DERM Man-Assess-Haz-Cat-Hyd-Perf-Dams-2012

Manual for Assessing Hazard

Categories and Hydraulic

Performance of Dams
February 2012
Contents
1 SCOPE 1
Related documents 1
Background 1
Purpose 2
2 ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS 3

PART 1—HAZARD CATEGORY ASSESSMENT 3

Hazard category—based on assessment of failure event scenarios 3
Minimum hazard category based on contaminant concentrations and dam volume 8
Part 2—Hydraulic performance criteria for regulated structures 9
Spillways and levees 9
Dam containment 10
Managing DSA in integrated water management systems 11
Estimating the DSA 11
Calculation of MRL 12
PART 3—ADDITIONAL CRITERIA 12

Additional hydraulic performance criteria for regulated dams receiving CSG water or brine 12
DEFINITIONS 13
REFERENCES 13
Estimating the DSA using the method of deciles for volumetric containment 14
Estimating the DSA using the method of operational simulation for performance based containment 16
APPENDIX B—NOTES ON HAZARD ASSESSMENT BASED ON FAILURE EVENT SCENARIOS 20

Hazard assessment for levees 20
Flooding considerations for hazard assessment 21
Failure to contain hazard 21
Dam break flood hazard 21
Fundamental hazard evaluation data 22
Inspection of site or desktop analysis 22
Collation and assessment of data 23
EM635 • Version 1 ii
Manual for Assessing Hazard Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Dams
1 Scope
This manual sets out the requirements of the administering authority, for hazard category assessment and
certification of the design of ‘regulated structures’, constructed as part of environmentally relevant
activities (ERAs) under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act).
The term regulated structures includes land-based containment structures, levees, bunds and voids, but
not a tank or container designed and constructed to an Australian Standard that deals with strength and
structural integrity. Structures may be assessed using this manual as being in one of three hazard
categories: low, significant or high. Where categorised as a significant or high hazard, the structure is
referred to as a regulated structure. Notes on hazard assessment based on failure event scenarios are in
Appendix A of this document.
This manual does not provide a detailed methodology for the design of dams, spillways and levee
structures. The detailed design of a regulated structure is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified and
experienced person 1 with relevant professional experience, and requires appropriate documentation and
certification 2 .
The Manual for Assessing Hazard Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Dams does not limit, amend
or change in any way, any other requirements to be complied with under authority conditions and/or
regulations for the design and operation of a dam 3 . Further, it does not negate any lawful requirements of
the Environmental Protection Act 1994, other Commonwealth, state or local government laws or
requirements under relevant standards or agreements.
Related documents
This manual relates to, and should be read in conjunction with, Guideline: Structures which are dams or
levees constructed as part of environmentally relevant activities (EM634) published by the administering
authority, as both relate to environmental authority (EA) and development approval conditions.
Background
Good practice engineering for dams, spillways, and levee structures requires that they be assessed for the
hazards associated with ‘dam break’ and ‘failure to contain’ scenarios, and that the impacts of such
potential failures are identified and considered in their design and operation.
The early identification of the hazard potential of these structures is important in determining the standard
of reliability required for design, construction and operation of the structure. The default objective for any
structure containing substances (liquid and/or solid material) that could result in environmental harm is
that the substances be contained so as to prevent or otherwise minimise harm to the environment. In this
context the water management strategy for a site should minimise unnecessary accumulation of
contaminated waters by sufficient segregation of clean and contaminated waters. Hence regulated
structures also include flood protection levees to reduce risk of ingress of clean floodwaters into
operational areas where they may become contaminated with possible adverse impact on water
management operations and containment performance.
Structures that could have significant or high impacts need to be carefully designed and operated.
1
The term ‘suitably qualified and experienced person’ is defined in the definitions.
2
A copy of the certification required can be found at appendix B
3
An example of other legislative requirements that may be relevant are those relating to referrable dams under the Water Supply (Safety and
Reliability) Act 2008.
EM635 • Version 1 1
Purpose
The purpose of this manual is to:

1. guide the assessment of the hazard category of all structures constructed as part of activities that
require an EA or development approval
2. guide the determination of the structures that require formal documentation; and
3. provide approved methods for specifying the design performance and monitoring requirements for
those structures.
This document is structured in three parts:
 Part 1—outlines the requirements for hazard assessment
 Part 2—outlines the hydraulic performance requirements for regulated structures
 Part 3—outlines additional criteria applicable to regulated dams receiving CSG water or brine.
2 Assessment requirements
Part 1—Hazard category assessment
This part provides guidance for undertaking a hazard category assessment for a structure which is a dam
or levee.
All structures which are dams or levees associated with the operation of an environmentally relevant
activity, must have their hazard category assessed based on the potential environmental harm that would
result from the failure event scenarios (Section 1.1) described in this manual.
The hazard category will determine whether the structure is a regulated structure. For some structures
there are minimum hazard categories (Section 1.2).
The hazard category of a structure is the highest hazard category determined under any of the assessment
criteria set out in this part. A structure is a regulated structure where the hazard category for the structure
is ‘significant’ or ‘high’.
1.1 Hazard category—based on assessment of failure event scenarios

The hazard category of a structure must be assessed by a suitably qualified and experienced person and
include:
1. Documentation of the assessment, in accordance with Appendix A, of each of the following failure
event scenarios:
(a) ‘Failure to contain’ – spills or releases from the structure due that may be due to any cause other
than a dam break; and
(b) ‘Dam break’ – collapse of the structure due to any possible cause.
In assessing each scenario under item 1, the types of impacts that may occur under the scenario must
be identified and considered, and must include any local and regional flooding that may lead to:
(a) overtopping of the structure 4 ; or
(b) the need for erosion protection of the structure; or
(c) other structure failure modes 5 .
An assessment must also be made and documented under each scenario, of the potential for the
occurrence of things such as:
(a) the failure of a structure placing lives at risk due to dwellings or workplaces being in the failure
impact zone
(b) downstream consequences, including but not limited to failure of other structures that may be
affected by any flooding
(c) the consequences of such cascade failure for other structures
(d) the impact to both on-site and off-site environmental values
(e) long term potential adverse effects due to release of contaminants to groundwater systems and
soil profiles
(f) potential consequential effects on surface water systems; and

