ghd hydro assessment

7/31/2019 GHD Hydro Assessment

1/40

Bunbury Harvey Regional Council

Report for Stanley Road Landfill

Hydrogeological Assessment

Feburary 2008


2/40

61/23254/82838 Stanley Road Landfill


ContentsExecutive Summary i

1. Introduction 1

2. Scope of Work 2

2.1 Desktop Review 2

2.2 Site Visit 3

2.3 Hydrogeological Conceptual Site Model 3

3. Site Characterisation 4

3.1 Site Location 4

3.2 Site Description and Layout 4

3.3 Topography 4

3.4 Regional Geology 5

3.5 Regional Hydrogeology 5

3.6 Natural Surface Water Receptors 5

3.7 Landfill Construction 63.8 Review of Existing Historical Reports 6

3.9 Groundwater Monitoring Program 8

4. LANDFILL REVIEW RESULTS 10

4.1 Review of Historical Data Trends 10

4.2 Review Bore Construction 12

5. Site Hydrogeology and Conceptual Model 14

5.1 Aquifers 14

5.2 Groundwater Levels 14

5.3 Groundwater Migration Direction 15

5.4 Site Conceptual Model 15

6. Conclusions 16

7. Recommendations 17

8. Limitations of this Report 18

9. References 19


3/40



Table Index

Table 1 Historical Report Summaries 7

Table 2 Existing Well Locations 8

Table 3 Groundwater Monitoring Schedule and Analytical

Suites 9

Figure Index

Figure 1 Regional Location 1

Figure 2 Site Layout 1

Figure 3 Groundwater Levels and Flow Direction (July 2008) 1Figure 4 Hydrogeological Transect Lines 1

Figure 5 Cross-section through Landfill (North-Southeast) 1

Figure 6 Cross-section through Landfill (East-West) 1

Appendices

A Historical Groundwater Monitoring Results


4/40

i61/23254/82838 Stanley Road LandfillHydrogeological Assessment

Executive Summary

The Bunbury Harvey Regional Council commissioned GHD to undertake a Hydrogeological Assessment

of the Stanley Road Landfill Site in accordance with the Department of Environment and Conservation

landfill operating licence (L7067/1997/11).

The objectives of the assessment were to assess the effectiveness of the current monitoring program

and network in identify landfill impacts to the groundwater, the potential impacts to environmental

receptors and the requirement for improvements in the groundwater monitoring program.

The scope of works included the following tasks:

A review of available historical reports; A review of available geological and topographical data;

A site walkover;

An assessment of historical laboratory analysis data;

An assessment of groundwater levels; and

Construction of a hydrogeological conceptual site model identifying the source/s, pathways and

receptors of any potential landfill contamination impacts.

The Site is located approximately 160 km south of Perth, 20 km northeast of Bunbury. The Site

encompasses an area of approximately 1.3 km2

of which landfill and sand mining activities currently

occupy approximately one quarter of the area. These activities are currently confined to the southwest

corner and southern areas of the Site. The remainder of the Site is uncleared bushland.

The Site was commissioned as a Class 2 Landfill in 1991 and currently consists of three unlined cells

(leachate uncontrolled). Sand excavation is occurring in two areas adjacent to the landfill. During the Site

walkover undertaken on the 20 January 2009, verbal communication with the landfill manager, Mr Tony

Battersby, and landfill staff established that the landfill historically collected municipal type wastes as well

as tyres, asbestos cladding and building products and limited medical, quarantine and offal wastes.

Earlier this year the landfill began to separate green wastes, recyclable tyres and building materials. Mr

Battersby confirmed the life time of the landfill was expected to continue for another 6 years.

The Site currently has twelve serviceable groundwater monitoring wells located at 6 locations around the

landfill accessing shallow and deep groundwater at each location (one shallow well is dry). Three

production bores are known to be in use in the vicinity, one onsite production bore (max 200L/day) and a

production bore on each of the neighbouring sites to the west and south of the landfill, inferred as

significant water supply bores to satisfy the on-site activities (dust suppression etc).

Based on the soil bore and monitoring well installation information, the hydrogeology of the Site

comprises a shallow sand aquifer (saturated thickness of 2 -7m) underlain by clays (approx. 6-8m thick)

which is in turn underlain by deeper sand aquifer (>6 m thick). The clays are inferred to be laterally

continuous beneath the Site and likely separate and limit the hydraulic connectivity between the shallow

and deeper sand aquifers.

Although some of the geological logging information is incomplete (logged by drilling contractors),groundwater levels at the Site support the presence of a laterally continuous clay layer, with groundwater


5/40

ii61/23254/82838 Stanley Road LandfillHydrogeological Assessment

levels in the shallow aquifer approximately 4 to 5 metres higher that the groundwater levels in the deeper

aquifer.

Groundwater flow directions in the deeper aquifer indicate that groundwater discharges towards the

Wellesley/Brunswick River, located approximately 600m to the south-east of the Site. While it is likely

that the shallow aquifer also discharges into the Wellesley/Brunswick River, the groundwater flow

direction could not be determined from the available data. During GHDs Site walkover groundwater

levels were not obtainable in at least one of the shallow groundwater monitoring wells given gas

exhalation and extensive bubbling of the water column in the well (possibly methane production). The

proximity of groundwater abstraction wells, likely screened within the shallow aquifer at the adjacent site

and possible monitoring well survey errors may also limit the determination of the shallow groundwater

flow direction and usefulness of the data.

The base of the unlined landfill is reported as above the shallow aquifer groundwater levels and given theinferred hydraulic separation of the shallow and deeper aquifer (clays), potential landfill impacts should

be limited to the shallow aquifer.

The groundwater laboratory analysis data (collated quarterly) indicates that landfill impacts, identified by

lower pH levels, increased concentrations of nitrogen, potassium and chloride, are impacting

groundwater quality of the shallow aquifer immediately to the south and the southeast of the landfill. The

presence of these impacts supports that the groundwater flow direction in the shallow aquifer is in a

south-easterly direction (towards the Wellesley/Brunswick River).

The groundwater laboratory analysis data indicates that landfill impacts appear to be migrating from the

shallow aquifer into the deeper aquifer (at one monitoring well location), possibly through the migration of

shallow water into the deeper aquifer via an inadequate monitoring well seal (bentonite/cement),or

considered less likely, via a discontinuity in the clay layer (hole).

The review of the available information (geological, laboratory analysis and hydrogeological) indicates

that the distribution and fate and transport of groundwater impacts derived from the landfill are not well

understood. As a consequence the following further investigations are recommended.

The groundwater levels and flow direction in the shallow aquifer should be confirmed by undertaking the

following:

Reinstallation of a shallow dry monitoring well to determine groundwater flow directions, during which

the presence/continuity of the clay layer beneath the well area should also be confirmed.

Undertake high frequency gauging of water levels in the monitoring wells screened in the shallowaquifer, initially monthly and then quarterly (as dictated by data variation and seasonal fluctuations in

water levels).

