20th june 2005 - esperance.wa.gov.au
TRANSCRIPT
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 1
Title: Independent Technical Review of Esperance Waste Management Facility Env Referral
For: Shire of Esperance Date: 17/5/2018 Ref: 2188 ESP Esperance Landfill PER ITR Rev 1
1 Background
The Shire of Esperance’s existing Wylie Bay domestic and commercial waste management
facility (WMF) is nearing capacity and a new WMF is now required to meet the Shire’s future
needs. After a selection process involving several potential WMF sites on Shire, Crown and
Freehold land, a preferred site has been selected on Lot 12 Kirwan Road, Merivale,
approximately 13 kilometres (km) from Esperance (the Site).
The Shire commissioned Talis Consultants (Talis) to prepare an Environmental Referral
document (the Referral) for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) so that the EPA
could set an appropriate level of formal assessment needed to approve the Project. As part
of the approval process, Talis presented Phase 1 of the Referral to the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) and the Department of Agriculture in June 2017, and DPaW responded
later that month (DPaW 2017).
The EPA advertised the Referral for public comment and on 9 January 2018, the EPA
compiled and summarised about 80 public submissions on the Referral into a letter to Talis
requesting further information. The Esperance Merivale Tip Action Group (EMTAG), is a
notably active local community group who are opposed the location of a WMF on the Site.
On the 22 January 2018 Talis Consultants responded to the EPA in a letter that addressed
each of the comments in turn (Talis 2018a).
The EPA has subsequently advised the Shire that, in light of the high number of public
submissions on the Referral, the Shire will be required to prepare the highest level of
assessment this project; being a Public Environmental Review (PER).
Following community concerns, specifically regarding the veracity of the hydrogeological
studies and interpretation, the Shire voted to engage and an Independent Technical Review
of the hydrogeology to help inform what knowledge gaps and further hydrogeological
investigations are needed in the PER to give the EPA sufficient information to assess the
approvability of the proposal in accordance with Ecologically Sustainable Development
principles.
The Shire has engaged Don Scott and Len Baddock of Pennington Scott (Groundwater
Consultants) to undertake the Review.
This contained document represents an Independent Technical Review of the
hydrogeology and hydrology factors relating to suitability of a Referral to construct a
waste management facility Lot 12 Kirwan Road, Merivale. This review has been
prepared by Pennington Scott, who confirm that they have no prior or ongoing
conflicts of interest in this Referral or with the Shire or Talis.
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 2
1.2 Documents included in this Review
Pennington Scott were originally engaged by the Shire on 23 March 2018 to review the
following five (5) documents prepared by Talis. These documents collectively constitute the
Referral:
1. TALIS CONSULTANTS 2017b. Esperance Waste Management Facility – EPA
Referral – Phase 1 Hydrogeological Investigation. CMS17230 – dated Jun 2017
2. TALIS CONSULTANTS 2017c. Esperance Waste Management Facility – EPA
Referral – Phase 1 Hydrogeological Risk Assessment. 19.1c – dated Jun 2017
3. TALIS CONSULTANTS 2017d. Esperance Waste Management Facility – EPA
Referral – Supporting Document – Phase 2. CMS17230 – dated 20 Oct 2017
4. TALIS CONSULTANTS 2018a. Esperance Waste Management Facility – EPA
Referral – Phase 2 Hydrogeological Risk Assessment. V1a – dated Mar 2018
5. TALIS CONSULTANTS 2018b. Esperance Waste Management Facility – Response
to EPA Request for further information TW17082 – dated 22 Jan 2018
As part of the review process agreed between the Shire and Pennington Scott, on the 3rd and
4th of April 2018 Don Scott (Pennington Scott) presented the preliminary findings of the
review in a series of meetings to key stakeholders in Esperance ahead of finalising the
contained document. Key stakeholder meetings included the following:
The Esperance Shire Council;
Department of Agriculture;
Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW);
The Esperance Merivale Tip Action Group (EMTAG); and
Subsequently with Talis Consultants in Perth on 16th April 2018.
