rock art of the Marine fauna Moderate level of protection around the There are existing high levels of PM2.5 Burrup Peninsula standing stones, shell middens, artefact scatters, with cultural is exposed to quarries, grinding patches and ceremonial sites. value NWS Project jetties. industrial emissions Traditional owners Existing levels of O3, NO2 and BTX are below Dampier Archipelago has high marine NEPM levels at Dampier and Karratha. Vegetation with Ongoing cultural activities such as foraging, relationship with cultural heritage the marine environment quality. value is exposed ceremonies and traditional hunting. environment to industrial emissions. Vegetation with cultural heritage value is Development envelope includes existing present on the Burrup Peninsula. marine infrastructure and marine discharges from the NWS Project.

Cetaceans, dugongs, marine turtles, sea snakes and fish are present in the receiving environment. HOLISTIC IMPACT ASESSMENT

Figure 8-1: Connections with the Receiving Environment 183 8 HOLISTIC HOLISTIC IMPACT IMPACT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT 184 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

8.3 Environmental Principles Section 4A of the EP Act sets out environmental protection principles that must be considered during environmental impact assessment. Section 6-2 of this ERD summarises how each principle relates to the Proposal. Table 8-1 shows the relationship between each environmental factor and the environmental principles to demonstrate how each principle was applied when assessing the key environmental factors. Not all principles are relevant to each environmental factor, however Table 8-1 demonstrates that all principles were considered by the assessment. HOLISTIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT 8

Table 8-1: How the Proposal Addresses the Environmental Principles

Principle Air Quality Marine Environmental Quality Social Surroundings

The principle of the conservation of This ERD acknowledges that air quality is an Discharges to the marine environment biological diversity and ecological integrity: important factor critical to the conservation from the Proposal are managed to prevent of biological and ecological integrity. impact to biological diversity and ecological Conservation of biological diversity integrity. Monitoring is undertaken to and ecological integrity should be a identify if impacts have occurred. fundamental consideration Principles relating to improved valuation, The emissions to air from the Proposal are The discharges to the marine environment pricing, and incentive mechanisms: subject to polluter pays principles under from the Proposal are subject to polluter Part V of the EP Act through annual licence pays principles under Part V of the EP Act 1. Environmental factors should be fees. through annual licence fees. included in the valuation of assets and services. 2. The polluter pays principles – those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance, and abatement. 3. The users of goods and services should pay prices based on the full life-cycle costs of providing goods and services, including the use of natural resources and assets and the ultimate disposal of any waste. 4. Environmental goals, having been established, should be pursued in the most cost-effective way, by establishing HOLISTIC IMPACT ASESSMENT incentive structures, including market mechanisms, which enable those best placed to maximise benefits and/or minimise costs to develop their own solutions and responses to environmental problems. 185 8 HOLISTIC HOLISTIC IMPACT IMPACT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT 8 HOLISTIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT 186 Principle Air Quality Marine Environmental Quality Social Surroundings NORTH WEST SHELFPROJECT EXTENSION

The precautionary principle: This ERD recognises that while no Woodside has undertaken marine published peer reviewed studies identified dispersion modelling to inform potential Where there are threats of serious or measurable or observable changes to the impacts to marine environmental quality. irreversible damage, lack of full scientific condition and integrity of the rock art as a Woodside also remains committed to certainty should not be used as a reason result of industrial emissions, there remains implementing the marine monitoring for postponing measures to prevent stakeholder concerns that observable program, which identifies if changes to the environmental degradation. This ERD recognises that while no changes may have occurred. To address marine environment have occurred. published peer reviewed studies identified In application of this precautionary the uncertainty related to the impact of measurable or observable changes to the principle, decisions should be guided by: industrial air emission on the rock art, this condition and integrity of rock art as a ERD proposes measures to reduce NO , a) careful evaluation to avoid, where X result of industrial emissions, there remains includes management plans for cultural practicable, serious or irreversible damage stakeholder concerns that observable heritage and air quality that include an to the environment; and changes may have occurred. To address adaptive management process which the uncertainty related to the impact of b) an assessment of the risk-weighted enables Woodside to respond to updates in industrial air emission on the rock art, this consequences of various options. scientific understanding. Further, Woodside ERD proposes measures to reduce NOX, commits to supporting the implementation and VOCs and management plans for of the Murujuga Rock Art Strategy (DWER, cultural heritage and air quality that include 2019b) as a member of the Murujuga Rock an adaptive management process which Art Stakeholder Reference Group. enables Woodside to respond to updates in scientific understanding. Further, Woodside commits to supporting the implementation of the Murujuga Rock Art Strategy (DWER, 2019b) as a member of the Murujuga Rock Art Stakeholder Reference Group.

Principle Air Quality Marine Environmental Quality Social Surroundings

The principle of intergenerational equity The principles of intergenerational This ERD acknowledges the significance Woodside is committed to ensuring the equity and waste minimisation will be of the marine environment for the benefit principle of intergenerational equity is The present generation should ensure that implemented through the use of the of future generations. The principle implemented through the use of the the health, diversity, and productivity of the NWS Project Extension Air Quality of intergenerational equity will be NWS Project Extension Cultural Heritage environment is maintained and enhanced Management Plan (Appendix A) and the implemented through continued monitoring Management Plan (Appendix C) which for the benefit of future generations. NWS Project Extension Greenhouse Gas of the receiving marine environment. contains provisions for protecting the Management Plan (Appendix B), which Burrup Peninsula’s recreation and tourism contains provisions for measuring and values and allowing Traditional Owners managing emissions from the Proposal. access to cultural heritage sites. This will safeguard the health, diversity, and Woodside will continue to work with the productivity of the environment so that it is Traditional Owners to maintain the existing maintained and enhanced for the benefit of environment for the benefit of future future generations. generations and ensure that potential impacts

associated with NOX and VOC emissions are appropriately managed over time. The principle of waste minimisation Woodside is committed to reducing Woodside is committed to minimising emissions to air. This commitment is liquid waste discharged to the marine All reasonable and practicable measures reinforced throughout this ERD where environment. This is reinforced throughout should be taken to minimise the generation emission reduction targets have been set this ERD where commitments have been of waste and its discharge into the for NO and VOCs. made to maintain the quality of liquid environment. X wastes discharged. HOLISTIC IMPACT ASESSMENT 187 8 HOLISTIC HOLISTIC IMPACT IMPACT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT 188 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

8.4 EPA Objectives for the Key + Social Surrounding (Heritage): As stated above, Environmental Factors the residual risk from accelerated weathering of rock art from industrial emissions has been assessed as The environmental objectives relevant to this ERD are: moderate. The residual risk from all other unplanned + Air Quality: To maintain air quality and minimise risks is assessed as low. For planned impacts the REFERENCES emissions so that environmental values are residual impact level is assessed as slight. There are protected. no residual risks or impacts that are inconsistent with the EPA’s objective for this factor. + Marine Environmental Quality: To maintain the

quality of water, sediment, and biota so that While impacts to rock art from industrial emissions environmental values are protected. may be significant, Woodside has committed to + Social Surroundings: To protect social surroundings supporting the implementation of the Murujuga from significant harm. Rock Art Strategy and has included an adaptive To determine whether the Proposal meets these management approach in the relevant management objectives, the potential impacts and risks to each of plans. This will allow Woodside to respond to new the key factors from the activities associated with the scientific information and understanding, in relation Proposal were identified and assessed. Where significant the impacts of industrial emissions, and allow the impacts or risks were identified, current management NWS Project to modify management controls and controls were reviewed to determine if they were mitigate potential impacts. Woodside considers this sufficient to manage the impact or risk, such that they approach will result in the EPA’s objective for the are no longer considered significant (refer toSection environmental factor being met. for Woodside’s impact assessment approach). 6.1.2 + Marine Environmental Quality: The residual risk Where additional management controls were identified from unplanned discharges is assessed as moderate or required, these have been proposed in the relevant as the credible worst-case scenario is a loss of sections of this ERD. containment of 1TL or 2TL, however the likelihood With the application for the existing and proposed of this occurring is highly unlikely. The residual risk management controls, the predicted outcomes for the associated with migration of onshore contamination key environmental factors are: into the marine environment is assessed as low. The residual impact level for impacts related to shipping, + Air Quality: All potential impacts were assessed as ship loading and dredging is assessed as slight while having a low residual risk rating for unplanned risks and the residual impact level for impacts from planned slight residual impact level for planned impacts, except marine discharges is assessed as negligible. There accelerated weathering of rock art from industrial are no residual risks or impacts that are inconsistent emissions which has a moderate residual risk. There are with the EPA’s objective for this factor. no residual risks or impacts that are inconsistent with the EPA’s objective for this factor. The outcome for The Proposal is expected to meet the EPA’s objectives impacts to rock art is discussed further below. for the key environmental factors. HOLISTIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT 8 REFERENCES 9. REFERENCES