Obtain an estimate of the groundwater levels in the shallow monitoring wells impacted from gas

exhalation by temporarily displacing bubbling well column via introducing a slug of water into the well

(following water level stabilisation). Consideration should be given to sampling of the monitoring well gas

to confirm the presence of methane and derivation from the landfill.

Identify the location, screened interval and abstraction rates/times of the production bore(s), located

in the adjacent off site landfill (and influence on shallow groundwater levels).

Undertake resurveying of the current onsite wells to provide confirmation and increased confidence in

the current and future groundwater level data.


6/40

iii61/23254/82838 Stanley Road LandfillHydrogeological Assessment

Following confirmation of the shallow groundwater flow direction, an assessment should be undertaken

to determine additional monitoring well requirements to confirm and the extent, distribution andconcentration of the groundwater landfill impacts and, potential fate and transport and impacts to the

sensitive receptors (Wellesley/Brunswick River).

Following the above investigative works, a regular groundwater monitoring program should be optimised

with an aim to provide a long term monitoring program suitable for landfill closure whilst minimising the

costs to the Bunbury Harvey Regional Council.


7/40

161/23254/82838 Stanley Road LandfillHydrogeological Assessment

1. Introduction

The Bunbury Harvey Regional Council (BHRC) comprises the City of Bunbury and the Shire of Harvey

and was established to oversee and manage the development of a regional landfill located at lot 45

Stanley Road, Wellesley (the Site). The Site commenced operation in 1991 and has operated as a

licensed Class 2 Landfill since January 1997, with its license renewed annually.

The BHRC commissioned GHD to undertake a Hydrogeological Assessment of the Site in accordance

with the Department of Environment and Conservation landfill licence (L7067/1997/11).

The main objectives of the assessment were to:

1. Undertake a review of any available existing data to characterise hydrological and hydrogeologicalconditions at the Site and to identify any potential data gaps;

2. Assess the hydrogeology characteristics influencing the Site; and

3. Make recommendations for improvements to the current groundwater monitoring network, and

updates to the current monitoring program, if necessary.


8/40


2. Scope of Work

The scope of work completed by GHD is described below.

2.1 Desktop Review

GHD undertook a review of available published information to characterise hydrological and

hydrogeological conditions at the Site and to identify any potential data gaps. GHD completed the

following tasks as part of the desktop study:

A review of the local and regional geology, including a review of bore logs of the current onsite

bores, to ascertain soil type and geological formations underlying the Site that are influencing

groundwater flow patterns;

A review of the local and regional hydrology and hydrogeology, including a review of historical

groundwater depths and flow direction, to assess the groundwater regime at the Site and identify

potential contamination receptors, if any;

A review of the local topography and surface waters to assess potential surface water flow

patterns and identify potential contamination receptors, if any;

A review of any available landfill construction data detailing the Sites layout, surface drainage, pit

linings and leachate flow regimes;

A review of any existing historical reports regarding environmental, hydrological, hydrogeological,

and/or contamination issues at the Site made available to GHD by the client;

A review of any existing historical data trends to assess past and present groundwater quality

impacting the Site and potentially impacting hydrological receptors; and

A review of the construction details of the current onsite bores to assess the integrity, quality and

efficiency of their construction.

Material provided by BHRC for review during the desktop study included:

Rust PPK, 1995, Numerical Stimulation of Groundwater Abstraction in the Bunbury Region,

August 1995, Document number 93G049A:PR2:0348:Rev B;

Rust PPK, 1995, Hydrogeological Investigation of the Australind Solid Waste Landfill Site, October

1995, Document number 98G067A:PR2:0334:RevB;

ATA Environmental, 2005, Letter, Advice on the Location and Operation of Bores Stanley Road

Landfill, December 2005, Document number BHR-2003-001_012_nd;

ATA Environmental, 2006, Stanley Road Landfill 2005 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report,

May 2006, Document number 2006/101;

GHD, 2007, Report for Stanley Road Landfill Groundwater Monitoring October 2007 Results,

Document number 61/14716/12/73577; and

BCE Surveying, 2008, Bunbury Harvey Regional Tip Stanley Road Topography Figure, Plan

number E2472-01.


9/40


2.2 Site Visit

A Site visit was undertaken on the 20 January 2009 to assess Site conditions, potential surface flowregimes and potential environmental issues. The aim of the Site visit was to gain further knowledge of

the landfill operations, the layout and construction of the landfill, surface water drainage and leachate

production and management.

Photographs of the Site were taken and are documented in this report.

During the Site visit, personnel with knowledge of the Site were interviewed, where possible, to ascertain

available knowledge as to the construction, operation and contents of the landfill, past management

practices and the life of the landfill.

2.3 Hydrogeological Conceptual Site ModelGHD developed conceptual cross-sectional hydrogeological models of the Site to illustrate sources of

potential contamination, potential surface water and groundwater pathways, and any identified potential

environmental and human health receptors of such contamination.

The report presents conceptual site models based on GHDs understanding of the groundwater regime,

surface water drainage and landfill operation. The report also provides an assessment of the current

groundwater monitoring network and recommendations for changes to the current monitoring program, if

required.


10/40


3. Site Characterisation

3.1 Site Location

The Site is located approximately 160 km south of Perth and 20 km northeast of Bunbury at lot 45

Stanley Road, Wellesley (Figure 1). The Site lies to the east of the Australind Bypass Road,

approximately 500m west of Old Coast Road and 2 km south of Marriott Road. Access to the Site is via

Stanley Road.

3.2 Site Description and Layout

The Site, located on lot 45, encompasses an area of approximately 1.3 km2. The landfill area currently

occupies approximately one quarter, 0.24 km2, of the Site. Landfill activities are currently confined to the

southwest corner and southern half of the Site. The remainder of the Site is uncleared bushland

dissected by fire tracks. The site is shown in Figure 2.

Prior to being commissioned for use as an unlined landfill in 1991, the Site was vacant land. Since

opening the landfill has operated as a Class 2 Landfill and currently consists of three unlined cells

referred to as cells 1, 2 and 3 (Figure 2).

Sand excavation is occurring in two areas, west of cell 3 and east of cell 2. The area immediately to the

west of cell 3 has been cleared to allow for the separate collection of green wastes.

Two surface water sumps, one south of cell 1 and one east of cell 2, act as temporary passive surface

water collection points for intermittently directed surface water runoff from the landfill.

Entrance to the Site is via Stanley Road to the south west and graded access tracks run along side each

of the cells. Numerous fire tracks run the perimeter and divide the remainder of the Site. The site office

stands at the entry of the Site.

A designated wetlands conservation area exists towards the northern Site boundary (Figure 2).

3.3 Topography

A review of the local topography was undertaken with reference to the following materials:

BCE Surveying, 2008, Bunbury Harvey Regional Tip Stanley Road Topography Figure, Plan

number E2472-01

Biggs, E.R. (1979). Harvey-Lake Preston Urban Geology, Parts of Sheets 2031 I and 2031 IV.

