phase 1: desktop hydrogeological investigation

Phase 1: Desktop

Hydrogeological Investigation

Stanley Road Landfill

Prepared for Bunbury-Harvey Regional Council

March 2015

Project Number TE14027

TE14027 Stanley Rd_desktop hydrogeological investigation.0a March 2015 | Page ii

Phase 1: Desktop Hydrogeological Investigation



Talis Consultants Pty Ltd

8/663 Newcastle St

Leederville WA 6007

Ph: 1300 251 070

www.talisconsultants.com.au

ABN: 85 967 691 321

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Version File Ref Author Reviewer

0a TE14027 Desktop hydrogeological investigation. Version 1

Joanna Skiba Ronan Cullen

Copyright of this document or any part of this document remains with Talis Consultants Pty Ltd and

cannot be used, transferred or reproduced in any manner or form without prior written consent from

Talis Consultants Pty Ltd.

TE14027 Stanley Rd_desktop hydrogeological investigation.0a March 2015 | Page iii




Executive Summary Talis Consultants Pty Ltd (Talis) was engaged by Bunbury-Harvey Regional Council (BHRC) to

conduct a Phase 1 Desktop Hydrogeological Investigation for the Stanley Road Landfill

located at 51 Stanley Road, Wellesley, Western Australia (the Site) located approximately 14

km north-east of Bunbury.

The purpose of this work was due to the Department of Environment Regulation’s (DER)

proposed licence amendment which states “The Licensee shall undertake sufficient

groundwater investigations to determine the extent and severity of groundwater impacts

from landfilling undertaken at the premises (past, present and future). A detailed site

investigation report shall be provided to the CEO. The DSI shall include a detailed source-

pathway-receptor conceptual site model and risk assessment.”

A landfill licensing requirement is in place which requires groundwater monitoring to be

conducted on a periodical basis (both quarterly and annually) for various analytes across a

network of 10 paired groundwater wells at the Site. Groundwater sampling and reporting

has been conducted by GHD since 2005. In order to understand groundwater chemistry at

the Site, Talis reviewed groundwater monitoring reports for a period between January 2011

and October 2014.

The Site is located within Kemerton Industrial area with surrounding landuses including

Kemerton Industrial area buffer zone to the north, vegetation/pastoral land to the east, sand

extraction and Class I landfill to the south and a sand mine to the west. While a detailed site

history assessment was not completed, it was identified that the site historically operated as a

sand mine, with landfilling commencing in 1990. The landfill cell is unlined with no

engineered leachate management system. Groundwater monitoring results indicate that

contaminants have been leaching into groundwater beneath the site.

The closest sensitive receptors to the Site include the Brunswick River located approximately

500 m south of the southern site boundary, Wellesley River approximately 860 m east from the

eastern site boundary and residential properties located approximately 800 m west from the

site.

It was identified that two aquifers are located at the site, comprising a ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’

aquifer. Groundwater flow within the shallow aquifer was generally towards the north-

west/north and south within the deeper aquifer (towards the Brunswick River). While it was

considered that the two aquifers were separated by an intact low permeability clay

aquiclude. The aquiclude barrier is recognised to prevent migration of contamination

between the two aquifers, however over a long period of time, there is potential for

migration between the shallow and deep aquifer, however some stripping of contaminants

generally occurs within the acuiclude via cation exchange.

Licensing requirements varied across the years, which have resulted in data gaps in certain

analytes over the monitoring periods. It was reported that polyaromcatic hydrocarbons,

organochlorine pesticides, organophosphate pesticides, polychlorobiphenyls and nitate

were below adopted assessment criteria at each well during each sampling round.

Elevated concentrations of toluene, total recoverable hydrocarbons C10-C36, and metals

comprising aluminium, chromium, copper, iron, manganese, nickel, and zinc exceeded

TE14027 Stanley Rd_desktop hydrogeological investigation.0a March 2015 | Page iv




adopted assessment criteria periodically over the monitoring rounds. In addition, while

exceedances were identified, exceedances were not reported at each well during each

sampling round. It needs to be noted that concentrations of contaminants of concern were

highly variable with little or no consistency across the site over the monitoring rounds. Based

on experience, Talis generally sees trends in relation to contamination arising from landfills

which is not evident at the Site.

Based on elevated concentrations of ammonia, ammonical nitrogen and total nitrogen, it

was evident that groundwater beneath the Site was impacted by landfill leachate. While

the Site may be contributing to elevated concentrations, given groundwater within the

shallow aquifer is flowing in a north-westerly/northerly direction, the Class I landfill located

directly to the south of the Site may be contributing to groundwater impacts. This is

assumption is based on exceedances in adopted assessment criteria for some potential

contaminants of concern (PCOCs) at the shallow wells GQ1 and GQ6 located within the

south-western portion of the Site and are considered to be up-hydraulic gradient of the

landfill Site. BHRC proposes to install a best practice environmental management (BPEM)

standard capping layer as part of the closure and rehabilitation of the current landfill. This

engineered capping system will dramatically reduce the generation of leachate through the

minimisation of rainfall seepage into the waste mass. The inclusion of the low permeability

capping layer (either geosynthetic clay liner) will in theory reduce the leachate from

entering groundwater. It is considered that the source of contamination will be reduced

over time which will result in impacts to groundwater to be significantly reduced and the risk

to sensitive receptors similarly decreases.

While the desktop hydrogeological investigation has explored groundwater conditions at the

site for a period of four years, better definition of the groundwater profiles and potential

sources of contamination are needed to be identified to wholly understand what the

hydrogeology at the site.

TE14027 Stanley Rd_desktop hydrogeological investigation.0a March 2015 | Page v




Table of contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. iii

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1.1 Location .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1.2 Surrounding landuse ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1.3 Historical land use .................................................................................................................. 2

1.1.4 Landfill design......................................................................................................................... 2

1.1.5 Licence .................................................................................................................................... 2

1.1.6 Licence Improvement Requirement ................................................................................. 2

1.1.7 Purpose of this work .............................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Historical Reports Reviewed .................................................................................................... 3

2 Climate, Topography, Geology and Hydrogeology ................................................................. 5

2.1 Climate ........................................................................................................................................ 5

2.2 Topography ................................................................................................................................ 5

2.3 Geology....................................................................................................................................... 6

2.3.1 Regional .................................................................................................................................. 6

2.3.2 Local ........................................................................................................................................ 6

2.4 Hydrology and Hydrogeology ................................................................................................ 8

2.4.1 Surface water ......................................................................................................................... 8

2.4.2 Groundwater .......................................................................................................................... 8

2.4.3 Groundwater flow direction ................................................................................................ 9

2.4.4 WIR bore search .................................................................................................................. 10

2.4.5 Beneficial uses of groundwater ........................................................................................ 10

3 Previous Groundwater Monitoring Data ................................................................................... 11

3.1 Assessment Criteria .................................................................................................................. 11

3.2 Groundwater depth fluctuations ......................................................................................... 11

TE14027 Stanley Rd_desktop hydrogeological investigation.0a March 2015 | Page vi




3.3 Groundwater flow direction .................................................................................................. 12

3.3.1 General Field Observation ................................................................................................ 13

3.4 Laboratory Results ................................................................................................................... 14

3.4.1 Metals .................................................................................................................................... 14

3.4.2 BTEX ........................................................................................................................................ 25

3.4.3 PAH ......................................................................................................................................... 29

3.4.4 TRH .......................................................................................................................................... 30

3.4.5 Nutrients ................................................................................................................................. 31

3.4.6 Major Cations ....................................................................................................................... 36

3.4.7 Major Anions ......................................................................................................................... 39

3.4.8 Pesticides .............................................................................................................................. 42

3.4.9 Polychlorinated Biphenyls .................................................................................................. 42

3.4.10 Physical Parameters ........................................................................................................ 42

4 Summary of Key Findings ........................................................................................................... 46

4.1 Metals......................................................................................................................................... 46

4.2 Hydrocarbons ........................................................................................................................... 48

4.3 Nutrients ..................................................................................................................................... 48

4.4 Major Anions ............................................................................................................................. 49

4.5 Major Cations ........................................................................................................................... 50

4.6 Pesticides and PCBs ................................................................................................................ 50

4.7 GQ7 and GQ8 .......................................................................................................................... 50

5 Conceptual Site Model ............................................................................................................... 52

5.1 Contamination Sources.......................................................................................................... 52

5.1.1 Primary sources of contamination ................................................................................... 52

5.1.2 Secondary sources of contamination ............................................................................. 52

5.2 Potential Contaminants of Concern ................................................................................... 52

5.2.1 Exceedances ....................................................................................................................... 53

5.3 Transportation Mechanisms ................................................................................................... 55

5.4 Exposure Pathways .................................................................................................................. 55

TE14027 Stanley Rd_desktop hydrogeological investigation.0a March 2015 | Page vii




5.5 Receptors .................................................................................................................................. 55

5.6 Exposure Pathways and Risk Assessment ............................................................................ 55

6 Landfill Capping ........................................................................................................................... 59

7 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 61

8 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 65

Tables Table 1-1: Prescribed Premises Categories

Table 1-2: Groundwater Monitoring Requirements

Table 2-1: Groundwater monitoring well IDs

Table 3-1: Water Quality field observations – Deep Wells

Table 3-2: Water Quality field observations – Shallow Wells

Table 4-1: Metal Exceedances

Table 4-2: Nutrient exceedances

Table 5-1: PCoCs

Table 5-2: Exceedances in groundwater – October 2014

Table 5-3 Risk Assessment – groundwater

Table 6-1 Risk Assessment – groundwater: post closure

Figures Figure 1: Locality Plan

Figure 2: Surrounding landuse

Figure 3: Groundwater well locations

Figure 4: Conceptual Site Model

TE14027 Stanley Rd_desktop hydrogeological investigation.0a March 2015 | Page viii




Charts Chart 1 Climate

Chart 2 Standing water levels

Chart 3 Aluminium Concentrations

Chart 4 Arsenic concentrations

Chart 5 Cadmium concentrations

Chart 6 Chromium concentrations

Chart 7 Copper concentrations

Chart 8 Iron concentrations

Chart 9 Lead concentrations

Chart 10 Manganese concentrations

Chart 11 Mercury concentrations

Chart 12 Nickel concentrations

Chart 13 Selenium concentrations

Chart 14 Zinc concentrations

Chart 15 Benzene concentrations

Chart 16 Toluene concentrations

Chart 17 Ethylbenzene concentrations

Chart 18 Xylenes concentrations

Chart 19 Naphthalene concentrations

Chart 20 BaP concentrations

Chart 21 TRH C10-C36 concentrations

Chart 22 Ammonia concentrations

Chart 23 Ammonia-Nitrogen concentrations

Chart 24 Total Nitrogen concentrations

Chart 25 Nitrate concentrations

Chart 26 Phosphorus concentrations

Chart 27 COD concentrations

TE14027 Stanley Rd_desktop hydrogeological investigation.0a March 2015 | Page ix




Chart 28 Calcium concentrations

Chart 29 Magnesium concentrations

Chart 30 Sodium concentrations

Chart 31 Potassium concentrations

Chart 32 Chloride concentrations

Chart 33 Sulphate concentrations

Chart 34 Hardness/Alkalinity concentrations

Chart 35 pH concentrations

Chart 36 Conductivity concentrations

Chart 37 TDS concentrations

Chart 38 TOC concentrations

Diagrams Diagram 1 Bore logs

Appendices Appendix A: Groundwater Contour Plans

TE14027 Stanley Rd_desktop hydrogeological investigation.0a Month YYYY | Page 1




1 Introduction

Talis Consultants Pty Ltd (Talis) was engaged by Bunbury-Harvey Regional Council (BHRC) to

conduct a Phase 1 Desktop Hydrogeological Investigation for the Stanley Road Landfill

located at 51 Stanley Road, Wellesley Western Australia (WA) (the Site), located

approximately 14 km north-east of Bunbury.

A landfill licensing requirement is in place which requires groundwater monitoring to be

conducted on a periodical basis (both quarterly and annually) for various analytes. The

sampling and reporting has been conducted by GHD since 2005. As reported in the

reviewed GHD reports, impacts have been identified in the groundwater which are

considered to be associated with landfilling activities. As such, the Department of

Environment Regulation (DER) has requested additional environmental investigations be

completed to identify the extent of groundwater contamination, as specified within the

proposed DER licence amendment.

The amendment to the current licence condition IR5 states that ”The Licensee shall

undertake sufficient groundwater investigations to determine the extent and severity of

groundwater impacts from landfilling undertaken at the premises (past, present and future).

A detailed site investigation report shall be provided to the CEO. The DSI shall include a

detailed source-pathway[-receptor conceptual site model and risk assessment.”

To address the DER’s IR5 licence amendment, Talis has proposed a staged approach to the

investigation. This Phase 1 report will help understand groundwater chemistry at the Site

including trends and potential seasonal fluctuations in concentrations, a desktop review of

existing hydrogeological data/reports has been conducted including risk assessment. This

review will guide further work required by the DER and will be presented in a Phase 2

Hydrogeological Investigation.

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Location

BHRC operate the Stanley Road Landfill which is located in Wellesley approximately 14 km

north-east of Bunbury, to the west of Forrest Highway. The site itself is located within

Kemerton Industrial Park bushland buffer zone (see Figure 1).

1.1.2 Surrounding landuse

Adjacent land uses to the site include:

North – Kemerton Industrial area buffer zone (bushland including a wetland);

East – Vegetated land/pastoral land;

South – Sand extraction and Class I landfill operated by JW Cross & Sons; and

West – Sand extraction

The closest sensitive receptors to the site include the Brunswick River located approximately

500 m south of the southern site boundary, Wellesley River approximately 860 m east from the

Site boundary and residential properties located approximately 800 m west from the Site.





1.1.3 Historical land use

A detailed site history was not completed as part of the investigation, however it was

identified that the site historically operated as a sand mine, with landfilling commencing in

1990.

1.1.4 Landfill design

The landfill cells are old and were established prior to the adoption of modern landfill

engineering guidelines. Therefore, the current landfill cells are unlined with no engineered

leachate management system. Groundwater monitoring results indicate that contaminants

have been leaching into groundwater beneath the Site.

1.1.5 Licence

Stanley Road Landfill is licensed under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP

Act) Licence Number L7067/1997/14 as Prescribed Premises under EP Act 1987 categories 62

and 64 as detailed in Table 1-1 below.