During the meeting and subsequent site visit with EMTAG, EMTAG presented Pennington
Scott with a further five (5) documents (listed below) to be considered. In consultation with
the Shire, the scope of this review was expanded to also consider, and where necessary
provide comment on, supplementary information contained in the following documents and
the EMTAG site visit:
6. CHALMER, P 2017. Siting of Landfills, Best Practice Environmental Management
EPA Victoria 2015
7. DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND WILDLIFE 2017. Letter to Mathew Scott (Shire of
Esperance) Re. Review of Hydrogeological Report for the proposed waste
management facility – Lot 12 Kirwan Road – dated 30 June 2017;
8. EMTAG 2017a. Summary hydrogeological investigation comments Merivale Rubbish
Tip – dated 24 June 2017;
9. EMTAG 2017. Merivale Rubbish Tip, New Information;
10. SHIRE OF ESPERANCE 2017. Letter to Greg Mair (Dept of Parks and Wildlife) Re.
Review of Hydrogeological Report for the proposed waste management facility – Lot
12 Kirwan Road – dated July 2017.
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 3
Pennington Scott delivered an electronic first draft of this Technical Review (Rev 0) to the
Shire on 27 April 2018. On May 1, Don Scott again visited Esperance to explain the findings
if the draft to key stakeholder groups, including the Shire and EMTAG in Esperance, and
later to Talis in Perth on May 4. Following those meetings, each of the stakeholders
provided a list of their proposed clarifications and corrections on the draft for Pennington
Scott to consider for inclusion in this final draft (Rev 1).
1.3 Terms of reference for this review
We understand that the Shire has considered several other potential WMF sites before
choosing Lot 12 Kirwan Road, Merivale as the preferred Site. We also understand that the
site selection process itself involved consideration of factors other than hydrogeology. The
terms of reference for this review, however, are limited to consideration of the
hydrogeological factors associated with establishing a WMF on the Site at Lot 12 Kirwan
Road. This review specifically excludes consideration of any site other than the Site on
Kirwan Road and excludes consideration of the Site selection process itself. Specifically, this
review is to consider:
the quality, accuracy and appropriateness of the existing geological and
hydrogeological investigations and risk assessment contained in the Referral;
Identify any knowledge gaps or inconsistencies that might lead to an ambiguous or
erroneous analysis of the perceived level of environmental risk presented in the
Referral;
recommend a hydrogeological investigation scope for the PER to address the
knowledge gaps and inconsistences sufficient to enable the EPA to weigh the
acceptability of the proposal.
Technically, the Referral is a contaminated site, and thus the review will consider the
adequacy of the hydrogeological factors within each of the following categories:
Source: whether the Referral has gathered sufficient knowledge of the nature of the
contamination source (i.e. the landfill leachate)?
Pathway: whether the Referral sufficiently understands the site hydrogeology to be
able confidently predict the fate of contaminant leaks or overflows to the
environment?
Receptor: whether the Referral has adequately identified the potential environmental
receptors and is able to confidently quantify and qualify the risks to those receptors?
Containment design: how robust is the landfill containment design to mitigate leakage
and overflows. What are the key design risks and limitations?
Monitoring plan: is the monitoring plan adequate to recognise foreseeable forms of
leakage or overflows of contaminants to the environment early enough to enact
contingency measures?
Contingency Plan: has the Referral adequately provisioned for an effective
contingency action plan to efficiently and effectively capture, contain and remediate
any contaminants before they reach sensitive receptors?
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 4
Where appropriate, the investigations will be considered against the framework of the four
core Ecologically Sustainable Development principles contained within the Australian
Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (1992), which include:
• the precautionary principle;
• the principle of intergenerational equity;
• the principle of conservation of biological diversity (later enshrined in the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act); and
• the principle of improved evaluation, pricing and incentive mechanisms.