Perth: Geological Survey of Western Australia;

Western Australian Land Information Authority, 2009, Shared land Information Platform (SLIP)

Enabler, www2.landgate.wa.gov.au (accessed February 9 2009); and

NATMAP, 1981, Bunbury Western Australia Sheet 2031 Edition 1 National Topographic Map

Series, Commonwealth of Australia;

Rust PPK, 1995, Hydrogeological Investigation of the Australind Solid Waste Landfill Site, October

1995, Document number 98G067A:PR2:0334:RevB.

The Site lies within the high sand dunes of the coastal plain where land heights generally range between

15 to 25m AHD (Biggs, 1979 and NATMAP, 1981). The regional landscape slopes gently downward to


11/40


the west towards the Leschenault Estuary and more sharply to the east towards the Wellesley River. The

local topography also consists of undulated dunal systems however this has been extensively modifieddue to the excavation and landfill activities that have taken place.

Prior to these activities, the natural topography generally appears to have been lowest in the north of the

Site, less than 15m AHD, gently sloping up to 15m AHD towards the centre of the Site and continuing to

increase, though not exceeding 20m AHD in the south of the Site. Three dune peaks are identifiable in

the northwest corner of the Site, exceeding 20m AHD, in the southwest of the Site, exceeding 26m AHD,

and in the southeast of the Site, exceeding 20m AHD (Landgate and Rust PPK, 1995).

Beyond the Site boundary, the natural topography generally decreases in a south easterly direction

towards the Wellesley/Brunswick River.

The northern half and eastern portion of the Site remains predominantly unchanged due to the

excavation and landfill activities that have occurred in the south-western quarter. However, it is the

southern half, particularly the southwest corner, which has undergone the greatest landscape alterations.

The three unlined cells were excavated to approximately 14m AHD to accommodate waste and following

waste deposition are approximately 27m AHD.

3.4 Regional Geology

The regional geology of the Site is described as high sand dunes associated with Tamala Limestone

overlying Tamala Limestone at varying depths (GSWA, 1982). The Guildford Formation underlying the

superficial deposits is described predominantly as alluvial sandy clays (GSWA, 1982).

A review of the drillers bore logs supplied in Rust PPKb

(1995) and ATA Environmental (2005) generallyindicates surficial soils consists of undifferentiated sands overlying inter-bedded clays and sands at

depth.

3.5 Regional Hydrogeology

The Water Authority of Western Australia (1994) describe the hydrogeology of the area to comprise of an

unconfined aquifer and series of confined aquifers resulting from alternating sand and clay layers make

up the superficial formations underlying the Site. The superficial formations overlay a micaceous shale

unit at approximately 35-40m bgl which forms the confining layer to the Leederville aquifer. The

Leederville aquifer is underlain by the Yarragadee aquifer (WAWA, 1994).

Regional groundwater flow is expected to flow towards the coast to the west. However, groundwater flow

at the Site is expected to flow towards the nearest discharge boundary likely to be the

Wellesley/Brunswick River, located approximately 0.6 km to the southeast.

3.6 Natural Surface Water Receptors

The nearest surface water drainage feature to the Site is the Wellesley River, approximately 0.6 km

southeast. The Wellesley River joins the Brunswick River approximately 0.65 km south of the Site which

in turn discharges to the Leschenault Estuary and Koombana Bay of the Indian Ocean, approximately

8.5 and 12 km southwest of the Site, respectively.

It is considered that most surface water at the Site infiltrates the landfill or is evaporated, and it is unlikelythat surface water runoff from the Site would migrate and impact the Wellesley/Brunswick River.


12/40


Two conservation wetland areas are in the vicinity of the landfill, one is centrally located in the north of

the Site and the other lies just south of the Site, to the southeast of cell 2. The wetlands are reportedlyseasonally inundated (Figure 2).

Surface water runoff from the landfill is unlikely to flow towards these areas given most surface water

infiltrates the landfill or is evaporated.

3.7 Landfill Construction

Landfill activities are confined to three cells referred to as cells 1, 2 and 3 (Figure 2). Cells 1 and 2, along

the southern boundary are currently in use and appear to have merged into one large cell. Cell 3 lies

adjacent cell 2 to the north and is not currently in use. The current height of all three cells is estimated at

approximately 27m AHD. Finishing heights are anticipated to reach 32m AHD in 6 years time (estimated

landfill life, pers comm. Landfill Manager, Mr Tony Battersby).

The base of the cells is at 14m AHD maintaining a 3m clearance above the watertable. The cells were

excavated from quartz sands and are unlined. Leachate is not controlled through onsite drainage

systems nor collected. Any leachate produced as a result of rainfall infiltration is anticipated to leach

directly into the underlying aquifer.

In an effort to minimise leachate production, surface water above the cells was, temporarily directed to

surface water sumps south of cell 1 and east of cell 2 according to onsite staff (pers comm. Jack

Stidworthy) (Figure 2). However, the installed PVC drainage lines were lost and/or destroyed over the

course of land filling and have not been replaced.

3.8 Review of Existing Historical Reports

GHD reviewed three existing reports provided by BHRC regarding previous hydrogeological

investigations undertaken at the landfill. Major findings from these reports are summarised in the Table 1

below.


13/40


Table 1 Historical Report Summaries

Document Summary

Rust PPK, 1995,Hydrogeological Investigationof the Australind Solid WasteLandfill Site, October 1995,Document number98G067A:PR2:0334:RevB;

Rust PPK (Rust), then Mackie Martin PPK completed a hydrologicalinvestigation of the southern section of lot 45.

The report concluded that geology at the Site consists of an uppersand unit overlying continual clay horizon above a lower sand unit.

In addition, shallow groundwater was present within the upper sandunit, perched above the clay and flowed in a broadly westwardsdirection. However it was stated that flow varied in a south-easterly tosouth-westerly direction. Further it was suggested that dischargemay occur to the coast or towards the Brunswick River.

A lower aquifer is present in the lower sand unit partially confined byclay. Limited downward leakage may occur from upper to loweraquifer.

Groundwater analysis showed no evidence of any impact ongroundwater quality from the landfill

Further groundwater monitoring recommended.

ATA Environmental, 2005,Letter, Advice on the Locationand Operation of Bores Stanley Road Landfill,December 2005, Document

number BHR-2003-001_012_nd

The BHRC requested advice and clarification from ATAEnvironmental regarding groundwater monitoring being undertakenat the Site.

ATA reported that the western (WS) bore was drilled and screened at

similar depths as the other shallow bores however due to the geologyat this location did not encounter water. The driller reported that thiswell was dry at the time of drilling.

The document considered that a relatively large number of boresexist onsite and relatively low impact is being encountered, thereforethere appears no urgency to replace WS.

The deep bore in the area may be accessing the only aquifer in thearea as a shallow aquifer may not exist in this location due togeological variation.

The document stated geology and hydrogeology of the landfill isslightly unusual in that there is a clearly defined clay layer present at10 m bgl across much of the Site. This clay layer is acting as a

barrier and greatly retarding movement of water between the upperand lower aquifers. As a result, it would be expected that landfillimpacts would be confined to the upper aquifer.