4
This includes consideration of overtopping from inside and outside the containment area
5
Examples of other dam failure modes may include seepage or piping
(g) storage releases that may chemically interfere with waters used as sources of drinking water.
2. Assessment and documentation of the potential environmental harm, based on application of tables 1
and 2, that may result from each scenario assessed under this section.
3. If the dam is—
(a) more than eight metres in height with a storage capacity of more than 500 Megalitres (ML); or
(b) more than eight metres in height with a storage capacity of more than 250 ML and a catchment
area that is, more than three times its maximum surface area at full supply level;
—then a dam break assessment must be included in the hazard category assessment, unless valid
justification is documented in the hazard category assessment for not doing so.
The overall hazard category for a structure is the highest hazard category determined by the application of
tables 1 and 2, under any of the failure event scenarios assessed under this section.
The hazard category of a structure based on failure event scenarios may be changed by relocation of the
structure relative to the environmental values affected. The hazard category of a structure cannot be
changed by adding a design element.
Table 1. Failure to contain scenarios
Environmental Hazard category

harm High Significant Low
Categories of harm
Loss of life or harm to Location such that Location such that Location such that there is no
humans contamination of waters used contamination of waters used contamination of waters used
for human consumption would for human consumption would for human consumption
occur, and consumption of occur, and consumption of expected, or a lesser impact
contaminated waters by humans contaminated waters by humans on human health is possible
with consequent loss of life or with consequent lesser impact but not expected.
serious impact on human health on human health is expected.
is expected or possible
General environmental Location such that harm to Location such that Location such that there will
harm significant environmental environmental values are of be no harm to environmental
values is expected. Such values lesser significance or harm is values of significance, or
might include the presence of possible but not expected. only trivial harm is possible.
protected areas, protected or
endangered flora or fauna, the
presence of riverine
environments, or productive
land used for grazing or
agricultural cropping1.
Loss of stock2 Location such that consumption Location such that consumption Location such that there is no
of contaminated waters by of contaminated waters by contamination of waters used
stock with consequent loss of stock with consequent loss of for stock watering or
life or harm is expected. life or harm is possible but not accessible to stock expected.
expected.
Location such that harm (other Location such that harm (other Location such that either:
General economic loss
than a different category of than a different category of (a) no harm or only trivial
or property damage
harm specified above) 3 in the harm as specified above) in the harm in the failure path
failure path would be expected failure path would be either: would be expected or
for any of the following types (a) possible, but not expected, possible in relation to
of third party assets4: for any of the items listed any of the items listed
(a) urban development assets in the ‘high’ hazard in the ‘high’ hazard
of communities such as category for general category for general
houses and offices economic loss or property economic loss or
(b) mine and gas production damage; or property damage; or
(c) industrial or commercial (b) expected, in relation to a
(b) harm would be possible
assets minor utility.6 but not expected in
(d) significant agricultural
relation to a minor
assets
utility.
(e) water resources; or
(f) an important utility.5
Notes:
1
Other than productive grazing or agricultural land owned by the holder and agisted or leased for the grazing or agricultural
purpose.
2
Stock for the purposes of this table does not include stock agisted on the holder’s land.
3
For example, if the only harm to a water resource, such as a farm dam located on the holder’s land under an agistment or lease
agreement, is addressed by the ‘loss of stock’ category, this type of harm is intended to be assessed under the ‘loss of stock’
category, even though it might otherwise have been technically interpreted as a type of ‘economic loss or property damage’.
4
This does not include the holder’s own mine and gas production, on-site industrial or commercial assets, the holder’s workers’
accommodation, agricultural facilities on the holder’s land such as a farm shed or farm dam or infrastructure solely for servicing
the holder.
5
Important utility:
(a) means a utility (whether publicly or privately owned) which serves a broader purpose apart from the holder’s own purposes;
and
(b) subject to paragraph (a), the term includes, but is not limited to:
(i) transport infrastructure as defined in the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 other than minor utilities
(ii) emergency services
(iii) defence facilities
(iv) power generation plant premises
(v) water or sewerage treatment plants
(vi) broadcasting or telecommunications facilities other than low impact telecommunications facilities; or
(vii) regulated wastes facilities; and
(c) the term does not include minor utilities
6
Minor utility:
(a) means a utility (whether publicly or privately owned), which serves a broader purpose apart from the holder’s own sole
purposes, which is either of lesser significance to the broader community than the types of facilities listed in paragraph (b)
of the definition of important utility or is inherently unlikely to be damaged or interfered with in the event of a dam break or
failure to contain; and
(b) subject to paragraph (a), the term includes, but is not limited to:
(i) roads on private land such as mine roads or farm roads, but not private roads which are necessary to access important
utilities
(ii) local roads
(iii) a railway loop or spur or another part of a railway which solely serves the holder’s own purposes or which additionally
only serves another person who has agreed that the railway is to be treated as a ‘minor utility’
(iv) a general waste facility
(v) a low-impact telecommunications facility
(vi) electricity sub-stations, transmission grid works and supply network works under the Electricity Act 1994
(viii) storage depots or other minor ancillary facilities located on the holder’s land for important or minor utilities.
Table 2. Dam break scenarios
Environmental Hazard category

harm High Significant Low
Categories of harm
Loss of life or harm to Location such that people are Location such that people are Location such that people are
humans routinely present in the routinely present in the failure not routinely present in the
failure path and if present path and if present loss of life failure path. No
loss of life or harm is or harm is possible but not contamination of waters used
expected. Location such that expected. Location such that for human consumption
contamination of waters used contamination of waters used expected.
for human consumption for human consumption would
would occur, and occur, and consumption of
consumption of contaminated contaminated waters by
waters by humans with humans with consequent lesser
consequent loss of life or impact on human health is
serious impact on human expected.
health is expected or
possible.
General environmental Location such that harm to Location such that Location such that there will
harm significant environmental environmental values are of be no harm to environmental
values is expected. Such lesser significance or harm is values of significance, or
values might include the possible but not expected. only trivial harm is possible.
presence of protected areas,
protected or endangered flora
or fauna, the presence of
riverine environments, or
productive land used for
grazing or agricultural
cropping1.
Loss of stock2 Location of stock such that Location of stock such that loss Stock not in path of dam
loss of stock expected. of stock possible but not break flood. Contaminated
Consumption of expected. Consumption of water not available to stock
contaminated waters by stock contaminated waters by stock or no harm expected from
with consequent loss or harm with consequent loss or harm is consumption.
is expected. possible but not expected.
Location such that harm Location such that harm (other Location such that either:
General economic loss
(other than a different than a different category of (a) No harm or only trivial
or property damage
category of harm specified harm as specified above) in the harm in the failure path
above) 3 in the failure path failure path would be either: would be expected or
would be expected for any of (a) Possible, but not expected, possible in relation to
the following types of third for any of the items listed any of the items listed
party assets4: in the ‘High’ hazard in the ‘High’ hazard
(a) Urban development category for general category for general
assets of communities economic loss or property economic loss or
such as houses and damage; or property damage, or
offices (b) Expected, in relation to a (b) Harm would be possible
(b) Mine and gas production but not expected in
minor utility.6
(c) Industrial or commercial relation to a minor
assets utility.
(d) Significant agricultural
assets
(e) Water resources; or
(f) An important utility.5
Note: Refer to Table 1 for footnotes.
Minimum hazard category based on contaminant concentrations and dam volume

