important variables; as additional data is collected, the uncertainty in the value is ‘true’ reduced, and it may be possible to define a smaller range for a given parameter. The uncertainty in the results of the risk assessment may therefore be reduced. Clear documentation of uncertainty is critical to communication of the reliability and confidence in the risk assessment. For further details on uncertainty management see Section 4.7.3. Risk assessment and reporting benefits those undertaking the assessment, external stakeholders and regulatory agencies. This practice provides publicly accessible evidence of a systematic approach to risk management by: demonstrating that the assessment was conducted properly providing a record of about which an organisation has knowledge reducing duplication of assessment effort improving accountability facilitating monitoring and review providing a platform for the sharing and communication of information. The above points contribute to accountability and transparency of coal seam gas operations and the management of associated risks. Publishing risk assessment reports and their associated risk sheets (Appendix E) can also help guide future research and monitoring efforts as knowledge gaps are identified. Implementing mitigating measures and managing risk Risk assessments are designed to estimate the extent of risk and inform the management of risk. Where risks are estimated to be above acceptable levels, mitigation measures must be considered. Mitigation measures are usually based on changing the potential for exposure, the intensity of the exposure, or its frequency and duration. In most situations, it is not possible to change the effects of a chemical at a particular concentration (occasionally changing the pH or other environmental conditions may change toxicity). The process of risk assessment allows an understanding of what exposure pathways are most relevant in order to better target mitigation measures (and to avoid any unnecessary mitigation). Where there are no acceptable mitigation measures to achieve an acceptable level of chemical risk, the need to use the relevant chemical, or suite of chemicals, must be reassessed. The framework for implementing risk management should include (from AS/NZS, 2009): defining the appropriate timing and strategy for implementation applying the framework for environmental and / or human health risk assessment to the chemicals being assessed complying with legal and regulatory requirements ensuring decision-making, including the development and setting of objectives, is aligned with outcomes from the risk assessment holding information and training sessions
important variables; as additional data is collected, the uncertainty in the ‘true’ value is reduced, and it may be possible to define a smaller range for a given parameter. The uncertainty in the results of the risk assessment may therefore be reduced. Clear documentation of uncertainty is critical to communication of the reliability and confidence in the risk assessment. For further details on uncertainty management see Section 4.7.3. Risk assessment and reporting benefits those undertaking the assessment, external stakeholders and regulatory agencies. This practice provides publicly accessible evidence of a systematic approach to risk management by: demonstrating that the assessment was conducted properly providing a record of about which an organisation has knowledge reducing duplication of assessment effort improving accountability facilitating monitoring and review providing a platform for the sharing and communication of information. The above points contribute to accountability and transparency of coal seam gas operations and the management of associated risks. Publishing risk assessment reports and their associated risk sheets (Appendix E) can also help guide future research and monitoring efforts as knowledge gaps are identified. Implementing mitigating measures and managing risk Risk assessments are designed to estimate the extent of risk and inform the management of risk. Where risks are estimated to be above acceptable levels, mitigation measures must be considered. Mitigation measures are usually based on changing the potential for exposure, the intensity of the exposure, or its frequency and duration. In most situations, it is not possible to change the effects of a chemical at a particular concentration (occasionally changing the pH or other environmental conditions may change toxicity). The process of risk assessment allows an understanding of what exposure pathways are most relevant in order to better target mitigation measures (and to avoid any unnecessary mitigation). Where there are no acceptable mitigation measures to achieve an acceptable level of chemical risk, the need to use the relevant chemical, or suite of chemicals, must be reassessed. The framework for implementing risk management should include (from AS/NZS, 2009): defining the appropriate timing and strategy for implementation applying the framework for environmental and / or human health risk assessment to the chemicals being assessed complying with legal and regulatory requirements ensuring decision-making, including the development and setting of objectives, is aligned with outcomes from the risk assessment holding information and training sessions
risk-assessment-guidance-manual-chemicals-associated-csg-extraction-australia-exposure-draft.docx