Advisian 2018a. Chemical and Ecological Monitoring of Mermaid Sound 2017 Compliance Report. Report prepared for Woodside Energy Limited. Advisian Pty Ltd, Perth WA. Woodside ID: 1400639968 Advisian 2018b. Coral Monitoring of Mermaid Sound 2017 Report. Report prepared for Woodside Energy Limited. Advisian Pty Ltd, Perth WA. Woodside ID: 1400654004 Advisian 2019. NWS Project Extension Social Impact Assessment. Report prepared for Woodside Energy Limited. Advisian Pty Ltd, Perth WA. Air Assessments 2010a. Browse LNG Development Air Quality Assessment. Report prepared for Woodside Energy Limited. Air Assessments Pty Ltd, Perth WA. Available from: https://www.jtsi.wa.gov.au/docs/default-source/default- document-library/browse_sar_appendix_c-25_1210.pdf?sfvrsn=d2686b1c_10 [Accessed May 2019] Air Assessments 2010b. Air Assessments, 2009 Burrup Ambient Air Quality Study. Report prepared for Woodside Energy Limited. Air Assessment Pty Ltd, Perth WA. Woodside ID: 5925973 Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ANZECC and ARMCANZ) 2018. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra ACT. Available from: https://www.waterquality. gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/anzecc-armcanz-2000-guidelines-vol1.pdf [Accessed May 2019] Australian Government 2016. The Safeguard Mechanism - Overview. Department of Environment and Energy, Australian Government, Canberra ACT. Available from: https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/emissions- reduction-fund/publications/factsheet-erf-safeguard-mechanism [Accessed July 2019] Astron 2018. Karratha Gas Plant Weed and Vegetation Management Plan April 2018. Report prepared for Woodside Energy Limited. Astron Environmental Services Pty Ltd. Woodside ID: 1400736313 Beckley, L, Muhling, B and Gaughan, D 2009. Larval fishes off Western Australia: influence of the Leewin Current. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 92, 101-109. Available from: https://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/ eprint/6611/1/larval_fishes.pdf [Accessed June 2019] Bell J and Treshow, M 2002. Air Pollution and plant life. 2nd Edition, Chichester, UK, J Wiley and Sons Bird, C and Hallam, S 2006. Archaeology and rock art in the Dampier Archipelago. Report prepared for the National Trust of Australia. Available from: https://www.nationaltrust.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/20060920-Dampier- Rock-Art-ROE35.pdf [Accessed April 2019] Blakeway, D and Radford, B 2005. Scleractinian Corals of the Dampier Port and inner Mermaid Sound: species list, community composition and distributional data. Corals of the Dampier Harbour: Their Survival and Reproduction During the Dredging Programs of 2004, 1-11, Perth WA. Available from: http://www.mscience.net.au/wp-content/ uploads/2015/06/cotdh_web_01_coral_communities.pdf [Accessed April 2019] Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) 2019. Tropical Cyclones Affecting Pilbara. Commonwealth of Australia. Available from: http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/wa/pilbara.shtml [Accessed May 2019] Chevron 2010. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Review and Management Programme for the proposed Wheatstone Project: Volume 1 (Chapters 1 to 6). Chevron Australia Pty Ltd, Perth WA. Available from: http://www.chevronaustralia.com/docs/default-source/default-document-library/wheatstone_draft_eis_ermp_ volume_i_%28chapters_1_to_6%298F72DBF90E8D.pdf?sfvrsn=0 [Accessed May 2019] City of Karratha 2013. Yaburara Heritage Trail - The Natural History and Cultural Heritage of the Karratha District. brouchure, prepared by the City of Karratha and Shire of Roebourne, Karratha WA. Available from: https://trailswa.com. au/media/files/documents/SR9960_YABURARA_HERITAGE_BROCHURE_PAGES_v8.pdf [Accessed April 2019] City of Karratha 2018. City of Karratha Annual Report 2017-2018. City of Karratha, Karratha WA. Available from: https:// karratha.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/COFK%20-%20Annual%20Report%202017-18%20-%20DIGITAL.pdf [Accessed May 2019] AIRQUALITYMODELLINGGUIDANCENOTES_MAR2006WEB.pdf [Accessed March 2019] Perth WA. Available from: https://archive.org/download/AIRQUALITYMODELLINGGUIDANCENOTESMAR2006WEB/ Department ofEnvironment (DoE)2006a.AirQuality ModellingGuidance Notes. Government ofWestern Australia, images/documents/your-environment/air/publications/pilbara-air-quality-report-2004.pdf [Accessed May 2019] Department ofEnvironment, Government ofWestern Australia, Perth WA. Available from: https://www.der.wa.gov.au/ Department ofEnvironment (DoE)2004.Pilbara AirQuality Study SummaryReport. AirQuality Management Branch, https://library.dbca.wa.gov.au/static/FullTextFiles/024313.pdf [Accessed June2019] Management, MarinesParks andReserves Authority, Government ofWestern Australia, Fremantle WA. Available from: Dampier Archipelago MarinePark andCape Preston MarineManagement Area. Department ofConservation andLand Department ofConservation andLandManagement (CALM) 2005.Indicative Management Planfor theproposed static/FullTextFiles/914571.pdf [Accessed May 2019] Reserves Authority, Government ofWestern Australia, Fremantle WA Available from: https://library.dbca.wa.gov.au/ Perspective. MarineConservation Branch, Department ofConservation andLandManagement, MarinesParks and Department ofConservation andLandManagement (CALM) 2000. DampierArchipelago/Cape Preston Regional dpaw.wa.gov.au/management/marine/marine-parks-wa/fun-facts/442-sea-snakes [Accessed April2019] Biodiversity, Conservation andAttractions, Government ofWestern Australia, Perth WA. Available from: https://www. Department ofBiodiversity, Conservation andAttractions (DBCA) 2015. Sea-snakes. webpage, Department of explorer/clusters/?current=RA&tooltip=true&popup=true [Accessed May 2019 from: https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-projections/future-climate/regional-climate-change- for Australia’s. Centre NRMRegions, Rangelands for Australian Climate andWeather Research, Canberra ACT. Available Commonwealth Scientific andIndustrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) 2019. Climate ChangeinAustralia: Projections NRM_TechnicalReport_WEB.pdf [Accessed July2019] Available from: https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/media/ccia/2.1.6/cms_page_media/168/CCIA_2015_ for Australia’s Natural Resource Management Regions: Technical Report. CSIROandBureau ofMeteorology, Australia. Commonwealth Scientific andIndustrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) 2015. Climate ChangeinAustralia -Information documents/BI_BurrupRockArt_AirPollutionStudy.pdf [Accessed May 2019] Atmospheric Research. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20090915054735/http:/www.dsd.wa.gov.au/ Final Report . Report prepared for WA Department ofIndustry andResources Rock ArtCommittee, CSIROMarineand Commonwealth Scientific andIndustrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) 2006.BurrupPeninsula AirPollution Study: climate-solutions-package.pdf [Accessed October 2019] from: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/bb29bc9f-8b96-4b10-84a046b7d36d5b8e/files/ Commonwealth ofAustralia 2019b. Climate Solutions Package. Commonwealth ofAustralia, Canberra ACT. Available inventories-2017.pdf [Accessed July2019] https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/917a98ab-85cd-45e4-ae7a-bcd1b914cfb2/files/state-territory- Greenhouse Accounts, Department ofEnvironment andEnergy, Australian Government, Canberra ACT. Available from: Commonwealth ofAustralia 2019a. State andTerritory Greenhouse Inventories Gas 2017. Australia’s National SeaSnakes-11-7-12.pdf [Accessed June2019] Canberra ACT. Available from: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/21744/gbrmpa-VA- Commonwealth ofAustralia 2012. Sea Snakes. Great Reef Barrier MarinePark Authority, Commonwealth ofAustralia, pages/5b14f51b-b7e1-432f-8049-1e653713607d/files/10572701.pdf [Accessed May 2019] Commonwealth ofAustralia, Canberra ACT. Available from: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/ (including theBurrupPeninsula). SpecialGazette Notice, Minister for Environment andWater Resources, Commonwealth ofAustralia 2007. Commonwealth ofAustralia Gazette Notice No. S127 -DampierArchipelago June 2019] Australia, Canberra ACT. Available from: https://dredging.org/documents/ceda/html_page/1-guidelines.pdf [Accessed Commonwealth ofAustralia 2002. National Ocean DisposalGuidelines for Dredged Material. Commonwealth of About-the-National-Greenhouse-and-Energy-Reporting-scheme [Accessed June2019] Regulator, Australian Government, Canberra ACT. Available from: http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/NGER/ Clean Energy Regulatory (CER) 2019. About theNational Greenhouse andEnergy Reporting Scheme. CleanEnergy au/map-listing/burrup-peninsula [Accessed April2019] City ofKarratha 2019a. BurrupPeninsula. website City ofKarratha, Karratha WA. Available from: https://karratha.wa.gov. REFERENCES 191 9 REFERENCES REFERENCES 192 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Department of the Environment (DoE) 2006b. Pilbara Coastal Water Quality Consultation Outcomes: Environmental Values and Environmental Quality Objectives. Government of Western Australia, Perth WA. Available from: http://epa. wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/Policies_and_Guidance/pilbaracoastalwaterquality_Marine%20Report%201.pdf [Accessed April 2019] Department of Environment (DoE) 2016. Engage Early - Guidance for proponents on best practice indigenous engagement for environmental assessments under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Department of Environment, Government of Australia, Canberra ACT. Available from: https://www. environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/3201a986-88e8-40f3-8c15-6e659ed04006/files/engage-early-indigenous- engagement-guidelines.pdf [Accessed May 2019] Department of Environment (DoE) 2019. Sousa chinensis - Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin. Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Environment, Government of Australia, Canberra ACT. Available from: http://www. environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=50 [Accessed June 2019] Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) 2013. Murujuga National Park Management Plan 78. Department of Environment and Conservation, Bentley WA. Available from: https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/images/documents/parks/ man agement-plans/decarchive/murujuga-national-park-management-web-final.pdf [Accessed May 2019] Department of Environment and Energy (DoEE) 2007. National Heritage Places - Dampier Archipelago (including Burrup Peninsula). Department of Environment and Energy, Australian Government, Canberra ACT. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/national/dampier-archipelago [Accessed April 2019] Department of Environment and Energy (DoEE) 2008. Australia’s National Heritage Applying the Principles. Australian Government, Canberra ACT. Available from: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/c507803c-90b6- 456e-9da0-9bdf51b56084/files/working-together-principles.pdf [Accessed May 2019] Department of Environment and Energy (DoEE) 2013. Significant Impact Guideline 1.1 - Matters of National Environmental Significance. Department of Environment and Energy, Australian Government, Canberra ACT. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/significant-impact-guidelines-11-matters-national- environmental-significance [Accessed May 2019] Department of Environment and Energy (DoEE) 2015. Australia’s 2030 Climate Change Target. Department of Environment and Energy, Australian Government, Canberra ACT. Available from: https://www.environment.gov.au/ system/files/resources/c42c11a8-4df7-4d4f-bf92-4f14735c9baa/files/factsheet-australias-2030-climate-change-target. pdf [Accessed October 2019] Department of Environment and Energy (DoEE) 2017. Recovery plan for marine turtles in Australia 2017-2027. Department of Environment and Energy, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra ACT. Available from: https://www. environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/46eedcfc-204b-43de-99c5-4d6f6e72704f/files/recovery-plan-marine- turtles-2017.pdf [Accessed June 2019] Department of Environment and Energy (DoEE) 2018. Australia’s emissions projections 2018. Department of Environment and Energy, Australian Government, Canberra ACT. Available from: https://www.environment.gov.au/ system/files/resources/128ae060-ac07-4874-857edced2ca22347/files/australias-emissions-projections-2018.pdf [Accessed October 2019] Department of Environment and Energy (DoEE) 2019a. Climate Solutions Package. Department of Environment and Energy, Australian Government, Canberra ACT. Available from: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/ bb29bc9f-8b96-4b10-84a0-46b7d36d5b8e/files/climate-solutions-package.pdf [Accessed May 2019] Department of Environment and Energy (DoEE) 2019b. Humpback Whale - Species Profile and Threats Database. Department of the Environment and Energy, Australian Government, Canberra ACT. Available from: http://www. environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=38 [Accessed June 2019] Department of Environment and Energy (DoEE) 2019c. Biologically Important Areas of Regionally Significant Marine Species. Department of the Environment and Energy, Australian Government, Canberra ACT. Available from: http:// www.environment.gov.au/fed/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid={2ed86f5a-4598-4ae9-924f-ac821c701003} [Accessed June 2019] Department of the Environment and Energy (DoEE) 2019d. Dugong dugon — Dugong - Species Profile and Threat Database. Department of the Environment and Energy, Australian Government, Canberra ACT. Available from: http:// www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=28 [Accessed June 2019] Department of the Environment and Energy (DoEE) 2019e. Aipysurus apraefrontalis — Short-nosed Seasnake. Species