Shallow monitoring bores terminate within the clay layer and areintended to be the primary means of detecting and monitoring landfillimpacts to groundwater.

Deeper bores were drilled through clay layer to depths of 24-25m bgland terminate in a second impermeable layer of micaceous shale.They are screened over 9m of the lower aquifer for the purpose ofdetecting any contamination leaking through the clay barrier. Thedocumented reported there was no evidence of impacts from thelandfill within the deeper aquifer.

It is reported that the available data did show some evidence ofimpacts to water quality in the upper aquifer, however the level of


14/40


impact is low and is not expected to extend large distances (0.5-1km). Further the nature of the nutrients and organic contaminantswould result in their dispersion and dilution naturally within 10-20years following closure. ATA were doubtful that landfill impacts wouldbe detectable in domestic bores down gradient unless they werewithin 0.5-1 km of the Site. Within 500m of the Site the water shouldbe fit for irrigation and stock supply.

ATA found no pressing case for additional bores to be installed otherthan the re-drilling of bore WS to intersect water.

ATA Environmental, 2006,Stanley Road Landfill 2005Annual GroundwaterMonitoring Report, May 2006,

Document number 2006/101

ATA Environmental undertook the quarterly groundwater monitoringfor 2005.

Depth to groundwater data indicated a significant difference ingroundwater flow direction in the upper and lower aquifer. Based onthe available data, ATA were unable to definitively depictgroundwater flow directions in the upper and lowers aquifers.

Assessment of the laboratory results most notably concluded:

seasonal fluctuations of most parameters;

increased nitrogenous compounds in several bores;

increasing trends in copper and zinc in some bores; and

generally low concentrations of nutrients and metals in most bores.

No severe impacts to groundwater were detected and the documentreported the groundwater quality to indicate an overall improving

trend.Further groundwater monitoring and assessment of hydrogeologicalconditions was recommended.

3.9 Groundwater Monitoring Program

Quarterly groundwater monitoring is currently undertaken at twelve wells in six locations across the Site.

The six locations are described in Table 1 and shown in Figure 3.

Table 2 Existing Well Locations

Well ID Easting* Northing* WellDepth**(m bgl)

ScreenedInterval**(m bgl)

Top ofCasing***(m AHD)

WS 50383491 6321081 10.00 4.0-10.0 20.97

WD 50383491 6321081 24.00 18.0-24.0 20.97

SWS 50383645 6320980 10.00 4.0-10.0 13.84

SWD 50383645 6320980 24.00 18.0-24.0 13.85

1S 50383948 6320967 10.60 4.6-10.6 15.29

1D 50383948 6320967 26.40 17.4-26.4 15.23

SES 50384122 6320978 10.00 4.0-10.0 15.33


15/40


Well ID Easting* Northing* Well

Depth**(m bgl)

Screened

Interval**(m bgl)

Top of

Casing***(m AHD)

SED 50384122 6320978 24.00 18.0-24.0 15.33

2S 50384921 6321431 10.40 4.4-10.4 17.61

2D 50384921 6321431 23.60 17.6-23.6 17.56

ES 50385004 6321720 10.00 4.0-10.0 17.43

ED 50385004 6321720 24.00 18.0-24.0 17.43

Note: * Eastings and Northings were recorded from a handheld GPS unit on the day of the Site Visit.

**Depth of wells and screened intervals was sourced from supplied bore logs (ATA Environmental, 2005)

*** Surveyed top of casing information was sourced from Table 1 (ATA Environmental, 2006).

The monitoring schedule and corresponding analytical suites are presented in Table 2.

Table 3 Groundwater Monitoring Schedule and Analytical Suites

Frequency Timing Analytical Suite

Quarterly January, April, July, October Inorganic (physical parameters,

major nutrients, major ions,

heavy metals (8))

Annually October Organic (polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons, organochlorine

pesticides, organophosphorus

pesticides, triazine herbicides,

polychlorinated biphenyls, total

recoverable hydrocarbons,

benzene, toluene, ethylbezene

and xylenes)


16/40


4. LANDFILL REVIEW RESULTS

4.1 Review of Historical Data Trends

GHD have reviewed analytical data of groundwater monitoring from February 2005 to October 2008.

Historical graphs relating to physical parameters (pH, electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids),

major nutrients, major ions and heavy metals are presented in Appendix D. A review of this data is

summarised below.

4.1.1 Physical Parameters

Historical data trends indicate groundwater pH exhibits a slightly lower range in the shallow

monitoring (3.5-7) wells than in the deeper monitoring wells (4-8).

The lower pH is particularly evident in shallow wells SES and SWS, located on the southern

boundary of the landfill which displays an average historical pH of approximately 4.5 and 5, respectively.

The corresponding deep wells, SED and SWD, have recorded higher historical averages of

approximately 6 and 6.5, respectively.

Electrical conductivity (EC) and TDS appears relatively low and stable in most wells with the

exception of shallow monitoring wells 1S and SES. These shallow wells show elevated and fluctuating

EC and TDS, and are located on the southern boundary of the landfill.

4.1.2 Nitrogen Compounds

The historical total nitrogen concentrations in the majority of the wells indicate generally low

concentrations (less than 5 mg/L), with the following exceptions:

Weakly elevated and fluctuating concentrations in shallow monitoring well 1S (maximum 10 mg/L),

located on the southern boundary,

A weak increasing trend in deep monitoring well SWD (maximum 7 mg/L), located on the southern

boundary, evident since October 2007

The historical ammoniacal-nitrogen concentrations in the majority of the wells indicate generally low

concentrations (less than 5 mg/L), with exception of the following:

Moderately elevated and fluctuating concentrations in shallow monitoring wells 1S (maximum 15mg/L), located on the southern boundary (although currently low at 2 mg/L).

A moderate increasing trend in deep monitoring well SWD (maximum 7 mg/L), located on the

southern boundary, evident since February 2005

Excluding weak historical fluctuations prior to January 2008 (less than 3 mg/L)The historical nitrate-

nitrogen graphs indicate low concentrations of nitrate in the shallow and deep wells across the site(less

than 1 mg/L).

4.1.3 Selected Major Ions

The historical chloride concentrations are generally stable with concentrations across the site ranging

between 500 to 500 mg/L with exception of the following:


17/40


Moderately elevated and fluctuating concentrations of chloride in shallow monitoring well 1S

(maximum 1050 mg/L), located on the southern boundary. However, over the last two years ofmonitoring the concentrations have stabilised and are less than 500 mg/L

Moderately elevated and fluctuating concentrations of chloride in shallow monitoring well SES

(maximum 1900 mg/L), located on the southern boundary. Although fluctuating, the long term trend in

concentrations appears to be increasing. The fluctuations may reflect seasonal influences, possibly

relating to rainfall infiltration through the landfill.