The minimum hazard category of a dam is at least ‘significant’ if a dam will contain, or could potentially
contain, contaminants at concentrations which exceed the values or range shown in Table 3 at any time
when the contained volume equals the dam volume (the level at which it will overflow across the
spillway), and the dam volume is greater than that indicated in Table 3.
In some circumstances, it is possible that a structure would be deemed a regulated structure (at least
‘significant hazard’) under the provisions of Table 3, while at the same time assessed to be low hazard
under tables 1 and 2. Notwithstanding the hazard category determined from tables 1 and 2, the intent of
this requirement is to ensure that such structures are regulated, because there is a public interest in the
administering authority being aware of the locations of all substantial quantities of hazardous materials
(water or solids) and to ensure that such facilities are appropriately designed, built and operated.
Table 3. Contaminant concentrations and minimum dam volumes 3
Contaminant 1 Liquor Total solids 2 Dam volume
Arsenic 1.0 mg/L 500 mg/kg 2.5 ML
Boron 5.0 mg/L 15 000 mg/kg 2.5 ML
Cadmium 0.01 mg/L 100 mg/kg 2.5 ML
Cobalt 1.0 mg/L 500 mg/kg 2.5 ML
Copper 1.0 mg/L 5000 mg/kg 2.5 ML
Lead 0.5 mg/L 1500 mg/kg 2.5 ML
Mercury 0.002 mg/L 75 mg/kg 2.5 ML
Nickel 1.0 mg/L 3000 mg/kg 2.5 ML
Selenium 0.02 mg/L 150 mg/kg 2.5 ML
Zinc 20 mg/L 35 000 mg/kg 2.5 ML
Cyanide (un-ionised HCN) 10 mg/L 2500 mg/kg 2.5 ML

Outside 5 to 9
pH Net acid generation pH < 4.5 2.5 ML
(range)
TPH C6 – C36 90 mg/L – 2.5 ML
TPH C6 – C14 60 mg/L – 2.5 ML
Benzene 0.1 mg/L – 2.5 ML
Phenol 3 mg/L – 2.5 ML
Benzo(a)Pyrene 0.001 mg/L – 2.5 ML
Chloride 2500 mg/L – 25 ML
Fluoride 2.0 mg/L – 25 ML
Sulphate 1000 mg/L – 25 ML
Salinity (electrical conductivity) 4000 μS/cm – 25 ML

Notes:
1
Contaminants are to be analysed in accordance with recognised test methods by a NATA certified laboratory. All concentrations are total
concentrations.
2
Total solids include suspended and colloidal solids using a strong acid digest method.
3
Concentrations and associated volumes are to be normalised to 100 per cent of the dam volume based on the assumption of no addition or loss
of contaminants.
Part 2—Hydraulic performance criteria for regulated structures

The requirements under Part 2 only apply where a structure is assessed to be a regulated structure. The
hydraulic performance objectives for regulated structures are:
1. in the case of spillways or levees—to ensure that a structure will survive or provide flood protection
to a probability standard based on the assessed hazard category; and
2. in the case of regulated structures generally—to ensure appropriate containment of contaminants up
to specified probability of exceedance criteria.
The professional designing a regulated dam should take into account consideration that provision of a
dam storage allowance (DSA) that has been calculated in accordance with the methods presented in this
manual may, in some instances, not be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Environmental
Protection Act 1994 to prevent or minimise environmental harm. Responsibility remains with this
professional to ensure that the DSA provided in the design is sufficient in this regard.
2.1 Spillways and levees

The hydraulic performance objectives are to be achieved for spillways and levees by:
1. Selecting an appropriate design annual exceedance probability (AEP) for flood capacity in
accordance with Table 4.
Note: Table 4 provides a range of design events for spillways. A designer should select and document
a conservative capacity from the nominated range based on expected dam break consequences.
2. When determining the spillway capacity, it must be assumed that the dam commences full at the
spillway crest level, and that diversion works designed to restrict the contributing catchment are not
effective. Appropriate allowances for freeboard above the peak design flood level in the dam should
be provided and documented.
3. Each levee must be designed and maintained to isolate and divert the peak flow from either:
(a) a design storm of critical duration for the contributing catchment relevant to the zone to be
protected by the levee, at an AEP specified in Table 4; or
(b) the estimated level and flow rate of a release of flowable materials resulting from a failure of
other works or infrastructure; and
(c) in at least one place in the levee crest, there must be a restricted length of low crest, limiting the
freeboard at that point, such that a flood exceeding the design protection level of the levee will be
directed to a planned area or areas within the zone to be protected.
4. The height of any regulated levee must be designed to include the minimum freeboard allowance
specified in Table 4.
Table 4. Hydrological design criteria
Design criteria Adequate containment storage3 Flood passage Flood ingress

prevention
Regulated structure Wet season Storm event Spillway Flood level for
classifications containment containment capacity2 embankment crest
(DSA) (MRL) levels
Levees1 N/a N/a N/a 1: 1000 AEP

+ 0.5 m freeboard
Containment dams 1:100 AEP 1:100 AEP 1:10 000 1:1000 AEP
high hazard 72 hr duration To + 0.5 m freeboard
1:100 000
Containment dams 1:20 AEP 1:10 AEP 1:100 AEP 1: 100 AEP
significant hazard 72 hr duration To + 0.5 m freeboard
1:1000 AEP
Notes:
1
Refer definition of a levee. Table 1 and Table 2 hazard assessments are not necessarily used to assign a hazard category to a levee; refer to the
Appendix for further guidance. All regulated levees are required to provide a minimum of 1:1000 AEP flood protection.
2
Spillway capacity selected by the certifier with rationale. Hazard category for spillway capacity should be based on ‘dam failure’ hazard rating
(Table 2).
3
Containment storage/performance criteria are based on the ‘failure to contain’ hazard rating (Table 1).
2.2 Dam containment

In determining the hydraulic performance requirements under this section, the hazard category to be
applied is the highest hazard category determined from the:
(a) failure to contain scenario under Table 1; and
(b) the minimum hazard category determined under section 1.2.2.
The hydraulic performance objectives are to be achieved for dams by:
1. Selecting an appropriate AEP for adequate containment storage from Table 4.
2. Selecting an appropriate AEP for setting a mandatory reporting level (MRL) from Table 4.
3. Selecting an appropriate methodology to determine minimum capacity requirements for containment

storage, either:
(a) method of deciles for volumetric containment; or
(b) method of operational simulation for performance-based containment.
Note: It is the intent of this document that the Method of Deciles for Volumetric Containment
produce conservative estimates of DSA that are consistent with the simplified nature of the method.
Although the Method of Operational Simulation for Performance Based Containment has the
potential for greater accuracy, the extent to which this accuracy can be relied upon for the mitigation
of risk of harm must be substantiated and certified by the designer in the design plan for the dam.
4. All regulated dams must as a minimum provide for a volume called a design storage allowance
(DSA). DSA can be distributed across multiple regulated dams as described in Section 2.2.1. Note: If
a regulated dam was assessed in the low hazard category for the ‘failure to contain scenario’ the
volume of the DSA is not required.
5. All regulated dams must have a MRL marked in a clearly visible location.
6. The setting of an operational DSA volume and MRL must:
(a) be undertaken in accordance with this part; and
(b) take into consideration reasonably foreseeable scenarios including, but not limited to climatic
variability and pump and power failures during wet weather events.
7. A regulated dam must be designed and operated such that:
(a) sufficient available storage is maintained to accommodate expected inputs and outputs during the
year; and
(b) the DSA is provided for at the 1 November for the coming wet season.
2.2.1 Managing DSA in integrated water management systems