REFERENCES Profile and threats Database. Department of the Environment and Energy, Australian Government, Canberra ACT. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1115 [Accessed June 2019] 9 Guideline-Social-Surroundings-131216_2.pdf [Accessed March 2019] Protection Authority, Perth WA. Available from: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/Policies_and_Guidance/ Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) 2016b. Environmental Factor Guideline:Social Surroundings. Environmental Air-Quality-131216_2.pdf [Accessed March 2019] Authority, Perth WA. Available from: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/Policies_and_Guidance/Guideline- Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) 2016a. Environmental Factor Guideline:AirQuality . Environmental Protection sites/default/files/Policies_and_Guidance/1026_GS41.pdf [Accessed May 2019] of Aboriginal Heritage No. 41. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth WA. Available from: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/ Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) 2004.Guidance for theAssessment of Environmental Factors, Assessment search%26noreset%3Dyes [Accessed July2019] tender-details&returnUrl=%2Ftender%2Fsearch%2Ftender-search.do%3Faction%3Ddo-advanced-tender- Available from: https://www.tenders.wa.gov.au/watenders/tender/display/tender-details.do?id=42499&action=display- Documentation. Department ofWater andEnvironmental Regulation, Government ofWestern Australia, Perth WA. Department ofWater andEnvironmental Regulation (DWER) 2019c. MurujugaRock Art Monitoring Program: Tender images/documents/our-work/programs/burrup/Murujuga_Rock_Art_Strategy.pdf [Accessed May 2019] and Environmental Regulation, Government ofWestern Australia, Perth WA. Available from: https://www.der.wa.gov.au/ Department ofWater andEnvironmental Regulation (DWER) 2019b. MurujugaRock Art Strategy . Department ofWater Emissions%20Policy%20for%20Major%20Projects.pdf [Accessed June2019] https://www.der.wa.gov.au/images/documents/your-environment/climate-change/Greenhouse%20Gas%20 Department ofWater andEnvironmental Regulation, Government ofWestern Australia, Perth WA. Available from: Department ofWater andEnvironmental Regulation (DWER) 2019a. Greenhouse Emissions Gas for Major Projects. 1f29175a4d65/files/north-west-report-card-seabirds.pdf [Accessed June2019] Canberra ACT. Available from: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/1670366b-988b-4201-94a1- Marine Region, Department ofSustainability, Environment, Water, Population andCommunities ,Australian Goverment, report card –seabirds andmigratory shorebirds. Report prepared for themarinebioregional planfor theNorthWest Department ofSustainability, Environment, Water, Population andCommunities (DSEWPC) 2012b. Speciesgroup Communities now Department ofEnvironment andEnergy, Commonwealth ofAustralia, Canberra ACT. Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia, Version 7.Department ofSustainability Environment Water Population and Department ofSustainability, Environment, Water, Population andCommunities (DSEWPC) 2012a. Interim 49ed-be75-38ba72f10d72/AH-Due-diligence-guidelines [Accessed May 2019] Government ofWestern Australia, Perth WA. Available from: https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/74896bd3-4be3- Department ofPlanning,LandsandHeritage(DPLH)2013. Aboriginal Heritage DueDiligence GuidelinesVersion 3.0 . [Accessed June2019] www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/8776675b-4d5b-4ce7-b81e-1959649203a6/files/guidelines09.pdf Environment Assessment Branch, DEWHA,Commonwealth ofAustralia, Canberra ACT. Available from: https:// Department ofEnvironment, Water, HeritageandArts(DEWHA) 2009. National Assessment Guidelinesfor Dredging. pdf [Accessed July2019] documents/your-environment/contaminated-sites/guidelines/Guideline-on-Assessment-and-Management-of-PFAS-. Regulation, Government ofWestern Australia, Perth WA. Available from: https://www.der.wa.gov.au/images/ Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), Contaminated Sites Guidelines.Department ofEnvironment Department ofEnvironment Regulation (DER) 2016. Interim Guidelineon theAssessment andManagement of guide-integrated-marine-and-coastal-regionalisation-australia-version-40-june-2006-imcra/ [Accessed June2019] Canberra ACT. Available from: https://parksaustralia.gov.au/marine/management/resources/scientific-publications/ of Australia –Version 4.0 June2006 (IMCRA v4.0). Department ofEnvironment andHeritage, Australian Government, Department ofEnvironment andHeritage(DEH)2006.Aguideto theIntegrated MarineandCoastal Regionalisation https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2005L01892 [Accessed June2019] Heritage Trust, Department oftheEnvironment andHeritage, Australian Government, Canberra ACT. Available from: Department ofEnvironment andHeritage(DEH)2005.Blue, FinandSei Whale Recovery Plan2005 -2010. Natural inventory-report-2017-volume-1.pdf [Accessed July2019] https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/29eca947-af49-4ed1-8369-e68d74730cf9/files/national- Greenhouse Accounts, Department ofEnvironment andEnergy, Australian Government, Canberra ACT. Available from: Government Submission to theUnited N 193 9 REFERENCES REFERENCES 194 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) 2016c. Environmental Factor Guideline: Marine Environmental Quality. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth WA. Available from: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/Policies_ and_Guidance/Guideline-Marine-Environmental-Quality-131216_2.pdf [Accessed March 2019] Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) 2016d. Technical Guidance – Protecting the Quality of Western Australia’s Marine Environment. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth WA. Available from: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/sites/ default/files/Policies_and_Guidance/TechnicalGuidance_ProtectingTheQualityOfWAMarineEnvironment-131216_0.pdf [Accessed April 2019] Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) 2016e. Environmental Impact Assessment (Part IV Division 1 and 2) Administrative Procedures 2016. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth WA. Available from: https://www.epa. wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/Policies_and_Guidance/Gg223.pdf [Accessed March 2019] Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) 2018a. Statement of Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth WA. Available from: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/Policies_ and_Guidance /Statement%20of%20Environmental%20Principles%2C%20factors%20and%20objectives_29062018.pdf [Accessed March 2019] Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) 2018b. Instructions on how to prepare an Environmental Review Document. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth WA. Available from: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/Forms_ and_Templates/Instructions%20and%20template%20-%20ERD%20260418.pdf [Accessed March 2019] European Parliament, Council of the European Union (EU) 2008. Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. Official Journal of the European Union, L 152/1-44. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32008L0050 [Accessed May 2019] Gillett, R 2008. Burrup Peninsula Air Pollution Study: Report for 2004/2005 and 2007/2008. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Report prepared for the Government of Western Australia, Available from: https://web.archive. org/web/20091002135029/http:/www.dsd.wa.gov.au/documents/2008_Burrup_Peninsula_Air_Pollution_Study(1).pdf [Accessed April 2019] Gillett, R 2014. Woodside Nitrogen Deposition Study Final Report. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Perth WA. Golder 2014. Review of Air Quality Management Plan. Report prepared for Woodside Energy Limited. Golder Associates Pty Ltd, Perth WA. Woodside ID: 9918405, 9663494 Gregory, J 2009. Stand up for the Burrup: saving the largest Aboriginal rock art precinct in Australia. Public History Review, 16, 92–116. Available from: https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/phrj/article/view/1234/1474 [Accessed April 2019] Heads of EPAs Australia and New Zealand (HEPA) 2018. PFAS National Environmental Management Plan. Department of Environment and Energy, Commonwealth of Australia. Available from: https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/your-environment/ land-and-groundwater/pfas-in-victoria/~/media/Files/Your%20environment/Land%20and%20groundwater/PFAS%20 in%20Victoria/PFAS%20NEMP/FINAL_PFAS-NEMP-20180110.pdf [Accessed May 2019] Heritage Council 2016. Francis Thomas (FT) Gregory Camp Site, Hearson’s Cove. inHerit Website, State Heritage Office, Heritage Council, Government of Western Australia. Available from: http://inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/Public/ Inventory/PrintSingleRecord/40d2c63d-af7b-4a06-915a-55c02ecada42 [Accessed April 2019] Heritage Council 2017. Dampier Archipelago including Burrup Peninsula - National Heritage Listing. inHerit Website, State Heritage Office, Heritage Council, Government of Western Australia. Available from: http://inherit.stateheritage. wa.gov.au/Public/Inventory/Details/80d9c87e-ecce-477f-8e69-dd050438a022 [Accessed April 2019] Hurley, P, Edwards, M and Luhar, A 2008. TAPM V4. Part 2: Summary of Some Verification Studies. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Paper No. 26, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Available from: https://www.cmar.csiro.au/research/tapm/docs/tapm_v4_technical_paper_part2.pdf [Accessed May 2019] Hutchins, J 2004. Fishes of the Dampier Archipelago, Western Australia. Marine biodiversity of the Dampier Archipelago Western Australia 1998-2002: Report of the results of the Western Australian Museum/Woodside Energy Partnership, Records of the Western Australian Museum, 66, 27-49. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18195/issn.0313- 122x.66.2004.343-398 [Accessed April 2019] Integrated Heritage Services (IHS) 2018. Ethnographic Surveys and Audit for Woodside Karratha Gas Plant, Murujuga (Burrup Peninsula), Western Australia. Report prepared for Woodside Energy Limited. Integrated Heritage Services Pty Ltd. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2013. Climate Change 2013: Summary for Policymakers, Technical REFERENCES 9 csiro.au/rpr/pub?list=BRO&pid=procite:d6508cfe-e5a7-43ca-b0a1-580d1a738fe8 [Accessed May 2019] International Marine BiologicalWorkshop, Western Australian Museum,Perth WA. Available from: https://publications. Archipelago, Western Australia. The MarineFlora andFauna ofDampier, Western Australia: Proceedings oftheEleventh Pearce, A,Buchan,S,Chiffings, T, D’Adamo, N and Fandry, C2003. Areview of theoceanography of theDampier Surfaces_-_Sept2008(1).doc [Accessed March 2019] https://web.archive.org/web/20091002135201/http://www.dsd.wa.gov.au/documents/Microbial_Diversity_on_Rock_ Government ofWestern Australia, SchoolofBiological Sciences andBiotechnology, Murdoch WA. Available from: O’Hara, G2008.Monitoring of Microbial Diversity onRock Surfaces of theBurrupPeninsula, Report prepared for the pollutants-in-NSW-160666.ashx [Accessed March 2019] nsw.gov.au/~/media/EPA/Corporate%20Site/resources/epa/approved-methods-for-modelling-and-assessment-of-air- Air Pollutants inNew South Wales. Environmental Protection Authority, Sydney NWS. Available from: https://www.epa. NSW Environmental Protection Authority (NSW EPA) 2016. Approved Methods for theModellingandAssessment of Details/F2016C00215 [Accessed May 2019] Federal Register ofLegislation, Australian Government, Canberra ACT. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/ National Environment Protection Council (NEPC)2016. National Environment Protection (Ambient AirQuality) Measure. WA. Available from: http://www.murujuga.org.au/history/the-burrup/visiting-the-burrup/ Murujuga AboriginalCorporation (MAC) 2019. Visiting Murujuga- The Burrup.website, MurujugaCorporation, Dampier Dampier WA. Available from: http://www.murujuga.org.au/about-mac/ [Accessed April2019] Murujuga AboriginalCorporation (MAC) 2018. About MurujugaAboriginal Corporation. website, MurujugaCorporation, Murujuga AboriginalCorporation (MAC) 2016. MurujugaCultural Management Plan.MurujugaCorporation, DampierWA. wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/4.%20Mulvaney.pdf [Accessed April2019] Western Australia. Records oftheWestern Australian MuseumSupplement, 79, 30–49. Available from: http://museum. Mulvaney, K2011. About time:toward asequencing of theDampierArchipelago petroglyphs of thePilbara region, Venture Aboriginal Sites Audit. Report prepared for Woodside Energy Limited, Perth WA. Mott, D, Czerwinski, P, Canning,S,Maland,AandDraper, N2007. Woodside Energy Limited NorthWest ShelfJoint 2017_FINAL.pdf [Accessed June2019] wamsi.org.au/files/files/Seagrass%20Biogeography_WAMSI%20DSN%20Report%205_1_2_McMahon%20et%20al%20 Western Australian MarineScience Institution (WAMSI), Perth WA. Available from: https://www.wamsi.org.au/sites/ considerations for dredging-related research . Report ofTheme 5-Project 5.1.2 prepared for theDredging Science Node, McMahon, K,Statton, JandLavery, P2017. Seagrasses of theNorthWest of Western Australia: biogeography and dampier-archipelago-western-australia-intr [Accessed June2019] 66, 27–49. Available from: http://museum.wa.gov.au/research/records-supplements/records/burrup-peninsula-and- discovery andstudy, marine habitats andtheir flora and fauna. Records oftheWestern Australian MuseumSupplement, Jones, D2004.The BurrupPeninsula andDampierArchipelago, Western Australia: anintroduction to thehistory of its Woodside Energy Limited, Jacobs Group (Australia) Ltd, Pty Perth WA. Woodside ID:G2000RF1401194452 Jacobs 2019b. NorthWest ShelfProject Extension Greenhouse BenchmarkingReport. Report Gas prepared for Energy Limited, Jacobs Group (Australia) Ltd, Pty Perth WA. Woodside ID:G2000RF1401194432 Jacobs 2019a. NorthWest ShelfProject Extension AirQuality Impact Assessment. Report prepared for Woodside Woodside Energy Limited, Jacobs Group (Australia) Ltd, Pty Perth WA. Woodside ID:1400933398 Jacobs 2018. KGP WETTesting. Microtox Testing andChemical Characterisation Assessment. Report prepared for France. Available from: https://webstore.iea.org/the-role-of-gas-in-todays-energy-transitions [Accessed June2019] International Energy Agency (IEA) 2019b. The inTodays Role of Gas Energy Transitions. International Energy Agency, in 2018. International Energy Agency, France. Available from: https://www.iea.org/geco/emissions/ [Accessed June2019] International Energy Agency (IEA) 2019a. GlobalEnergy andCO2 from: https://webstore.iea.org/world-energy-outlook-2018 [Accessed June2019] International Energy Agency (IEA) 2018. World Energy Outlook2018. International Energy Agency, France. Available Switzerland, 151. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/ [Accessed July2019] Working Groups I,IIandIIIto theFifthAssessment Report oftheIntergovernmental Panel onClimate Change, Geneva, Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change(IPCC) 2014. Climate Change2014: Synthesis Report, Contribution of uploads/2018/03/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf [Accessed July2019] Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change, Geneva, Switzerland Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/ Summary andFrequently Asked Questions. Contribution ofWorking Groups Ito theFifthAssessment Report ofthe REFERENCES Status Report -thelatest trends inenergy andemissions 195 9 REFERENCES REFERENCES 196 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Pilbara Iron 2019. Monthly Real Time Dust Monitoring. electronic dataset, Rio Tinto Limited. Available from: http://vdv. benchmarkmonitoring.com.au/vdv/vdv_gmap.php [Accessed June 2019] Rob Phillips Consulting (RPC) 2019. Karratha Gas Plant Wastewater Discharge Modelling. Report prepared for Woodside Energy Limited and Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd. Woodside ID: G2000RF1401194440 Sampey, A, Meekan, G, Carleton, H, McKinnon, D and McCormick, I 2004. Temporal patterns in distribution of tropical fish larvae on the North-west Shelf of Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research, 55, 473-487. Seinfeld, J and Pandis, S 2016. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change. 3rd Edition, J. Wiley and Sons. Senate Environment and Communications References Committee (SECRC) 2018. Protection of Aboriginal rock art of the Burrup Peninsula. Report prepared for the Parliament of Australia, Canberra ACT. Available from: https://www.aph. gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/BurrupPeninusla/Report [Accessed June 2019] Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) 2003. Aggregated Emission Inventory for the Pilbara Airshed: Emission Inventory Report 1999/2000. Report prepared for the Department of Environmental Protection, Government of Western Australia, Perth WA. Available from: http://www.npi.gov.au/system/files/resources/d6662185-9280-6ef4-ed53-de54e1d3da8c/files/ pilbara-airshed.pdf [Accessed May 2019] Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) 2005. Dampier Port Increase in Throughput – 120 Mtpa, Environment Protection Statement. Report prepared for Hamersley Iron Pty Limited. Available from: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/Referral_ Documentation/DPU%20120Mtpa%20rev06.pdf [Accessed May 2019] Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) 2006. Pluto LNG Development Cumulative Air Quality Study. Report prepared for Woodside Energy Limited, Perth WA. Available from: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/PER_documentation/1632- PER-Technical%20Report%20-%20combined.pdf [Accessed May 2019] Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) 2009. Burrup Rock Art: Revised Modelling Taking into Account Recent Monitoring Results, Final 1. Report prepared for Department of Industry and Resources, Government of Western Australia, Perth WA. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20091002135300/http:/www.dsd.wa.gov.au/documents/Burrup_Rock_ Art-_Revised_Modelling_Jan2009(1).pdf [Accessed July 2019] Smyth, D 2007. Sea Countries of the North-West: Literature review on Indigenous connection to and uses of the North West Marine Region. Report prepared for the National Oceans Office Brach, Marine Division, Department of Environment and Water Resources, Australian Government. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/ files/resources/79b7cf8e-715a-46b1-9abb-69f77d7d7aeb/files/nw-sea-countries.pdf [Accessed April 2019] Steffen, W, Burbidge, A, Hughes, L, Kitching, R, Lindenmayer, D, Musgrave, W, Stafford Smith, M and Werner, P 2009. Australia´s biodiversity and climate change: A strategic assessment of vulnerability of Australia´s biodiversity to climate change. Report prepared for the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra ACT. Available from: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/eab369d6-76f9-46c8-beb4- aaae8ece112e/files/biodiversity-vulnerability-assessment.pdf [Accessed July 2019] Stoddart, J and Anstee, S 2005. Water quality, plume modelling and tracking before and during dredging in Mermaid Sound, Dampier, Western Australia. Corals of the Dampier Harbour: Their Survival and Reproduction during the Dredging Programs of 2004. 13-33. United Kingdom Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (UK DoETR) 1994. Impacts of Nitrogen Deposition in Terrestrial Ecosystems. National Environmental Technology Centre on behalf of the UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. Available from: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/empire/ acidrain/nitdep.html [Accessed June 2019] United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) 2018. Emissions Gap Report 2018. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. Available from: http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/26895/EGR2018_ FullReport_EN.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [Accessed July 2019] United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDoHHS) 2007. Toxicological Profile for Benzene. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Public Health Service, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Georgia USA. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/benzene_ toxicological_profile_tp3_3v.pdf [Accessed July 2019] United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2016. Basic Information about NO2. USEPA, North Carolina USA. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution/basic-information-about-no2#Effects [Accessed July 2019] REFERENCES 9 euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/74732/E71922.pdf [Accessed May 2019] World HealthOrganisation (WHO) 2000. AirQuality Guidelines for Europe, Second Edition. Available from: http://www. Extension%20-%20ESD%20-%20Revision%202%20%2829%20August%202019%29.pdf [Accessed June2019] Available from: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/Environmental_scoping_document/NWS%20Project%20 Woodside 2019. NWS Project Extension Proposal Environmental Scoping Document . Woodside Energy Limited, Perth WA. Information.pdf [Accessed March 2019] North%20West%20Shelf%20Project%20Extension%20Proposal%20Section%2038%20Referral%20Supporting%20 Energy Limited, Perth WA. Available from: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/Referral_Documentation/ Woodside 2018. NorthWest ShelfProject Extension Proposal Section 38Referral SupportingInformation. Woodside Perth WA. Woodside ID:WM0000MG11045291 Woodside 2017c. Woodside Health,Safety andEnvironmental RiskAssessment Guideline.Woodside Energy Limited, WM0000PG10055394 Woodside 2017b. Woodside RiskManagement Procedure. Woodside Energy Limited, Perth WA. Woodside ID: Woodside ID:WM0000MG11023932 Woodside 2017a. Woodside Environmental Impact Assessment Guideline.Woodside Energy Limited, Perth WA. Woodside ID:WM0000PG10996761 Woodside 2016a. Woodside Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure. Woodside Energy Limited, Perth WA. A1400AH9049274). Woodside Energy Limited, Perth WA. Woodside 2015. NorthWest ShelfTrunklines State Waters Operations Environment Plan(Environment PlanNo. PLUTO%20LNG%20PER.pdf [Accessed April2019] Limited, Perth WA. Available from: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/PER_documentation/1632-PER- Woodside 2006. Pluto LNGDevelopment Environment Public Environment Report /Public Review. Woodside Energy March 2019] http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/PER_documentation/A1188_R0962_PER_Volume%201.pdf [Accessed Review (WA) Environment andPublic Report (Commonwealth). Woodside Energy Limited, Perth WA. Available from: Woodside 1998.NorthWest ShelfVenture Additional LiquefiedNaturalGas (LNG) Public EnvironmentalFacilities WaterQual.pdf [Accessed June2019] http://epa.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/Policies_and_Guidance/NWSJEMS%20Technical%20Report-NWS%20BG%20 18. Commonwealth Scientific andIndustrial Research Organisation andDepartment ofEnvironment. Available from: Shelf, Western Australia . NorthWest ShelfJoint Environmental Management Study (NWSJEMS) Technical report No. Wenziker, K,McAlpine, K,Apte, SandMasini,R2006.Background quality for coastal marinewaters of theNorthWest Museum, 2,Perth WA. Wells, F, Walker, D, andJones,D2003. The MarineFlora andFauna of Dampier, Western Australia. Western Australian Rock ArtResearch, 19:1, 3–27. Vinnicombe, P2002. Petroglyphs of theDampierArchipelago: Background to Development andDescriptive Analysis. Dampier Port Authority. URSAustralia Limited. Pty URS 2004.Preliminary Estimate of Cumulative Coral Habitat Loss withinDampierPort Limits. Report prepared for [Accessed July2019] Carolina USA. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2019b. HealthEffects of Ozone Pollution. USEPA, North Available from: https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/sulfur-dioxide-basics [Accessed July2019] United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2019a. SulfurDioxide. USEPA, Basics NorthCarolina USA. REFERENCES 197 9 REFERENCES REFERENCES RELEVANT LEGISLATION RELEVANT 10. RELEVANT LEGISLATION