The historical potassium concentrations are generally stable with concentrations across the site

generally ranging between 1 to 10 mg/L with exception of the following:

Moderately elevated and fluctuating concentrations of potassium in shallow monitoring well 1S

located on the southern boundary (maximum 13 mg/L),. However, over the last two years of monitoring

the concentrations have stabilised and are less than 7 mg/L

Moderately elevated and fluctuating concentrations of potassium in shallow monitoring well SES

(maximum 20 mg/L), located on the southern boundary. Although fluctuating, the long term trend in

concentrations appears to be increasing. The fluctuations may reflect seasonal influences.

4.1.4 Heavy Metals

The concentrations of metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium copper, lead, nickel and zinc) over the

historical monitoring period are generally low and although the concentrations fluctuate, the

concentrations do not indicate increasing trends.

The occurrence of low level metal fluctuations can be a reflection of using alternate sampling laboratoriesand site collection methodologies over the monitoring period, which is supported by the apparent random

occurrence of fluctuating metal concentrations in both shallow and deep wells, and in wells located in

both, up and down hydraulic gradient, of the landfill.

Excluding well 2D, the concentrations of manganese are low and stable in all wells (less than 0.1 mg/L).

The occurrence of weakly elevated manganese in well 2D likely reflects background concentrations (and

groundwater redox), given the well is located up-gradient of the landfill.

4.1.5 Organic Compounds (2007/2008)

The following organic compounds were not identified above the limits of reporting in 2007 and 2008 from

all shallow and deep groundwater wells:

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (except naphthalene);

Organochlorine pesticides;

Benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylenes;

Total recoverable hydrocarbons;

Organophosphorus pesticides (2008 only); and

Polychlorinated biphenyls (2008 only).

The following organic compounds were detected in the following wells during the single monitoring event

in 2008.


18/40


Naphthalene detected in a deep well located on the western boundary of the landfill (0.02 ug/L).

Low level hydrocarbons detected in shallow well 1S, and deep wells 1D and 2D (78, 48 and 210

ug/L, respectively).

4.2 Review Bore Construction

Bore logs of the current onsite wells were presented in a letter from ATA Environmental (2005) provided

to GHD by the BHRC.

According to the bore logs, groundwater wells 1S, 1D and 2S, 2D were installed by the Bunbury Drilling

Company in 1999. These wells were constructed of 50mm, Class 9 blank and slotted PVC. The annular

space around the bores was backfilled to the surface with a graded quartz gravel pack except for a

betonite plug that was placed from 12-13m bgl below the shallow wells (10.4-10.6m bgl) and above thescreen (17.4-17.6m bgl) of the deep wells. The bores were capped at either end.

Groundwater wells WS, WD, SWS, SWD, SES, SED, 2S, 2D, ES and ED were installed by Australind

Boring Pty Ltd. The wells were constructed of 50mm, Class 12 blank and slotted PVC. The annular

space around the bores was backfilled with graded sand from approximately 3-10m bgl in the shallow

well and approximately 16-24m bgl in the deep wells. A four metre cement seal filled the annular space

from approximately 12-16m bgl in the deep wells while no seal was installed in the shallow wells. Shallow

and deep wells were backfilled with drill cuttings from approximately 0-3m bgl and 0-12 m bgl,

respectively.

GHDs review of monitoring well construction found bore logs to contain insufficient information on the

geological information (particularly clay continuity) and the integrity and placement of bentonite/cementseals to sufficiently infer monitoring of the separate aquifers (by Australind Boring Pty Ltd logged by

drilling contractors). However, the fact that hydraulic head differentials between aquifers are apparent

infers some degree of hydraulic separation is likely maintained.

4.2.1 Existing Production Bores in the Region

There are three known production bores in the vicinity of the Site confirmed by the landfill manager, Mr

Tony Battersby. One production bore is located onsite, within close proximity to the Site office.

Production bores are also in use on the neighbouring Sites to the west and south, Catalano Pty Ltd and

the Class 1 landfill operated by JW Cross & Sons, respectively.

According to Mr Battersby the one onsite bore is estimated to draw less than 200L/day. The majority ofthe landfills (the Site) water requirements are met by the production bore on the Class 1 landfill operated

by JW Cross & Sons to the south of the Site. This bore is anticipated to be heavily used however

quantifiable amounts are unknown. Pumping rates for the production bore on the neighbouring sand

mining site operated by Catalano Pty Ltd are also unknown.

A Department of Water (DoW) bore database search indicates there are 17 registered bores located

within a 1 km radius of the Site. The database has no record of the bores located on the Site and further

no record of the neighbouring production bores. The nearest recorded bore is located approximately 100

m to the north-west of the Site. This bore is privately owned for domestic/household purposes. Though

this bore would appear to be located up gradient of groundwater flow it is pertinent to note that

unregistered bores may exist around the Site, down gradient of groundwater flow, which could also be


19/40


used for domestic/household purposes and potentially even for human and animal consumption. Such

bores would therefore constitute potential contamination receptors.


20/40


5. Site Hydrogeology and Conceptual Model

5.1 Aquifers

A review of historical bore logs for the Site identified that the local geology comprises fine to medium

grained quartz superficial sands overlying a confining layer of clays and sandy clays. Superficial sands

vary in thickness from approximately 4 to 17m. The saturated thickness of the upper shallow aquifer

ranges from approximately 2-7m.

The underlying confining layer is estimated to range from approximately 6 to 8m thickness and is inferred

as relatively continuous beneath the Site and is likely to separate and limit the hydraulic connectivity

between the shallow and deeper sand aquifers.

The confining clay layer is in turn underlain by deeper sands that extend beyond documented bottom of

hole depths (>6 m thick).

A review of the geological logging data found some information contradictory, assumedly logged by

drilling contractors, in regards to the continuous presence of a confining layer across the Site. However,

groundwater level difference between the shallow and deep aquifers at the Site supports the presence of

a laterally continuous clay layer.

5.2 Groundwater Levels

Historical data reports water levels in the shallow wells lie between 4.2 and 7.5m below ground level (bgl)

(8-11m AHD) summer/post summer and 3.4 to 6.7m bgl (10-14.3m AHD) in the winter and post wintermonths.

Depth to groundwater in the deep wells was gauged between 8.3 and 14.8m bgl (4-6.5m AHD) during

the summer/post summer months and 7.7 to 14.1m bgl (4.8-6.9m AHD) in the winter and post winter

months.

The above data indicates that shallow groundwater levels are approximately of 4 to 5 metres higher than

the underlying deeper groundwater levels, and that a downward hydraulic head potential exists between

the upper shallow aquifer and the deeper aquifer. The existence of the hydraulic head potential supports

that the clay confining layer is continuous beneath the site.

5.2.1 Anomalous Groundwater Levels

It is noted that during GHDs Site walkover groundwater levels were not obtainable in at least one of the

shallow groundwater monitoring wells (SES) given gas exhalation and extensive bubbling of the water

column in the well (possibly methane production). Previously gauged water levels from monitoring well

SES and potentially wells 1S and SWS may therefore prove inaccurate.