1. For sites with interconnected regulated dams functioning as an integrated containment system, the
DSA volume calculated for the entire containment system catchment may be shared across a number
of regulated dams comprising the containment system.
2. Where this approach is taken, the design and operating rules for the system as a whole must be
documented in a system design plan that is certified by a suitably qualified and experienced person.
3. The system design plan must contain the design plans, the ‘as constructed’ plans, the operational rules
for each individual regulated dam that forms part of the system, the standards of serviceability and
accessibility of water transfer equipment or structures, and the operational rules for the system as a
whole.
Note: An acceptable system design should be based on the installation of fixed plant and equipment,
automatic operation, and demonstrable resilience in the event of failure in any component of the
system.
4. The system design plan must state what DSA volume is to be located in each regulated dam that
forms part of the system on the 1 November prior to the next wet season. For the purpose of
demonstrable resilience, if DSA is to be shared between two or more regulated dams, then each
regulated dam in the system shall be capable of accommodating at least 20 per cent of that dams’
individual DSA volume requirement for it’s catchment on the 1 November prior to the next wet
season.
5. Where DSA is to be distributed across a containment system, the design and operation must consider
and allow for the practical limitations of being able to redistribute stored volumes across the
containment system (including operability of equipment under extreme weather conditions).
6. The transfer capacity of redistribution systems must consider the possible need to transfer large
volumes of water within short timeframes (i.e. not use average wet season accumulation to determine
required transfer capacity).
7. The overall objective of the system design must remain the minimisation of the potential for harm
that could occur from a failure to contain contaminants.
8. If there is complexity or diverse constraints in the way that transfer systems can be operated to
effectively redistribute accumulating waters during the wet season, the Method of Operational
Simulation for Volumetric Containment should be used as the basis for calculating the DSA
requirements.
2.2.2 Estimating the DSA

The administering authority has prepared preferred methods of estimating the DSA that can be taken to
comply with the certification required. These preferred methods are detailed in Appendix A. However the
holder of an EA can take a different approach to calculating the DSA providing that the certification
required as part of the regulated structures approval specifically certifies that the chosen method is
deemed to be equivalent, by the suitably qualified and experience person, to the Method of Operational
Simulation for Performance Based Containment detailed in Appendix A.
2.2.3 Calculation of MRL

A MRL must be estimated based on the lowest level required in a regulated dam to contain either:
(a) the runoff from the contributing catchment of the particular dam for a 72-hour duration storm at the
AEP specified in the Table 4, using 100 per cent runoff of rainfall and making documented
conservative assumptions regarding the operability of equipment during the event; or
(b) a wave allowance at that AEP as estimated using a recognised engineering method.
MRL calculations should be on the basis that diversion bunds and drains remain operative.
The MRL volume is to be measured with respect to the dam spillway level.
Part 3—Additional criteria

Additional hydraulic performance criteria for regulated dams receiving CSG water or
brine
Any dams receiving CSG water, CSG water concentrate or brine must be designed so as to effectively
avoid contamination of land and groundwater. These additional criteria are only intended to apply to
regulated dams that are dams associated with a Chapter 5A activity.
Regulated dams receiving CSG water or CSG water concentrate must:
(a) be designed with a floor and sides of material that will contain the wetting front and any entrained
contaminants within the bounds of the containment system during its operational life including any
period of decommissioning and rehabilitation; and
(b) have a system that will detect any passage of the wetting front or entrained contaminants through
either the floor or sides of the dam; and
(c) either, be capable of repair to rectify any passage of the wetting front through either the floor or sides
of the dam, or else be decommissioned and rehabilitated.
Regulated dams receiving brine must:
(a) be designed with a floor and sides of material that will contain the wetting front and any entrained
contaminants within the bounds of the containment system during its operational life including any
period of decommissioning and rehabilitation; and
(b) have a system that will detect any passage of the wetting front or entrained contaminants through
either the floor or sides of the dam; and
(c) have a system for the collection and proper disposal of any contaminants that move beyond the
bounds of the containment system; and
(d) either, be capable of repair to rectify any passage of the wetting front through the either the floor or
sides of the dam, or else be decommissioned and rehabilitated.
Definitions
Note: Definitions of terms in this document are provided in the Guideline: Structures which are dams or
levees constructed as part of environmentally relevant activities (EM634).
References
1. Downstream Hazard Classification Guidelines, ACER Technical Memorandum No. 11, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 1988.
2. Guidelines on Dam Safety Management, Australian National Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD)
August 2003.
3. Guidelines on Assessment of the Consequences of Dam Failure. Australian National Committee on
Large Dams (ANCOLD) 2000.
4. Guidelines on Tailings Dam Design, Construction and Operation. Australian National Committee on
Large Dams (ANCOLD) October 1999
5. Queensland Dam Safety Management Guidelines. Queensland Department of Natural Resources and
Mines February 2002
6. Guideline for Failure Impact Assessment of Water Dams. Queensland Department of Natural
Resources and Mines April 2002.
7. Guidelines on Acceptable Flood Capacity for Dams. Queensland Department of Natural Resources
and Water February 2007.
8. Technical Guidelines for the Environmental Management of Exploration and Mining in Queensland.
Queensland Department of Minerals and Energy January 1995.
9. Dam Safety Course Notes. Queensland Government Dam Safety Group DPI Water Resources March
1994.
10. Guidelines on Selection of Acceptable Flood Capacity for Dams, Australian National Committee on
Large Dams (ANCOLD) March 2000.
11. Guidelines on Prevention of Water Pollution from Cyanide Use in Gold Ore Processing, Queensland
Government Department of Environment and Heritage, January 1990.
Appendix A—Preferred methods for

estimating the DSA
Estimating the DSA using the method of deciles for volumetric
containment
Background
Rainfall data is available for most localities throughout Queensland from the Bureau of Meteorology.
Studies of this data indicate that:
1. Queensland is subject to tropical/sub-tropical wet seasons typically caused by monsoonal/tropical
lows and cyclones.
2. Consistently for locations in the river basins depicted in Figure 1, an average of up to 70 per cent of
total annual rainfall occurs during the periods of months as indicated in that figure.
3. Cumulative wet season rainfall for a series of storms generally exceeds that of a rare event storm.
4. Extreme storms are most likely to occur during the wet season.
5. Extreme wet events are often followed by more storms.
Pre-wetting of land increases the proportion of rainfall that reports as runoff. When land is saturated a
large portion of rainfall becomes surface runoff. This situation can occur commonly during wet seasons
experienced in Queensland.
In consideration of the above, and for the purposes of this manual, the Method of Deciles analysis should
be applied on the basis of the conservative assumptions including 100 per cent runoff and no evaporation
during seasonal rainfall periods. It should also be assumed that all diversion drains and bunds remain
operative.
3 MONTHS
2 MONTHS
3 MONTHS
4 MONTHS
Figure 1. Critical wet periods for method of deciles analysis
Method of calculation
This method of estimating DSA is based on rainfall deciles. It uses records from a Bureau of Meteorology
daily rainfall station with similar meteorology and sufficient length of record, at a location sufficiently
close to the site to enable conservative estimation of wet season rainfall runoff volume reporting to a dam.
1. To be suitable for this analysis, the nearby rainfall station must:

(a) have at least 50 years of usable record
(b) for any particular year, the record in that year must include the wet season for that year; and
(c) be located within the same basin as the site where the dam is/is proposed to be constructed or
operated. In large river basins the rainfall station should, as a minimum, be located in the
catchment of tributary rivers.
2. If no suitable daily rainfall station records exist, then Silo Data Drill for a point within the site of the
proposed dam may be used.
3. The duration of a critical wet period should be determined from Figure 1, based on the physical
location of the site relative to river basins in Queensland.
4. The annual maxima wet season rainfall for the critical wet period is to be determined by sampling
from the station or silo rainfall data. Sampling to create the critical wet period should be based on
contiguous periods for the critical wet period.
5. The maximum rainfall for the critical wet period must then be sampled for each available wet season
(within the period from November in one year to May in the following year inclusive) in the station
record. A plotting position formula is to be applied to the resulting statistical series, and a ‘best fit’
trend made to the data.
6. Rainfall depths for relevant AEPs are interpolated or extrapolated as necessary, from the statistical
analysis.
7. The DSA volume is calculated assuming:
(a) 100 per cent of the rainfall on contributing catchments is assumed to report to the dam combined
with process inputs to the dam over the critical wet period
(b) the sum of net daily process inputs are to include process water, tailings, and other water disposed
of or stored in the regulated dam, and runoff and seepage waters captured outside the contributing
catchment of the regulated dam and pumped into the regulated dam or its catchment during the
wet season; and
(c) net daily process inputs cannot be a negative value for the purposes of estimating process inputs
in the DSA calculation
(d) no evaporation losses are allowed during the wet season.
8. The DSA volume must be calculated for either:
 individual regulated dams corresponding to the catchment of that dam and be made available
within each individual regulated dam at the start of each wet season; or
 an integrated containment system distributed across a number of regulated dams corresponding to
the catchment of all dams and be made available within the system at the start of each wet season,
9. The documentation of the DSA method of deciles must include:
 rainfall data sources; statistical analyses; and determined AEP wet season rainfall depths
 catchments including maps, quantified areas, and assumptions of catchment diversion works
 basis of process inputs into the DSA calculation including necessary procedures or operations to
ensure that process inputs do not exceed the allowance in the DSA volume estimate
 where relevant, assumptions, constraints, operations, and procedures relied upon to distribute
DSA allowance for an integrated containment system across a number of regulated dams.
Estimating the DSA using the method of operational simulation for

performance based containment
General
This method for estimating DSA can be used at the discretion of a suitably qualified and experienced
person where there is local historical monitoring data for a sufficient period to form a basis for robust
validation of modelling methods and assumptions.
It involves:
1. Establishing a time based operational simulation model of the site’s water management system.
2. Demonstrating satisfactory model performance through comparison between metered and simulated
data.
3. Provision of documentation to meet with the requirements of independent technical review and
substantiation. The completeness of documentation should be sufficient to allow independent
replication of the modelling by a suitably qualified and experienced person.
4. Quantification of simulation accuracy and selection of an appropriate design simulation margin
(DSM) for the purposes of DSA estimation.
5. Calculation of the required DSA estimate, being:
(a) the simulated maximum increase in the stored water inventory within the regulated dam (or entire
containment system comprising several regulated dams) over the wet season subsequent to 1
November each year, as determined from plotting position analysis of operational simulation
outcomes for the selected design AEP, plus
(b) an additional volume equal to the DSM times the volume calculated in 5 (a) above.
6. Items A through to, and including, H that follow define the minimum essential requirements and
considerations for any operational simulation modelling application and related methods, that are to
be used to assess system performance in mitigating environmental hazards, including the calculation
of design storage capacity of regulated dams.
A. Documentation
Comprehensive documentation of the whole modelling process and results is required sufficient to enable
independent replication of the model representation and assessed performance outcomes. This should
include:
(a) purpose of the modelling
(b) substantiation that the modelling application is suitable for the purpose
(c) available data
(d) catchment maps (with topography sufficient to demonstrate drainage patterns within the system,
upstream and downstream)
(e) system configuration plans (all key infrastructure comprising the containment system, including
works intended to exclude clean waters)
(f) model schematisation assumptions and diagrams
(g) all assumptions and relevant associated data (or reference to data sources) to support model
parameterisation
(h) validation methods, data, and results
(i) operating assumptions and relevant risk assessments to demonstrate operability
(j) relevant mine and waste facility plans and other matters that affect model processes (i.e. source and
loss rates of waters and/or contaminants)
(k) period and reliability of climate data (rainfall and evaporation)
(l) model time-step and resolution
(m) quality checks (e.g. net balance check of inputs – outputs)

(n) software utilised for the modelling
(o) method of interpreting model results to characterise system performance outcomes; and statement of
limitations for the purpose and where relevant limitations in the model use for alternative purposes
(p) relevant recommendations for monitoring and/or model improvement to maintain or improve validity
of the assessed system performance outcomes.
Other matters may also need to be documented where they are deemed by the relevant suitably qualified
and experienced person, certifier, or other stakeholders involved in the review of the methods or
outcomes, to be of significance for the model representation, or purpose of the assessment. The
requirements of the certifier are to take precedence.
B. Model continuity and net balance check
Modelling should be mass conservative for water volumes and, where relevant, mass of contaminants.
The checking of model results and documentation should demonstrate a net balance check of water (and
mass of contaminants where applied) for:
(a) every storage or significant conveyance element (e.g. upstream and downstream watercourse
reaches); and
(b) the system as a whole across the period of the model simulations.
C. Climate data used in modelling
Climate inputs to the model (rainfall and evaporation) must be representative of the historical variability
and sequences for the specific site. The period of climate data should be as long as possible to adequately
represent the extremes of climate and climate sequences that can occur at a site.
Rainfall inputs to modelling must include a sequence of at least 100 years of real data (infilled as
necessary from nearby stations) to deliver output for performance analysis and benchmarking against
other model inputs. Such a rainfall sequence can be produced from, in order of preference:
(a) the ‘patch point dataset’ for a nearby station; or
(b) ‘datadrill’ (both from silo enhanced meteorological data, published on the web); or
(c) independently created using nearby Bureau of Meteorology rainfall stations in the region—where this
can be demonstrated to be robust and consistent with conditions on the site.
Stochastically derived rainfall data may only be used for modelling of containment systems where it is
demonstrated that application of the data to continuous time-series simulation of rainfall-runoff processes
satisfactorily replicates observed runoff characteristics. For modelling of containment systems where
there is reasonable possibility of substantial carry-over water volumes from a wet season well into the
next year’s wet season, care is required to ensure that the possibility of sequential wet seasons evident in
historical climate records is properly represented by the applied climate data.
Evaporation estimates used may need to be adjusted for any local limitations due to expected water
quality (e.g. salinity, low pH), and location (e.g. water surface below surrounding land and low surface air
flow) where relevant to ensure reasonably conservative outcomes of the assessment.
The suitably qualified and experienced person must document the basis upon which it is expected that the
climate data has been used conservatively for the purpose of the assessment.
D. Hydrological processes and water management operations
Modelling methods/assumptions of hydrological processes and water management operations should be