LEGISLATION Legislation Legislation Summary Commonwealth Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Gives legislative effect to the Emissions Reduction Fund. It sets Act 2011 up a scheme for the issue of Australian carbon credit units in relation to eligible offsets projects. Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 Addresses Australia’s obligations under the London Protocol. The aims of the London Protocol are to protect and preserve the + Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) marine environment from all sources of pollution, and to prevent, Regulations 1983 reduce and eliminate pollution by controlling the dumping of wastes and other materials at sea. Environment Protection and Biodiversity This Act protects matters of national environmental significance Conservation Act 1999 (MNES). It streamlines the national environmental assessment and approvals process, protects Australian biodiversity and + Environment Protection and Biodiversity integrates management of important natural and culturally Conservation Regulations 2000 significant places. Under this Act, actions that may be likely to have a significant impact on matters of NES must be referred to the Commonwealth Environment Minister. The Act also establishes the National Heritage List, which includes natural, Indigenous and historic places that are of outstanding heritage value to the nation. There are penalties for anyone who takes an action that has or will have a significant impact on the heritage values of a place recognised in the National Heritage List. The EPBC Act also establishes the Commonwealth Heritage List, which includes places on Commonwealth lands and waters or under Australian Government control that have Indigenous heritage significance. Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Repealed and replaced by the EPBC Act. Act 1974 An action did not require approval under the EPBC Act if it received all necessary environmental approvals under State, Territory and Commonwealth laws before 16 July 2000. National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 The Act sets out to ensure that, by means of the establishment and operation of the National Environment Protection Council, people enjoy the benefit of equivalent protection from air, water or soil pollution and from noise, wherever they live in Australia; and decisions of the business community are not distorted, and markets are not fragmented, by variations between participating jurisdictions in relation to the adoption or implementation of major environment protection measures. 200 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Legislation Legislation Summary