The difficulty in determining groundwater flow in the upper aquifer may also be impeded by the proximity

of the groundwater abstraction well, likely screened within the shallow aquifer, at the southerly adjacent

site and the developing cone of depression associated with abstraction. Further, the surveying of the

monitoring wells onsite appears erroneous and possibly indicates that stand-up steel casings were

surveyed rather than the PVC of the individual wells given numerous wells are reported at the same

height. Such survey errors may also limit the determination of the shallow groundwater flow direction

and usefulness of the data.


21/40


22/40


6. Conclusions

Based on the hydrogeological assessment undertaken the following conclusions can be drawn.

The hydrogeology of the Site comprises a shallow sand aquifer (saturated thickness of 2-7m)

underlain by clays (approx. 6-8m thick) which is in turn underlain by a deeper sand aquifer (>6 m

thick). The clays are inferred to be laterally continuous beneath the Site and likely separate and limit

the hydraulic connectivity between the shallow and deeper sand aquifers.

Although some of the geological logging information is incomplete and contradictory (logged by

drilling contractors), groundwater levels at the Site support the presence of a laterally continuous clay

layer, with groundwater levels in the shallow aquifer approximately 4 to 5 metres higher that the

groundwater levels in the deeper aquifer.

Groundwater flow directions in the deeper aquifer indicate that groundwater discharges towards the

Wellesley/Brunswick River, located approximately 0.6 km to the south-east of the Site. While it is

likely that the shallow aquifer also discharges into the Wellesley/Brunswick River, the groundwater

flow direction could not be determined from the available data.

During GHDs Site walkover groundwater levels were not obtainable in at least one of the shallow

groundwater monitoring wells given gas exhalation and extensive bubbling of the water column in the

well (possibly methane production). The proximity of groundwater abstraction wells, likely screened

within the shallow aquifer at the adjacent site and possible monitoring well survey errors may also

limit the determination of the shallow groundwater flow direction and usefulness of the data.

The base of the unlined landfill is reported to be above groundwater levels in the shallow aquifer and

given the inferred hydraulic separation of the shallow and deeper aquifer (clays), potential landfill

impacts should be limited to the shallow aquifer.

The groundwater laboratory analysis data (collated quarterly) indicates that landfill impacts, identified

by lower pH levels, increased concentrations of nitrogen, potassium and chloride, are impacting

groundwater quality of the shallow aquifer immediately to the south and the southeast of the landfill.

The presence of these impacts supports that the groundwater flow direction in the shallow aquifer is

in a south-easterly direction (towards the Wellesley/Brunswick River).

The groundwater laboratory analysis data indicates that landfill impacts appear to be migrating from

the shallow aquifer into the deeper aquifer (at one monitoring well location), possibly through themigration of shallow water into the deeper aquifer via an inadequate monitoring well seal

(bentonite),or considered less likely, via a discontinuity in the clay layer (hole).

The current groundwater monitoring program is considered adequate. Quarterly groundwater

monitoring is considered thorough and the 2008 inorganic and organic analytical suites are

considered comprehensive.

A review of monitoring well construction found insufficient information to adequately infer monitoring

of the separate aquifers. However, the fact that hydraulic head differentials between aquifers are

apparent infers some degree of hydraulic separation is likely maintained.


23/40


7. Recommendations

The review of the available information (geological, laboratory analysis and hydrogeological) indicates

that the distribution and fate and transport of groundwater impacts derived from the landfill are not well

understood. As a consequence the following further investigations are recommended.

The groundwater levels and flow direction in the shallow aquifer should be confirmed by undertaking the

following:

Reinstallation of a shallow dry monitoring well to determine groundwater flow directions, during

which the presence/continuity of the clay layer beneath the well area should be confirmed.

Undertake high frequency gauging of water levels in the monitoring wells screened in the shallow

aquifer, initially monthly and then quarterly (as dictated by data variation and seasonal fluctuations in

water levels).

Obtain an estimate of the groundwater levels in the shallow monitoring wells impacted from gas

exhalation by temporarily displacing bubbling well column via introducing a slug of water into the well

(following water level stabilisation). Consideration should be given to sampling of the monitoring well gas

to confirm the presence of methane and derivation from the landfill.

Identify the location, screened interval and abstraction rates/times of the production bore(s),

located in the adjacent off site landfill (and influence on shallow groundwater levels).

Undertake resurveying of the current onsite wells to provide confirmation and increased

confidence in the current and future groundwater level data.

Following confirmation of the shallow groundwater flow direction, an assessment should be undertaken

to determine additional monitoring well requirements to confirm and the extent, distribution and

concentration of the groundwater landfill impacts and, potential fate and transport and impacts to the

sensitive receptors (Wellesley/Brunswick River).

Following the above investigative works, a regular groundwater monitoring program should be optimised

with an aim to provide a long term monitoring program suitable for landfill closure whilst minimising the

costs to the Bunbury Harvey Regional Council.

.


24/40


8. Limitations of this Report

This report presents the results of a Hydrogeological Site Assessment prepared for the purpose of this

commission. The data and advice provided herein relate only to the project and structures described

herein and must be reviewed by a competent engineer/scientist before being used for any other purpose.

GHD Pty Ltd accepts no responsibility for other use of the data.

Where drill hole or test pit logs, laboratory tests, geophysical test and similar work have been performed

and recorded by others the data is included and used in the form provided by others. The responsibility

for the accuracy of such data remains with the issuing authority, not with GHD.

It should be noted that because of the inherent uncertainties in subsurface evaluations, changed or

unanticipated subsurface conditions may occur that could affect total project cost and/or execution. GHD

does not accept responsibility of the consequences of significant variances in the conditions and the

requirements for execution of the work.

During remediation or subsequent investigations the subsurface and surface earthworks and excavations

should be examined by a suitably qualified and experienced Engineer/Scientist who shall judge whether

the revealed conditions accord with both the assumptions in this report and/or the design of the

remediation works. If they do not accord, the Engineer/Scientist shall modify the advice in this report

and/or design of the works to accord with the circumstances that are revealed.

An understanding of the subsurface site conditions depends on the integration of many pieces of

information, some regional, some site specific, some structure specific and some experience based.

Hence this report should not be altered, amended or abbreviated, issued in part or issued incomplete in

any way without prior checking and approval by GHD. GHD accepts no responsibility for any

circumstances which arise from the issue of the report which has been modified in any way as outlined

above.