utilised and substantiated to a sufficient degree to ensure that the water balance model adequately
represents the system performance response to climate variability.
The use of annual averages of rainfall and evaporation in modelling storage volume outcomes is not
acceptable.
The simulation time-step must be no longer than one day.
E. Conservative assumption of no seepage losses or transmission losses
An assessment of system performance risks to the environment (particularly overflows from dams and
adequacy of storage capacity), must assume that there are no seepage losses from dams and no
transmission losses from open channel systems used to transfer water. This assumption is intended to be
conservative from the perspective of containment performance but may not be conservative for other
outcomes of operational simulation modelling (such as water supply reliability).
F. Runoff processes
The processes represented to transform rainfall onto a catchment to runoff rates/volumes must replicate
the catchment responses to a full range of climatic conditions including, but not limited to, conditions
during wet seasons.
As a minimum requirement, an established and properly calibrated 'watershed' element of the water
balance model that accounts for antecedent catchment conditions must be used.
Where outcomes going into a wet season are being assessed using a water balance model, the watershed
calibration must be demonstrated to be appropriate for wet season conditions.
G. Model calibration and validation
For existing operations where historical operations and/or monitoring data is available, that data must be
used to calibrate and validate the models based on comparison of simulated and historical water inventory
(storage volumes) over time sequences of wet and dry climate periods (seasonal fluctuations).
Professional care and judgement must be applied to ensure the accuracy of storage curves for dams in
making these comparisons. Discrepancies between simulated and historical observed data may be
acceptable providing that the differences can be adequately explained and justification made that the
model representation maintains conservative assumptions relative to the specific purpose of the
assessment.
A best estimate approach shall be applied to those situations where there is insufficient historical data for
calibration, including:
 substantiating that runoff parameters are appropriate for catchment conditions including runoff
estimates for disturbed lands
 direct rainfall to all open water surfaces
 no losses associated with seepage, transmission, etc
 estimates of process water consumption rates should be conservatively low
 estimates of process water inputs should be conservatively high.
For combined water and contaminant balance models, validation needs to extend to validating the water
quality results from the model against historical water quality data. Professional care and judgement must
be exercised in the validation methods used and adequate substantiation and explanation provided on the
significance of the validation results relative to the specific purpose of the assessment.
Estimates of potential contaminant concentrations on any release must be based on a validated water
balance model together with conservative estimates of contaminant concentrations likely to be in relevant
dams at the time of any release.
H. Accounting for model inaccuracy and lack of calibration data
A properly constructed and calibrated operational simulation water balance model will provide a best
estimate time series site water balance, without undue imposed bias.
However, the application of simulation outcomes to containment system design and operation requires the
addition of appropriate margins to conservatively compensate for observed deficiencies in simulation
accuracy or lack of calibration data.
For the purposes of this manual, model accuracy may be defined with respect to the seasonal simulation
margin (SSM), which is to be derived when adequate calibration data is available. SSM is calculated as
the numerical difference between recorded and simulated storage inventory maxima for each water year
of simulation, for the particular storage under consideration. SSM is a positive value when recorded
inventory volumes are greater than simulated containment system inventory volumes and set to zero
otherwise. SSM can never be a negative value.
A design simulation margin (DSM) is to be applied to simulation outcomes to provide conservative

compensation for model inaccuracy.
DSM is the volume weighted average SSM:
DSM = Σ(SSMi x Vi) / Σ(Vi)
where: i ranges from 1 to number of annual SSM values, and Vi is the associated simulation
volume,
When there is inadequate data for model calibration a minimum DSM value of not less than 50% shall be
applied
The required conservative margin is then calculated by multiplying the volume of interest by the DSM.
Appendix B—Notes on hazard assessment