National Environment Protection Measures This Act and Regulations provide for the implementation of (Implementation) Act 1998 National Environment Protection Measures (NEPMs) to protect, restore and enhance the quality of the environment in Australia + National Environment Protection Measures and ensure that the community has access to relevant and (Implementation) Regulations 1999 meaningful information about pollution. + National Environmental Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure 2016 The National Environment Protection Council has made NEPMs relating to ambient air quality, the movement of controlled waste + National Environment Protection (Air Toxics) between states and territories, the national pollutant inventory, Measure 2011 and used packaging materials. National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act The Act provides for the reporting and dissemination of 2007 information related to greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gas projects, energy production and energy consumption, and + National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting for other purposes. (Measurement Determination) 2008 + National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Safeguard Mechanism) Rule 2015 Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage This Act is the principal Act governing offshore petroleum Act 2006 exploration and production in Commonwealth waters. Specific environmental, resource management and safety obligations are + Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas set out in the Regulations listed. Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 + Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 + Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety) Regulations 2009 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas This Act provides for measures to protect ozone in the Management Act 1989 atmosphere by controlling and ultimately reducing the manufacture, import and export of ozone depleting substances + Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse (ODS) and synthetic greenhouse gases, and replacing them with Gas Management Regulations 1995 suitable alternatives. The Act will only apply to Woodside if it manufactures, imports or exports ozone depleting substances. Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution This Act gives effect to the International Convention for the from Ships) Act 1983 Prevention of Pollution from Ships and relates to the protection of the sea from pollution by oil and other harmful substances + Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution discharged from ships. Under this Act, discharge of oil or other from Ships) (Orders) Regulations 1994 harmful substances from ships into the sea is an offence. There is + Marine Orders – Marine Pollution Prevention also a requirement to keep records of the ships dealing with such (Oil orders) substances. The Act applies to all Australian ships, regardless of + Marine Orders – Marine Pollution Prevention their location. It applies to foreign ships operating between (Noxious liquid substances) 3 nautical miles (nm) off the coast out to the end of the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone (200 nm). It also applies + Marine Orders – Marine Pollution Prevention within the 3 nm of the coast where the State/Northern Territory (Packaged harmful substances) Marine Orders does not have complementary legislation. – Marine Pollution Prevention (Garbage) + Marine Orders – Marine Pollution Prevention (Sewage) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Provides a mechanism for the Commonwealth Environment Minister Protection Act 1984 to make declarations regarding the protection of an Aboriginal site when the Minister is satisfied that, under State or Territory law, there is ineffective protection of the area from a threat of injury or desecration. Declarations made under this Act may involve restricting activities and/or access to an Aboriginal site. RELEVANT LEGISLATION RELEVANT 10

Discharges) Regulations 2004 Environmental Protection (Unauthorised Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 Environmental Protection Act 1986 Regulations 2007 Dangerous GoodsSafety (MajorHazard Facility) of Non-explosives) Regulations 2007 Dangerous GoodsSafety (Storage andHandling Dangerous Goods Safety Act 2004 Contaminated Sites Act 2003 Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 Underwater Cultural Heritage Act 2018 Native Title Act 1983 Legislation Environmental Impact Assessment. the Environmental Protection Authority andprocesses for to orconnected withtheabove. The Act alsoestablishes management oftheenvironment; andfor matters incidental conservation, preservation, protection, enhancement and abatement ofpollutionandenvironmental harm; for the The principlelegislation for theprevention, control and Facilities’ andthespecific requirements onthese. 2007 definesthose facilities that are considered ‘MajorHazard The Dangerous GoodsSafety (MajorHazard Facility) Regulations Regulations 2007. Goods Safety (Storage and HandlingofNon-explosives) supported by sixindividualregulations, includingtheDangerous and transport ofdangerous goodsinWestern Australia andis This Act sets outtherequirements for thesafe storage, handling amend certain otherActs andfor related purposes. and remediation ofcontaminated sites, to consequentially The Act provides for theidentification, recording, management in Western Australia. and theecologically sustainable useofbiodiversity components biodiversity andbiodiversity components inWestern Australia The Act provides for theconservation andprotection of by thisAct. area may contain Aboriginalsites, objects orremains covered management intheproject area istheAHAct astheproject site orartefact. The central legislation to Aboriginalheritage destroy, damage, conceal, orinany way alter any Aboriginal Under Section 17oftheAHAct itisanoffence to excavate, WA Department ofPlanning,Lands,andHeritage(DPLH). objects withinWA. This Act currently administered by the preservation ofallAboriginalcultural heritageplaces and The principlelegislation for providing protection and heritage. Section 17, whichmay includeAboriginalorothertypes of specified by the Commonwealth Minister for Environment under This protection isalsoextended to underwater cultural heritage in Australian waters for 75 years, whether known orunknown. and associated artefacts ofany vessel oraircraft that hasbeen underwater cultural heritageautomatically includestheremains of apermitinSection 28.UnderSection 16,protected heritage withoutapermitunderSection 30orincontravention Prescribes penalties for damage to protected underwater cultural this connection. maintained andwhere acts ofgovernment have notextinguished ownership tradition where connections to country have been The NTAct recognises theexistence ofanIndigenousland Crown Landbutdonotexist over landheldasfreehold title. are recognised by thecommon law. These rights may exist over and customs ofAboriginalpeopleinlandandwaters, andthat rights andinterests that are possessed underthetraditional laws Adopts thecommon law definitionofnative title, definedasthe Legislation Summary RELEVANT LEGISLATION 201 10 RELEVANT RELEVANT LEGISLATION LEGISLATION 202 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Legislation Legislation Summary