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 5
2 Review Findings
2.1 Containment Design, Monitoring and Contingency Action Plan
This existence of relatively high permeability sediments beneath the Site is not best practice
for siting of a WMF according to Chalmer (2017). However, Figure 1 shows the potential
distribution of relatively high permeability spongolite and shore line facies sedimentary units
within a 30 km radius of Esperance may be quite extensive (after Johnson and Baddock,
1998). Furthermore, not all communities are fortunate enough to be in environments where
it’s possible to find a site for their WMF that meets all these best practice hydrogeological
criteria. For example, many coastal communities in Western Australia are underlain by
extensive karstic limestone, and yet they still manage to design, maintain and monitor WMFs
according to ESD principles. Nonetheless, where the hydrogeological conditions are not ideal
for a WMF, greater emphasis must be placed on the design and implementation of the
containment system, plus the adequacy of early detection monitoring systems and effective
contingency action measures if a leak should occur.
We are comfortable that the proposed triple layer liner design for the WMF at the Site has
proven to be effective in hydrogeological environments that would otherwise be less
favourable than the Site at Kirwan Road, Merivale. Nonetheless, albeit rare, an inescapable
fact is that liner failures do occur and when they occur can cause serious environmental
consequences and/or require costly mitigation measures.
When liner failures occur, its often due to poor construction technique or materials; or due to
post construction activity. Our concern in this case is to whether appropriate clay (free of
spongolite contamination) can be sourced locally for the clay layer (refer to geology section
below). We recommend that the PER include an inspection and testing program to ensure
that the source of clay is appropriate.
Landfill leachate represents a cocktail of different hazardous pollutants from hydrocarbons,
organics, coliforms, salinity, chemical compounds, heavy metals, trace elements, corrosive
wastes. Each of these products has different density, solubility, attenuation (mobility),
dispersion and absorption characteristics in the environment. The most mobile
contaminants, however, are likely be those that are miscible in water and these will travel
fastest and farthest in the environment. The direction and maximum rate that these
contaminants could potentially travel from the WMF over time should be predictable using a
distributed and properly calibrated mass transport numerical groundwater model based on
the movement of fresh water.
The Referral proposes a groundwater monitoring network and the key parameters to monitor.
It also includes leak detection system built into the liner itself. As part of the PER we would
expect baseline monitoring of key parameters be undertaken at quarterly intervals to define
background seasonal fluctuations upon which set trigger levels for a Contingency Action
Plan. The monitoring network presented in the Referral includes site bores, however the
baseline water quality monitoring should also include several off-site bore/spring locations
downgradient from the WMF.
Overall the engineering recommendations provided by Talis are sound, but additional
monitoring and leakage contingency need to be addressed if this site is chosen.
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 6
Figure 1. Hydrogeology 30km around Esperance (adapted from Johnson and
Baddock 1998)
2.2 Geological setting
The Site is shown on Figure 2 and is located on the Lower Sandplain, underlain by the
Pallinup Siltstone beneath a cover of aeolian sand up to a few metres thick. Talis have
classed the Pallinup Siltstone as ‘Bedrock’, and in the Conclusions have stated that the
Pallinup Siltstone comprises hard rock geology, which is not appropriate for a sedimentary
formation that has not been extensively lithified. Pallinup Siltstone is up to about 80 m thick
based on geophysics in the Bandy – Coramup Creek area (Baddock, 1995b). It is underlain
by either granitic bedrock or the Werillup Formation which is probably restricted to broad
channels between basement ridges and consists of fine to coarse grained sand, lignite and
carbonaceous clay.
The Pallinup Siltstone comprises three facie units; Spongolite, Sand/Silt and Siltstone
(Johnson and Baddock, 1998). A Sand/Silt facies overlies or interfingers with the Spongolite
facies, and while present in the Bandy Creek – Coramup Creek area (Baddock, 1995b), it
does not extend to the Site, although it potentially could form a narrow apron of sand
surrounding the granitic ridge. The Spongolite facies is present at the Site, and comprises
clay with layers of hard, brown spongolite. Spongolite is a sedimentary rock composed of
SITE
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 7
siliceous sponge spicules, which are silica needles forming a sponge skeleton, with common
coral fossils, and is notable for its low density. It formed in warm Eocene seas in locations
sheltered from wave action.
