h05069h001 rev 04.rep 30.1.landfill design with …gunnspulpmill.com/iis/v16/v16_a55.pdf · pitt...

Pitt & Sherry Ref: H05069H001 Rev 04.rep 30.1.landfill design with appendices/iow

• CONSULTING ENGINEERS

• PROJECT MANAGERS

• BUILDING SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS

Email: [email protected] Internet: www.pittsh.com.au HOBART

Lower Ground Floor Surrey House 199 Macquarie Street DX 193 PO Box 94 Hobart Tas 7001 Australia Ph: +61 (0) 3 6223 1800 Fax: +61 (0) 3 6223 1299

Other offices at: • Launceston • Devonport • Victoria

P I T T & S H E R R Y

INCORPORTED AS PITT & SHERRY HOLDINGS PTY LTD REGISTERED OFFICE: 33 GEORGE STREET LAUNCESTON TAS 7250 AUSTRALIA ABN 77 009 586 083

Gunns Pulp Mill Solid Waste Landfill Conceptual Design Prepared for Gunns Limited June 2006 Prepared by: Dr Ian Woodward Jim Lockley

Dr Michael Pollington


Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... i

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 5

2. Background.......................................................................................................... 6

3. Waste Volumes and Characteristics .................................................................. 7

4. Leachate Characteristics................................................................................... 13

5. Landfill Classification ....................................................................................... 14

6. Site Selection Criteria........................................................................................ 14

7. Description of Preferred Site............................................................................ 20 7.1 Topography ................................................................................................ 20 7.2 Geology...................................................................................................... 22 7.3 Groundwater............................................................................................... 23 7.4 Surface Water............................................................................................. 25 7.5 Flora and Fauna.......................................................................................... 26 7.6 Heritage...................................................................................................... 26

8. Conceptual Design ............................................................................................. 27 8.1 Objectives................................................................................................... 27 8.2 Design Criteria ........................................................................................... 27 8.3 Surface Water Management....................................................................... 29 8.4 Groundwater Management......................................................................... 32 8.5 General Layout........................................................................................... 33 8.6 Support Infrastructure ................................................................................ 36 8.7 Leachate Barrier ......................................................................................... 43 8.8 Cell Design and Leachate Management..................................................... 47 8.9 Landfill Gas Management.......................................................................... 58 8.10 Traffic Management................................................................................... 59 8.11 Construction Steps ..................................................................................... 61 8.12 Close Out.................................................................................................... 63 8.13 Aftercare..................................................................................................... 63

9. Potential Environmental Impacts .................................................................... 64 9.1 Groundwater............................................................................................... 64 9.2 Flora and Fauna.......................................................................................... 66 9.3 Heritage...................................................................................................... 66 9.4 Noise .......................................................................................................... 66 9.5 Dust ............................................................................................................ 67 9.6 Visibility..................................................................................................... 68 9.7 Hazard Analysis of Conceptual Design at Preferred Site .......................... 68

10. Landfill Operation............................................................................................. 69 10.1 Hours of Operation..................................................................................... 69 10.2 Security ...................................................................................................... 70 10.3 Waste Handling.......................................................................................... 70 10.4 Water Management .................................................................................... 71


10.5 Nuisance Management ............................................................................... 71 10.6 Staffing....................................................................................................... 71

11. Monitoring.......................................................................................................... 72 11.1 Preliminary Monitoring.............................................................................. 72 11.2 Operational Monitoring.............................................................................. 72 11.3 Closure Monitoring .................................................................................... 75

12. Reporting............................................................................................................ 75

13. Planning Scheme Amendment.......................................................................... 76

Appendix A Waste characteristics

Appendix B Description of candidate landfill sites against risk criteria

Appendix C Comparison of candidate landfill sites against risk criteria

Appendix D Geological and water sampling results

Appendix E Surface water runoff calculations

Appendix F Conceptual site infrastructure

Appendix G Conceptual cell design

Appendix H Conceptual leachate collection

Appendix I Leachate calculations

Appendix J Junction analysis

Appendix K Hazard analysis of conceptual landfill design

Appendix L Planning scheme amendment © Pitt & Sherry hold copyright over the content of this document. You may use and copy it for the purposes of the Gunns pulp mill planning and environmental approval process but otherwise cannot copy it without our written permission.

Name Signature Date

Authorised by: Dr Ian Woodward 28 June 2006

Pitt & Sherry Ref: H05069H001 Rev 04.rep 30.1.landfill design with appendices/iow i

Executive Summary This report describes the conceptual design for the solid waste landfill required for Gunns Limited’s proposed pulp mill near Bell Bay.

The landfill is an integral component of the pulp mill but will be located away from the main site, although still within the Bell Bay Major Industrial area.

Detailed design of the landfill will be undertaken prior to construction, and this will be subject to any requirements and conditions that might be imposed by the environmental approvals for the project.

The chosen location is in the Tippogoree Hills, and is one of three sites identified in 1996 by the (then) Department of Environment and Land Management’s Bell Bay Baseline Environmental Monitoring Program as being potentially suitable for a major industrial landfill. A comparison of these three sites and a review of possible alternative sites has confirmed that the selected site is the most appropriate.

The landfill will require the removal of portions of a Eucalyptus ovata vegetation community, which has conservation significance, and also removal of populations of the plant Pimelea flava, which is listed on Tasmania’s threatened species list. The significance of these impacts, and prescriptions to manage them, are dealt with at a whole-of-project level in a separate report prepared by GHD.

Three sites listed in the Tasmanian Aboriginal Sites Index lie within the landfill footprint. Ministerial permission would therefore be sought under the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 for a suitably skilled and experienced Aboriginal Heritage Officer to relocate these artefacts to a culturally appropriate, alternative site.

No items of historic heritage significance occur within or in the vicinity of the landfill and therefore no items will be disturbed.

The conceptual design is a two-layered landfill. The bottom layer’s first cell will be at the head of a broad gully and contain construction waste only. Four process waste cells will subsequently be constructed successively down the gully. The top layer will have six process waste cells and be built on top of the bottom layer, and also be successively constructed downslope.

All process waste cells will contain small internal cells for putrescible waste generated by the mill operations.

The design life of the pulp mill infrastructure is 50 years. For the purposes of the landfill’s conceptual design, Gunns has nominated a design life of 20 years. However, there are no intractable geological or topographical impediments to an expansion well beyond this nominal life.

Pitt & Sherry Ref: H05069H001 Rev 04.rep 30.1.landfill design with appendices/iow ii

Gunns has assessed the feasibility of using the pulp mill’s solid waste for agricultural and/or silvicultural benefit (eg. as a fertiliser and/or soil conditioner), and concluded that there may indeed be opportunities for beneficial reuse. Throughout the life of the pulp mill, beneficial reuse will be maximised to the extent practicable. Beneficial reuse would reduce the volumes of waste going to the landfill and therefore extend the life of the landfill beyond the 20 year nominal design life.

The life of the landfill could also be extended beyond its conceptual design life by adding additional cells. The physical characteristics of the site allow more cells to be added downslope of the design footprint described in this report, and this expansion would be consistent with the downslope construction methodology adopted for the design. Subject to detailed design, it is anticipated that the ultimate achievable life of the landfill would be commensurate with the 50 year design life of the pulp mill.

On a conservative assumption of no beneficial reuse, the estimated maximum amount of pulp mill solid waste for disposal is approximately 49,000 t/year (56,000 m3/year). This will be made up of 760 t/y (5,000 m3/y before compaction) putrescible waste, 8,500 t/y (11,000 m3/y) boiler ash and 40,000 t/y (40,000 m3/y) green liquor process dregs, slaker grits (sand) and lime kiln electrostatic precipitator dust.

No hazardous waste will go to the landfill. Hazardous waste will be transported to an established landfill approved for that type of waste.

The construction waste that goes to the landfill will only be residual waste left after all practical reuse and recycling opportunities have been exhausted. There is therefore no likely prospect that there will ever be any desire to recover construction waste from the landfill.

It is possible, however, that recovery of process waste might be desired for some future beneficial reuse. Separation of process waste from putrescible waste will be necessary to allow this.

An earth wall in each landfill cell will separate process waste and domestic waste. If at some later date recovery of process waste is desired it could be extracted from the landfill separately to the (putrescible) domestic waste.

Additional separation of the various process wastes would maximise the opportunities for their future recovery for beneficial reuse. However, mixing the process wastes does have significant advantages that would be lost if wastes were kept separate.

Based on the available chemical and physical information on the pulp mill solid wastes requiring disposal, there are no technical reasons that preclude mixing of the green liquor dregs, lime slaker sand, lime kiln electrostatic precipitator dust and combined boiler ashes.

Pitt & Sherry Ref: H05069H001 Rev 04.rep 30.1.landfill design with appendices/iow iii

The advantages gained from mixing the process wastes are:

o Mixing the wastes would maximise use of landfill airspace and minimise solid waste volumes within the landfill.

o Mixing the wastes prior to or during disposal would produce an reasonably mixed and consistent leachate at source. If wastes were kept separate, leachate consistency would not be achieved until full mixing occurred within the leachate collection pipes. An immediately consistent leachate would minimise the likelihood of adverse chemical changes to the landfill’s geosynthetic clay liner.

o Mixing the wastes prior to or during disposal would reduce the pH of the most caustic wastes down to an averaged pH. If wastes were kept separate, some of the waste could individually produce a higher pH than the average until it had mixed with lower pH leachate(s). A lower pH is preferable to ensure that the leachate remains within the design tolerance of the landfill’s geosynthetic clay liner.

o Mixing the wastes prior to or during disposal would release the heat of hydration of the lime content quickly, minimising the risk of unhydrated lime being pushed by the tyres or tracks of spreading vehicles into proximity to the synthetic materials of the landfill liner. If the heat of hydration was released in close proximity to the synthetic materials, they could be damaged causing a resultant loss of impermeability.

Given the significance of these advantages, and given also that Gunns will adopt a principle of maximizing reuse of waste from the mill site as it is generated rather than relying on recovering it at a later date from the landfill, the hypothetical future benefits that might arise from waste separation are not considered to be sufficient to justify losing the advantages achievable from waste mixing. It is also difficult to envisage circumstances where recovery from the landfill for beneficial reuse would be economic while current arisings were available at the mill site.

Process wastes that cannot otherwise be beneficially reused will therefore be mixed prior to or during disposal.

Based on the information available, the leachate quality should have the following chemical properties:

o Relatively high pH of approximately 9.5 to 12 o Potential saturation with calcium hydroxide o Dissolved heavy metals and metalloids at elevated pHs o Elevated electrical conductivity and dissolved solids.

Process waste cells will be lined with a geosynthetic clay liner. Leachate will be collected and pumped to the pulp mill’s wastewater treatment plant.

Pitt & Sherry Ref: H05069H001 Rev 04.rep 30.1.landfill design with appendices/iow iv

The green liquor dregs, lime slaker sand, lime kiln electrostatic precipitator dust and boiler ash wastes are assessed to be controlled waste pursuant to the DPIWE Landfill Sustainability Guide 2004 and the National Environment Protection (Movement of Controlled Waste between States and Territories) Measure (2004). This is based on the waste and leachate characteristics. The 'domestic' type waste to be disposed of to the landfill would be classified as 'putrescible'.

The Landfill Sustainability Guide Category C design criteria (secure landfill) has therefore been adopted for the landfill.

Construction waste will be inert, and will not generate leachate. The process waste itself is inorganic and relatively benign. It is primarily the high pH that warrants the landfill’s classification as Category C. The leachate should therefore contain no intractable toxic chemicals.

The hydraulic conductivity of geosynthetic clay liners is not sensitive to pH unless the pH is very low (less than 2). A review of published liner compatibility studies and liner manufacturers’ recommendations by the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory concluded that a pH of up to 13 is acceptable for geosynthetic clay liners. The expected leachate pH of up to 12 is therefore within the acceptable range.

A hazard analysis of the conceptual design has been undertaken in accordance with AS/NZS 4360 Risk Management methodology. The assessed net risk of the conceptual landfill design is low for all aspects other than a few where it is assessed as moderate.

This overall level of risk is concluded to be readily acceptable by all reasonable standards, including those specified in the Landfill Sustainability Guide.

Pitt & Sherry Ref: H05069H001 Rev 04.rep 30.1.landfill design with appendices/iow 5

1. Introduction This report describes the conceptual design for the solid waste landfill required for Gunns Limited’s proposed pulp mill near Bell Bay.

The landfill is an integral component of the pulp mill but will be located away from the main site, although still within the Bell Bay Major Industrial area.

This conceptual design will allow the proposal to be assessed as part of the pulp mill’s approval process.

Detailed design of the landfill will be undertaken prior to construction, and this will be subject to any requirements and conditions that might be imposed by the environmental approvals for the project.

The design life of the pulp mill infrastructure is 50 years. For the purposes of the landfill’s conceptual design, Gunns has nominated a design life of 20 years. However, there are no intractable geological or topographical impediments to an expansion well beyond this nominal life.

The volume of the conceptual design is set by a conservative assumption of 56,000 m3 of waste produced by the mill per year and no beneficial reuse, giving a total required air space volume of 1.1 million m3.

Gunns has assessed the feasibility of using the pulp mill’s solid waste for agricultural and/or silvicultural benefit (eg. as a fertiliser and/or soil conditioner), and concluded that there may indeed be opportunities for beneficial reuse. Throughout the life of the pulp mill, beneficial reuse will be maximised to the extent practicable.

Beneficial reuse would reduce the volumes of waste going to the landfill and therefore extend the life of the landfill beyond the 20 year nominal design life.

For the purposes of landfill design, however, the conservative worst case of no reuse has been assumed, so as to ensure that the landfill is capable of dealing with all potential solid waste over its design life.

The principal volume constraint for the landfill’s conceptual design is visibility from vantage points. Sight lines from vantage points set the maximum height of the landfill, and the footprint was sized to obtain the nominated design life.

The conceptual design is conservative with respect to visibility. The maximum height of the landfill has been limited by sight lines over the natural ground surface, ignoring vegetation that is present and/or that could be planted. The height, and hence volume, of the landfill cells could be increased significantly if vegetation is accounted for, allowing the life of the landfill to be extended substantially beyond its nominal 20 year life even within its current footprint. This will form part of the landfill’s detailed design considerations.


The life of the landfill could also be extended beyond its conceptual design life by adding additional cells. The physical characteristics of the site allow more cells to be added downslope of the design footprint described in this report, and this expansion would be consistent with the downslope construction methodology adopted for the design. Downslope expansion would require a relocation of the leachate collection and pumping system and an extension of cutoff drains and natural drainage diversions but these are not problematic issues.

The principal constraint to downslope expansion is the potential to intersect sightlines from the East Tamar Highway. Approximately 1 million m3 of additional volume is achievable before sight lines are intersected, again adopting the conservative approach of using natural ground surface and ignoring screening vegetation. This would approximately double the life of the landfill to around 40 years. When vegetation is allowed for, this additional volume and hence life expectancy will be substantially greater.

In summary, the nominal landfill life of 20 years adopted for the conceptual design could be substantially increased by:

• Beneficial reuse of process waste for agricultural and/or silvicultural purposes

• Downslope extension of the landfill footprint

• Allowing for screening vegetation, which will enable the height of the landfill cells to be increased without intersecting sight lines.

Subject to detailed design, it is anticipated that the ultimate achievable life of the landfill would be commensurate with the 50 year design life of the pulp mill.

Waste production and reuse rates will be monitored during the mill operation and if additional disposal capacity proves necessary, an expansion to the landfill would be designed and appropriate approval sought well in advance of it being required.

2. Background The Bell Bay Major Industrial Area has been a principal centre for Tasmania’s heavy industries since the 1955, when the Bell Bay aluminium smelter commenced production. Comalco (originally a partnership between the Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation and the British Aluminium Company) was formed in 1957, and purchased the smelter in 1960.

Subsequent heavy industries that have been built in the Bell Bay area are located within the original Comalco land, and that land’s boundaries generally form the boundaries of what is now known and zoned as the Bell Bay Major Industrial Area.


The Bell Bay Major Industrial Area is therefore well-established in the community’s perception as an area set aside for heavy industry. Location of the pulp mill landfill within this area is therefore an appropriate siting, provided that accepted environmental standards can be achieved.

3. Waste Volumes and Characteristics The solid process waste produced by the pulp mill will come primarily from minerals in the raw wood, from the unusable fraction of limestone and from other impurities in process inputs.

The solid process wastes are boiler ash, green liquor process dregs, slaker grits (sand) and lime kiln electrostatic precipitator dust.

Boiler ash is inorganic (mineral) residue left from the combustion of wood in the plant’s boilers.

Green liquor dregs are nonreactive and insoluble materials left after smelt (inorganic process chemicals) from the recovery furnace is mixed with water. They consist of carbonaceous material and compounds of calcium, sodium, magnesium and sulphur.

Lime sludge is produced when lime is mixed with green liquor to produce white liquor through a recausticising process. The lime kiln converts this sludge into lime with a high content of active calcium oxide. Slaker grits are made of overburned and/or underburned lime that is produced in the lime kiln. The grits contain sodium, magnesium and aluminium salt.

The lime dust from the lime kiln will be recovered with an electrostatic precipitator. Depending on the final selection of the recausticizing equipment, the non-process elements (NPE) from the chemical recovery system (lime kiln and recaustisization) are purged out, either with lime kiln dust or through the pre-coat lime of the dregs filter.

Collectively, the process wastes from a kraft mill are caustisizing materials with a pH of at least 11, containing varying proportions of calcium, aluminium, iron, sodium, potassium, sulphur, magnesium and chlorine, with calcium the predominant component1.

Caustisizing materials generally do not exhibit a significant environmental hazard, typically having low concentrations of heavy metals and no RCRA2 corrosivity or toxicity1.

1 RMT Inc (2003) Beneficial use of industrial by-products: Identification and review of material specifications, performance standards, and technical guidance. Report prepared for National Council for Air and Stream Improvement 2 United States of America Resource Conservation and Recovery Act


Beneficial use methods for causticizing residuals tend to take advantage of the calcium content and/or alkalinity of these materials. The USA National Council for Air and Stream Improvement has reviewed potential beneficial uses for pulp mill solid process wastes as follows1:

o Soil amendment: Land application is the most commonly practiced beneficial use for causticizing materials, with lime mud being the material that is most commonly used as a soil amendment. The residuals serve as liming agents, replacing agricultural limestone as a means of raising soil pH to a range that enhances crop production. Causticizing residuals tend to neutralize soil more rapidly than agricultural limestone because they generally consist of smaller particles. Causticizing materials have also been successfully applied as a forest soil amendment. They have been shown to raise the pH of acidic soil and promote the growth of trees.

o Alternative daily cover: Lime slaker grits have been successfully used as an alternative cover material to the traditional [15 cm] of daily soil cover used for active faces of a landfill. The use of grits as an alternative daily cover helps to control blowing litter, animals, and insects at the landfill.

o Raw material in cement manufacturing: Causticizing materials are utilized as feedstocks in the production of cement. The basic raw materials required to make cement are calcium, silicon, aluminum, and iron. Causticizing materials have high percentages of calcium, aluminum, and iron, and if properly washed (as is the norm), they generally are low in constituents that can negatively impact the production and quality of cement, such as sulfur and sodium.

o Soil stabilization: Soil stabilization is the alteration of soil properties to improve the chemical or engineering performance of the soil. Lime slaker grits have generally been used in this application. Lime slaker grits, when mixed with sand and compacted in lifts, have been shown to handle heavy truck traffic better than typical soil surfaces. Lime slaker grits has also been shown to be effective as a dust suppressant on unpaved roads. While the dust from the grit/sand roads is finer than that produced from native soil roads, the grit has a better liquid holding capacity, which improves efficiency for dust suppression techniques.

o Fine aggregate in asphalt paving: Lime mud, lime slaker grits, and green liquor dregs have been used successfully as a substitute for fine aggregate in hot mixed asphalt.

o Other: Causticizing materials have also been used in surface mine reclamation, for feedstock in compost, as an admixture to hydraulic barrier material, as a settling aid in wastewater treatment, for pH adjustment of process water, and as an ingredient in manufactured soil.


Firm reuse opportunities for process waste from the Gunns pulp mill will depend on the demand for that material within economic and environmentally efficient transport distances from the mill site.

Gunns Limited has nominated a landfill design life of 20 years, and a maximum volume of solid wastes destined for landfill disposal of 56,000 m3 per year. Gunns will maximise reuse opportunities and the actual volume required to go to landfill could therefore be considerably less.

Nevertheless, for design purposes it has been assumed that the landfill must be capable of accepting all solid wastes for the 20 year design period. The assumed design capacity of the landfill is therefore 1.1 million m3.

The pulp mill solid wastes for disposal to landfill are primarily inorganic in nature and relatively inactive. The relevant information available to date is contained in Appendix A.

The estimated maximum amount of pulp mill solid waste for disposal is approximately 49,000 t/year (56,000 m3/year), comprising 760 t/y (5,000 m3/y before compaction) domestic type waste, 8,500 t/y (11,000 m3/y) boiler ash and 40,000 t/y (40,000 m3/y) green liquor process dregs, slaker grits and lime kiln electrostatic precipitator dust.

No hazardous waste will go to the landfill. Hazardous waste will be transported to an established landfill approved for that type of waste. These wastes will be controlled wastes3 and waste transporters will need to hold an appropriate environment protection notice under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 2004.

The process waste will consist primarily of calcium and sodium hydroxides and silicates, carbonates with some phosphates and unhydrolysed oxides. The nature of the process wastes necessitates cell lining and leachate collection.

Domestic waste produced at the mill site (eg. canteen and sanitary waste) will be disposed of to dedicated smaller internal cells inside the main waste cells, thereby using the cell lining and the leachate collection system of the parent cells.

During the construction phase of the pulp mill, construction waste will also need to be disposed of. Gunns will maximise the recycling of construction waste but estimate that there will be a residual 25,000 m3 of unrecyclable construction waste that will need to be disposed of in the landfill4.

3 Under the National Environment Protection (Controlled Wastes between States and Territories) Measure 2004 and hence under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994. 4 George Town Council (correspondence dated 7 December 2005) has advised Gunns that due to disposal area constraints, the George Town Tip is unable to accept any inert or putrescible waste from the pulp mill project.


Typical construction/demolition waste types and their primary components include:

• Construction - concrete, tiles, brick, soil, mortar, plaster, insulation, carpets, paper

• Demolition discard - wood, plastic, metal, wire, concrete, cardboard, brick, insulation

• Scarifying - asphalt, tar materials, paving stones, gravel, ballast

• Excavation material - soil, gravel, rock, buried materials.

Gunns will recycle glass, recyclable plastics, steel, copper, other metals and most timber. Gunns have a policy to minimise the use of polystyrene on site and this will be communicated to suppliers.

Nonrecyclable materials that will go to the landfill will include some plastics, some concrete elements, rubber, leather gloves, timber that won't easily chip (due to nails or other inclusions), fabric, composite items, mixed scraps and offcuts, and other materials that are unsuitable for recycling because of their nature, dimensions or impurities.

The construction waste that goes to the landfill will be inert material. It will not require a cell liner or leachate collection, and the cell design for the construction waste will therefore be much simpler than it will need to be for process waste.

Domestic waste will also be produced during the construction phase from the temporary accommodation camp that will be established in George Town. It is estimated5 that a total of 5,000 m3 (before compaction) of this type of waste will be produced. This waste is putrescible, and would therefore require a lined cell and leachate collection.

The disposal needs for waste produced during the construction phase will arise well in advance of the need to dispose of process waste. If the accommodation camp’s domestic waste was disposed of to the landfill, the landfill’s leachate collection system would need to be constructed and operational approximately 3 years before the system was required for the process waste. Because the 5,000 m3 of domestic waste from the camp is relatively small (particularly when compaction is allowed for), it is considered to be more efficient and cost effective to take this waste to an established landfill, probably Remount Road, so that construction of the leachate collection system can be deferred until it is required for the process waste.

In summary, the waste that will be disposed of in the landfill comprises approximately:

5 Pitt & Sherry (December 2005) Integrated Impact Assessment for Temporary Accommodation Camp: An Off-site Ancillary Facility to the Gunn’s Pulp Mill. Report prepared for Gunns Limited.


o A total of 25,000 m3 of construction waste during the 3 year construction phase

o Up to 56,000 m3/year of process waste during the operational phase

o Up to 5,000 m3/year (before compaction) of putrescible waste during the operational phase.

Waste recovery considerations

The construction waste that goes to the landfill will only be residual waste left after all practical reuse and recycling opportunities have been exhausted. There is therefore no likely prospect that there will ever be any desire to recover construction waste from the landfill.

It is possible, however, that recovery of process waste might be desired for some future beneficial reuse. Separation of process waste from putrescible waste will be necessary to allow this.

As will be described in section 8, an earth wall in each landfill cell will separate process waste and domestic waste. If at some later date recovery of process waste is desired it could be extracted from the landfill separately to the (putrescible) domestic waste.

Additional separation of the various process wastes would maximise the opportunities for their future recovery for beneficial reuse. However, mixing the process wastes does have significant advantages that would be lost if wastes were kept separate.

Based on the available chemical and physical information on the pulp mill solid wastes requiring disposal, there are no technical reasons that preclude mixing of the green liquor dregs, lime slaker sand, lime kiln electrostatic precipitator dust and combined boiler ashes.

The advantages gained from mixing the process wastes are:

o Mixing the wastes prior to or during disposal would maximise use of landfill airspace and minimise solid waste volumes within the landfill.

o Mixing the wastes prior to or during disposal would produce a reasonably mixed and consistent leachate at source. If wastes were kept separate, leachate consistency would not be achieved until full mixing occurred within the leachate collection pipes. An immediately consistent leachate would minimise the likelihood of adverse chemical changes to the landfill’s geosynthetic clay liner (see section 8.8.2).

o Mixing the wastes prior to or during disposal would reduce the pH of the most caustic wastes down to an averaged pH. If wastes were kept separate, some of the waste could individually produce a higher pH than the average until it had mixed with lower pH leachate(s). A lower pH is preferable to ensure that the leachate remains within the design tolerance of the landfill’s geosynthetic clay liner (see section 8.8.2).


o Mixing the wastes prior to or during disposal would release the heat of hydration of the lime content quickly, minimising the risk of unhydrated lime being pushed by the tyres or tracks of spreading vehicles or falling through the drainage aggregate into close proximity to the synthetic materials of the landfill liner. If the heat of hydration was released in close proximity to the synthetic materials, they could be damaged causing a resultant loss of impermeability (see section 8.8.2).

Given the significance of these advantages, and given also that Gunns will adopt a principle of maximizing reuse of waste from the mill site as it is generated rather than relying on recovering it at a later date from the landfill, the hypothetical future benefits that might arise from waste separation are not considered to be sufficient to justify losing the advantages achievable from waste mixing. It is also difficult to envisage circumstances where recovery from the landfill for beneficial reuse would be economic while current arisings were available at the mill site6.

Process wastes that cannot otherwise be beneficially reused will therefore be mixed prior to or during disposal.

As described in section 8.8, a 150 mm protective layer of sand and/or waste will overlie the 300 mm aggregate drainage layer, and this separation from the underlying synthetic materials is considered sufficient to protect them from heat of hydration. Once the protective layer has been established, the risk from heat of hydration should be negligible.

A compromise between fully mixing the process wastes and keeping them fully separate could be to mix sufficient waste to provide a buffering layer between the landfill liner and overlying separated wastes. Leachate from the overlying wastes could then mix as it percolates down through the mixed waste layer.

This option will be explored once the landfill is operating, and a solid body of leachate monitoring data quality has been collected.

Future separation of process wastes would not require changes to the landfill design. There is no need to create separate subcells (which would take up valuable space) for the various wastes - the chemical characteristics of the wastes suggest no significant likelihood of adverse reactions between the waste types. The separate wastes could simply be placed along side each other. There might be a small amount of mixing at the edges but this would not be a significant loss of separation7.

6 There would be significant issues of having to accept environmental liability for any third party wanting to reopen the landfill for waste recovery after it had been closed, and this liability alone will mean that post-closure recovery of waste would be very unlikely 7 In addition to being unnecessary and losing storage space due to the space occupied by subcell walls, placing the process wastes separately in the landfill could present problems if separate subcells were constructed, depending on the relative rates of production. Having multiple compartments within cells would require careful sizing relative to the volumes of waste streams. If the diversion proportions of the various streams varies and one stream is


4. Leachate Characteristics The landfill will produce leachate as a result of moisture in the process waste, and rainwater infiltration8. The leachate will vary in strength and volume depending on many factors, including waste type and properties, size of landfill, age of landfill and landfill cover design.

Based on the information available, including experience in Finnish pulp mills, the leachate quality should have the following chemical properties:

o Relatively high pH of approximately 9.5 to 12 o Potential saturation with calcium hydroxide o Dissolved heavy metals and metalloids at elevated pHs o Elevated electrical conductivity and dissolved solids.

The chemical analysis of the leachate will depend on the relative mix of wastes and also on the mount of rain infiltration into uncovered waste. Indicative leachate parameters are provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Typical leachate quality expected (minor constituents such as calcium, magnesium, alkalinity, potassium and barium are not included)

Parameter Range Units Temperature 10 – 25 oC pH 9.5 – 12 units Conductivity 200 – 2500 mS/m Total suspended solids 50 – 1000 mg/L Chemical oxygen demand 200 – 2200 mg/L Biological oxygen demand 50 – 500 mg/L Total phosphorus 1 – 15 mg /L Total nitrogen 5 – 30 mg /L Sodium 2000 – 5500 mg/L Chloride 500 – 1500 mg/L Sulphate (SO4) 100 - 500 mg/L Phenol 0.05 – 0.25 mg/L Cadmium 0.00005 – 0.0005 mg/L Mercury 0.0001 – 0.0003 mg/L Lead 0.0004 – 0.006 mg/L Zinc 0.03 – 0.08 mg/L Cobalt 0.002 – 0.005 mg/L Molybdenum 0.03 – 0.08 mg/L Nickel 0.02 – 0.031 mg/L

reused proportionally less than the others, that would become the driver for opening of the next cell and lead to either the current cell being closed prematurely, with consequential wastage of air space for the other waste stream compartments, or multiple cells having to be open and operated simultaneously. The only way to avoid these problems would be to have many small cells (rather than compartments within larger cells), which would mean many more walls and a large wastage of air space. 8 Conceivably, there could also be some infiltration from water sprayed for dust suppression but the great majority of this is more likely to evaporate than infiltrate


Leachate quantities will vary throughout the life of the landfill. When the first landfill cell is commissioned, practically all of the incident rainfall onto the open cell will report directly to the leachate collection system.

As the waste builds up in the first operating cell, some of the rainfall will be absorbed and adsorbed by the waste until saturated, which will significantly moderate the leachate flow from the cell.

As the landfill cells are filled and closed, the quantity and quality of leachate produced will fluctuate.

For the overall leachate design, the production from an open active cell plus that from the closed cells needs to be considered.

5. Landfill Classification The green liquor dregs, lime slaker sand, lime kiln electrostatic precipitator dust and boiler ash wastes are assessed to be controlled waste pursuant to the DPIWE Landfill Sustainability Guide 2004 and the National Environment Protection (Movement of Controlled Waste between States and Territories) Measure (2004). This is based on the waste and leachate characteristics outlined above.

The 'domestic' type waste to be disposed of to the landfill would be classified as 'putrescible'.

It is therefore proposed to adopt the Landfill Sustainability Guide Category C design criteria (secure landfill) for the landfill.

6. Site Selection Criteria High level site selection was governed by two conditions precedent:

A. The landfill will receive waste only from the pulp mill, whether as a dedicated landfill or as a dedicated cell(s) within an existing landfill, and must have a capacity for at least a 20 year life; and

B. The landfill must be located within economic transport proximity to the pulp mill and minimise waste trucks travelling on public roads.

Within those conditions precedent, four candidate sites were considered.


Three of these sites had previously been identified as part of the (then) Department of Environment and Land Management’s (DELM’s) Bell Bay Baseline Environmental Monitoring Program (BBBEMP)9.

For that study, DELM nominated the Bell Bay Major Industrial Zone (BBMIZ) as the initial area within which to locate a landfill site, and reduced that area to a preferred target area based primarily on avoiding proximity to built up areas and reducing visibility.

The resultant preferred area covered the eastern third of the BBMIZ, including sections of the Tippogoree Hills (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Area nominated as preferred for the location of an industrial landfill by the Department of Environment and Land Management’s Bell Bay Baseline Environmental Monitoring Program

The BBBEMP study identified 10 potential sites within the Bell Bay area.

9 John Miedecke & Partners (February 1996) Bell Bay Baseline Environmental Monitoring Programme: Solid Waste Disposal Site Investigations Stage 1. Report prepared for the Department of Environment and Land Management.


Eight site exclusion criteria were used by the BBBEMP to rule out potential sites:

1. Located within 500 m of a residential, rural/residential zone and areas reserved or identified for future residential use.

2. Located in areas dedicated as freshwater, coastal and marine reserves; nature and wildlife parks and reserves; world heritage areas; reserves significant to tourism.

3. An area recognised as being of substantial conservation significance for flora or fauna.

4. Located within 10 km of any aerodrome used by piston or jet aircraft.

5. Located on land that forms a catchment supplying potable town water, within 10 km of the supply offtake.

6. Located on or in wetlands and saltmarshes.

7. Located on low lying land subject to flooding at or more frequently than 1 in 100 years.

8. Located on areas with landslip potential and high soil erosion (eg. granites, sandstones and quartzites), sinkholes, limestone, highly fractured rock, underground mining or along known fault lines.

Six additional site selection constraints were used by the BBBEMP:

9. Access: Areas readily accessible from the East Tamar Highway were preferred.

10. Land zoning: Areas within the BBMIZ were deemed to allow waste disposal as a permitted use, whereas areas on land zoned agricultural were deemed to allow waste disposal as a discretionary use. Areas within the BBMIZ were therefore preferred10.

11. Conservation values: Rare or endangered flora and fauna communities or high quality habitats were to be avoided where possible.

12. Geological hazards: Geological hazards relevant to site selection included landslip potential, erosion hazards, highly fractured rock, known fault lines, limestones and mining activities.

10 These conclusions depend on the interpretation of the George Town Planning Scheme 1991. The scheme has no specific definition of a landfill, and an industrial landfill would presumably fall within the General Industry definition. Under this definition, an industrial landfill is certainly a permitted use within the BBMIZ. However, General Industry, and therefore an industrial landfill, is a prohibited use in the agricultural zone. An industrial landfill could only be taken to be discretionary in the agricultural zone if it was determined that it did not fit under general industry but rather stood on its own as an “other” use.


13. Hydrogeological hazards: Hydrogeological hazards relevant to site selection included water storages and catchments, wetlands, saltmarshes, flood plains and groundwater migration pathways.

14. Geotechnical constraints: Geotechnical constraints relevant to site selection included shallow rock, boulders, lack of clay, inadequate drainage crossfall (<1%) and steep slopes (>10%).

On the basis of these criteria, the BBBEMP study reduced the initial 10 sites to 3 preferred sites, referred to here as BBB Site A, BBB Site B and BBB Site C. These are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Location of sites A, B and C identified by the Bell Bay Baseline Environmental Monitoring Program as potential sites for an industrial landfill

Although the BBBEMP study was undertaken approximately 10 years ago, the principal selection criteria remain valid, and are appropriate to the pulp mill solid waste.


Current site selection criteria are described in the Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment’s (DPIWE’s) Landfill Sustainability Guide11.

The landfill site selection criteria used by the BBBEMP 1996 study were consistent with those specified by the 2004 Landfill Sustainability Guide. However, the Landfill Sustainability Guide includes a number of additional criteria not explicitly considered by the BBBEMP:

1. Presence of dune formations

2. Sited in a deep valley or gully

3. Geoconservation potential

4. Proximity to a potable groundwater aquifer.

None of these additional criteria diminish the worthiness of the three BBBEMP candidate sites, and there is therefore no justification for revisiting the preselection process that led to the identification of the three options.

Nevertheless, the three sites are located in gullies. The Landfill Sustainability Guide notes that detailed engineering and hydrological design and modelling is required for such locations. This would be undertaken as a matter of course during the detailed design phase of the pulp mill project. At the current conceptual design stage, the conceptual engineering and hydrological considerations of a gully siting are examined and described in this report.

The fourth candidate site is adjacent to the current George Town Municipal Tip, referred to here as GMT Site D, located at the foot of Mount George12.

The scope for further alternative landfill sites that could meet the conditions precedent is very limited, and certainly there are none that would have advantages over the four candidate sites. Options are:

• Adjacent to the pulp mill. This area has only a shallow soil layer, underlain by fresh dolerite. Substantial excavation of the rock would be required to create landfill cells. Locating a landfill here would also sterilise approximately 20 ha or more of land from future higher value industrial use.