Table 1-1: Prescribed Premises Categories

Category

number

Category description Category

production

or design capacity

Approved

Premises

production or

design capacity

62 Solid waste depot: premises on which waste is stored, or sorted, pending final disposal or re-use.

500 tonnes or more per year

10,000 tonnes per annual period

64 Class II or III putrescible landfill site: Premises on which waste (as determined by reference to the waste type set out in the document entitled “Landfill Waste Classification and Waste Definitions 1996” published by the Chief Executive Officer and as amended from time to time) is accepted for burial.

20 tonnes or more per year

50,000 tonnes per annual period

Reference: DER Licence dated 8 December 2014

1.1.6 Licence Improvement Requirement

Given that groundwater contamination was previously identified during one or more

groundwater monitoring events, the Licence requirement IR 5 states that “The Licensee shall

undertake sufficient groundwater investigations to determine the extent and severity of

groundwater impacts from landfilling undertaken at the premises (past, present and future).

A detailed site investigation report shall be provided to the CEO. The DSI shall include a

detailed source-pathway-receptor conceptual site model and risk assessment”.

This report has been prepared to understand historical and current groundwater conditions

at the Site, source-pathway-receptor risk assessment and identify data gaps which will guide

future works at the Site. The BHRC has submitted a Licence Amendment to revise IR5

condition to reflect the proposed future works which are outlined within this report.





1.1.6.1 Groundwater monitoring regime

In addition to the abovementioned IR5 requirement of the Licence, groundwater monitoring

of certain analytes are required on a quarterly and annual basis; these comprise:

Table 1-2: Groundwater Monitoring Requirements

Quarterly Annually

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) Phenols

Nitrate-nitrogen Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)

Ammonia-nitrogen Organochlorine pesticides (OCP)

Total nitrogen Organophosphate pesticides (OPP)

Total phosphorus; Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)

Total dissolved solids (TDS) Atrazine

Total organic carbon (TOC) Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX)

Major anions and cations – calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, chloride, bicarbonate and sulphate

Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)

Heavy metals – aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron (total), lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium and zinc

Trichlorethylene/Perchloroethylene

In addition to the above analyses, in field measurement of standing water levels (SWLs),

electrical conductivity (EC), pH and dissolved oxygen (DO) are required.

GHD Pty Ltd (GHD) has been conducting both quarterly and annual monitoring events

including the reporting, as per the Licence requirement since 2005.

1.1.7 Purpose of this work

In relation to the Licence requirements specified above, Talis has prepared this report which

evaluates the available groundwater data comprising groundwater monitoring events over

the last four years (between 2011 and 2014 inclusive). Based on the current information, this

report aims to identify trends in groundwater flow and contamination, present the findings

utilising a conceptual site model identifying source-pathway-receptors for the identified

contamination. In addition, Talis has reviewed the implications of the proposed capping

works at the landfill sites to minimise the impacts to groundwater. The findings from this report

will therefore guide the requirements for a Phase 2 Hydrogeological Investigation.

1.2 Historical Reports Reviewed

Groundwater monitoring has been carried out at the Site for a number of years. As part of

this Phase 1 Desktop Hydrogeological Investigation, Talis has reviewed the following reports:

Groundwater Assessment, Stanley Road Waste Management Facility (ASK, 2013).

Stanley Road Waste Disposal Site – Lot 45 Stanley Road, Wellesley WA, Prescribed

Licence No.L7067/1997/13, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event Report –

October 2014 (GHD, 2014a);






Licence No. L7067/1997/13, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event Report – July

2014 (GHD, 2014b);


Licence No. L706/1997/13, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event Report – April

2014; (GHD, 2014c);


Licence No. L7067/1997/13, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event Report –

January 2014; (GHD, 2014d);


Licence No. L7067/1997/12 (October 2013) (GHD, 2013a);


Licence No. L7067/1997/12, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event Report – July

2013 (GHD, 2013b);


Licence No. L7067/1997/12, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event Report – April

2013 (GHD, 2013c);


Licence No. L7067/1997/12 (January 2014)(GHD, 2013d);


Licence No. L7067/1997/12, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event Report –

January 2013 (GHD, 2013d);


Licence No. L7067/1997/12, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event – October 2012

(GHD, December 2012) (GHD, 2012a);


Licence No. L7067/1997/12, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event – July 2012

(GHD, September 2012) (GHD, 2012b);

Report for Stanley Road Landfill Facility Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring, April 2012

Results (GHD, June 2012) (GHD, 2012c);

Report for Stanley Road Landfill Facility, January 2012 Groundwater Monitoring Results

(GHD, January 2012) (GHD, 2012d);

Report for Stanley Road Landfill Facility, October 2011 Groundwater Monitoring

Results (GHD, October 2011) (GHD, 2011a);

Report for Stanley Road Landfill, Groundwater Monitoring (GHD, July 2011) (GHD,

2011b);

Report for Stanley Road Landfill, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Results (GHD, April

2011) (GHD, 2011c); and

Report for Stanley Road Landfill, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Results (GHD,

January 2011) (GHD, 2011d).

The findings are further discussed in detail in Section 3.





2 Climate, Topography, Geology and Hydrogeology

2.1 Climate

The Site is located within a region that experiences a Mediterranean climate, with warm dry

summers and cool wet winters. Chart 1 below shows the mean monthly rainfall and mean

maximum temperatures reported by the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) on their website. The

mean rainfall data is for the period 1995-2015 and the mean maximum temperature is for the

period 1995-2014.

Chart 1 Climate

Reference: BOM website, temperature collected 1995-2014 and rainfall collected 1995-2015

2.2 Topography

Landgate is the Statutory Authority that maintains the States’ official register of land

ownership and survey information. Utilising topographical contour geospatial data sourced

from Landgate it was observed that the Site sloped down from north-western corner to the

centre of the Site then back up towards the south. The north-western corner and south-

western portion of the Site sit at 20 mAHD, with the remainder of the Site sitting at 15 mAHD

with several spot heights at 12 mAHD and 20 mAHD observed within the eastern portion of

the Site.

To the south, north-west and north-east of the main landfill mass there are a number of lined

lagoons which from the topography appear to be linked to the shallow aquifer. They are

likely to influence the distribution of groundwater profiles in the immediate area of the landfill.

It was observed that the topography adjacent to the Site was similar to that of the Site. The

areas surrounding the Site (in each direction) sit at 15 mAHD and 20 mAHD within the vicinity

of the south-western portion of the Site. Several spot heights were observed to the south of

the Site ranging between 14 mAHD and 20 mAHD, whilst the area to the north majority is

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Degrees Calcius Rainfall (mm)

Climate

Mean maximum temperature degrees Calcius Mean rainfall (mm)





recorded at approximately 15 mAHD with spot heights further north indicating a drop in

elevation to 10 mAHD and 14 mAHD.

Prior to landfilling and excavation activities, the natural topography of the Site was lowest

within the northern portion of the site (less than 15 mAHD), sloping up gently towards the

centre of the site (15 mAHD) and continuing to increase within the southern portion of the

site, not exceeding 20 mAHD (ASK, 2013). The natural topography decreases in a south-

easterly direction, towards the Brunswick and Wellesley River (ASK, 2013).

2.3 Geology

2.3.1 Regional

A review of the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) Geological Map Series Collie

Sheet SI 50 – 6 with a scale of 1:250,000 (Wilde, SA &Walker IW, 1983) showed the geology at

the Site to comprise:

Qpa – Guildford Formation: alluvium (clay, loam, sand, gravel) variably lateritized and

podolized;

Qpb – Bassendean Sand: quartz sand (fixed dunes); and

Qts – Tamala Limestone: predominantly quartz sand.

2.3.2 Local

Driller’s logs were reviewed for groundwater well numbers GQ7-GQ10 provided in GHD 2014b

report. It was identified that the geology at the Site to be consistent with the regional

geology as per DMP 1:250,000 map, which comprised alternating layers of sand and clays,

with sand underlain by coffee rock within 4.5 m of the surface. The confining layer of clay

between the shallow and deep aquifers varied between locations, as shown in Diagram

1below.





Diagram 1 Bore logs

The shallow groundwater wells GQ7S, GQ8S and GQ9S were installed to 14 m, and GQ10S

was installed to 12 m. Deep groundwater wells GQ7D-GQ10D were installed to 24 m.

Based on the drillers logs provided in GHD 2014b, the confining layer between the shallow

and deep aquifer at location GQ7 was between 9.5 m and 10.5 m. It appears that the

shallow well (GQ7S) was installed to too deep, targeting both the shallow and deep aquifers.

Metres





2.4 Hydrology and Hydrogeology

2.4.1 Surface water

The nearest surface water body/sensitive receptor is the Brunswick River is located

approximately 500 m south from the south-eastern portion of the Site. Brunswick River is

located to the south and adjoins the Wellesley River to the south-east/east of the Site (as

shown in Figure 2). The rivers flow from an easterly direction discharge into the Indian Ocean

via an estuary, located approximately 9 km south-west of the Site.

2.4.2 Groundwater

A review of the Department of Water (DoW) Bunbury and South West Coastal groundwater

areas subarea reference sheets, Plan for the South West groundwater area allocation plan

(DoW, 2009) identified that the Superficial formation within the vicinity of the Site consists of

Tamala Limestone, Guildford formation and Bassendean Sands. The Superficial Aquifer is

said to consist predominantly of clays and sands to the east and limestone to the west,

ranging between 20-40 m deep across the aquifer. This is consistent with the

hydrogeological investigation conducted by GHD (2008), which identified that the

hydrogeology in the area comprised an unconfined aquifer and a series of confined aquifers

which were resultant of alternating sand and clay layers which make up the superficial

formations at the Site. It is considered that the aquifer may be hydraulically connected

within the underlying Leederville Aquifer (DoW, 2009).

The hydrogeological regime of the superficial formations are influenced by topography,

drainage and surface geology “giving rise to the potential for groundwater mounding to

occur in areas of higher ground (AGC Woodward-Clyde 1993), such as the Mialla

Groundwater Mound (located east of Binningup) and between the Old Coast Road and the

Wellesley River (Hammon 1989)” which is located approximately 10 km north of the Site

(DoW, 2007).

The superficial aquifer is recharged though rainfall events, however large amounts of

infiltration into the aquifer is lost due to evapotranspiration from wetlands and areas where

the watertable is shallow. It’s been estimated by Aquaterra and ATA Environmental (2002)

that recharge into the aquifer ranges between 5-40% of the annual rainfall (DoW, 2007).

Resultant from the annual rainfall events, seasonal variations in the watertable are

approximately 1-2 m which is closely correlated (DoW, 2007). This is evident in groundwater

gauging at the Site. With an assumption that mean annual rainfall is 800 mm, with 40%

infiltration (320 mm) with porosity of 0.2, groundwater fluctuations would result in

approximately 1.6 m, which is consistent with DoW (2007) data.

DoW (2009) recognises that groundwater in the area moves from Mialla mound from a west,

south west and east towards the Wellesley River, and forms part of the Myalup flow system.

Groundwater within the vicinity of the Site discharges locally to watercourses such as the

Wellesley River, wetlands and swamps. Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations to the west

of Wellesley River is generally fresh to marginal ranging between 250 and 1,500 mg/L and

generally brackish with TDS concentrations greater than 1,500 mg/L to the east (DoW, 2007).

Based on groundwater gauging data collected by GHD between January 2011 and

October 2014, the reduced level (RL) standing water levels (SWLs) within the shallow aquifer





fluctuated between 9.030 m and 14.749 m Australian Height Datum (AHD) and between

3.810 m and 12.335 m AHD within the deep aquifer.

2.4.2.1 Groundwater monitoring wells

A network of 20 groundwater monitoring wells are currently located at the Site. The

groundwater wells are distributed in pairs comprising one shallow and on deep groundwater

well at 10 locations across the Site (see Figure 3). Prior to January 2014, the network

comprised of six pairs only and were ascribed different identifications (groundwater well IDs),

for consistency, GHD had re-named the network of groundwater wells and these are listed

below in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Groundwater monitoring well IDs

Previous well ID

Current well ID1

Shallow Aquifer (S)

Deep Aquifer (D)

Northings2 Eastings2 TOC (AHD)2

GQ1 SWS-R SWD 50383645 6320980 13.85

GQ2 1S 1D 50383948 6320967 15.23

GQ3 SES-R SED 50384122 6320978 17.33

GQ4 2S 2D 50384921 6321431 17.56

GQ5 ES ED 50385004 6321720 17.43

GQ6 WS-R WD 50383645 6320980 20.97

GQ7 NA/Installed 31/01/14 - - -




1deep wells are denoted with a ‘D’ at the end and shallow wells with an ’S’ at the end. 2data obtained from ASK (2013) report (survey done using hand held GPS) – not accurate, ‘R’

replacement wells installed in 2010 - wells not surveyed

2.4.3 Groundwater flow direction

The general groundwater flow direction in the area is in a westerly direction from the Darling

Scarp, with the exception of eastern half of the Mialla Groundwater Mound where

groundwater flows in an easterly direction towards the Wellesley River (DoW, 2007).

Talis has prepared groundwater contour plans based on groundwater gauging data

collected by GHD between 2011 and 2014. Groundwater contour plans were produced for

both the shallow and deep aquifers. It was assumed that the locations of the groundwater

wells provided in the figures within the GHD reports (2011-2014) and the top of casing (TOC)

reported for GQ1-GQ6 was correct. No survey data was provided for wells GQ7-GQ10 and

were therefore left out of the contour plans.

2.4.3.1 Shallow aquifer

The groundwater contour plans for gauging data collected between 2011 and 2014 showed

the general groundwater flow direction within the shallow aquifer to be flowing in a westerly

direction within the south western portion of the Site and north, north-west within the

remainder of the Site, see Appendix A. It is considered that the localised groundwater flow





direction to the west may be due to groundwater use via production bore which is located

to the west of the Site.

2.4.3.2 Deep aquifer

The general groundwater flow direction within the deep aquifer was generally in a southerly

direction. Groundwater flow within the south-western corner of the Site appeared to be

flowing in a south-easterly direction, with steep groundwater contours between wells GQ1D

and GQ6D (see Appendix A). The groundwater flow within this aquifer is towards the

Brunswick River. The significant drop in groundwater level within the south-western portion of

the Site, from GQ6 to GQ1 was considered to be associated with the use of groundwater via

production bore located within the vicinity of these wells, affecting groundwater levels.

2.4.4 WIR bore search

The DoW Water Information Reporting (WIR) bore search was conducted on 23 January 2015

which showed a total 19 registered bores are located within 1 km radius of the Site, of which

one is located within the south western portion of the Site (near the gate house). A review of

ASK’s Groundwater Assessment, Stanley Road Waste Management Facility report (ASK, 2013)

identified that three of the 19 identified bores were production bores. The production bores

were located at the Site to the west (Catalano Pty Ltd), one to the south at the Class I landfill

(JW Cross & Sons) and one located directly on Site within the vicinity of the gate house.

Based on the outcomes of the WIR bore search, the majority of the registered bores were

located to the west of the Site. No additional information in relation to these groundwater

bores was provided within the search.

2.4.5 Beneficial uses of groundwater

Where groundwater quality is assessed, the most appropriate assessment levels depend on

the beneficial uses of groundwater itself as well as the discharge location. The DER

Assessment and management of contaminated sites (December, 2014) guidelines are

consistent with the National Environmental Protection Measure (NEPM) 2013, with

environmental values of water relevant to assessment of Site contamination in WA including:

Groundwater dependent ecosystems;

Aquatic ecosystems (fresh, marine and estuarine waters);

Drinking water (e.g. direct consumption but also applicable to bathing, filling

swimming pools, food preparation or cooking);

Non-potable use of water (e.g. irrigation of gardens or parks and reserves, washing

cars and clothes, flushing toilets);

Recreational use (e.g. water sports, swimming);

Agricultural use (e.g. stock water and commercial irrigation); and/or

Industrial use (e.g. process water).

Based on Talis’ current understanding of the Site and surrounding land uses in the area, the

following Site specific beneficial uses of groundwater have been considered:

Drinking water (private domestic groundwater bores located within 1 km of the Site);

Non-potable use (private domestic groundwater bores located within 1 km of the

Site);

Agricultural use (agricultural users of Brunswick River for irrigation); and

Industrial use (production bores located at and within the vicinity of 1 km of the Site).





3 Previous Groundwater Monitoring Data

As previously specified in Section 1.2, quarterly groundwater monitoring reports compiled by

GHD were reviewed for the period January 2011 to October 2014, this section describes

trends and fluctuations in groundwater concentrations of potential contaminants of concern

(PCoCs) over this period.

3.1 Assessment Criteria

Whilst the groundwater results within the GHD reports were compared to relevant assessment

criteria existing at the time of writing, the DER had since updated the relevant guidelines and

assessment criteria. Talis has therefore compared groundwater data obtained from these

GHD reports to the most recent groundwater assessment criteria as specified within the

current DER (2014) guidelines which are based on the updated NEPM 2013 guidelines and

derived from a number of sources, these include:

DER 2014 Fresh Water, derived from Australia and New Zealand Environment

Conservation Council (ANZECC) & Agriculture Resource Management Council of

Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) 2000 Fresh Water;

o This assessment criteria was adopted due to the Site being located within a

fresh-water system rather than marine water, within the vicinity of fresh water

rivers (Brunswick and Wellesley).

DER 2014 Drinking Water, derived from Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG)

2000 Drinking Water Health Value;

o This assessment criteria was adopted due to a number of registered

groundwater bores being located within the vicinity (<1 km) of the Site, which

may potentially be used as a source of drinking water.

DER 2014 Non-Potable Groundwater Use, derived from Department of Health (DoH)

2014 Non-Potable Groundwater Use (NPUG); and

o This assessment criteria was adopted due to a number of groundwater bores

being located within the vicinity (<1km) of the Site, which may be utilised for

non-potable sources i.e. watering gardens, filling swimming pools, washing

cars.

DER 2014 Long-term Irrigation water, derived from ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000) Long-

term Irrigation Water.

o This assessment criteria was adopted due to several production bores located

within the vicinity (<1 km) of the Site, which may be used for industrial

irrigation; and given that surface water abstraction from the Brunswick River

for irrigation purposes also occurs (Beckwirth Environmental, 2006). To be more

conservative, Talis has adopted Long-term Irrigation water criteria.

Groundwater data trends.

3.2 Groundwater depth fluctuations

Groundwater within both the shallow and deep aquifers was considered to be generally

consistent over the gauging period. Groundwater levels dropped significantly within the

shallow well GQ5S (ES) and rose at GQ4S 2S in October 2012. During the same period





(October 2012) groundwater levels rose significantly at GQ5D (ED). In general groundwater

levels were lower in April and higher in October see Chart 2 below.

Chart 2 Standing water levels

3.3 Groundwater flow direction

Groundwater contour plans prepared using limited survey data showed the general

groundwater flow within the shallow aquifer to be in a westerly direction within the south

western portion of the Site and north, north-west within the remainder of the Site, Appendix

A. It is considered that the localised groundwater flow direction to the west may be due to

groundwater use via production bore which is located to the west of the Site.

The general groundwater flow direction within the deep aquifer was generally in a southerly

direction. Groundwater flow within the south-western corner of the Site appeared to be

flowing in a south-easterly direction, with steep groundwater contours between wells GQ1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14Ja

n-1

1

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

m below TOC

Standing Water Levels - Shallow Wells

1S/GQ2S

2S/GQ4S

WS-R/GQ6S

ES/GQ5S

SES-R/GQ3S

GQ7S

GQ8S

GQ9S

GQ10S

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

m below TOC

Standing Water Levels - Deep Wells

1D/GQ2D

2D/GQ4D

WD/GQ6D

ED/GQ5D

SWD/GQ1D

GQ7D

GQ8D

GQ9D

GQ10D





and GQ6 (Appendix A). The groundwater flow within this aquifer is towards the Brunswick

River. The significant drop in groundwater level within the south-western portion of the Site,

from GQ6 to GQ1 may be associated with the use of groundwater via a production bore

located within the vicinity of these wells, affecting groundwater levels.

From the topographic survey there appears to be depressions in the terrain which during the

wetter periods appear to flood. However, from a cursory examination of the groundwater

data this ponding is likely to be closely associated with a rise in groundwater. As such these

depressions would act like sumps attracting the groundwater towards them. In doing so they

could significantly influence the groundwater profile.

3.3.1 General Field Observation

Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 below identifies general water quality field observations recorded by

GHD during groundwater sampling conducted between April 2013 and October 2014 (no

observations were recorded in prior reports reviewed).

Table 3-1: Water Quality field observations – Deep Wells

Date GQ1/

SWD

GQ2

/1D

GQ3/

SED

GQ4/

2D

GQ5/

ED

GQ6/

WD

GQ7 GQ8 GQ9 GQ10

Apr 13 NA O NA O O H - - - -

Jul 13 H NA NA O O H - - - -

Oct 13 SH O NA SO NA O - - - -

Jan 14 H SO O NA SO H - - - -

Apr 14 H NA O NA O H O O NA O

Jul 14 O O O O O O O O O O

Oct 14 O/H NA O NA SO O/H O O O NA

Note: SO – slight organic O – organic NA – no odour H – hydrocarbon odour - well not existing

O – highly organic O/H – organic/hydrocarbon

Table 3-2: Water Quality field observations – Shallow Wells

Date GQ1/

SWS-R

GQ2

/1S

GQ3/

SES-R

GQ4/

2S

GQ5/

ES

GQ6/

WS-R

GQ7 GQ8 GQ9 GQ10

Apr 13 O O O O O H - - - -

Jul 13 NA NA NA O O H - - - -

Oct 13 SH O SO O O O - - - -

Jan 14 NA O O O SO H - - - -

Apr 14 O O O O SO O O O O O

Jul 14 O O O O O O O O O O

Oct 14 SO NA SO O NA O O O NA O

Note: SO – slight organic O – organic NA – no odour H – hydrocarbon odour - well not existing

O – highly organic O/H – organic/hydrocarbon

As per Table 3-1 and Table 3-2, water quality field observations showed:

Predominantly organic odours were noted within the shallow wells, and a mixture of

hydrocarbon and organic odours within the deep wells;





During the various sampling rounds, hydrocarbon odours were only observed at wells

GQ6 (shallow), GQ1 (deep) and GQ6 (shallow and deep); and

During the last round of sampling no odours were observed at both shallow and deep

wells GQ2, shallow well GQ5 and GQ9 and deep wells GQ4 and GQ10.

Based on the above water quality field observations, it appears that groundwater at all

locations has potentially been impacted by leachate resultant from decomposition of

organic material resulting in the observed organic odours and leaching of hydrocarbons at

GW1 and GQ6 (both shallow and deep) resulting in observed hydrocarbon odours. Given

groundwater flow within the shallow aquifer has been established to generally be in a north,

north-westerly direction, there is potential that the Class I landfill located directly south of the

site may contribute to groundwater contamination identified at the Site.

3.4 Laboratory Results

Laboratory analysis results for sampling rounds completed between January 2011 and

October 2014 are summaries below.

3.4.1 Metals

3.4.1.1 Aluminium

There were no laboratory analysis conducted for Aluminium concentrations prior to January

2014, as shown in Chart 3 below. Concentrations were below Long-term Irrigation (5 mg/L)

criteria at all well locations during each sampling round. Concentrations at GW3S (SES),

GQ4S (2S), GQ5S (ES) and GQ9S exceeded Drinking Water (Aesthetic Value 0.2 mg/L) and

NPUG (0.2 mg/L) during each sampling round. In addition, with the exception of GQ1D,

GQ2D, GQ4D, GQ6S, GQ6D, GQ9D all wells exceeded Fresh Waters (0.055 mg/L) at least

three or more sampling rounds. Exceedances identified during the last round of sampling

(October 2014) were identified at GQ1S (SWS), GQ2S (1S), GQ3S (SES), GQ3D (SED), GQ4S

(2S), GQ5S (ES), GQ7S, GQ7D, GQ8S, GQ8D, GQ9S, GQ10S and GQ10D.





Chart 3 Aluminium Concentrations

3.4.1.2 Arsenic

Concentrations were below adopted assessment criteria at all locations with the exception

GQ6D (WD) which exceeded Drinking Water criteria in July 2011 and exceeded NPUG (0.1

mg/L) in October 2012, as shown in Chart 4. No exceedances were identified during the last

round of sampling (October 2014).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14

mg/L Aluminium SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

NPUG

Drinking Health Value

Fresh Water

LT irrigation





Chart 4 Arsenic concentrations

3.4.1.3 Cadmium

For cadmium, Chart 5 shows concentrations were below adopted assessment criteria and

below laboratory detection limits at all well locations with the exception of GQ6D (WD) in

October 2012 which exceeded Fresh Water criteria (0.0002mg/L). No exceedances were

identified during the last round of sampling (October 2014).

Chart 5 Cadmium concentrations

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12Ja

n-1

1

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

mg/L

Arsenic SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

NPUG

LT irrigation

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

mg/L

Cadmium SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

NPUG


Fresh Water

LT irrigation





3.4.1.4 Chromium

See Chart 6 below. Concentrations of chromium were below adopted assessment criteria at

all well locations during each sampling round as shown in Chart 6 below. Concentrations

identified at each well location fluctuated slightly with lowest concentrations generally

observed during May and October sampling rounds. No exceedances were identified

during the last round of sampling (October 2014).

Chart 6 Chromium concentrations

3.4.1.5 Copper

Concentrations fluctuated over the monitoring period and were below NPUG (20 mg/L) and

Drinking Water (2 mg/L) criteria at all well locations. Exceedences in Fresh Water criteria

(0.0014 mg/L) were recorded at all well locations during at least one sampling round with the

exception of GQ7S, GQ7D, GQ8S, GQ9D, GQ10S, GQ10D. Highest concentrations were

recorded at GQ6D (WD) in October 2012 followed by GQ4D (2D) in July 2013 as shown in

Chart 7 below.

With the exception of April and July 2013 sampling rounds, concentrations at GQ2S (1S),

GQ2D (1D), GQ4D (2D), GQ5D (ED) and GQ1S (SWD) were below all adopted assessment

criteria. No exceedances were identified during the last round of sampling (October 2014).

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

mg/L

Chromium SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

LT irrigation





Chart 7 Copper concentrations

3.4.1.6 Iron

Groundwater was not analysed for iron between July 2012 and October 2013, resulting in a

data gap. Concentrations at each well location exceeded Fresh Water (0.3 mg/L), Drinking

Water (Aesthetic Value 0.3 mg/L), NPUG (0.3 mg/L) and Long-term Irrigation (0.2 mg/L)

assessment criteria during every sampling event. Concentrations have fluctuated up and

down during the rounds, whilst fluctuations have been reported a general trend at wells

GQ6D (WD), GQ6S (WS-R), GQ1D (SWD), GQ2D (1D) show increase in concentrations, and

decrease in concentrations at the other well locations, as shown in Chart 8 below.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

mg/L

Copper SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D


Fresh Water

LT irrigation





Chart 8 Iron concentrations

3.4.1.7 Lead

As shown in Chart 9 below, concentrations were below Drinking Water (0.01 mg/L), NPUG

(0.1 mg/L), Long-term Irrigation (2 mg/L) and Fresh Water (0.0034 mg/L) assessment criteria at

all well locations during every sampling event with the exception of GQ1D (SWD) in January

2012, GQ6S (WS-R) in April 2012 and GQ6D (WD) in October 2012 which exceeded Fresh

Water criteria.

Concentrations at GQ4S (2S), GQ6D (WD), GQ5S (ES), GQ3S (SES-R), GQ1S (SWS-R) and

GQ10S fluctuated up and down with highest concentrations at GQ5S (ES) occurring in April

and no particular correlation between month and concentrations observed at the other

wells. Concentrations at the other wells not mentioned previously were consistent with no

fluctuations in concentrations, with reported concentrations below laboratory detection

limits.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Ja

n-1

1

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

mg/L

Iron SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

NPUG

Drinking Aesthetic Value

Fresh Water

LT irrigation





Chart 9 Lead concentrations

3.4.1.8 Manganese

Concentrations were below NPUG (5 mg/L) and Fresh Water (1.9 mg/L) criteria at all wells

during all sample rounds. Concentrations at all wells were also below Long-term Irrigation (0.2

mg/L) and Drinking Water (0.5 mg/L) criteria with the exceptions of GQ4D (2D), GW4S (2S)

(during April 2011) and GQ6S (WS-R) which has fluctuated up and down since January 2011,

falling below Long-term Irrigation criteria during sampling rounds conducted in July 2011 and

January 2012, as shown in Chart 10 below.

Concentrations were generally stable over the sampling rounds with the exceptions of GQ4D

(2D) and GQ6S (WS-R) which fluctuated, with the concentrations generally greatest at

GQ4D, with lowest concentrations GQ3S (SES-R). Exceedances identified during the last

round of sampling (October 2014) were recorded at GQ6S (WS-R) and GQ4D (2D) which

exceeded Long-term Irrigation criteria.

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12Ja

n-1

1

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

mg/L

Lead SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

NPUG


Fresh Water





Chart 10 Manganese concentrations

3.4.1.9 Mercury

Sampling rounds prior to January 2014 were not analysed for mercury. As shown in Chart 11

concentrations of mercury were below adopted assessment criteria and below laboratory

detection limits at all sample locations during each sample round. No exceedances were

identified during the last round of sampling (October 2014).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

mg/L

Manganese SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

NPUG


Fresh Water

LT irrigation





Chart 11 Mercury concentrations

3.4.1.10 Nickel

Concentrations were below all adopted assessment criteria at all well locations with the

exception of GQ6D (WD) which exceeded Drinking Water (0.02 mg/L) and Fresh Waters

(0.011 mg/L) criteria in July 2011, and GQ7S which exceeded Fresh Waters criteria in January

2014. Concentrations have relatively stayed stable, fluctuating between <0.001 and 0.006

mg/L with a general increase in concentrations at GQ6D (WD) and GQ6S (WS-R) over the

monitoring period as shown below in Chart 12. No exceedances were identified during the

last round of sampling (October 2014).

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02Ja

n-1

1

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

mg/L

Mercury SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

NPUG


Fresh Water

LT irrigation





Chart 12 Nickel concentrations

3.4.1.11 Selenium

No laboratory analysis was conducted for Selenium concentrations in groundwater prior to

January 2014. Concentrations recorded in 2014 were below Fresh Water (0.005 mg/L),

Drinking Water (0.1 mg/L), NPUG (0.1 mg/L) and Long-term Irrigation (0.2 mg/L) during each

sampling round at each well location, with majority of reporting concentrations below

laboratory detection limits. No apparent trend was observed in concentration fluctuations

as shown below in Chart 13. Concentrations were below assessment criteria during the last

round of sampling conducted (October 2014).

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25Ja

n-1

1

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

mg/L

Nickel SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

NPUG


Fresh Water

LT irrigation





Chart 13 Selenium concentrations

3.4.1.12 Zinc

As shown in Chart 14, concentrations were below adopted assessment criteria at all well

locations for Drinking Water (3 mg/L), NPUG (3 mg/L) and Long-term Irrigation (2 mg/L).

Concentrations exceeded Fresh Water guidelines (0.008 mg/L) at all well locations at least

one occasion. Concentrations at all well locations fluctuated up and down over the

sampling rounds, with a general minor decrease in concentrations since January 2014, with

highest concentrations recorded at GQ4S (2S) in July 2013. No exceedances were identified


0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

Jan-14 Apr-14 Jul-14 Oct-14

mg/L

Selenium SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

NPUG


Fresh Water

LT irrigation





Chart 14 Zinc concentrations

3.4.2 BTEX

3.4.2.1 Benzene

Concentrations were below Fresh Water (0.95 mg/L) and NPUG (0.01 mg/L) assessment

criteria at all wells. Concentrations were below Drinking Water (0.001 mg/L) criteria and

below laboratory detection limits at all wells with the exception of GQ6D (WD) and GQ6S

(WS-R) during each sampling round and GW8D and GQ8D during October 2014 (first

sampling round where benzene was analysed) as shown below in Chart 15. Concentrations

at GQ6S and GQ6D showed an increasing trend in concentrations.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

mg/L

Zinc SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

NPUG

Fresh Water

LT irrigation





Chart 15 Benzene concentrations

3.4.2.2 Toluene

Concentrations were generally stable over the sampling rounds at all well locations, with

highest concentrations observed at GQ8D and GQ8S in October 2014. Concentrations were

below Drinking Water (0.8 mg/L) criteria at all well locations. Concentrations were also

below NPUG (0.025 mg/L) at all well locations during each sampling round with the

exception GQ8S and GW8D which exceeded the criteria in October 2014 (first sampling

round where toluene was analysed), as shown in Chart 16 below.

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14

mg/L

Benzene GQ1D/SWD

GQ1S/SWS

GQ2D/1D

GQ2S/1S

GQ3D/SED

GQ3S/SES

GQ4D/2D

GQ4S/2S

GQ5D/ED

GQ5S/ES

GQ6D/WD

GQ6S/WSR

GQ7D

GQ7S

GQ8D

GQ8S

GQ9D

GQ9S

GQ10D

GQ10S

NPUG






Chart 16 Toluene concentrations

3.4.2.3 Ethylbenzene

As shown in Chart 17 Concentrations were below Drinking Water (0.3 mg/L) and NPUG (0.003

mg/L) at all well locations during each sampling round. Concentrations were below

laboratory detection limits during each round with the exception of GQ6S (WS-R) in October

2012 where detectable concentrations were reported. No exceedances were identified


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9


mg/L

Toluene GQ1D/SWD

GQ1S/SWS

GQ2D/1D

GQ2S/1S

GQ3D/SED

GQ3S/SES

GQ4D/2D

GQ4S/2S

GQ5D/ED

GQ5S/ES

GQ6D/WD

GQ6S/WSR

GQ7D

GQ7S

GQ8D

GQ8S

GQ9D

GQ9S

GQ10D

GQ10S

NPUG






Chart 17 Ethylbenzene concentrations

3.4.2.4 Xylenes

As shown below in Chart 18, concentrations were below Fresh Water (0.55 mg/L), Drinking

Water (0.6 mg/L) and NPUG (0.02 mg/L) assessment criteria and below laboratory reporting

limits at all well locations during each sampling round. No exceedances were identified


Chart 18 Xylenes concentrations

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3


Ethylbenzene GQ1D/SWD

GQ1S/SWS

GQ2D/1D

GQ2S/1S

GQ3D/SED

GQ3S/SES

GQ4D/2D

GQ4S/2S

GQ5D/ED

GQ5S/ES

GQ6D/WD

GQ6S/WSR

GQ7D

GQ7S

GQ8D

GQ8S

GQ9D

GQ9S

GQ10D

GQ10S

NPUG


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7


mg/L

Xylenes Total GQ1D

GQ1S

GQ2D

GQ2S

GQ3D

GQ3S

GQ4D

GQ4S

GQ5D

GQ5S

GQ6D

GQ6S

GQ7D

GQ7S

GQ8D

GQ8S

GQ9D

GQ9S

GQ10D

GQ10S

NPUG


Fresh Water





3.4.3 PAH

3.4.3.1 Naphthalene

Concentrations were below Fresh Water (0.016 mg/L) assessment criteria at all well locations

during each sampling round. As shown below in Chart 19, detectable concentrations were

identified in GQ1D (SWD), GQ6D (WSD), GQ6S (WS-R), GQ7D, GQ7S, GQ8D, GQ8S, GQ9D

and GQ9S, which were generally increasing in concentrations with time. No exceedances

were identified during the last round of sampling (October 2014).

Chart 19 Naphthalene concentrations

3.4.3.2 BaP

Concentrations were below Drinking Water (0.00001 mg/L) and NPUG (0.0001 mg/L)

assessment criteria and below laboratory reporting limits at all well locations during each

sampling round, as shown in Chart 20 below. No exceedances were identified during the

last round of sampling (October 2014).

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

0.014

0.016

0.018


Naphthalene GQ1D

GQ1S

GQ2D

GQ2S

GQ3D

GQ3S

GQ4D

GQ4S

GQ5D

GQ5S

GQ6D

GQ6S

GQ7D

GQ7S

GQ8D

GQ8S

GQ9D

GQ9S

GQ10D

GQ10S

Fresh Water





Chart 20 BaP concentrations

3.4.4 TRH

3.4.4.1 TRH C10-C36

Concentrations at GQ6S (WS-R) and GQ6D (WD) exceeded Dutch Intervention Value for

Mineral Oil (VROM) adopted assessment criteria during each sampling event.

Concentrations generally decreased between 2011 and 2012, spiked between 2012 and

2013 and decreased between 2013 and 2014 sampling rounds, as shown in Chart 21 below.

During the last round of sampling (October 2014) exceedances were recorded at GQ2S,

GQ5D, GQ6S, GW6D, GQ7D, GW7S, GQ8D and GW8S.

0

0.00002

0.00004

0.00006

0.00008

0.0001

0.00012


BaP GQ1D

GQ1S

GQ2D

GQ2S

GQ3D

GQ3S

GQ4D

GQ4S

GQ5D

GQ5S

GQ6D

GQ6S

GQ7D

GQ7S

GQ8D

GQ8S

GQ9D

GQ9S

GQ10D

GQ10S

NPUG






Chart 21 TRH C10-C36 concentrations

3.4.5 Nutrients

3.4.5.1 Ammonia

Laboratory analysis was conducted for ammonia between July 2013 and October 2014 with

some data gaps at several wells. Concentrations were generally stable at most of the well

locations, with concentrations below 26 mg/L. Concentrations outliers occurred at GQ6S

(WS-R) which showed high concentrations 46-260 mg/L with a general increase in

concentrations. Wells GQ8s and GQ8D were only analysed for ammonia on two occasions

which showed highest concentrations over 220 mg/L as shown in Chart 22 below.

Concentrations at GQ2D, GQ5S and GQ10S were below NPUG (0.5 mg/L) during each

sampling round. Concentrations at the remainder of the wells exceeded the criteria during

at least one round of sampling. During the last round of sampling (October 2014)

exceedances were identified at GQ2S, GQ3D, GQ4D, GQ6S, GQ6D, GQ7S, GQ7D, GQ8S,

GQ8D, GQ9D and GQ10D.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


mg/L

TRH C10-C36 GQ1D

GQ1S

GQ2D

GQ2S

GQ3D

GQ3S

GQ4D

GQ4S

GQ5D

GQ5S

GQ6D

GQ6S

GQ7D

GQ7S

GQ8D

GQ8S

GQ9D

GQ9S

GQ10D

GQ10S

Dutch intervation

Dutch Intervention Value





Chart 22 Ammonia concentrations

3.4.5.2 Ammonia-Nitrogen

As shown in Chart 23 below, concentrations at all well locations exceeded NPUG (0.5 mg/L)

during at least one sampling round. Minor fluctuations with concentrations generally <1

mg/L were observed at majority of the wells. Concentrations at GQ6D (WD) and GQ2S (1S)

showed greater fluctuations with highest concentrations observed in at GQ6D (WD) in

October and with lowest concentrations occurring at GQ2D (1D) at this time with the highest

observed in the April sampling rounds. Concentrations as can be seen below, fluctuated

significantly up and down with a general increase in concentrations at GQ6S (WS-R),

peaking in July 2014. GQ8S and GQ8D were sampled from April 2014 showing an increase in

concentrations.

During the last round of sampling (October 2014) exceedances were identified at GQ1D,

GQ2S (1S), GQ3D (SED), GQ4D (2D), GQ5D (ED), GQ6S (WSR), GQ6D (WD), GQ7S, GQ7D,

GQ8S, GQ8D, GQ9D and GQ10D.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Jul-13 Oct-13 Jan-14 Apr-14 Jul-14 Oct-14

mg/L

Ammonia SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D





Chart 23 Ammonia-Nitrogen concentrations

3.4.5.3 Total Nitrogen

As shown in Chart 24 below, concentrations exceeded Fresh Water (2 mg/L) adopted

assessment criteria at all wells during at least one sampling round. Concentrations were

highest at GQ6S (WS-R) during each sampling round with highest recorded concentrations in

October 2011 with highest concentrations occurring in October sampling rounds. In addition

GQ8S and GQ8D were significantly higher that the remainder of the wells. Concentrations at

the remainder of the wells were generally less than 25 mg/L, with a spike in concentrations

occurring in January 2013. Exceedances identified during the last round of sampling

(October 2014) were identified at all well locations with the exception of GQ10S.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200Ja

n-1

1

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

mg/L

Ammonia-Nitrogen SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

Fresh Water





Chart 24 Total Nitrogen concentrations

3.4.5.4 Nitrate

Concentrations were below Drinking Water (50 mg/L) and NPUG (500 mg/L) assessment

criteria at all locations during each sampling round. A data gap was observed during

January 2014 sampling round. Concentrations at all well locations were generally below 10

mg/L with the exception of GQ2S (1S) during January 2014 and October 2014 sampling

round, with highest concentrations observed in October 2014, as shown in Chart 25 below.

No exceedances were identified during the last round of sampling (October 2014).

0

100

200

300

400

500

600Ja

n-1

1

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

mg/L

Total Nitrogen SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

Fresh Water





Chart 25 Nitrate concentrations

3.4.5.5 Phosphorus

Concentrations exceeded Fresh Water (0.2 mg/L) criteria at wells GQ4S (2S), GQ2S (1S),

GQ3S (SES) and GQ8D. General trend shows fluctuations in concentrations over time, with

concentrations peaking in January 2014, as shown in Chart 26 below. No exceedances were

identified during the last round of sampling (October 2014)

Chart 26 Phosphorus concentrations

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Jan-13 Apr-13 Jul-13 Oct-13 Jan-14 Apr-14 Jul-14 Oct-14

mg/L

Nitrate SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

NPUG

Drinking Water

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

mg/L

Total Phosphorus SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

Fresh Water





3.4.5.6 COD

COD was not monitored prior to January 2014. Concentrations varied between the wells,

with majority of the wells having concentrations below 200 mg/L with generally stable

concentrations. Highest concentrations and fluctuations observed were at GQ3S (SES) and

GQ6S (WS-R), GQ5D, GQ6D, GQ8S and GQ8D, as shown in Chart 27 below No criteria for

COD is available within the DER (2014) guidelines.

Chart 27 COD concentrations

3.4.6 Major Cations

3.4.6.1 Calcium

Calcium was not monitored prior to January 2014. Concentrations were relatively stable at

the wells over the sampling rounds. Generally the highest concentrations were identified at

GQ6S (WS-R) as shown in Chart 28 below. No criteria for calcium is available within the DER

(2014) guidelines.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600


mg/L

COD SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D





Chart 28 Calcium concentrations

3.4.6.2 Magnesium

Magnesium was not monitored prior to January 2014. Concentrations were relatively stable

at most of the wells. Concentrations were generally constant over the sampling rounds, with

the exception of GQ3S (SES) which showed a large decrease between July 2014 and

October 2014. Generally the highest concentrations were identified at GW3S (SES), GW6S

(WS-R) and GQ6D (WD), as shown in Chart 29 below. No criteria for magnesium is available

within the DER (2014) guidelines.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200


mg/L

Calcium SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D





Chart 29 Magnesium concentrations

3.4.6.3 Sodium

Sodium was not monitored prior to January 2014. Concentrations were relatively stable at all

wells with the exception of GW3S (SES) which showed a significant decrease between April

2014 and October 2014, as shown in Chart 30 below. No criteria for sodium is available within

the DER (2014) guidelines.

Chart 30 Sodium concentrations

0

50

100

150

200

250

300


mg/L

Magnesium SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600


mg/L

Sodium SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D





3.4.6.4 Potassium

As shown in Chart 31, potassium concentrations were generally stable over the monitoring

period at all wells with the exception of GQ6S (WS-R) with large fluctuations with a general

increase in concentrations over time and GQ3S (SES) which fluctuate up and down over the

monitoring period, with highest concentrations recorded in April and lowest concentrations

in October months. Concentrations at GQ6S (WS-R) and GQ7S peaked in July 2014. There

are no criteria for potassium within DER (2014) guidelines.

Chart 31 Potassium concentrations

3.4.7 Major Anions

3.4.7.1 Chloride

Concentrations exceeded Drinking Water (Aesthetic 250 mg/L) NPUG (250 mg/L) adopted

assessment criteria at all wells during one or more sampling rounds with the exception of

GQ4S, GQ5S, GQ9S, GQ10S and GQ10D. Concentrations were highest at GQ3S (SES) with

major fluctuations observed, with highest concentrations in April and lowest in October

sampling rounds as shown in Chart 32 below. The remainder of the wells showed generally

stable concentrations. During the last round of sampling (October 2014) exceedances were

identified at GQ1D (SWD), GQ2S (1S), GQ2D (1D), GQ3S (SES), GQ5D (ED), GQ6S (WS-R),

GQ6D (WD), GQ7S, GQ7D, GQ8S, and GQ8D.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

mg/L

Potassium SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D





Chart 32 Chloride concentrations

3.4.7.2 Sulphate

Laboratory analysis was conducted between January 2011-April 2012 and January 2014-

October 2014, with a data gap from April 2012 to January 2014. As shown Chart 33 below,

concentrations were below NPUG (1,000 mg/L) at each well location during each sampling

round, and below Drinking Water (Health Value, 500 mg/L) at each well location during each

sampling round with the exception of GQ2S (1S) in April 2014 and October 2014.

Concentrations at GQ1S (1S) and GQ2D (1D) exceeded Drinking Water (Aesthetic Value, 250

mg/L) during one or more sampling rounds. No particular trend was evident over the

monitoring period. Concentrations at GQ2S (1S) slightly exceeded Drinking Water (Health

and Aesthetic Value) during the last round of sampling (October 2014).

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000Ja

n-1

1

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

mg/L

Chloride SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

NPUG





Chart 33 Sulphate concentrations

3.4.7.3 Alkalinity

Alkalinity/hardness was not monitored prior to January 2014. As shown in Chart 34 below,

concentrations at GQ1D, GQ2S, GQ6S, GQ6D, GQ7S, GQ8S and GQ8D exceeded Drinking

Water (Aesthetic, 200 mg/L) during one or more rounds. Concentrations were generally

stable with the exception of GQ6S (WS-R) GQ8S and GQ8D which showed fluctuations over

the limited monitoring period. Concentrations at GQ1D (SWD), GQ2S (1S), GQ6S (WS-R),

GQ6D (WD), GQ8S and GQ8D, exceeded the adopted assessment criteria during the last

sampling round (October 2014).

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200Ja

n-1

1

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

mg/L

Sulphate SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

NPUG

Drinking Water Health Value

Drinking Water Aesthetic





Chart 34 Hardness/Alkalinity concentrations

3.4.8 Pesticides

Laboratory analysis for organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides was conducted

annually during the October sampling round. Concentrations at each well location during

each sampling round were below adopted assessment criteria and below laboratory

detection limits.

3.4.9 Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Laboratory analysis for PCBs was conducted annually during the October sampling round.

Concentrations at each well location during each sampling round were below adopted

assessment criteria and below laboratory detection limits.

3.4.10 Physical Parameters

3.4.10.1 pH

The DER pH range for Drinking Water and Fresh Water is between 6.5-8.5. The pH at all the

wells during each sampling round did not exceed the upper limit of this range, however was

below the lower 6.5 limit at all wells with the exception of GQ7S, GQ9S and GQ10S during

one or more sampling rounds as shown in Chart 35 below. During the last sampling round

(October 2014), pH at the following wells were below the lower limit GQ1S (SWS), GQ2D (1D),

GQ3S (SES), GQ4S (2S), GQ5S (ES), GQ5D (ED),GQ7D, GQ9S and GQ10D.

The pH was considered to be stable with a general trend showing a slight increase over time.

With the exception of GQ1D (SWD) where pH fell in July 2011 no major fluctuations have

been observed. Groundwater was considered to be generally slightly acidic to neutral.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500


Alkalinity/Hardness SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

Fresh Water





Chart 35 pH concentrations

3.4.10.2 Conductivity

As shown in Chart 36 below, conductivity was generally stable over time at each of the wells

with the exception of GQ3S (SES) and GQ6S (WS-R) which showed large fluctuations.

Seasonal fluctuations were observed at GQ3S (SES), with highest conductivity occurring in

April and lowest in October sampling months, and highest at GQ6 (WS-R) recorded in

October and lowest in April sampling months.

Chart 36 Conductivity concentrations

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

pH SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D

pH Fresh Water upper limit

pH Fresh Water lower limit

pH LT irrigation lower limit

pH LT irrigation upper limit

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Conductivity SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D





3.4.10.3 TDS

As per the conductivity observations, concentrations were generally consistent over time at

each of the wells with the exception of GQ3S (SES) and GQ6S (WS-R) which showed large

fluctuations. Seasonal fluctuations were observed at GQ3S (SES), with highest TDS

concentrations occurring in April and lowest in October sampling months, with highest

concentrations at GQ6 (WS-R) recorded in October and lowest in April sampling months, as

shown in Chart 37 below.

Chart 37 TDS concentrations

3.4.10.4 TOC

Laboratory analysis was conducted for TOC between January 2011 and April 2012 and

January 2014 and October 2014. Concentrations within the shallow wells fluctuated up and

down over the monitoring period with a general increase in concentrations. As shown below

in Chart 38, concentrations within the deep wells was generally steady with no major

fluctuations with the exception of GQ5D (ED) in July 2014. There is currently no assessment

criteria for TOC provided in DER 2014 guidelines.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

mg/L

TDS SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D





Chart 38 TOC concentrations

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180Ja

n-1

1

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

mg/L

TOC SWS-R/GQ1S

SWD/GQ1D

1S/GQ2S

1D/GQ2D

SES/GQ3S

SED/GQ3D

2S/GQ4S

2D/GQ4D

ES/GQ5S

ED/GQ5D

WS-R/GQ6S

WD/GQ6D

GQ7S

GQ7D

GQ8S

GQ8D

GQ9S

GQ9D

GQ10S

GQ10D





4 Summary of Key Findings

The licensing requirements for the groundwater analysis schedule varied over the course of

the monitoring period (2011-2014), which has resulted in several data gaps for certain

analytes. However, based on available data, trends and the lack of trends have been

established. The sections below summarises the key findings associated with water quality at

the Site.

It needs to be noted that concentrations of contaminants of concern were highly variable

with little or no consistency across the Site over the monitoring rounds with the exception of

GQ7 and GQ8 which is discussed below. While groundwater flows in opposing directions

within the shallow and deep aquifer, this indicates that the aquiclude is considered to be

complete. However, contrary to this as shown in charts provided in Section 3, given

concentrations within deeper aquifer at some locations showed greater concentrations than

those recorded within the shallow aquifer, it is understood that the aquiclude may potentially

have been breached resultant of groundwater well installation and historical

excavation/sand mining activities.

4.1 Metals

Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium and zinc

were below adopted assessment criteria during the last sampling round (October 2014).

Additionally, concentrations were below adopted assessment criteria over the monitoring

assessment criteria with the exception of:

Arsenic, cadmium and lead at GQ6D (WD) in October 2012;

Chromium at GQ1D (SWD) in January 2012;

Lead at GQ4D (2D) and GQ4S (2S) in April 2011 and GQ6S (WS-R) in April 2012; and

Nickel at GQ6D (WD) in July 2011 and GQ7S in January 2014.

Concentrations of aluminium exceeded adopted assessment criteria at majority of the wells

over the sampling period with exceedances identified at GQ1S (SWS), GQ2S (1S), GQ3S

(SES), GQ3D (SED), GQ4S (2S), GQ5S (ES), GQ7S, GQ7D, GQ8S, GQ8D, GQ9S, GQ10S and

GQ10D.

Zinc concentrations fluctuated across the sampling rounds exceeding Fresh Water criteria at

each well during at least one sampling round. Concentrations during the last round at each

well location were however below all adopted assessment criteria.

Concentrations of iron exceeded all adopted assessment criteria at each well during each

sampling round.

To summarise Table 4-1 shows the number of times each metal has been subject to

laboratory analysis over the last four years, the number of times each was in exceedance of

at least one assessment criteria and the relevant percentage concentrations of each

analyte were in exceedance of an assessment criteria.





Table 4-1: Metal Exceedances

Al As Cd Cr Cu Fe Pb Mn Ni Se Zn Hg

# times

analysed

4 16 16 16 16 10 16 16 16 4 16 4

GQ1S 4

(100%)

0 0 0 11

(69%)

10

(100%)

0 0 0 0 10

(63%)

0

GQ1D 0 0 0 0 1

(6%)

10

(100%)

1

(6%)

0 0 0 9

(56%)

0

GQ2S 3 (75%) 0 0 0 1

(6%)

10

(100%)

0 0 0 0 10

(63%)

0

GQ2D 0 0 0 0 1

(6%)

10

(100%)

0 0 0 0 10

(63%)

0

GQ3S 4

(100%)

0 0 0 7

(44%)

10

(100%)

0 0 0 0 11

(69%)

0

GQ3D 3 (75%) 0 0 0 2

(13%)

10

(100%)

0 0 0 0 10

(63%)

0

GQ4S 4

(100%)

0 0 0 2

(13%)

10

(100%)

0 1

(6%)

0 0 12

(75%)

0

GQ4D 0 0 0 0 3

(13%)

10

(100%)

0 1

(6%)

0 0 8

(50%)

0

GQ5S 4

(100%)

0 0 0 11

(69%)

10

(100%)

0 0 0 0 10

(63%)

0

GQ5D 1 (25%) 0 0 0 2

(13%)

10

(100%)

0 0 0 0 9

(56%)

0

GQ6S 0 0 0 0 1

(6%)

10

(100%)

1

(6%)

1

(6%)

0 0 5

(31%)

0

GQ6D 0 2

(12%)

1

(6%)

0 16

(100%)

10

(100%)

1

(6%)

0 1

(6%)

0 10

(63%)

0

# times

analysed

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

GQ7S 3 (75%) 0 0 0 0 3

(100%)

0 0 1

(6%)

0 0 0

GQ7D 3 (75%) 0 0 0 0 3

(100%)

0 0 0 0 0 0

GQ8S 3 (75%) 0 0 0 0 3

(100%)

0 0 0 0 0 0

GQ8D 3 (75%) 0 0 0 1 3

(100%)

0 0 0 0 0 0

GQ9S 3 (75%) 0 0 0 2 3

(100%)

0 0 0 0 0 0

GQ9D 0 0 0 0 0 3

(100%)

0 0 0 0 0 0

GQ10S 2 (50%) 0 0 0 0 3

(100%)

0 0 0 0 0 0

GQ10D 3 (75%) 0 0 0 0 3

(100%)

0 0 0 0 0 0





4.2 Hydrocarbons

Hydrocarbon exceedances identified during the sampling rounds comprised:

Benzene at GQ6D (WD), GQ6S (WS-R), GQ8D and GQ8S which exceeded Drinking

water criteria during each annual sampling round (October 2011-October 2014);

Toluene at GQ8D and GQ8S which exceeded NPUG in October 2014; and

TRH C10-C36 at each well during one or more rounds with the exception of GQ3S

(SES) and GQ5S (ES) which exceeded Dutch Intervention Value for Mineral Oil.

In general, trends observed showed increases in concentrations where exceedances were

observed with the remainder of the wells showing stable concentrations. Toluene

concentrations were stable across the sampling rounds, with exceedances observed during

the last round of sampling at GQ8D and GQ8S which was the first time these wells were

analysed for toluene. Concentrations of TRH C10-C36 also generally increased over time,

with concentrations peaking in October 2013, with a decrease in concentration during

October 2014 sampling round. Exceedances during the last sampling round (October 2014)

were identified at GQ2S (1S), GQ5D (ED), GQ6D (WD), GQ6S (WS-R), GQ8S and GQ8D.

Concentrations of all other hydrocarbons analysed and not mentioned above comprising

TRH, BTEX and PAH were below adopted assessment criteria.

4.3 Nutrients

Ammonia concentrations were generally stable across the monitoring period, with

exceedances in NPUG adopted assessment criteria at majority of the wells. During the last

sampling round (October 2014) exceedances were identified at GQ2S (1S), GQ3D (SED),

GQ4D (2D), GQ6S (WS-R), GQ6D (WD), GQ7S, GQ7D, GQ8S, GQ8D, GQ9D and GQ10D.

Ammonia Nitrogen concentrations exceeded NPUG criteria during the last sampling round

(October 2014) at GQ1D (SWD), GQ2S (1S), GQ3D (SED), GQ4D (2D), GQ5D (ED), GQ6S (WS-

R), GQ 6D, GQ 7S, GQ 7D, GQ 8S, GQ 8D, GQ 9D and GQ10D.

Concentrations of nitrate were below adopted assessment criteria during each sampling

round.