The Spongolite facies is around 30 m thick, with about 30 m present in bore EWD2-95
located about 21.5 km east of the Site (Baddock, 1995a) and it extends to 29 m depth at
CBC5 located 9 km to the N-NW (Baddock, 1995b). It extends to about 32 m depth in GW17
at the Site, with a transition into the underlying Siltstone facies. The thickness or portion of
spongolite making up the spongolite facies is likely to vary significantly over the area, with
thickest developments probably associated with shallow marine channels that were more
protected from waves by granitic islands that existed at the time of formation. Below the
Surficial Sand, about the upper 10 m of spongolite facies is highly weathered to a clayey fine
sand and silt or sandy clay. Talis failed to recognise the spongolite in their core logging
(except in GW18), where they appear to have described it variously as siltstone
conglomerate, silt/sandstone, sandstone or mudstone, and often seemed to confuse
spongolite (spicule sponge) as quartz pebbles.
Spongolite frequently contains open porosity (loosely compacted spicules), cavities (voids)
and connected preferred flow conduits (macro-pores) typically present below the highly
weathered zone. Talis have assumed that the voids are associated with dissolution of
carbonate rocks, and while this is true for many areas with carbonate rocks, it is not the case
in the Esperance region where spongelike is extensive. Carbonate does not tend to be
preserved within the Pallinup Siltstone in the Esperance area, although it is locally present in
the Werillup Formation. Voids and macro-pores in the spongolite have developed essentially
through the combined effects of enhanced horizontal flow along structural weaknesses
(faults, joints and bedding defects) by tunnelling erosion of loose spicules and development
of “sink holes” (vertical macro-pores) in the voids left behind by decaying tree roots.
Although silica minerals such as quartz are resistant to chemical dissolution, the fine silica
spicules of the sponges do show signs of dissolution and reprecipitation elsewhere as a
cherty silcrete nodules in the Spongolite. The combined effects of physical macro-pore
development and chemical dissolution of the Spongolite can create a landscape exhibiting
“karst-like” features such as sink holes and springs, albeit without the large dissolution caves
and collapse dolines structures that characterise karstic carbonate environments.
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 8
Figure 2. Site and wetlands downgradient upon the coastal plain.
Cavities were common in cores drilled by the Talis at the Site. Voids are described in most
of the holes drilled, encountered at depths from 4.4 to 16.2 m with a thickness 0.18 to 1.37
m. It is possible that instead of voids, these zones may represent intervals of spongolite that
is honeycombed with abundant macro-pores. Many of the holes experienced loss of
circulation (drilling mud flows into the formation) when drilling at depths from 3.5 m to 13.5 m,
probably due to the presence of voids and macro-pores.
Talis state that the voids are discrete and disconnected, although they did note that several
of the holes drilled intersected voids at similar depths and that these features may be
connected. However, it is evident that macro-pores present within the spongolite are
extensive with a good degree of connection at many sites, as demonstrated by the frequent
loss of circulation when drilling at the Site and large sustainable bore yields that can be
obtained at other locations (e.g. EWD2-95). Further evidence for interconnectivity of these
macro-pores is shown by a dye test undertaken by EMTAG that involved pouring dye into a
sink hole west of Mount Merivale which was observed to emerge from a spring located
1.8 km to the W-SW within 24 hours.
The “sink holes” that are found within the Pallinup Siltstone, are apparently areas of
subsidence normally no more than a few metres in diameter, as shown by Figure 3. These
sink holes probably develop over areas with thick spongolite that has extensive development
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 9
of macro-pores left behind after decayed root systems of now cleared vegetation. These
vertical macro-pores are likely to be widespread and represent vertical drains that lead from
the surface to the deeper spongolite facies.
Figure 3. “Sink hole” developed above a vertical macro-pore west of Mount Merivale.
The Siltstone facies comprises siltstone, shale and fine grained sandstone, which is dark
brown to green grey, carbonaceous and micaceous. Up to 35 m of the facies was
intersected at Coramup – Bandy Creek in CBC-1D to 65 m depth where the base was not
intersected, while a geophysical survey suggests it is about 50 m thick in the Coramup –
Bandy Creek area (Baddock, 1995b). The Siltstone facies is present at the Site, but only
GW17 appears to have reached the facies at about 32 m depth (it is the deepest hole drilled
to 34.5 m).
Granitic basement underlies the sedimentary deposits of the Pallinup Siltstone and Werillup
Formation. The basement tends to form north-east trending ridges in the subsurface, with
some outcrops often forming rounded hills, such as Mount Merivale east of the Site. Talis
note a small bedrock outcrop in the south-western portion of the Site, which could form a
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 10
sub-surface bedrock ridge extending from the SW corner of the site toward the proposed
WMF. This bedrock ridge probably does not go as far as the WMF as shallow bedrock was
not intersected in any holes drilled about the Site. An EM geophysical survey over the Site
would be an effective method in mapping of bedrock topography and possibly some
attributes of the sedimentary cover.
Reference is made by both Talis and EMTAG to the Doombup Shear Zone which is located
just east of the Site. This shear zone is a Proterozoic feature present within the granitic
bedrock and does not cut through the sedimentary cover. However, it is possible that it may
have been a zone of bedrock weakness later incised by a stream to form a valley within
which the Werillup Formation was subsequently deposited.
2.3 Hydrogeology
Aquifers at the Site are formed by the Pallinup Siltstone Spongolite facies, and the Werillup
Formation where present. Perched groundwater may be present within the Surficial Sand
overlying the Pallinup Siltstone. Schematic hydrogeological cross-sections are presented by
Figures 4 and 5, and location of the sections are shown on Figure 2.
2.3.1 Surficial perched groundwater
Talis is correct in considering that there is potential for shallow seepage within the Surficial
Sands following rainfall. However, their assertion that the low permeability of the clays/silts
is likely to prevent a superficial perched aquifer is incorrect as perched groundwater can
occur in sand above this layer. A perched groundwater system was not recorded on the Site
during the Talis investigation, however, there is evidence for perched groundwater in SW02,
SW03 and SW05 about the proposed WMF. In these holes a water level of 4 to 5 m depth
was recorded, which is around 8 and 11 m above the watertable within the underlying
spongolite aquifer, and fresh quality water was yielded from SW02 and SW05 (0.449 and
0.259 ms/cm respectively) indicating separation from the deeper watertable. These
observations were made in March 2017, following a wet period in February (around 120 mm
of rain over 5 days), and therefore may represent temporary perched groundwater. Talis
have therefore under-estimated the risk of groundwater seepage as part of a perched
groundwater system that can develop following periods of heavy rainfall. Flow through a
perched groundwater system can potentially migrate from the WMF in the case of overflow
and direct it toward nearby creeks, the escarpment, or flow deeper into the spongolite aquifer
via macro-pores.
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 11
Figure 4. Section 1: SW – NE hydrogeological cross-section.
Figure 5. Section 2: W-NW – E-SE hydrogeological cross-section.
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 12
2.3.2 Permeability of the Spongolite aquifer
Spongolite can be a permeable aquifer due to the presence of macro-pores, although it
would be highly heterogeneous. Macro-pores act as preferred groundwater transport
pathways through the Spongolite. Areas with thick development of spongolite would form
zones of higher transmissivity compared to surrounding areas with less spongolite, and it is
likely that permeability of the spongolite aquifer will be variable across the Site. High bore
yields are possible from the spongolite aquifer, such as bore EWD2-95 drilled into the
spongolite facies about 21 km east of the Site which produced 106 m3/day for a steady
drawdown of 1.1 m (Baddock, 1995a). Talis have assumed that the Pallinup Siltstone is of
low permeability, which has not been substantively proven for the Site and is contradictory
observations at other locations. In Section 6, Talis do conclude (correctly) that ‘groundwater
flow paths would be through these secondary opening features and would likely increase the
overall hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer’. They consider that it can be described as a
‘semi-confined fractured rock aquifer’, but comparison with a karstic aquifer would be more
accurate, although without the larger scale caves and doline structures characteristic of a
karstic limestone terrain.
Values for hydraulic conductivity of between 0.063 and 0.38 m/day have been derived for the
Pallinup Siltstone at the Site from slug tests of 6 monitoring bores. Slug tests, however,
cannot be regarded as a substitute for conventional pumping tests as they can only
determine the characteristics of a small volume of aquifer surrounding the well, which may
have been disturbed during drilling and bore construction (Kruseman and de Ridder, 1990).
Slug tests can also be an unreliable method for assessing permeability if the bore is not
adequately developed to remove any mud-cake formed on the hole walls during drilling.
Pumping tests would be a better method for assessing aquifer hydraulic conductivity, while
recording of the drawdown at monitoring bores would allow some assessment of permeability
variation over the site.
Permeability of the weathered profile described as the Upper and Lower Cohesive Horizon
by Talis will be low over most of the Site as found by Talis. Triaxial permeability testing
found values for hydraulic conductivity of 3.4 x 10-8 to 1.0 x 10-8 m/s (0.003 to 0.0009 m/d) for
low plasticity clay/silt, and 9.5 x 10-9 to 1.1 x 10-9 m/s (0.0008 to 0.0001 m/d) for high
plasticity clay/silt. However, it is likely that zones of higher permeability do exist, and may
comprise more sandy zones, shallow spongolite with macro-pores left by the decay of tree
roots after widespread land clearing between the 1970 and 90’s. EMTAG have reported that
farms in the area do not use excavated dams for water as the clay is porous and does not
hold water, suggesting that the clay permeability at the larger scale may be greater than
suggested by the laboratory permeability tests on small samples.
2.3.3 Werillup aquifer
The Werillup aquifer would be confined (isolated) by the overlying Siltstone facies of the
Pallinup Siltstone, although some leakage connection down the side of the bedrock ridge is
possible where there could be a thin margin of sandy material. Due to the confining beds of
the overlying Siltstone facies of the Pallinup Siltstone, the risk to this aquifer from the WMF is
probably low. It would, however, be appropriate to demonstrate if the Werillup Formation is
present and if there is potential for hydraulic connection with the overlying aquifer.
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 13
2.3.5 Watertable depth, and groundwater movement
Groundwater flow patterns, watertable levels, artesian pressure heads and groundwater
throughflow in the lake systems around the Esperance region are in a dynamic equilibrium in
response to the changing climate and vegetation cover. One of the largest regional
hydrogeological impacts around Esperance has been the widespread clearing of native
Mallee vegetation for pasture lands that has occurred since 1960 in response to a
government policy of releasing Crown land to develop the state’s agricultural production.
The rate of land clearing around Esperance peaked between 1970 to 1990 following the
enactment of the Esperance Land Development Act 1968 (AGO, 2000). By 1980, the State
Government had largely reversed its policy on land clearing after recognising its link to rising
watertables and dryland salinity. Any hydraulic changes potentially caused by the proposal
need to be considered within the context of seasonal and historic land clearing variations in
groundwater recharge.
The results of recent drilling by Talis on the Site suggest that watertable depth is between
3.1 m (GW03 at SE corner) and 15.5 m (GW02 at SW corner), while beneath the proposed
WMF it is about 14 m deep. Water levels measured in shallow (SW) bores SW02, 03 and 05
would appear to have intersected perched groundwater within the Surficial Sand, as the
levels are well above other deeper holes.
Groundwater within the Spongolite aquifer is recharged by the infiltration of rainfall.
However, the rate of infiltration is probably highly variable over the Site depending upon
ground conditions. Development of perched groundwater within the Surficial Sand is
probably an important part in the recharge process by creating pools of groundwater that can
drain toward and down macro-pores which are probably present over the Site. The presence
of the Surficial Sand in conjunction with vertical macro-pores enhances the risk that
pollutants that might leak from beneath the WMF liner would reach the watertable. The
importance of sink holes and horizontal macro-pores is demonstrated by EMTAG (2017a) in
the observed rapid drainage of surface water at a nearby property to the east following a
heavy rainfall event, where an estimated 24 ML of water drained down a sink hole over about
16 hours in September 2017.
There is some uncertainty of the direction of groundwater flow from beneath the proposed
WMF. Overall, groundwater flow is to the south-southwest toward the escarpment as shown
by Figure 6, although from the south-eastern portion of the site groundwater probably flows
due south toward Doombup Creek. Talis concluded that the granitic bedrock outcrop does
not appear to affect the flow direction, although if groundwater flow is essentially parallel to
the bedrock ridge then its influence would not be apparent. If the bedrock forms a ridge in
the subsurface it could still separate groundwater flow passing on either side. Groundwater
flow downgradient of the proposed WMF appears to diverge into two flow directions.
Beneath the eastern portion of the WMF groundwater flows to the southwest and south,
passing east of the bedrock ridge, while from the western portion of the WMF groundwater
possibly flows to the west-southwest, passing west of the bedrock ridge. This suggests that
the bedrock ridge may be influential in groundwater flow.
Talis estimated a seepage velocity at the site of 2.59 m/year and concluded that groundwater
would take approximately 579 years to travel 1.5 km from the proposed WMF to the Site
boundary, based on a hydraulic conductivity of 0.38 m/day and the hydraulic gradient of
0.0054. This assumes a homogeneous (practically impermeable) aquifer while the
Spongolite aquifer is highly heterogeneous with flow rates through macro-pores potentially
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 14
several orders of magnitude greater. The dye test undertaken by EMTAG demonstrates that
groundwater could potentially migrate from the WMF to the Site boundary within a few days,
flowing through horizontal macro-pores in the spongolite. It is therefore clear that Talis may
have underestimated the magnitude of groundwater flow beneath the Site.
The watertable beneath the escarpment has likely risen in response to increased
groundwater recharge after historic land clearing several decades ago. As a direct
consequence of this watertable rise, the rate of groundwater discharge from springs in the
creek valleys and along the escarpment would have also increased. By the same token, it is
likely that the blue gum plantation on the Site has locally reduced groundwater recharge
rates relative to open cleared farmland as the trees matured. In any case, the Australian
Federal and State governments have set a precedent that considers measures that either
mitigate the rate of watertable rise or return the watertable to its pre-clearing condition are to
be considered as being environmentally desirable.
2.3.6 Groundwater receptor environments
Groundwater from the Site discharges to Doombup Creek at the south-eastern end of the
location and probably at the base of the escarpment extending up to 3 km west of the creek.
Groundwater discharges either as seeps that can cover large areas low in the landscape or
at springs. Seeps represent the slow discharge of groundwater from the general aquifer
material, while the springs are probably mostly related to groundwater discharging from
macro-pores within spongolite and seem to occur higher in the landscape to the seep areas.
The most at-risk areas from groundwater migration from the WMF are therefore Doombup
Creek and along the escarpment. Below the escarpment groundwater flows beneath the
coastal plain through Superficial formations probably toward the coast through the Lake
Bannitup / Doombup wetland system. It is unlikely that groundwater will flow into the Lake
Warden system further to the west, although this has not been demonstrated. Talis make
the same conclusion when they state that the site ‘is not directly hydraulically connected with
the Esperance Lake nature reserve’ (presuming this refers to the Lake Warden Nature
Reserve). Strictly speaking, the area is hydraulically connected with the Lake Warden chain
of lakes through the Superficial aquifer, but the hydraulic gradient is probably not toward this
system.
2.3.7 Water quality
The ANZECC (2000) guidelines for fresh and marine waters recommend that dairy cattle
should drink stock water that contains less than 2500 mg/L TDS, while beef cattle should
drink water with less than 4000 mg/L TDS. Cattle however may tolerate drinking water with
salinities up to 7,000 mg/L TDS for short periods of time, albeit that they will show a decline
in the animal’s condition.
From the monitoring bores installed by Talis it’s apparent that the groundwater salinity within
the Pallinup aquifer beneath the Site is brackish, ranging between 1,100 mg/L and
3,700 mg/L TDS. By claiming groundwater is unsuitable for stock use in the Referral, Talis
have therefore understated the beneficial value of groundwater in the area.
The groundwater salinity around the Site is largely suitable for stock watering and is currently
used by all landholders in the area for this purpose.