• Cimitiere Plain. The transport distance to a site on the coastal plains north of George Town would be in the order of 15+ km, which would incur a considerable cost. Transport would also need to be through

11 Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment (2004) Sustainability Guide for the Siting, Design, Operation and Rehabilitation of Landfills. 12 Subsequent to the site selection process, George Town Council (correspondence dated 7 December 2005) advised Gunns that due to disposal area constraints, the George Town Tip is unable to accept any inert or putrescible waste from the pulp mill project. The possibility of limited disposal space was anticipated in the site selection scoring process, although strictly speaking this advice would now rule GMT Site D out of consideration.


residential areas of George Town itself. The soils of the plain are sandy, and would not be suitable for forming the base and sides of landfill cells. Substantial quantities of clay would need to be imported.

• East of Tippogoree Hills (Dalrymple Road). The transport distance to a site along Dalrymple Road, to the east of the Tippogoree Hills would be in the order of 15+ km, which incur a considerable cost. The soils of the plain are sandy, and would not be suitable for forming the base and sides of landfill cells. Substantial quantities of clay would need to be imported. The site would be within the Curries River Reservoir water catchment, which is not a suitable location for a landfill.

• Between East Arm and Batman Bridge. The transport distance to a site between East Arm and the Batman Bridge would be in the order of 10+ km, which would incur a considerable cost. This land in this area is high quality intensive grazing property.

• Opposite shore of Long Reach (Rowella). The transport distance to a site in the Rowella area would be in the order of 15+ km, which would incur a considerable cost. Transport would also need to be through rural residential areas along the western shore of the Tamar River. The roads in this area are unsuited to heavy vehicles. The site itself would need to be amongst rural residential properties and vineyards.

• Big Bay. Historically, the reclamation of Big Bay was considered as a disposal site for waste from the Bell Bay power station. Although this site would be conveniently located to the pulp mill, such reclamation would not be acceptable under contemporary landfill siting standards or coastal protection policies.

Detailed evaluation of the above alternative sites is not justified due to their inherent unsuitability as landfill locations for the pulp mill.

From the four candidate sites, a site selection process was undertaken in accordance with DPIWE’s 2004 Sustainability Guide for Siting, Design, Operation and rehabilitation of Landfills, in accordance with the requirements of the Draft Scope IIS Guidelines13.

Site characteristics were described for each site, under the category headings of: Geology, Hydrogeology, Surface Water, Land Use, Flora and Fauna, Heritage, Infrastructure and Economics. Each of these categories was further broken down into subcategories.

A descriptive matrix of the four candidate sites using these categories and subcategories is provided in Appendix B.

A quantitative risk comparison was then undertaken.

13 Resource Planning and Development Commission (April 2005) Proposed bleached kraft pulp mill in Northern Tasmania by Gunns Limited: Draft Scope Guidelines for the Integrated Impact Statement (IIS).


Each category was given a weighting out of 100 according to its judged relative importance across all categories – the sum of all category weightings totals 100. Within each category, each subcategory was given a weighting out of 100 according to its judged relative importance across all subcategories within that category – the sum of all subcategory weightings within a category totals 100. Multiplication of the subcategory weighting by its category weighting expressed as a percent yields a net percent weighting for the subcategory across all categories.

For each candidate landfill, each subcategory item was given a score from 0 to 10 for its judged risk value. A score of 0 applies if that landfill has zero risk for that subcategory. A score of 5 applies if the risk is moderate and the consequences moderate. A score of 10 applies if the risk is certain and consequences high. Intermediate scores apply for greater or lesser risks and consequences.

Multiplication of the risk score by the net subcategory weighting gives a net risk score for that subcategory, and the total of all net risk scores for a candidate site is the final measure of that site’s overall risk.

A comparative matrix of weighted risk scores is provided in Appendix C.

The three BBB sites clearly have advantages over the GMT site. There are only minor differences between the three BBB sites themselves. A significant distinguishing feature of BBB Site B, however, is that it has very low visibility potential whereas BBB Site A and BBB Site C would be readily visible and difficult to screen. In addition, Site C is well suited as a potential water storage dam site, which may be required in the future.

On the basis of the comparison and its low visibility advantages, BBB Site B has been adopted as the preferred site.

7. Description of Preferred Site

7.1 Topography The landfill will be located near the headwaters of Williams Creek on the eastern side of the Tippogoree Hills approximately 9.5 km south east of George Town in Tasmania.

The landfill location is shown from a regional perspective in Figure 3 and from a local perspective in Figure 4.


Figure 3: Regional setting (Source TASMAP, Tasmania 1:100,000 Topographic Map, Sheet 8215 Tamar)

Figure 4: Local setting (Source TASMAP, Tasmania 1:25,000 Series, Bell Bay 4844)

Proposed landfill

Proposed landfill


7.2 Geology The general geology of the area is summarised on the Bell Bay 1:2500014 and Beaconsfield 1:6336015 geological maps.

The area is dominated by a northwest trending graben structure formed by large-scale normal faulting in the Tertiary. A major normal fault along the eastern edge of the Tamar River defines the eastern edge of the Tamar Graben and separates Jurassic dolerite on the eastern side from Tertiary sediments and basalt on the western side.

The Tippogoree Hills are marked by a large number of lineations, some of which parallel the major normal fault along the Tamar River. Many of the other lineations are orthogonal to the main lineaments. Any reactivation of these structures at the site is considered to be unlikely as there are no known active faults in Tasmania, although there are some that are suspected of having been active within the last thousand years or so, such as the Lake Edgar fault in southwest Tasmania.

7.2.1 Site Investigations

Site investigations have consisted of eleven excavation pits and three boreholes. Borehole and excavation sites are shown in Drawing H05069-R1 in Appendix F, and the associated logs are shown in Appendix D.

Jurassic dolerite outcrops extensively throughout the area and is overlain by a variable thickness of Quaternary colluvium consisting of clays, some sands, gravels and angular cobbles. The thickness of the colluvium diminishes rapidly away from the gully floor, resulting in extensive areas of outcrop on the gully walls. A thin layer of Quaternary alluvium is associated with some of the drainage lines.

In the lowest section of the gully, at the southern end of the site (BH2), 7 m of colluvium and 22 m of weathered dolerite overlie fresh dolerite. This borehole intersected a highly fractured zone from 24 to 28 m, which is a potential groundwater passage.

At the northern end of the site (BH1), 1 m of loose broken dolerite and 1 m of slightly weathered dolerite overlie fresh dolerite. Although no core was recovered from this borehole (due to the hammer drilling method used), drilling observations suggest that this dolerite is not highly fractured.

At least 2 m of medium plasticity clay occurs in the saddle on the north western corner of the site. Elsewhere on the site, the colluvial material in the

14 McClenaghan, MP. 1988. Bell Bay, Tasmania. Digital Geological Atlas 1:25000 Series, Sheet 4844. Department of Mines, Tasmania. 15 Gee, RD and Legge, PJ. 1971. Geological Atlas 1:63360 series, Sheet 30 (8215N). Beaconsfield. Department of Mines, Tasmania.


gully floor contains limited amounts of clay mixed with broken dolerite and some pisolitic layers.

7.3 Groundwater Groundwater occurs in fracture zones within the dolerite, particularly the faults and major joint planes. Discharges from these deeper rock aquifers are likely to be into the Tamar River via the major fracture systems associated with faults.

Groundwater is also likely to occur as seasonally perched water within the sandy and gravelly layers in the colluvium and as unconfined aquifers in hydrologic connection with associated drainage lines in the Quaternary alluvium and colluvium.

7.3.1 Groundwater Investigations

Three groundwater monitoring bores (piezometers) were installed within the site over the period from the 9th to the 23rd March 2005. The bores are numbered PDH1 to PDH3. The locations of the bores are shown in Drawing H05069-R1 in Appendix F.

To date, water levels in the bores have been measured on three different occasions and yields have been measured on two different occasions. The results are shown in Table 2.

The drilling contractors, Stacpoole Enterprises, measured the rate of groundwater inflow into the piezometers, known as yield testing, on 12 April 2005. The method they used involved blasting air into the bores to remove the water until a constant flow was achieved. The results of the testing indicated yields of 0.2 L/min in PDH1, 1.3 L/min in PDH2 and 0.3 L/min in PDH3.

Pitt and Sherry undertook further yield testing in the three piezometers prior to water quality sampling on 14 April 2005. The method used involved pumping the water out and measuring the rate of recovery of the groundwater inflow.

The results from this testing were similar to the initial yield testing in all the bores except for PDH2, where the yield was estimated at approximately half the rate that it had been estimated from the initial yield testing undertaken two days prior. This might be due to the methods used. With the first method of blasting air into the bore, it may not be as easy to accurately monitor the flow rate compared to the steady pumping method. Also, the air blasting method could have had a temporary effect on the flow rate by changing the pressure conditions within the borehole and hence temporarily altering flow conditions. Because PDH2 encountered highly fractured zones, the air pressure applied from the first method of yield testing is more likely to have had a temporary impact on the flow conditions within that bore compared with the other bores.


Table 2: Water levels and yields in site groundwater bores

Water level below ground surface Yield Water

level during drilling

Piezometer screen depth

23/03/05

14/04/05

12/09/05

12/04/05

14/04/05

Borehole

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (L/min) (L/min) PDH1

(23/03/05) 12.45 15 – 30 12.45 16.18 9.35 0.2 0.01

PDH2 (12/04/05)

~8 8.5 – 29.8 – 2.78 1.68 1.3 0.6

PDH3 (12/04/05)

5.0 5.0 – 8.0 – 2.97 1.60 0.3 0.2

The borehole investigations indicate that there was a strong gradient in the water table moving from the upper end of the proposed landfill footprint to the lower end. At the upper end, groundwater was over 10 m below the ground surface, while at the lower end it approached closer than 2 m below the ground surface. Groundwater yields at the lower end were an order of magnitude higher than they were at the upper end.

These results suggest that groundwater flows much more freely through the more fractured rock underneath the lower end of the site than it does through the less fractured rock at the upper end.

The Stacpoole and Pitt & Sherry yield investigations were undertaken during a period of dry weather. Total rainfall at the Low Head meteorological station during the January to March quarter of 2005 preceding the investigations was 60 mm, compared with a long term mean of 116 mm. In wetter conditions, groundwater flow, and hence yields in the bores, could be expected to be greater than that observed during the site investigations.

The extent to which higher flows could lead to a raising of the water table is not known, and cannot be known until a dataset of bore observations over a prolonged period and a wide range of weather conditions has been collected. However, the relative difference in groundwater flows and levels between the upper and lower ends of the landfill site could reasonably be expected to remain.

As will be described in section 8, the conceptual design for the landfill is for a sequence of cells to be progressively constructed from the upper end of the landfill to the lower end. The lower end cell would not be built until approximately 8 years after the commencement of operations. During this time, there would be regular monitoring of the water levels in the bores and a comprehensive dataset will have been established. Should these data suggest a risk of the water table contacting the bottom liner of the landfill, a drainage layer would need to be constructed underneath the liner.

Groundwater analytical results from Pitt & Sherry’s 14/04/2005 sampling and from GHD’s 29/09/2005 sampling are provided in Appendix D.


Comparison with ecosystem16 guidelines and drinking water guidelines17 shows elevated aluminium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and manganese and conductivity18. The heavy metals were only elevated in the shallower PDH2, not PDH3. This difference has no ready explanation on available data.

Manganese is at or above the recommended limit for drinking water in both the shallow and the deep bores. However, as noted in the guidelines this is a common natural occurrence in Australian soils, and the limit is set for aesthetics (taste) not toxicity.

The high TDS (810 – 3140 mg/L) of the bore water is difficult to explain, and is unexpected in dolerite. Laboratory and field measurements concur, indicating that the results are unlikely to be measurement artefacts. In the 14/04/2005 sampling analysis, there was a stoichiometric imbalance between the cation and anion analytes, which accounted for less than 50% of the total dissolved solids (TDS). However, the 29/09/2005 sampling analysis showed a reasonable balance between the cations and anions.

Other bores19 in the George Town area to the north have recorded TDS levels of 582 and 320 mg/L but bores in the Mount Direction area to the south have recorded TDS levels of 1330 and 830 mg/L. The latter suggest that high TDS levels may be a feature of the groundwater in the hills on the eastern side of the Tamar. However, a much more comprehensive dataset would be needed before this could be confirmed.

The drinking water guidelines note that water with TDS levels below 500 mg/L is good quality, water with 500-1000 mg/L TDS is acceptable based on taste but above 1000 mg/L TDS the taste may be unacceptable. If the measured levels are true representations of the area’s groundwater quality, the potential use of the groundwater as a potable water supply may be limited by the naturally high salinity. Naturally high background conductivity in the groundwater would also mean that any high conductivity leachate leakage would represent a lower impact risk than if background conductivity was low.

7.4 Surface Water Creeks in the vicinity of the landfill are ephemeral drainage lines, and there are no standing water bodies. No surface water has been observed during site visits, and hence no surface water sampling has been possible.

16 ANZECC (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and marine Water Quality. 17 NHMRC/ARMCANZ (2004) Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. 18 GHD undertook a further round of analysis of PDH2 and PDH3 groundwater sampled on 29 September 2005. The results are available on request but not presented here because they simply confirm the findings of the Pitt & Sherry sampling and analysis. 19 George Town area: Bore 1550, 19.8 m, 582 mg/L; Bore 1608, 19.8 m, 320 mg/L. Mount Direction area: Bore 4807, 16.8 m, 1330 mg/L; Bore 15534, 82.3, 830 mg/L. Source: Mineral Resources of Tasmania online groundwater database.


7.5 Flora and Fauna A survey of the landfill site’s flora and fauna has been undertaken by GHD, and is reported separately20.

Eucalyptus ovata is present within the landfill footprint. This vegetation community has conservation significance. The threatened species Pimelea flava also occurs within the footprint. Management prescriptions for these vegetation types are described separately in the GHD report.

The vegetation clearance required for the landfill is greater than 1 ha which means that a Forest Practices Plan is required to be prepared and approved under the Forest Practices Regulations 1997. A Forest Practices Plan has been prepared by Gunns, and is provided separately21.

7.6 Heritage An assessment of the landfill site’s Aboriginal heritage has been undertaken by Stone and Stanton, and is reported separately22.

The survey noted that 3 Aboriginal sites had previously been recorded within the landfill footprint (identified in the Tasmanian Aboriginal Site Index as TASI 7485, 7486 and 7487). Stone and Stanton attempted to find these quartz artefacts sites without success, and did not find any new Aboriginal sites. They did observe numerous non-artefactual quartz fragments, and considered that these probably originated from a stockpile of quartz rubble dumped at the track entrance, presumably for road building or surfacing of the track. Stone and Stanton noted that chipped and broken quartz from this pile would be easy to mistake for artefacts.

In the absence of a relocation of the 3 sites, Stone and Stanton were unable to make any assessment of the scientific significance of the sites. They recommended that these sites should be not be disturbed but that, if this is not possible, Ministerial permission be obtained under the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 for a suitably skilled and experienced Aboriginal Heritage Officer to relocate these artefacts to a culturally appropriate, alternative site.

An assessment of the site’s historic heritage has been undertaken by Archaeological Services Tasmania, and reported separately23. No items of

20 GHD (2006) Proposed Bleached Kraft Pulp Mill in Northern Tasmania Flora Assessment Report and GHD (2006) Gunns Limited Northern Tasmanian Pulp Mill IIS Terrestrial Fauna Report. 21 Report in preparation 22 Stone, T. and Stanton, S. (December 2005) An Aboriginal site survey for the proposed Gunns pulpmill, effluent and water supply pipeline routes and temporary accommodation camp near George Town, northern Tasmania. Report prepared for Gunns Limited. 23 Archaeological Services Tasmania (May 2005) Historic Cultural Heritage Survey: Proposed Long Reach Mill Site – Big Bay and Williams Creek Allotments. Report prepared for Gunns Limited.


historic heritage significance were found and the site is considered to have a low potential for sites.

8. Conceptual Design

8.1 Objectives The objectives of the landfill design are as follows:

o Achieve the design volumes for the three different types of waste (construction waste, process waste and domestic waste)

o Minimise the amount of rainfall collected and leachate produced by the developing landfill

o Minimise the amount of solid waste to be disposed of to the landfill

o Minimise the area of the landfill

o Develop the landfill progressively using individual cells with a nominal 100,000 m3 capacity

o Cover the landfill progressively by fully covering individual cells as completed

o Utilise favourable geological and geographical features in the design

o Incorporate a cell liner design and cover that minimises risks to the receiving environment.

8.2 Design Criteria The landfill design is based on the assumed volume of construction waste (25,000 m3) and the conservative annual quantities of process (51,000 m3) and domestic (5,000 m3 before compaction) waste described in Appendix A.

Inert construction waste will be disposed into a dedicated cell, built prior to the process waste cells.

The solid process wastes produced at the pulp mill will be cooled and weighed at the mill before transporting to the landfill facility. It will be mixed as it is tipped and spread into the landfill.

The waste will be transported by road on trucks covered by tarpaulins. The truck trays will be sealed against moisture loss. The trucks will unload the solid waste directly into the open active landfill cell. There will be no temporary storage area at the landfill.


Resident heavy machinery will relocate and spread the waste as required, achieving an evenly compacted build up of the waste in the cell while ensuring minimal risk of damage to the cell liner and leachate collection system.

The main landfill design criteria are summarised as follows:

o Inert construction waste will be disposed of into a dedicated, unlined cell, built and used prior to the building and use of the process waste cells.

o Mixed pulp mill process solid wastes (eg. green liquor dregs, lime slaker grit, lime kiln electrostatic precipitator dust and combined boiler ashes) will be codisposed of into lined process waste cells.

o ‘Domestic’ waste generated during operations will be disposed of to an internal dedicated cell within each lined process waste cell. Domestic waste generated during the construction phase will not be disposed of in the landfill but will be taken to an existing approved landfill, probably Remount Road.

o The domestic and process cell components share the same leachate collection system, so the separation barrier does not need to be impermeable – it simply needs to be a physical barrier that keeps the process and domestic wastes apart. It will be a simple earthen barrier, built up in height progressively as the height of the process and domestic waste grows. The waste on either side will support the sides of the barrier, and the barrier therefore does not need to be constructed to be free standing.

o Leachate production from the process waste cells will be a mixed leachate from the mixed process wastes and from the smaller amount of domestic waste.

o Leachate will be collected from the process waste cells, and will be piped to the mill’s wastewater treatment plant.

o Drainage from the construction waste cell will not contain leachate but will be directed to the leachate collection system as a runoff management measure.

The design minimises rainwater and natural drainage ingress into the leachate collection system by:

o installation of temporary and permanent surface water diversion drains to divert clean water away from the landfill catchment area

o progressive landfill development, constructing the landfill cells from the ‘top down’ to mimimise the area of landfill catchment collecting water at any given time

o progressive landfill capping to minimise the area of landfill catchment exposed to infiltration at any given time

o installation of a composite landfill liner to minimise the loss of leachate to groundwater.


8.3 Surface Water Management

Quality The conceptual design of the proposed landfill project will affect one ephemeral tributary in the upper Williams Creek catchment and approximately 800 m of Williams Creek itself.

No water quality data for the Williams Creek could be referenced to develop site-specific water quality objectives24.

In 2001, the Board of Environmental Management, the Director of the Parks and Wildlife Service, and the West Tamar, George Town, Launceston City, Latrobe, Northern Midlands, Break O’Day, Meander Valley and Dorset Councils proposed the protected environmental values (PEVs) for all surface waters within the Tamar Estuary and North Esk catchments, in accordance with the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 (State Water Policy). The proposed PEVs are yet25 to be formally ratified.

The proposed PEVs for surface waters in the Tamar Estuary region are based on the applicable land tenure category. For the landfill itself, the land tenure includes private land and State Forest. Although the headwaters of the upper tributary of Williams Creek are located in a Forest Reserve upstream of the landfill, the remainder of the creek flows through the State Forest land and then the private land.

The relevant PEVs are therefore those applicable to State Forest and private land, being:

A. Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems (ii) Protection of modified (not pristine) ecosystems a.) from which edible fish are harvested

B. Recreational Water Quality & Aesthetics (ii) Secondary contact water quality; and (iii) Aesthetic water quality.

As no water quality data are available to establish site-specific water quality objectives for Williams Creek, the State Water Policy defers to the trigger values outlined in the ANZECC Guidelines26 for the protection of 95% of aquatic ecosystems.

Provided that the water quality of the surface waters flowing through the landfill complies with the ANZECC trigger values for the above mentioned PEVs, the State Water Policy will be satisfied. If any trigger value is exceeded, a risk assessment would need to be undertaken to determine what, if any, mitigation action is necessary.

24 Surface water quality monitoring was not undertaken by the DELM Bell Bay Baseline Environmental Monitoring Program. 25 December 2005 26 Australian and New Zealand Environment and conservation council (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.


Diversion Designing an appropriate surface water management system is of primary importance when a landfill location impinges on natural watercourses. The location of the landfill and its design has endeavoured to minimise interference to the natural waterways in the area. Figure 4 shows the surface waterways.

The area of natural drainage that reports to Williams Creek and requires diversion around the western and eastern sides of the landfill is approximately 20 and 64 ha respectively. The area of natural drainage that reports to Williams Creek and requires diversion at the lower eastern end of the landfill is approximately 198 ha. These catchment areas were determined from 1:25000 site topographic maps.

Surface water diversions are a key component of the landfill layout.

A permanent surface water cut off drain will be installed along the western side of the ultimate landfill footprint adjacent to the access road and along the eastern side of the landfill adjacent to the ultimate landfill footprint. These drains will also collect diverted surface water from above and to the east of the landfill.

A permanent surface water diversion drain will be installed to divert surface water from a relatively large (but still ephemeral) drainage line flowing from the east at the lower end of the landfill.

The above surface water infrastructure will remain for the life of the landfill and will be integral to the final close out plan for this area of the landfill. The surface water diversion drains will be directed at an appropriate velocity and slope back into the natural Williams Creek watercourse below the landfill footprint.

The drains will be designed to handle a 1:50 year rainfall event at the nominal time of concentration for the individual catchments. The drains will be designed and constructed to appropriate design standards and for ease of ongoing maintenance.

During the operation of the lower layer of cells, temporary drains closer to the boundary of those cells will be installed, in addition to the ultimate outside permanent drains.

The DPIWE Landfill Sustainability Guide specifies design criteria for surface water management for a 1:50 year storm event of 24 hours duration.

The intensity of rainfall and associated surface water flow rates from a 24 hour duration storm may not be indicative of good engineering design for different locations.

For the catchments mentioned above, the time of concentration (overland flow time) for surface waters reporting to or around the landfill area is approximately 30 minutes. The catchment hydraulic calculations are contained in Appendix E.


Using the more appropriate 30-minute rainfall event for design purposes (which gives much higher rainfall intensities and hence flow rates), the surface water cut off drain on the western side of the landfill must be able to handle 100 L/s. The surface water diversion and cut off drain on the upper eastern side of the landfill must be able to handle 3,500 L/s. The surface water diversion drain on the bottom eastern side of the landfill must be able to handle 9,000 L/s.

The calculations for the above information are contained in Appendix E.

The conceptual design is for the permanent earth drains to be cut into the natural ground around the landfill with nominal dimensions of 2 m wide by 1 m deep and 45° sides with nominal downhill slopes of 1%.

The flow that such a drain could handle has been calculated at approximately 7,500 L/s. Flow calculation information is contained in Appendix E.

This design is more than enough for the western and upper eastern drains.

The lower eastern drain has a slope of approximately 10% and at this slope the flow capacity of the 2 m x 1 m drain is approximately 24,000 L/s, which is also more than adequate.

An important point to be addressed at the detailed design phase is the velocity of the surface water in the drains, which is estimated to be approximately 2.5 m/s for the 1% slope and 8.0 m/s for the 10% slope. Where velocities exceed acceptable velocities for unlined drains, the drains will need to be armoured to prevent scour.

Options for drain amouring include dumped, placed and/or grouted rock, wire-reinforced rock mattresses, synthetic mesh, synthetic grass-type liners and concrete. Concrete is unlikely to be used because of cost and aesthetic considerations. Geotextiles would be used as required underneath rock lining to prevent erosion of the underlying soil. Energy dissipaters may be required to further mitigate the kinetic energy of the water, particularly in the drains on the eastern side of the landfill. The design of drain armouring and energy dissipaters will form part of the detailed design.

The DPIWE Landfill Sustainability Guide specifies a design that deals with a 50 year 24 hour storm event, ie. a one in 50 year rain spread over 24 hours. The use of a 30 minute storm event is even more conservative, ie. a one in 50 year rain spread over only half an hour. The 24 hour spread is equivalent to 2 mm of rain each half hour, compared with 28 mm for the half hour spread.

The conservative assumption betters the DPIWE rainfall guidelines by a factor of 14.

For the cutoff drains themselves, a minimum practical size of 2 m wide by 1 m deep has been assumed. On the slopes on the eastern and western sides of the landfill a drain this size would take 7.5 cumecs of runoff. On the steeper slope below the landfill the drain would take 23.8 cumecs.


For the assumed conservative 30 minute storm event, the eastern drain would need to take 3.4 cumeces, the western drain 0.8 cumecs and the lower drain 8.8 cumecs, giving safety factors of 2.2, 9.4 and 2.7 respectively. Combined with the conservative rainfall assumption, the safety margins for the three drains are therefore 31, 132 and 38 respectively.

If even these conservative design constraints are exceeded, stormwater would overflow the cutoff drains and potentially erode the sides of the landfill cells. During the operational life of the cells, this erosion could readily be repaired. If the erosion occurred post-closure, repair work could be more problematic. Even though the conservative design means that this risk is already very low, rock armouring of the edges of the closed cells will be considered during detailed design. Overflow water could also enter any open operating cell. Its flow would be buffered by the waste in the cell, and eventually it would emerge as leachate and be piped to the WWTP.

8.4 Groundwater Management Based on preliminary geotechnical information, the siting of the landfill will not interfere with current groundwater movement.

The watertable level is approximately 16 m below the surface level at the landfill area at its top end but may be less than 5 m below the surface at its lower end.

The landfill leachate quality has the potential to affect quality of the groundwater, especially the pH and conductivity, in the event of a significant breach in the landfill liner’s integrity. However, the weathered soil between the landfill and the groundwater would attenuate the impact of any leachate lost from the landfill, and the effectiveness of this attenuation will depend on where the breach occurs. Attenuation will be much greater for a breach at the upper end of the landfill than for a breach at the lower end, although the concept design does not rely on this attenuation.

Based on the conceptual landfill design, the proposed liner and capping system, the underlying geology and the leachate collection system, the risk and therefore the requirements for groundwater management are minimal.

The adoption of the proposed landfill liner design will minimise the potential risk of ground water contamination and the extent of potential contamination in accordance with Section 24.1 of the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997.

Permanent groundwater monitoring bores will be installed in strategic locations, above and below the landfill footprint, to monitor the groundwater levels and quality.


8.5 General Layout The landfill will be located in a gently sloping gully near the headwaters of Williams Creek, as shown in Drawing H05069-R1 in Appendix F. The floor and sidewalls of the gully in the landfill area are generally less than 5 % slope.

Natural constraints on the landfill size include a saddle to the northwest and two drainage lines running from the east above and below the site, and potential visibility from roads, tourist lookouts and residential areas. To achieve the required landfill volume within these constraints, a two-layer design will be used.

The layout of the landfill minimises its visibility. Line of sight details are provided in drawings H05069-R2, H05069-R3 and H05069-R4 in Appendix F, and show that the landfill will not be visible from the key vantage points of the Mount George scenic lookout and the Batman Highway. It is also unlikely to be visible from the East Tamar Highway. Although a sight line (number 3) from the highway looking north intercepts the landfill, the natural tree coverage in front of the landfill is likely to screen it from view.

The landfill will consist of one construction waste cell of 25,000 m3 capacity and up to 10 process waste cells, each with an average of 100,000 m3 capacity and a surface area of up to 23,500 m2. Individual cells will be constructed, operated and closed progressively in a systematic manner.

The first cell will be constructed at the upper end of the landfill site, as shown in Drawing H05069-R5_1 in Appendix F.

Two layers of cells will be constructed. The lower layer will be constructed first and will consist of the construction waste cell and four process waste cells. The upper layer will consist of six cells constructed on top of the four lower layer process waste cells following their closure.

The construction waste cell’s wall will stand on natural ground. The lower layer process waste cell walls will also stand on natural ground. The upper layer process waste cell walls will stand on the compacted clay capping of the lower cells, which in turn sit on the compacted process waste. Because of the fine grain size and the homogeneity of the process waste, the lower process waste cells will provide a stable platform for the upper cell walls.

Appendix A describes process waste characteristics. The process waste will have a specific density of 1000 kg/m3. This is greater than the DPIWE Landfill Sustainability Guide minimum compaction requirement for secure landfills of >850 kg/m3, even without compaction. Compaction by earthmoving equipment will increase this waste density further. Putrescible waste will be compacted by earthmoving equipment to achieve the DPIWE Landfill Sustainability Guide minimum compaction requirement for putrescible waste of >650 kg/m3. The compaction requirements will be specified as part of the geotechnical considerations for the detailed design of the landfill.


The conceptual design avoids having any cells sitting on top of the construction waste cell. The waste in this cell will by its nature be difficult to compact well enough to provide a secure platform to construct over. The construction waste cell will therefore be structurally independent from the process waste cells, apart from incidentally providing an upslope headwall for the first process waste cell of each layer.

The construction waste will be inert and benign but will be of various shapes, sizes and materials. Waste destined for this cell will be residual waste that cannot otherwise be reused or recycled. It is therefore not possible to identify a particular filling sequence for the construction waste - waste will be placed in the cell as it arises. However, to all practical extents, waste will be placed in the cell to minimise the creation of large voids that could cause instability. Waste will be compacted by running heavy machinery over it, and will be progressively covered with earth to assist stabilisation and to minimise use of voids by vermin. On final closure, the construction waste cell will be capped and revegetated.

Both layers of the landfill will be constructed in a sequence from upslope to downslope to minimise the size of the cell catchments and hence minimise ingress of surface water into the cells.

Each layer will have its own leachate collection system.

A schematic layout of the first and second layers of the landfill is shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6 respectively. More detail is provided in Drawings H05069-R6_1, H05069-R7_1 H05069-R8_1 and in Appendix F.

A cell of 100,000 m3 volume would take approximately 2 years of process waste if there was not waste reuse. It is a “no regrets” size that avoids having a cell open for a long period and that minimises unused space if it needs to be closed early (eg. if waste is instead diverted for reuse), while avoiding annual or even more frequent cell construction that would be required with a smaller cell size.

The two-layer design means that very high cell walls are not required. Higher cell walls take up an exponentially greater volume of otherwise useable air space. The two-layer design optimises the use of available air space.

Typical cross sections of the landfill, with its cutoff and diversion drains are provided in Drawing H05069-R9 in Appendix F.


Figure 5: Schematic layout of landfill layer 1

Figure 6: Schematic layout of landfill layer 2

Cell 3

Cell 4 Quarry

Amenities

Pond

Natural drainage line

Permanent road

Temporary cell access roads

Permanent road

Permanent drain

Temporary (layer 1) drain

Buffer storage

Emergency overflow

Leachate to pulp mill

WWTP


To natural drainage line

Construction waste cell

Cell 1

Cell 2

Leachate collection

Quarry

Pond


Permanent road

Temporary cell access roads

Permanent road

Permanent drain

Buffer storage

Emergency overflow

Leachate to pulp mill

WWTP


To natural drainage line

Leachate collection

Cell 10

Cell 5

Cell 6

Cell 7

Cell 8

Cell 9

Amenities


8.6 Support Infrastructure Conceptual site infrastructure is shown in various drawings in Appendix F.

8.6.1 Landfill Access Road

A gravel access road will be constructed from a junction with the East Tamar Highway to the landfill site. The proposed alignment of this road is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Proposed alignment of landfill access road

The road will be constructed to meet Class 2 (“Significant feeder road”) standards under the Forest Practices Code 200027.

It will be surfaced with an all-weather gravel pavement, having a pavement width of 5.5 m, a 0.6 m shoulder and a maximum gradient of between +8 and –10%. Design, construction, drainage and surfacing will meet the Code’s requirements. The target speed limit for the road is 50 km/hr.

At the landfill itself, the road will continue along the western side of the landfill, immediately adjacent to the ultimate landfill footprint, and will be a

27 Forest Practices Board (2000) Forest Practices Code.


permanent road at least for the life of the landfill. The road will be designed and constructed to allow heavy vehicles to pass.

The road will extend up to a large turning circle at the top of the landfill where the office, amenity block and water storage tanks will be located.

8.6.2 Cell Access Roads

The individual cells will be accessed from the main permanent road by temporary gravel roads into each individual cell as the landfill develops.

The temporary access roads into the individual cells will be constructed to meet Class 4 (“Minor (spur) road”) standards under the Forest Practices Code 2000. These roads will be designed for single vehicle access only with no double passing.

The locations of the roads around and into the landfill are indicated schematically in Figure 5 and Figure 6 and on the conceptual engineering drawings (eg. Drawings H05069-R6_1 and H05069-R7_1) in Appendix F.

The temporary roads into individual cells will be removed and the material reused for the construction of the next cell access road if it has remained fit for that purpose.

The progressive construction of the six upper layer cells will ultimately cover the remnants of all the temporary lower cell layer access roads.

8.6.3 Buildings

Buildings will be a transportable and relocatable site office and ablutions block. Mobile phone and/or radio service should be adequate for telecommunications purposes. It is not proposed to install a phone landline to the landfill area.

Water for the landfill operations will be supplied from a 25,000 L storage tank fed from office building roof run off and from a small pond to be constructed on a small upstream tributary of Williams Creek, which will augment water roof run off from the office building.

The 25,000 L landfill operations water supply tank and pond will also fulfil the requirements for a fire fighting water supply. The tank would be filled as necessary by water tanker during extended dry weather periods. If the pond fails to retain water over extended dry periods, additional storage tanks will be installed to ensure a reliable volume of fire fighting water of at least 100,000 L.

Potable water supply for the office and ablution buildings will have a separate dedicated 13,000 L tank filled solely by water tanker.


The toilet and wash/shower facility will be a transportable and relocatable system, with effluent reporting to an in-ground septic tank and absorption trench, to be installed in accordance with George Town Council requirements.

After the initial construction period, a maximum of only two operators would work at the landfill at any given time. Approximately 200 L per operator per day of wastewater would be produced. The maximum 400 L of wastewater produced each day and treated through a septic system and associated trench should not present a significant risk to ground water or surface waters.

8.6.4 Leachate Buffer Storage and Delivery

Collection drains in each landfill cell will direct leachate by gravity discharge to a collection buffer storage tank located downstream of the ultimate landfill footprint. There are no pumping requirements for internal landfill leachate collection.

A pump will be installed at the leachate collection buffer storage tank to pump the leachate at a controlled rate to the pulp mill effluent treatment plant. The leachate pipeline will follow the access road, then cross under the East Tamar Highway to run to the pulp mill’s wastewater treatment facility.

Flow meters will be installed at either end of the pipeline to enable leaks to be detected by flow comparison.

8.6.5 Electricity Supply

Electricity supply is required for:

o Power & lighting

o Hot water, ovens and fridge

o Pumping of water to the landfill spray monitor

o Potable water supply to amenity building

o Fire fighting pump

o Flood lighting for night time operations

o Leachate collection buffer storage tank pumps and flow meters.

A possible quarry adjacent to the landfill, and a possible storage dam closer to the junction of the access road and the East Tamar Highway, are being considered separately (not part of this report28).

28 The quarry and storage dam do not form part of this report but are mentioned here due to the sharing of electrical infrastructure


There is no existing infrastructure that can be used to provide electricity to the proposed landfill or to the possible quarry and storage dam. Consequently, new transmission and distribution plant will be required to provide power to the landfill and storage dam areas.

Power will be transmitted to the landfill and storage dam areas at a potential of 22 kV from a proposed substation at the pulp mill site.

The proposed transmission route will traverse three major services: an overhead electricity (high voltage) transmission line, a railway line (the East Tamar Rail Link), and the main traffic route into George Town (East Tamar Highway). Once beyond these, the proposed transmission line will encounter no further obstacles.

The type of construction proposed for the transmission line to the landfill is a mixture of underground cable and overhead open line construction. The total distance from the edge of the pulp mill site to the far side of the highway reserve (a distance that could potentially require underground cable) exceeds 500 m. Cable for underground transmission at 22 kV is available and is the method of choice for crossing existing services. However, the cost is high when compared with overhead construction, and its use will necessarily be limited to essential areas only. The installed cost will be especially sensitive to ground conditions if, for example, significant rock is present.

The proposed transmission line has been broken up into segments, as depicted on Drawing H05069-E2 in Appendix F.

1. If the proposed 22 kV substation is located well within the pulp mill site,

it may be cheaper to install overhead conductors between the substation and the mill side of the high voltage transmission line. At this point the line will change from overhead construction to buried cable, going under the high voltage transmission line and the railway line. For conceptual design purposes, the substation has been assumed to be on the mill boundary, as shown on the drawing. The underground construction therefore starts from this point, with no allowance for construction inside the mill site.

2. Once under the railway reserve, the route will continue for approximately 120 m to the edge of the road reserve and then across the reserve. This will be constructed as overhead line.

3. The remainder of the line up to the landfill area and then to the storage dam will use overhead construction.

At the landfill site, a 50 kVA pole-mounted transformer will be installed (refer to Drawing H05069-E1 in Appendix F). This will supply three-phase power to a main switchboard, from where power will be distributed to the leachate pump and amenities building. No detailed load demand has been calculated since 50 kVA is the smallest practicable three-phase load to be provided from a pole-mounted substation. The same applies to the storage dam electrical supply.


At the (separate) storage dam site, a second 50 kVA pole-mounted transformer will be installed (refer to drawing H05069-E2 in Appendix F). This will feed three phase power to a main switchboard, from where power will be fed to the storage dam valve station and other loads, as required.

In the event that quarry operations, which are planned to take place within or near29 the landfill, are implemented in the future, the electrical demand may increase substantially. In this case, the 50kVA pole-mounted transformer will be replaced with a 500 kVA unit, suitable for operating a crusher and other loads. The 500 kVA transformer will supply the landfill and the quarry loads through separate main switchboards. To provide flexibility for the location of the quarry main switchboard, a substation low voltage circuit breaker cubicle is proposed at the landfill transformer. This will have an isolator on the incomer from the transformer, a single circuit breaker for the landfill main switch board, plus space for a future circuit breaker to feed the quarry main switchboard. This arrangement will protect a longer mains cable to the quarry main switchboard and has the advantage of simplifying the future installation works.

A generator could well be cheaper to install than a transmission line. However, when comparing a generator against a transmission line, running costs will be quite different.

Generator versus transmission line The use of a portable generator rather than a fixed transmission line has been considered.

It is quite feasible to run a crusher from a generator – generators are used in trailer-mounted crusher installations, for example. However, the genset must be large enough to cope with starting the motor, due to two things:

• AC induction motors draw a large current when starting, just to get them running; and

• Crushers need a motor that can supply a high starting torque.

The electrical capacity of the genset could have to be three times the motor load. As an example, a mobile crusher with a 150HP (112kW) motor requires a generator rated at 350kW (or 500kVA at 0.7 power factor). This is more than three times the rated motor load. A 500kVA genset is quite a large machine. After start up, two thirds of the generator output is not used while running the crusher.

29 Separate consideration is being given to the development of a quarry close to the landfill site. Alternatively, exposed rock within the landfill footprint could be quarried in advance of the construction of landfill cells. The choice between these options does not form part of this study or report.


Other issues are:

• Fuel consumption is not linear with output delivered to the load; it is more economical to run a small machine near 100% of its rated capacity than to run a large machine at a fraction of its capacity. A 500kVA genset will use about 100 L/h at 100% load. At 40% load, this could drop to about half. For a 5-day week of single shift work (8 hours) the fuel consumed will be about 2,000 L. Assuming a retail price of $1.10 and a rebate (if applicable) of $0.38, a week’s running would cost about $1,500.

• Running the same crusher for the same time off mains electricity would mean paying only for energy consumed plus a demand charge. Neglecting the demand charge, the energy consumed will be (roughly) 112 kW over 40 hours or 4,480kWh. At an average unit cost of about 12 cents (it may be lower), the weekly energy consumption cost will be about $540, compared with the $1,500 weekly running cost for the genset.

• Mechanical wear. Diesels are prone to ‘glazing’ of the cylinder walls if run for long periods under-loaded. This phenomenon shortens running life.

• The generator’s fuel storage tank would need to be bunded and secured against vandalism and theft.

• In the absence of mains power, a solar powered charger would be required to keep the starting batteries topped up.

If there was no crusher, and only the leachate pumps and amenities to power, there would be a much smaller load to supply and a correspondingly much smaller genset would be needed. The generator could be refuelled during the day, when the facility is staffed.

Fuel consumption for a small genset would be modest. However, the power supply provided by the genset would need to be reliable since the leachate pumping function is an essential service. A small portable type genset would be unsuitable for this application since the design life is very short (typically <1000 hours). Instead, a fixed installation would be required, with its own fuel storage facility as well as auto-start facility.

As a comparison, a 45 kVA generator would consume around 15 L/h at 100% rated load. If this runs for 40 h/wk (dayshift for 5 days) plus 25% of the remaining hours to supply the leachate pump (which will be a lot less than 100% load) - a total of 72h/wk - the fuel used will be 1,080 L, at a cost of about $780 per week.

Running off mains electricity would mean using 15 kW for the landfill amenities for 40 h/wk (600 kWh) plus 10 kW for running the leachate pump for 25% of the week, ie 42 hours (420kWh), giving a total energy consumption of 1020 kWh/wk, for a cost of around $125. This compares with the $780 per week for a diesel powered system.

Running costs over a year of 52 weeks for a genset large enough to power a crusher would be $78,000, compared with $28,080 for mains electricity.


Running costs over a year of 52 weeks for a genset sized only to power leachate pumps & amenities would be $40,560, compared with $6,500 for mains electricity.

The crusher may only be required occasionally, and perhaps only during mill construction. Considering the crusher on its own, a genset would be the cheapest solution.

However, the leachate pumps and amenities must operate for at least 20 years. Over 20 years, the operating cost differential between a genset and mains electricity would be approximately $680,000.

Operating costs rather than capital costs are therefore probably the determining factor between the two options. There appear to be no particular cost advantages of using a genset rather than mains, and there are a number of cost and practical disadvantages.

8.6.6 Site Security

Gunns will be purchasing from Comalco the land required for the landfill and its access road. Gunns will install a swipe card operated gate or similar at the access road entrance, and will operate security patrols in the area based on the incident frequency.

There will not be a permanent presence on site. Landfill operators will be on site on an as-required basis.

A security fence will be constructed around the leachate collection system (including the leachate collection tanks) at the lower end of the landfill. The fence will be designed to prevent motorcycle, vehicular and foot access to the landfill, while at the same time allowing small browsing animals to keep the vegetative cover around the collection system cropped.

8.6.7 Site Signage

The access road turn off from the East Tamar highway will require signage to warn motorists of trucks entering and leaving the facility’s access road.

Signs will also be required to indicate the entrance location so that waste transport trucks, visitors, operating and maintenance personnel can adjust speed safely to enter the facility access road.

Speed and safety requirement signs will be required on the access road.

Signs will be required to direct all visitors to the office for signing in to the area.

Signs will be required to indicate the location of the quarry access and access to the open operating landfill cell.


Within the operating landfill cell, signs will distinguish the tipping location for domestic waste from the tipping location of process waste.

8.7 Leachate Barrier There are two basic options for the process waste cells’ leachate barrier – a compacted clay liner and a geosynthetic clay liner.

8.7.1 Compacted Clay Liners (CCLs)

CCLs required sufficient volumes of good quality clay to construct a compacted liner of at least 1 m thickness (specified by the DPIWE Landfill Sustainability Guide) over the bottom of landfill cells.

Based on the site investigations undertaken to date, clay resources at the landfill site are insufficient.

Significant amounts of clay are only likely to occur along the centreline of the gully (Williams Creek). At the most this is likely to be an area of approximately 150 m wide and 300 m long. If the average depth is assumed to be 3 m, then there is a potential resource of 135,000 m3 available. There is also an unknown amount available in the saddle on the northwestern corner but removal of any of this resource would probably compromise the integrity of the waste disposal area.

Indicative clay volume requirements for a 1 m thick liner forming the lining for the four lower layer cells will be in the order of 650 m x 100 m, ie. 65,000 m3. The cover material required for capping the lower layer cells would be of a similar amount, ie. 65,000 m3.

Additional clay volumes of approximately 670 m x 30 m = 19,500 m3 will be required to extend the liner for the upper layer cells out to the ultimate final footprint of the landfill. Approximately 750 m x 100 m = 75,000 m3 would be required for progressive capping of the upper layer cell.

An indicative total of 65,000 + 65,000 + 20,000 + 75,000 = 225,000 m3 of clay would ultimately be required, compared with the indicative 135,000 m3 considered to be available on site.

Although the apparent short fall in clay resources could be sourced from clay mines offsite, the following points are considered important when deciding on the preferred landfill liner material.

o There appears to be a short fall in the overall amount of clay required for the entire project. Unless clay is sourced from off site this may result in the liner and capping construction materials change during development of the landfill, with potential quality and performance issues.


o The suspect quality of the on site clay for successful liner and capping application.

o The need to mine and store the clay from the footprint of the landfill if it is to be used for cell construction.

o Mining of clayey material from under the landfill may affect the landfill profile and layout due to the excavations. This could result in leachate requiring pumping from several of the landfill cells.

o If material is mined from under the landfill area, the remaining supporting ground structure may be affected which may have ramifications for the landfill stability.

o Removing material from the creek bed to a significant depth could alter the existing ground permeability and increase the risk of hydraulic ‘piping’ to ground faults.

o Mining, storage and construction using clay materials is problematic and will require a dedicated plan to minimise the risk of causing environmental nuisance or harm. The risk of mining or using clay in the development of the landfill is likely to be higher than the land filling activity and operation itself.

o Mining clay and undertaking clay construction activities in or near surface watercourses presents environmental and safety risks, especially if undertaken during winter months. Usually such activities if approved are limited to summer periods only.

o Colloidal clay suspended in surface waters is difficult to remove without substantial infrastructure.

o If the clay like or weathered material is left in situ under the landfill footprint, it presents a natural significant buffer and attenuation zone between the landfill and underlying groundwater.

Based on the information available, the preferred materials of construction for the landfill liner and capping are geosynthetic clay liners and geomembranes.

8.7.2 Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCLs)

Geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs) are manufactured clay sheets, typically bentonite sandwiched between two geotextiles. They are installed by unrolling over a prepared base, and overlapping sheets. The overlaps self-seal when the bentonite hydrates due to rain or moist waste cover.


There are 4 basic types of GCLS:

1. Geotextile encased, adhesive bonded – non-reinforced with geotextiles glued to the bentonite

2. Geotextile encased, stitch bonded – bentonite sandwiched between geotextiles that are stich-bonded through the bentonite for reinforcing

3. Geotextile encased, needle punched – bentonite sandwiched between geotextiles with fibres needle-punched through the bentonite to create a reinforcing matrix of fibres

4. Geotextile supported, adhesive bonded – bentonite glued onto an overlying or underlying HDPE30 membrane.

Each type has different properties and costs. Cost, shear strength and permeability are the primary considerations when choosing between them.

8.7.3 Comparison of CCLs and GCLs

A comparison of CCL and GCLs is provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Comparison of compacted clay and geosynthetic clay liners (after USACE31)

Compacted clay liner Geosynthetic clay liner Thick (~ 0.6 – 1.5 m) Thin (~ 1 cm) Field constructed Manufactured Difficult to construct correctly Easy to construct (unroll and place) Impossible to puncture Possible to damage and puncture Heavy construction equipment required Light construction equipment useable Often required test pad at site Repeated field testing not required Site-specific soil data required Proprietary product specifications available Large leachate attenuation capacity Small leachate attenuation capacity Thick – takes up landfill space Thin – little landfill space taken up Highly variable cost (site and soil dependant) Predictable costs Low tensile strength (vulnerable to deformation stress)

Higher tensile strength (resilient to deformation stress)

Can desiccate and crack Cannot crack until wetted Difficult to repair Not difficult to repair Performance highly dependent on quality of construction

Performance much less dependent on construction variabilities

Slow to construct Quick to construct

30 High Density Poly Ethylene 31 US Army Corps of Engineers (2004) Liner Design Guidance for Confined Disposal Facility Leachate Control. Technical Note DOER-R6.


If a CCL was used, an alternative source of clay would need to be found. Existing clay suppliers would no doubt be able to supply clay but at considerable transport cost.

A CCL is not favoured on transport and construction costs alone.

Additional reasons to favour a GCL over a CCL are the better performance of GCLs compared to CCLs, including the greater ability of GCLs to withstand deformation (see section 8.7.4).

A geotextile encased, needle punched GCL will be used, overlain by an impermeable HDPE membrane, creating a composite liner that provides additional containment security.

8.7.4 Ability of Liner to Withstand Differential Settlement

As described in section 7.2, the Tippogoree Hills are characterised by lineaments generally coincident with drainage lines, and the landfill site is situated above a fault.

Fault movement is very unlikely to occur, and if it did it is likely to be in the order of centimetres rather than metres. Nevertheless, it is possible that movement of the fault where it underlies the landfill could cause differential settlement of the landfill, including its liner. The liner must be capable of retaining its integrity in these circumstances.

The ability of GCLs to withstand differential settlement is described by Qian et al32.

Differential settlement can be characterised by the distortion of the liner, defined as vertical settlement over horizontal distance. Small vertical movement over a large horizontal distance is low distortion, whereas large vertical movement over a small horizontal distance is high distortion. If distortion is high enough the resultant tensile strains may cause the barrier layer to crack and lose its ability to retain leachate.

Tests33 have shown that a geotextile encased, needle punched GCL can maintain a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-9 m/sec even with a distortion as large as between 0.18 and 0.30 vertical movement to horizontal span34, corresponding to a tensile strain of 5 to 16%35. In addition, the swelling and self-healing ability of bentonite enables panel overlaps to maintain their hydraulic integrity despite slippages over several centimetres. GCL panels are typically installed with overlaps of 300 mm, which should be adequately for

32 Qian, X., Koerner, R.M. and Gray, D.H. (2002) Geotechnical Aspects of Landfill Design and Construction. Prentice Hall. (p 141 ff) 33 LaGatta et al (1997) cited by Qian et al page 142 34 Quoted by Qian et al as 0.35 to 0.60 vertical to half the horizontal span 35 As a matter of comparison, compacted clay liners only have allowable tensile strains of less than 1% (Qian et al, p 546)


any reasonably credible fault slippage scenario. If added security was required, even greater overlaps could be used (obviously at increased cost).

There is therefore negligible risk of the proposed composite GCL barrier being breached due to fault movements.

8.8 Cell Design and Leachate Management A schematic diagram of the arrangement of layers for leachate containment and collection and cell capping is provided in Figure 8.

Process waste cells will be in two levels, and the cross-section of the upper level cells will be different to that of the lower level cells. The conceptual design of each level is shown in Drawings H05069-R10_1 and H05069-R11_1 in Appendix G. The conceptual design will form the basis for detailed design.

Figure 8: Schematic layers of landfill process waste cell base and cap

It is possible that the cell(s) at the lower end of the landfill may be exposed to an approaching water table during weather wetter than that which occurred prior to the conceptual design site investigations. If this risk were significant, an additional drainage layer would be constructed underneath the bottom liner of that cell. The risk to the upper cells of an approaching water table is negligible.

Under the conceptual design, construction of the lower cell would not occur until approximately 8 years after the commencement of operations. During that period, regular monitoring of groundwater levels would be undertaken as part of routine operations, and the risk would therefore be well quantified. An appropriate drainage layer could therefore be designed well in advance of it

Prepared native clayGeosynthetic clay liner

HDPE membrane

Washed stone aggregateProtective geotextile (nonwoven)

Protective waste/sand mix

Witness sump (at downstream end of cell)

Leachate drain (through whole length of cell)

Daily coverHDPE membrane

Drainage sandNative clay

TopsoilShallow rooted native vegetation

Process waste Putrescible waste

150 mm 1 mm

150 mm 1 mm

300 mm 6 mm 1.5 mm

300 mm

150 mm 300 mm 450 mm

Geotextile (nonwoven)

1 mm


being needed. The thickness of any required drainage layer would be determined by the demands of a calculated 1 in 100 year flow.

The density of the overlying cell layers and waste, and the ability of the geosynthetic clay liner to withstand deformation, would mean that even in exceptional flows greater than the 1 in 100 year expectancy, any impact on the integrity of the landfill would be unlikely to be significant. The most likely consequence of an exceptional flow, if indeed it posed a risk at all, would be for the water table to rise either side of the landfill and seep into the landfill cutoff drains, to be taken away as surface flow.

An additional or alternative means of releasing an accumulation of groundwater below the cell could be to install drainage groundwater bores lower down the gully. These bores could drain passively and/or be pumped out when necessary to relieve any build up of hydrostatic pressure. Such a system could be supported by the installation of pressure transducers underneath the liner. This will be considered as part of the detailed design.

8.8.1 Leachate Collection

A composite geosynthetic and membrane liner will contain the process and domestic waste and associated leachate for each cell. Leachate will be collected in each cell of both the lower and upper landfill layers and then directed to the leachate sump, from where it will be pumped to the mill’s wastewater treatment plant. The leachate will not present any problems for the wastewater treatment plant. The high pH of the leachate is expected to allow a small reduction in neutralization chemical use in the treatment plant effluent — the effluent is slightly acidic.

Construction waste cells The construction waste will be inert and leachate collection from this cell is therefore not required. However, a drainage system will be required, to take away internal cell drainage that would otherwise accumulate behind the cell wall, particularly while the cell is open and uncapped.

Initially, pending the construction of the first process waste cell and hence the leachate drainage system, the drainage collection system of the construction cell will simply be piped through the cell wall to a sediment trap and energy dissipater, allowing drainage to continue to run along the natural drainage line without causing erosion. When the first process cell is constructed (immediately downslope of the construction waste cell) the drainage collection pipe from the construction waste cell will be connected to the head of the leachate collection system in the process waste cell.

Following capping of the construction waste cell, its drainage system will continue to remove any rainfall that percolates through the capping.


Lower layer process waste cells The undersurface of the process waste cells will be prepared from native (ie. in situ) clay ripped to a depth of approximately 300 mm and compacted to provide a smooth surface, free of sharp rocks that might puncture the overlying geosynthetic clay liner.

The 6 mm thick geosynthetic clay liner would be unrolled and laid in overlapping panels onto the prepared base. A 1.5 mm HDPE membrane36 would then be laid on top of this. This membrane is the primary barrier to leachate escape. The geosynthetic clay liner is a secondary barrier against any leakage through perforations in the membrane. The membrane would be covered with a protective geotextile (nonwoven) to reduce the potential for the overlying aggregate to puncture the membrane.

A 300 mm layer of crushed stone aggregate37 would be laid on top of the membrane to provide a leachate drainage layer. The leachate collection pipe network would be positioned at the bottom of this layer.

The drainage layer would be covered with a 1 mm geotextile (nonwoven) layer to prevent overlying fines clogging drainage spaces. The geotextile would be covered with a 150 mm layer of protective mix of waste and sand (proportioned to achieve a driveable surface for waste delivery trucks and the waste spreading machinery).

Because the leachate is likely to be saturated with calcium salts and have a pH of up to 12, there is a potential for post precipitation of calcium salts (carbonate, sulfate, phosphate and hydroxide) onto the geotextile liner surface or in the pores of the geotextile. Lime dust might similarly move onto the geotextile surface or into its pores. These effects could bind the geotextile and restrict movement of leachate down into the collection system. This risk will be mitigated by use of a geotextile with an appropriate fabric structure and pore size.

Cleanout ports will be placed at regular intervals along the leachate pipe network to allow insertion of inspection cameras and/or cleaning equipment if pore clogging becomes a problem. Declogging mechanisms could include mechanical devices such as roto-routers, “pigs” and “snakes” or hydraulic devices such as low or high pressure water jetters.

Waste would be deposited and spread over the top of the protective layer.

A conceptual design of the leachate collection system is provided in Drawing H05069-R12_1 and H05069-R13_1 in Appendix H.

36 1.5 mm HDPE is considered to have a “very high survivability for placement on machine-graded subgrade of very poor texture with high loads” (US Army Corps of Engineers (2004) Liner Design Guidance for Confined Disposal Facility Leachate Control. Technical Note DOER-R6.) 37 There may be a dolerite quarry adjacent to the landfill, which could be a source of crushed dolerite aggregate. The angular nature of crushed dolerite could lead to a risk of puncturing of the HDPE membrane. To minimize this, the aggregate will have a minimum size of 14 mm and the underlying membrane will be overlain by the protective geotextile.


The PVC38 leachate collection pipe will be a heavy walled 300 mm spine with 150 mm feeders running obliquely outwards and slightly uphill to the extremities of the cell in a herringbone pattern.

The main cell leachate collection will service indirectly the internal 'domestic' type waste cell also, thus keeping the leachate system simpler and reducing infrastructure costs.

A witness sump will be installed towards the lower section of the cell underneath the leachate collection pipe to collect any liner leaks and monitor the effectiveness of the cell liner and leachate containment system.

As the landfill cells are developed downhill, the leachate collection system will be developed progressively.

The witness sump will only be extended through the cell wall to the next cell. Each individual cell will contain its own witness sump that eventually will be buried by that cell’s successor.

A main leachate collection pipe will be progressively installed down the centre of the landfill’s lower layer as the four lower layer cells are sequentially operated and closed out. Offshoots outwards from the main leachate collection pipe approximately every 25 m towards the extremity of each individual cell will ensure control of the phreatic zone throughout the cell.

Upper layer process waste cells The six upper layer cells will have two leachate collection pipes on either side of the upper level cells due to the final surface slopes of the underlying cell. Inward offshoots from these leachate collection pipes approximately every 25 m will ensure control of the phreatic zone throughout the cell.

The leachate collection pipe(s) will be piped from the landfill footprint to a buffer storage tank(s), downstream of the landfill. The tank(s) will serve as a monitoring site and moderate leachate flows to the pulp mill effluent treatment system. Flow meters will be installed at either end of the pipeline to enable leaks to be detected by flow comparison. The tank(s) will have an emergency overflow to Williams Creek.

The tank(s) will be sized to store at least a nominal day’s worth of landfill leachate, so that the landfill leachate can be removed from the pulp mill effluent treatment plant during preventative or corrective maintenance or other effluent treatment plant offline times. In the event of a longer shutdown, excess leachate would be pumped out of the buffer tank and taken by road tanker to the pulp mill’s wastewater treatment plant.

Leachate will be treated in the mill’s wastewater treatment plant. The nature of the wastes means that there is little risk of significant environmental harm or nuisance at the landfill site (or even at the wastewater treatment site). It is 38 HDPE pipe is also an option but is more expensive and more difficult to work with. A decision between the two will be made as part of detailed design.


possible that oils in the domestic leachate could react with caustic in the process waste, leading to some saponification but the high water hardness should moderate frothing if that occurs. If there are high dissolved ammonium salts in the waste, ammonia could be produced at high pH, potentially causing odour. High pH could also cause metals to precipitate out as hydroxides. None of these products, however, are problematic, and they would be dealt with at the treatment plant.

Metal sulphides, such as calcium sulphide and sodium sulphide, will exist in very small quantities in the process waste. In acidic conditions, these sulphides are potentially sources of hydrogen sulphide (H2S), which is a malodorous gas. However, calcium sulphide and sodium sulphide are stable at the high pH of the process waste and its leachate. In any event, the total quantities of metal sulphides present in the process waste will be too small to cause environmental nuisance at this remote location. Although the sulphides could dissolve in the leachate and be carried into the mill’s wastewater treatment plant, this plant will not have acidic conditions, thereby preventing the production of hydrogen sulphide.

Leachate drainage pipe sizing When determining a suitable conceptual design sizing for the main leachate collection pipe, the following needs to be considered:

o Conceptual design is for two cell layers

o The progressive construction of the initial lower layer of four cells will extend over an operating life of approximately 8 years

o When the lower level cells reach the end of their operating life, a second layer or upper layer of six cells, on top of the first, will be progressively constructed

o A separate leachate collection system will be used for the lower and upper cell layers but both will be directed to a common sump

o The worst-case flow rate for the leachate collection pipe and risk of damage to the landfill is most likely during and intense short term storm event.

For the purposes of the conceptual design, a worst-case rainfall event (when a new process waste cell has just been constructed) would result in approximately 100 mm/h of rainfall falling on approximately 24,000 m2 over a period of approximately 15 minutes. Rainfall data are contained in Appendix E.

The leachate flow generated by the landfill will be significantly less than inflow from incident rainfall for a 1:50 year storm event over a 15 minute duration into the open active cell with little stored waste.


Rainfall of 100 mm/h in 15 minutes over a 24,000 m2 area equates to approximately 600 m3 of rainwater being collected in the cell at approximately 700 L/s.

The nominal 300 mm diameter leachate spine pipe can discharge a flow of approximately 200 L/s. Refer to pipe flow data contained in Appendix E.

Over the 100 mm/h 15-minute rainfall event, the leachate pipe would discharge approximately 200 m3 of the collected rainwater. The residual amount in the cell would be approximately 400 m3 in this period, which would then drain through the pipe once the rain event finished.

The residual stored volume of 400 m3 in the dam would form a pond with the approximate dimensions of 40 m x 10 m x 1 m. The surrounding cell will have approximate dimensions of 100 m x 100 m x 10 m, and this short term ponding does not represent a risk to causing damage to the cell.

8.8.2 Ability of the Liner to Withstand Chemical Attack

Geosynthetic clay liners use bentonite clay.

Bentonite is an industrial term that refers to clays that are primarily montmorillonite. The most common form of bentonite is Ca-montmorillonite (calcium montmorillonite). However, GCLs use the rarer Na-montmorillonite (sodium montmorillonite) because that form swells when wetted, due to hydration of the Na ions. This confers very low hydraulic conductivity, making it well suited to being used as a hydraulic barrier to leachate.

Because Na is an exchangeable cation, the Na in the GCL will be exchanged by other ions for which the bentonite has a greater affinity. Tests have shown that bentonite in GCLs will gradually release Na ions and replace them with other cations such as Ca (calcium) ions in particular, but also Mg (magnesium), K (potassium) and ammonia (NH4) ions39.

The resultant bentonite has a greater hydraulic conductivity, possibly up to two orders of magnitude greater40.

The solid waste will consist primarily of calcium and sodium hydroxides and silicates, carbonates with some phosphates and unhydrolysed oxides.

The process waste leachate will therefore have high concentrations of Ca ions, and the effectiveness of the proposed GCL liner may be reduced accordingly. Without specific compatibility testing with the process waste leachate, however, the degree to which hydraulic conductivity might increase cannot be quantified.

39 Auboiroux, M., Guyonnet, D., Touray, J.-C. and Bergaya, F. (1999) Cation exchange in GCL and compacted clay liners in contact with landfill leachate. Proceedings of the Seventh International Waste management and Landfill Symposium. 40 Bouazza, A. (2002) Geosynthetic clay liners. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 20: 3-17.


The leachate will also have high concentrations of Na ions, and this may moderate the exchange of Ca ions with the Na ions in the bentonite.

Also, tests suggest that while the increase in hydraulic conductivity for GCL cover systems may be up to two orders of magnitude, this is for GCLs subjected to only low compressive pressures, as would be encountered in landfill cover systems. At high compressive pressures such as encountered in bottom liners of landfills (the role proposed for the GCL in the subject landfill), researchers have suggested that no detrimental effect will occur40. Other research has suggested that the effect of cation exchange can be avoided by ensuring that the first hydration of the GCL is with deionised water39.

These mitigating factors suggest that the risk of increases in GCL hydraulic conductivity through cation exchange is manageable, and can be dealt with through compatibility testing and technical prescriptions as part of the detailed design.

For the purposes of the conceptual design, a worst case scenario of a two orders of magnitude increase in GCL hydraulic conductivity can be assumed. An available proprietary41 GCL has a specified hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10 -11 m/s. A two order of magnitude increase in hydraulic conductivity would give a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10 -9 m/s. This still meets the DPIWE Sustainability Guide limit for Category C landfills.

It is not anticipated that there will be any adverse reaction by the GCL to the high pH of the process waste.

The hydraulic conductivity of GCLs is not sensitive to pH unless the pH is very low, as shown in Figure 942. A review of published liner compatibility studies and liner manufacturers’ recommendations by the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory concluded that a pH of up to 13 is acceptable for GCLs43. This compares with the expected leachate pH of up to 12.

41 Bentofix® X1000 42 Benson, C.H. (2000) Liners and covers for waste containment. Proc. Fourth. Intl. Geotechnical Forum, Creation of a New Geo-Environmental, Japanese Geotechnical Society. 43 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (2004) Liner/leachate Compatibility Study. Engineering Design File Project No. 23350.


Figure 9: Hydraulic conductivity of non-prehydrated GCLs permeated with solutions of various pH prepared with deionized water and HCl (low pH) or NaOH (high pH) (from Benson 200042 after Jo 1999)

Specifications to suppliers of the GCL for the landfill will stipulate that it must be capable of maintaining its hydraulic impermeability up to a pH of at least 13, with independent performance demonstration using a synthesized leachate.

Technical data for HDPE43,44 shows that the geomembrane will have good resistance to all the anticipated chemicals in the waste and leachate, including for a pH of up to 13.

Similarly, technical data45 shows that the proposed PVC leachate collection drains also have good resistance to the expected chemicals.

Heat from lime hydration is the greatest risk to the liner system, and for this reason hydration will be forced by mixing the various process wastes prior to or during disposal, so that the risk of heat damage to the synthetic geomembrane is avoided (see section 3).

8.8.3 Capping

Each cell (including the construction waste cell) will be capped with multiple layers to reduce rainfall infiltration, and hence leachate generation.

44 Geotas Chemical Resistance Chart for High Density Polyethylene 45 Hardie Iplex uPVC Pipelines Design, Appendix B Chemical Resistance.

Hyd

raul

ic c

ondu

ctiv

ity (m

/sec

)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14pH

10-12

10-11

10-10

10-9

10-8

10-7

10-4


Construction waste will be left uncovered until the construction waste cell is no longer required, which is expected to occur prior to or soon after the commencement of operations and hence the commencement of process waste production.

Process waste will be progressively covered as it is deposited with a 150 mm intermediate cover of locally sourced soil and/or clay, which will act as a dust suppressant and, in the case of the putrescible waste, a barrier to odour and nuisance fauna. This intermediate cover will be compacted to assist with reducing rainwater infiltration but it is not intended to be a primary rain barrier.

When a process waste cell reaches its fill capacity, the intermediate cover will be overlaid with a 1 mm HDPE membrane, which will be the primary rain barrier. A 150 mm drainage layer of sand would be placed over this membrane, followed by a 300 mm layer of compacted native clay46 and then 450 mm of topsoil. The construction waste cell will be capped similarly.

Shallow rooted native vegetation will be planted to bind the topsoil and assist with waterproofing.

The capping will slope at approximately 5% to direct surface water into the landfill’s cutoff drains.

8.8.4 Leachate Volumes

Potential leachate volumes have been calculated using HELP (Hydrological Evaluation of Landfill Performance). The HELP model is a quasi-two-dimensional, deterministic, water-routing computer model for determining water balances47.

The model version used was the Waterloo Hydrologic Incorporated’s WHI UnSat Suite, which includes Visual HELP.

At this conceptual design stage, calculations were performed for an assumed unit process waste cell having a surface area of 1 hectare in either an uncapped or a capped state. More detailed modelling will be undertaken during the detailed design stage.

Modelling used a simulated 20-year set of weather data, created by Visual HELP’s Weather Generator. The Weather Generator creates synthetic daily precipitation over the nominated period (in this case 20 years) by adding

46 Cap impermeability is provided by the membrane, and does not rely on the clay cover, which is primarily a protective layer and only secondarily a water barrier. Nevertheless, if native clay reserves prove to be insufficient, clay could be imported from off site. Mineral Resources Tasmania (Robin Halfacre pers.comm.) has confirmed that there are numerous commercial clay pits within a 20 to 30 km radius of the site. 47 Qian, X., Koerner, R.M. and Gray, D.H. (2002) Geotechnical Aspects of Landfill Design and Construction. Prentice Hall.


statistical variation48 around a core set of actual weather observations. The core set used was the Bureau of Meteorology’s records for Low Head. The simulated temperature and rainfall data sets are shown in Appendix I.

A summary of the modelling results is provided in Table 4 for an uncapped cell and Table 5 for a capped cell. The full modelling report is provided in Appendix I.

Table 4: Uncapped - Estimated water balance for a nominal 1 hectare landfill cell in an uncapped state

Over 20

yearsa % of rainb Annual

averagec Daily

averaged Peak dailye

Precipitation m3 89262.0 100 % 4463.1 12.23 392.0

Runoff m3 983.8 1.1 % 49.2 0.13 176.8

Evapotranspiration m3 37618.0 42.1 % 1880.9 5.15 -

Collected leachate m3 48738.0 54.6 % 2436.9 6.7 22.8

Leaked leachate m3 48.4 0.1 % 2.4 0.007 0.02

a: The 20 year period is for the purposes of weather simulation only. Any given cell will only be open for approximately 2 years.

b: The amount as a percent of precipitation c: The 20 year accumulated total divided by 20 d: The annual average divided by 365 e: The peak daily volume over the 20 year simulated data set

Table 5: Capped - Estimated water balance for a nominal 1 hectare landfill cell in a capped state

Over 20 yearsa

% of rainb Annual averagec

Daily averaged

Peak dailye

Precipitation m3 89262.0 100 % 4463.1 12.2 392.0

Runoff m3 10.6 0.01 % 0.5 0.002 10.2

Evapotranspiration m3 84561.0 94.7 % 4228.1 11.6 -

Collected leachate m3 1867.8 2.1 % 93.4 0.26 0.33

Leaked leachate m3 4.0 0.005 % 0.2 0.0006 0.0009 a: The 20 year period is for the purposes of weather simulation. b: The amount as a percent of precipitation c: The 20 year accumulated total divided by 20 d: The annual average divided by 365 e: The peak daily volume over the 20 year simulated data set

48 Using Markov chain and two-parameter statistical distributions


Collected leachate The expected daily average volume of leachate collected by the drainage system of a nominal 1 hectare process waste cell during its uncapped state is 6.7 m3, with an expected peak daily volume of 22.8 m3.

The expected daily average volume of leachate collected by the drainage system of a nominal 1 hectare process waste cell during its capped state is 0.26 m3, with an expected peak daily volume of approximately 0.33 m3.

At the full operating development of 9 closed cells and 1 remaining open cell, the estimated average daily volume of collected leachate is therefore 6.7 + (9 x 0.26) = 9.0 m3, with a peak daily volume of 22.8 + (9 x 0.33) = 25.8 m3.

These average and peak daily volumes at full development correspond to flow rates of 0.1 L/s and 0.3 L/s respectively.

These rates are 3 orders of magnitude less than the capacity of the 300 mm leachate collection pipes that will be used49.

Leaked leachate The expected daily average volume of leachate leaking through the bottom liner of a nominal 1 hectare process waste cell during its uncapped state is 0.007 m3, with an expected peak daily volume of 0.02 m3.

The expected daily average volume of leachate leaking through the bottom liner of a nominal 1 hectare cell during its capped state is 0.0006 m3, with an expected peak daily volume of approximately 0.0009 m3.

At the full operating development of 9 closed cells and 1 remaining open cell, the estimated average daily volume of leaked leachate is therefore 0.007 + (9 x 0.0006) = 0.01 m3, with a peak daily volume of 0.02 + (9 x 0.0009) = 0.03 m3.

These average and peak daily volumes at full development correspond to leakage rates from the fully developed landfill of 10 L/day and 30 L/day respectively.

Post-closure Following the complete closure of the landfill (ie. all 10 process waste cells closed and capped), the average and peak daily leachate collection rates would be 10 x 0.26 = 2.6 m3 and 10 x 0.33 = 3.3 m3, ie. 2600 L/d and 3300 L/d or 0.03 L/s and 0.04 L/s respectively.

49 The pipe sizing is not determined by leachate requirements but by the need to deal with potential high intensity storm events during construction, the need to prevent clogging and the need to be able to send inspection and repair devices down the pipes.


Following the complete closure of the landfill (ie. all 10 process waste cells closed and capped), the average and peak daily leachate leakage rates would be 10 x 0.0006 = 0.006 m3 and 10 x 0.0009 = 0.009 m3, ie. 6 L/d and 9 L/d.

8.9 Landfill Gas Management The main process wastes to be disposed of to the landfill are inorganic and inert (eg. green liquor dregs, lime slaker and lime kiln electrostatic precipitator solids and boiler ash etc.).

No green wastes will be disposed of to the landfill. All wastes with a calorific value will be reused as fuel for power production.

The waste type with the potential to produce gas is the domestic waste. The domestic waste will be placed in each of the ten individual process waste cells in a separate dedicated cell for each main cell.

There will therefore be 10 separate domestic waste cells, one each in the 10 process waste cells. The annual production of domestic type waste will be approximately 760 t/a or 5,000 m3/a (a bulk density of 0.15 before compaction). This amounts to approximately 10% of the maximum amount of wastes for disposal, ignoring compaction. The domestic cell for each main cell will have nominal dimensions of approximately 75 m x 25 m x 5 m, for the disposal of approximately 10,000 m3 during the nominal two year minimum life expectancy of the main cells. Because the domestic cells are fully contained within the main cell, they do not need to be fully constructed at the outset but can be constructed progressively as waste is generated by growing the separation barrier between the domestic and process waste as necessary.

The nominal volume allowance is very conservative because compaction of the domestic waste to achieve the DPIWE Landfill Sustainability Guide of >650 kg/m3 will in principle reduce the 5,000 m3/a to 5,000 x 0.15/0.65 = 1,150 m3/a. The ultimate actual size of the domestic waste cells will be determined by the domestic waste production and compaction rates.

Each domestic waste cell will be closed out along with each process waste cell and a new one constructed as part of the new process waste cell.

Each domestic waste cell will have a gas discharge pipe installed after final capping to prevent gas build up under the cap. Given the volume of domestic waste stored in each individual domestic cell, gas flaring is not proposed and the amount of gas generated will be small and would have negligible commercial value. Landfill gas collection would not be economic, and will not be undertaken.


8.10 Traffic Management An analysis of the junction between the site access road and the East Tamar Highway is provided in Appendix J.

East Tamar Highway is a major link road between Launceston and the northeastern areas of the state. It provides access to Bell Bay, Georgetown and significant industrial and agricultural operations in the area. Accordingly, it carries a relatively high proportion of truck traffic in comparison with total traffic movements.

The highway is a two lane, two way road consisting of 3.6 m wide traffic lanes with sealed shoulders of 0.9 m width on each side of the road. Total shoulder width is variable in the range of 2 m to 2.5 m. The road is line marked with a B1 one way barrier line, which restricts southbound traffic from overtaking and permits northbound traffic to overtake past the proposed entrance location.

The alignment of the road could be described as winding and undulating with a number of straight sections. At a number of locations, passing lanes have been provided by the addition of a third lane in one direction.

The applicable speed zoning for the site is 100 km/h. There are no speed restriction signs on the highway between the Bridport Main Road intersection and Dilston, a distance of approximately 30 km.

Access to the proposed landfill site is located approximately 1.4 km north of the existing wood chip plant access, on the eastern side of the highway. It is also 5.6 km north of the Batman Highway intersection and 7.3 km south of the Bridport Main Road intersection.

The proposed access location has been assessed on the basis of available sight distance for the posted speed limit.

Sight distance was measured in accordance with the criteria contained in the Austroads Guide to Intersections at Grade. For the posted speed limit and design speed of 100 km/h, the Safe Intersection Sight Distance is 250 m. Available sight distances measured in both directions from the anticipated access location are >300 m north and 265 m south.

Sight distance to the north for southbound traffic could be extended to 340 m with some clearing of overhanging tree foliage. A southbound overtaking lane merges back to a single lane between 340 m and 272 m from the proposed access location. The DIER Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessment require that the assessment consider the traffic conditions 10 years after commencement of the


development. In this case it is assumed that the projected level of operations will remain static over a 20 year period from commencement50.

For the purpose of this assessment, it was assumed that the pulp mill will generate up to 200 tonnes of material to be disposed to landfill per day. The waste material may be transported to the site in a range of trucks with varying capacities. For example, for a single 8 hour shift per day:

• 10 t truck means 20 round trips/day, ie. 2.5 trips/hr, ie. 24 min cycle time

• 15 t truck means 13 round trips/day, ie. 1.6 trips/hr, ie.38 min cycle time

• 20 t truck means 10 round trips/day, ie. 1.3 trips/hr, ie. 48 min cycle time.

A 24 minute cycle time could be achieved on the route. If the cycle time was slightly longer then either the truck capacity could be increased or a longer shift worked.

Associated activities may add 4 round trips per day for light utility vehicles. If 50% of the associated movements occurred within one hour, the peak hourly movements would be 5 trips per hour in and out of the site.

The critical turning movement at the site is the right turn entry against southbound traffic. Department of Infrastructure, Energy & Resources traffic statistics record the 2004 evening southbound as having a peak of 310 vph (vehicles per hour). The 2025 extrapolated southbound volume is 460 vph.

Because the turning volumes are very small, being approximately 50% of the quantity required for the installation of a type B intersection, no intersection widening works are required by strict interpretation of the guidelines.

However, the primary turning traffic will be relatively slow moving trucks. It would be a lowering of the overall traffic standard of the highway to install a new intersection where northbound traffic were required to pass a right turning truck on the gravel shoulder. Therefore, it is considered that the intersection should be upgraded to the Type B standard due to the nature of the turning and entering traffic.

The location of the new intersection may be varied marginally from the existing access location provided that sight distances are maintained. The critical sight distance is to the north both for trucks turning into the landfill access and for trucks exiting via a left turn.

The traffic to be generated by the transport of waste to the landfill and associated activities has been assessed as less than 5 trips per hour. This

50 Landfill traffic levels may be less than this assumption, depending on the extent of beneficial reuse of mill process waste that is achieved


provides a 100 % margin to the Type B turning volume threshold and 400 % to the Type C turning volume threshold of 20 turns per hour. Therefore, the resulting access construction will result in an access with a large degree of flexibility should pulp mill operations be altered significantly.

8.11 Construction Steps The conceptual construction steps are as follows:

1. Construct permanent access road to the landfill area

2. Construct permanent cut off and diversion drains

3. Construct temporary access road into construction waste cell footprint area

4. Clear vegetation from construction waste cell footprint area

5. Remove soil cover from construction waste cell footprint area and stockpile for future reuse

6. Construct construction waste cell

7. Construct drainage collection lines in the construction waste cell, including pipe through cell wall to energy dissipater

8. Construct leachate line from the landfill to the pulp mill effluent treatment plant

9. Construct turning circle/car park and construction lay down area at the site office area

10. Construct site office and ablutions block

11. Construct temporary access road into (process waste) Cell 1 footprint

12. Construct temporary surface water drains around the Cell 1 footprint

13. Clear vegetation from Cell 1 footprint area

14. Construct the landfill leachate collection buffer storage tank and pumps downstream of the final landfill footprint

15. Remove soil cover from Cell 1 footprint area and stockpile for future reuse

16. Construct Cell 1

17. Commence construction of the Cell 1 liner and leachate collection pipe work


18. Implement regular quality control program for the Cell 1 liner and leachate collection pipe work construction

19. Connect construction cell drainage system to Cell 1 leachate collection system

20. Undertake final quality control check of Cell 1 liner and leachate collection pipe work

21. Connect the leachate collection system to the leachate collection buffer storage tank, allowing temporary overflow (which will be uncontaminated) to the natural drainage system pending the construction of the leachate sump and pump system

22. Construct landfill leachate sump and pump system

23. Connect the landfill leachate sump and pump system to the leachate line once the pulp mill effluent treatment plant is commissioned

24. Commission the landfill leachate collection buffer storage tank and sump and pump system located downstream of the final landfill footprint

25. Commission Cell 1 of the landfill by carefully placing the first layers of mixed waste systematically out across the entire geomembrane ensuring no damage to the membrane51

26. When it is no longer needed, close and cap the construction waste cell

27. Construct the internal domestic waste cell in Cell 1 once approximately 1 m of mixed waste has been spread and compacted in the area

28. Operate Cell 1 of the landfill until full

29. Construct Cell 2 prior to the filling and capping of Cell 1 to the conceptual quality controls outlined above

30. Progressively continue to close cells and construct new cells for the life of the landfill.

Note: Wherever topsoil needs to be removed it will be stored for later use as the final capping layer and/or for other site rehabilitation.

51 The electrostatic precipitator dust from the lime kiln if delivered to the site in an unhydrated form would generate considerable heat on coming into contact with moisture in the other wastes. The heat would be sufficient to damage plastic materials, including geomembranes and pipes. Unless hydration occurs at the mill site, mixing of the dust with other wastes will need to be undertaken in a controlled area, with adequate distance and/or insulation from underlying membranes and pipes.


8.12 Close Out The conceptual landfill design has the following close out advantages:

o Progressive construction and rehabilitation

o Minimises close out liabilities and risks

o At landfill closure, the close out only involves the closure and rehabilitation of the currently open and operating cell

o The progressive construction achieves an acceptable final close out land form and stability

o The landfill buildings can be easily removed and area rehabilitated

o The electricity supply to the area can be easily isolated and removed

o Surface water management is sustainable and easily maintained

o Ground water management is sustainable and easily maintained.

At closure, the landfill landform will have slopes of approximately 5%. This slope is considered the optimum slope to maximise surface water run off (and hence reduce risk of surface ponding and infiltration) while minimising risk of erosion.

Following detailed design of the landfill, a closure management plan will be prepared and submitted to DPIWE. The closure plan will be updated regularly during the life of the landfill.

The leachate collection buffer storage tank will be maintained but the leachate pond pumps will be removed and, provided that the leachate flow is appropriate, it will be allowed to gravity flow to the pulp mill and hence be integrated into the mill effluent treatment closure plan.

Should ongoing leachate production be too high for gravity flow (an unlikely scenario), an extra gravity pipe may be required.

8.13 Aftercare The conceptual design and closure planning of the landfill should result in minimal aftercare requirements.

It is envisaged that after closure the landfill area will be of little interest to any future developer or user.

The stability of the landfill, surface water management, groundwater management and security will be managed under the post-closure monitoring plan.


Should the landfill become redundant before the useful capacity of the landfill is consumed, the progressive design would allow another operator to continue to operate the waste disposal facility for other wastes subject to DPIWE and George Town Council approval.

9. Potential Environmental Impacts The principal environmental issues associated with the siting of the landfill relate to the clearing of vegetation having conservation significance. These are dealt with at a whole-of-project level in a separate report52.

The principal operational environmental risks from the landfill relate to potential contamination of surface water, soils and ground water by the contents of the landfill and the landfill leachate.

Those risks will be addressed by the implementation of best practice landfill engineering design, as described in detail in Section 8 of this report.

Other potential impacts have been considered in the conceptual engineering design and are discussed in more detail below.

9.1 Groundwater Risk to groundwater is mitigated by the following.

1. The geology of the area is dolerite, with drainage lines following fracture lineaments. It is expected that major groundwater movement will essentially follow these fractures, and the available data support this. The groundwater level is deep (c. 15 m) at the head of the landfill and shallow at the foot (c. 3 m). The design has the first cell at the head, where there is no significant risk of the water table approaching the DPIWE Landfill Sustainability Guide limit of 5 m. By the time cell number 4 at the foot needs to be constructed, there will be some 8 years of detailed groundwater monitoring data available, which will enable any risk from a shallow water table in that area to be addressed through detailed engineering design (eg. the installation of a drainage layer under the liner).

2. Groundwater levels will rise and fall in response to infiltration from rainwater running down natural drainage lines during wet conditions. The drainage lines are just that – drainage lines – and not permanent creeks. The cutoff drains that will be constructed either side of the landfill will intercept surface runoff that would otherwise have run into the landfill area’s natural drainage line to recharge the groundwater. As explained in section 8.3, the cutoff drains are very conservative (factors of 31, 132 and 38 more so than the DPIWE guidelines). The diversion

52 Report in preparation


will mean that the recharge from that water will then occur downslope of the landfill’s foot, and groundwater levels under the landfill area should drop accordingly. The important groundwater monitoring will therefore come once those cutoff drains have been installed – it will then be possible to monitor the actual groundwater behaviour that will occur in the presence of the landfill. Attempting to model that future behaviour at this stage would be very expensive and largely academic.

3. The design uses both a geosynthetic clay liner and an HDPE membrane liner. Calculated leachate seepage rates are low (see section 8.8.4) – an order of magnitude lower than the Victorian EPA guideline53 of 10 L/ha/day, for example. Potential contamination rates of underlying groundwater are correspondingly low, even ignoring further attenuation that could occur in the intervening soil.

4. Construction waste will be inert, and will not generate leachate. The process waste itself is inorganic and relatively benign. It is primarily the high pH that warrants the landfill’s classification as Category C. No hazardous waste will go to the landfill. The leachate will therefore contain no intractable toxic chemicals, and if any leachate seepage does encounter groundwater it would be quickly attenuated. The double layer design means that even if the primary HDPE layer is punctured there is a geosynthetic clay liner backup. Any leachate leaks would therefore likely to be very small volumes under a very low hydraulic head. Only one to two orders of magnitude dilution is required to reduce leachate concentrations to desirable ambient concentrations54, and this would be achieved within metres of a leak.

53 Victorian Environment Protection Authority (2001) Best Practice Environmental management: Siting, design, Operation and rehabilitation of Landfills. (The DPIWE Landfill Sustainability Guide has no specifications for liner leakage rates.) 54 For example, comparison of the maximum expected effluent concentrations (Table 1) with ANZECC Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000 trigger values for the 99% species protection level in freshwater ecosystems shows the following dilution ratios are required for those parameters considered by the guidelines to be ecosystem toxicants (and for which trigger values exist). Only one order of magnitude of dilution is required. For conductivity one to two orders of magnitude dilution is required to reduce the expected leachate conductivity of 200-2500 mS/m (2000-25000 µS/cm) to the 90 µS/cm considered in the guidelines to be indicative of Tasmanian upland rivers. Other parameters have similarly low dilution requirements.

A: Maximum leachate concentration (mg/L)

B: 99% species protection ambient

concentration (mg/L)

Required dilution of leachate to achieve protection ambient

concentration (A/B)

Phenol 0.25 0.085 2.9

Cadmium 0.0005 0.00006 8.3

Mercury 0.0003 0.00006 5.0

Lead 0.006 0.001 6.0

Zinc 0.08 0.0024 33.3

Nickel 0.031 0.008 3.9


5. The groundwater is not a potable water supply nor are there surface potable water sources in the area. Further, there are no known wetlands or other surface water bodies in the vicinity of the landfill that would be fed by groundwater seepage, meaning that there is no identifiable risk of contamination of aquatic ecosystems should leachate seepage enter groundwater.

9.2 Flora and Fauna The landfill will require the removal of portions of a Eucalyptus ovata vegetation community, which has conservation significance, and also removal of populations of the plant Pimelea flava, which is listed on Tasmania’s threatened species list.

The significance of these impacts, and prescriptions to manage them, are dealt with at a whole-of-project level in a separate report55.

9.3 Heritage Three sites listed in the Tasmanian Aboriginal Sites Index lie within the landfill footprint. Ministerial permission would therefore be sought under the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 for a suitably skilled and experienced Aboriginal Heritage Officer to relocate these artefacts to a culturally appropriate, alternative site.

No items of historic heritage significance occur within or in the vicinity of the landfill and therefore no items will be disturbed.

9.4 Noise The location of the site is well away from any residential or other sensitive land use areas, and is largely within the well-established Bell Bay Major Industrial Area. Prevailing winds are from the northwest, which means that the principal noise direction will be into the forested hillside. This will restrict noise propagation.

There will be some temporary construction noise, mainly from earth moving machinery but possibly also from rock breakers.

Operational noise would be limited to that from waste delivery trucks and waste spreading machinery.

Given the low level of noise likely to be generated from the landfill, and the lack of nearby sensitive land uses, it is not considered likely that there will be any significant noise impacts. 55 Report in preparation


Noise measurements and/or modelling are not considered warranted.

9.5 Dust The majority of the solid waste transported from the pulp mill will be relatively coarse and contain a substantial amount of water. The moisture content is estimated to be approximately 30%.

Fly ash and lime kiln precipitator dust has the potential to be very dusty. The waste will be transported to the landfill in trucks with tarpaulin covering of the loads. Loads could be up to 25 t but 20 t loads have been assumed for truck movement calculations. If necessary, the waste will be wetted prior to transport.

Unloading and spreading at the landfill will be managed to minimise dusting. A water monitor spray will be strategically located to wet the unloaded waste as required.

Wetting the waste will be carefully monitored to ensure the water content of the mixed waste does not:

o Cause slippery unsafe conditions

o Prevent proper materials handling and spreading

o Prevent proper compaction.

The domestic type waste from the pulp mill will be transported, handled and disposed of separately to the process type wastes.

The domestic waste will also be wetted as required and will be compacted and soil or process waste covered as required to minimise dust nuisance as well as to minimise the risk of odours, wildlife scavenging and fire.

Spraying waste in the landfill for dust suppression would be required if and when moisture in the waste surface layer has evaporated sufficiently to dry the surface. Spraying would only be to rewet the surface, and should not involve large volumes. Over use of spraying to the point where significant amounts of water might percolate below the waste surface layers to potentially generate leachate would be a waste of water, and serve no ongoing purpose for dust suppression.

Provided dust suppression spraying controls avoid the over use of water, there should therefore be little additional leachate generated.

Prevailing winds are from the northwest, which means that the principal dust movement direction will be into the forested hillside. This will restrict dust propagation.


9.6 Visibility The conceptual landfill design has taken into account the minimisation of visual impact.

Several locations were identified for assessment. They were:

o Two locations on the East Tamar highway

o Mt George Scenic Lookout

o Western side of the Tamar Estuary directly opposite the landfill site.

The conceptual design has minimised visibility by ensuring that the landfill final shape does not ‘daylight’ from behind foothills and ridges around the landfill location.

The line of sight details are shown in the Drawings H05069-R2, R3 and R4 contained in Appendix F.

9.7 Hazard Analysis of Conceptual Design at Preferred Site A hazard analysis of the conceptual design has been undertaken in accordance with AS/NZS 4360 Risk Management56 methodology. Under this methodology an event is assigned a likelihood and a consequence, and hence a level of risk as shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Risk assessment matrix used in the hazard analysis

CONSEQUENCE

Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophe

Almost certain High High Extreme Extreme Extreme

Likely Moderate High High Extreme Extreme

Possible Low Moderate High Extreme Extreme

Unlikely Low Low Moderate High Extreme

LIK

EL

IHO

OD

Rare Low Low Moderate High High

The hazard analysis matrix for the landfill is provided in Appendix K. In that matrix, the aspects considered are consistent with those identified in the acceptable standards of the Landfill Sustainability Guide.

For each aspect, an inherent risk was initially determined and then risk mitigation measures were applied to reduce that risk to a net risk.

56 Australian/New Zealand Standard 4360:2004 Risk Management


It should be noted that the Australian Standard’s matrix does not allow risk to be judged to be less than high for major or catastrophic consequences, regardless of how unlikely an event might be. Similarly, moderate consequences can never be judged to be below moderate risks, no matter how unlikely the event. This can give a false impression of the significance of risk in cases where an event is inherently rare anyway and is made even more unlikely through mitigation actions but with no apparent change to the matrix risk when in reality it has indeed been reduced.

As shown in Appendix K, the assessed net risk of the conceptual landfill design is low for all aspects other than a few where it is assessed as moderate.

This overall level of risk is therefore concluded to be readily acceptable by all reasonable standards, including those specified in the Landfill Sustainability Guide.

10. Landfill Operation

10.1 Hours of Operation It is proposed initially to operate the landfill between 7 am and 5 pm, seven days a week. These hours may change as mill operations dictate.

The details that may affect the proposed hours of operation are:

o Amount of waste produced

o Amount of waste diverted to beneficial reuse rather than landfill disposal

o Number of trucks to be employed, truck capacities and frequency of the turn around at the landfill (taking into account the time required for spreading and compaction of the wastes).

It is envisaged that only one truck will be needed to transport the amount of pulp mill solid waste for disposal, provided that the pulp mill solid waste generation rate is reasonably constant and that the pulp mill has solid waste storage capacity for weekend storage.

A work practices study after commencement of operation may recommend adjustments to the proposed operating regime.


10.2 Security A security fence around the landfill leachate pumping system and pond will prevent motorcycle, vehicular and foot access to the landfill leachate collection system. This security will be additional to a restricted access boom gate at access road entrance, at its junction with the East Tamar Highway.

10.3 Waste Handling To all practical extents, construction waste will be beneficially reused or recycled, rather than disposing of it to the landfill. Only residual waste that cannot be reused or recycled will be taken to the landfill for disposal.

It is proposed to cool and wet the individual pulp mill process wastes57 prior to temporary storage in a dedicated storage area at the mill.

The process wastes will then be carted in covered trucks to the landfill site. The process wastes will be controlled wastes58 and waste transporters will need to hold an appropriate environment protection notice under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 2004. The trucks will access the open operating cell by temporary gravel roads onto the previously spread and compacted fill. The various waste types will be mixed by tipping and spreading.

The waste layering will progress from the near roadside western side of the cell across to the western side of the cell. This will be achieved by having a truck tipping face about 0.5 m high established at the western side of the cell that will progress eastwards spreading over the entire area of the cell for each waste layer.

The tipped waste will be spread and compacted level with the 0.5 m depth profile for the individual layer.

It is proposed at this stage that the equipment that will mix, spread and compact the waste will be a long armed, rubber tracked, bucket excavator.

When putrescible waste is deposited in the landfill, it will be covered with at least 30 cm of soil and/or process waste at the end of the day to minimise odour generation and vermin infestation. To reduce disposal space wastage, the upper portion of this cover would typically be pulled back the next day (without disturbing the underlying waste) prior to depositing the next day’s waste, which in turn would be covered again.

57 Including, in particular, the hydration of lime kiln electrostatic precipitator dust. The heat of reaction of this hydration if it occurred in a landfill cell could damage membranes and pipes. 58 Under the National Environment Protection (Controlled Wastes between States and Territories) Measure 2004 and hence under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994.


10.4 Water Management Management of surface water and leachate is described in section 8, and will be achieved by cutoff drains and leachate collection drains respectively.

Surface water will be diverted around the landfill and then back into the natural drainage line.

Leachate will be collected at the bottom of the landfill and pumped to the pulp mill’s waste water treatment plant.

10.5 Nuisance Management Dust suppression will be achieved by wetting the waste as required.

The waste will be delivered to the landfill with a sufficient moisture content to suppress dust generation.

Should significant evaporation and lowering of the moisture content of the waste occur, due to prolonged hot weather periods, a water truck will spray water onto readily accessible areas. A water spray monitor will be used for larger inaccessible areas if necessary.

A 25,000 L capacity water supply tank will be installed at the office buildings, which will collect rainwater from the office roof and which will be maintained at a minimum level as required using a water supply tanker, for the purposes of fire fighting and landfill operations. This water will not be used for drinking water supply.

It is proposed to augment the fire fighting and landfill operations water supply using a small natural drainage collection pond above the landfill.

Daily cover of putrescible waste will be used to exclude vermin and other nuisance fauna.

10.6 Staffing Approximately 10 truck loads per day, each carrying approximately 20 m3 per load will be required to be loaded at the pulp mill, carted to the landfill, unloaded at the landfill and spread across the open operating cell (10 deliveries per day x 20 m3 x 250 workdays/year = 50,000 m3 per year).

There will not be a permanent presence on site. Landfill operators will be on site on as as-required basis. It is envisaged that the staffing levels at any given time for the facility will be 2 people. One person will be the supervisor and direct operations. The other is likely to be a qualified plant machinery operator.


There will be a small crib room/office and workshop that will be opened and used as needed.

11. Monitoring The monitoring regime for the landfill site will consist of monitoring before, during and after the landfill operating life.

11.1 Preliminary Monitoring Preliminary monitoring will be undertaken for groundwater quality. Initial indicative sampling has occurred, as described in section 7.3, and more sampling will be undertaken during the detailed design phase

The locations of the sampling bores are shown on the drawing in Appendix D.

Surface water monitoring to establish baseline water quality will be undertaken opportunistically before construction, when significant rainfall events occur.

11.2 Operational Monitoring

11.2.1 Groundwater

It is proposed to have five groundwater quality monitoring sites around the landfill area. The parameters to be measured are as described in the DPIWE Landfill Sustainability Guide Table 4.4, excluding the Group 4 analytes.

Monitoring will be quarterly.

The proposed monitoring sites are shown in Figure 10. Bore GW5 will be installed and monitoring commence prior to the start of landfill construction works, to initiate a long term record of groundwater quality downstream of the leachate collection point.

11.2.2 Surface Water

It is proposed to have four surface water quality monitoring sites around the landfill area. The parameters to be measured are as described in the Landfill Sustainability Guide Table 4.5, excluding the Group 4 analytes.



Surface water samples will only be possible after significant rainfall occurs. Surface water sampling will therefore be incidental with rainfall and may vary from the quarterly sampling frequency outlined in the Guide.

The proposed monitoring sites are shown in Figure 10.

11.2.3 Leachate

It is proposed to have one leachate water quality monitoring and sampling point for the landfill. This will be at the leachate collection buffer storage tank (see Figure 10).

The parameters to be measured are as described in the Landfill Sustainability Guide Table 4.5, excluding the Group 4 analytes.


11.2.4 Witness Sump

The operating witness sump will be monitored visually. If significant flow is observed, samples will be undertaken and analysed for parameters described in the Landfill Sustainability Guide Table 4.5, excluding the Group 4 analytes.

11.2.5 Landfill Gas

Given the inert and inorganic nature of the pulp mill process waste and the moderate level of domestic waste to be disposed of to the landfill gas monitoring is not considered warranted.

11.2.6 Waste Volumes

The number of truck movements and hence volume of waste (both process and domestic) disposed of to the landfill will be recorded daily.

Regular weight per volume validations of waste will be undertaken.

Annual engineering surveys of operating landfill cells will be undertaken to validate the volume of waste material received by the landfill.


Figure 10: Proposed groundwater and surface water monitoring sites

GW1

GW2GW3

GW4

GW5

SW1

SW2

SW3

SW4 GW = groundwater; SW = surface water; L = leachate

L


11.3 Closure Monitoring It is envisaged that the operational monitoring regime will continue on a quarterly basis for approximately three years following the closure of the last cell. The landfill monitoring would be incorporated into the pulp mill caretaker monitoring program.

After approximately three years, enough post closure information should be available for a suitably qualified person to report on the following:

o Structural stability of the landfill and drainage infrastructure

o Chemical and physical stability of the groundwater

o Chemical and physical stability of the surface water

o Chemical and physical stability of the leachate

o Landfill gas status (if applicable).

At that time a decision can be made as to whether there is a need to continue to collect any residual leachate whether it could instead be allowed to discharge directly into the Williams Creek drainage line.

At this time it may also be possible to demonstrate to regulatory authorities that the landfill does not pose a threat to the environment and therefore apply to cease all after care activities, including the monitoring program.

12. Reporting Reporting and review of the landfill operations and after care reporting will be undertaken in accordance with the Landfill Sustainability Guide but will be incorporated into the wider pulp mill reporting and review process.

This will ensure that:

o The landfill operations are included as an integral part of the overall pulp mill environmental management plan

o The landfill operations are included as an integral part of the overall pulp mill environmental management system

o The landfill operations are included as an integral part of the overall environmental auditing process.

o The landfill operations are included in the pulp mill overall environmental planning, budgeting and accountability procedures.


13. Planning Scheme Amendment The landfill site is largely within Bell Bay Major Industrial Zone but partially within the Agricultural Zone.

Heavy Industry (which the landfill would be classified as) is a permitted use within the Bell Bay Major Industrial Zone but is a prohibited use within the Agricultural Zone. A planning scheme amendment would be required to reflect approval of the landfill.

A draft planning scheme amendment is provided in Appendix L.

Pitt & Sherry Ref: H05069H001.rep 30.1.landfill design.doc

Appendix A

Waste characteristics

GUNNS Ltd., BELL BAY BEKP MILL 03.02.05/HJ Rev.2 15.06.05/HJ 16B0104Annual Production, ADBt/a Rev.3 27.01.06/HJ 1100000

Average. ADBt/d d/a 350 3143ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE AMOUNTS

1. SOLID WASTE CATHEGORIES AND SPECIFIC AMOUNTS

1.1 Bark and Fuel Wood BDt/a 242092Green t/a Fuel Wood 400000 484184Solid m3/a 526287Actual m3/a 968367Debarked Wood to Mill, % 100

Total Pulp Yield,% 48Debarking Yield, % 90

Chipping and Chip Screening Yield,% 98Wood and Bark Moisture, % 50Specific Weight, BDkg/m3-s 460Specific Volume, m3-l/Green t 2

1.2 Canteen and Sanitary Waste Actual m3/a 5040(incl. site cleaning waste) BDt/a BDt/act.m3 0.15 756

Avg. Number of Staff/shift 120Number of Shifts/d 3Waste, act.l/person/d 40

1.3 Screening/Cleaning Rejects BDt/a 7700Act.m3/a 32083

BDkg/Adt 7Cons.% 40

Spec.Weight, t/m3 0.6

1.4 Green Liquor Dregs, Slaker Sand, and L.K. ESP Dust BDt/a 26085Actual t/a 40008Actual m3/a 40008

Green Liquor Dregs*/ BDkg/Adt 8Slaker Sand BDkg/Adt 5 28222ESP-Dust/Burnt Lime Purge BDkg/Adt 10.7Dry Solids, % GL Dregs 55 0.51

Slaker Sand 45 wght'd avg.Lime rejects and ESP-dust 100

Specific Weight, act.t/m3 1*/Includes lime mud precoat

1.5 Effluent Sludge BDt/a 11000Actual t/a 27500Actual m3/a 45833Primary Sludge, BDkg//Adt 5Secondary Sludge, BDkg/Adt 5DS after Screw Press, % 40Specific Weight, t/m3 0.6

1.6 Power Boiler Ash BDt/a 5957(Auxiliary Fuel: Natural Gas or Oil) Actual t/a 8509

Actual m3/a 10637Biofuel Ash, % 2.3DS of Ash (after moist.screw), % 70Specific Weight, t/act.m3 0.8Bottom Ash (incl.FB sand), % 30

1.7 Scrap Metal and Machinery, Reusable Maintenance Materials min., t/a 100max., t/a 5000

2. DISPOSAL PRINCIPLES OF WASTES

2.1 Bark and Wood Waste Incineration in Power Boiler

2.2 Canteen and Sanitary Waste Landfill

2.3 Screening and Cleaning Rejects Incineration in Power Boiler (recovery with primary sludge)

2.4 Green Liquor Dregs, Slaker Sand, LK ESP Dust Landfill or P-K Fertilizer to Plantations

2.5 Effluent Sludge Primary Incineration in Power BoilerSecondary Incineration in Recovery Boiler

2.6 Power Boiler Ash ESP Ash Landfill or P-K Fertilizer to PlantationsBottom Ash Landfill or P-K Fertilizer to Plantations

2.7 Scrap Metal and Other Recycleable Materials Recycling

3. SOLID WASTE TO OFF-SITE DISPOSAL To Landfill3.1 All Solid Wastes Disposed to Off-Site Landfill A. Canteen, Sanitary and Site Cleaning Waste To Landfill Site, act.t/a 756

B. Power Boiler Ash to Landfill Site, act.t/a 8509

C. Green Liquor Dregs, Slaker Sand, LK ESP Dust, act.t/a 40008Max. to Landfill 49273

3.2 Max. Possible Amount of Solid Waste to Plantations To Plantations

D.Green Liquor Dregs, Slaker Sand, and L.K. ESP Dust to Plantations, act.t/a 40008E. Power Boiler Fly Ash to Plantations 5957Total to Plantations, act. t/a 45964

To LandfillF. Power Boiler Bottom Ash 2553A. Canteen, Sanitary, and Site Cleaning Waste, act. t/a 756Total to Landfill, act. t/a 3309Grand Total to Off-site Disposal, act. t/a 49273

2. ESTIMATED CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE 03/2005/HJ Rev.2. 15.06.05Rev.3. 27.01.06/HJ

2.1 Wood Fuel

2.1.1 Elemental Analysis (% on BDkg):

Carbon 52.00Hydrogen 5.80Oxygen 39.77Nitrogen 0.40Sulphur 0.03Ash 2.00Total 100

2.1.2 Empirical Chemical Formula

C(52.5/12)H6O(40/16)N(0.4/14)S(0.03/32)X(2/yy)

2.1.3 Approximate Composition of the Ash Fraction (= X)

Total Amount of Ash, kg/BDt Wood Fuel: 20.9Flue Gas Amount, Nm3(dry)/BDt 5700Bottom Ash, kg/BDt Bottom Ash, % 30 6.27Fly Ash, kg/BDt 14.63TSP Concentration at ESP inlet, g/Nm3(dry) 2.57

Tasmanian wood data Estimated Composition of Total Boiler Ash

Cations g/t wood g/BDkg ash g/kg ash g/eqv. Ion Balance, eqv./kgCa 284 14.7701 268 20 13.4Mg 106 5.5128 35 12.15 2.880658436Fe 30 1.5602 17 18.7 0.909090909Mn 27 1.4042 15 13.8 1.086956522Na 114 5.9 5.9 23 0.25777625K 479 24.9116 24.9 39 0.638758648Pb 0.1 0.0052 0.0052 103.5 5.02488E-05Cd 0.1 0.0052 0.0026 56 4.64353E-05Cu 0.9 0.0468 0.0468 63.5 0.000737114Cr 2 0.1040 0.1040 8.7 0.011955745Ni 1.7 0.0884 0.0884 29.4 0.003007236Al 17 0.8841 0.8841 9 0.098236368Zn 1.8 0.0936 0.0936 32.7 0.002862798As 0.1 0.0052 0.0052 15 0.000346717Hg 0.02 0.0010 0.0005 100 5.20075E-06Co 0.1 0.0052 0.0052 19.3 0.000269004Se 0.5 0.0260 0.0260 19.5 0.001333525Sn 1 0.0520 0.0520 29.5 0.001762966Sb 0.1 0.0052 0.0052 24.2 0.000214907Tot.Cations 55.4098 367 19.03 19.3Anions g/kg g/eqv. Ion Balance, eqv./kgSO4 S,% 0.04 109 48 2.273Cl 10 35.5 0.282SiO3 320.00 38 8.421Oxides 43.5 8 5.438PO4 P, g/kg 30 91.94 31.7 2.903BO3 B, g/kg 0.1 0.54 29.4 0.019

Total Anions 575 19.3Total Cations + Anions 942Unburnt Organic 58Total Ash 1000

2.2 Canteen, Site Cleaning and Sanitary Waste2.2.1 Chemical Composition

The chemical composition of this waste is similar to the normal household waste

2.3 Screening and Cleaning Rejects2.3.1 Chemical Composition

Elemental Analysis, % on BDkgCarbon 37.00Hydrogen 6.00Oxygen 48.50Sodium 1.50Sulphur 0.35Ash (other than Na, S) 6.65Total 100

2.3.2 Approximate Empirical Formula

C(36/12)H6O(47/16)Na(4/23)S(1/32)X(6/yy)

2.3.3 Approximate Composition of Ash (X) (g/BDkg ash)

Cations g/BDkg g/eqv. Ion Balance, eqv./kgNa 136 23 5.93Ca 156.5 20 7.82Al 39.1 9 4.35Mg 31 12.15 2.58Trace metals negl. n.a. n.a.Total Cations 363 20.7Anions g/BDkg g/eqv. Ion Balance, eqv./kgSO4, g/kg g S/BDkg 3.5 124 48 2.57SiO3 218 38 5.74CO3 200 30 6.67Metal oxides 46 8 5.75Total Anions 588 20.7Unburnt 49Total Ash 1000

2.4 Green Liquor Dregs, Slaker Sand, Lime Kiln ESP Dust

2.4.1 Green Liquor Dregs

Total Amount, BDkg/Adt 8DS Contents, % 55Total Amount, kg/Adt 14.54545455Total Amount, t/a 16000

Cations g/BDkg g/eqv. Ion Balance, eqv./kgNa Na2O-loss,% 0.25 50.00 23 2.17Ca 211.0 20 10.55Al 49.0 9 5.44Mg 21 12.15 1.74Other metals*/ 15 30 0.50Total Cations 346 20.4Anions g/BDkg g/eqv. Ion Balance, eqv./kgSO4, g/kg g S/BDkg 18.75 19 48 0.39SiO3 230 38 6.05CO3 369 30 12.30PO4 20 31.7 0.63Sulphides and Hydroxides 15.9375 16 1.00Total Anions 654 20.4

Total Ash 1000*/ Fe, Mn, Cr, Mo, Ni, Zn, and other heavy metals (input with wood, corrosion and abrasion of equipment)

2.4.2 Slaker Sand

Total Amount, BDkg/Adt 5DS Contents, % 45Total Amount, kg/Adt 11.11Total Amount, t/a 12222

Cations g/BDkg g/eqv. Ion Balance, eqv./kgNa Na2O-loss,% 0.25 75.00 23 3.26Ca 234.5 20 11.73Al 25.0 9 2.78Mg 23 12.15 1.93Other metals*/ 18.5 30 0.62Total Cations 376 20.31Anions g/BDkg g/eqv. Ion Balance, eqv./kgSO4, g/kg g S/BDkg 30 16 48 0.33SiO3 132 38 3.47CO3 400 30 13.33PO4 50 31.7 1.58Sulphides and hydroxides 25.5 16 1.59Total Anions 624 20.31

Total Ash 1000*/ Fe, Mn, Cr, Mo, Ni, Zn, and other heavy metals(input with wood, corrosion and abrasion of equipment)

2.4.3 Lime Kiln ESP Dust

Total Amount, BDkg/Adt 10.714DS Contents, % 100Total Amount, kg/Adt 10.7Total Amount, t/a 11785

Cations g/BDkg g/eqv. Ion Balance, eqv./kgNa NaOH,%**/ 0.2 0.02 23 0.00Ca 471.0 20 23.55Al 18.0 9 2.00Mg 47 12.15 3.88Other Cations*/ 10 30 0.33Total Cations 546 29.8Anions g/BDkg g/eqv. Ion Balance, eqv./kgSO4, g/kg S, %**/ 0.07 0.04 48 0.001SiO3 222 38 5.83Oxides 175 8 21.88PO4 50 31.7 1.58Sulphides 8 16 0.47Total Anions 454 29.8

Total Ash 1000*/ Fe, Mn, Cr, Mo, Ni, Zn, and other heavy metals(input with wood, corrosion and abrasion of equipment)**/ Residual washable alkali in lime mud

2.5 Primary Sludge

2.5.1 Approximate Elemental Analysis

Elemental Analysis, % on BDkgCarbon 39.50Hydrogen 6.00Oxygen 49.00Sodium 0.40Sulphur 0.10Ash (other than Na, S) 5.00Total 100


C(39.5/12)H6O(49/16)Na(0.4/23)S(0.1/32)X(5/yy)

2.5.3 Approximate Composition of Ash (X) (as g/BDkg ash)

Cations g/BDkg g/eqv. Ion Balance, eqv./kgNa 73 23 3.16Ca 216.0 20 10.80Al 30.0 9 3.33Mg 22 12.15 1.78Trace metals negl. n.a. n.a.Total Cations 340 19.1Anions g/BDkg g/eqv. Ion Balance, eqv./kgSO4 55 48 1.14SiO3 319 38 8.39CO3 285 30 9.50Cl 1 35.5 0.03Total Anions 660 19.1

Total Ash 1000

2.6 Secondary Sludge

2.6.1 Approximate Elemental Analysis

Elemental Analysis, % on BDkgCarbon 50.00Hydrogen 6.00Oxygen 26.80N 11.70P 0.94Na 0.25Sulphur 0.03Ash (other than Na, S) 4.28Total 100


C(50/12)H6O(27/16)N(12/14)P(1/31)Na(0.3/23)S(0.03/32)X(4.3/yy)

2.6.3 Approximate Composition of Ash (X) (as g/BDkg ash)

Cations g/BDkg g/eqv. Ion Balance, eqv./kgNa 45 23 1.98Ca 210.0 20 10.50Al 38.0 9 4.22Mg 21 12.15 1.73Fe+Mn 20 18.7 1.07Trace metals 0.3 30 0.01Total Cations 335 19.5Anions g/BDkg g/eqv. Ion Balance, eqv./kgSO4 23 48 0.48SiO3 319 38 8.39CO3 286 30 9.53PO4 17 31.7 0.54Cl 20 35.5 0.56Total Anions 665 19.5

Total Ash 1000

2.7 Power Boiler Ash (at 100 % Biofuel Firing)

2.7.1 Total Amount

Wood Fuel Ash, BDt/a 5060Pulp Reject Ash, BDt/a 655Primary Sludge Ash, BDt/a 303Secondary Sludge, BDt/a (Incinerated in the recovery boiler with black liquor)Total to Land Disposal, BDt/a ESP Efficiency, % 99 5957

2.7.2 Approximate Chemical CompositionEU-Guideline Estimated Actual Ash Composition

Cations g/kg g/BDkg g/eqv. Ion Balance, eqv./kgCa 256 20 12.79058Mg 33 12.15 2.729949Fe 14 18.7 0.772216Mn 13 13.8 0.923302Na 23.7 23 1.031004K 21.2 39 0.542586Pb 0.02 0.0044 103.5 0.000043Cd*/ 0.005 0.0022 56 0.000039Cu 0.1 0.0398 63.5 0.000626Cr 0.1 0.0884 8.7 0.010156Ni 0.1 0.0751 29.4 0.002554Al 0.7510 9 0.083446Zn 0.1 0.0795 32.7 0.002432As 0.01 0.0044 15 0.000295Hg*/ 0.0005 0.0004 100 0.000004Co 0.0044 19.3 0.000229Se 0.0221 19.5 0.001133Sn 0.0442 29.5 0.001498Sb 0.0044 24.2 0.000183Total Cations 362 19.17 18.9*/ 50 % recovery to ESP-ash assumed

Anions g/kg g/eqv. Ion Balance, eqv./kgSO4 S,% 0.045 123 48 2.557Cl 10 35.5 0.282SiO3 365.00 38 9.605Oxides 43.5 8 5.438PO4 P, g/kg 10 30.65 31.7 0.968BO3 B, g/kg 0.1 0.54 29.4 0.019

Total Anions 572 18.9Total Cations + Anions 935Unburnt Organic 65Total Ash 1000

2.8 Estimated Metal Contents of the Combined Solid Waste from the Causticizing and Lime Kiln Area The following estimate is based on recent analysis of the element contents of Tasmanian wood species

Total amount of solid waste, actual kg/ADt */ 40Element Indicative Balance Concentration by Wood Spec.(in Solid Waste)

Pl.Euca Nat.Euca PineMo, mg/kg 4 4 5P, mg/kg 2255 1620 3537Sb, mg/kg 4 4 5Si, mg/kg 633 876 1769Sn, mg/kg 40 44 48Al, mg/kg 673 744 1864As, mg/kg 4 9 10B, mg/kg 95 131 81Ba, mg/kg 55 57 24Be, mg/kg 4 4 5Cd, mg/kg 4.0 4.4 4.8Co, mg/kg 4 4 10Cr, mg/kg 79 48 67Cu, mg/kg 36 44 67Fe, mg/kg 1187 1226 2533Mn, mg/kg 1068 657 2533Ni, mg/kg 67 70 91Pb, mg/kg 4 9 10Se, mg/kg 20 22 24V, mg/kg 4 4 5Zn, mg/kg 71 105 268Hg, mg/kg 0.79 0.88 0.96Ca, mg/kg 11237 6479 15439Mg, mg/kg 4194 3239 7074Total, mg/kg 21743 15406 35473Sum of HM's, mg/kg 436 509 699Note */ The estimated total amount of solid waste is about 40 act. kg/ADt. This implies that most of solid waste originates from the process chemicals used, not from wood. Environmentally problematic elements, however, originate primarily from wood.

3. HAZARDOUS WASTE AMOUNTS 16B0104 Rev.2 15.06.05/HJ

3.1 Hazardous Waste Cathegories

3.1.1 Waste Oil and Grease

(i) Lubrication Oils(ii) Hydraulic Oils(iii) Lubrication Grease(iv) (Transformer Oils)3.1.2 Solvents Containing Waste

(v) Paint residues(vi) Used solvents from equipment cleaning

3.1.3 Acids and Alkalis Containing Waste

(vii) Laboratory Waste(viii) Chemical Storage Tank Cleaning Waste and Used Containers

3.1.4 Waste Containing Heavy Metals, Organic Halogen Compounds, Phenols, and Biocides

(ix) Used electrical equipment(x) Materials containing biocide residues (xi) Materials containg organic halogen, mercury, and phenolic compounds

3.1.5 (xii) Infected Sanitary Waste and Medical Waste

3.2 Estimated Hazardous Waste AmountsBased on the Scandinavian mill statistics, the total amount of hazardous waste is as an average: actual kg/Adt pulp 0.2At Bell Bay the total hazardous waste amount would be, actual t/a 220

The approximate breakdown of the total amount is as follows:

Waste Cathegory % of total Act. t/a

(i) Lubrication Oils 25 55(ii) Hydraulic Oils 20 44(iii) Lubrication Grease 15 33(iv) Transformer Oils 0 0(v) Paint residues 8 17.6(vi) Used solvents from equipment cleaning 7 15.4

(vii) Laboratory Waste 2 4.4(viii) Storage Tank and Container Cleaning Waste 2 4.4(ix) Used electrical equipment 14 30.8(x) Materials containing biocide residues 5 11(xi) Materials containg organic halogen, mercury, 1 2.2 and phenolic compounds(xii) Infected Sanitary Waste and Medical Waste 1 2.2

Total, actual t/a 100 220

3.3 Handling and Disposal of Hazardous Waste

The hazardous waste generated at the mill departments are collected, packed, and storedin dedicated hazardous waste collection areas. Each package will be marked inaccordance with the hazardous waste storage and handling instructions.

The stored waste will be collected from the mill by authorized hazardous waste contractor(s) and transported to off-site hazardous waste disposal facility(ies) permitted and supervised by the relevant environmental and public health authorities.

Heat Generation due to the Hydration of the Lime Kiln ESP Dust 16B0104 15.06.05/HJ

Pulp Production, Adt/a 11000001. Basic Assumptions

ESP Ash to Landfill, BDkg/Adt 10.714CaO Contents, % 73.52Standard Free Energy of Hydration, kJ/mol CaO 65.19

2. Theoretical Heat Generation MJ/Adt 9.169MJ/d 28818

3. Theoretical Temperature Increase of Solid WasteTotal Amount of Solid Waste to Landfill, t/Adt 0.045

Spec.Heat Capacity, MJ/(t*C) 3.138Stochiometric Hydration into Ca(OH)2 Delta t, C

% of Unhydrated ESP Dust to Landfill*/ 100 6575 4950 3325 16

*/ An optional way of disposal is to use the ESP ash in the pH-control of effluent


Appendix B

Description of candidate landfill sites against risk criteria

Pitt & Sherry Ref: H05069H001 App B Rev 03 - Candidate site description.doc/iow

No. Risk criteria BBB Site A BBB Site B BBB Site C GMT Site D

A Geology

1 Cavernous substrata There are no cavernous substrata present.

There are no cavernous substrata present.

There are no cavernous substrata present.

There are no known cavernous substrata present.

2 High permeability substrata

There are no known high permeability substrata.

There are no high permeability substrata but the lower end of the site appears to be underlain by an area of faulting that allows greater groundwater flow than occurs at the upper end.

There are no known high permeability substrata.

The basalt derived lag deposits underlying the area may be highly permeable. The tip has a natural clay liner achieving a permeability of 1 x 10-11 m/sec, and future trenches are likely to be lined1.

3 Slipping substrata There are no slipping substrata. There are no slipping substrata. There are no slipping substrata. There may be some slipping substrata at depth.

4 High permeability soils There are no high permeability soils in the site area.

There are no high permeability soils in the site area.



5 Dune formations No dune formations are present. No dune formations are present. No dune formations are present. No dune formations are present.

6 Seismic risk fault line Major faultline on eastern edge of Tamar River, 1.5 km east of site. Lineaments (faults/major joints) defined from air photos pass through site. There is no evidence that any movement has taken place along these features in the Holocene period.

Major faultline on eastern edge of Tamar River, 2 km east of site. Lineaments (faults/major joints) defined from air photos pass through site. There is no evidence that any movement has taken place along these features in the Holocene period.

Major faultline on eastern edge of Tamar River, 2 km east of site. Lineaments (faults/major joints) defined from air photos pass through site. There is no evidence that any movement has taken place along these features in the Holocene period.

Major faultline on eastern edge of Tamar River, assumed to pass beneath site There is no evidence that any movement has taken place along this feature in the Holocene period

7 Deep valley or gully Site located in a gully Site located in a gully Site located in a gully Site is not located in a gully.

8 Geoconservation potential There are no features having potential geoconservation significance.

There are no features having potential geoconservation significance.



1 George Town Council pers.comm.. 10 June 2005



B Hydrogeology

9 Potable groundwater aquifer

No groundwater data is available but it is likely to be similar to Site B. The existing aquifer is not used as a source of potable water and is considered unlikely to be a future source

Site groundwater has a relatively high conductivity (1270 – 2360 mg/L TDS) that is difficult to explain, and is unexpected in dolerite. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines consider water with TDS levels below 500 mg/L to be good quality, water with 500-1000 mg/L TDS acceptable based on taste but above 1000 mg/L TDS the taste may be unacceptable. The existing aquifer is not used as a source of potable water and is considered unlikely to be a future source

No groundwater data is available but it is likely to be similar to Site B. The existing aquifer is not used as a source of potable water and is considered unlikely to be a future source

No groundwater data has been reviewed for the purposes of this report. The existing aquifer is not used as a source of potable water and is considered unlikely to be a future source

10 Below regional water table

Site is above the regional watertable

Site is above the regional watertable. It is possible that the watertable could approach the bottom liner of cell(s) at the lower end of the landfill during wet weather periods, requiring an underdrainage layer.

Site is above the regional watertable

Site is above the regional watertable (water table is at least 2 m below the bottom of disposal trenches)2.

11 Groundwater recharge area

Not in a groundwater recharge area Not in a groundwater recharge area Not in a groundwater recharge area Not in a groundwater recharge area

12 Permanent swamp area No swamp areas No swamp areas No swamp areas No swamp areas but leachate seeps to low lying tea tree area.

13 Potential surface expression of leachate

At south western corner of site, along the existing watercourse

At southern end of site, along the existing watercourse

On western side of southern end of the site, along the existing watercourse

Considered unlikely that there would be any surface expression




C Surface water

14 Within water supply catchment

The site is not within a water supply catchment.




15 Permanent water courses within 1 km.

There are no permanent water courses within 1 km.




16 On a 1 in 100 year floodplain.

The site is not on a 1 in 100 year floodplain.




17 Within a wetland area. The site is not within a wetland area.

The site is not within a wetland area.



D Land use

18 Non-compatible planning scheme zoning

The site is within Bell Bay Major Industrial Zone and Heavy Industry (which the landfill would likely be classified as) is a permitted use in that zone.

The site is largely within Bell Bay Major Industrial Zone and partially within the Agricultural Zone. Heavy Industry (which the landfill would be classified as) is a permitted use within the Bell Bay Major Industrial Zone but is a prohibited use within the Agricultural Zone. A planning scheme amendment would be required.

The site is within Bell Bay Major Industrial Zone and Heavy Industry (which the landfill would likely be classified as) is a permitted use in that zone.

The site is zoned Utility Services, an appropriate zoning for a community landfill but not appropriate for a private industrial landfill. Heavy Industry (which the landfill would be classified as) is a prohibited use within that zone. A planning scheme amendment would be required.



19 Non-compatibility with community expectations

The Bell Bay Major Industrial Zone has been in existence since at least 1991 as a planning zone, and the Comalco land has been set aside for heavy industry since 1955. The use of this land for heavy industry purposes is therefore a well-established community expectation.

The Bell Bay Major Industrial Zone has been in existence since at least 1991 as a planning zone, and the Comalco land has been set aside for heavy industry since 1955. The use of this land for heavy industry purposes is therefore a well-established community expectation. Use of the adjoining forestry land for an industrial landfill would not be an established community expectation.

The Bell Bay Major Industrial Zone has been in existence since at least 1991 as a planning zone, and the Comalco land has been set aside for heavy industry since 1955. The use of this land for heavy industry purposes is therefore a well-established community expectation.

The George Town municipal tip has been in existence for many years, and the surrounding planning zoning of Utility Services has been established since at least 1991. The use of this land as a community landfill is therefore a well-established community expectation. However, use of this land for a heavy industry landfill would not be an established community expectation, and would also greatly curtail the life of the use of the site for the municipal landfill.

20 Inadequate area available for 20 year fill requirements

There is sufficient area available for a 20 year landfill life.



The site is approximately 20 ha, with approximately 2.25 ha remaining for tipping. At the current rate of tipping (putrescible and industrial inert wastes) the site has an expected life of approximately 5 years3.

21 Site land in other ownership

The land is currently owned by Comalco.

The land is currently owned by Comalco (in part) and by Forestry Tasmania (in part).

The land is currently owned by Comalco.

The land is currently owned by the George Town Municipal Council.

22 Sensitive land use within 1 km

The nearest sensitive land use is Four Mile Creek Wildlife Sanctuary, 0.6 km away.



The nearest sensitive land use is the Mount George Recreation Reserve, 1.0 km away.

23 Air traffic within 10 km The George Town airport is 11 km away

The George Town airport is 10 km away






24 Residential area within 500 m

The nearest residential area is 2.8 km away (Rowella).



The nearest high density residential area is 1.0 km away (George Town), and there are individual residential properties closer than this.

25 ‘Sterilisation’ of land for future valued land use

The site is in zoned industrial land but due to terrain is unlikely to be suited to a major processing facility. It could be a suitable site for a water storage dam.



Use of the land for an industrial landfill would greatly reduce the life of George Town municipal tip by exhausting available fill space.

26 High visibility from residential areas and/or tourist lookouts

The site is partially within the Skyline Protection Special Area and is highly visible from the East Tamar Highway, and screening would be very difficult.

The site is within the Skyline Protection Special Area but is not visible from tourist vantage points, such as the Mount George Scenic Lookout, or from residential areas. The site is unlikely to be significantly visible from the East Tamar Highway.

The site is partially within the Skyline Protection Special Area and is readily visible from the East Tamar Highway, and screening would be very difficult.

The site is outside the Skyline Protection Special Area but is readily visible from the East Tamar Highway and is adjacent to the access road to the Mount George scenic lookout.

E Flora and fauna

27 Conservation priority forest community

The site and landfill footprint probably includes Eucalyptus ovata community, a priority conservation vegetation community.

The site and landfill footprint includes Eucalyptus ovata community, a priority conservation vegetation community.

The site and landfill footprint includes Eucalyptus ovata community, a priority conservation vegetation community.

The site is an established municipal tip, and no priority conservation communities occur within the property boundaries.

28 Conservation priority non-forest community

No conservation priority non-forest communities are present.



The site is an established municipal tip, and no priority conservation communities occur within the property boundaries.

29 Threatened plant species present

The site and landfill footprint probably includes populations of Pimelea flava, a listed threatened species.

The site and landfill footprint includes populations of Pimelea flava, a listed threatened species.

The site and landfill footprint includes populations of Pimelea flava, a listed threatened species.

The site is an established municipal tip, and no threatened plants are known to occur within the property boundaries, although Pimelea flava could occur.



30 Threatened animal species present

The Tippogoree Hills area is known habitat for the spotted tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus), which is listed as vulnerable Nationally, and the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii), which is listed as vulnerable in Tasmania.

The Tippogoree Hills area is known habitat for the spotted tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus), which is listed as vulnerable Nationally, and the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii), which is listed as vulnerable in Tasmania.

The area Tippogoree Hills is known habitat for the spotted tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus), which is listed as vulnerable Nationally, and the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii), which is listed as vulnerable in Tasmania.

The site is an established municipal tip, but the wider Tippogoree Hills area is known habitat for the spotted tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus), which is listed as vulnerable Nationally, and the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii), which is listed as vulnerable in Tasmania.

31 Close proximity to RAMSAR or similar wetland areas

There are no RAMSAR or similar wetlands in the vicinity.




32 Close proximity to seagull, mosquito etc areas

The site is close to the coast and hence to seagull areas. Mosquitos could breed in standing water.




F Heritage

33 Aboriginal heritage present

There are no known sites of significance and a site survey found no new sites but this does not mean that there are none present.

Three known TASI sites (TASI 7485, 7486, 7487) are located within the area. A site survey found no new sites but this does not mean that there are no additional sites present.

There are no known sites of significance and a site survey found no new sites but this does not mean that there are none present.

The site is an established municipal tip, and no Aboriginal items are known to occur within the property boundaries.

34 Non-Aboriginal heritage present

There are no known sites of significance and given past use there are unlikely to be any present.



The site is an established municipal tip, and no non-Aboriginal items are known to occur within the property boundaries.

G Infrastructure

35 Waste transport through residential areas

Transport through residential areas would not be required.



Transport through the outskirts of residential areas would be required.



36 New traffic junctions required

An upgraded junction with the East Tamar Highway would be required.



The existing junction with the East Tamar Highway should be sufficient.

37 Stand alone leachate treatment and disposal required

Leachate treatment and disposal can be integrated with the pulp mill wastewater treatment plant.



Leachate treatment and disposal could only be integrated with pulp mill wastewater treatment plant with a (approximately) 6 km pipeline. Currently, leachate reports to a pond prior to seepage to low lying tea tree land. Council is installing a pump station and rising main to connect to the sewerage system this year. If pulp mill waste was disposed on site, leachate from that could presumably also be taken to sewer.

38 Remote from water supply for fire fighting and/or dust suppression

The nearest standing water body is the Lauriston and Howell reservoir system, approximately 1.5 km away.

The nearest standing water body is the Lauriston and Howell reservoir system, approximately 2 km away.

The nearest standing water body is the Lauriston and Howell reservoir system, approximately 2 km away.

The site is serviced by town water.

39 Remote from high voltage electricity supply

Supply line distance is approximately 2.0 km.



Supply line distance is approximately 0.5 km (if existing supply is inadequate).

40 Inability to treat crib room/workshop sewage and sullage

There should be no problems for a small onsite wastewater treatment (eg. septic tank) system.



Connection to reticulated sewerage should be possible.

H Economics

41 Rock excavation required Rock excavation requirements for the landfill and its cutoff drains and access road are likely to be low.

Rock excavation requirements for the landfill itself are likely to be low but rock outcrops on the gully sides may require rock excavation for cutoff drains and the access road.

Rock excavation requirements for the landfill and its cutoff drains and access road are likely to be low.

Rock excavation will be required but the material is likely to be talus and therefore not a major excavation task.



42 Transport distances long Transport distance is approximately 3 km.

Transport distance is approximately 4.5 km.

Transport distance is approximately 3 km.

Transport distance is approximately 10 km.

43 New access road required New access road of approximately 1 km required.

New access road of approximately 2.3 km required.

New access road of approximately 1 km required.

No new access road required.


Appendix C

Comparison of candidate landfill sites against risk criteria

Pitt & Sherry Ref: H05069H001 App C Rev 03 - Candidate site comparison.doc/iow

No. Risk weighting Subcategory BBB Site A BBB Site B BBB Site C GMT Site D

Risk scores Risk scores Risk scores Risk scores Category

weighting (out of 100)

Overall weighting

(out of 100)

Raw (0 to 10)

Net Raw (0 to 10)

Net Raw (0 to 10)

Net Raw (0 to 10)

Net

A. Geology 100 15

1 15 2.25 Cavernous substrata 2 4.5 2 4.5 2 4.5 8 18

2 15 2.25 High permeability substrata 2 4.5 4 9.0 2 4.5 8 18

3 15 2.25 Slipping substrata 1 2.25 1 2.25 1 2.25 1 2.25

4 10 1.5 High permeability soils 3 4.5 3 4.5 3 4.5 7 10.5

5 15 2.25 Dune formations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 15 2.25 Seismic risk fault line 6 13.5 8 18 6 13.5 5 11.25

7 10 1.5 Deep valley or gully 7 10.5 7 10.5 7 10.5 1 1.5

8 5 0.75 Geoconservation potential 1 0.75 1 0.75 1 0.75 1 0.75

40.5 49.5 40.5 62.25

B. Hydrogeology 100 15

9 20 3 Potable groundwater aquifer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 20 3 Below regional water table 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 20 3 Groundwater recharge area 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6

12 20 3 Permanent swamp area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 20 3 Potential surface expression of leachate 1 3 1 3 1 3 4 12

9 9 9 18





Overall weighting

(out of 100)

Raw (0 to 10)

Net Raw (0 to 10)

Net Raw (0 to 10)

Net Raw (0 to 10)

Net

C. Surface water 100 10

14 40 4 Within water supply catchment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 10 1 Permanent water courses within 1 km. 4 4 1 1 4 4 1 1

16 25 2.5 On a 1 in 100 year floodplain. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 25 2.5 Within a wetland area. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 1 4 1

D. Land use 100 10

18 5 0.5 Non-compatible planning scheme zoning 0 0 3 1.5 0 0 1 0.5

19 10 1 Non-compatibility with community expectations

2 2 2 2 2 2 8 8

20 20 2 Inadequate area available for 20 year fill requirements

1 2 1 2 1 2 8 16

21 5 0.5 Site land in other ownership 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5

22 10 1 Sensitive land use within 1 km 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10

23 5 0.5 Air traffic within 10 km 2 1 2 1 2 1 4 2

24 10 1 Residential area within 500 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10

25 10 1 ‘Sterilisation’ of land for future valued land use

5 5 1 1 10 10 10 10

26 25 2.5 High visibility from residential areas and/or tourist lookouts

8 20 1 2.5 8 20 10 25





Overall weighting

(out of 100)

Raw (0 to 10)

Net Raw (0 to 10)

Net Raw (0 to 10)

Net Raw (0 to 10)

Net

35 15 40 86.5

E. Flora and fauna 100 15

27 25 3.75 Conservation priority forest community 10 37.5 10 37.5 10 37.5 1 3.75

28 25 3.75 Conservation priority non-forest community

2 7.5 2 7.5 2 7.5 1 3.75

29 20 3 Threatened plant species present 10 30 10 30 10 30 4 12

30 15 2.25 Threatened animal species present 3 6.75 3 6.75 3 6.75 1 2.25

31 10 1.5 Close proximity to RAMSAR or similar wetland areas

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

32 5 0.75 Close proximity to seagull, mosquito etc areas

2 1.5 1 0.75 2 1.5 5 3.75

83.25 82.5 83.25 25.5

F. Heritage 100 10

33 50 5 Aboriginal heritage present 5 25 7 35 5 25 5 25

34 50 5 Non-Aboriginal heritage present 2 10 2 10 2 10 4 20

35 45 35 45





Overall weighting

(out of 100)

Raw (0 to 10)

Net Raw (0 to 10)

Net Raw (0 to 10)

Net Raw (0 to 10)

Net

G. Infrastructure 100 5

35 35 1.75 Waste transport through residential areas

0 0 0 0 0 0 10 17.5

36 15 0.75 New traffic junctions required 8 6 8 6 8 6 2 1.5

37 15 0.75 Stand alone leachate treatment and disposal required

0 0 0 0 0 0 8 6

38 10 0.5 Remote from water supply for fire fighting and/or dust suppression

3 1.5 3 1.5 3 1.5 1 0.5

39 15 0.75 Remote from high voltage electricity supply

4 3 4 3 4 3 1 0.75

40 10 0.5 Inability to treat crib room/workshop sewage and sullage

1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5

11 11 11 26.75

H. Economics 100 20

41 25 5 Rock excavation required 4 20 4 20 4 20 4 20

42 50 10 Transport distances long 4 40 4 40 4 40 8 80

43 25 5 New access road required 7 35 7 35 7 35 1 5

95 95 95 105

Total 313 Total 308 Total 318 Total 370


Appendix D

Geological and water sampling results

Bore logs

Excavation logs

Water sampling results

Sheet: 1 of 3

deg.

mm deg. Operator:

1 2 3

C U60 Undisturbed Sample D VSM U50 50mm Diameter M S

D Disturbed Sample W F N Standard Penetration St

N* SPT + Sample VSt Nc Cone Penetrometer < H

= Fb Inflow > VL Outflow L

MD VD

- WashboreWCT

Penetration

AS - Auger Screwing

10.00

9.00

8.00

Casing

- Roller/TriconeMud

R

7.00

V - "V" Bit

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff

- Very Soft- Soft- Firm

PL

- Very Dense

Consistency/ Relative Density

Plastic Limit

- Loose- Moderately Dense

- Friable- Very Loose

MoistDry

GW

Wet

PLPL

Piezometer construction:D L surface to 0.5m (cement seal) 0.5- 14.5m (sand/gravel pack)

15-30m (slotted pvc screen)

14.5-15m (bentonite seal)

6.00

P&S F8

Hole commenced:

5.00

Observations

Borehole no:

DH1

10/03/2005G. Baker

K.McIntosh/ M. Pollington

G. Baker

9/03/2005

Classification Symbols and Soil Description - Based on Unified Soil

Classification System

Graphic log

Water Level and

B - Blank Bit

Method Support Samples and Tests Moisture Condition

AD - Auger Drilling

T - TC Bit

- Cable Tool

4.00

3.00

D2.00 DOLERITE: fresh, grey

D 1.00 DOLERITE: weathered (from 1-2m)

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

Pie

zom

eter

Dep

th m

etre

s

Gra

phic

log

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

Wat

er

Drilling Information Soil Description

Log checked by:

Drill Model And Mounting: MK600 Geomechanica Slope:

Hole location:

Hole completed:

PITT & SHERRYLaboratory and Field Testing Services

Engineering Log - Borehole

R.L. Surface:

Project No: H05069 Hole logged by:

Hole Diameter: Bearing:

GRAVEL (GW): loose, broken rock.(surface to 1m)

400

Structure and Additional Observations

Datum:

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100

200

300

No Resistance Ranging to

Refusal

Gunns Landfill SiteProject Name:

Material Soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics, colour,

secondary and minor component.

=

DH1 (0-10m).xls

Sheet: 2 of 3

deg.

mm deg. Operator:

1 2 3





MD VD

- WashboreWCT

Penetration

AS - Auger Screwing

20.00

19.00

18.00

Casing

- Roller/TriconeMud

R

17.00

V - "V" Bit

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff


PL

- Very Dense


Plastic Limit




MoistDry

14.5-15m (bentonite seal)

Wet

PLPL

0.5- 14.5m (sand/gravel pack)

borehole (24/03/05) 12.45mStanding water level in

16.00

P&S F8

Hole commenced:

15.00

Observations

Borehole no:

DH1

10/03/2005G. Baker


G. Baker

9/03/2005



Graphic log

Water Level and

B - Blank Bit


AD - Auger Drilling

T - TC Bit

- Cable Tool

14.00

13.00

12.00

D 11.00 DOLERITE: fresh, grey

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

Pie

zom

eter

Dep

th m

etre

s

Gra

phic

log

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

Wat

er


Log checked by:


Hole location:

Hole completed:



R.L. Surface:



borehole continued from previous page

400


Datum:

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100

200

300


Refusal




=

DH1 (10-20m).xls

Sheet: 3 of 3

deg.

mm deg. Operator:

1 2 3





MD VD

- WashboreWCT

Penetration

AS - Auger Screwing

30.00 End of borehole at 30m

29.00

28.00

Casing

- Roller/TriconeMud

R

27.00

V - "V" Bit

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff


PL

- Very Dense


Plastic Limit




MoistDry

Wet

PLPL

26.00

P&S F8

Hole commenced:

25.00

Observations

Borehole no:

DH1

10/03/2005G. Baker


G. Baker

9/03/2005



Graphic log

Water Level and

B - Blank Bit


AD - Auger Drilling

T - TC Bit

- Cable Tool

24.00

23.00

22.00

D 21.00 DOLERITE: fresh, grey

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

Pie

zom

eter

Dep

th m

etre

s

Gra

phic

log

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

Wat

er


Log checked by:


Hole location:

Hole completed:



R.L. Surface:




400


Datum:

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100

200

300


Refusal




=

DH1 (20-30m).xls

Sheet: 1 of 3

deg.

mm deg. Operator:

1 2 3





MD VD

WCT

AS

R

PL

Fe staining 10.00

JT 45 deg, irregular, rough some

JT, vertcal, tight CL infill

JT vertical, open

Fe staining, 9.00

JT, 45deg, PL, IR, spacing 100-300mm

Predominate joint orientation 45deg

8.00

on jount faces

- WashborePenetration

- Auger Screwing Casing

- Roller/TriconeMud

Method

7.00 CORE LOSS (6.8-7.4m)

(EW dolerite/fabric intact)

gravel, mottled red-brown-grey.

V - "V" Bit

CORE LOSS (5.8-6.1m)

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff


- Very Dense


Plastic Limit



Water level during drilling 8m

HW to EW dolerite

(Colluvium)

MoistDry

Wet

PLPL

CORE LOSS (3.22-3.4m)Clayey GRAVEL: some pisolitic layers


Cored from 1.0 to 29.8mWashbored from surface to 1.0m

8.5-29.8m (slotted pvc screen)

GC

CORE LOSS (4-4.27m)

CORE LOSS (4.7-4.88m)CLAY (CI)med-high plasticity, angular cobbles & some

8.0-8.5m (bentonite seal)

Drilling method:

6.00

P&S F8

Hole commenced:

5.00

CLAY (CH): mottled red-brown-grey, EW dolerite

Observations

Borehole no:

DH2

24/03/2005 M. PollingtonK.McIntosh

G. Baker

22/03/2005



Graphic log

Water Level and

B - Blank Bit

Support Samples and Tests Moisture Condition

DOLERITE: highly to extremely weathered, Fe staining

CLAY (CI): medium plastcity clay, with trace of sand

AD - Auger Drilling

T - TC Bit

- Cable Tool

4.00

3.00 Clayey GRAVEL (GC) mottled grey-red brownGC CORE LOSS (2.4-2.7m)

plasticity, gravelly patches,ocassional cobbles,pisoliticClayey GRAVEL (GC) mottled grey-red brown, low GC

D2.00Dolerite cobbles, pebbles & gravel (50-80mm)

CORE LOSS (1-1.5m)D 1.00 Started coring at 1.0m

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

Pie

zom

eter

Dep

th m

etre

s

Gra

phic

log

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

Wat

er


Log checked by:


Hole location: Southern end of site

Hole completed:



R.L. Surface:



TOPSOIL: Clayey GRAVEL: brown

400


Datum:

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100

200

300


Refusal




=

DH2 (0-10m).xls

Sheet: 2 of 3

deg.

mm deg. Operator:

1 2 3





MD VD

- WashboreWCT

Penetration

AS - Auger Screwing

20.00

JT subvert. Travertine infill 19.00

300-1000mm spacing

JT subhorizontal,

18.00

Casing

- Roller/TriconeMud

R

17.00

V - "V" Bit

DOLERITE: HW - EW to clay, grey-green to cream,

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff


PL

- Very Dense

JTs 45 deg, spacing at 500mm


Plastic Limit

Fe staining & clay infill



clay infill, some Fe staining, JTs 45 deg, some annealed (resealed)

JT spacings at 100-300mm

JTs subvertical, 20-30mm apart

shear planes, tight spacings

MoistDry

Wet

PLPL

JT, 45 deg, spacing 100-300mmsome Fe staining

JT 45 deg, Fe staining

JT 45 deg, Fe staining, slickensided

16.00

P&S F8

Hole commenced:

15.00

JT 45 deg, slickensided, tight spacings

Observations

Borehole no:

DH2

10/03/2005M. PollingtonK.McIntosh

G. Baker

9/03/2005



Graphic log

Water Level and

B - Blank Bit


Fe staining,

AD - Auger Drilling

T - TC Bit

- Cable Tool

14.00

on joints, remnant bedrock fabric 13.00 DOLERITE: HW - EW to clay, grey to cream, Fe staining

12.00

11.00

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

Pie

zom

eter

Dep

th m

etre

s

Gra

phic

log

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

Wat

er


Log checked by:


Hole location:

Hole completed:



R.L. Surface:




400


Datum:

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100

200

300





Refusal

DOLERITE: EW-HW, grey-green

=

DH2 (10-20m).xls

Sheet: 3 of 3

deg.

mm deg. Operator:

1 2 3





MD VD

AS - Auger Screwing Casing

- Roller/TriconeMud

- WashboreWCT

Penetration

30.00 End of borehole at 29.8m

29.00 DOLERITE: fresh to slightly weathered, blue-grey.

JTs spacing 300-1000mm, Fe staining

staining 28.00

& Fe staining

R


27.00

V - "V" Bit

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff


PL

- Very Dense

travertine infill, chlorite alteration


Plastic Limit



spacings 300-1000mm, infilled withJTs subhorizontal, annealed,

chlorite & calcite material, some Fe

JTs subvertical, 100-300mm spacings

MoistDry

highly fractured zone, potential forgroundwater passage way (leakage of

JT 45 deg, highly fractured zone

leachate to groundwater)

Wet

PLPL

JT, 45 deg, Fe staining & clay infill

JT 45 deg, PL, IR, slickensided

JT subvertical, travertine infill

JT subvert. Travertine infill

26.00

P&S F8

Hole commenced:

25.00

Observations

Borehole no:

DH2


G. Baker

9/03/2005



Graphic log

Water Level and

B - Blank Bit

AD - Auger Drilling

T - TC Bit

- Cable Tool

24.00

23.00 DOLERITE: moderately to HW, grey-cream

DOLERITE: HW, travertine infill in joints22.00

21.00 DOLERITE: HW-EW, grey-green to cream

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

Pie

zom

eter

Dep

th m

etre

s

Gra

phic

log

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

Wat

er


Log checked by:


Hole location:

Hole completed:



R.L. Surface:




400


Datum:

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100

200

300


Refusal




=

DH2 (20-30m).xls

Sheet: 1 of 1

deg.

mm deg. Operator:

1 2 3





MD VD

WCT

AS

R

PL

8.00

5.0-8.0m (slotted pvc screen) 7.00


Water level during drilling 5m

6.00

- WashborePenetration

- Auger Screwing Casing

- Roller/TriconeMud

Method

V - "V" Bit

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff


- Very Dense


Plastic Limit



MoistDry

Wet

PLPL


Cored from ?? to ??mWashbored from surface to ??

5.0-8.0m (slotted pvc screen)


Drilling method:(Colluvium)

5.00

P&S F8

Hole commenced:

4.00

Observations

Borehole no:

DH3


G. Baker

22/03/2005



Graphic log

Water Level and

B - Blank Bit

Support Samples and Tests Moisture Condition

AD - Auger Drilling

T - TC Bit

- Cable Tool

3.00

2.00 gravelly in patchesCLAY (CL): brown, low-medium plasticity,

D

1.00D Started coring at ??m

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

Pie

zom

eter

Dep

th m

etre

s

Gra

phic

log

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

Wat

er


Log checked by:


Hole location:

Hole completed:



R.L. Surface:



Washbored from surface to 1.0m

400


Datum:

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100

200

300


Refusal




=

No

core

No

cor

No

cor

No

cor

No

core

No

core

No

core

DH3 (0-8m)

PITT & SHERRY P&S F8

Engineering Log - Excavation

Sheet: 1 of 1

m long, m wide Operator:

1 2 3

C U60 Undisturbed Sample D VSP U50 50mm Diameter M S

D Disturbed Sample W F St

HA - Hand auger VSt - Dynamic Cone < H - Mechanical Cone = Fb - Friable

> VL - Very LooseInflow L - LooseOutflow MD - Moderately Dense

VD

Site:H05069GUNNS LANDFILL

Project No:

Excavation Information Soil Description

Log checked by:

-R.L. Surface:

Pit location:

Excavation dimensions: 3 1

494130mE 5445395mN


PL



Gra

phic

log

Wat

er

Sam

ples

Test

s

Dep

th m

etre

s

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

-Datum:

Equipment type and model:

Pit logged by:

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100

200

300

400

LOAM: grey, clay, fresh dolerite pieces

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

D LEX

CLAY (CI): medium plasticity, mottled red-grey-brown

0.50

1.00

1.50

Method Support Samples and Tests Moisture ConditionN - Natural exposure CasingEX - Excavator PVC

Penetration- Ripper blade



Graphic log

Penetrometer

Water Level

R

PL

PL

Plastic LimitNo Resistance

Ranging to Refusal DCP

MCPT

Observations

09-Mar-05M. PollingtonK. McIntosh

09-Mar-05Pit commenced:

Laboratory and Field Testing Services

Pit completed:

Excavation no: PE01

Project :

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

2.00

2.50

Occasional fresh doelerite pieces

slightly sandy

- Very Dense

No water encountered in pit


BH

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff- Backhoe


MoistDry

Wet

End of excavation at 2.5m

=

PE01 p.1.xls 14/06/2005



Sheet: 1 of 1


1 2 3





VD


Project No:


Log checked by:

-R.L. Surface:

Pit location:


494280mE 5445301mN


PL



Gra

phic

log

Wat

er

Sam

ples

Test

s

Dep

th m

etre

s

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

-Datum:


Pit logged by:

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100

200

300

400

LOAM: brown clay, in fractured blocks of fresh dolerite

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

D LEX

0.50

1.00 End of excavation at 1.0m

1.50





Graphic log

Penetrometer

Water Level

R

PL

PL



MCPT

Observations




Pit completed:

Excavation no: PE02

Project :

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

2.00

2.50


30 tonne excavator

- Very Dense


BH

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff- Backhoe


MoistDry

Wet

=

PE02 p.1.xls 14/06/2005



Sheet: 1 of 1


1 2 3





VD


Project No:


Log checked by:

-R.L. Surface:

Pit location:


494317mE 5445181mN


PL



Gra

phic

log

Wat

er

Sam

ples

Test

s

Dep

th m

etre

s

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

-Datum:


Pit logged by:

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100

200

300

400

LOAM: grey clay, pisolitic

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

D LEX

0.50

1.00 CLAY (CL): brown, low plasticityCL

1.50





Graphic log

Penetrometer

Water Level

R

PL

PL



MCPT

Observations




Pit completed:

Excavation no: PE03

Project :

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

2.00

2.50


becoming green

30 tonne excavator

Broken dolerite at NW end of

- Very Dense


BH

No water encountered in pitexcavation

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff- Backhoe


MoistDry

Wet

=

PE03 p.1.xls 14/06/2005



Sheet: 1 of 2


1 2 3





VD

- Backhoe


MoistDry

Wet

>600kPa

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff

- Very Dense


BH

Highly weathered colluvial material

30 tonne excavator

PP >600kPa

2.50

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

2.00



Pit completed:

Excavation no: PE04

Project :

Observations


R

PL

PL



MCPT

Penetration- Ripper blade PP Pocket penetrometer



Graphic log

Penetrometer

Water Level

N - Natural exposure CasingEX - Excavator PVC


1.50

1.00

0.50 plasticity, colluvial material.

M F-StCLAY (CL): mottled orange-red-brown, low to medium CL

D LEX

200

300

400

LOAM: grey silty clay, pisolitic with some cobble sizedmaterial

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

-Datum:


Pit logged by:

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100



Gra

phic

log

Wat

er

Sam

ples

Test

s

Dep

th m

etre

s

PL



Log checked by:

-R.L. Surface:

Pit location:


494469mE 5445022mNSite:

H05069GUNNS LANDFILL

Project No:

=

PE04 p.1.xls 14/06/2005



Sheet: 2 of 2


1 2 3





VD

- Backhoe


MoistDry

Wet

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff

- Very Dense


BH

30 tonne excavator

No water encountered

Deeply weathered dolerite

5.00

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

4.50



Pit completed:

Excavation no: PE04

Project :

Observations


R

PL

PL



MCPT




Graphic log

Penetrometer

Water Level



4.00

3.50


3.00 plasticity, colluvial material.

M F-StCLAY (CL): mottled orange-red-brown, low to medium CL

D LEX

200

300

400Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

-Datum:


Pit logged by:

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100



Gra

phic

log

Wat

er

Sam

ples

Test

s

Dep

th m

etre

s

PL



Log checked by:

-R.L. Surface:

Pit location:


494469mE 5445022mNSite:


Project No:

=

PE04 p.2.xls 14/06/2005



Sheet: 1 of 2


1 2 3





VD


Project No:


Log checked by:

-R.L. Surface:

Pit location:


494483mE 5445036mN


PL



Gra

phic

log

Wat

er

Sam

ples

Test

s

Dep

th m

etre

s

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

-Datum:


Pit logged by:

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100

200

300

400

LOAM: grey, silty clay, some cobbles

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

D L EX

D HCLAY (CL) orange-brown, low plasticity

0.50

1.00

deeply weathered colluvial material, dolerite, angular

1.50





Graphic log

Penetrometer

Water Level

R

PL

PL



MCPT

Observations




Pit completed:

Excavation no: PE05

Project :

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

2.00

2.50

pp >600 kPa

30 tonne excavator

- Very Dense


BH

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff- Backhoe


MoistDry

Wet

=

PE05 p.1.xls 14/06/2005



Sheet: 2 of 2


1 2 3





VD

- Backhoe


MoistDry

Wet

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff

- Very Dense


BH

30 tonne excavator

No water encountered

pp 200 kPa (excavated sample)

5.00

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

4.50



Pit completed:

Excavation no: PE05

Project :

Observations


R

PL

PL



MCPT




Graphic log

Penetrometer

Water Level



4.00


3.50

3.00

M FbD- St-EX CL

200

300

400

CLAY (CL): orange-brown, some grey patcheslow to medium plasticity, friable when dry

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

-Datum:


Pit logged by:

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100



Gra

phic

log

Wat

er

Sam

ples

Test

s

Dep

th m

etre

s

PL



Log checked by:

-R.L. Surface:

Pit location:


494483mE 5445036mNSite:


Project No:

=

PE05 p.2.xls 14/06/2005



Sheet: 1 of 2


1 2 3





VD

- Backhoe


MoistDry

Wet

pp >600 kPa

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff

- Very Dense


BH

30 tonne excavator

MCLAY (CL): orange-brown with grey patches,CL

pp >600 kPa

H

2.50

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

2.00



Pit completed:

Excavation no: PE06

Project :

Observations


R

PL

PL



MCPT




Graphic log

Penetrometer

Water Level



1.50

1.00

0.50

D HCL

D L EX

200

300

400

LOAM: grey, silty clay, CLAY (CL) orange-brown, low plasticity

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

-Datum:


Pit logged by:

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100



Gra

phic

log

Wat

er

Sam

ples

Test

s

Dep

th m

etre

s

PL

M



Log checked by:

-R.L. Surface:

Pit location:


494492mE 5445047mNSite:


Project No:

=

PE06 p.1.xls 14/06/2005



Sheet: 2 of 2


1 2 3





VD


Project No:


Log checked by:

-R.L. Surface:

Pit location:


494492mE 5445047mN


PL

M



Gra

phic

log

Wat

er

Sam

ples

Test

s

Dep

th m

etre

s

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

-Datum:


Pit logged by:

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100

200

300

400

frequent cobble size material, grey material, sandy

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

D L EX

D H

3.00


3.50

4.00





Graphic log

Penetrometer

Water Level

R

PL

PL



MCPT

Observations




Pit completed:

Excavation no: PE06

Project :

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

4.50

5.00

No water encountereddolerite

some cobbles of deeply weathered

30 tonne excavator

- Very Dense


BH

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff- Backhoe


MoistDry

Wet

=

PE06 p.2.xls 14/06/2005



Sheet: 1 of 2


1 2 3





VD

very moist, some deeply weathered material

- Backhoe


MoistDry

Wet

pp >600 kPa

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff

- Very Dense


W

BH

30 tonne excavator

pp >600 kPa

M-

2.50

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

2.00



Pit completed:

Excavation no: PE07

Project :

Observations


R

PL

PL



MCPT




Graphic log

Penetrometer

Water Level



1.50

1.00

0.50 degree of weathering

M colluvial material, cobble to boulder size, variable

CL HD- L-EX

200

300

400

LOAM: brown-grey, sandy clay, CLAY (CL) orange-brown, low plasticity with angular

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

-Datum:


Pit logged by:

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100



Gra

phic

log

Wat

er

Sam

ples

Test

s

Dep

th m

etre

s

PL



Log checked by:

-R.L. Surface:

Pit location:


494515mE 5445039mNSite:


Project No:

=

PE07 p.1.xls 14/06/2005



Sheet: 2 of 2


1 2 3





VD


Project No:


Log checked by:

-R.L. Surface:

Pit location:


494515mE 5445039mN


PL



Gra

phic

log

Wat

er

Sam

ples

Test

s

Dep

th m

etre

s

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

-Datum:


Pit logged by:

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100

200

300

400


Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

EX

3.00 becoming more clayey

medium plasticitysome deeply weathered material

3.50

4.00





Graphic log

Penetrometer

Water Level

R

PL

PL



MCPT

Observations




Pit completed:

Excavation no: PE07

Project :

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

4.50

5.00


30 tonne excavator

- Very Dense


BH

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff- Backhoe


MoistDry

Wet

=

PE07 p.2.xls 14/06/2005



Sheet: 1 of 2


1 2 3





VD


Project No:


Log checked by:

-R.L. Surface:

Pit location:


494534mE 5445044mN


PL



Gra

phic

log

Wat

er

Sam

ples

Test

s

Dep

th m

etre

s

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

-Datum:


Pit logged by:

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100

200

300

400

LOAM: grey-brown, silty clay, CLAY (CL) orange-brown, low plasticity with angular

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

D L EX M

colluvial material, cobble to boulder size, variableCL H

degree of weathering0.50

1.00

1.50





Graphic log

Penetrometer

Water Level

R

PL

PL



MCPT

Observations




Pit completed:

Excavation no: PE08

Project :

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

2.00

2.50M-

30 tonne excavator

- Very Dense


W

BH

pp >600 kPa

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff- Backhoe


MoistDry

Wet


=

PE08 p.1.xls 14/06/2005



Sheet: 2 of 2


1 2 3





VD


Log checked by:

-R.L. Surface:


Project No:

Pit location:


494534mE 5445044mN


PL



Gra

phic

log

Wat

er

Sam

ples

Test

s

Dep

th m

etre

s

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

-Datum:


Pit logged by:

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100

200

300

400

continued from previous page D L EX

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

CLAY (CL) orange-brown, low plasticity with angularCL HM

degree of weatheringcolluvial material, cobble to boulder size, variable

3.00

End of excavation at 3.3m3.50

4.00





Graphic log

Penetrometer

Water Level

R

PL

PL



MCPT

Observations




Pit completed:

Excavation no: PE08

Project :

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

4.50

5.00

30 tonne excavator

- Very Dense


BH

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff- Backhoe


MoistDry

Wet

=

PE08 p.2.xls 14/06/2005



Sheet: 1 of 1


1 2 3





VD


Project No:


Log checked by:

-R.L. Surface:

Pit location:


494568mE 5445075mN


PL



Gra

phic

log

Wat

er

Sam

ples

Test

s

Dep

th m

etre

s

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

-Datum:


Pit logged by:

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100

200

300

400

LOAM: grey, silty clay, CLAY (CL) orange-brown, low plasticity with

Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

EX D

colluvial material, fresh to deeply weathered doleriteCL VSt

cobble to boulder size, variable0.50

1.00

small lenses of fine sand

1.50





Graphic log

Penetrometer

Water Level

R

PL

PL



MCPT


Pit completed:

Excavation no: PE09

Project :09-Mar-05

2.00


Observations

M. PollingtonK. McIntosh

2.50

some patches of low to medium plasticity clay

30 tonne excavator

Friable when dryvery pisolitic

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

D L

- Very Dense


W

BH

pp >400 kPa

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff

pp >600 kPa

M-

- Backhoe


MoistDry

Wet


=

PE09 p.1.xls 14/06/2005



Sheet: 1 of 1


1 2 3





VD


Project No:


Log checked by:

-R.L. Surface:

Pit location:


494283mE 5445174mN


PL



Gra

phic

log

Wat

er

Sam

ples

Test

s

Dep

th m

etre

s

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

-Datum:


Pit logged by:

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100

200

300

400


Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

D LEX

M F-StCLAY (CI): red-brown low to medium plasticity.CI

0.50

1.00


1.50





Graphic log

Penetrometer

Water Level

R

PL

PL



MCPT

Observations




Pit completed:

Excavation no: PE10

Project :

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

2.00

2.50


30 tonne excavator

- Very Dense


BH

- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff- Backhoe


MoistDry

Wet

=

PE10 p.1.xls 14/06/2005



Sheet: 1 of 1


1 2 3





VD

- Backhoe


MoistDry

Wet


- Very Stiff- Hard

- Stiff

- Very Dense


BH

30 tonne excavator


2.50

Cla

ssifi

catio

n sy

mbo

l

2.00



Pit completed:

Excavation no: PE11

Project :

Observations


R

PL

PL



MCPT




Graphic log

Penetrometer

Water Level



1.50

1.00 numerous floaters, some close to surface

0.50

M F-StCLAY (CI): yellow-brown medium plasticity.CI

D LEX

200

300

400


Con

sist

ency

, de

nsity

inde

x

Met

hod

Pen

etra

tion

Sup

port

500M

oist

ure

cond

ition

-Datum:


Pit logged by:

Han

d pe

netro

-m

eter

kP

a

100



Gra

phic

log

Wat

er

Sam

ples

Test

s

Dep

th m

etre

s

PL



Log checked by:

-R.L. Surface:

Pit location:


494471mE 5445131mNSite:


Project No:

=

PE11 p.1.xls 14/06/2005

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS REPORT

Client : GHD Services Pty. Ltd. Laboratory : HRMS Lab, BrisbaneContact : Lukas McVey Contact : Clive RobinsonAddress : 62 Macquarie Street Address : 32 Shand Street

Hobart, TAS StaffordAustralia 7000 QLD 4053

Project : 11917 Quote No. :Order No. : -e-mail : e-mail : [email protected] : 03 6210 0600 Telephone : 61 7 3243 7222Fax : 03 6223 8246 Fax : 61 7 3243 7218

No. of samples : 5 (water) Batch ID: EM0506111 (water)Date received : 3/10/2005

Signatory : Clive RobinsonPosition : Manager - HRMS CentreDate : 17/10/2005

Page 1 of 8

ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DIOXINS AND FURANS

Laboratory Sample ID: EM0506111_1 Sample Matrix: WaterClient Sample ID: S2 Date Sampled: 29/09/05

Sample Volume (L): 1.0 Date Extracted: 05/10/05Extract ID: 155.06 Date Analysed: 14/10/05

Compound Conc LOR I-TEF I-TEQ 1 I-TEQ 2 13 C 12

pg/L pg/L (zero) ( LOR) Rec (%)2378-TCDD <LOR 5 1 0.00 5.00 36.812378-PeCDD <LOR 25 0.5 0.00 12.50 38.1123478-HxCDD <LOR 25 0.1 0.00 2.50 41.3123678-HxCDD <LOR 25 0.1 0.00 2.50 51.2123789-HxCDD <LOR 25 0.1 0.00 2.50 -1234678-HpCDD <LOR 25 0.01 0.00 0.25 61.3OCDD 2080.4 50 0.001 2.08 2.08 54.72378-TCDF <LOR 5 0.1 0.00 0.50 29.112378-PeCDF <LOR 25 0.05 0.00 1.25 33.323478-PeCDF <LOR 25 0.5 0.00 12.50 33.1123478-HxCDF <LOR 25 0.1 0.00 2.50 30.8123678-HxCDF <LOR 25 0.1 0.00 2.50 37.8234678-HxCDF <LOR 25 0.1 0.00 2.50 37.8123789-HxCDF <LOR 25 0.1 0.00 2.50 39.51234678-HpCDF <LOR 25 0.01 0.00 0.25 46.31234789-HpCDF <LOR 25 0.01 0.00 0.25 63.6OCDF <LOR 50 0.001 0.00 0.05 -

Σ TEQ 2.08 52.13

Group Totals Conc LOR 3 No ofpg/L pg/L peaks

Tetra-dioxins <LOR 5.0 0Penta-dioxins <LOR 25.0 0Hexa-dioxins <LOR 25.0 0Hepta-dioxins <LOR 50.0 2Octa-dioxin 2080.4 50.0 1Tetra-furans <LOR 15.0 3Penta-furans <LOR 25.0 1Hexa-furans <LOR 25.0 1Hepta-furans <LOR 25.0 1Octa-furan <LOR 50.0 1Σ PCDD/Fs 2080.4

NotesLOR = Limit of reportingI-TEF = International toxic equivalency factor (NATO)I-TEQ = International toxic equivalence (pg/L, NATO)T = tetraPe = pentaHx = hexaHp = heptaO = octaCDD, dioxin = chlorinated dibenzo-p -dioxinCDF, furan = chlorinated dibenzofuran1 I-TEQ(zero) calculated treating <LOR as zero concentration (pg/L)2 I-TEQ(LOR) calculated treating <LOR as the LoR concentration (pg/L)3 Totals LORs are calculated by mutliplying the number of peaks by the indivdual LOR per compound

Page 2 of 8


Laboratory Sample ID: EM0506111_3 Sample Matrix: WaterClient Sample ID: S1 Date Sampled: 29/09/05




Σ TEQ 0.46 50.51




Page 3 of 8


Laboratory Sample ID: EM0506111_4 Sample Matrix: WaterClient Sample ID: L1 Date Sampled: 29/09/05




Σ TEQ 0.28 50.33




Page 4 of 8






Σ TEQ 0.22 50.27




Page 5 of 8






Σ TEQ 0.05 50.10




Page 6 of 8

ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR OPR QC SAMPLE

Sample ID Ongoing Precision and Recovery (OPR) sampleExtract No. 155.02

Acceptable limits 1 Acceptable limits 2

Compound Conc Lower Upper 13 C 12 Lower Upperpg/L pg/L pg/L Rec (%) (%) (%)

2378-TCDD 656 536 - 1264 45.4 25 - 16412378-PeCDD 3484 2800 - 5680 48.9 25 - 181123478-HxCDD 3493 2800 - 6560 48.8 32 - 141123678-HxCDD 3153 3040 - 5360 62.1 28 - 130123789-HxCDD 3352 2560 - 6480 - - -1234678-HpCDD 3637 2800 - 5600 56.3 23 - 140OCDD 7328 6240 - 11520 44.1 17 - 1572378-TCDF 773 600 - 1264 42.9 24 - 16912378-PeCDF 3265 3200 - 5360 52.8 24 - 18523478-PeCDF 3352 2720 - 6400 50.0 21 - 178123478-HxCDF 3454 2880 - 5360 44.9 26 - 152123678-HxCDF 3295 3360 - 5200 55.3 26 - 123234678-HxCDF 3498 3120 - 5200 52.0 28 - 136123789-HxCDF 3390 2800 - 6240 53.2 29 - 1471234678-HpCDF 3457 3280 - 4880 57.1 28 - 1431234789-HpCDF 3066 3120 - 5520 66.9 26 - 138OCDF 7901 5040 - 13600 - - -

Notes1 Acceptable concentration limits are derived from US EPA Method 1613 OPR analytical criteria.2 Acceptable recovery limits are derived from US EPA Method 1613BT = tetraPe = pentaHx = hexaHp = heptaO = octa

Page 7 of 8


Laboratory Sample ID: Method Blank Sample Matrix: WaterClient Sample ID: - Date Sampled: -



pg/L pg/L (zero) ( LOR) Rec (%)2378-TCDD <LOR 5 1 0.00 5.00 59.912378-PeCDD <LOR 25 0.5 0.00 12.50 62.5123478-HxCDD <LOR 25 0.1 0.00 2.50 59.6123678-HxCDD <LOR 25 0.1 0.00 2.50 79.4123789-HxCDD <LOR 25 0.1 0.00 2.50 -1234678-HpCDD <LOR 25 0.01 0.00 0.25 70.6OCDD <LOR 50 0.001 0.00 0.05 54.22378-TCDF <LOR 5 0.1 0.00 0.50 55.812378-PeCDF <LOR 25 0.05 0.00 1.25 67.323478-PeCDF <LOR 25 0.5 0.00 12.50 65.2123478-HxCDF <LOR 25 0.1 0.00 2.50 55.8123678-HxCDF <LOR 25 0.1 0.00 2.50 70.0234678-HxCDF <LOR 25 0.1 0.00 2.50 67.4123789-HxCDF <LOR 25 0.1 0.00 2.50 64.71234678-HpCDF <LOR 25 0.01 0.00 0.25 71.51234789-HpCDF <LOR 25 0.01 0.00 0.25 81.7OCDF <LOR 50 0.001 0.00 0.05 -

Σ TEQ 0.00 50.10


Tetra-dioxins <LOR 5.0 0Penta-dioxins <LOR 25.0 1Hexa-dioxins <LOR 75.0 3Hepta-dioxins <LOR 25.0 1Octa-dioxin <LOR 50.0 1Tetra-furans <LOR 10.0 2Penta-furans <LOR 50.0 2Hexa-furans <LOR 125.0 5Hepta-furans <LOR 25.0 0Octa-furan <LOR 50.0 0Σ PCDD/Fs 0.0


Page 8 of 8

PROPOSED GUNNS PULP MILL LANDFILL - GROUNDWATER ANALYSISSample date: 29/09/2005Sampled by: GHD

Analyte grouping / Analyte Units LORANZECC Trigger

Value (FW) Bore holeHealth Aesethetic PDH2 PDH3

EG020T: Total Metals by ICP-MSAluminium mg/L 0.01 0.2 0.055 0.02 75.3Antimony mg/L 0.001 ID <0.001 <0.010Arsenic mg/L 0.001 0.024 or 0.013 <0.001 <0.010Beryllium mg/L 0.001 ID <0.001 <0.010Barium mg/L 0.001 0.7 NT 0.039 0.197Bismuth mg/L 0.001 ID <0.001 <0.010Cadmium mg/L 0.0001 0.002 0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0010Cerium mg/L 0.001 NT <0.001 0.082Caesium mg/L 0.001 NT <0.001 <0.010Chromium mg/L 0.001 0.05 0.001 <0.001 0.441Cobalt mg/L 0.001 ID 0.025 0.215Copper mg/L 0.001 2 1 0.0014 <0.001 0.124Dysprosium mg/L 0.001 NT <0.001 <0.010Erbium mg/L 0.001 NT <0.001 <0.010Europium mg/L 0.001 NT <0.001 <0.010Gadolinium mg/L 0.001 NT <0.001 <0.010Gallium mg/L 0.001 ID <0.001 0.014Hafnium mg/L 0.01 NT <0.01 <0.10Holmium mg/L 0.001 NT <0.001 <0.010Indium mg/L 0.001 NT <0.001 <0.010Lanthanum mg/L 0.001 ID <0.001 0.029Lead mg/L 0.001 0.01 0.0034 <0.001 0.052Lithium mg/L 0.001 NT 0.002 <0.010Lutetium mg/L 0.001 NT <0.001 <0.010Manganese mg/L 0.001 0.5 0.1 1.9 0.713 0.969Molybdenum mg/L 0.001 ID 0.002 <0.010Neodymium mg/L 0.001 NT <0.001 0.023Nickel mg/L 0.001 0.02 0.011 0.014 0.245Praseodymium mg/L 0.001 NT <0.001 <0.010Rubidium mg/L 0.001 NT 0.003 0.043Samarium mg/L 0.001 NT <0.001 <0.010Selenium mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.011 <0.010 <0.050Silver mg/L 0.001 0.1 0.00005 <0.005 <0.010Strontium mg/L 0.001 NT 0.52 0.157Tellurium mg/L 0.005 NT <0.005 <0.050Terbium mg/L 0.001 NT <0.001 <0.010Thallium mg/L 0.001 ID <0.001 <0.010Thorium mg/L 0.001 NT <0.001 <0.010Thulium mg/L 0.001 NT <0.001 <0.010Tin mg/L 0.001 ID <0.001 <0.010Titanium mg/L 0.01 NT <0.01 0.71Uranium mg/L 0.001 0.02 ID 0.003 <0.010Vanadium mg/L 0.01 ID <0.01 0.44Ytterbium mg/L 0.001 NT <0.001 <0.010Yttrium mg/L 0.001 NT <0.001 0.041Zinc mg/L 0.005 3 0.008 0.007 0.164Zirconium mg/L 0.005 NT <0.005 <0.050Boron mg/L 0.05 4 0.37 <0.05 <0.10Iron mg/L 0.05 0.3 ID 0.53 84.1

Drinking Water Guidelines

1 of 8





EG035T: Total Mercury by FIMSMercury mg/L 0.0001 0.001 0.0006 <0.0001 <0.0001

EK059: Nitrite plus Nitrate as N (NOx)Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.01 3 ? 0.01 0.103

EK061: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.1 ? 0.4 0.5

EK062: Total Nitrogen as N (TKN + NOx) ?Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.1 0.4 0.6

EK067: Total Phosphorus as P ?Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.01 0.15 0.4

EP041: Nonionic Surfactants as CTASNonionic Surfactants as CTAS mg/L 5 <5.0 <5.0

EP050: Anionic Surfactants as MBASAnionic Surfactants as MBAS mg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1

EP068A: Organochlorine Pesticides (OC)alpha-BHC µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5beta-BHC µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5gamma-BHC µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5delta-BHC µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5Heptachlor µg/L 0.5 0.00005 0.0003 0.09 <0.5 <0.5Aldrin µg/L 0.5 0.00001 0.0003 ID <0.5 <0.5Heptachlor epoxide µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5trans-Chlordane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5alpha-Endosulfan µg/L 0.5 ID <0.5 <0.5cis-Chlordane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5Dieldrin µg/L 0.5 0.00001 0.0003 ID <0.5 <0.54.4’-DDE µg/L 0.5 ID <0.5 <0.5Endrin µg/L 0.5 0.2 <0.5 <0.5beta-Endosulfan µg/L 0.5 ID <0.5 <0.54.4’-DDD µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5Endrin aldehyde µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5Endosulfan sulfate µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.54.4’-DDT µg/L 2 0.00006 0.02 0.01 <2 <2Endrin ketone µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5Methoxychlor µg/L 2 0.0002 0.3 ID <2 <2

EP068B: Organophosphorus Pesticides (OP)Dichlorvos µg/L 0.5 0.001 0.001 <0.5 <0.5Demeton-S-methyl µg/L 0.5 ID <0.5 <0.5Monocrotophos µg/L 2 0.001 <2 <2Dimethoate µg/L 0.5 ` 0.05 0.15 <0.5 <0.5Diazinon µg/L 0.5 0.001 0.003 0.01 <0.5 <0.5Chlorpyrifos-methyl µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5Parathion-methyl µg/L 2 <2 <2Malathion µg/L 0.5 0.05 <0.5 <0.5Fenthion µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5Chlorpyrifos µg/L 0.5 0.01 0.01 <0.5 <0.5Parathion µg/L 2 0.01 0.004 <2 <2Pirimphos-ethyl µg/L 0.5 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5Chlorfenvinphos µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5Bromophos-ethyl µg/L 0.5 0.01 <0.5 <0.5Fenamiphos µg/L 0.5 0.0003 <0.5 <0.5Prothiofos µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5Ethion µg/L 0.5 0.003 <0.5 <0.5Carbophenothion µg/L 0.5 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5Azinphos Methyl µg/L 0.5 0.002 0.003 <0.5 <0.5

EP068C: TriazinesAtrazine µg/L 0.5 0.0001 0.04 13 <0.5 <0.5Simazine µg/L 0.5 0.0005 0.02 3.2 <0.5 <0.5

EP068S: Organochlorine Pesticide SurrogateDibromo-DDE % 0.1 69.2 78

EP068T: Organophosphorus Pesticide SurrogateDEF % 0.1 73.1 81.2

2 of 8





EP074A: Monocyclic Aromatic HydrocarbonsBenzene µg/L 5 0.001 950 <5 <5Toluene µg/L 5 0.8 0.025 ID <5 <5Ethylbenzene µg/L 5 0.3 0.003 ID <5 <5meta- & para-Xylene µg/L 5 200 <5 <5Styrene µg/L 5 0.03 0.004 <5 <5ortho-Xylene µg/L 5 350 <5 <5Isopropylbenzene µg/L 5 <5 <5n-Propylbenzene µg/L 5 <5 <51.3.5-Trimethylbenzene µg/L 5 <5 <5sec-Butylbenzene µg/L 5 <5 <51.2.4-Trimethylbenzene µg/L 5 <5 <5tert-Butylbenzene µg/L 5 <5 <5p-Isopropyltoluene µg/L 5 <5 <5n-Butylbenzene µg/L 5 <5 <5

EP074B: Oxygenated CompoundsVinyl Acetate µg/L 50 <50 <502-Butanone (MEK) µg/L 50 <50 <504-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) µg/L 50 <50 <502-Hexanone (MBK) µg/L 50 <50 <50

EP074C: Sulfonated CompoundsCarbon disulfide µg/L 5 <5 <5

EP074D: Fumigants2.2-Dichloropropane µg/L 5 <5 <51.2-Dichloropropane µg/L 5 ID <5 <5cis-1.3-Dichloropropylene µg/L 10 <10 <10trans-1.3-Dichloropropylene µg/L 10 <10 <101.2-Dibromoethane (EDB) µg/L 5 <5 <5

EP074E: Halogenated Aliphatic CompoundsDichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 50 <50 <50Chloromethane µg/L 50 <50 <50Vinyl chloride µg/L 50 0.0003 <50 <50Bromomethane µg/L 50 <50 <50Chloroethane µg/L 50 <50 <50Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 50 <50 <501.1-Dichloroethene µg/L 5 <5 <5Iodomethane µg/L 5 <5 <5trans-1.2-Dichloroethene µg/L 5 <5 <51.1-Dichloroethane µg/L 5 <5 <5cis-1.2-Dichloroethene µg/L 5 <5 <51.1.1-Trichloroethane µg/L 5 ID <5 <51.1-Dichloropropylene µg/L 5 <5 <5Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L 5 0.003 <5 <51.2-Dichloroethane µg/L 5 0.003 <5 <5Trichloroethene µg/L 5 <5 <5Dibromomethane µg/L 5 <5 <51.1.2-Trichloroethane µg/L 5 6500 <5 <51.3-Dichloropropane µg/L 5 <5 <5Tetrachloroethene µg/L 5 0.05 <5 <51.1.1.2-Tetrachloroethane µg/L 5 <5 <5trans-1.4-Dichloro-2-butene µg/L 5 <5 <5cis-1.4-Dichloro-2-butene µg/L 5 <5 <51.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane µg/L 5 <5 <51.2.3-Trichloropropane µg/L 5 <5 <5Pentachloroethane µg/L 5 <5 <51.2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/L 5 <5 <5Hexachlorobutadiene µg/L 5 0.0007 <5 <5

EP074F: Halogenated Aromatic CompoundsChlorobenzene µg/L 5 0.3 0.01 <5 <5Bromobenzene µg/L 5 <5 <52-Chlorotoluene µg/L 5 <5 <54-Chlorotoluene µg/L 5 <5 <51.3-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 5 <5 <51.4-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 5 <5 <51.2-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 5 <5 <51.2.4-Trichlorobenzene µg/L 5 170 <5 <51.2.3-Trichlorobenzene µg/L 5 <5 <5

3 of 8





EP074G: TrihalomethanesChloroform µg/L 5 ID <5 <5Bromodichloromethane µg/L 5 <5 <5Dibromochloromethane µg/L 5 <5 <5Bromoform µg/L 5 <5 <5

EP074H: NaphthaleneNaphthalene µg/L 7 16 <7 <7

EP074S: VOC Surrogates1.2-Dichloroethane-D4 % 0.1 112 116Toluene-D8 % 0.1 94 964-Bromofluorobenzene % 0.1 88 86

EP075A: Phenolic CompoundsPhenol µg/L 2 320 <2 <22-Chlorophenol µg/L 2 0.3 0.0001 490 <2 <22-Methylphenol µg/L 2 <2 <23- & 4-Methylphenol µg/L 2 <2 <22-Nitrophenol µg/L 2 <2 <22.4-Dimethylphenol µg/L 2 ID <2 <22.4-Dichlorophenol µg/L 2 0.2 0.0003 160 <2 <22.6-Dichlorophenol µg/L 2 <2 <24-Chloro-3-Methylphenol µg/L 2 <2 <22.4.6-Trichlorophenol µg/L 2 0.02 0.002 20 <2 <22.4.5-Trichlorophenol µg/L 2 <2 <2Pentachlorophenol µg/L 4 10 <4 <4

EP075B: Polynuclear Aromatic HydrocarbonsNaphthalene µg/L 2 16 <2 <22-Methylnaphthalene µg/L 2 <2 <22-Chloronaphthalene µg/L 2 <2 <2Acenaphthylene µg/L 2 <2 <2Acenaphthene µg/L 2 <2 <2Fluorene µg/L 2 <2 <2Phenanthrene µg/L 2 <2 <2Anthracene µg/L 2 <2 <2Fluoranthene µg/L 2 <2 <2Pyrene µg/L 2 <2 <2N-2-Fluorenyl Acetamide µg/L 2 <2 <2Benz(a)anthracene µg/L 2 <2 <2Chrysene µg/L 2 <2 <2Benzo(b) & Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/L 4 <4 <47.12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene µg/L 2 <2 <2Benzo(a)pyrene µg/L 2 0.00001 ID <2 <23-Methylcholanthrene µg/L 2 <2 <2Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene µg/L 2 <2 <2Dibenz(a.h)anthracene µg/L 2 <2 <2Benzo(g.h.i)perylene µg/L 2 <2 <2

EP075C: Phthalate EstersDimethyl phthalate µg/L 2 3700 <2 <2Diethyl phthalate µg/L 2 1000 <2 <2Di-n-butyl phthalate µg/L 2 <2 <2Butyl benzyl phthalate µg/L 2 <2 <2bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate µg/L 20 <20 <20Di-n-octylphthalate µg/L 2 <2 <2