25/40


9. References

ATA Environmental, 2005, Letter, Advice on the Location and Operation of Bores Stanley Road

Landfill, December 2005, Document number BHR-2003-001_012_nd

ATA Environmental, 2006, Stanley Road Landfill 2005 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, May

2006, Document number 2006/101

BCE Surveying, 2008, Bunbury Harvey Regional Tip Stanley Road Topography Figure, Plan number

E2472-01

Geological Survey of Western Australia (GSWA), (1982), Harvey-Lake Preston Urban geology, Parts of

Sheets 2031 I and 2031 IV, 1:50 000, Urban Geology Series, Geological Survey of Western Australia,Perth

GHD, 2007, Report for Stanley Road Landfill Groundwater Monitoring October 2007 Results, Document

number 61/14716/12/73577

NATMAP, 1981, Bunbury Western Australia Sheet 2031 Edition 1 National Topographic Map Series,

Commonwealth of Australia

Rust PPKa, 1995, Numerical Stimulation of Groundwater Abstraction in the Bunbury Region, August

1995, Document number 93G049A:PR2:0348:Rev B

Rust PPKb, 1995, Hydrogeological Investigation of the Australind Solid Waste Landfill Site, October

1995, Document number 98G067A:PR2:0334:RevB

Water Authority of Western Australia (WAWA), 1994, Bunbury Groundwater Area Management Plan,

Water Authority of Western Australia, Report No. WG198

Western Australian Land Information Authority, 2009, Shared land Information Platform (SLIP) Enabler,

www2.landgate.wa.gov.au (accessed February 9 2009)

Western Australian Land Information Authority, 2009, LANDGATE Survey Channel Map Viewer,

www.landgate.com.au (accessed February 7 2009)
http://www.landgate.com.au/http://www.landgate.com.au/


26/40



Figures

Figure 1 Regional Location

Figure 2 Site Layout

Figure 3 Groundwater Levels and Flow Direction (July 2008)

Figure 4 Hydrogeological Transect Lines

Figure 5 Cross-section through Landfill (North-Southeast)

Figure 6 Cross-section through Landfill (East-West)


27/40

370,000

370,000

385,000

385,000

6,

315,

000

6,

315,

000

6,

330,

000

6,

330,

000

Figure 1G:\61\23254\GIS\mxds\6123254-G001.mxd

0 1.5 3 4.5 60.75

km

LEGEND

2009. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and LANDGATE make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose.GHD and LANDGATE cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a re sult ofthe product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.

Job Number

Revision 0

61-23254

Date 25 MAR 2009

oBunbury-Harvey Reg Council

Hydrogeological Assessment ofStanley Rd Landfill

Regional Location

Data Source: GHD: Subject Land Boundary - 20090224; Landgate: Travellers Atlas 2004 Edition - 2004. Created by: xntan

GHD House, 239 Adelaide Terrace Perth WA 6004 T 61 8 6222 8222 F 61 8 6222 8555 E [email protected] Wwww.ghd.com.au

Map Projection: Transverse MercatorHorizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA)

Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 5 0

Subject Land Boundary

1:150,000 (at A4)
mailto:[email protected]://www.ghd.com.au/http://www.ghd.com.au/mailto:[email protected]


28/40

GHD House, 239 Adelaide Terrace Perth WA 6004 T 61 8 6222 8222 F 61 8 6222 8555 [email protected] Wwww.ghd.com.au

"/

"/

!>!>

!>!>

!>!>

!>!>!>!>

!>!>

Cell 1 Cell 2

Cell 3

Catalano Pty LtdSandmine &Storage Area

Site Entry

SiteOffice

Sand

Excavations

Sand Excavations

Surface WaterSump

Kemerton Industrial AreaVegetated Buffer Zone

WetlandsConservation Area

NeighbouringFarmland

WetlandsConservation Area

JW Cross & SonsSand Excavation& Class 1 Landfill

Surface WaterSump

Welle

sley

River

Green WasteCollection Point

PERTH-BUNBURYHWY

STANLEY RD

MARINE

DR

PERTH-BUNBURYHWY WSWD

ESED

2S2D

1S1DSWS

SWD

SESSED

382,750

382,750

383,500

383,500

384,250

384,250

385,000

385,000

6,

321

,000

6,3

21

,750

G:\61\23254\GIS\mxds\6123254-G002.mxd

2009. WhileGHD has takencare to ensurethe accuracy ofthis product, GHD and LANDGATE make no representationsor warranties about itsaccuracy, completenessor suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and LANDGATE cannot accept liabilityof any kind (whether in contract,tort or otherwise) for anyexpenses, losses,damages and/or costs(including indirect or consequential damage) which are or maybe incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in anyway and for anyreason.

LEGEND

0 75 150 225 30037.5

Metres


Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 50

Bunbury-Harvey Reg Council


Figure 2

Job Number

Revision 0

61-23254

25 MAR 2009

Site Layouto

Date

Data Source: GHD: Bore Locations - 20090223, Lot Boundary- 20090224, Surface Water Sump- 20090324,Surface Water Flow Direction - 20090325; Landgate: Bunbury2006 Mosaic - SLIP 20090224. Created by: xntan

1 :7 ,500 ( at A3)

!

!

!

!

!

INDIAN OCEAN

EATONBUNBURY

BUREKUP

AUSTRALIND

LESCHENAULT

Locality Map

!> Bore Location

Lot Boundary

Subject Land Boundary

"/ Surface Water Sump

Surface Water Flow Direction


29/40


!>

!>

!>

!>!>

!>

Welle

sley R

iver

STANLEY RD

PERTH-BUNBURYHWY

MARINE

DR

PERTH-BUNBURYHWY

5.2

5.0

5.46.0

6.2

6.6

5.8

6.4

6.8

5.6

WD

6.66

ED

5.19

2D

4.93

1D

5.58

SWD

6.17

SED

5.19

382,750

382,750

383,500

383,500

384,250

384,250

385,000

385,000

6,3

21

,000

6,3

21

,750

G:\61\23254\GIS\mxds\6123254-G003.mxd


LEGEND

0 75 150 225 30037.5

Metres





Groundwater Levels &

Figure 3

Job Number

Revision 0

61-23254

25 MAR 2009

Flow Direction (July 2008/Deep Wells)o

Date

Data Source: GHD: Bore Locations - 20090223, Groundwater Contour - 20090224; Landgate: Bunbury2006 Mosaic- SLIP 20090224; GHD: Lot Boundary- 20090224. Created by:xntan

1 :7 ,500 ( at A3)

!> Bore Location

Lot Boundary

Groundwater Contour (mAHD)

Groundwater Flow Direction

!

!

!

!

!

INDIAN OCEAN

EATON

BUNBURY

BUREKUP

AUSTRALIND

LESCHENAULT

Locality Map


30/40


!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>!>

!>

!>

!>!>

!>!>

!>!>

!>!>!>!>

!>!>

Welle

sley R

iver

STANLEY RD

Cell 1 Cell 2

Cell 3

NORTH

SOUTH-EAST

WESTEASTSee Figure 5

See

Figure

6

PERTH-BUNBURYHWY

MARINE

DR

PERTH-BUNBURYHWY A1

M1

B4

M2

B1

D1

C1

B1

B4A

WSWD

ESED

2S2D

1S1DSWSSWD SESSED

382,750

382,750

383,500

383,500

384,250

384,250

385,000

385,000

6,3

21

,000

6,3

21

,750

G:\61\23254\GIS\mxds\6123254-G004.mxd


LEGEND

0 75 150 225 30037.5

Metres





Figure 4

Job Number

Revision 0

61-23254

25 MAR 2009

Hydrogeological Transect Lineso

Date

Data Source: GHD: Bore Locations - 20090223, Hydrogeological Transect Lines- 20090226; Landgate: Bunbury2006 Mosaic - SLIP 20090224; GHD: Former InvestigationBores - 20090223. Createdby: xntan

1 :7 ,500 ( at A3)

Lot Boundary

!> Groundwater Well

!> Former Investigation Bore (No Longer E xisting)

Hydrogeological Transect Lines

Cross Section through Landfill (North-South-East)

Cross Section through Landfill (East-West)

!