based on failure event scenarios
This appendix sets out information that is to be used to guide the assessment and documentation of hazard
categories for regulated structures.
Hazard assessment for levees
Levees may differ from most dams containing hazardous contents, where the hazard category can be
readily determined for a ‘failure to contain’ and ‘dam break’ scenario in accordance with tables 1 and 2,
and this appendix.
For flood protection levees or diversion levees, the suitably qualified and experienced person conducting
and certifying the assessment needs to consider the function of the levee in relation to the broader
operations and management of contaminants at the site, including functions to protect the integrity of
contaminant storages. The following situations should be considered for hazard assessment of levees.
Where a levee is designed to divert contaminated waters into a containment dam (which also means
designed to prevent release of contaminants), or as part of the protection of the structural integrity of a
containment dam, the levee should be considered a key design element of the relevant dam. The hazard
assessment is then to be undertaken for ‘failure to contain’ and ‘dam break scenarios’ (as outlined in
tables 1 and 2, and this appendix) from the perspective that the levee is an integral part of the dam
performance and failure of the levee could result in either failure to contain contaminants, and/or result in
dam break failure of the dam.
Where a levee is designed to prevent ingress of clean flood water into an operational area, or catchment of
a containment system, the suitably qualified and experienced person conducting and certifying the
assessment needs to determine the relevant application of the ‘failure to contain’ and/or ‘dam break’
hazard scenarios.
For flood protection levees designed to prevent ingress of clean flood water, it is possible that ‘failure to
contain’ or ‘dam break’ hazard scenarios will need to be formulated and documented as part of the
assessment.
Where failure of the structure would cause ingress of floodwater volumes with reasonable possibility of
overloading the containment system and diminishing the containment performance, or more generally
contributing to excessive accumulation of contaminated waters on the site, the structure is to be deemed
to be at least a significant hazard regulated structure.
In these situations the following should be considered:
 Where the levee is intended to protect from ingress of flood waters originating from a waterway large
enough to be declared a watercourse under the Water Act 2000, the levee is to be classified as a
regulated structure.
 Notwithstanding the above, even if the source of floodwater is not a declared watercourse (under the
Water Act 2000), but failure of the levee would substantially increase the effective catchment area
draining into a containment system and result in diminished containment performance or excessive
accumulation of contaminated waters, the levee is to be classified as a regulated structure.
 The hazard assessment must include sufficient documentation of the context of the levee in relation to
site containment systems and surrounding waterways and catchments (with maps and quantified data
on catchments within and outside the containment system) to substantiate the classification
determined to be appropriate by the suitably qualified and experienced person conducting and
certifying the assessment.
For levees determined to be regulated structures based on their function primarily to exclude flood water,
design criteria are defined in Table 4 of this manual.
Flooding considerations for hazard assessment
The degree of immunity to regional and local flooding, the upstream and downstream effects of the dam
on such flood events, and potential erosion of the dam or the general environment; must be addressed in
the hazard assessment, design, operation and decommissioning of dams.
Failure to contain hazard
‘Failure to contain’ hazards are those potential dam failures that are typically non-flood producing, but
the release of contaminants could endanger environmental values including human life. Examples of
events include:
 release of contaminated waters from a spillway during stormwater inflow events
 punctured or lifted membrane discharging contaminated process water or tailings
 releases due to pipe bursts in tailings or process water circuits associated with the dam
 piping (localised failure) of containment banks or bunds
 excessive foundation seepage
 overtopping of tailings dams by superelevation of tailings beaches or blockage of drainage
 inundation by floodwaters
 erosion of containment structures around mining waste (decommissioned tailings dams, waste heaps
etc); and
 dust and gas emissions.
Evaluation of the hazard potential on release requires information on the probable chemical nature of the
stored material, including rates, volume and concentrations at the time of a possible release. Acidity and
metal ions in solutions due to prolonged contact with ore bodies or stored material must be considered.
Contaminant concentrations at discharge must be estimated based on the contaminant concentration in the
dam, and design parameters such as available storage volume. Operational water balance models may
also be used to estimate likely instances of volumes and concentrations at discharge.
Conservative assumptions should be made to estimate outcomes of the worst case contaminant release or
collapse of the structure. Assessments must always consider the potential interaction of failure of one dam
with any other dams on site.
Assessment of progress of wetting fronts through dams with liners must be informed by proper materials
testing (note: in-situ testing is not required as part of this assessment), knowledge of the design sizing and
likely driving head during operation, the underlying hydrogeological conditions, and the potential impacts
on underlying land and groundwater.
Dam break flood hazard
The prerequisites for a dam break hazard are the existence, either permanently or temporarily, of a large
body of water or other flowable substances (slimes, tailings, etc); and environmental values, including
stock, human life or property, that are susceptible to harm should a dam break occur. The presence of
human life must also consider employees and persons associated with the operations for which the holder
of an authority is responsible (i.e. should not be limited only to third parties).
The estimated extent of the flood at a particular probability level is called the ‘failure impact zone’. The
potential for losses to humans and stock must be considered. A high hazard for humans on a flood plain
or elsewhere is associated with water depths occurring in excess of 300 millimetres (0.3 metre).
If the ‘failure impact zone’ is contaminated by the dam break flood, the environmental harm and potential
for consequent harm from contaminants including access by stock or humans to the contaminants, must
also be fully considered. Clean up in the general environment can involve substantial costs that would fall
within the meaning of ‘environmental harm’ in the Act.
Fundamental hazard evaluation data
Applications that involve the construction and operation of any containment structure, must include
relevant information on which an initial hazard assessment by the applicant has been undertaken.
Dam owners are likely to have much of the information already available. The minimum information is:
 maps showing the location of the proposed project in relation to surrounding land use and
watercourses—including the general topography and contours at a suitable scale
 details of environmentally sensitive areas, rare and endangered species and human habitation and
infrastructure developments in the near vicinity or general area and particularly downstream
 details of watercourses and groundwater aquifers that are or might be used as water resources
 engineering sketch drawings, in accordance with good professional practice and sufficient to fully
define the layout, structure, volume and proposed means of construction of all aspects of operations
associated with the proposal
 details of quantities and concentrations of all raw materials, products, by-products and waste products
produced in operations associated with the proposal; and
 details of all studies conducted to assess requirements for storage and strength of all structures
associated with the project—such as hydrological and geotechnical data.
Inspection of site or desktop analysis
Whether or not a site inspection is required for a particular dam as part of a hazard assessment is a matter
for consideration by the suitably qualified and experienced person concerned. However, that person must
be satisfied that all relevant aspects have been otherwise researched and documented to enable a reliable
hazard assessment in each case.
Any assessment must include areas in the potential failure path or downstream of the dam that could be
impacted by collapse or failure of the dam. Relevant matters include (but are not limited to):
 environmentally significant sites and species located in potential impact areas
 infrastructure including human habitation, worker accommodation and site offices, road crossings
 recreation facilities (parks and known local camping spots, etc) along watercourses
 raw (fresh water) storages on the same watercourse
 presence of stock, irrigation and domestic water supply pumps, and water holes
 downstream storage containments—such as tailings dams and process water dams
 mine adits (entrances to underground mining) and/or open cuts (voids)—current or proposed
 catchment modification works (diversion drains, bunds etc)—current or proposed.
In the case of tailings dams and other waste disposal facilities, a site inspection should also note points of
impact above the level of the dam. Typical impacts from such facilities include:
 dusting potential (e.g. heavy metals, arsenic)
 gas emissions (e.g. cyanide, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen sulphide, sulphur dioxide)
 spray mist (acid evaporation ponds, etc)
 offensive odours
 smoke and heat (including spontaneous combustion of stored material)
 visual amenity (in cases where such is critical to a significant environmental value)
Collation and assessment of data
A hazard category based on ‘dam break’ or ‘failure to contain’ scenarios, must be assessed based on the
most adverse environmental harm that can arise from the range of all possible scenarios. The hazard
category is based on the consequences of failure, not on the perceived probability of the failure occurring.
The following aspects of possible adverse scenarios should be carefully considered:
 A suitable range of rainfall scenarios will need to be considered in order to cover all potential harm
and the required performance contained in tables 4 and 5.
 Where potential harm is by release of a contaminant, account should be taken of the potential dilution
by clean runoff entering the dam prior to release and potential dilution in receiving waters.
 For an earth dam or bund wall, a ‘sunny day’ failure can also occur due to loss of structural integrity
of the wall, such as piping failure or weakness in zones of the wall (various causes).
Of course, the probability of piping and similar mechanisms occurring are reduced by good design and
construction practices, and regular inspections by informed operators and qualified professionals. The
purpose of a hazard assessment, is to identify dams that require more care and attention in that regard.
Appendix C—Minimum requirements of