EP075D: NitrosaminesN-Nitrosomethylethylamine µg/L 2 <2 <2N-Nitrosodiethylamine µg/L 2 <2 <2N-Nitrosopyrrolidine µg/L 4 <4 <4N-Nitrosomorpholine µg/L 2 <2 <2N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine µg/L 2 <2 <2N-Nitrosopiperidine µg/L 2 <2 <2N-Nitrosodibutylamine µg/L 2 <2 <2N-Nitrosodiphenyl & Diphenylamine µg/L 4 <4 <4Methapyrilene µg/L 2 <2 <2

4 of 8





EP075E: Nitroaromatics and Ketones2-Picoline µg/L 2 <2 <2Acetophenone µg/L 2 <2 <2Nitrobenzene µg/L 2 <2 <2Isophorone µg/L 2 <2 <22.6-Dinitrotoluene µg/L 4 <4 <42.4-Dinitrotoluene µg/L 4 <4 <41-Naphthylamine µg/L 2 <2 <24-Nitroquinoline-N-oxide µg/L 2 <2 <25-Nitro-o-toluidine µg/L 2 <2 <2Azobenzene µg/L 2 <2 <21.3.5-Trinitrobenzene µg/L 2 <2 <2Phenacetin µg/L 2 <2 <24-Aminobiphenyl µg/L 2 <2 <2Pentachloronitrobenzene µg/L 2 <2 <2Pronamide µg/L 2 <2 <2Dimethylaminoazobenzene µg/L 2 <2 <2Chlorobenzilate µg/L 2 <2 <2

EP075F: HaloethersBis(2-chloroethyl) ether µg/L 2 <2 <2Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane µg/L 2 <2 <24-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether µg/L 2 <2 <24-Bromophenyl phenyl ether µg/L 2 <2 <2

EP075G: Chlorinated Hydrocarbons1.4-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 2 0.04 0.003 <2 <21.3-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 2 0.02 <2 <21.2-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 2 1.5 0.001 <2 <2Hexachloroethane µg/L 2 <2 <21.2.4-Trichlorobenzene µg/L 2 <2 <2Hexachloropropylene µg/L 2 <2 <2Hexachlorobutadiene µg/L 2 <2 <2Hexachlorocyclopentadiene µg/L 10 <10 <10Pentachlorobenzene µg/L 2 <2 <2Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) µg/L 4 <4 <4

EP075H: Anilines and BenzidinesAniline µg/L 2 <2 <24-Chloroaniline µg/L 2 <2 <22-Nitroaniline µg/L 4 <4 <43-Nitroaniline µg/L 4 <4 <4Dibenzofuran µg/L 2 <2 <24-Nitroaniline µg/L 2 <2 <2Carbazole µg/L 2 <2 <23.3’-Dichlorobenzidine µg/L 2 <2 <2

EP075I: Organochlorine Pesticidesalpha-BHC µg/L 2 <2 <2beta-BHC µg/L 2 <2 <2gamma-BHC µg/L 2 <2 <2delta-BHC µg/L 2 <2 <2Heptachlor µg/L 2 <2 <2Aldrin µg/L 2 <2 <2Heptachlor epoxide µg/L 2 <2 <2alpha-Endosulfan µg/L 2 <2 <24.4’-DDE µg/L 2 <2 <2Dieldrin µg/L 2 <2 <2Endrin µg/L 2 <2 <2beta-Endosulfan µg/L 2 <2 <24.4’-DDD µg/L 2 <2 <2Endosulfan sulfate µg/L 2 <2 <24.4’-DDT µg/L 4 <4 <4

EP075J: Organophosphorus PesticidesDichlorvos µg/L 2 <2 <2Dimethoate µg/L 2 <2 <2Diazinon µg/L 2 <2 <2Chlorpyrifos-methyl µg/L 2 <2 <2Malathion µg/L 2 <2 <2Fenthion µg/L 2 <2 <2Chlorpyrifos µg/L 2 <2 <2Pirimphos-ethyl µg/L 2 <2 <2Chlorfenvinphos µg/L 2 <2 <2Prothiofos µg/L 2 <2 <2Ethion µg/L 2 <2 <2

5 of 8





EP075K: Miscellaneous Compounds1.3.5-Trichlorobenzene µg/L 2 <2 <21.2.4.5-Tetrachlorobenzene µg/L 2 <2 <2Methanesulfonate methyl µg/L 2 <2 <2Methanesulfonate ethyl µg/L 2 <2 <2cis-Isosafrole µg/L 2 <2 <2trans-Isosafrole µg/L 2 <2 <2Safrole µg/L 2 <2 <2Diallate µg/L 2 <2 <22.3.4.6-Tetrachlorophenol µg/L 2 <2 <2

EP075S: Acid Extractable Surrogates2-Fluorophenol % 0.1 25.6 33.4Phenol-d6 % 0.1 16.2 21.52-Chlorophenol-D4 % 0.1 48 59.72.4.6-Tribromophenol % 0.1 51.3 63.7

EP075T: Base/Neutral Extractable SurrogatesNitrobenzene-D5 % 0.1 52.8 63.91.2-Dichlorobenzene-D4 % 0.1 42.9 55.72-Fluorobiphenyl % 0.1 55.8 66.7Anthracene-d10 % 0.1 57.1 70.64-Terphenyl-d14 % 0.1 54 66.6

EP202A: Phenoxyacetic Acid Herbicides by LCMS4-Chlorophenoxy acetic acid µg/L 10 <10 <102.4-DB µg/L 10 <10 <10Dicamba µg/L 10 <10 <10Mecoprop µg/L 10 <10 <10MCPA µg/L 10 <10 <102.4-DP µg/L 10 <10 <102.4-D µg/L 10 <10 <10Triclopyr µg/L 10 <10 <102.4.5-TP (Silvex) µg/L 10 <10 <102.4.5-T µg/L 10 <10 <10MCPB µg/L 10 <10 <10Picloram µg/L 10 <10 <10Clopyralid µg/L 10 <10 <10Fluroxypyr µg/L 10 <10 <102.6-D µg/L 10 <10 <102.4.6-T µg/L 10 <10 <10

EP202S: Phenoxyacetic Acid Herbicide Surrogate2.4-Dichlorophenyl Acetic Acid % 0.1 93 98

EA005P: pH by PC TitratorpH Value pH Unit 0.01 6.5-8.5 NT 6.93 6.64

ED037P: Alkalinity by PC TitratorTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 1 NT 266 43

ED040F: Dissolved Major AnionsSulphate as SO4 2- mg/L 1 NT 56 9

ED045P: Chloride by PC TitratorChloride mg/L 1 250 NT 852 62

ED093F: Dissolved Major CationsCalcium mg/L 1 NT 116 8Magnesium mg/L 1 NT 153 9Sodium mg/L 1 180 NT 350 41Potassium mg/L 1 NT 2 <1

EG020T: Total Metals by ICP-MSManganese mg/L 0.001 0.5 0.1 1.9 1.07 0.03Iron mg/L 0.05 0.3 ID 54.6 <0.05

EK040P: Fluoride by PC TitratorFluoride mg/L 0.1 1.5 NT <0.1 <0.1

EK055: Ammonia as NAmmonia as N mg/L 0.01 0.5 0.9 0.07 0.02

EK057: Nitrite as NNitrite as N mg/L 0.01 3 NT <0.010 0.042

6 of 8





EK058: Nitrate as NNitrate as N mg/L 0.01 50 0.7 <0.010 <0.010

EK059: Nitrite plus Nitrate as N (NOx)Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.01 NT <0.010 0.051

EP005: Total Organic Carbon (TOC)Total Organic Carbon mg/L 1 NT 9 <1

EP074D: Fumigants2.2-Dichloropropane µg/L 5 <5 <51.2-Dichloropropane µg/L 5 <5 <5cis-1.3-Dichloropropylene µg/L 5 <5 <5trans-1.3-Dichloropropylene µg/L 5 <5 <51.2-Dibromoethane (EDB) µg/L 5 <5 <5

EP074E: Halogenated Aliphatic CompoundsDichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 50 <50 <50Chloromethane µg/L 50 <50 <50Vinyl chloride µg/L 50 0.0003 <50 <50Bromomethane µg/L 50 <50 <50Chloroethane µg/L 50 <50 <50Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 50 <50 <501.1-Dichloroethene µg/L 5 <5 <5Iodomethane µg/L 5 <5 <5trans-1.2-Dichloroethene µg/L 5 <5 <51.1-Dichloroethane µg/L 5 <5 <5cis-1.2-Dichloroethene µg/L 5 <5 <51.1.1-Trichloroethane µg/L 5 <5 <51.1-Dichloropropylene µg/L 5 <5 <5Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L 5 0.003 <5 <51.2-Dichloroethane µg/L 5 0.003 <5 <5Trichloroethene µg/L 5 <5 <5Dibromomethane µg/L 5 <5 <51.1.2-Trichloroethane µg/L 5 <5 <51.3-Dichloropropane µg/L 5 <5 <5Tetrachloroethene µg/L 5 0.05 <5 <51.1.1.2-Tetrachloroethane µg/L 5 <5 <5trans-1.4-Dichloro-2-butene µg/L 5 <5 <5cis-1.4-Dichloro-2-butene µg/L 5 <5 <51.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane µg/L 5 <5 <51.2.3-Trichloropropane µg/L 5 <5 <5Pentachloroethane µg/L 5 <5 <51.2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/L 5 <5 <5Hexachlorobutadiene µg/L 5 0.0007 <5 <5

EP074F: Halogenated Aromatic CompoundsChlorobenzene µg/L 5 0.3 0.01 <5 <5Bromobenzene µg/L 5 <5 <52-Chlorotoluene µg/L 5 <5 <54-Chlorotoluene µg/L 5 <5 <51.3-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 5 <5 <51.4-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 5 <5 <51.2-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 5 <5 <51.2.4-Trichlorobenzene µg/L 5 <5 <51.2.3-Trichlorobenzene µg/L 5 <5 <5

EP074G: TrihalomethanesChloroform µg/L 5 <5 <5Bromodichloromethane µg/L 5 <5 <5Dibromochloromethane µg/L 5 <5 <5Bromoform µg/L 5 <5 <5

EP074S: VOC Surrogates1.2-Dichloroethane-D4 % 0.1 112 112Toluene-D8 % 0.1 105 1004-Bromofluorobenzene % 0.1 100 101

7 of 8





EP075(SIM)A: Phenolic CompoundsPhenol µg/L 1 0.3 0.0001 <1.0 <1.02-Chlorophenol µg/L 1 <1.0 <1.02-Methylphenol µg/L 1 <1.0 <1.03- & 4-Methylphenol µg/L 2 <2.0 <2.02-Nitrophenol µg/L 1 <1.0 <1.02.4-Dimethylphenol µg/L 1 0.2 0.0003 <1.0 <1.02.4-Dichlorophenol µg/L 1 <1.0 <1.02.6-Dichlorophenol µg/L 1 <1.0 <1.04-Chloro-3-Methylphenol µg/L 1 0.02 0.002 <1.0 <1.02.4.6-Trichlorophenol µg/L 1 <1.0 <1.02.4.5-Trichlorophenol µg/L 1 <1.0 <1.0Pentachlorophenol µg/L 2 <2.0 <2.0

EP075(SIM)S: Phenolic Compound Surrogates2-Fluorophenol % 0.1 57.2 62.2Phenol-d6 % 0.1 29.4 32.62-Chlorophenol-D4 % 0.1 88.6 882.4.6-Tribromophenol % 0.1 97.5 81

EP075(SIM)T: PAH Surrogates2-Fluorobiphenyl % 0.1 93.4 80.6Anthracene-d10 % 0.1 94.3 83.64-Terphenyl-d14 % 0.1 96.5 83.6

8 of 8

LEVAY & CO. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Water Quality, Water Treatment and Environmental Pollution Research Laboratories

Ian Wark Research Institute University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes Campus, Mawson Lakes SA 5095, Australia

Tel. 61-8-8302 3130, Fax. 61-8-8302 3549, Email: [email protected]

Job No. L&C-05-394 19th October, 2005 ALS Melbourne, Attn. Mr. TIM KILMISTER,6/2 Sarton Road, Clayton. VIC. 3168. Dear Tim,

REPORT

RE: MEASUREMENT OF HALOGENATED ORGANICS Purchase Order No. 223297

I refer to your request regarding AOX, EOX and Chlorate analysis of aqueous and sediment samples received on the 6th October, 2005. The results are now attached. Yours sincerely,

Dr. Russell Schumann Senior Research Fellow Enc.


Ian Wark Research Institute, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes SA 5095 Tel: 61-8-8302 3130, Fax: 61-8-8302 3549, Email: [email protected]

Job No. L&C-05-394

ALS MELBOURNE Purchase Order No. 223297 Ref. No. EM0506111

Sample Sample Sample AOX Chlorate ** No. Description Date (µg/l) (mg/l)

AOX and Chlorate Analysis

001-AH S2 29/09/05 236 <0.2

003-AH S1 “ 136 < 0.2

004-AH L1 “ 103 < 0.02

005-AH L2 “ 114 < 0.2

006-AH L3 29/09/05 150 < 0.2

Note: AOX analyses was measured in the supernatant of settled samples QC DATA Detection Limit 2µg/l 0.02 mg/l Blank < 2µg/l < 0.02 mg/l Spiked Blank Recovery 98% 98% Replicate: 001-AH – S2 206 - Replicate: 006-AH – L3 - <0.2

** Note: Samples S2, S1, L2 and L3 were diluted x 10 due to high Chloride and Bromide concentration. All samples were filtered.


Job No. L&C-05-394

ALS MELBOURNE Purchase Order No. 223297

Ref. No. EM0506111

EOX and Chlorate Analysis

Sample No.

Sample Description

Sample Received

Dry Weight

(%)

Volatile Content At 550C

(% of wet wt.)

Volatile Content At 550C

(% of dry wt.)

EOX (mg/Cl/kg) Wet weight

EOX (mg/Cl/kg) Dry weight

EOX (mg/Cl/kg)

Volatile content

Chlorate (mg/kg)

Wet Weight

2 Sediment 06/10/05 84.8 3.1 3.6 0.137 0.161 4.44 <0.5

QC DATA Detection Limits - - - 0.003 - - 0.5

Replicate 2 - - - 0.138 0.163 4.49 <0.5Spiked

Recovery 2

-

-

-

-

-

-

85%

Ian Wark Research Institute, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes SA 5095 Tel: 61-8-8302 3130, Fax: 61-8-8302 3549, Email: [email protected]

Please find enclosed report number 24968 : issue number 1.This report is a Partial Report and does not include all analyses that were requested.

J. Lockley To:

Pitt & Sherry

05-May-05Date:

4Pages:

62231299Fax No:

ANALYTICAL SERVICES TASMANIA

c/- Chemistry Department University of TasmaniaSandy Bay Laboratory

(03) 6226 7825Fax No

Phone: (03) 6226 7175

From: Amanda Freeman

(including this one)

62101466Phone:0407681618Mobile:

Order No

Telephone: (03) 6226 7175 Fax: (03) 6226 7825 Email: [email protected]

PO Box 94 Hobart TAS 7001Address

This document and any following pages is intended solely for the named addressee and may contain information that is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and destroy the original message.Thank you.

Laboratory Report

ANALYTICAL SERVICES TASMANIASandy Bay Laboratory

c/- Chemistry Department University of TasmaniaSandy Bay Tasmania 7005

Telephone: (03) 6226 7175 Fax: (03) 6226 7825Email: [email protected]

05-May-2005 13:3624968Report No:

J. Lockley (Pitt & Sherry)Submitted By:

Pitt & SherryClient:

15-Apr-05Received:

J. LockleyReport To:

PO Box 94 Hobart TAS 7001Address:

Gunns LandfillSite Description:

Report Date

Client Order No:

1Issue No:

Partial Report

This report is a Partial Report and does not include all analyses that were requested.

Status:

Sandy Bay LaboratorySubmitted to:

Page 1 of 3

The tests, calibrations or measurements covered by this document have been performed in accordance with NATA requirements which include the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 and are traceable to national standards of measurement.

This document shall not be reproduced, except in full.Samples analysed as received.

Test Method(s) : Test Date

24968Report No: 05-May-2005 13:36Report Date:


1Issue No:

Inorganic Testing1001-Water: 23-Apr-2005pH in Water by APHA Method 4500-H1002-Water: 23-Apr-2005Conductivity by APHA Method 25101004-Water: 23-Apr-2005Solids, Total Dissolved by APHA Method 2540C1101-Water: 04-May-2005Alkalinity by APHA Method 2320/4500-CO21103-Water: 03-May-2005Anions by Ion Chromatography APHA Method 4110B1301-Water: 29-Apr-2005Metals in Water by APHA Method 3030/31201302-Water: 29-Apr-2005Major Cations in Water by APHA Method 3030/31201404-Water: 28-Apr-2005Dissolved Organic Carbon & Other Forms of Carbon in Water *

Not Authorised

Authorised By:

Organic and Nutrient Testing1406-Water: 26-Apr-2005TPH and BTEX in Water by GC-FID

Not Authorised

Authorised By:

Page 3 of 3

* NATA accreditation does not cover the performance of this service.

This document shall not be reproduced, except in full.Samples analysed as received.

24968Report No: 05-May-2005 13:36Report Date:


1Issue No:

Lab.No.: 73010 73011 73012 Sample Id.: PDH-1 PDH-2 PDH-3 Method 14/04/05 11:00 14/04/05 13:00 14/04/05 14:00Analyte Units / Sampled On :

pH 7.8 6.8 6.81001-WaterConductivity µS/cm 1270 3380 23601002-WaterTDS mg/L 810 3140 19201004-WaterAlkalinity Total mg CaCO3/L 305 287 2121101-WaterChloride mg/L 230 41 6201103-WaterSulphate mg/L 14 1.7 40Al Dissolved µg/L <20 <20 1531301-WaterAs Dissolved µg/L <5 <5 <5Cd Dissolved µg/L <1 <1 <1Co Dissolved µg/L <1 10 41Cr Dissolved µg/L <1 <1 <1Cu Dissolved µg/L <1 <1 <1Fe Dissolved µg/L <20 <20 95Mn Dissolved µg/L 43 499 524Ni Dissolved µg/L 16 7 9Pb Dissolved µg/L <5 <5 <5Zn Dissolved µg/L 2 8 120Ca Dissolved mg/L 44.5 124 87.21302-WaterK Dissolved mg/L 3.38 3.68 1.36Mg Dissolved mg/L 63.2 160 102Na Dissolved mg/L 130 301 222DOC mg/L 0.9 0.3 0.71404-WaterBenzene µg/L <1 1 <11406-WaterEthylbenzene µg/L <1 <1 <1o,m&p Xylene µg/L <2 <2 <2Toluene µg/L <1 <1 <1Total BTEX µg/L <5 <5 <5TPH µg/L 338 385 90TPH C06-C09 µg/L <10 <10 <10TPH C10-C14 µg/L 43 203 51TPH C15-C28 µg/L 225 150 34TPH C29-C36 µg/L 69 28 <10

* NATA accreditation does not cover this analyte.

Page 2 of 3


Appendix E

Surface water runoff calculations

Pitt & Sherry Ref: H05069H001 App E Rev 03 - Runoff calculations.doc/iow

CATCHMENT CHARACTERISTICS (Design average recurrence interval = 50 years)

CATCHMENT CATCHMENT AREA

TRAVEL DISTANCE

AVERAGE SLOPE

RUNOFF COEFFICIENT

OVERLAND FLOW TIME

RAINFALL INTENSITY

DISCHARGE FLOW

AC L SC C tC IC QC

(ha) (m) (%) (min) (mm/hr) (l/s)

Area 1 20 900 3.33 0.35 30.7 3.98 77.4

Area 2 64 1250 9.60 0.35 30.7 55.33 3442.8

Area 3 198 2000 10.50 0.35 43.1 46 8855.0

Area 4 2.4 260 2.30 0.9 11.8 106.45 638.7

tC = 92.7L/(A0.1 SC0.2) [Bransby Williams formula NAASRA (1986)]

lc [Read from Intensity-Frequency-Duration charts] QC = CIAC/0.36 [Rational formula NAASRA (1986)]

L

Qc

Ac

contour

contour

contour

Catchment Boundary


OPEN CHANNEL FLOW ANALYSIS: Drain slope: 10%

CONSTANTS: Mannings Coefficient, n: 0.029 Side inv. Slope (run/rise): 1 Channel Width, b: 2 m Channel Slope, S0: 0.1

Depth (y) A P R Q v (m) (m2) (m) (m) (m3/s) (m/s)

1 3.000 4.828 0.621 23.820 7.940 Froude Number, Fr 2.535 Critical Slope Occurs where Fr =1

A = Area of cross-section occupied by water (m2) P = Wetted Perimeter (m) R = A/P = Hydraulic Radius (m) Q = Flow Rate (m3/s) v = Q/A = Flow Velocity (m/s)

Mannings Coefficients: Concrete Pipe 0.013 Side straight up run/rise = 0 Asphalt 0.016 Gravel 0.029 45 degree run to rise = 1 PVC Pipe 0.010


OPEN CHANNEL FLOW ANALYSIS: Drain slope: 1%

CONSTANTS: Mannings Coefficient, n: 0.029 Side inv. Slope (run/rise): 1 Channel Width, b: 2 m Channel Slope, S0: 0.01

Depth (y) A P R Q v (m) (m2) (m) (m) (m3/s) (m/s)

1 3.000 4.828 0.621 7.532 2.511 Froude Number, Fr 0.802 Critical Slope Occurs where Fr =1

A = Area of cross-section occupied by water (m2) P = Wetted Perimeter (m) R = A/P = Hydraulic Radius (m) Q = Flow Rate (m3/s) v = Q/A = Flow Velocity (m/s)

Mannings Coefficients: Concrete Pipe 0.013 Side straight up run/rise = 0 Asphalt 0.016 Gravel 0.029 45 degree run to rise = 1 PVC Pipe 0.010


Mannings Equation for Full Pipe Flow

Diameter = 0.3 Diameter

= 0.3 Diameter

= 0.3 m

Slope = 0.02 Slope = 0.02 Slope = 0.02 m/m

Length = 700 Length = 700 Length = 700 m

Q = 0.7 Q = 0.7 Q = 0.7 cumecs

n = 0.0085 n = 0.01 n = 0.03

A = 0.070686 A = 0.070686 A = 0.070686 m2

R = 0.075 R = 0.075 R = 0.075 Q = 0.207357 Q = 0.176254 Q = 0.058751 cumecs Diameter = 0.5 Diameter

= 0.5 Diameter

= 0.5 m



Q = 0.7 Q = 0.7 Q = 0.7 cumecs

n = 0.0085 n = 0.01 n = 0.03

A = 0.19635 A = 0.19635 A = 0.19635 m2

R = 0.125 R = 0.125 R = 0.125 Q = 0.811065 Q = 0.689405 Q = 0.229802 cumecs Diameter = 0.75 Diameter

= 0.75 Diameter

= 0.75 m



Q = 0.7 Q = 0.7 Q = 0.7 cumecs

n = 0.0085 n = 0.01 n = 0.03

A = 0.441786 A = 0.441786 A = 0.441786 m2

R = 0.1875 R = 0.1875 R = 0.1875 Q = 2.394525 Q = 2.035346 Q = 0.678449 cumecs


Intensity-frequency-rainfall data for the landfill site

Rainfall Intensity Chart mm/hr Minutes Duration Years 5min 6min 10min 20min 30min 1 40.83 38.40 31.76 23.52 19.33 2 55.15 51.73 42.44 31.05 25.31 5 76.86 71.64 57.67 40.93 32.71 10 92.95 86.33 68.71 47.90 37.84 20 114.90 106.37 83.81 57.52 44.96 50 148.27 136.73 106.45 71.67 55.33 100 177.53 163.26 126.02 83.72 64.07

Rainfall Intensity Chart mm/hr Hours Duration

Years 6min 1hr 2hr 3hr 6hr 12hr 24hr 48hr 72hr 1 40.83 31.76 38.40 13.44 8.83 6.87 4.46 2.90 1.85 1.15 0.85 2 55.15 42.44 51.73 17.33 11.31 8.76 5.65 3.65 2.33 1.45 1.07 5 76.86 57.67 71.64 21.59 13.87 10.65 6.76 4.30 2.75 1.72 1.27

10 92.95 68.71 86.33 24.44 15.56 11.88 7.47 4.71 3.02 1.89 1.40 20 114.90 83.81 106.37 28.49 18.00 13.67 8.52 5.33 3.42 2.14 1.59 50 148.27 106.45 136.73 34.27 21.43 16.18 9.99 6.18 3.98 2.49 1.85

100 177.53 126.02 163.26 39.03 24.24 18.23 11.17 6.86 4.42 2.78 2.06


Appendix F

Conceptual site infrastructure

Site plan Drawing H05069-R1

Sight lines examined Drawing H05069-R2

Analysis of sight lines 1 and 2 Drawing H05069-R3

Analysis of sight lines 3 and 4 Drawing H05069-R4

Layout of first landfill cell Drawing H05069-R5_1

Layout of lower landfill cells Drawing H05069-R6_1

Layout of upper landfill cells Drawing H05069-R7_1

Profile of landfill Drawing H05069-R8_1

Typical cross sections Drawing H05069-R9

Electricity transmission: separate storage dam Drawing H05069-E1

Electricity transmission: landfill Drawing H05069-E2


Appendix G

Conceptual cell design

Lower cell base and cap Drawing H05069-R10_1

Upper cell base and cap Drawing H05069-R11_1


Appendix H

Conceptual leachate collection

Leachate collection for lower level Drawing H05069-R12_1

Leachate collection for upper level Drawing H05069-R13_1


Appendix I

Leachate calculations

Pitt & Sherry Ref: H05069H001 App I Rev 03 - Leachate calculations.doc/iow

Project : Gunns Pulp Mill Landfill

Model: HELP A US EPA model for predicting landfill hydrologic processes and testing of effectiveness of landfill designs

Annual temperature simulation data (20 years) used in Visual HELP leachate modelling analysis

Annual precipitation simulation data (20 years) used in Visual HELP leachate modelling analysis


Monthly temperature simulation data (20 years) used in Visual HELP leachate modelling analysis

Monthly precipitation simulation data (20 years) used in Visual HELP leachate modelling analysis


1. Profile. Uncapped cell

Profile Structure

Layer Top ( m) Bottom ( m) Thickness ( m)

Sand 0.0000 -0.0100 0.0100

Silty Clay -0.0090 -0.1590 0.1500

Pulp mill waste - dregs/slaker/bottom ash -0.1585 -4.1585 4.0000

Pulp mill waste - ESP dust and fly ash -4.1580 -8.1580 4.0000

Drainage Net (0.5cm) -8.1575 -8.1625 0.0050

Gravel -8.1620 -8.4620 0.3000

High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) -8.4615 -8.4625 0.0010

Bentonite mat -8.4625 -8.5225 0.0600

Annual Totals Volume

Year-1 (m3) Year-2 (m3) Year-3 (m3) Year-4 (m3) Precipitation (m3) 4.0380E+03 4.6880E+03 4.1540E+03 4.9030E+03 Runoff (m3) 4.7457E+01 2.0570E+01 1.1907E+02 3.6886E+01 Evapotranspiration (m3) 1.9266E+03 1.9733E+03 1.5748E+03 2.2278E+03 Lateral drainage collected from Layer 6 (m3) 3.3407E+02 2.5409E+03 2.5518E+03 2.3077E+03 Percolation or leakance through Layer 9 (m3) 4.2754E-01 2.5167E+00 2.5312E+00 2.3478E+00 (continued)

Year-5 (m3) Year-6 (m3) Year-7 (m3) Year-8 (m3) Precipitation (m3) 4.3430E+03 5.7300E+03 4.6840E+03 4.8040E+03 Runoff (m3) 1.4005E+01 7.5299E+01 1.4527E+02 1.0990E+02 Evapotranspiration (m3) 1.8137E+03 2.2040E+03 1.7686E+03 1.9362E+03 Lateral drainage collected from Layer 6 (m3) 2.6940E+03 2.9666E+03 3.0771E+03 2.5066E+03 Percolation or leakance through Layer 9 (m3) 2.6403E+00 2.8401E+00 2.9317E+00 2.4917E+00 (continued)

Year-9 (m3) Year-10 (m3) Year-11 (m3) Year-12 (m3) Precipitation (m3) 4.1520E+03 4.2730E+03 3.2060E+03 3.7480E+03 Runoff (m3) 1.7813E+01 1.3357E+01 4.4062E-16 1.2337E-14 Evapotranspiration (m3) 1.8296E+03 1.9640E+03 1.4851E+03 1.6320E+03 Lateral drainage collected from Layer 6 (m3) 2.8900E+03 1.9982E+03 2.2339E+03 1.7739E+03 Percolation or leakance through Layer 9 (m3) 2.7874E+00 2.0967E+00 2.3019E+00 1.9150E+00 (continued)

Year-13 (m3) Year-14 (m3) Year-15 (m3) Year-16 (m3) Precipitation (m3) 4.3940E+03 4.4350E+03 3.4640E+03 5.5220E+03 Runoff (m3) 4.5586E+01 3.5180E+01 2.0481E+02 1.2705E+01 Evapotranspiration (m3) 1.8644E+03 1.6204E+03 1.4743E+03 2.0797E+03 Lateral drainage collected from Layer 6 (m3) 2.1022E+03 2.8964E+03 2.2735E+03 2.3526E+03 Percolation or leakance through Layer 9 (m3) 2.1798E+00 2.7977E+00 2.3338E+00 2.3543E+00 (continued)


Year-17 (m3) Year-18 (m3) Year-19 (m3) Year-20 (m3)

Precipitation (m3) 3.5580E+03 5.2290E+03 5.2440E+03 4.6930E+03 Runoff (m3) 3.2347E+01 2.6760E+01 2.1591E+01 5.1979E+00 Evapotranspiration (m3) 1.6976E+03 2.3317E+03 2.1195E+03 2.0950E+03 Lateral drainage collected from Layer 6 (m3) 3.2312E+03 2.1126E+03 3.0110E+03 2.8842E+03 Percolation or leakance through Layer 9 (m3) 3.0665E+00 2.1457E+00 2.9004E+00 2.8018E+00

(continued)

Total (m3) Precipitation (m3) 8.9262E+04 Runoff (m3) 9.8380E+02 Evapotranspiration (m3) 3.7618E+04 Lateral drainage collected from Layer 6 (m3) 4.8738E+04 Percolation or leakance through Layer 9 (m3) 4.8408E+01

2. Profile. Capped cell

Profile Structure

Layer Top ( m) Bottom ( m) Thickness ( m)

Loam 0.0000 -0.4500 0.4500

Silty Clay 1 -0.4495 -0.7495 0.3000

Sand -0.7490 -0.8990 0.1500

High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)1 -0.8985 -0.8995 0.0010

Silty Clay -0.8990 -1.0490 0.1500

Pulp mill waste - dregs/slaker/bottom ash -1.0485 -5.0485 4.0000

Pulp mill waste - ESP dust and fly ash -5.0480 -9.0480 4.0000

Drainage Net (0.5cm) -9.0475 -9.0525 0.0050

Gravel -9.0520 -9.3520 0.3000

High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) -9.3520 -9.3530 0.0010

Bentonite mat -9.3530 -9.4100 0.0600

Annual Totals Volume

Year-1 (m3) Year-2 (m3) Year-3 (m3) Year-4 (m3) Precipitation (m3) 4.0380E+03 4.6880E+03 4.1540E+03 4.9030E+03 Runoff (m3) 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 4.3215E-01 0.0000E+00 Evapotranspiration (m3) 3.9718E+03 4.4561E+03 3.4882E+03 4.7490E+03 Lateral drainage collected from Layer 9 (m3) 1.3599E+01 3.6918E+01 4.2204E+01 2.0851E+01 Percolation or leakance through Layer 12 (m3) 4.5208E-02 1.0116E-01 1.0964E-01 6.4892E-02 (continued)

Year-5 (m3) Year-6 (m3) Year-7 (m3) Year-8 (m3) Precipitation (m3) 4.3430E+03 5.7300E+03 4.6840E+03 4.8040E+03 Runoff (m3) 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 Evapotranspiration (m3) 4.0994E+03 5.7116E+03 4.1927E+03 4.3507E+03 Lateral drainage collected from Layer 9 (m3) 5.0946E+01 7.0746E+01 9.2640E+01 1.0567E+02 Percolation or leakance through Layer 12 (m3) 1.3022E-01 1.6705E-01 2.0484E-01 2.2685E-01 (continued)





Total (m3) Precipitation (m3) 8.9262E+04 Runoff (m3) 1.0582E+01 Evapotranspiration (m3) 8.4561E+04 Lateral drainage collected from Layer 9 (m3) 1.8678E+03 Percolation or leakance through Layer 12 (m3) 4.0354E+00


Appendix J

Junction analysis

Pitt & Sherry Ref: D7603/H05069d003.rep 30.1.Rev00/30.1/CKW

• CONSULTING ENGINEERS

• PROJECT MANAGERS

• BUILDING SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL

SCIENTISTS

Email: [email protected] Internet: www.pittsh.com.au Devonport 1st Floor Commonwealth Building 35 Oldaker Street DX 70368 PO Box 836 Devonport Tas 7310 Australia Phone: +61 (0) 3 6424 1641 Fax: +61 (0) 3 6424 9215

Other offices at:- • Hobart • Launceston • Victoria

P I T T & S H E R R Y

Gunns Pulp Mill, Bell Bay Solid Waste Landfill Traffic Impact Assessment Prepared for Gunns Ltd December 2005 Prepared by: Chris Weavers

Pitt & Sherry Ref: D7603/H05069d003.rep 30.1.Rev00/30.1/CKW

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

2. Location and Existing Development .................................................................. 2

3. Sight Distance Assessment Criteria ................................................................... 4

4. Existing Site Conditions ...................................................................................... 6 4.1 General ......................................................................................................... 6 4.2 Sight Distance .............................................................................................. 8 4.3 Existing Traffic Volume .............................................................................. 9 4.4 Traffic Accidents.......................................................................................... 9 4.5 Access Geometry ......................................................................................... 9

5. Proposed Operations ......................................................................................... 10 5.1 Traffic Generation...................................................................................... 10

6. Discussion ........................................................................................................... 12

7. Recommendation ............................................................................................... 12

© Pitt & Sherry hold copyright over the content of this document. You can use this document for information purposes but cannot show it to others or make copies without our written permission. Name Signature Date

Authorised by: David Finnigan 22 December 2005

Pitt & Sherry Ref: D7603/H05069d003.rep 30.1.Rev00/30.1/CKW 1

1. Introduction This report is an ancillary document to the “Solid Waste Landfill Conceptual Design” report being prepared by Pitt & Sherry.

The purpose of this Traffic Impact Assessment report is to specifically address and identify the requirements for the construction and operation of an access intersection, which will be located a short distance north of the existing Longreach wood chip plant access off East Tamar Highway. The intersection will serve the proposed solid waste landfill.

It is not the purpose of this report to consider or quantify the impacts of traffic along East Tamar Highway, together with feeder roads, the main highway intersection to the proposed pulp mill or internal access roads, etc associated with the supply of raw materials and operation of the pulp mill.

The locality plan in Figure 1 shows the location of the landfill in its regional setting.

Figure 1: Regional setting of landfill (Source TASMAP, Tasmania 1:100,000 Topographic Map, Sheet 8215 Tamar)

Proposed landfill


2. Location and Existing Development Access to the proposed landfill site is located approximately 1.4 km north of the existing wood chip plant access, on the eastern side of the highway. It is also 5.6 km north of the Batman Highway intersection and 7.3 km south of the Bridport Main Road intersection.

The plan and aerial photos below show the location in relation to surrounding features.

Figure 2 is an extract of the topographic plan of the locality and shows contours and existing tracks. Figure 3 is an aerial photo of the locality over a similar range, and also details the bush tracks to the east of the highway which follow the general alignment of the proposed internal access to the landfill site.

The existing wood chip plant utilises a type ‘B’ intersection at the highway, with a left hand passing lane to enable southbound traffic to bypass southbound trucks slowing to turn right into the plant access road.

The proposed landfill access is to be located approximately at an existing gated access to a gravel bush track, which evidently has infrequent use. The gate is set back 20m from the traffic lanes and has a sealed connection with the highway pavement.

Proposed landfill access location.

Access to existing woodchip mill and proposed pulp mill.

Figure 2: Location of access


Proposed landfill access location.

Access to existing woodchip mill and proposed pulp mill.

Figure 3: Orthophoto plan of access locality


3. Sight Distance Assessment Criteria The proposed access location has been assessed on the basis of available sight distance for the posted speed limit.