!

!

!

!

INDIAN OCEAN

EATONBUNBURY

BUREKUP

AUSTRALIND

LESCHENAULT

Locality Map


31/40

B1

M2 M

1 A1

1S

1D


32/40

WSWD

SWS

SWD

A1

1S

1D

B1

SES

SED

C1


33/40



Appendix A

Historical Groundwater Monitoring Results


34/40

pH

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Feb-

05

Apr-0

5

Jul-0

5

Oct-0

5

Jan-06

Apr-0

6

Jul-0

6

Oct-0

6

Mar

-07

Oct-07

Jan-08

Apr-0

8

Jul-0

8

Oct-0

8

Electrical Conductivity

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Feb-

05

Apr-0

5

Jul-0

5

Oct-0

5

Jan-06

Apr-0

6

Jul-0

6

Oct-0

6

Mar-07

Oct-07

Jan-08

Apr-0

8

Jul-0

8

Oct-0

8

Conductivity(uS/cm)

Total Dissolved Solids

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Feb-

05

Apr-0

5

Jul-0

5

Oct-0

5

Jan-06

Apr-0

6

Jul-0

6

Oct-0

6

Mar-07

Oct-07

Jan-08

Apr-0

8

Jul-0

8

Oct-0

8

Concentration(mg/L)

61/23254 Bunbury Harvey Regional Council

Hydrogeological Assessment of the Stanley Road Landfill



35/40

Cadmium Concentrations

0

0.0005

0.001

0.0015

Feb-05

Apr-05

Jul-05

Oct-05

Jan-06

Apr-06

Jul-06

Oct-06

Mar-07

Oct-07

Jan-08

Apr-08

Jul-08

Oct-08

Concentration(mg/L)

Chromium Concentrations

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

Feb-

05

Apr-0

5

Jul-0

5

Oct-0

5

Jan-06

Apr-0

6

Jul-0

6

Oct-0

6

Mar

-07

Oct-07

Jan-08

Apr-0

8

Jul-0

8

Oct-0

8

Conc

entration(mg/L)

Arsenic Concentrations

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

0.014

0.016

0.018

Feb-

05

Apr-0

5

Jul-0

5

Oct-0

5

Jan-06

Apr-0

6

Jul-0

6

Oct-0

6

Mar-07

Oct-07

Jan-08

Apr-0

8

Jul-0

8

Oct-0

8

Concentration(m

g/L)





36/40

Total Nitrogen Concentrations

0

5

10

15

20

25

Feb-

05

Apr-0

5

Jul-0

5

Oct-0

5

Jan-06

Apr-0

6

Jul-0

6

Oct-0

6

Mar

-07

Oct-07

Jan-08

Apr-0

8

Jul-0

8

Oct-0

8

Concentration(mg/L)

Nitrate-Nitrogen Concentrations

0

1

2

3

4

Feb

-05

Apr-0

5

Jul-0

5

Oct-0

5

Jan

-06

Apr-0

6

Jul-0

6

Oct-0

6

Mar-07

Oct-07

Jan

-08

Apr-0

8

Jul-0

8

Oct-0

8

Concentration(mg/L)

Ammoniacal-Nitrogen Concentrations

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

Feb-

05

Apr-0

5

Jul-0

5

Oct-0

5

Jan-06

Apr-0

6

Jul-0

6

Oct-0

6

Mar

-07

Oct-07

Jan-08

Apr-0

8

Jul-0

8

Oct-0

8

Co

ncentration(mg/L)





37/40

Copper Concentrations

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

Feb-

05

Apr-0

5

Jul-0

5

Oct-0

5

Jan-06

Apr-0

6

Jul-0

6

Oct-0

6

Mar

-07

Oct-07

Jan-08

Apr-0

8

Jul-0

8

Oct-0

8

Concentration(mg

/L)

Lead Concentrations

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

0.007

0.008

Feb-

05

Apr-0

5

Jul-0

5

Oct-0

5

Jan-06

Apr-0

6

Jul-0

6

Oct-0

6

Mar-07

Oct-07

Jan-08

Apr-0

8

Jul-0

8

Oct-0

8

Concentration(mg/L)

Manganese Concentrations

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Feb-

05

Apr-0

5

Jul-0

5

Oct-0

5

Jan-06

Apr-0

6

Jul-0

6

Oct-0

6

Mar-07

Oct-07

Jan-08

Apr-0

8

Jul-0

8

Oct-0

8

Concentration(mg/L)





38/40

Total Phosphorus Concentrations

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Feb-

05

Apr-0

5

Jul-0

5

Oct-0

5

Jan-06

Apr-0

6

Jul-0

6

Oct-0

6

Mar-07

Oct-07

Jan-08

Apr-0

8

Jul-0

8

Oct-0

8

Concentration(mg

/L)

Potassium Concentrations

0

5

10

15

20

25

Feb-

05

Apr-0

5

Jul-0

5

Oct-0

5

Jan-06

Apr-0

6

Jul-0

6

Oct-0

6

Mar

-07

Oct-07

Jan-08

Apr-0

8

Jul-0

8

Oct-0

8

Co

ncentration(mg/L)

Chloride Concentrations

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Feb-05

Apr-05

Jul-05

Oct-05

Jan-06

Apr-06

Jul-06

Oct-06

Mar-07

Oct-07

Jan-08

Apr-08

Jul-08

Oct-08

Concentration(mg/L)

Nickel Concentrations 61/23254 Bunbury Harvey Regional Council




39/40

Nickel Concentrations

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

Feb-

05

Apr-0

5

Jul-0

5

Oct-0

5

Jan-06

Apr-0

6

Jul-0

6

Oct-0

6

Mar

-07

Oct-07

Jan-08

Apr-0

8

Jul-0

8

Oct-0

8

Concentration(mg/L)

Zinc Concentrations

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Feb-

05

Apr-0

5

Jul-0

5

Oct-0

5

Jan-06

Apr-0

6

Jul-0

6

Oct-0

6

Mar-07

Oct-07

Jan-08

Apr-0

8

Jul-0

8

Oct-0

8

Concentration(mg/L)

1S 1D 2S 2D ES ED

SES SWS SED SWD WD





40/40

GHD

GHD House, 239 Adelaide Tce. Perth, WA 6004

P.O. Box Y3106, Perth WA 6832

T: 61 8 6222 8222 F: 61 8 6222 8555 E: [email protected]

GHD 2008

This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose

for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission.

Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Document Status

Reviewer Approved for IssueRevNo.

AuthorName Signature Name Signature Date

0 A. Barron P. Hamer P. Hamer
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

ghd hydro assessment

Documents