certification/certification report
Certification should take the form of a declaration made by the person giving the certificate, and when
taken together with any attached or appended documents (including subsidiary certifications of specialist
components) referenced in the certificate, all of the following aspects are addressed and are sufficient to
allow an independent audit at any time:
Notes on scope of certification:
(a) the certification must be stated in the terms required by any condition that is referenced
(b) for hazard assessment report: provides an assessment of the hazard category of the
dam/structure/facility in accordance with the Manual for Assessing Hazard Categories and
Hydraulic Performance of Dams published by the administering authority
(c) for design and design plan:
i. the design has been prepared in accordance with good engineering practice and the
design/dam is also consistent with the standards required for structures of the assessed hazard
category as set out in the Manual for Assessing Hazard Categories and Hydraulic
Performance of Dams published by the administering authority
ii. provided the structure is constructed or modified (in consultation with the designer) in the
manner specified and the facility is operated and maintained as recommended, the
dam/structure/facility is capable of delivering the performance stated in the attached report so
as to be compliant with relevant aspects the EA or development approval
(d) for ‘as constructed’ drawings: the documentation has been prepared based upon appropriate
methodology and assumptions, inspections at specified hold points and the attached report addresses
relevant aspects
(e) for construction report: the structure has been constructed in accordance with the design drawings
and specifications (or as modified in consultation with the designer);as constructed drawings;
construction control test results and other relevant data; or
(f) for annual inspection report: identify details of inspection of the current condition of the facility;
assessment of the hydraulic capacity of the facility; assessment of the physical condition and
performance with respect to design intent; whether operation has been undertaken in accordance with
the operational plan. The certification report should also reference the operational plan on which a
regulated structure performance relies, together with information about the extent to which the
regulated structure has been operated in accordance with the operation plan over the last year. The
certification report should include any potential implications of non conformance with the operation
plan.
Note: minor variation may be made to the wording of the form where it is necessary to ensure that the
information provided is accurate and complete, for example, where it is necessary for a suitably qualified
and experienced person to rely on subsidiary certifications from someone in the same area of
specialisation.
Form of certification (hazard assessment/design plan)

Name of Registered Professional Engineer providing certification:
____________________________________________________________________________________
Address of Registered Professional Engineer providing certification:
____________________________________________________________________________________
Statement of relevant experience
I hereby state that I am a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland and meet the requirements of
the definition of ‘suitably qualified and experienced person’.
Statement of certification
All relevant material relied upon by me, including subsidiary certifications of specialist components, where
required by the environmental authority, is provided in the attached report(s) <report name/ref> dated
<date>.
I hereby certify that the <hazard assessment/design plan/construction report/as constructed

drawings/annual inspection report> entitled <report name/ref> and dated <date> for the <name of
dam/structure/facility>:
Refer to the manual for guidance on the nature of the certification statements that should be included
here.
Note: the following is a guide to the minimum information required. Further information may be necessary
as part of the certification to comply with all conditions of the environmental authority.
 <identify which regulated structure(s) is the subject of the certification>
 <identify the relevant condition which is the subject of the certification>
 <identify, where appropriate, what is not included in the certification—including information about
any limitations, restrictions or exclusions that apply to the certification>
 <identify where the certification relates to an inspection or design>
 <identify if the certification was under supervision, the extent of the supervision>.
I <full name of person making the declaration>, declare that the information provided as part of this
certification is true to the best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that it is an offence under section 480 of
the Environmental Protection Act 1994 to give the administering authority a document containing
information that I know is false, misleading or incomplete in a material particular.
Signed: ____________________________________
[Signature of Certifier/including Registered Professional Engineer reference number(s)]
Date: _______________________________________

DERM Man-Assess-Haz-Cat-Hyd-Perf-Dams-2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DERM Man-Assess-Haz-Cat-Hyd-Perf-Dams-2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DERM Man-Assess-Haz-Cat-Hyd-Perf-Dams-2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manual for Assessing Hazard

Categories and Hydraulic

PART 1—HAZARD CATEGORY ASSESSMENT 3

PART 3—ADDITIONAL CRITERIA 12

APPENDIX B—NOTES ON HAZARD ASSESSMENT BASED ON FAILURE EVENT SCENARIOS 20

The purpose of this manual is to:

1.1 Hazard category—based on assessment of failure event scenarios

(a) overtopping of the structure 4 ; or

(b) the need for erosion protection of the structure; or

(c) other structure failure modes 5 .

(c) the consequences of such cascade failure for other structures

(d) the impact to both on-site and off-site environmental values

(f) potential consequential effects on surface water systems; and

3. If the dam is—

Table 1. Failure to contain scenarios

Environmental Hazard category

Table 2. Dam break scenarios

Environmental Hazard category

Note: Refer to Table 1 for footnotes.

Minimum hazard category based on contaminant concentrations and dam volume

Table 3. Contaminant concentrations and minimum dam volumes 3

Contaminant 1 Liquor Total solids 2 Dam volume

Arsenic 1.0 mg/L 500 mg/kg 2.5 ML

Boron 5.0 mg/L 15 000 mg/kg 2.5 ML

Cadmium 0.01 mg/L 100 mg/kg 2.5 ML

Cobalt 1.0 mg/L 500 mg/kg 2.5 ML

Copper 1.0 mg/L 5000 mg/kg 2.5 ML

Lead 0.5 mg/L 1500 mg/kg 2.5 ML

Mercury 0.002 mg/L 75 mg/kg 2.5 ML

Nickel 1.0 mg/L 3000 mg/kg 2.5 ML

Selenium 0.02 mg/L 150 mg/kg 2.5 ML

Zinc 20 mg/L 35 000 mg/kg 2.5 ML

Cyanide (un-ionised HCN) 10 mg/L 2500 mg/kg 2.5 ML

TPH C6 – C14 60 mg/L – 2.5 ML

Benzene 0.1 mg/L – 2.5 ML

Phenol 3 mg/L – 2.5 ML

Benzo(a)Pyrene 0.001 mg/L – 2.5 ML

Chloride 2500 mg/L – 25 ML

Fluoride 2.0 mg/L – 25 ML

Sulphate 1000 mg/L – 25 ML

Salinity (electrical conductivity) 4000 μS/cm – 25 ML

Part 2—Hydraulic performance criteria for regulated structures

2.1 Spillways and levees

Table 4. Hydrological design criteria

Design criteria Adequate containment storage3 Flood passage Flood ingress

Levees1 N/a N/a N/a 1: 1000 AEP

2.2 Dam containment

1. Selecting an appropriate AEP for adequate containment storage from Table 4.

3. Selecting an appropriate methodology to determine minimum capacity requirements for containment

(a) method of deciles for volumetric containment; or

(b) method of operational simulation for performance-based containment.

6. The setting of an operational DSA volume and MRL must:

(a) be undertaken in accordance with this part; and

7. A regulated dam must be designed and operated such that:

2.2.1 Managing DSA in integrated water management systems

2.2.2 Estimating the DSA

2.2.3 Calculation of MRL

Part 3—Additional criteria

Regulated dams receiving CSG water or CSG water concentrate must: