desktop review and conceptual site hydrogeological model · 1.0 introduction transpacific cleanaway...

November 2015

SWW REGIONAL LANDFILL,TRANSPACIFIC CLEANAWAY

Desktop Review andConceptual SiteHydrogeological Model

Report Number. 1536343-002-R-Rev0Distribution:1 Electronic Copy - Transpacific Cleanaway1 Electronic Copy - Golder Associates Pty Ltd1 Electronic Copy - Stass Environmental

Submitted to:Paul AnthonyTranspacific CleanawayLot 2 Banksia RoadDARDANUP WA 6236

SWW REGIONAL LANDFILL, TRANSPACIFIC CLEANAWAY

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ ........................................................ 1

1.1 Background Information and Project Overview............................................................................................. 1

1.2 Objectives................................................................................................ ..................................................... 1

2.0 INFORMATION SOURCES ................................................................................................ ....................................... 2

2.1 TPI Supplied Documents .............................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Published Literature................................................................................................ ...................................... 2

2.3 Department of Water WIN Database ............................................................................................................ 3

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION................................................................................................ .................................................. 3

3.1 Surrounding Land Use................................................................................................ .................................. 3

3.2 Climate ................................................................................................ ......................................................... 4

3.3 Geomorphology and Drainage...................................................................................................................... 4

3.4 Geology ................................................................................................ ........................................................ 4

3.4.1 Regional Geology................................................................................................ .................................... 4

3.4.2 Site Geology ................................................................................................ ........................................... 6

3.5 Hydrogeology................................................................................................ ................................................ 8

3.5.1 Regional Hydrogeology........................................................................................................................... 8

3.5.2 Site Hydrogeology................................................................................................ ................................. 11

4.0 SITE OPERATIONS................................................................................................ ................................................. 15

4.1 Site Layout and Engineering....................................................................................................................... 15

4.2 Landfill Cells ................................................................................................ ............................................... 15

4.3 Leachate Management ............................................................................................................................... 15

4.4 MIC Cell ................................................................................................ ...................................................... 16

4.5 Stormwater Drainage/Management ............................................................................................................ 16

4.6 Refuelling and Wash Down Area ................................................................................................................ 16

4.7 Operational Landfill Gas System ................................................................................................................ 16

4.8 Site Observations ................................................................................................ ....................................... 17

4.9 Surrounding Land and Water Use .............................................................................................................. 17

4.10 Environmental Incidents ............................................................................................................................. 18

5.0 GROUNDWATER AND LEACHATE QUALITY REVIEW ....................................................................................... 18

November 2015Report No. 1536343-002-R-Rev0 i


5.1 Laboratory Suite of Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 18

5.2 Groundwater Assessment Criteria .............................................................................................................. 19

5.3 Water Quality Results ................................................................................................ ................................. 20

5.3.1 General Groundwater Chemistry........................................................................................................... 20

5.3.2 Trace Metals and Hydrocarbons in Groundwater.................................................................................. 20

5.3.3 Radionuclides ................................................................................................ ....................................... 21

5.3.4 Leachate Analytical Results .................................................................................................................. 21

5.3.5 Stormwater Pond Analytical Results ..................................................................................................... 22

5.3.6 MIC Cell Analytical Results ................................................................................................................... 22

6.0 PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL........................................................................................................ 22

6.1 Primary Contaminant Sources .................................................................................................................... 22

6.2 Contaminants of Concern ........................................................................................................................... 23

6.3 Release Mechanisms ................................................................................................ ................................. 23

6.4 Transport Pathways................................................................................................ .................................... 23

6.5 Potential Receptors and Exposure Mechanisms ........................................................................................ 24

7.0 DATA GAP ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ ........................................... 26

7.1 Hydrogeological Understanding of the Site................................................................................................ . 26

7.1.1 Monitoring Well Location and Construction........................................................................................... 26

7.1.2 Groundwater Flow Direction.................................................................................................................. 26

7.1.3 Groundwater Flow Rate ........................................................................................................................ 26

7.1.4 Groundwater Quality ............................................................................................................................. 26

8.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................ ....................................................... 27

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................ ............................................ 27

10.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION................................................................................................ .................................. 28

November 2015Report No. 1536343-002-R-Rev0 ii


TABLESTable 1: List of Reviewed Documentation provided by TPI ................................................................................................ . 2

Table 2: Literature Search Documents Reviewed ............................................................................................................... 2

Table 3: Landfill Operations Timeline................................................................................................ .................................. 3

Table 4: Average Monthly Climate Data (BOM Site 9527) .................................................................................................. 4

Table 5: Summary of Regional Geological Units Relevant to the Site................................................................................. 5

Table 6: Summary of Drilling Programs............................................................................................................................... 6

Table 7: Site Groundwater Level Measurements - October 2014 ..................................................................................... 12

FIGURES (IN TEXT)Figure A: Site Location with Respect to line of Cross Section (Refer Figure B) (taken from Commander, 1984) ............... 5

Figure B: Cross Section - Regional Geology (taken from Commander, 1984) .................................................................... 6

Figure C: Veneer of Sand overlying Upper Laterised Profile of the Yoganup Formation – On-site Stormwater Drain(Taken during Site Visit) ................................................................................................ ..................................... 7

Figure D: Regional Hydrogeological Cross Section (Taken from Commander 1984) ......................................................... 8

Figure E: Regional Groundwater Level Contours - Superficial Aquifer (Commander 1984)................................................ 9

Figure F: Potentiometric Head Contours - Leederville Aquifer 1980 (left), Contours on base of the LeedervilleFormation - Dardanup Syncline/Capel Anticline (Right) ................................................................................... 10

Figure G: Hydrograph for Monitoring Wells BS14A and BS14B........................................................................................ 11

Figure H: Site Stratigraphic Cross Section ........................................................................................................................ 14

Figure I: Conceptual Site Model - Summary of Possible Source - Pathway Receptor Linkages ....................................... 25

FIGURES (AFTER TEXT)Figure 1: Site Location

Figure 2: Site Plan

Figure 3: Topography

Figure 4: Geology

Figure 5: Groundwater Users

APPENDICESAPPENDIX AGroundwater Borehole Logs

APPENDIX BSite Walkover Photographs

APPENDIX CSWW Groundwater Database

APPENDIX DImportant Information

November 2015Report No. 1536343-002-R-Rev0 iii


1.0 INTRODUCTIONTranspacific Cleanaway (TPI) engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder) to undertake a desktop review ofavailable information and develop a hydrogeological Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for the South WestWaste (SWW) Regional Landfill located at 2 Banksia Road, Crooked Brook (the site – Figure 1).

1.1 Background Information and Project OverviewThe site has been operated as a landfill since 2000 and groundwater monitoring has been carried out inaccordance with the Department of Environment Regulation (DER) licence conditions. The site wasclassified by DER as Potentially Contaminated – Investigation Required (PCIR) in May 2014 based on:

the use of the site as a landfill

the available groundwater monitoring results

the potential for acid sulfate soil (ASS) to be present at the site and

the quality of soil at the site being unknown.

Following the PCIR classification, TPI submitted an appeal to DER and was successful in overturninggrounds for the classification relating to the unlikely presence of ASS, groundwater pH and the presence ofelevated copper concentrations. However, following the appeal, DER concluded that historic detections oflandfill leachate indicators and hydrocarbons in groundwater were sufficient grounds to retain theclassification PCIR (DER, 2014a).

Discussions with the DER in a meeting with TPI and Golder (7 August 2015) indicated that the DER requireadditional investigations in accordance with the DER contaminated site guidelines, including delineation ofpotential contaminants such as indicators of leachate and hydrocarbons in groundwater. The DERacknowledged that compliance monitoring of groundwater has been undertaken and the information from themonitoring may be utilised for contaminated sites purposes to some extent.

DER has expressed their primary concern to be the risk of impacts on groundwater users located downgradient of the site in the larger (or sub regional) groundwater flow regime. The DER has indicated anassessment is required of whether there is source-pathway-receptor linkages between the landfill site, theunderlying groundwater aquifer and down gradient groundwater abstraction in the form of a conceptual sitemodel (CSM).

Golder understands that Stass Environmental (Stass) is the incumbent consultant undertaking thegroundwater quality monitoring and has been engaged to do so to meet the conditions of the landfill licensecurrently held by TPI.

1.2 ObjectivesThe objective of this report is to review available information relating to the site and:

Summarise the current site conditions including land use and operations, site topography and thegeological and hydrogeological setting and develop a hydrogeological conceptual site model.

Identify potentially contaminating activities (sources).

Assess whether there is any evidence of impacts to soil or groundwater quality from potential sources.

Evaluate the potential for contaminant migration in groundwater (if present) both on and off site(pathway).

Identify surrounding land users which may be impacted in the event that the contaminant source andpathway linkage exists (receptors).

November 2015Report No. 1536343-002-R-Rev0 1


2.0 INFORMATION SOURCES2.1 TPI Supplied DocumentsTable 1 provides a summary of documentation provided by TPI which has been considered in thedevelopment of the CSM and have been referenced throughout this document.

Table 1: List of Reviewed Documentation provided by TPI

Reference Information No. ofDocuments

DocumentType

DER 2014a Contaminated Sites Classification Letter – 29 May 2014 1 Letter

DER 2014b Response to Appeal Against Contaminated SitesClassification 1 Letter

Golder 2015a Summary of Hydrogeological Risks 1 ReportEESC 1998 Geophysical Investigation – Lot 2 Shire of Dardanup 1 ReportStass 2006 Monitoring Bore Installation SWW Regional Landfill 1 ReportStass 2012 Monitoring Bore Installation SWW Regional Landfill 1 ReportStass 2014a Appeal Against Contaminated Sites Classification 1 Report

Stass 2015b Groundwater Quality Database 2015 1 ExcelSpreadsheet

TPI 2015a Site Topographic Contours 4 DrawingsTPI 2015b Incident Report 37806 1 EmailTPI 2015c Gasfield Collection System As Built 1 Drawing

WML Various Landfill Cell Design Layout and Cross Sections(Cell 1 – 5) 5 Drawings

WML 2014 Hydrogeological Investigation – Panizza Road Dardanup 1 Report

2.2 Published LiteratureA literature search for publically available documents was carried out to obtain information on the site settingand context to help develop the conceptual site model for this project. Documents obtained and found toprovide information of relevance to the project are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2: Literature Search Documents ReviewedReference Title

Appleyard et. al. 1993 Groundwater Vulnerability to Contamination – Southern Part of Perth BasinBaddock et. at. 2005 South West Yarragadee – Hydrogeological Investigations and EvaluationCommander 1984 The Bunbury Shallow-Drilling Groundwater Investigation

Golder 1998 Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment – Proposed Class III Landfill, Banksia Road,Dardanup

Golder, 2015b Banksia Road Landfill Leachate Volume AssessmentGolder, 2015c Banksia Road Landfill – Summary of Landfill Gas RisksGolder 2015d Conceptual Stormwater Management Assessment – Banksia Landfill Facility

GSWA 1981 Bunbury-Burekup Sheet of the WA 1:50 000 Urban Geology Series (Sheet 2013III)

Wilde et. al. 1979 Explanatory Notes on the Collie 1:250 000 Geological Sheet, Western Australia.

WRC 1996 Bunbury – Mandurah Region Water Resources Review and Development Plan –Vol.1



2.3 Department of Water WIN DatabaseA search was conducted on the Department of Water (DoW) WIN Database website to obtain information onregistered groundwater wells over an area of around 5 km (east-west) by 3.5 km (north-south) in the vicinityof the site. This information was used to identify potential surrounding groundwater users.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTIONThe eastern portion of the site has been operated as a landfill since approximately 2000 and received onlyClass II waste until approximately 2006. Since then, the landfill has been receiving both Class II and ClassIII waste comprising a mixture of municipal, commercial and industrial waste, as well as residue from WaterCorporation waste water treatment plants. Waste has been placed in six cells to date; with a further threeplanned (refer Figure 2 for locations and Table 3 for timeline of cell commissioning).

A residue storage pond was commissioned in the central part of the site in 2013. This pond is known as theMillennium Inorganic Chemical Cell (MIC Cell) as it receives residue from mineral sands processing carriedout by Cristal Millennium Pty Ltd. The residue materials deposited into the MIC Cell are considered low levelradioactive waste. There is also a primary leachate pond, three leachate storage ponds and a stormwaterpond located in the central part of the site.

The western portion of the site has been used both as a blue gum plantation and for gravel extraction sinceapproximately 2011.

Table 3: Landfill Operations TimelineDescription Approximate Date

Cell 1 2000Decommissioned Leachate Pond 2000Cell 2 2003Primary Storage Pond 2003Cell 3 2006Cell 4 2009Cell 5 2011Leachate Pond 1 & Pond 2 2012MIC Cell 2013Cell 4B 2014Leachate Pond 3 2015 (yet to use)Cell 12 2016 (yet to use)

Further details on the site operations and management are provided in Section 4.0.

3.1 Surrounding Land UseThe Shire of Dardanup operated a Class II Landfill between 1999 and 2013 on the parcel of landimmediately north of the site (Figure 2). According to correspondence issued by DER (DER 2011) someleachate management issues were identified between 1999 and 2006 at the Shire landfill and the results ofgroundwater monitoring are understood to have previously indicated low pH values and elevated nitrateconcentrations in groundwater in the vicinity of the Shire operated landfill. The Shire now operates a wastetransfer station and mulching facility at this site. The Water Corporation currently operates a waste watertreatment plant immediately to the west of the Shire’s operation.

The Shire of Dardanup operates a sand and gravel quarry approximately 1 kilometre (km) further north of thesite.



There is no current land use immediately east and south of the site, these areas are currently part of theBoyanup State Forrest.

The land use to the west of the site appears to be predominantly agricultural, including crop and livestockfarming. The presence of elevated water storage tanks and windmills indicate that groundwater isabstracted by landowners for livestock water and irrigation purposes and potentially household use.

3.2 ClimateThe site is located in a Mediterranean-type climate with hot dry summers and cool wet winters. The nearestweather station to the site is the Dardanup East Station (Bureau of Meteorology BOM ID 9527, Latitude: -33.40° Longitude: 115.78°), climate data from this station is summarised in Table 4.

Table 4: Average Monthly Climate Data (BOM Site 9527)

Statistic

Rainfall (mm) 11 11 21 50 133 187 179 132 90 53 33 16 916

MaximumTemperature 29.8 30.1 27.8 24.3 21.1 18.5 17.3 17.7 18.5 21 24.4 27.3 NA

MinimumTemperature 15.4 15.9 14.2 11.7 9.4 8.0 7.0 7.7 8.6 9.4 12.2 13.5 NA

No evaporation data is available for the Dardanup East Station, however based on data from surroundingsites, rainfall is expected to exceed evaporation for five months of the year between May and September(Commander 1984).

3.3 Geomorphology and DrainageThe site straddles the Swan Coastal Plain and the western facing slope of the Whicher Scarp (Figure 1).The Darling Fault is approximately 1.2 km to the east of the site with the Darling Scarp in the eastern side ofthe fault. The natural surface elevation of the site falls from approximately 120 m Australian Height Datum(m AHD) in the south-east corner to approximately 40 m AHD along the western boundary (Figure 3). Thenatural topographic relief of the central portion of the site is broken by the presence of several landfill cells, amineral sands processing tailing cell, leachate ponds and a surface water dam which appears to have beenbuilt into the pre-existing landform.

A north-west trending spur of the Whicher Scarp is present at the eastern portion of the site and compriseslateritic soils. The scarp is bisected by drainage gulleys infilled with colluvial and eluvial soils which also spillout along the fringe of the scarp and partially overlap the Yoganup Formation. The ephemeral CrookedBrook is located approximately 1 km south of the site and flows in a north-westerly direction into the PrestonRiver approximately 5.5 km to the west. The Ferguson River Valley is located approximately 2.5 km east ofthe site between the Whicher and Darling Scarps and flows in a northerly and north-westerly directiontowards Dardanup and eventually into the Preston River at Picton. The Preston River ultimately dischargesto the Leschenault Estuary in Bunbury.

3.4 Geology3.4.1 Regional GeologyThe surface geology at and surrounding the site is shown in Figure 4. The western portion (approximatelyhalf) of the site is shown to be characterised by the clayey sands of the Yoganup Formation which has beendeposited against the Whicher Scarp during a period of higher sea level (shoreline marine deposit).



A cross sectional representation of the regional geology near the site is shown in Figure A and Figure B(Commander 1984) and summarised in Table 5. This information comes from a shallow drilling programcarried out by the Geological Survey of Western Australia. One borehole (BS14) was drilled approximately900 m south-west of the site (Figure 4).

Table 5: Summary of Regional Geological Units Relevant to the Site

Label Formation MaximumThickness (m) Lithology

Q (SuperficialFormations)

Guildford Formation 25 Clay, sandYoganup Formation 20 Sand, shoreline deposit

KI Leederville Formation 380 Sand, siltstone and shaleKb Bunbury Basalt 85 Basalt, in placed weathered to clayJuy Yarragadee Formation 1 300 Sand and minor shale

Figure A: Site Location with Respect to line of Cross Section (Refer Figure B) (taken from Commander, 1984)



Figure B: Cross Section - Regional Geology (taken from Commander, 1984)

The site is located (Figure B) approximately straddling the boundary between the outcropping LeedervilleFormation (east) and the Yoganup Formation (west) which abuts the Whicher Scarp. The LeedervilleFormation outcrops along the Whicher Scarp and on the Blackwood Plateau (Figure 1) and the shallowweathered profile has been laterised into a massive laterite and pisolitic gravel which is observable atsurface along the eastern boundary of the site (Baddock, 2005).

3.4.2 Site GeologyA number of drilling programs have been carried out on and surrounding the site which provide informationof the site specific geological conditions at the site. A summary of these programs for which reports wereavailable and have been reviewed, is presented in Table 6, the stratigraphy at the site is summarised belowand shown in section in Figure H.

Table 6: Summary of Drilling ProgramsYear Site Company Purpose

1998 SWWRL EESC* Assessment of in situ soils for landfill cell liner use2006 SWWRL Stass Groundwater monitoring well installation2012 SWWRL Stass Groundwater monitoring well installation2014 650 m north of the site WML Hydrogeological Investigation

*EESC – Environmental and Earth Science Consultants, SWWRL – South West Waste Disposals Regional Landfill (the site).

The subsurface conditions described in these reports are broadly consistent with those predicted on thebasis of published geological and hydrogeological information, although much of the area to the west of theWhicher Scarp appears to be covered by a veneer of sandy soil of between 1.0 and 3.0 m thick (Figure C).This sandy veneer has not been referred to in some of the published geological descriptions of the area.

The variably iron cemented sands of the Yoganup Formation were found below the sandy surficial soils andcomprise predominantly dense to very dense sand, with hard, red, brown and pink laterised zones(Figure C). Based on available borehole logs, iron cementing/staining of the Yoganup sands tends todecrease with depth where it is characterised as dense, pale grey to cream, clayey, silty, fine to medium



grained sand. Based on our experience, lenses of coarse sands and thin interbeds of orange, brown andlight grey silt and clay are common throughout the Yoganup Formation.

Figure C: Veneer of Sand overlying Upper Laterised Profile of the Yoganup Formation – On-site Stormwater Drain(Taken during Site Visit)

In the eastern portion of the site (above approximately 80 m AHD), surface and shallow subsurface materialscomprise variably lateritised sandy clay or clayey sand, over highly plastic sandy or silty clay which are eithercolluvium or residual soils derived from the weathering of the outcropping Leederville Formation (WML2014). Other investigations in the general vicinity of the site have reported that the upper part of theLeederville Formation comprises moderately sorted, subrounded to subangular, iron-stained sand withoccasional quartz pebbles and traces of coal, or lignite, which increase with depth (Golder 1998).

A shallow drilling investigation carried out in 1998 (EESC 1998) covered the area currently occupied bylandfill Cells 1, 2, 3, 4, 4B, 5 and future proposed Cells 6, 7 and 12. The results of this investigationindicated that the shallow colluvium and laterite profile comprise predominantly sandy soils including gravels,clayey sands and silty sands. Of the 23 boreholes drilled, clay was only identified in 3 of the boreholes overrelatively short vertical intervals (all 0.5 m thick). There was no apparent correlation between the elevationsof these clays and therefore it is assumed that the clay materials encountered during drilling are part of local,discontinuous lenses of finer grained materials.

Boreholes drilled to depths of up to 54 m below ground level (bgl) in the approximate centre of the site (SE1,SE3, SE4, SE6 – SE8) indicate that the top of the Leederville Formation is at an elevation of between 19 and31 m AHD (Stass 2006). This is consistent with work reported by Commander (1984) where the contactbetween the Yoganup and Leederville Formations was encountered at 22 m AHD (BS14 on Figure B).Further east, the top of the Leederville Formation is expected to rise sharply and outcrop at surface or beclose to the ground surface, covered by a thin layer of colluvium.

The Leederville Formation encountered at depth by Stass (2006 and 2012) was described as bands ofcharcoal grey clay with some fine, medium and coarse, white and beige sand lenses. These materials areconsistent with the description of the Quindalup Member of the Leederville Formation (Baddock 2005) whichsuggest these materials are of proximal to shallow marine origin, dominated by clay in the upper horizons,however also contain thin bands of sand (fine to medium) and thin beds of coal (lignite).



3.5 Hydrogeology3.5.1 Regional HydrogeologyThe regional hydrogeology is characterised by the presence of two aquifers, the Superficial Aquifercomprising the Bassendean Sand, Guildford and Yoganup Formations and the underlying LeedervilleAquifer. A regional cross sectional representation of the groundwater level and flow behaviour is provided inFigure D (Commander 1984). The approximate location of the site is also shown; the Superficial Aquifer isdenoted by the units labelled “Q” and the Leederville by “KI”.

Figure D: Regional Hydrogeological Cross Section (Taken from Commander 1984)

Superficial AquiferThe regional groundwater flow direction in the Superficial Aquifer has been investigated by Commander(1984) who produced a groundwater level contour map (Figure E). Although dated, this map provides anindication of the general groundwater flow direction in the Superficial Aquifer although local abstraction andchanges in rainfall patterns are likely to have occurred since its publication.



Figure E: Regional Groundwater Level Contours - Superficial Aquifer (Commander 1984)

Figure E indicates the site is located close to the eastern extent of the Superficial Aquifer and thegroundwater flow is inferred to be in a north-westerly direction. Groundwater level data available obtainedfrom a pair of nested monitoring wells (BS14) located approximately 900 m south-west of the site, indicate arange in groundwater levels in the Superficial Aquifer of between 31 and 35 m AHD between 1978 and 2015.

Assuming a groundwater table elevation of around 35 m AHD and an elevation of the top of the LeedervilleFormation of 25 m AHD, the groundwater table is expected to be located within the Yoganup Formation atthe site. The saturated thickness of the Superficial Aquifer could be around 10 m at the site which isconsistent with information presented by Baddock (2005). Seasonal groundwater level fluctuations areexpected to be in the vicinity of 1 m (Commander 1984).

The hydraulic conductivity of the Yoganup Formation has not been referenced as far south on the SwanCoastal Plain as Bunbury, however closer to Perth (Pinjarra and Wagerup), work carried out by Golder hasgiven values ranging between 1 and 50 metres per day (m/d).

Recharge into the Superficial Aquifer is expected to occur by infiltration of rainfall from surface runoff at theflanks of the Whicher Scarp (approximate location of the site). Some shallow seepage of groundwater fromthe Leederville Formation at the Blackwood Plateau may also occur into the Yoganup Formation at itscontact (Baddock, 2005). Groundwater from the Superficial Aquifer discharges into the Preston River andabstraction of groundwater for rural framing and livestock use is known to occur in the area surrounding thesite (Commander, 1984).



Groundwater quality in the Superficial Aquifer was observed to range between less than 500 milligrams perlitre (mg/L) up to 5000 mg/L, however the lower salinity groundwater tended to be located in the sandiercomponents of the aquifer (Yoganup Sand) and was typically less the 500 mg/L (indicating freshgroundwater).

Leederville AquiferThe regional groundwater flow direction in the Leederville Aquifer has been investigated by Commander(1984) who produced a groundwater potentiometric contour map (Figure F). Of note is the near northerlygroundwater flow direction caused by the distribution of the Bunbury Basalt which acts as an aquitard(Baddock, 2005) along the Capel Anticline (Figure F), together acting to resist groundwater flow westtowards the coast.

Figure F: Potentiometric Head Contours - Leederville Aquifer 1980 (left), Contours on base of the Leederville Formation -Dardanup Syncline/Capel Anticline (Right)

Figure F indicates a potentiometric groundwater head of around 28 – 29 m AHD in the Leederville Aquifer atthe site which suggests that a downward hydraulic gradient exists between the Superficial and LeedervilleAquifers. The Leederville Aquifer is said to be confined on the Swan Coastal Plain by the clays of theoverlying Guildford Formation, however these clays are not present at the site. Given the inferred downwardhydraulic gradient (Figure G), the Leederville Formation may not be confined at the site. This is supportedby the inferred regional geological conditions which indicate that the Leederville Formation outcrops to thesurface to the east of the site.

Recharge to the Leederville Aquifer occurs by direct infiltration following rainfall and from minor streams onthe Blackwood Plateau (Commander, 1984).



Most groundwater in the Leederville Aquifer is sodium-chloride type with salinity less than 1000 mg/L. TheDardanup town water supply is sourced from bores which draw from the Leederville Aquifer (refer Bores1634, 1636 and 1637 on Figure 5). According to WRC (1996), groundwater salinity taken from these boresrange between 150 and 380 mg/L and with the exception of pH, meet local drinking water quality guidelines.The abstraction in 1994/95 was recorded at 65 megalitres (ML), however this is believed to have sinceincreased.

3.5.2 Site HydrogeologyGroundwater LevelsGroundwater monitoring wells have been installed by Stass Environmental (Stass) at 10 locations at the site(Figure 2 and Table 7). A number of these monitoring wells have been either destroyed and reinstalled orrelocated to make way for site infrastructure. At 8 of the 10 locations, two monitoring wells have beeninstalled and given identification numbers with the suffix “S” or “D”. In a meeting held between TPI, Stassand Golder on 27 October 2015, Stass explained the rationale for the two series of monitoring wells at thesite as follows:

Wells with the suffix “S” were installed to target a shallow groundwater unit encountered during drilling.The elevation of the base of these wells ranged between approximately 38 and 45 m AHD.

Wells with the suffix “D” were drilled to target what was considered at the time to be the regionalgroundwater table. The final depths of these wells were based on the depths at which the boreholesyielded groundwater. The elevation of the base of these wells ranges between approximately 12 and20 m AHD, excluding SE5D which has a base elevation of approximately 49 m AHD.

It is unclear whether the groundwater targeted by the “S” series of wells was part of a perched systemhowever Stass confirmed that this groundwater unit is no longer present at the site (Stass pers. com. 2015).This is confirmed by the groundwater level data provided by Stass and presented in Table 7 where thatmajority of “S” wells were either dry or contained insufficient groundwater to collect a sample. This is alsoconsistent with recent groundwater level measurements in the Superficial Aquifer close to the site whichindicate a groundwater elevation of between 31 and 33 m AHD (Figure G) which is up to 5 m below the baseof the deepest “S” well.

Figure G: Hydrograph for Monitoring Wells BS14A and BS14B

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39

1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015Date

Hydrograph - 1539 (BS14A) and 1540 (BS14B)

1539 (Superficial Aquifer)

1540 (Leederville Aquifer)



From review of monitoring well completion logs of the “D” series wells, the well screens appear to extendacross both the Superficial Aquifer and the Leederville Aquifer and therefore groundwater levels measured inthese wells are not “discrete” (i.e. not representative of the individual aquifers). Based on advice from Stass,the purpose of these wells is to provide a sampling point to monitor for groundwater contamination inaccordance with the licensing conditions for the landfill and not to target or investigate specifichydrostratigraphic units at the site. A copy of these borehole logs are provided in Appendix A.

Stass (2006 and 2012) indicate groundwater level elevations of between around 33 and 57 m AHD at thesite. A summary of the most recent groundwater level measurements (October 2015) is provided in Table 7and the locations of each monitoring well are shown in Figure 2. Golder understands that wells at SE1, SE9and SE10 have been decommissioned and replaced to make way for site infrastructure. Golder has notbeen provided the construction details for these wells

Table 7: Site Groundwater Level Measurements - October 2014

Well ID TOC Elevation(m AHD)

Base of WellElevation(m AHD)

Depth toGroundwater

(m bTOC)Groundwater Elevation

(m AHD)

SE1S* 69.7 43.7** Dry DrySE1D* 69.7 19.7** 34.5 35.2SE2S# 72.4 40.7 NA NA*SE2D# 72.4 17.7 NA NA*SE3S* 73.1 40.9** Dry DrySE3D* 73.1 17.9** 37.6 35.5SE4S* 71.7 40.0** Dry DrySE4D* 71.7 17.0** 36.1 35.9SE5D 104.0 49.3 46.6 57.4SE6S 63.7 41.3 19.0 44.8^SE6D 63.8 12.3 28.3 35.5SE7S 67.0 40.3 Dry DrySE7D 67.0 15.3 31.2 35.8SE8D 66.9 18.4 NA NASE9S* 60.5 41.2** 25.1 35.4^SE9D* 60.4 12.2** 25.9 34.5SE10S* 60.0 37.7** 24.6 35.4SE10D* 60.0 12.7** 26.6 33.4# - Monitoring well decommissioned or destroyed. * - Monitoring well decommissioned and understood to have been reinstalled inMarch 2015. ** - elevation based on original well installed at this location, logs for replacement wells have not yet been provided toGolder. NA – Not Available, well either damaged or decommissioned. ^ Water level measured in well with insufficient groundwater tocollect sample

A cross sectional representation of the interpreted hydrogeological conditions is shown in Figure H, with theapproximate line of cross section represented is shown in Figure 2. The interpreted elevation of the top ofthe Leederville Formation has been based on review of the soil descriptions in borehole logs prepared byStass (Appendix A) and other drilling programs carried out at the site (EESC, 1998).

The groundwater elevations measured in the “D” series wells are consistently above the interpreted topelevation of the Leederville Formation (between 19 and 31 m AHD). This suggests that either:

Groundwater occurs in the Superficial Formation as well as the Leederville Formation at the site; or



Groundwater in the Leederville Formation is confined and therefore groundwater pressure can riseabove the top elevation of the formation

Data obtained from a nearby pair of monitoring wells (BS14A and BS14B – noted as 1539 and 1540 inFigure 5) between 1978 and 2015 indicate a downward hydraulic gradient exists between the Superficial andLeederville Aquifers (Figure G). Therefore, the latter explanation provided above is considered less likely.For the purpose of developing the conceptual site model for the site, we judge the former explanation isrepresentative of site conditions and that the “D” series monitoring wells do not allow discrete monitoring ofeither formation.

With the exception of SE5D and SE6S, the groundwater elevations measured in October 2015 rangedbetween 33.4 and 35.9 m AHD (range of 1.5 m). This groundwater level elevation is close to that measurednearby by Commander (1984) of 35 m AHD in the Superficial Aquifer; however it is unclear whether theselevels are affected by the hydraulic connection with Leederville Aquifer into which the well screens extend.

Groundwater Flow DirectionBased on the October 2015 groundwater level measurements in the “D” series wells it was not possible togenerate a meaningful set of groundwater level contours. This is due to one or a combination of thefollowing:

Localised variability in stratigraphy and therefore hydraulic conductivity and groundwater flow gradient

The “D” series monitoring well screens extending across two hydrostratigraphic units and thereforerepresenting an average groundwater level for these units which does not resolve in a spatiallymeaningful way

Localised effects on groundwater due to preferential recharge. For example, some groundwatermounding may occur beneath the stormwater pond should leakage occurs through the clay liner

It is not possible to assess vertical groundwater flow direction between the Superficial and LeedervilleAquifers at the site as there are no adjacent wells installed discretely in each aquifer.

Hydraulic ConductivityAquifer test pumping has been carried out in a test well installed into the Leederville Aquifer close to BS14(approximately 900 m south-west of the site)(Commander 1984). The results of this testing indicate ahydraulic conductivity of approximately 13 m/d in the upper portion of the Leederville Aquifer.

No reliable hydraulic testing has been carried out in the Yoganup Formation and therefore only a broadrange of hydraulic conductivity of between 1 to 50 m/d is assumed, based on our experience with otherprojects where the Yoganup Formation is present.

Off-site Groundwater UsersPrior to the site visit, a DoW WIN database search was carried out to obtain information on registeredgroundwater wells over an area of around 5 km (east-west) by 3.5 km (north-south) in the vicinity of the site.

A summary of the results of the DoW search are provided in Figure 5 and shows the aquifer each well isinstalled in, the purpose/use of the abstracted groundwater and the depth of the well. Data for 62 registeredsites was available, of these 23 were wells licensed to abstract from the Leederville Aquifer and 29 from theSuperficial Aquifer. The remaining sites were either monitoring wells (no abstraction) or surface watersampling locations. Notes on the DoW database indicate the uses of abstracted groundwater in the areainclude livestock watering, irrigation, domestic/household use and the Dardanup Town Water Supply.



Figure H: Site Stratigraphic Cross Section



4.0 SITE OPERATIONSThe following sections provide our understanding of the site operations, waste storage, landfilling activitiesand site management. Our understanding is based on our review of available documents, from the sitewalkover undertaken with Mr Graham Rose (TPI Operations Manager) on 23 September 2015, and frominformation subsequently provided following the site walkover. Photographs taken during the walkover arepresented in Appendix B. Figure 2 illustrates the on-site infrastructure that was present at the site.

4.1 Site Layout and EngineeringAccess to the site is off Banksia Road and leads to an administration area consisting of site offices andvehicle car park. A summary of the main site features is provided in Figure 2, and includes the following:

Landfill cells

A tailing storage facility (MIC Cell) and associated turkey’s nest

Stormwater pond

Leachate ponds

Stockpiling area

Vehicle refuelling and washdown area and landfill gas infrastructure

Stormwater management drainage channels, sediment retention traps and bunds

Details of the site infrastructure relevant to the CSM are summarised in the following sections.

4.2 Landfill CellsLandfilling has historically and is currently being carried out in the central part of the site. Cells 1, 2, 3 and 4have been closed, Cell 4B and 5 are currently receiving putrescible waste. Cell 12 is currently underconstruction and has not yet been commissioned. The area planned for future Cells 6 and 7 is currentlybeing used as a source of borrow materials for construction elsewhere at the site.

Cell 1 was the original area which received landfill and was constructed with approximate dimensions of 60m by 120 m and incorporated a compacted clay liner and leachate collection system. Based on conversationheld during the site visit, Golder understands that the leachate collection system in Cell 1 is currently dry andno leachate is collected from this cell.

Cell 2 was constructed immediately adjacent to the east of Cell 1 and based on information provided by TPIis approximately 8 m deeper than Cell 1. Based on drawing prepared by WML, Cell 2 is narrower andshorter than Cell 1, however the exact dimensions have not been provided. Cell 2 is understood to be claylined using materials sourced from the site and a leachate collection system has been installed and isunderstood to currently generate leachate which is pumped to the primary leachate pond.

No information on the base elevation of either Cells 1 or 2 has been provided. Cells 1 and 2 are understoodto be capped however, no information has been provided on the materials used to cap either cell.

Cells 3, 4, 4B and 5 are understood to have been constructed with a synthetic liner and leachate collectionsystems. Based on discussions held during the site visit, Golder understand that leachate collected fromthese cells are drained under gravity to either the primary leachate pond (adjacent to the MIC cell) or a set ofthree (one yet to be commissioned) leachate ponds on the southern boundary of the site.

4.3 Leachate ManagementAll leachate is drained via gravity flow to the leachate ponds (Figure 2) and is allowed to evaporate as ameans of disposal. A sprinkler system is set up to enhance leachate evaporation from these ponds and canbe adjusted to control the airborne leachate under different wind directions.



A new leachate pond has been constructed to the west of the two existing cells on the southern boundary ofthe site. It currently holds freshwater and has not yet been used to store leachate.

Anecdotally, a one off event occurred in the past where the leachate system in Cell 5 was flushed by aninflux of stormwater which entered the system through uncapped stormwater pipes. The outflow from thisevent was contained within the leachate ponds and no spill of leachate was reported.

4.4 MIC CellThe MIC Cell is currently receives residue (tailings) from the refinement of titanium oxide ore at Millennium’sKemerton processing plant. The tailings contain low level radioactive materials. The MIC Cell is engineeredas follows:

Compacted sandy clay subsoil with underdrainage.

Geosynthetic clay liner.

1.5 mm smooth textured HDPE liner.

300 – 400 mm sand drainage layer, between geotextile layers.

Leachate collection system.

Leachate from the MIC cell is drained via gravity flow to a leachate pond located to the west of thenorth-western corner. It is then pumped into holding tanks located immediate north of the cell and pumpedinto trucks for off-site disposal. Leachate is drained from the base of the cells and is assisted by Megaflodrains which run down the embankments of the cell.

4.5 Stormwater Drainage/ManagementThe majority of stormwater entering the site does so from the southern boundary out of the “forestry area”.This has been managed by creating a barrier to flow (perimeter road) and using logs as sediment traps alongthe southern boundary. Some flow still enters the site from the south-east corner and this flow is channelledsouth (adjacent to the site boundary) and then into the stormwater pond.

Stormwater from the north-eastern boundary of the site is managed by a drain which runs along the northernboundary down to a silt retention basin and then via a fairly deep drain into the stormwater pond.

The stormwater pond has an overflow spillway which runs down an access road into an existing gravelextraction pit which containing overflow volumes of stormwater. The TPI Operations Manager indicated thatthis gravel pit is where a second stormwater pond is proposed. Water stored in the stormwater pond is usedfor dust suppression and construction activities. No water metering or operation wide water balance isundertaken at the site.

4.6 Refuelling and Wash Down AreaThe refuelling/service bay and wash down area are located north of Cell 1 and east of MIC cell. Historicallythe on-site offices used to be located in this area. Golder understands that the area was recently upgradedwith concrete pads and bunded storage areas. Currently, the area is covered by a loose gravel road base,we understand that TPI propose to upgrade the entire area with bitumen.

4.7 Operational Landfill Gas SystemLandfill gas (LFG) management at the site comprises an active gas extraction system connected to anenclosed flare. A gas well field comprising a total of 33 vertical extraction wells has been installed at the siteby RunEnergy. Current gas extraction for the site is 220 m3/hr (April 2015) at a methane concentration of57.3%v/v (recorded at the flare)



4.8 Site ObservationsThe following section summarises the observations made during the site walkover:

Surface topography falls from the eastern boundary to lower elevations in the western portion of the site(see Photo 1).

No significant visual evidence of impacts was noted at the site, minimal hydrocarbon staining was notedwithin the refuelling area.

The on-site water truck was noted to be filling up from the stormwater pond (see Photo 2). This water isused for on-site dust control management.

An old and degraded fuel tank was noted to be present the eastern area of the site. (stockpile area –Figure 2) The tank did not contain any fuel, no further information was known regarding the status ofthe tank. No evidence of impact was noted surrounding the tank (see Photo 3).

A stockpile of telegraph poles were noted sitting on Cell 3 (see Photo 4). TPI commented that thetelegraph poles were not treated with creosote and would be disposed of within the landfill.

An additional stockpile of telegraph poles was noted in proximity to the old fuel tank (see Photo 5).

The filling of Cell 4b was noted on the day of the site visit. Dump trucks were emptying the waste atthe top southern corner of the cell, material was then compacted and a soil cover placed on top (seePhoto 6).

Monitoring well SE1 has been reinstalled to the north of its original locations, however on the oppositesite of the road.

Monitoring well SE 3 appears to have been reinstalled to the south (directly west of the leachate pondembankment) when the MIC cell was constructed.

Drill cuttings observed adjacent to SE4 appeared to be indicative of Yoganup Formation.

Groundwater monitoring wells SE9 and SE10 were decommissioned during construction of the newestleachate pond. They were reinstalled due west of the new pond.

4.9 Surrounding Land and Water UseFollowing the site walkover, a drive around the surrounding area was completed by Golder personnel, withthe objective of noting potential groundwater use receptors. The following was noted:

The Shire landfill site was located on the parcel of land directly north of the site (Lot 1) comprised thelandfill (no longer operational) and a waste transfer and mulching station.

A waste water treatment plant managed by Water Corporation was also located on Lot 1 to the north ofthe site.

Cleared farmland to the south-west, west and north-west of the site with some residential dwellings wasobserved. Land appeared to be predominantly used for grazing cattle and sheep. Evidence ofgroundwater abstraction was observed to be present on most properties either by sight of windmill, orelevated water storage tank. Most wells were confirmed by the DoW WIN database search. TheDardanup Water Supply Wells were noted approximately 2.6 km north-west of the site. In addition, awater treatment plant for the Dardanup Water Supply was noted, based on the extent of the plant itwould suggest that large scale abstraction and on-site treatment takes place to supply water for townuse.



4.10 Environmental IncidentsA diesel spill from a Caltex fuel truck was reported after an on-site traffic accident where a tanker truckveered off the road, rolling on to its side and ruptured a cell of the tank releasing approximately 1 000 litres(L) of diesel. This incident took place on 3 February 2004. Golder understands from TPI emailcorrespondence dated 15 October 2015 (TPI, 2015b) that the spill took place within the stormwater drainlocated adjacent the northern boundary wall of the MIC Cell. Golder understands that the drain was dry atthe time of the spill and that Caltex excavated the impacted soil from and around the spill area. Postexcavation, the drain was reinstated with virgin material sourced from on site. Material deemed to beimpacted by the spill was disposed in the landfill cell (TPI, 2015b).

5.0 GROUNDWATER AND LEACHATE QUALITY REVIEWGroundwater quality monitoring is carried out on a biannual basis at the site, typically in April/May and inOctober/November.

Golder has carried out a review of the latest groundwater monitoring database provided by Stass (Stass2015), which includes the results of the October 2015 round of sampling. Groundwater monitoringcommenced in October 2005 however a number of monitoring wells have been decommissioned since thistime. Subsequently, monitoring at these locations has either ceased indefinitely (SE2) or re-commencedfollowing re-installation of the monitoring wells nearby (SE1, SE3, SE4, SE9 and SE10).

Historically groundwater sampling has been planned from both the “S” and “D” series wells, however almostno samples have been collected from the “S” series wells due to there being “insufficient water” available forsample collection.

Sampling and analysis of water contained within the leachate ponds, MIC Cell and stormwater pond has alsobeen routinely carried out by Stass (Stass 2015).

5.1 Laboratory Suite of AnalysisWater samples collected from at the site are submitted for laboratory analysis of the following:

Major anions and cations

pH, conductivity

Ammoniacal1 nitrogen, total nitrogen species, alkalinity

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Heavy metals – arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), zinc(Zn), magnesium (Mg) and mercury (Hg)

Total recoverable hydrocarbons (TRH)

Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene (BTEX)

Radium – 226 and Radium - 228.

1 We note that the laboratory analytical reports in Stass 2015 report ammonia as N concentrations. However, the Stass 2014b excel database identifies the analyte as ammoniacalnitrogen (NH3-N). It appears that the calculation to convert ammonia as N to NH3-N has not been made; the results included in Stass 2014b have been cross checked against theStass 2015 report and have been confirmed to be ammonia as N.



5.2 Groundwater Assessment CriteriaGolder note that in the annual groundwater monitoring reports prepared by Stass, groundwater results havebeen assessed against the following water quality guidelines:

ANZECC - Australian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines, 2004 for ‘raw waters for drinking purposessubjected to coarse screening’.

National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) 1999 and

DER Contaminated Site Management Series (CSMS) 2010.

Golder notes that the first guideline has been incorrectly referenced and should be the National Health andMedical Research Council (NHMRC) Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG). Golder also notes thatthe 2004 guidelines were superseded in 2011. The NEPM 1999 guidelines and the DER CSMS have bothsubsequently been superseded in 2013 and 2014, respectively.

For the purpose of assessing available data, Golder has conducted a screening (Tier 1) health andecological risk assessment making use of the following screening guidelines:

NEPM, 2013 Groundwater Investigation Levels (GILs). These are adopted directly from otherAustralian guidance including ANZECC and ARMCANZ guidelines and National Health and MedicalResearch Council (NHMRC) in collaboration with the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council(NRMMC) Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. The site GILs used to evaluate groundwater analyticalresults are based on the current land use and the nearest sensitive receptors to the site. These includethe potential for irrigation bores in the vicinity of the site for both drinking and non-potable use. Theanalytical results were therefore compared against the following:

Department of Health (DoH) (2014) Non Potable Groundwater Use (NPUG) – There is the potentialfor bores to be used for irrigation or other residential use in proximity to the site.

NHMRC Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (2011) Health Value (ADWG HV). In the absence ofa HV the drinking water aesthetic value (AV) has been assessed.

NEPM, 2013 Groundwater HSLs for Vapour Intrusion. For petroleum hydrocarbons, the HSLvalues are used for assessment of potential vapour risks arising from groundwater. However, noHSLs are provided for the assessment of extractive uses of groundwater (such as drinking, stock orirrigation water), and no HSLs are provided for the assessment of groundwater discharge or surfacewater receptors (creeks, lakes or coastal waters). While groundwater was encountered at depthsgreater than 19 m btoc and is not expected to present a vapour risk, the HSL D for groundwaterdeeper than 8 m for commercial/industrial land use has been included for assessment purposes.

NHMRC ADWG (2011) for Monitoring Radiological Quality of Drinking Water. The ‘screening levels’recommended for both alpha and gross beta activity is 0.50 becquerels per litres (Bq/L). If thescreening level is exceeded, further investigation is necessary to identify the nature of radioactivity.However, Golder note that the screening guidelines are applicable to drinking water and so theguideline should be considered appropriately as the site does not abstract groundwater for drinkingpurposes.

ANZECC (2000) Radiological Quality of Livestock Drinking Water. These are guidelines to assessradioactive contaminants that can originate from both natural and artificial sources of radioactivity.For livestock, the main water related risks due to radioactivity arise from the transfer of radionuclidesfrom irrigation or stock drinking water to animals and animal products for human consumption.This guideline has been included to assess the risk to potential down gradient receptors of the site.



5.3 Water Quality ResultsA summary of the results of laboratory analysis for water samples collected from the site is presented inAppendix C and summarised in the following sections. All interpretations of water quality carried out for theCSM have been based on the latest water quality database provided by Stass in November 2015. Thelaboratory certificates for all sampling rounds have not been provided and therefore it has been assumedthat the information contained in database is correct and no cross checks have been carried out to verify theaccuracy of the data.

5.3.1 General Groundwater ChemistryThe historical range in groundwater pH values is between 3.9 and 6.8. This indicates acidic to slightly acidicconditions across the site. No clear trend towards more acidic or alkaline conditions is evident from thedatabase provide by Stass with the results of March and October 2015 monitoring returning results within thehistorical range of values for the site.

The historical range in electrical conductivity (EC) is between 150 and 1100 us/cm indicating thatgroundwater beneath the site is fresh. No obvious trend showing a sustained increase in EC is observableacross the dataset, with the results from the March and October 2015 monitoring rounds being within thehistorical range of values recorded at the site.

Chloride concentrations ranged from 30 mg/L 330 mg/L in SE10D (March 2014). It is noted that the chlorideconcentrations recorded from SE5 (well hydraulically upgradient of the landfill sites) have historically beenabove ADWG and NPUG with the highest value 330 mg/L being recorded in October 2015. The variability inchloride concentrations appears to be seasonal and given that the well is hydraulically upgradient of the site,there is no obvious argument for anthropogenic causes for the fluctuations in chloride concentrations

Sulfate concentrations historically range between <5 and 50 mg/L however these concentrations are wellbelow the ADWG and NPUG guidelines of 125 and 500 mg/L respectively. There is no obvious increasing ordecreasing trend in sulfate concentrations in groundwater at individual monitoring well sites.

Ammonium as N is a recognised indicator for impacts to groundwater from landfill leachate. Ammonium asN concentrations historically range from <0.01 to 1.5 mg/L at the site. The highest results of 1.5 mg/L wasrecorded in SE1D in April 2009, however notably dropped to <0.2 mg/L in November 2009 and has not beenabove 0.04 mg/L since. A concentration of 1.3 mg/L was recorded in SE3D in the latest monitoring round(October 2015) which is well in excess of the historical maximum of 0.8 mg/L for this well. However, itshould be noted that the original monitoring well SE3D was decommissioned prior to the November 2012monitoring round and therefore the range in results span two monitoring wells installed in slightly differentlocations. The ADWG and NPUG guidelines values for ammonium as N are both 0.41 mg/L which has beenhistorically exceeded in a number of wells over the monitoring period, however these exceedences aresporadic both in location and between monitoring events. No obvious increasing trend in ammonium as N isobservable for the monitoring wells at the site.

5.3.2 Trace Metals and Hydrocarbons in GroundwaterThe majority of trace metal concentrations recorded were below the nominated guidelines with exception ofPb (0.03 mg/L in SE5D in March 2015) above the ADWG values of 0.01 mg/L. The concentration of Pbrecorded in the same well in October 2015 was 0.002 mg/L and therefore the exceeding result wasconsidered to be anomalous. SE5D is also hydraulically upgradient of the landfill site and thereforevariability in the trace metal concentrations in this well are most likely a reflection of seasonal variability ingroundwater quality There is no clear trend in detections of trace metals at the site and the exceedences ofguidelines values are considered to be a result of natural and seasonal variability.

Historically, concentrations of toluene and total recoverable hydrocarbons (TRH) as well as TRH fractionsC6-C9, C10-C14 and C15-C28 have been recorded above the laboratory detection limit in a number of wells atthe site. In the case of toluene, no results were recorded above the ADWG value of 0.025 mg/L and in allcases except SE10D, toluene concentrations in subsequent sampling rounds have been below thelaboratory detection limits. Toluene concentrations in SE10D have consistently been slightly above thelaboratory detection limit of 0.001 mg/L with values ranging between 0.001 and 0.015 mg/L.



Sporadic detections of TRH fractions C6-C9, C10-C14 and C15-C28 and total TRH have been recorded abovethe laboratory detection limit. As for toluene, subsequent sampling rounds have returned TRH values belowthe laboratory detection limits with the exception on SE1D and SE10D where the highest values wererecorded in the October 2015 monitoring round.

5.3.3 RadionuclidesBased on the ADWG guidelines to assess the screening guideline of 0.5 becquerel per litre (Bq/L)2, theconcentration of Radium-226 and Radium-228 should be combined. Groundwater samples analysed forRadium-266 and Radium-228 have only recorded combined concentrations above the laboratory detectionlimit from the following wells:

SE1D – 3.11 Bq/L in October 2013. A subsequent round of monitoring carried out in October 2015 fromthe newly installed replacement SE1D well did not record a combined radium concentration above thelaboratory detection limit.

SE5D – 0.97 Bq/L in October 2014. The two subsequent rounds of monitoring (March 2015 andOctober 2015) returned combined radium results below the laboratory detection limit.

SE6D – 0.13 Bq/L in October 2013. The three subsequent rounds of monitoring returned combinedradium results below the laboratory detection limit.

SE8D – 0.13 Bq/L in October 2014. The subsequent round of monitoring returned combined radiumresults below the laboratory detection limit.

Therefore, combined radium concentrations have been detected in exceedence of the ADWG guidelines inSE1D and SE5D, however these detections have not been confirmed in subsequent rounds of groundwatermonitoring. It is also of note that SE5D is hydraulically upgradient of both the landfill and MIC Cells andtherefore detections of radium in this well are likely to reflect background concentrations.

5.3.4 Leachate Analytical ResultsThe pH measured in samples collected from the leachate ponds at the site ranges from neutral to slightlyalkaline reporting between 7.4 and 8.7 since the commencement of monitoring (May 2007). Laboratorymeasured EC ranges between 17,000 and 140,000 uS/cm which is between one and two orders ofmagnitude greater than groundwater EC at the site. Chloride concentrations range between 150 and480 mg/L and sulfate concentrations range between 7 and 43 mg/L, both not significantly greater than theconcentrations detected in groundwater at the site. Ammonium as N concentrations ranged from 3 to1100 mg/L with a median value of 86 mg/L which is at least one order of magnitude higher than detected ingroundwater at the site.

With the exception of copper, mercury and zinc, trace metals in samples collected from the leachate pondshave been detected above the ADWG and NPUG guidelines however, these guidelines are not directlyapplicable to assessing leachate quality.

Total recoverable hydrocarbons (TRH) have been detected in most leachate samples including C10-C14,C15-C28, C29-C36 fractions and to a lesser extent the C6-C9 fraction. The sum of TRH ranges between<0.04 and 46 mg/L with an apparent increasing trend over time.

Two samples have returned radium concentrations above the laboratory detection limit in March 2015 andOctober 2015 (combined radium concentrations of 0.52 and 0.13 Bq/L respectively).

2 Bq/L is the unit of radioactivity. One Bq is defined as the activity of a quantity of radioactive material in which one nucleus decays per second (Wikipedia, 2015)



5.3.5 Stormwater Pond Analytical ResultsWater samples collected from the stormwater pond have recorded a range in pH of between 5.6 and8.3 since sampling commenced in April 2013.

Laboratory electrical conductivity reported a range of 700 to 1900 uS/cm.

Ammonia as N reported between 0.95 and 14 mg/L.

Concentration of trace metals in the storm water dam were close to the laboratory detection limits withthe exception of zinc which ranged between 0.03 and 0.04 mg/L.

TRH C10-C14 was detected in one sample collected in October 2013 (0.07 mg/L) however has not beendetected since. No other BTEX or TRH has been detected since sampling commenced in April 2013.

A combined radium concentration of approximately 0.3 Bq/L was detected in March 2014, no detectionswere recorded in the following sampling event in March 2015.

5.3.6 MIC Cell Analytical ResultsThe pH of water sampled collected from the MIC Cell ranged between 6.1 and 7.8 since thecommencement of sampling in October 2013.

The range in EC recorded was between 11,000 and 32,400 uS/cm.

Ammonia as N was recorded between <0.1 and 0.4 mg/L.

Manganese and nickel are the metals noted to be present in the sample, other trace metals were notdetected above the laboratory detection limit.

No TRH or BTEX has been detected.

A combined radium concentration of 0.95 Bq/L was detected in the sample collected in October 2014,no sample has been analysed for radium since.

6.0 PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL SITE MODELA conceptual site model has been prepared for the site to provide a succinct summary of the interpretedgeological/hydrogeological conditions and identify potential source – pathway – receptor linkages resultingfrom current and past land use activities. The CSM is represented schematically in the cross section shownin Figure I.

Based on the CSM prepared, the primary concern arising from the site land use is potential impacts togroundwater quality beneath the site. This is of particular importance as there are identified groundwaterusers hydraulically down gradient of the site which are within the local and subregional groundwater flowregime. A description of the elements of the CSM is provided in the following sections.

6.1 Primary Contaminant SourcesThe primary potential sources of site contamination consist of the following:

Leachate generated from landfill material contained with Cells 1,2, 3, 4, 4B and 5

Leachate contained in leachate ponds

Leachate generated from deposition of tailings in the MIC Cell

Chemical release due to spillage at the refuelling and wash down area and other trafficable areasaround the site



Seepage from the storm water dam.

6.2 Contaminants of ConcernIt is noted that groundwater monitoring at the site to date has targeted basic water quality parameters (pH,EC and TDS), a limited suite of trace elements, occasionally major ions (including Na, K, Ca and Mg, Cl,SO4); TRH and BTEX. While primary indicators of impacts arising from landfill leachate include nutrientssuch as ammonia, total nitrogen and other parameters such as sulfate, chloride and trace metals, it shouldbe noted that the current suite of laboratory analysis is not exhaustive for monitoring such impacts. Otherpotential contaminants, including, but not limited to pesticides, herbicides, solvents and other organiccompounds may also potentially be present in landfill leachate generated at the site

Hydrocarbons (including fuel and oils) and solvents such as degreasers are also potential contaminants ofconcern arising from operations at the refuelling and vehicle washdown area.

6.3 Release MechanismsThe primary potential release mechanisms from the contaminant sources at the site include:

Seepage of landfill leachate from the base of the landfill cells and the MIC Cell.

Seepage of leachate from the leachate ponds.

Direct chemical spills from refuelling or overspills from leach ponds into the surrounding and/orunderlying soil profile

It is noted that all landfill cells, the MIC Cell and the leachate ponds are lined with either compacted clay orsynthetic liners. However imperfections in these liners or damage caused during placement and settlementof the landfill materials may provide a pathway for leachate to seep into the underlying soil profile. Directspillage of leachate from the leachate ponds is also considered a potential release mechanism, however weunderstand from discussions with TPI that no breach of the leachate ponds had occurred since landfillingoperations at the site commenced.

6.4 Transport PathwaysIn the event that leachate or chemicals associated with the refuelling and wash down area were allowed toseep into the surrounding underlying soil profile, vertical migration, downwards under gravity would occur.The direct impact resulting from this process would be a deterioration in soil quality, however it is alsopossible that, over time, the contaminants of concern could reach the groundwater table and impact ongroundwater quality. Based on the groundwater quality monitoring data collected to date, there is noevidence to suggest this has occurred and further, it is considered unlikely due to the following factors:

The depth to groundwater in the vicinity of the landfill cells, MIC Cell, leachate ponds and washdownarea ranges between approximately 25 and 60 m below surface. Therefore to reach the groundwatertable, the contaminants of concern would need to migrate through a significant unsaturated soil profile

All landfill cells, the MIC Cell and the leachate ponds are lined either with a clay liner or synthetic liner

No reported spillage of leachate has been recorded at the site since the commencement of operationsas a landfill

Regardless, ongoing targeted groundwater monitoring will be remain necessary to confirm whether impactsto groundwater have occurred at the site (refer to Section 7.0 for a summary of the current interpretedhydrogeological data gaps).

In the event that groundwater beneath the site was impacted, movement of impacted groundwater under thenatural hydraulic groundwater gradient could be expected. Uncertainty over the direction of localgroundwater flow (horizontal or vertical) at the site exists. However, westerly and/or north-westerly lateralgroundwater flow is likely and therefore this is the likely direction any impacted groundwater would migrate.



In addition, there is assumed to be a downward hydraulic gradient in the Superficial Aquifer at the site andtherefore the potential for downward migration of any impacted groundwater into the underlying LeedervilleAquifer exists.

6.5 Potential Receptors and Exposure MechanismsFor exposure to occur, a complete pathway must exist between the source of contamination and the receptori.e. complete source-pathway-receptor linkage. The potential receptors at the site and adjacent area aredetailed in this section.

Due to the potential for the aquifers to be hydraulically connected, we anticipate that the Superficial Aquiferis the initial receptor and the Leederville Aquifer is a secondary receptor. Based on available drilling data,there is no evidence to support the presence of a confining layer or aquitard between the Superficial andLeederville Aquifers and therefore no impedance to downward migration of contaminants can be inferred.Furthermore, it appears that some of the monitoring wells at the site hydraulically connect these units andprovide an enhanced pathway for downward migration of any contaminants in the Superficial Aquifer into theunderlying Leederville Aquifer.

Groundwater is abstracted for domestic and livestock watering from both the Superficial and LeedervilleAquifers in areas interpreted to be potentially hydraulically down gradient of the site (i.e. to the west andnorth of the site). Therefore, if groundwater at the site is impacted, it may migrate off-site and be abstracted,resulting in human and/or livestock exposure.

Impacts to the riverine ecosystem are also possible in the long term if contaminated groundwater wasallowed to migrate as far as the Preston River and discharge into this water body. Crooked Brook isephemeral (i.e. does not dissect groundwater table throughout the year) and therefore impacts areconsidered less likely. The Ferguson River is also located further north and presents another potentialdischarge point for impacted groundwater.

It should be noted that the distances impacted groundwater would be required to travel for these exposuremechanism to occur are significant (closest registered abstraction point is at least 1 km from the westernboundary of the site. If sufficient hydrogeological data was available, it may be possible to evaluate the rateof migration of any impacted groundwater, likely to be very slow, and natural attenuation and dilution of thecontaminants in may occur resulting in negligible measureable impacts at the identified exposure points.



Figure I: Conceptual Site Model - Summary of Possible Source - Pathway Receptor Linkages



7.0 DATA GAP ANALYSISBased on the review of the documents list in Section 2.0 and the site visit carried out on 23 September 2015,the following data gaps have been identified with respect to the CSM developed for the site. In general abetter understanding of the overall site specific geological and hydrogeological conditions would be requiredto fully understand the potential contaminant migration pathways and connectivity between groundwaterbeneath the site and down gradient groundwater users.

7.1 Hydrogeological Understanding of the SiteBased on our review of the hydrogeological information available for the site, the available borehole logs andgroundwater analytical results, Golder conclude that qualitative data gaps are present in understanding thehydrogeology at the site. The reason for these data gaps are based on uncertainties in the current datasetavailable for the site and are described in the following sections.

7.1.1 Monitoring Well Location and ConstructionIt appears that the deep (“D” series) wells on-site have not been discretely installed within the Superficial orLeederville Aquifer. Therefore, there is the potential that groundwater analytical data for the site is notspecific to the Leederville Aquifer, but is a mixture of groundwater from the Superficial and LeedervilleAquifers combined. This applies to both groundwater quality samples and also groundwater level elevationmeasurements.

7.1.2 Groundwater Flow DirectionIt was not possible to produce a meaningful set of groundwater level contours based on the October 2015groundwater level date. This may be due to the groundwater well installations spanning across both aquifersand also the limited spatial distribution of on-site wells (the majority of wells located in a small area).

Nearby, off-site groundwater monitoring wells (BS14) indicate there is a downward hydraulic gradientbetween the Superficial and Leederville Aquifers, however this has not been confirmed locally at the site todate. It is important to understand the potential vertical movement of groundwater between aquifers as thiswill dictate whether the Leederville Aquifer (which is considered to be a significant groundwater resource)could be at risk from groundwater impacts if contamination is confirmed in the Superficial Aquifer.

7.1.3 Groundwater Flow RateAn understanding of the hydrogeological properties (hydraulic conductivity, specific yield/storativity) andhydraulic gradient is required to calculate potential groundwater flow rates. No site specific hydraulic testinghas been carried out on either aquifer to date and therefore it is not possible to evaluate the potentialmigration rate of contaminated groundwater or assess potential for natural attenuation or other possibleremedial activities.

7.1.4 Groundwater QualityBased on the groundwater quality data available to date, it is unclear whether the historic and currentlanduse has impacted groundwater quality beneath the site. The majority of the uncertainty results from thevariability of concentrations of indicator analytes for leachate and hydrocarbon impacts. There are little to noconclusive elevated levels of landfill leachate parameters in groundwater at the site. However, there arespatially variable and temporally inconsistent detections of hydrocarbon in groundwater in some wells.

Collection and review of future groundwater quality monitoring data may provide resolution to the currentuncertainty in the event that detections of hydrocarbons diminish over time. This could indicate that thesedetections have arisen from processes other than the potential leachate seepage or release of hydrocarbonsincluding the use of lubricants in drilling muds during well installation.



8.0 CONCLUSIONSThe groundwater quality data provided by Stass (Stass 2015) does not conclusively indicate impacts togroundwater quality from the potential contaminant sources identified in this study. The currently availablemonitoring data does not provide evidence for landfill leachate impacts to groundwater beneath the site.There is some uncertainty over the nature and consistency of hydrocarbons detected in wells at the site, thisrequires further investigation, at a minimum ongoing groundwater quality monitoring and trend analysis orfurther hydrocarbon speciation/fingerprinting.

The nature and seasonal variability of groundwater flow at the site is not confidently known, however basedon some site specific data and our interpreted understanding of the expected regional groundwater flow,groundwater flow at the site is likely to be:

West to north-westerly in the Superficial Aquifer

North-westerly in the Leederville Aquifer

Downward between the Superficial and Leederville Aquifers.

There are confirmed groundwater users hydraulically down gradient of the expected groundwater flowdirection and therefore any contamination of groundwater at the site will result in a possible source –pathway – receptor linkage and therefore the potential for exposure to humans and livestock.

Although the hydrogeological properties at the site are not well known, the vertical distance required forgroundwater contamination occur (migration through at least 20 m unsaturated profile) and the lateraldistances to identified receptors (at least 1 km) suggest that while an exposure mechanism has beenidentified, the risk of this occurring is low based on current groundwater quality data.

The existing groundwater monitoring well infrastructure may present a pathway for contaminatedgroundwater to migrate from the Superficial Aquifer down to the Leederville Aquifer. Based on publishedliterature of hydrogeological studies in proximity to the site, there may be a downward hydraulic gradientbetween the Superficial Aquifer. Further work, including drilling and installation of additional groundwatermonitoring wells would be required to confirm whether this potential pathway poses a risk.

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONSBased on the findings of this study and the identified data gaps, Golder recommend following:

Continue biannual groundwater level and quality monitoring as per the DER license conditions andextend the groundwater analytical suite to cover other landfill CoPCs as detailed in the DER CSMS,2013.

Development of a groundwater sampling and analysis plan which meets the DER CSMS 2013guidelines.

Obtain currently unavailable monitoring data (well construction details and groundwater level andquality data) for the neighbouring Shire of Dardanup Landfill (closed) and Water Corporation WasteWater Treatment Plant) to ascertain if this can assist with groundwater flow direction and qualityinterpretation.

Carry out drilling and installation of a series of new, spatially relevant nested groundwater monitoringwells targeting both the Superficial and Leederville Aquifers discretely. These wells would allowcollection of groundwater level and quality data and enable hydraulic testing to resolve thehydrogeological data gaps identified in this CSM.

Due to the potential downward hydraulic gradient between the Superficial and the Leederville Aquifers,there is the potential pathway for contaminants to migrate down into the regional groundwater resource.Therefore, this pathway should be addressed by means of appropriate decommissioning of the existing



groundwater monitoring wells, should this be deemed necessary following further refinement of thehydrogeological conditions at the site.

It is recommended that any further drilling carried out at the site be undertaken using a drilling methodwhich allows undisturbed soil cores to be retrieved from at least one, preferably two boreholes. This willassist with the interpretation of the geological conditions at the site, which to date has been poor as alldrilling methods have been destructive, precluding an interpretation of soil structure. The collection ofsoil cores would be of particular benefit for interpreting the potential vertical migration pathways with theunsaturated soil zone as well as refining the material descriptions and confidence in the assignment ofgeological units. This is considered necessary to ensure future monitoring wells are installed discretelyin individual aquifers. In addition, opportunistic soil sampling could be undertaken to assess the currentsoil quality at the site. In particular in areas where hydrocarbon or leachate spills have occurred.

10.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATIONYour attention is drawn to the document titled - “Important Information Relating to this Report”, which isincluded in Appendix D of this report. The statements presented in that document are intended to inform areader of the report about its proper use. There are important limitations as to who can use the report andhow it can be used. It is important that a reader of the report understands and has realistic expectationsabout those matters. The Important Information document does not alter the obligations Golder Associateshas under the contract between it and its client

REFERENCESAppleyard S.J., Commander D.P., Allen A.D. (1993). Groundwater Vulnerability to Contamination, SouthernPart of Perth Basin. Geological Survey of Western Australia

Baddock, L., Vine, J., Leathersich, M. (2005). South West Yarragadee, Hydrogeological Investigations andEvaluation, Southern Perth Basin. Report prepared for: General Manager, Planning and DevelopmentDivision, Infrastructure Planning Branch, Water Corporation. Dated December 2005.

Commander, D.P. (1984). The Bunbury Shallow-Drilling Groundwater Investigation. Geological Survey ofWestern Australia, Report 12, 1 January 1984.

Department of Environment Regulation (DER 2014a). Notice of a Classification of a Known or SuspectedContaminated Site Given Under Section 15 of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. Letter to TranspacificIndustries Group Pty Ltd, dated 29 May 2014. Document Reference: DMO1534.

Department of Environment Regulation (DER 2014a). Appeal Against Site Classification, Site Known as Lot2 Banksia Road, Crooked Brook. Letter to Transpacific Industries Group Pty Ltd, dated 15 December 2014.Document Reference: C

Environmental and Earth Science Consultants (EESC 1998). Geophysical Investigation, Wellington Location3003 Lot 2 Shire of Dardanup. Report prepared for South West Waste Disposals, June 1998.

Geological Survey of Western Australia (GSWA 1981) Bunbury-Burekup Sheet of the WA 1:50 000 UrbanGeology Series (Sheet 2013 III), 1st Edition Date 1981.

Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder 1998). Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment Proposed Class III LandfillBanksia Road, Dardanup, dated December 1998. Document Reference 98640266-001-R-Rev0.

Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder 2015a). Banksia Road Landfill – Summary of Hydrogeological Risks,Transpacific Cleanaway Pty Ltd Financial Modelling Support. Dated June 2015. Document Reference:1523088-014-R-Rev0.

Golder Associated Pty, Ltd (Golder 2015b). Transpacific Cleanaway Pty Ltd Financial Modelling Support.Banksia Road landfill – Summary of Landfill Gas Risks. Dated 15 October 2015. Document Reference:1523088-018-R-Rev0



Golder Associated Pty, Ltd (Golder 2015c). Transpacific Cleanaway Pty Ltd Financial Modelling Support. ForNew Chum, Inkerman and Banksia Road landfill – Leachate Volume Estimation. Dated 15 October 2015.Document Reference: 1523088-018-R-Rev0

Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder 2015d). Technical Memorandum: Banksia Landfill Facility – ConceptualStormwater Management Assessment. Dated April 2015. Document Reference: 1521734-001-M-Rev0.

Stass Environmental (Stass 2006). Report on: Groundwater Monitoring Bore Installation, GroundwaterMonitoring Program – Dardanup Regional Landfill Site, WA. Report prepared for Kingscape Holdings,January 2006.

Stass Environmental (Stass 2012). Report on: Groundwater Monitoring Bore Installation, GroundwaterMonitoring Program – Dardanup Regional Landfill Site, WA. Report prepared for Transpacific IndustriesGroup Pty Ltd, June 2012. Version 1.

Stass Environmental (Stass 2014a). Report on: Appeal Against Contaminated Sites Registration, AdditionalInformation SWW Regional Landfill, Dardanup, WA. Report prepared for Transpacific Industries Group PtyLtd, dated August 2014, Version 1.2.

Stass Environmental (Stass 2015) Excel Spreadsheet “Groundwater Quality Database SWW Landfill 2015”.

Transpacific Industries (TPI 2015a) Site Topographic Contours (.dxf drawing file).

Transpacific Industries (TPI 2015b) Incident Report (information contained in email provided by TPI).

Transpacific Industries (TP 2015c) Gasfield Collection System As Built (PDF drawing provided by TPI).

WML Consultants (WML 2014). Hydrogeological Investigation for Proposed Residue Disposal Area PanizzaRoad Dardanup. Report for Cristal Pigments Australia Pty Ltd, dated August 2014. Document Reference:5139-G-R-001-A.

WML Various Dates (WML Various) Landfill Cell Design Layouts and Cross Sections, Drawings in PDFFormat.

Water & Rivers Commission (WRC 1996). Bunbury – Mandurah Region Water Resources Review andDevelopment Plan, Volume I of II. Water and Rivers Commission, Water Resources Allocation and PlanningSeries, October 1996.

Wilde, S.A., Walker, I.W (Wilde 1979) Explanatory Notes on the Collie 1:250 000 Geological Sheet, WesternAustralia, Geological Survey of Western Australia, Record 1979/11, dated 1979.



Report Signature Page

GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

Libby Kiernan Michael BartlettSenior Earth Scientist Hydrogeologist

MJB/LK/DMT/IYK/eh

A.B.N. 64 006 107 857

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

\\golder.gds\gap\perth\jobs\env\2015 - contam sites\1536343 - tpi contam si dardanup\correspondence out\002-rev0 csm\1536343-002 r-rev0.docx

November 2015Report No. 1536343-002-R-Rev0

IMAGE SOURCED FROM GEOSCIENCE AUSTRALIA 250K TOPO.INSET BASE DATA/ROADS SOURCED FROM STREET PRO DATA 2009.

SWAN COASTAL PLAIN

BLACKWOOD PLATEAU DARLING PLATEAU

370000

370000

380000

380000

390000

390000

400000

400000

PROJECTCONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL - SWW REGIONAL LANDFILL

TITLESITE LOCATION

1536343 002 R 0 1PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE

2015-11-24

MS

MS

LMK

LMK

CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD

DESIGNED

PREPARED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

CLIENTTRANSPACIFIC CLEANAWAY

PERTH

DERBY

NEWMAN

ESPERANCE

GERALDTON

KUNUNURRA

KALGOORLIE

PORT HEDLAND

W AW A

KEY MAP

APPROXIMATEVIEW EXTENT

0 200 400

Kilometres

1:250,000

0 5,000 10,000

METRES

NOTES

REFERENCE1. COORDINATE SYSTEM: GDA 1994 MGA ZONE 50

SITE LOCATION

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

"¬

"¬

"¬

"¬!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

PERIMETER ROAD

PERIMETER ROADBUND BUND BUND

TURKEYSNEST DAM

CELL 1

STOCKPILES

CELL 12

CELL 4B

CELL 3

CELL 4

CELL 7CELL 6CELL 5

PRELIMINARYLEACHATE

POND

SEDIMENTTRAP

SEDIMENTTRAP

OFFICES

SPILLWAY

GRAVEL WORKINGS

STORMWATERPOND

NEW LEACHATEPOND

LEACHATE PONDS

TAILINGS STORAGEFACILITY

WATER CORPWASTE WATER

TREATMENT PLANT

PREVIOUS WASTETRANSFER STATION

CURRENTSHIRE OF DARDANUP

WASTE TRANSFER STATION

BHRC

LANDFILL CELLS

LEACHATEPONDS

REFUELLING AREA ANDVEHICLE WASHDOWN AREA

SECTION (REFER FIGURE J)

MB1WC1(MB2)

MB3

WC2

WC3

WC4

WC4(a)

MW1

MW2

MW3 MW4

SE1

SE3

SE4

SE5

SE6

SE7

SE8

SE9

SE10

386500

386500

387000

387000

387500

387500

388000

388000

388500

388500

!A MONITORING WELL

!A MONITORING WELL (SHIRE LANDFILL/WATER CORP WWTP)

"¬ CULVERT

EXISTING STORMWATER DRAINAGE

SECTION (REFER FIGURE J)

SITE INFRASTRUCTURE

BUND

SITE BOUNDARY

CADASTRAL BOUNDARY


TITLE

1536343 002 R 0

2015-11-24

MS

MS

LMK

LMK

CONSULTANT

PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE

YYYY-MM-DD

DESIGNED

PREPARED

REVIEWED

APPROVED


1. COORDINATE SYSTEM: GDA 1994 MGA ZONE 50

AERIAL IMAGERY 2015-03-26 © NEARMAP (2015)CADASTRAL BOUNDARY AND ROADS © WESTERN AUSTRALIAN LANDINFORMATION AUTHORITY TRADING AS LANDGATE (2015)

0 100 200 300 400

METRES1:6,000


105

386500

386500

387000

387000

387500

387500

388000

388000

388500

388500

MAJOR CONTOUR

MINOR CONTOUR

SITE BOUNDARY

HIGH : 142.345

LOW : 39.4229


TITLE

1536343 002 R 0

2015-11-24

MS

MS

LMK

LMK

CONSULTANT


YYYY-MM-DD

DESIGNED

PREPARED

REVIEWED

APPROVED



AERIAL IMAGERY 2015-03-26 © NEARMAP (2015)CADASTRAL BOUNDARY AND ROADS © WESTERN AUSTRALIAN LANDINFORMATION AUTHORITY TRADING AS LANDGATE (2015)

0 100 200 300 400

METRES1:6,000


384000

384000

385000

385000

386000

386000

387000

387000

388000

388000

389000

389000

390000

390000

391000

391000

WHICHER SCARP

SITE BOUNDARY


TITLE

1536343 002 R 0

2015-11-24

MS

MS

LMK

LMK

CONSULTANT


YYYY-MM-DD

DESIGNED

PREPARED

REVIEWED

APPROVED



GEOLOGY MAP, BUNBURY - BUREKUP URBAN GEOLOGY 2031 III - 2031 II,FIRST EDITION 1981 © GEOLOGICAL SURVEYCADASTRAL BOUNDARY AND ROADS © WESTERN AUSTRALIAN LANDINFORMATION AUTHORITY TRADING AS LANDGATE (2015)

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

METRES1:20,000


!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R+R

+R

+R+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R+R

+R

+R

+R+R

+R+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R

+R20012303NA9 mDomestic/Household/Livestock

20012302NA5 mLivestock




230220672006NASurface Water Sampling

20012299NA6 mLivestock20012300

NA6 mLivestock

20012311198315 mLivestock

20012313195018 mGarden Irrigation/Livestock

20012314NANALivestock




20012310192017 mDomestic/Household/Livestock

23030645200318 mNA

23030718200639 mDomestic/Household




23030975200736 mNA



23031654199126 mIrrigation

1539197621 mMonitoring Well


1634197462 mDardanup Town Water Supply



20012343197518 mIndustry

20012346197070 mGarden Irrigation/Livestock/Domestic/Household

20012359NA15.2 mLivestock

20012360NA3.6 m

20012363NA15.2 mDomestic/Household/Livestock

20012364196215.2 mLivestock





20013848198649 mGarden Irrigation











125861980NACrooked Brook Stream Sample



20012358NA15.2 mGarden Irrigation/Domestic/Household

20012374197973 mProject Well - Test Pumping

20012396NA34 mDomestic/Household



20012409199446 mNA

20012422199862 mNA

200134741966152 mLivestock/Domestic/Household


WINDMILL

TANK

384000

384000

385000

385000

386000

386000

387000

387000

388000

388000

389000

389000

SITE BOUNDARY

CADASTRAL BOUNDARY

+R WATER INFORMATION SITE

! LEEDERVILLE

! SUPERFICIAL


TITLE

1536343 002 R 0

2015-11-24

MS

MS

LMK

LMK

CONSULTANT


YYYY-MM-DD

DESIGNED

PREPARED

REVIEWED

APPROVED



AERIAL IMAGERY 2015-03-26 © NEARMAP (2015)CADASTRAL BOUNDARY AND ROADS © WESTERN AUSTRALIAN LANDINFORMATION AUTHORITY TRADING AS LANDGATE (2015)WATER INFORMATION SITES © DEPARTMENT OF WATER

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

METRES1:15,000

WIN SITEYEAR INSTALLEDWELL DEPTHSITE PURPOSE CURRENT