Trends showed concentrations of total nitrogen to be greatest at GQ6S over the monitoring

period. Total nitrogen exceeded adopted Fresh Water (Health Value) assessment criteria at

all wells during the last sampling round (October 2014).

Phosphorus concentrations showed a general decrease in concentrations over time, with

concentrations peaking in April 2014 sampling round. Exceedances in Long-term Irrigation

assessment criteria during the last sampling round (October 2014) were identified at GQ1S,

GQ4D, GQ5S GQ8S and GQ8D.

To summaries, Table 4-2 shows the number of times each nutrient has been subject to

laboratory analysis over the last four years, the number of times each was in exceedance of

at least one assessment criteria and the relevant percentage concentrations of each

analyte were in exceedance of an assessment criteria.





Table 4-2: Nutrient exceedances

Ammonia Ammonia- Nitrogen

Total Nitrogen

Nitrate Phosphorus

# times analysed 4 16 16 5 14

GQ1S 3 (75%) 13 (81%) 5 (31%) 0 0

GQ1D 4 (100%) 16 (100%) 16 (100%) 0 0

GQ2S 4 (100%) 16 (100%) 16 100%) 0 0


GQ2D 0 0 7 (47%) 0 0

GQ3S 1 (25%) 6 (38%) 15 (100%) 5


GQ3D 3 (100%) 7 (44%) 15 (100%) 0 0

GQ4S 1 (33%) 8 (50%) 15 (100%) 0 1 (7%)


GQ4D 4 (80%) 12 (75%) 15 (100%) 0 0


GQ5S 0 2 (13%) 15 (100%) 0 10 (71%)


GQ5D 4 (80%) 15 (94%) 15 (100%) 0 0


GQ6S 4 (100%) 15 (94%) 15 (100%) 0 0


GQ6D 2 (100%) 16 (100%) 15 (100%) 0 0


GQ7S 2 (100%) 3 (100%) 2 (100%) 0 0

GQ7D 2 (100%) 3 (100%) 2 (100%) 0 0

GQ8S 2 (100%) 3 (100%) 2 (100%) 0 0

GQ8D 2 (100%) 3 (100%) 2 (100%) 0 1 (33%)


GQ9S 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 2 (100%) 0 1 (33%)

GQ9D 3 (100%) 3 (100%) 2 (100%) 0 0


GQ10S 0 0 1 (50%) 0 0

GQ10D 2 (100%) 3 (100%) 2 (100%) 0 0

4.4 Major Anions

Major anions analysed comprised chloride, sulphate and alkalinity.

Chloride concentrations were generally stable across the sampling rounds, with major

seasonal fluctuations observed at GQ3S. Chloride exceedances of adopted assessment

criteria comprising Drinking Water (Aesthetic) and NPUG during the last sampling round





(October 2014) were identified at GQ1D, GQ2S, GQ2D, GQ3S, GQ5D, GQ6S, GQ6D, GQ7S,

GQ7D, GQ8S, and GQ8D.

No general trend could be established for sulphate concentrations given a large data gap

from April 2012 to January 2014. Concentrations however were below adopted assessment

criteria comprising NPUG and Drinking Water (Health Value) during each sampling round at

each well with the exception of GQ2S which exceeded Drinking Water (Health Value) in April

2014 and October 2014.

In relation to alkalinity/hardness, this was not monitored prior to 2014. Analysis results for 2014

showed some exceedances over the monitoring period with concentrations to be in

exceedance of Drinking Water (Aesthetic Value) at GQ1D, GQ2S, GQ6S, GQ6D, GQ8S and

GQ8D during the last sampling round (October 2014).

4.5 Major Cations

Major cations analysed comprised calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium. No current

DER assessment criteria are available for cations. Major cations with the exception of

potassium were not analysed prior to January 2014.

Concentrations of calcium, magnesium and sodium stayed relatively stable over the with the

exception of GW3S (SES) which showed a significant decrease in sodium concentrations

between April 2014 and October 2014.

Potassium concentrations were generally stable at majority of the wells with large fluctuations

observed at GQ6S (WS-R) and GQ3S (SES). Highest concentrations of potassium at GQ6S

(WS-R) were observed in October with lowest in April and the opposite.

4.6 Pesticides and PCBs

No exceedances of OCPs, OPPs or PCBs were identified at any of the well locations during

the annual sampling rounds conducted in October of each year. In addition, concentrations

were below laboratory detection limits. It is therefore in considered that there is no risk to

human or ecological health relation to pesticide and PCB concentrations.

4.7 GQ7 and GQ8

As previously stated in Section 2.3.2, it appears that the shallow groundwater well GQ7S was

installed too deep, which targets groundwater within both the shallow and deep aquifers.

This is further supported by very similar groundwater chemistry reported at GQ7S and GQ7D,

whereas there appears to be no connectivity between the shallow and deep aquifer at all

other well locations with the exception of GQ8.

The groundwater chemistry reported at both GQ8S and GQ8D was very similar. Based on

the drillers logs (GHD, 2014b), it appears that the shallow groundwater well GQ8S was

installed correctly with sufficient separation distance between the shallow and the deep

aquifer. Following discussions with BHRC, it was identified that GQ8 had been installed too

deep, targeting both shallow and deep aquifer (as at GQ7).

Rectification measures are required to ensure that any potential pathways from the

breaches aquiclude at the two groundwater well locations (GQ7 and GQ8) are eradicated.





BHRC advised that this issue at GQ8 has since been rectified. The next round of quarterly

groundwater monitoring will confirm whether this has been successful or not.





5 Conceptual Site Model

A conceptual site model (CSM) has been developed to assess the Site with consideration to

source-pathway-receptor model for the current landuses. This CSM has been developed

using exceedances identified during the last round (October 2014) of groundwater sampling.

A copy of the CSM for the investigation area is shown in Figure 4 and is specific to the

location of the current investigation/monitoring.

5.1 Contamination Sources

The Site has been operating as a Class II landfill since 1990, a potentially contaminating

landuse as specified in DERs Assessment and management of contaminated sites (DER,

2014).

The potential sources of contamination at the Site are associated with the landfill material

itself, in particular given that the landfill cell is not lined, there is high potential for leachate to

migrate into soils beneath the waste mass and further into groundwater. There is potential for

naturally occurring high concentrations of analytes in groundwater, in addition, there is

potential for offsite sources (including the Class I landfill located directly south of the Site) to

be impacting the groundwater at the Site.

5.1.1 Primary sources of contamination

The primary sources of contamination at the Site are considered to be the landfill waste.

5.1.2 Secondary sources of contamination

Impacted soils from waste material are considered to be secondary sources of

contamination. The impacted soils have potential to leach into groundwater causing

elevated concentrations of analytes resulting in contamination.

5.2 Potential Contaminants of Concern

Given the groundwater monitoring requirements of the current Licence, the following are

considered Potential Contaminants of Concern (PCoCs):





Table 5-1: PCoCs

Monitored Quarterly Monitored Annually

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) Phenols

Nitrate-nitrogen Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)

Ammonia-nitrogen Organochlorine pesticides (OCP)

Total nitrogen Organophosphate pesticides (OPP)

Total phosphorus; Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)

Total dissolved solids (TDS) Atrazine

Total organic carbon (TOC) Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX)

Major anions and cations – calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, chloride, bicarbonate and sulphate

Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)

Heavy metals – aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron (total), lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium and zinc

Trichlorethylene/Perchloroethylene

Whilst groundwater monitoring of the abovementioned PCoCs is a Licence requirement,

based on the laboratory analysis results obtained from the last round of groundwater

sampling (October 2014), the following PCoCs were identified to be in exceedance of

adopted assessment criteria at one or more groundwater well locations:

pH;

Ammonia;

Nitrogen (total);

Phosphorous;

Metals comprising: aluminium, iron, manganese and zinc;

Toluene; and

TRH C10-C36.

These were considered during the preparation of the CSM.

5.2.1 Exceedances

Exceedances in the following PCoCs for the adopted assessment criteria as shown below in

Table 5-2 were identified during the last round of groundwater monitoring conducted by

GHD in October 2014:

Table 5-2: Exceedances in groundwater – October 2014

Analyte Fresh Water NPUG Long Term

Irrigation

pH Criteria 6.5-8.5 NA NA

Wells

Shallow GQ1S, GQ3S, GW4S, GQ5S and GQ9S

Deep GQ2D, GQ3D, GQ5D, GQ7D, and GQ10D

Ammonia Criteria 0.9 mg/L NA NA





Analyte Fresh Water NPUG Long Term

Irrigation

Wells

Shallow GQ2S, GQ6S, GQ7S, GQ8S

Deep GQ1D, GQ5D, GQ6D, GQ7D, GQ8D

Nitrogen (total)

Criteria 0.9 mg/L NA 0.5 mg/L

Wells

GQ2S, GQ6S, GQ7S, GQ8S

GQ2S, GQ6S, GQ8S

GQ1D, GQ6D, GQ8D GQ1D, GQ6D, GQ8D

Phosphorus Criteria NA NA 0.05 mg/L

Wells Shallow GQ1S, GQ8S

Deep GQ4D, GQ8D

Aluminium Criteria 0.055 mg/L NA NA

Wells

Shallow GQ1S, GQ2S, GQ3S, GQ4S, GQ5S, GQ7S, GQ8S, GQ9S, GQ10S

Deep GQ7D, GQ10D

Iron Criteria 3 mg/L 0.3 mg/L 0.2 mg/L

Wells

Shallow GQ1S, GQ2S, GW3S, GQ6S, GQ9S

GQ1S, GQ2S GQ3S, GQ4S GQ6S, GQ7S

GQ8S, GQ9S GQ10S

GQ1S-GQ10S

Deep GQ1D, GQ2D, GW3D, GW4D, GQ5D, GQ6D,

GQ7D, GQ9D

GQ1D-GQ10D GQD-GQ10D

Manganese Criteria NA NA 0.2 mg/L

Wells

Shallow NA

Deep GQ4D, GQ6D GQ9D

Zinc Criteria 0.008 mg/L NA NA

Wells

Shallow GQ1S

Deep NA

Toluene Criteria NA 0.025 mg/L NA

Wells Shallow GQ8S

Deep GQ8D

TRH C10-C36 Criteria 0.6 mg/L (Dutch

Intervention Value) NA NA

Wells

Shallow GQ2S, GQ6S, GQ7S

Deep GQ5D, GQ6D, GQ7D, GQ8D

NA: no exceedance, blacked out boxes





5.3 Transportation Mechanisms

The following transportation mechanisms of PCoCs have been identified:

Waste becoming wet and truning into leachate;

Leaching from impacted soil into groundwater; and

Transportation down-hydraulic gradient in groundwater.

5.4 Exposure Pathways

The following are considered the likely primary pathways for migration of PCoC:

Dermal contact;

Ingestion;

Inhalation; and

Ecologically sensitive environment.

5.5 Receptors

Given the current industrial landuse of the site and surrounding industrial landuses, the

following human and ecological receptors have been identified:

Onsite:

o Site workers ; and

o Conservation Category Wetland.

Offsite:

o Down-gradient site occupiers/workers (landfill to the south and sand mine to

the west);

o Residential properties to the west; and

o Brunswick and Wellesley Rivers located to the south and east of the site.

5.6 Exposure Pathways and Risk Assessment

The table below identifies receptor-exposure-pathways associated with groundwater

contamination located at the Site.

Table 5-3 Risk Assessment – groundwater

Receptor Exposure Pathway

Pathway

(Complete/

Partially complete/

Incomplete)

Reasoning Risk

Onsite - Workers

Dermal contact of groundwater

Complete One production bore is located at the Site. Groundwater from the production bore located at the site is abstracted for dust suppression only. Groundwater from the network of groundwater wells located across the Site is only abstracted for environmental monitoring/testing purposes. It is therefore considered that the pathway between workers and

Low

Onsite - Workers

Ingestion of groundwater

Complete





Receptor Exposure

Pathway

Pathway

(Complete/

Partially complete/

Incomplete)

Reasoning Risk

groundwater is complete where workers may be exposed to groundwater via accidental ingestion or dermal contact during water spraying for dust suppression or sampling. However, given that groundwater abstraction is not continuously occurring (i.e. consistent prolonged exposure on a daily basis) it is therefore considered that the risk to human health associated with elevated concentrations of metals and hydrocarbons is low.

Onsite – Ecological receptors; wetland

Groundwater flow to the north/north-west within the shallow aquifer

Partially Complete

A conservation category wetland (ASK, 2013) present within the northern portion of the Site may be potentially exposed to impacted groundwater from the shallow aquifer flowing within a north/north-westerly direction. Majority of the wetland is located to the north-east of the landfilling areas (approximately 200 m buffer around the wetland exists), therefore based on general groundwater flow direction; the wetland is located cross gradient. It is therefore considered that the pathway is partially complete, with low potential of adverse effects from the landfill. Therefore the risk to ecological health of the wetland Is considered to be low.

Low

Offsite – workers and occupiers, west of the site

Dermal contact with groundwater

Complete Adjacent site to the west (Sand mine) and south each have a registered production bore. It is assumed that groundwater use at each of the sites is not used for potable purposes but for non-potable use such as dust suppression. There is potential for accidental ingestion and dermal contact of impacted groundwater during spraying. It is therefore considered that the pathway is complete; however offsite well GQ10 (located west of the site), with the exception of iron, identified not exceedances. Therefore risk to offsite workers (human health)

Low



Complete





Receptor Exposure

Pathway

Pathway

(Complete/

Partially complete/

Incomplete)

Reasoning Risk

associated with nutrient, metal and hydrocarbon exceedances identified at the site to be low.

Offsite – workers and occupiers south of the site


Complete Adjacent site to the south of the Site (Class I landfill) has a registered production bore. It is assumed that groundwater use at the Site is not used for potable purposes but for non-potable use such as dust suppression. There is potential for accidental ingestion and dermal contact of impacted groundwater during spraying. It is therefore considered that the pathway is complete. Given that general groundwater flow direction within the deep aquifer is south-east there is potential for contamination identified in groundwater to migrate offsite therefore there is potential risk to offsite workers (human health) associated with nutrient, metal and hydrocarbon exceedances, in particular given that exact use and exposure times are unknown. Further investigations would be required to establish whether contamination is migrating offsite.

Medium



Complete

Offsite – residential properties


Incomplete It was identified that 17 registered domestic groundwater bores are located within 1 km of the site, majority of which are located with the west of the Site. Given groundwater flow within the shallow aquifer is to the west, there is potential for identified contamination/exceedances to migrate offsite towards the residential properties. No delineation groundwater bores have been installed to identify the extent of contamination. However given the distance (nearest property located approximately 800 m from the site), there is a low potential for contamination associated with the Site to impact these registered groundwater bores. It is therefore considered that the pathway is incomplete and the

Low


Dermal contact or ingestion of groundwater

Incomplete





Receptor Exposure

Pathway

Pathway

(Complete/

Partially complete/

Incomplete)

Reasoning Risk

risk to residential properties using groundwater bores for non-potable purposes to be low.

Offsite – ecological receptors; Brunswick and Wellesley River.

Groundwater flow towards the rivers

Partially Complete

Groundwater flow within the deep aquifer is towards the south/south-east in the general direction of the Brunswick and Wellesley Rivers located approximately 775 m from the landfilling portion of the Site. Whilst exceedances were identified within the most southern wells at the Site, no delineation groundwater wells have been installed. Therefore it is unknown whether groundwater impacts extend as far as the rivers are making their way into the rivers. It is therefore considered that the exposure pathway is partially complete. Further investigation works would be required to identify potential risks to the rivers, which is discussed in section 7.

Medium





6 Landfill Capping

The current landfill cell is running out of currently available airspace. Talis is currently

preparing a landfill Closure Plan for the Site with the installation of geosynthetic clay liner to

cover the waste masses and eliminate stormwater infiltration of the waste material in

accordance with Best Practice Environmental Management (BPEM) – Siting, design and

rehabilitation of closed landfill sites (EPA Vic, 2014). It is proposed that the capping works will

be phased with a commencement date of late 2015.

Given that the current landfill cell is unlined, leachate generated as a result of water (e.g.

rainfall, stormwater runoff, chemicals, oils, sullage etc.) coming into contact with

decomposing waste has seeped into the porous soils beneath the waste mass, which has

further resulted in adverse impacts to groundwater. As identified in Section 3, laboratory

analysis results showed elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons, nutrients, metals and ions

which exceeded DER (2014) adopted assessment criteria, with varying concentrations and

distributions of contaminants of concern across the Site.

Through the capping and closure design, this will minimise ongoing impacts to groundwater.

Where the landfill is no longer receiving additional waste and the landfill is capped of in

accordance with the BEPM (EPA Vic, 2014) guidelines, groundwater conditions over time are

anticipated to improve. With improved groundwater conditions at the Site, and assuming

that groundwater contamination at the Site is solely related to onsite use (i.e. not attributed

to the Class I landfill located to the south), the risk to users as identified in section 5.6 will

decrease. A comparison between current risk (as identified in section 5.6) and anticipated

risk following capping and closure is shown in Table 6-1 below.





Table 6-1 Risk Assessment – groundwater: post closure

Receptor Exposure Pathway Pathway

(Complete/

Partially complete/

Incomplete)

Current Risk as per CSM

Future Risk

with landfill

cell capped and closed

Onsite - Workers


Complete Low Low

Onsite – Ecological receptors; wetland

Groundwater flow to the north/north-west within the shallow aquifer

Partially Complete

Low Low



Complete Low

Low



Complete

Medium Low



Incomplete Low Low

Offsite – ecological receptors; Brunswick and Wellesley River.

Groundwater flow towards the rivers

Partially Complete

Medium Low

As shown in Table 6-1 above, of particular interest is the offsite risk to workers and occupiers

south of the site and ecological receptors (Brunswick River and Wellesley River) where the risk

is reduced from medium to low following the capping and closure of the landfill cell. The risk

will be reduced with an engineered capping system, the potential for leachate generation

(via rain infiltration through the waste mass) will be reduced hence impacts to groundwater

will be reduced. It is anticipated that over time, elevated concentrations of analytes in

groundwater will reduce further reducing risk to sensitive receptors.

In order to understand the anticipated reduction in concentrations following the capping of

the landfill, Talis proposes to conduct a Phase 2 Hydrogeological Investigation. The Talis

proposes to incorporate LandSim (United Kingdoms (UK) EA approved landfill assessment

program) modelling to be undertaken as part of the Phase 2 Hydrogeological Investigation.

This model tracks leachate production, chemistry, migration and leakages through both

engineered and non-engineered structures, followed by the migration of leachate through

the unsaturated zones to assess the total impacts on the groundwater aquifer.





7 Conclusions

Based on the desktop investigation conducted, Talis has drawn the following conclusions:

Groundwater flow within the shallow aquifer is generally towards the north-west/north

and south within the deeper aquifer.

The groundwater profiles (as shown in Appendix A) confirm that there appears to be

distinct separation of the shallow and deep aquifers.

If this was not the case then the groundwater profiles would coincide with one

another;

The separation of the aquifers is considered to be associated with an intact low

permeability clay aquiclude between them. Whilst this aquiclude barrier would

inhibit migration of contamination between the two aquifers, it is still possible for

migration between the shallow and deep aquifer, however it would take a

comparatively long time to manifest itself. The presence of the clay layer would in

any case strip out some of the contamination in the leachate passing through it

via cation exchange;

Groundwater profiles prepared were predicted by the limited available monitoring

data as there is datum time sequence for the monitoring wells. It is however important

to note that the various lagoons that are located to the south, north-west and north-

east of the main landfill area (which were previously unlined) significantly influenced

the pattern of the groundwater contours as they act as sumps which will attract the

groundwater towards them. Given that this has not been monitored to the same

degree as the wells and consequently the data has not been incorporated into the

plans contained in Appendix A.

In summary, the contamination can be summarised as follows:

Groundwater is considered to be impacted by landfill leachate to some degree

with elevated concentrations of nutrients, ions and, with organic and

hydrocarbon odours observed by GHD staff across the wells monitored between

January 2011 and October 2014;

Indicated by pH values, groundwater was considered to be slightly acidic to

neutral;

The most impacted well identified appeared to be GQ6S, which generally on

average had greatest concentrations of nutrients, metals, TRH C10-C36, physical

parameters, anions and cations;

BTEX showed concentrations to be below adopted assessment criteria at all wells

with the exception of toluene which exceeded NPUG at GQ8S and GQ8D in

October 2014;

Concentrations of TRH exceeded Dutch Intervention Value for Mineral Oil at

GQ2S (1S), GQ5D (ED), GQ6S (WSR), GQ6D (WD), GQ7D, GQ7S, GQ8S and GQ8D

in October 2014;

PAH, OCP, OPP, PCB and nitrate were below adopted assessment criteria at

each well during each sampling round;

Metals comprising: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury,

selenium and zinc were below adopted assessment criteria at all well locations

during the last round of sampling (October 2014). Of these metals, some

exceedances were identified during previous sampling rounds, with most frequent

and diverse metal exceedances occurring at GQ6D and GQ6S;





Concentrations of iron exceeded all adopted assessment criteria comprising

NPUG, Fresh Water (Aesthetic Value) and Long-term Irrigation at every well during

each sampling round;

It is considered that a potential breach in the aquiclude may have occurred

between the shallow and deep aquifer at GQ8 given the significantly similar

groundwater chemistry reported at this location.

The significantly similar groundwater chemistry reported at GQ7S and GQ7D may be

associated with the shallow well GQ7S being installed too deep, where it is targeting

both the shallow and deep aquifer.

Tables 6.1 and 6.2 present a summary of the percentage exceedances for one or

more of the criteria. It was identified that:

Typical indicators of leachate include ammonia, ammoniacal nitrogen and total

nitrogen, which showed elevated concentrations in the majority of the wells; and

Only some of the metals exceed the adopted guidelines whereas in leachate

derived from municipal waste sources the majority of these determinants are

usually present;

If separation between two aquifers is existent, it can be assumed that the deeper

aquifer would be less impacted than the shallow aquifer. However, this is not

consistently evident across all monitoring wells;

This is demonstrated for ammonia, ammoniacal nitrogen and total nitrogen in

wells GQ1, GQ3, GQ4, GQ5, GQ6, GQ9 and GQ10 where the deeper aquifer has

been exhibiting a greater number of exceedances than the shallow one. It would

be assumed that unless there is an external source of contamination the number

of exceedances for the shallow aquifer would not be less than for the deeper

one. This concentrations do not reflect the same distribution. Of particular interest

is that for GQ7D and GQ8D the deep aquifer is theoretically up-hydraulic

gradient of the ‘source’ and therefore should not be so greatly impacted,

however both the shallow and deeper aquifers the results all exceed the adopted

guidelines.

One conclusion that could be drawn is that the separating aquiclude may not be

totally complete and to some extent there is some cross contamination. This is

supported by:

Chemistry at two locations in the shallow and deep wells at GQ7 and GQ8

being very similar, whereas the remainder of the wells show completely

different chemistry between the shallow and deep well;

Review of drillers logs for GQ7S which identified the well was installed past the

aquiclude, partially into the deeper aquifer;

Liaison with BHRC advising GQ8S was also installed too deep as well

breaching the aquiclude between the shallow and deep aquifer, which has

since been rectified;

GQ7S will need to be decommissioned and replaced with a new shallower well;

and

Further investigation is required to identify potential offsite impacts and how they

affect the background chemistry of the groundwater. There is some strong

evidence to suggest that there are offsite contaminative sources such as up-

hydraulic gradient contamination of the aquifers, the presence of an offsite

“inert” landfill and the greater impacts on the deeper aquifer.

BHRC proposes to install a BPEM standard capping layer as part of the closure and

rehabilitation of the current extent of the landfill.





This engineered capping system will dramatically reduce the generation of

leachate through the minimisation of rainfall seepage into the waste mass. The

inclusion of the low permeability capping layer (geosynthetic clay liner) will in

theory reduce the leachate from entering groundwater;

The magnitude of the improvement will be dependent on the mass flow of

leachate entering groundwater. This requires an understanding of the rainfall,

permeability of the capping layer and hydrogeological structure of the area; and

It is considered that the source of contamination will be reduced over time which

will result in impacts to groundwater to be significantly reduced.

It is important to note that external sources of contamination could potentially be the

dominant contributor to long term impacts on to groundwater at the Site.

Nonetheless, the inclusion of the capping layer will significantly improve the quality of

the groundwater regime.

To fully understand the scale of improvement and the timeframe over which the

improvement will occur will require a more in-depth computer analysis. This will require

additional monitoring wells to be installed to gather greater spatial information and

the relevant hydrogeological parameters which will be included into a Phase 2

Hydrogeological Investigation:

Additional monitoring wells (Figure 5) would be installed to infill gaps in the existing

spatial array. They will comprise:

Two pair wells (GQ11 and GQ12) will be installed to the south-east of the Site

to establish groundwater depression in the upper aquifer as it nears the

Brunswick River. It will also be used to identify potential offsite movement of

contaminants of concern;

Two pair wells (GQ13 and GQ14) will be installed to the north of the waste

mass to determine groundwater profile and decay in chemistry;

One well pair (GQ15) will be installed to the north-east of the waste mass

within the topographic depression at the Site and betweeGQ4 and GQ5;

Three well pairs (GQ16, GQ17 and GQ18) to be installed further north, offsite

beyond the extremity of the proposed new landfill cells (Regional Landfill) to

determine the groundwater profile; and

One well (GQ19) will be installed within the waste mass to identify whether

potential leachate mounding is occurring.

During the drilling of the boreholes a number of hydrogeological properties will be

determined to inform the computer analysis. This data has not been obtained

from the previous installations. Which comprise:

Geological structure;

Descriptions of the soil;

Permeability of the aquifers (i.e. Insitu testing);

Samples from further laboratory testing;

Extending the programme of water quality testing to new wells;

Collation of the all the environmental data;

Develop a computer model using either LandSim;

Create a source term by the back analysis of the monitoring data and once

completed the existing hydrogeological model will be prepared;

Undertake simulations to reflect the presence of the restoration profile and the

low permeability cap which will predict the improvements to the groundwater

regime and the likely timeframe over which the improvements will take place;

and





Prepare a hydrogeological report summarising the findings of the study.





8 Recommendations

Arising from the Phase 1 Desktop Hydrogeological Investigation, Talis recommends the

following source of actions to further understand the current and future hydrogeological

conditions at the Site:

1. Talis recommends the survey of all groundwater wells (top of casing) to AHD to be

able to complete groundwater contour plans comprising all groundwater wells;

2. Once the collation of the additional data has been obtained then a numerical Phase

2 Hydrogeological Investigation should be made to ascertain the scale of

groundwater improvement that would arise due to the installation of the low

permeability capping layer and over what period this is likely to be achieved. The

Phase 2 Hydrogeological Investigation is recommended to include:

Installation of additional groundwater monitoring wells as shown in Figure x.

During the drilling of the boreholes, determine a number of hydrogeological

properties including:

Geological structure;

Soil descriptions;

Falling head test

Geotechnical laboratory testing

Extending the programme of water quality testing to new wells;

Develop a computer model using either LandSim (UK’s EA approved landfill

assessment programme) or MODFLOW;

Create a source term by the back analysis of the monitoring data and once

completed the existing hydrogeological model will be prepared;

Undertake simulations to reflect the presence of the restoration profile and the

low permeability cap which will predict the improvements to the groundwater

regime and the likely timeframe over which the improvements will take place;

3. The continuation of regular monitoring of all the existing groundwater monitoring

including the newly installed wells;

TE14027 Stanley Rd_desktop hydrogeological investigation.0a | Version: 0a February 2015 | Page 66




References ASK, Groundwater Assessment, Stanley Road Waste Management Facility (ASK, 2013).

Department of Environment Regulation (DER), Assessment and Management of

contaminated sites, DER 2014

Department of Water (DoW), Kemerton Groundwater Subareas Water Management Plan,

(DoW, 2007).

DoW, Bunbury and South West Coastal groundwater areas subarea reference sheets, Plan for

the South West groundwater area allocation plan (DoW, 2009).

DoW, Water Information Reporting database

http://wir.water.wa.gov.au/SitePages/SiteExplorer.aspx website accessed on 23 January

2015.

GHD, Stanley Road Waste Disposal Site – Lot 45 Stanley Road, Wellesley WA, Prescribed

Licence No.L7067/1997/13, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event Report – October 2014

(GHD, 2014a).


Licence No. L7067/1997/13, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event Report – July 2014

(GHD, 2014b).


Licence No. L706/1997/13, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event Report – April 2014 (GHD,

2014c).


Licence No. L7067/1997/13, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event Report – January 2014

(GHD, 2014d).


Licence No. L7067/1997/12 (GHD, 2013a).


Licence No. L7067/1997/12, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event Report – July 2013

(GHD, 2013b).


Licence No. L7067/1997/12, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event Report – April 2013

(GHD, 2013c).


Licence No. L7067/1997/12 (GHD, 2013d).


Licence No. L7067/1997/12, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event Report – January 2013

(GHD, 2013d).

http://wir.water.wa.gov.au/SitePages/SiteExplorer.aspx






Licence No. L7067/1997/12, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event – October 2012 (GHD,

December 2012) (GHD, 2012a).


Licence No. L7067/1997/12, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event – July 2012 (GHD,

September 2012) (GHD, 2012b).

GHD, Report for Stanley Road Landfill Facility Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring, April 2012

Results (GHD, June 2012) (GHD, 2012c).

GHD, Report for Stanley Road Landfill Facility, January 2012 Groundwater Monitoring Results

(GHD, January 2012) (GHD, 2012d).

GHD, Report for Stanley Road Landfill Facility, October 2011 Groundwater Monitoring Results

(GHD, October 2011) (GHD, 2011a).

GHD, Report for Stanley Road Landfill, Groundwater Monitoring (GHD, July 2011) (GHD,

2011b).

GHD, Report for Stanley Road Landfill, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Results (GHD, April

2011) (GHD, 2011c).

GHD, Report for Stanley Road Landfill, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Results (GHD,

January 2011) (GHD, 2011d).

GHD, Report for Stanley Road Landfill, Hydrogeological Assessment (GHD, 2008).





Figures Figure 1: Locality Plan

Figure 2: Surrounding landuse

Figure 3: Groundwater well locations

Figure 4: Conceptual Site Model

Figure 5: Proposed New Groundwater well locations

OLDCOAST RD MARRIOTT RD

AUSTRALINDBYPA

376,000

376,000

378,000

378,000

380,000

380,000

382,000

382,000

384,000

384,000

386,000

386,000

388,000

388,000

390,000

390,000

392,000

392,000

6,316

,000

6,316

,000

6,318

,000

6,318

,000

6,320

,000

6,320

,000

6,322

,000

6,322

,000

6,324

,000

6,324

,000

6,326

,000

6,326

,000

6,328

,000

6,328

,000

Bunbury

Docu

ment

Path:

\\SER

VER\

Talis

\SEC

TIONS

\Env

ironm

ent\P

rojec

ts\TE

2014

\TE14

027 -

Stan

ley R

d Lan

dfill -

Bunb

ury\G

IS\M

aps\T

E140

27_0

01_S

ite_L

ocali

ty.mx

d

0 100Kilometres

LEGEND

SITE LOCALITYStanley Road Landfill -

Desktop HydrogeologicalInvestigation

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250Meters

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50Projection: Transverse Mercator, Datum: GDA 1994, Units: Meter

Figure 01

Rev ADate:Scale @ A3:

Revision:06/03/2015

TE14027

J SkibaJ BotterillReviewed:

Checked:Prepared: R Cullen1:50,000

Project No:

Site BoundaryRoad network (MRWA)

Access RoadLocal DistributorRegional DistributorDistributor BPrimary Distributor

¤

Kemerton industrial areabuffer zone (bushalndincluding a wetland)

Vegetated land/pastoralland

Sand extraction and Class I landfill operatedby JW Cross & Sons

Sand Mine

Nearest Residential Area

drain

BRUNSWICK RIVER

WELLESLEY RIVER

BRUNSWICK RIVER

382,500

382,500

383,000

383,000

383,500

383,500

384,000

384,000

384,500

384,500

385,000

385,000

385,500

385,5006,320

,000

6,320

,000

6,320

,500

6,320

,500

6,321

,000

6,321

,000

6,321

,500

6,321

,500

6,322

,000

6,322

,000

6,322

,500

6,322

,500

Bunbury

Docu

ment

Path:

\\SER

VER\

Talis

\SEC

TIONS

\Env

ironm

ent\P

rojec

ts\TE

2014

\TE14

027 -

Stan

ley R

d Lan

dfill -

Bunb

ury\G

IS\M

aps\T

E140

27_0

02_S

urrou

nding

_LU.

mxd

0 100Kilometres

LEGEND

ADJACENT LAND USESStanley Road Landfill -

Desktop HydrogeologicalInvestigation

0 100 200 300 40050Meters

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50Projection: Transverse Mercator, Datum: GDA 1994, Units: Meter

Figure 02


Revision:06/03/2015

TE14027



Project No:

Site BoundaryConservation CategoryWetland

Mapped Stream (Bureauof Meteorology)

Major SegmentMinor Segment

¤

!

! ! !

!

!

!!

!

!

GQ6(WSR/WD)

GQ1(SWS/SWD) GQ2

(1S/1D)GQ3

(SES/SED)

GQ4(2S/2D)

GQ5(ES/ED)

GQ7GQ8

GQ9

GQ10

383,000

383,000

383,500

383,500

384,000

384,000

384,500

384,500

385,000

385,000

6,320

,500

6,320

,500

6,321

,000

6,321

,000

6,321

,500

6,321

,500

6,322

,000

6,322

,000

Bunbury

Docu

ment

Path:

\\SER

VER\

Talis

\SEC

TIONS

\Env

ironm

ent\P

rojec

ts\TE

2014

\TE14

027 -

Stan

ley R

d Lan

dfill -

Bunb

ury\G

IS\M

aps\T

E140

27_0

03_G

WBo

res.m

xd

0 100Kilometres

LEGEND

GROUNDWATER WELL LOCATIONS

Stanley Road Landfill - Desktop Hydrogeological

Investigation0 100 200 30050

MetersCoordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50

Projection: Transverse Mercator, Datum: GDA 1994, Units: Meter

Figure 03


Revision:06/03/2015

TE14027



Project No:

Site Boundary

!Groundwater BoreLocations

¤

SITE

BOUNDARY

SITE

BOUNDARY

EXISTING

LANDFILL

GQ10 GQ6 GQ1 GQ2 GQ8 GQ7 GQ3 GQ9 GQ4 GQ5

GROUNDWATER FLOW

DIRECTION (TRANSPORTATION

MEDIUM)

TRH C10-C36

IRON

AMMONIA

TOTAL NITROGEN

ZINC

TOLUENE

MANGANESE

ALUMINIUMALUMINIUM

CHLORIDE

ALUMINIUM

GROUNDWATER LEVEL

GROUNDWATER LEVELCLAY LAYER

EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

LEACHATE

IMPACTED SOILS

GROUNDWATER FLOW

DIRECTION

(TRANSPORTATION MEDIUM)

GROUNDWATER FLOW

DIRECTION

(TRANSPORTATION

MEDIUM)

TRH C10-C36

TRH C10-C36 TRH C10-C36

SULPHATE

CHLORIDE

SOURCE

IRON

NOTES

1. This drawing is the property of Talis Consultants Pty Ltd. It is a confidential document and must not be copied, used, or its contents divulged without prior written consent.

2. All levels refer to Australian Height Datum.

3. DO NOT SCALE, use figured dimensions only, if in doubt please contact Talis Consultants.

No. Date App.Amendment / IssueDrw

n.Chk

.

Project: Title:Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

Scale:

Date:

Job No:

File No:

Drg. No: Rev:

Stanley Road Waste Disposal

Facility

Desktop Hydrogeological

Investigation

Conceptual Site Model

2 A

AU

JS

AM

NTS

18/02/15

TE14027

TE14027DG001

8/663 Newcastle Street, Leederville WA 6007

PO Box 454, Leederville WA 6903

T: 1300 251 070

E: [email protected]

ASSET MANAGEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

SPATIAL INTELLIGENCE

WASTE MANAGEMENT

w w w . t a l i s c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m . au

Client:

Bunbury - Harvey Regional

CouncilA 18/02/15 AMIssue for ReportA

UJS

N

!

! ! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

GQ6(WSR/WD)

GQ1(SWS/SWD) GQ2

(1S/1D)GQ3

(SES/SED)

GQ4(2S/2D)

GQ5(ES/ED)

GQ7GQ8

GQ9

GQ10

GQ11

GQ12

GQ13

GQ14

GQ15

GQ16

GQ17GQ18

383,000

383,000

383,500

383,500

384,000

384,000

384,500

384,500

385,000

385,000

385,500

385,500

6,320

,500

6,320

,500

6,321

,000

6,321

,000

6,321

,500

6,321

,500

6,322

,000

6,322

,000

6,322

,500

6,322

,500

Bunbury

Docu

ment

Path:

\\SER

VER\

Talis

\SEC

TIONS

\Was

te\PR

OJEC

TS\TW

2013

\TW13

002 -

Esp

eranc

e Sitin

g Stud

y\GIS\

Maps

\Priv

ate La

nd\TE

1402

7_00

5_Pr

opos

ed_G

WBo

res.m

xd

0 100Kilometres

LEGEND

PROPOSED GROUNDWATER WELL LOCATIONS

Stanley Road Landfill - Desktop Hydrogeological

Investigation0 100 200 30050

MetersCoordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50

Projection: Transverse Mercator, Datum: GDA 1994, Units: Meter

Figure 05


Revision:06/03/2015

TE14027



Project No:

Site Boundary

!Groundwater BoreLocations

!ProposedGroundwater Bores

¤





Appendix A: Groundwater

Contour Plans

11.4 11.8

12.2

12.6

12.6

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

Groundwater Contour Plan -Shallow WellsOctober 2014

GQ1 = WSGQ2 = SWSGQ3 = 1SGQ4 = SESGQ5 = 2SGQ6 = ES

Bunbury-Harvey Regional CouncilHydrogeological Investigation TE14027

Talis

Page 1 of 1

1010.5 11

1111.5

11.512

12

12.5

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

Groundwater Contour Plan - Deep WellsOctober 2014

GQ1 = WDGQ2 = SWDGQ3 = 1DGQ4 = SEDGQ5 = 2DGQ6 = ED


Talis

Page 1 of 1

Groundwater contoursTopographical contours

11 11.4

11.8

11.8

12.2

12.2

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

Groundwater Contour Plan -Shallow WellsJuly 2014



Talis

Page 1 of 1

1010.5 11

11 11.5

11.512

12

12.5

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

Groundwater Contour Plan - Deep WellsJuly 2014



Talis

Page 1 of 1


10.6 11 11.4

11.4

11.8

11.8

12.2

12.6

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

Groundwater Contour Plan -Shallow WellsApril 2014



Talis

Page 1 of 1

1111.5 1212

13

13

13.5

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

Groundwater Contour Plan - Deep WellsApril 2014



Talis

Page 1 of 1

10.610.8 11 11

.211

.411

.611

.8

11.8

12

12

12.2

12.2

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

Groundwater Contour Plan -Shallow WellsJanuary 2014



Talis

Page 1 of 1

1111.5 12

12

12.5

12.5

13

13

13.5

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

Groundwater Contour Plan - Deep WellsJanuary 2014



Talis

Page 1 of 1


77.5 8

8.5

99.5 10

10.5

10.5

11

11

11.5

11.512

12

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6




Talis

Page 1 of 1

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

10.8

11.211.6 12 12

.4

12.4

12.8

12.8

13.2

13.6

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

Groundwater Contour Plan - Shallow WellsOctober 2013

GQ1 = WS-RGQ2 = SW-RGQ3 = 1SGQ4 = SES-RGQ5 = 2SGQ6 = ES


Talis

Page 1 of 1

10.5 1111.5

11.5 12

12

12.5

12.513

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6




Talis

Page 1 of 1

9.8 10 10.2

10.4

10.6

10.8

11

11

11.2

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6




Talis

Page 1 of 1

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

9.8 10 10.2

10.4

10.6

10.8

11

11

11.2

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

Groundwater Contour Plan - Shallow WellsApril 2013



Talis

Page 1 of 1

11 12

12 1313

1414 15

16

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6




Talis

Page 1 of 1

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

10.6 11 11.4

11.8

11.8

12.2

12.6

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

Groundwater Contour Plan - Shallow WellsJanuary 2013



Talis

Page 1 of 1

9.51010.5

10.5

11

11.5

12

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6




Talis

Page 1 of 1

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

9.510 10

.5

10.5

11

11

11.5

11.5

12

12

12.513 13.5

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000




Talis

Page 1 of 1

1111.5 12

12 12.5

12.513

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6




Talis

Page 1 of 1

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

1010.410.8 11

.211

.6

11.6

12

12

12.4

12.8

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

Groundwater Contour Plan - Shallow WellsJuly 2012



Talis

Page 1 of 1

1111.5 1212 12.5

12.5

13

13

13.5

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6




Talis

Page 1 of 1

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

10.210.6 11 11

.4

11.4

11.8

11.8

12.2

12.6

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000




Talis

Page 1 of 1

1111.5 12

1212.5

12.5

13

13

13.5

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6




Talis

Page 1 of 1

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

10.410.610.8 11 11

.211

.411

.6

11.6

11.8

11.8

12

12

12.2

12.2

12.4

12.6

12.813

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000




Talis

Page 1 of 1

10.5 1111.5

11.512

1212.513

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6




Talis

Page 1 of 1

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

10.811.2 11

.612

12

12.4

12.4

12.8 12.8

13.213.6

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000




Talis

Page 1 of 1

10.5 1111.5 12

12 12.5

12.513

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6




Talis

Page 1 of 1

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

10.4

10.8

11.2

11.2

11.6

11.6

12

12

12.4

12.8

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

Groundwater Contour Plan - Shallow WellsJuly 2011



Talis

Page 1 of 1

11.5 1212.5

12.513

13

13.5

13.514

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6




Talis

Page 1 of 1

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

9.8

10.2 10.6

11

11

11.4

11.4

11.8

12.2

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000




Talis

Page 1 of 1

13

13

1111.5 1212 12.5

12.5

13

1313

.5

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000 385200

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6




Talis

Page 1 of 1

GQ1 GQ2 GQ3

GQ4

GQ5

GQ6

10.110.410.7 11 11

.3

11.3

11.6

11.6

11.9 11.9

12.2

12.5

383400 383600 383800 384000 384200 384400 384600 384800 385000

6320800

6321000

6321200

6321400

6321600

6321800

6322000




Talis

Page 1 of 1

phase 1: desktop hydrogeological investigation

Documents