Jetties Act 1926 The Act makes provision for securing and regulating the use and management of jetties in WA including the construction, maintenance, and preservation of jetties. A jetty is defined under this Act as any jetty, pier, wharf, quay, grid, slip, landing place, stage, platform, or similar structure, whether fixed or floating, erected or placed, wholly or in part, in, on or over any water, and any ramp which is or which may be used for the purpose of launching or landing a vessel. Land Administration Act 1997 This Act sets out the provisions for disposition and management of State land in Western Australia. National Environment Protection Council WA’s legislation to enable the National Environmental Protection (Western Australia) Act 1996 Council and the development of National Environmental Protection Measures. North West Gas Development (Woodside) The Act ratifies the Agreement between the State of Western Agreement Act 1979 Australia and the NWSJV partners in relation to the production of natural gas and condensate and the establishment of the KGP. It sets out the rights, obligations, terms and conditions for the development. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1982 This Act makes provision with respect to the exploration for and the exploitation of the petroleum resources, and certain other Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Pipelines) resources, of certain submerged lands adjacent to the coast of Regulations 2007 WA. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Environment) The supporting regulations include provisions for reporting of Regulations 2012 safety and environmental incidents, and to prescribe standards for construction and operation, prescribe matters to be contained in Safety Plans and Environment Plans. Petroleum Pipelines Act 1969 An Act relating to the construction, operation and maintenance of pipelines for the conveyance of petroleum and for purposes Petroleum Pipelines Regulations 1970 connected therewith. Petroleum Pipelines (Environment) Regulations 2012 Planning and Development Act 2005 The Act sets out the system of land use planning and development in the State. It sets out specific controls over planning at a metropolitan and local level as well as establishing more general controls over the subdivision of land. Pollution of Waters by Oil and Noxious The Act gives effect to the International Convention for the Substances Act 1987 Prevention of Pollution from Ships and protects the sea and other waters from pollution by oil and other noxious substances. Port Authorities Act 1999 An Act about port authorities, their functions, the areas that they are to control and manage, the way in which they are to operate, and related matters. RELEVANT LEGISLATION RELEVANT 10 TERMS 11. TERMS