The criteria for assessment of a proposed intersection on a rural road are contained within the Austroads Publication “Guide to Intersections at Grade”. The guide sets out relevant standards with respect to sight distance, access geometry and auxiliary lane treatments for various design speeds. These criteria may also be applied judiciously to urban situations where relevant.

Set out in Figure 4 is a graphical presentation of sight distance requirements from the Austroads “Guide to Intersections at Grade”.

Figure 4: Sight distance requirements from Austroads Guide to Intersections at Grade (Fig 5.2)

There are three sight distance criteria to be addressed, namely Approach Sight Distance (ASD), Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) and Entering Sight Distance (ESD).

The Approach Sight Distance (ASD) is the minimum requirement to provide the driver of a vehicle adequate sight distance to observe the roadway layout, including pavement markings, kerbs, islands etc. in sufficient time to react and stop if necessary before entering the intersection conflict area.

The Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) is the minimum standard, which should be provided on the major road at any intersection. It provides sufficient distance for a driver of a vehicle on the major road to observe a vehicle from a


minor road approach moving into a collision situation (eg in the worst case, stalling across the traffic lanes), and to decelerate to a stop before reaching the collision point. It is generally sufficient to enable cars to cross a major road safely from a side road. It is generally not sufficient to allow a turning vehicle to enter the major road without impeding traffic flow in the major road.

Entering Sight Distance (ESD) is the sight distance required for minor road drivers to enter a major road via a left or right turn, such that traffic on the major road is unimpeded. However, this does not guarantee that traffic flow will not be impeded, as drivers will often utilise smaller traffic flow gaps to enter the major route.

With the above in mind, the Austroads document provides the following key sight distance criteria:

Design Speed (km/h)

Approach Sight Distance (m)*

Safe Intersection Sight Distance (m)^

Entering Sight Distance (m)

80 115 175 305 90 140 210 400 100 170 250 500 110 210 290 500

* Reaction time, RT = 2.5 secs ^ Reaction time, RT = 2.0 secs Ideally, all of the above sight distance criteria should be met. ESD is appropriate for high volume high speed roads where relatively high volumes of intersecting traffic may cause delays to through traffic and consequential reduction in the Level of Service. This level of service is not necessary for this road. ASD is the absolute minimum sight distance to avoid collisions and is not an acceptable design solution. SISD has been deemed the appropriate design standard for this type of assessment. It is the minimum design standard recommended in the Austroads Guide to Intersections at Grade and is the standard adopted by DIER.

Access Geometry

The angle of access of the minor road approach to the major road should be 90 degrees horizontally (70 degrees minimum) and a vertical grade of between 0.5 and 3.0% for a distance of 10 metres from the edge line.

Auxiliary Turn Lanes

Through lane widths and Auxiliary Lane requirements depend on the volume of traffic in the major road and the minor road. The procedure for determining the need for left turn and right turn treatments at rural intersections is defined in Clause 5.9.2(a) of the Austroads document. Refer to Section 5.1 for further comment on the intersection configuration required for the expected traffic volumes.


4. Existing Site Conditions

4.1 General East Tamar Highway is a major link road between Launceston and the northeastern areas of the state. It provides access to Bell Bay, Georgetown and significant industrial and agricultural operations in the area. Accordingly, it carries a relatively high proportion of truck traffic in comparison with total traffic movements.

The highway is a two lane, two way road consisting of 3.6m wide traffic lanes with sealed shoulders of 0.9m width on each side of the road. Total shoulder width is variable in the range of 2m to 2.5m. The road is linemarked with a B1 one way barrier line which restricts southbound traffic from overtaking and permits northbound traffic to overtake past the proposed entrance location.

The alignment of the road could be described as winding and undulating with a number of straight sections. At a number of locations passing lanes have been provided by the addition of a third lane in one direction.

The applicable speed zoning for the site is 100 km/h. It was noted that there were not any speed restriction signs observable on the highway between the Bridport Main Road intersection and Dilston, a distance of approximately 30km.

Figures 5, 6 & 7 below show views of the approaches to the site, and existing conditions in the immediate vicinity of the proposed new access.

Figure 5 - View to the north from the proposed access.


Figure 6 - View to the south from the access location.

Figure 7 - View of existing access and boom gate.


4.2 Sight Distance Sight distance was measured in accordance with the criteria contained in the Austroads Guide to Intersections at Grade, being from a point 7m back from the centre line of the closest travelling lane. For the posted speed limit and design speed of 100 km/h the SISD is 250m. Available sight distances measured in both directions from the anticipated access location, are:

• >300m north • 265m south

Sight distance to the north for southbound traffic could be extended to 340m with some clearing of overhanging tree foliage. A southbound overtaking lane merges back to a single lane between 340m and 272m from the proposed access location. Sight distance to the south is over a crest vertical curve and was measured between eye heights of 1.15m and 1.15m.

Access location

Figure 8 - View toward intersection by southbound traffic.


4.3 Existing Traffic Volume DIER provided Traffic Statistics from the permanent counting station located on East Tamar Highway, 362m south of Bridport Main Rd intersection at Bell Bay. A summary of the details is as follows: 2004 AADT 3,970 vpd % trucks 14.8% AAWT 1 4370 vpd Morning peak hour two way traffic 440 vph Evening peak hour two way traffic 462 vph Morning peak one way traffic 280 vph northbound Evening peak one way traffic 310 vph southbound The equivalent 22 year compound growth rate is 1.9% per annum based on AADT’s in 1982 and 2004.

For the current year 2005 the adjusted volumes would be:

2005 AADT 4045 vpd AAWT 4453 vpd Morning peak hour two way traffic 448 vph Evening peak hour two way traffic 47 vph.

4.4 Traffic Accidents DIER provided traffic accident statistics for the past 5 years. Over the section of East Tamar Highway from Bridport Main Rd to Archers Rd, which is located 11.7km to the south, 13 accidents have been reported. The proposed access is located 4.4km north of Archers Road.

Eleven of the 13 accidents were single vehicle accidents with 9 of the total not recording any injuries, being property damage only. There was one fatality.

The accident statistics do not record location data so identification of particular black spots is not possible. Observation of the general road alignment characteristics in the vicinity did not suggest any particular anomaly that would be a causative feature of traffic accidents in the area of the proposed access.

It is considered that there are no accident details that are relevant to this Traffic Impact Assessment.

4.5 Access Geometry It is considered that the site’s geometry will readily permit the incorporation of the proposed access in accordance with standard geometry criteria. The

1 Average Annual Weekday Traffic


intersection design will not require alteration to the vertical alignment of the existing highway road pavement or excessive earthworks for pavement widening.

5. Proposed Operations The landfill will be used to dispose of waste materials that are generated by the pulp mill operation.

The landfill construction phase is not expected to generate a significant volume of traffic into and out of the site. It will not be necessary to import or remove large quantities of bulk earth materials apart from aggregate when new landfill cells are being constructed (nominally every 2 years). Activities will include delivery of plant at the commencement of earthworks activities and removal at completion. There will be deliveries of small amounts of construction materials including geotextile lining materials for the construction of disposal cells. There will also be daily movements associated with the maintenance of plant and plant operators etc. It is also expected that initial clearing activities will include harvesting of recoverable timber. This is expected to add approximately 5 truck loads of timber being extracted from the site.

The site construction activities are expected to be repeated on an approximately biannual frequency.

Landfill operations are expected to be the dominant activity with respect to the generation of traffic into and out of the site.

5.1 Traffic Generation The DIER Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessment require that the assessment consider the traffic conditions 10 years after commencement of the development. In this case it is understood that the projected level of operations will remain static over a 20 year period from commencement.

For the purpose of this assessment, it is expected that the pulp mill will generate up to 200 tonnes of material to be disposed to landfill per day. The waste material may be transported to the site in a range of trucks with varying capacities. For example for a single 8 hour shift per day:

• 10 t truck > 20 round trips/day > 2.5 trips/hr > 24 min cycle time



A brief review of the general route to and from the land fill indicates that a 24 minute cycle time could be achieved. If the cycle time was slightly longer then either the truck capacity could be increased or a longer shift worked.


Associated activities may add 4 round trips per day for light utility vehicles. If 50% of the associated movements occurred within one hour then the peak hourly movements would be 5 trips per hour in and out of the site.

It will be assumed that all movements will be to and from the pulp mill so that there will be no other assignment of traffic movements. Therefore, the critical turning movement at the site is the right turn entry against southbound traffic. The DIER traffic statistics record the 2004 evening southbound as having a peak of 310 vph. The 2025 year extrapolated southbound volume would be 48% greater than the current year, being 460 vph.

However, as the turning volumes are very small, being approximately 50% of the quantity required for the installation of a type B intersection, no intersection widening works are required by strict interpretation of the guidelines. Refer to Figure 9 below.

Turning volume 5 vph

Year 2025 approach volume 460 vph

Figure 9 - Turning and approach volumes in 2025.

These are quite low turning volumes and if the intersection was being assessed on the basis of the rural road turn warrants per figure 5.23A of the Austroads Guide to Intersections at Grade then the volume of turns would be insufficient to warrant a Type B intersection.

However, the primary turning traffic is relatively slow moving trucks. It would be a lowering of the overall traffic standard for the highway to install a new intersection where northbound traffic were required to pass a right turning truck on the gravel shoulder. Therefore, it is considered that the intersection


should be upgraded to the Type B standard due to the nature of the turning and entering traffic.

6. Discussion The location of the new intersection may be varied marginally from the existing access location provided that sight distances are maintained. The critical sight distance is to the north both for trucks turning into the landfill access and for trucks exiting via a left turn.

The traffic to be generated by the transport of waste to the landfill and associated activities has been assessed as less than 5 trips per hour. This provides a 100% margin to the Type B turning volume threshold and 400% to the Type C turning volume threshold of 20 turns per hour. Therefore, the resulting access construction will result in an access with a large degree of flexibility should pulp mill operations be altered significantly.

Design and operation of the internal access road to the landfill has not been considered in this report. It will be necessary to ensure that a suitable length of the access road is sealed a distance away from the highway to ensue that there is no nuisance from either airborne dust or gravel and mud tracked onto the highway pavement.

Operation of the pulp mill will result in a general increase in traffic along East Tamar Highway. This increase has not been assessed, as the intersection assessment criteria are not affected by significant increases in the highway traffic volume.

7. Recommendation This Traffic Impact Assessment has found that the traffic generation from the proposed landfill activities is quite low. However, to maintain safe free flowing traffic conditions commensurate with the existing road standard the construction of a Type B intersection is supported.

Therefore it is recommended that:

1. The proposed landfill access be located generally at the existing access track.

2. The intersection be constructed to an Austroads Type B standard.

3. Sealing of the access road be required for a length to ensure that dust is controlled `and debris is not transported onto the highway road pavement.

4. That the design of the intersection be prepared for approval by DIER.


Appendix K

Hazard analysis of conceptual landfill design

Pitt & Sherry Ref: H05069H001 App K Rev 03 - Hazard analysis.doc/iow

Likelihood Likelihood Aspect Potential impact

Consequence

Risk Mitigation

Consequence

Net risk

Comments

1. Geology

Inability of land to sustain weight of landfill over an extended period

Subsidence causing deformation of landfill and breaching of leachate barrier

Unlikely

Moderate

Moderate

A composite geosynthetic liner will be used, which will be resilient to the scale of any conceivable subsidence given the site geology. Any breaching and hence leachate escape would be of a similar minor scale and consequence.

Rare

Minor

Low

Site drilling has shown that the site is underlain by dolerite (in varying stages of weathering), which will have a strong load bearing capacity.

Absence of natural unsaturated attenuation layer below cell liner

Any leachate liner leakage could migrate through the saturated soils and contaminate groundwater.

Possible

Minor

Moderate

A composite geosynthetic liner will be used, which will achieve or better the maximum permeability of 10-9 m/sec acceptable standard specified by the Landfill Sustainability Guide 2004. Any breaching and hence leachate escape would be of a minor scale and consequence.

Rare

Minor

Low

Site drilling has shown groundwater approximately 3 m below the surface at the lower end of the landfill (but 12 m at the upper end). Potentially this could rise closer to the surface during times of high rainfall.

Displacement of underlying substrata by fault movement

Movement causing shear deformation of landfill and shear breaching of leachate barrier

Rare

Major

High

If the fault line is exposed during landfill construction (very unlikely due to it probably being approximately 20 m below the ground surface), it would be packed with clay before being overlain by a composite geosynthetic cell liner. Subject to the scale of movement, any breaching and hence leachate escape would be likely to be of a moderate or less scale and consequence.

Rare

Moderate

Moderate

Any fault movement is likely to be in the order of centimetres rather than metres. While fault movement could distort the landfill, packing the fault with clay (if in the unlikely event that it is exposed) and use of a flexible geosynthetic clay liner and HPDE impermeable membrane means fault movements are unlikely to cause a liner breach.



Consequence

Risk Mitigation

Consequence

Net risk

Comments

Damage to items of geologic, geomorphic or pedologic significance

Damage of features held to have high geoconservation value

Rare

Moderate

Moderate The site has been selected within an area that has no prospective items of geoconservation significance.

Rare

Minor

Low Site inspection has revealed no features likely to be of any geoconservation significance.

2. Hydrogeology

Loss of leachate to groundwater used to source potable water

Contamination of potable water supply, causing a real or perceived risk to human health

Rare

Moderate

Moderate

Modular cell construction will be adopted, using composite geosynthetic liners that meet or exceed the acceptable standard specified by the Landfill Sustainability Guide 2004. Lime kiln electrostatic precipitator dust will be hydrated and cooled before placement near any heat-vulnerable infrastructure. Any leachate escape would be of a minor scale and consequence. Collected leachate will be piped off-site to the pulp mill wastewater treatment plant.

Rare

Minor

Low

The site has been selected within an area that is not in any groundwater catchment from which potable water is drawn.

Loss of leachate to groundwater sustaining natural ecosystems

Chronic or acute toxic effects on aquatic life and/or on terrestrial life dependent on that water

Unlikely

Moderate

Moderate

Modular cell construction will be adopted, using constructed leachate barriers that meet or exceed the acceptable standard specified by the Landfill Sustainability Guide 2004. Lime kiln electrostatic precipitator dust will be hydrated and cooled before placement near any heat-vulnerable infrastructure. Any leachate escape would be of a minor scale and consequence. Collected leachate will be piped off-site to the pulp mill

Rare

Minor

Low

There are no known springs, wetland areas, streams or waterbodies downstream of the landfill site that are dependent on groundwater seepage.



Consequence

Risk Mitigation

Consequence

Net risk

Comments

wastewater treatment plant.

Loss of leachate to groundwater expressing to surface waters


Unlikely

Moderate

Moderate

Modular cell construction will be adopted, using constructed leachate barriers that meet or exceed the acceptable standard specified by the Landfill Sustainability Guide 2004. Lime kiln electrostatic precipitator dust will be hydrated and cooled before placement near any heat-vulnerable infrastructure. Cutoff drains will divert surface water away from the cells and only incident rainfall and inherent moisture in the waste will contribute to leachate production. Collected leachate will be piped off-site to the pulp mill wastewater treatment plant.

Rare

Minor

Low


Approach of water table to cell liner

Wet weather could lead to the water table approaching the cell liner of the cell(s) at the lower end of the landfill

Possible

Moderate

High

If the cell’s bottom layer appears likely to be approached by the water table, an under-drainage layer will be designed and constructed to cope with a 1 in 100 year flow. At higher flows, the most likely consequence is simply that the water table will rise either side of the landfill and seep into the cutoff drains, to be taken away as surface water. Additional relief of hydrostatic pressure build up could be provided by release bores further downslope.

Possible

Minor

Moderate

This risk only applies to the cell(s) at the lower end of the landfill, which won’t be constructed until approximately 8 years after operations commence. During that intervening period, regular bore monitoring will be undertaken to quantify the risk and provide a sound basis for drainage design.



Consequence

Risk Mitigation

Consequence

Net risk

Comments

3. Health and safety

Exposure of workers to dangerous chemicals

Threats to human health and safety

Possible

Minor

Moderate

No hazardous waste will go to the landfill. Process waste is primarily inorganic and apart from lime hydration relatively inactive. Appropriate management procedures to mimimise the likelihood of contact with workers will be implemented.

Unlikely

Minor

Low

The mixed solid wastes will consist primarily of calcium and sodium hydroxides and silicates, carbonates with some phosphates and unhydrolised oxides. Small volumes of domestic wastes will be putrescible. Leachate will have a high pH, dissolved heavy metals and high conductivity and dissolved solids. These characteristics lead to the waste being classified as a controlled waste.

Exposure of the public to dangerous chemicals


Rare

Minor

Low

No hazardous waste will go to the landfill. Process waste is primarily inorganic and apart from lime hydration relatively inactive. The landfill is well away from public access, and the access road will have a security gate. A security fence will surround the leachate pond and pumping system.

Rare

Minor

Low

As above.

Adverse reactions between waste types creating a safety hazard


Possible

Minor

Moderate

Waste will be mixed during disposal to the landfill, exhausting the heat of hydration before potential exposure to landfill workers. No other significant reactions between waste types are

Unlikely

Minor

Low

As above.



Consequence

Risk Mitigation

Consequence

Net risk

Comments

expected.

4. Surface water

Loss of leachate to surface waters in water supply catchment

Contamination of potable water supply, causing a real or perceived risk to human health

Unlikely

Moderate

Moderate

Modular cell construction will be adopted, using constructed leachate barriers that meet or exceed the acceptable standard specified by the Landfill Sustainability Guide 2004. Lime kiln electrostatic precipitator dust will be hydrated and cooled before placement near any heat-vulnerable infrastructure. Cutoff drains will divert surface water away from the cells and only incident rainfall and inherent moisture in the waste will contribute to leachate production. Collected leachate will be piped off-site to the pulp mill wastewater treatment plant.

Rare

Minor

Low

The site has been selected within an area that is not in any catchment from which potable water is drawn.

Loss of leachate to temporary water courses

Chronic or acute toxic effects on aquatic life and/or on terrestrial life using that water

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Modular cell construction will be adopted, using constructed leachate barriers that meet or exceed the acceptable standard specified by the Landfill Sustainability Guide 2004. Lime kiln electrostatic precipitator dust will be hydrated and cooled before placement near any heat-vulnerable infrastructure. Cutoff drains will divert surface water away from the cells and only incident rainfall and inherent moisture in the waste will

Rare

Minor

Low




Consequence

Risk Mitigation

Consequence

Net risk

Comments

contribute to leachate production. Collected leachate will be piped off-site to the pulp mill wastewater treatment plant.

Loss of leachate to permanent water courses


Unlikely

Minor

Low As above.

Rare

Minor

Low There are no known springs, wetland areas, streams or waterbodies downstream of the landfill site that are dependent on groundwater seepage.

Loss of leachate to temporary water bodies

Chronic or acute toxic effects on aquatic life and/or on terrestrial life using that water

Unlikely

Minor

Low As above.

Unlikely

Minor

Low There are no known springs, wetland areas, streams or waterbodies downstream of the landfill site that are dependent on groundwater seepage.

Loss of leachate to permanent water bodies


Unlikely

Minor

Low

As above.

Unlikely

Minor

Low


Loss of leachate to wetlands


Rare

Moderate

Moderate

As above.

Rare

Minor

Low


Susceptibility to flooding exceeding 1 in 100 year level

Prolonged flooding of landfill and consequential transport of leachate off site into surface waters, with chronic or acute toxic effects on aquatic life

Rare

Moderate

Moderate

Surface water cut off drains sized for at least a 1 in 100 year storm event will be used to divert stormwater away from the landfill.

Rare

Minor

Low

The site is not sited on a flood plain.



Consequence

Risk Mitigation

Consequence

Net risk

Comments

effects on aquatic life and/or on terrestrial life using that water

5. Sensitive land uses

Operational noise impacting on residential areas

Noise from landfill operations causing an environmental nuisance in residential areas.

Rare

Minor

Low

Noisy operations will be restricted to trucks delivering waste and machinery used to spread waste and cover material.

Rare

Minor

Low

The nearest residential building is approximately 3 km away, and any noise from operation would be very unlikely to be noticeable at that distance.

Dust impacting on residential areas

Dust from landfill operations causing an environmental nuisance in residential areas.

Rare

Moderate

Moderate

Dust suppression through watering would be used as necessary.

Rare

Minor

Low

The nearest residential building is approximately 3 km away, and any fugitive dust from the landfill would be very unlikely to be carried that distance.

Dust visible from residential areas or scenic roads or lookouts

Visual impacts of dust from landfill operations diminishing vista amenity from residential areas, scenic roads or lookouts.

Unlikely

Moderate

Moderate Dust suppression through watering would be used as necessary.

Unlikely

Moderate

Moderate Any fugitive dust from the landfill could on potentially be visible from certain vantage points, depending on weather conditions.

Operations visible from residential areas or scenic roads or lookouts

Visual impacts of landfill operations diminishing vista amenity from residential areas, scenic roads or lookouts.

Rare

Moderate

Moderate The final height of the landfill has been designed to be below the ridgeline from any likely vantage points.

Rare

Minor

Low Small buildings could potentially be above ridgelines but these would be in colours that would minimise visibility.

Interference with aircraft movements due to attraction of scavenging birds

Scavenging birds flying into aircraft (including ultralights) flight paths on their ascent from or descent to George Town airport.

Rare

Moderate

Moderate

Domestic waste would be covered on a daily basis.

Rare

Minor

Low The landfill is approximately 10 km away from the George Town airport, and any birds attracted to the area would be unlikely to be a nuisance



Consequence

Risk Mitigation

Consequence

Net risk

Comments

to aircraft.

Dust or leachate contamination impacting on agricultural land

Rare

Minor

Low

Dust suppression through watering would be used as necessary. Collected leachate will be piped off-site to the pulp mill wastewater treatment plant.

Rare

Minor

Low

Prime agricultural land is located to the east of the Tippogoree Hills. Any dust blown in that direction by westerly winds would be quickly settled by topography and forest vegetation. Dust from waste would be very unlikely. Any dust is only likely to be from exposed cover material (not waste) and would therefore be uncontaminated and have only a nuisance effect anyway.

6. Flora and fauna

Clearance of priority plant community

Removal of sections of Eucalyptus ovata forest, impacting on the local and statewide survival of this vegetation type that is a high priority conservation community

Likely

Moderate

High

Compensatory offsets – see separate report GHD (2006)

Proposed Bleached Kraft Pulp Mill in Northern Tasmania Flora

Assessment Report

Unlikely

Moderate

Moderate

See separate report GHD (2006) Proposed Bleached Kraft Pulp Mill in Northern Tasmania Flora Assessment

Report

Destruction of threatened species plants

Removal of populations of Pimelea flava, reducing the viability of a threatened plant

Possible

Moderate

High Small proportion only of total

population affected - see separate report GHD (2006) Proposed Bleached Kraft Pulp Mill in Northern Tasmania Flora

Assessment Report

Unlikely

Moderate

Moderate See separate report GHD

(2006) Proposed Bleached Kraft Pulp Mill in Northern Tasmania Flora Assessment

Report

Destruction of threatened fauna

Incremental loss of potential habitat for

Small proportion only of total populations affected - see

See separate report GHD (2006) Gunns Limited



Consequence

Risk Mitigation

Consequence

Net risk

Comments

species habitat threatened species (spotted tailed quoll and Tasmanian devil)

Possible

Moderate

High separate report GHD (2006) Gunns Limited Northern Tasmanian Pulp Mill IIS

Terrestrial Fauna Report.

Unlikely Moderate Moderate Northern Tasmanian Pulp Mill IIS Terrestrial Fauna

Report.

Attraction of nuisance fauna

Nuisance fauna, including rodents and birds, could be attracted to food material in domestic waste deposited in the landfill.

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Domestic waste will be covered on a daily basis.

Rare

Minor

Low

Only the domestic waste would be likely to attract nuisance fauna. Pulp mill waste will have no attractiveness to nuisance fauna.

Spread of weeds and diseases

Weeds and diseases such as Phytopthera could be brought into the site on delivery trucks and work vehicles.

Possible

Moderate

High

Dedicated waste trucks would be used, with movements only between the mill site and the landfill site.

Possible

Minor

Moderate

The use of dedicated waste trucks using a set route only between the mill and landfill will minimise the likelihood of weed or disease transfer.

Leachate contamination of aquatic life used for human consumption

Leachate could contaminate fish and shellfish farmed or caught in the Tamar Estuary

Rare

Moderate

Moderate Collected leachate will be piped off-site to the pulp mill wastewater treatment plant.

Rare

Minor

Low Discharge of treated leachate will be via the pulp mill oceanic discharge, which will comply with relevant discharge standards.

7. Heritage

Damage to or destruction of indigenous heritage items or values

Detrimental impacts on places or items of significance to the Aboriginal community.

Possible

Moderate

High Relocate items to an appropriate place of cultural relevance under the guidance of the Aboriginal community.

Unlikely

Moderate

Moderate Three items (stone artefacts) within the landfill footprint listed on the TASI database would be relocated following Ministerial approval.

Damage to or destruction of non-indigenous heritage

Detrimental impact on items or places of historic heritage significance

Rare

Minor

Low No mitigation is necessary

Rare

Minor

Low There are no known items of historic heritage significance within or near



Consequence

Risk Mitigation

Consequence

Net risk

Comments

items or values heritage significance the footprint, and a low likelihood of any items being present.

8. Infrastructure

Disruption to traffic Waste disposal truck movements along and across the East Tamar Highway could disrupt normal traffic.

Possible

Minor

Moderate

Intersection design will be based on the traffic impact assessment, and will meet relevant AustRoads standards.

Unlikely

Minor

Low

The expected number of additional truck movements on the East Tamar Highway each hour is 5.

Damage to road pavements

Waste disposal truck movements along and across the East Tamar Highway could damage the highway pavement.

Possible

Minor

Moderate Truck axle loads will be no greater than 12 tonnes, meeting accepted heavy vehicle weights for the highway’s pavement type.

Possible

Minor

Moderate The expected number of additional truck movements on the East Tamar Highway each hour is 5.


Appendix L

Proposed planning scheme amendment

Pitt & Sherry Ref: H05069H001 App L Rev 03 - Planning scheme amendment.doc/iow

Planning Scheme Amendment

A planning scheme amendment to the George Town Planning Scheme 1991 (the scheme) to provide for the development of the Gunns Pulp Mill landfill is required because the current zoning prohibits industrial development in the land currently zoned Agricultural.

Current Zoning The landfill is located within the Bell Bay Major Industrial Zone and the Agricultural Zone of the scheme. The site is covered by the provisions of the Skyline Protection Special Area (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Surrounding zoning of the site (Source: www.thelist.tas.gov.au)

The relevant provisions of these zones and the special area are listed below:

The intent of the Bell Bay Major Industrial Zone is:

• The Bell Bay Major Industrial Zone represents a unique opportunity to identify and make available land suitable for the expansion of industrial use and development at Bell Bay and its consolidation as one of the principal industrial estates in the State.

• The inherent qualities of this area for industrial use and development including its deep waters, anchorages, existing transport infrastructure, availability of services and the separation from incompatible uses, are recognised by this zoning.

Agricultural Zone

Bell Bay Major Industrial Zone

Approximate location of landfill

Hatched area – Skyline Protection Special Area


• The intent of this zone is to promote the use of the area as a strategic location and clear focus for the establishment of major industries for value added resource processing and requiring the locational advantages the site has to offer.

• The provisions of this zone also establishes a framework for the provision of major infrastructure services and the preparation of a Development Plan to provide the detailed controls to further guide developments.

• The establishment and ongoing monitoring of industries will be subject to the appropriate environmental approvals under the Environmental Protection Act 9173. Quantified risk assessment shall be performed on proposed industrial developments.

The intent of the Agricultural Zone is:

• To identify areas for general agriculture including grazing, forestry, viticulture and cropping.

• To ensure a range of land types are included to provide for the establishment of a broad range of agricultural pursuits.

• To maintain/improve an environmental quality which reflects the necessary impacts of agricultural activities.

The site of the proposed development is also located in the Skyline Protection Special Area of the Scheme. The Special Area requires the application of the Tree Preservation Provision, Clause 6.4 of the scheme that requires the consent of the planning authority before removal, ring barking, lopping or injury of any trees with the following characteristics:

(a) height greater than 3 metres;

(b) spread of branches (diameter) greater than 2 metres;

(c) circumference of trunk greater than 40cm measured 1 metre above adjacent ground level.

Trees can be removed for safety, general maintenance of a road, building or garden, for vehicular access or within 3 m of a dwelling.


Surrounding Land Use The proposed landfill is located on State Forest and private land. The land to the north is the Tippogoree Hills Forest Reserve. See Figure 2. Management of the Forest Reserve is under Forestry Tasmania’s Bass Forest District Forest Management Plan March 2000.

Figure 2: Surrounding land use (Source: www.thelist.tas.gov.au)

Proposed Use The proposed landfill would be categorised as Heavy Industry under the scheme, which:

means any industry other than a Light, General, Noxious, Hazardous, Extractive, Rural or Service Industry being of a large scale, which by reason of process, equipment or nature of product, may affect prejudicially the amenity of the locality by the emission of ash, dust, grit, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, steam, vapour, noise, vibration, waste or any such thing, and includes all such industries that are determined to be Schedule Premises under the Environmental Protection Act 9173 as amended and which are not defined [elsewhere];

Heavy Industry is a permitted use in the Bell Bay Major Industrial Zone, but is a prohibited use in the Agricultural Zone. An amendment to the scheme is therefore required to rezone the parcel of land (upon which part of the landfill is to be located) from Agricultural to Bell Bay Major Industrial.

State Forest

Tippogoree Hills Forest Reserve

Private land


Site Assessment The proposed site was selected after a quantified risk assessment of a number of alternative sites. The risk assessment included consideration of the following - geology, hydrogeology, surface water, land use, flora and fauna, heritage, infrastructure and economics.

The assessment of each of these criteria is covered elsewhere within this report.

The proposed rezoning provides an appropriate planning response to the currently incompatible zoning for the following reasons:

• The development of this site for a landfill will aid in the establishment of the Gunns Pulp Mill, a major resource value adding industry, also to be developed within the Bell Bay Major Industrial Zone.

• The use and development of the site as a landfill furthers the strategic importance of this area/zone for major industrial use and development.

• The location of the site maximises the existing road and rail infrastructure and ensures an integrated and efficient method for disposing of the waste material to be generated by the pulp mill.

• The location of the site is such that there is substantial separation from incompatible or other uses on which the development may have an impact.

• The proposed site maximises the use of the existing site features and topography.

• The adjoining land is State Forest. Appropriate buffer zones have been included within the design (and area proposed to be rezoned) to ensure that there is no impact on surrounding land uses.

• Best practice landfill design and operation in accordance with Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment (2004) Sustainability Guide for the Siting, Design, Operation and Rehabilitation of Landfills will prevent any adverse impact on the surrounding natural environment during the construction and operation of the landfill.

• The proposed landfill is situated in a depression in the lower section of the Tippogoree Hills, below the ridgeline. This positioning reduces the visual impact from the clearing of trees required for construction of the landfill, thus protecting the integrity and scenic qualities of the Skyline Protection Area.


Assessment of State Policies and Schedule 1 The rezoning will need to satisfy the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management and Planning System, and the relevant State Policies:

• The State Coastal Policy 1996.

• The State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2000; and

• State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997.

Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 The objectives of Schedule 1 are:

(a) to promote the sustainable development of natural and physical resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity; and

(b) to provide for the fair, orderly and sustainable use and development of air, land and water;

(c) to encourage public involvement in resource management and planning;

(d) to facilitate economic development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c);

(e) to promote the sharing of responsibility for resource management and planning between the different spheres of Government, the community and industry in the State.

The landfill achieves these objectives as follows:

(a) to promote the sustainable development of natural and physical resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity; and

(b) to provide for the fair, orderly and sustainable use and development of air, land and water;

The proposed site was selected after a quantified risk assessment of a number of alternative sites. The risk assessment included consideration of the following categories - geology, hydrogeology, surface water, land use, flora and fauna, heritage, infrastructure and economics.

The landfill design involves construction of modular cells, using constructed leachate barriers that meet or exceed the acceptable standard specified by the DPIWE Landfill Sustainability Guide 2004. The selection process and design of the landfill will minimise any impact on the surrounding environment while allowing the disposal of waste from the pulp mill, which will provide a valuable economic gain for Tasmania.

(c) to encourage public involvement in resource management and planning;

The pulp mill and associated infrastructure (including the landfill) has been declared a Project of State Significance. The assessment and approval process involves a number of points for public involvement in the process. They are:


• Public exhibition and comment on the Draft Integrated Impact Statement Guidelines;

• Public exhibition and hearing (optional) on the Draft Integrated Impact Statement; and

• Public exhibition and hearing (optional) on the Draft Assessment Report.

(d) to facilitate economic development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c);

The proposed landfill will provide an environmentally secure site to accommodate the solid waste generated by the proposed Gunns Pulp Mill. This mill will have a number of economic benefits to the community including:

• An estimated $1.0 - 1.5 billion of direct investment in the proposed pulp mill;

• Creation of up to 4000 direct jobs in the construction phase;

• An estimated 320 full time jobs at the mill itself.

(e) to promote the sharing of responsibility for resource management and planning between the different spheres of Government, the community and industry in the State.

The Resource Planning and Development Commission undertakes the integrated assessment of the proposal before making recommendations to the State Government who makes the decision.

Membership of the Commission represents a range of community, industry, conservation and Local and State Government interests, and during the process there is sufficient opportunity for members of the public to have an input in the process.

State Coastal Policy The State Coastal Policy 1996 was developed to protect the natural and cultural values of the coast, and to ensure that the coast is used and developed in a sustainable manner. It applies to State waters and to all land to a distance of 1 km inland from the high-water mark

The site for the proposed landfill does not come within the Coastal Zone; the provisions of the State Coastal Policy do not apply.

State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land The aim of the State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2000 is to foster sustainable agriculture in Tasmania by ensuring the continued productive capacity of the State's agricultural land resource. It applies to “Prime Agricultural Land” – which is land classified as Class 1, 2 or 3 using the Land Capability Handbook.

The proposed landfill is not located on Prime Agricultural Land. The Tamar Report for the Land Capability Survey of Tasmania details the land surrounding and including the proposed site as Class 6 or Exclusion areas (State Forest).


State Policy on Water Quality Management This Policy applies to all surface waters, including coastal waters, and ground waters, other than:

(i) Privately owned waters that are not accessible to the public and are not connected to, or flow directly into, waters that are accessible to the public; or

(ii) Waters in any tank, pipe or cistern.

The objectives of this policy are to:

1. Focus water quality management on the achievement of water quality objectives which will maintain or enhance water quality and further the objectives of Tasmania's Resource Management and Planning System;

2. Ensure that diffuse source and point source pollution does not prejudice the achievement of water quality objectives and that pollutants discharged to waterways are reduced as far as is reasonable and practical by the use of best practice environmental management;

3. Ensure that efficient and effective water quality monitoring programs are carried out and that the responsibility for monitoring is shared by those who use and benefit from the resource, including polluters, who should bear an appropriate share of the costs arising from their activities, water resource managers and the community;

4. Facilitate and promote integrated catchment management through the achievement of objectives (1) to (3) above; and

5. Apply the precautionary principle to Part 4 of this Policy.

The objectives and provision of the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 will be met through the following design specifications:

• Modular cell construction will be adopted, using constructed leachate barriers that meet or exceed the acceptable standard specified by the Landfill Sustainability Guide 2004. Cutoff drains will divert surface water away from the cells and only incident rainfall and inherent moisture in the waste will contribute to leachate production. Collected leachate will be piped off-site to the pulp mill wastewater treatment plant.

• There are no known springs, wetland areas, streams or waterbodies downstream of the landfill site that are dependent on groundwater seepage.

• The site has been selected within an area that is not in any catchment from which potable water is drawn.

Proposed Scheme Amendment The landfill is not compatible with the Agricultural Zoning of the land on which part of the development is located. An amendment to the planning scheme is required to


reflect approval of the project under the Project of State Significance assessment process.

The area bounded by the GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55 coordinates 493827E, 5445540N to 494465E, 5445954N to 495056E, 5444944N to 494983E, 5444902N to 494614E, 5445400N back to 493827E, 5445540N, as shown in Figure 3, needs to be rezoned from Agricultural to Bell Bay Major Industrial, ie:

Amend the George Town Planning Scheme Map by drawing a black line around the section of property PID 2535084 as shown in Figure 3. Rezone the area contained by this line to Bell Bay Major Industrial.

Figure 3: Area to which the amendment relates

Area to be rezoned (shaded orange)

h05069h001 rev 04.rep 30.1.landfill design with …gunnspulpmill.com/iis/v16/v16_a55.pdf · pitt...

Documents