Terms Definitions

~ approximately < Less/fewer than > More/greater than µg/m3 Micrograms per cubic metre. 1 μg/m3 = one millionth of a gram per cubic metre of air, referenced to a temperature of 0° C and an absolute pressure of 101.325 kPa µm Micrometre. 1 μm = 10-6 metre = 0.000001 metre or one millionth of a metre 1TL, 2TL Subsea pipelines (trunklines) 1 and 2, within State waters and crossing onshore to KGP. ABN Australian Business Number AGRU Acid Gas Removal Unit Airshed A volume of air confined to a distinct geographic region, and within which emissions are contained AMSA Australian Maritime Safety Authority AQ Air Quality (station) BBPH Benthic Primary Producer Habitat BC Act Western Australian Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 BIA Biologically Important Area BoM Bureau of Meteorology BSIA Burrup Strategic Industrial Area BTX Benzene, toluene, and xylene compounds CB Air modelling scenario representing the current baseline ChEMMS Chemical and Ecological Monitoring of Mermaid Sound (program) CO Carbon monoxide CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent Commonwealth waters Waters stretching from three to 200 nautical miles from the Australian coast Cryosphere The frozen water part of Earth, including ice found water and frozen parts of the ocean, such as waters surrounding Antarctica and the Arctic CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Cth Commonwealth of Australia DBCA Western Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions Development envelope The boundaries that define the maximum area within which the State onshore and offshore components of the Proposal are located DMA Decision-making Authority DMIRS Western Australian Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety DoE Former Western Australian Department of Environment DoEE Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy DPLH Western Australian Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage DWER Western Australian Department of Water and Environmental Regulation TERMS LEP km/h km KIO KGP kg KBSB ITOPF IPCC IMR IEA HEPA ha H Granophyre GLC GHG Gabbro FBSIA-KIO FBSIA EQP Evapotranspiration Eutrophic ESD ERF ERD EPIP Act EPBC Act EPA EP Act Document Environmental Scoping Document Environmental Review EMP DWP 2 S Terms Level ofEcological Protection Kilometres per hour Kilometre reduction opportunitiesat theProposal Air modellingscenario representing thecurrent baselineandproposed emission Karratha Plant Gas Kilogram King Bay SupplyBase International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Ltd Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change Inspection, maintenance, andrepair The International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook2018 Scenarios High Ecological Protection Area Hectare Hydrogen sulphide intergrowths Subvolcanic rock that contains quartzandalkali feldspar incharacteristic angular Ground Level Concentration Greenhouse Gas Coarse-grained andusuallydark-coloured intrusive igneousrock place at theProposal Air modellingscenario representing theFBSIA scenario withemissions reductions in developments intheairmodellingstudy area Air modellingscenario representing thecurrent baselineandfuture proposed Environment Quality Plan evaporation from thesoilandothersurfaces andby transpiration from plants The process by whichwater istransferred from thelandto theatmosphere by encouraging thegrowth ofalgae, etc. Having highlevels ofnutrients, asoxidised nitrogen andinorganic phosphorus, See Emissions Reduction Fund See Project started in1984,someofitmay besubject to conditions oftheEPIPAct. This Act was repealed in2000andreplaced by theEPBCAct. However, astheNWS Commonwealth Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (EPIPAct). Commonwealth Environment Protection andBiodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority Western Australian Environmental Protection Act 1986 or otheradditionalassessment information an environmental review and/or thepublicreview periodfor theenvironmental review The document that theEPA usesto definethe form, content, timingandprocedure of Scoping Document andwhichinforms theEPA’s assessment oftheProposal The document prepared to meet therequirements set outintheEnvironmental Environmental Management Plan water demineralisation plant Environmental Scoping Document Environmental Review Document Definitions 205 11 TERMS TERMS 206 NORTH WEST SHELF PROJECT EXTENSION

Terms Definitions

LEPA Low Ecological Protection Area LNG Liquefied Natural Gas LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas m Metre m/s Metres per second MAC Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation meq/m2/year Milliequivalents per square metre per year mg Milligram mm Millimetre MEPA Medium Ecological Protection Area MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance MS Ministerial Statement mt Million tonnes mtpa Million tonnes per annum ND No data NEPM National Environment Protection Measure NO Nitrogen oxide

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide North West Shelf Joint A joint venture comprising six companies; Woodside Energy Ltd. (Operator), BHP Venture Billiton Petroleum (North West Shelf) Pty Ltd, BP Developments Australia Ltd, Chevron Australia Pty Ltd, Japan Australia LNG (MIMI) Pty Ltd, and Shell Australia Pty Ltd. The North West Shelf Joint Venture owns the infrastructure used as part of the North West Shelf Project and, together with CNOOC NWS Private Limited, the North West Shelf Joint Venture owns the resources processed as part of the NWS Project. North West Shelf Project The North West Shelf Project is one of the world’s largest liquefied natural gas producers, supplying oil and gas to Australian and international markets from offshore gas, oil, and condensate fields in the Carnarvon Basin off the north-west coast of Australia. The NWS Project is owned by the NWSJV participants and for more than 30 years, it has been Western Australia’s largest producer of domestic gas. The NWS Project currently processes resources owned by the NWSJV and CNOOC NWS Private Limited and is proposed to also process third-party gas and fluids as part of the NWS Project Extension Proposal.

NOx Oxides of nitrogen NRM Natural Resource Management NSW New South Wales NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit NWMR North-west Marine Region NWS North West Shelf NWS Project See North West Shelf Project NWS Project Extension The Proposal as described in the NWS Project Extension Section 38 Referral Proposal (the Proposal) Supporting Information (November 2018) to continue to use the existing NWS Project facilities for the long-term processing of third-party gas and fluids and NWSJV field resources through the NWS Project facilities. Ongoing operation of the NWS Project to enable long-term processing at the NWS Project facilities, currently expected to be until around 2070. TERMS 11 TERMS PM PM PL Photic zone PFAS PAH Onshore facilities Oligotrophic Offshore facilities OCW WWTP Woodside WET WA VOC TRH TPL TPH Third-party gasandfluids Teleost TBT TAPM-GRS t STP State waters State Agreement SO SO RH Proposal ppb PM O NWSJV 3 x 2 2.5 10 Terms Particulate Matter Pipeline Licence photosynthesis to occur; thedepthzone canbegreatly affected by turbidity The depthofthewater inalake orocean that isexposed to sufficient sunlight for Per- andpolyfluoroalkyl substance Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon NWS Project infrastructure located onshore andwithinthedevelopment envelope Deficient inplant nutrients within thedevelopment envelope NWS Project infrastructure located offshore up to the State waters boundaryand Oil-contaminated water Ozone Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator oftheNWS Project onbehalfofthe NWSJV. Woodside Energy Ltd; Proponent oftheNWS Project Extension Proposal andthe Whole Effluent Toxicity Western Australia Volatile Organic Compound Total Recoverable Hydrocarbon Territorial SeaPipelineLicence Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon being obtained. the relevant third partiesaswell asallrelevant joint venture andregulatory approvals to thenecessary commercial arrangements beinginplace between theNWSJV and CNOOC NWS Private Limited. The processing ofthird-party gasandfluids issubject andassociatedGas fluidsfrom sources otherthanthoseproduced by theNWSJV and includes most fishspecies Fish that have askeleton composed at least inpartofbonerather thanofcartilage; Tributyltin The AirPollution ModelwithGenericReaction Set Tonne sewage treatment plant Australia oritsislands The marineenvironment withinthree nauticalmilesofthemainlandWestern Western Australian NorthWest Development Gas (Woodside) Agreement Act 1979 Sulphur oxides Sulphur dioxide Relative Humidity See NWS Project Extension Proposal Parts perbillion Particulate matter withadiameter of2.5micrometres orless Particulate matter withadiameter of10micrometres orless See NorthWest ShelfJoint Venture Definitions 207 11 TERMS TERMS