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 15
Figure 6. Groundwater contours for June 2017 for Lot 12 Kirwan Road.
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 16
2.5 Predictive groundwater simulation
As an aid to problem solving in groundwater investigations, computer numerical models
provide a powerful tool for the rationalisation of spatial and temporal variability of field
conditions (e.g. variations in aquifer permeability, wetland and spring discharge, pumping,
etc.). The development of a numerical model also facilitates sensitivity analyses that assist in
understanding the dominant parameters and mechanisms within an aquifer system. The
modelling process is a method of simulating groundwater regimes by a system of
mathematical equations based on Darcy's law for groundwater flow. The process requires,
primarily, definition of the following characteristics of an aquifer system:
aquifer geometry, including lateral and depth extent;
aquifer hydraulic properties - permeability, specific yield etc.; and
regional head distributions or fluxes - rainfall recharge, throughflows, spring and
wetland outflows and borefield abstraction.
The use of predictive computer numerical models in problem solving can overcome the
difficulties inherent in assessment of hydrological systems using classical analytical methods,
which mostly assume aquifer homogeneity and are more applicable to the interpretation of
localised aquifer response.
The quality and accuracy of numerical modelling predictions is critically dependant on the
quality of the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) which comprises: the hydrogeological
conceptualisation; assumptions and parameters to be used in the model; as well as the
ability of the selected modelling code to simulate these conditions. The Australian
Groundwater Modelling Guidelines (NWC 2012) was developed to provide confidence and
consistency in the use of modelling for regulatory purposes.
The Referral includes Landsim 2.5 Model simulations prepared by Talis. The Landsim code
was developed by Golder and Associates in the UK as an in-house semi-analytical model to
simulate, primarily, the performance of different landfill lining systems and is application
described in the user manual at http://www.landsim.co.uk/forms/landsim%202_52006.pdf.
Reference to the Landsim manual specifically recommends that the model should not be
used in situations where the following site limitations occur:
• “The receptor should not be far from the site as the model output becomes less
precise with increasing distance”; and
• “Landfills located on highly sensitive aquifers are likely to require the use of more
sophisticated flow and contaminant transport models”
The Site fails to meet either of the above criteria and we also believe the application of
Landsim modelling itself fails to meet several key requirements of the Australian
Groundwater Modelling Guidelines insofar as:
• Model Objectives: The Australian Groundwater Modelling Guidelines require that the
purpose and modelling objectives be clearly articulated. In our opinion, the objectives
and limitations of the Landsim model are not made clear and it is left to the reader to
determine what interpretation and value to attribute to the model outcomes. While the
Landsim model is designed to simulate the performance of the liner system, its
application appears limited by the fact that is neither a proper solute transport model, nor
a spatially distributed numerical model in accordance with the guidelines;
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 17
• Model Conceptualisation: The model does not appear to be designed to fit any specific
Conceptual Site Model. For example, the regular rectangular model domain clearly is
unrepresentative of any natural aquifer system boundaries, usually referred to as
“boundary conditions”, and therefore cannot simulate regional flow paths from the WMF
to any specific receptors such as nearby creeks, boreholes, wetlands or groundwater
dependent ecosystems;
• Model parameterisation: The vertically and spatially homogenous, isotropic and
practically impermeable parameterization (K = 1.41x10-9 to 3.42x10-8 m/s) of the
Pallinup siltstone in Appendix C clearly misconceptualises this aquifer and particularly
the spongolite facies within the Pallinup siltstone. Also, the model doesn’t include the
underlying Werillup formation
• Model assumptions, calibration and limitations: None of these have been
comprehensively articulated in accordance with the guidelines
We recommend that the Landsim model needs to be upgraded to be consistent with a
Conceptual Site Model, its objectives and limitations need to be more clearly defined and its
use be limited on the design and performance of the liner system only.
The PER still needs a defensible distributed groundwater simulation making use of a proper
groundwater flow and solute transport model with a capacity to predict the likely groundwater
flows patterns from the WMF to receptors and to demonstrate the effectiveness of
contingency recovery systems. The modelling should be undertaken in accordance with the
Australian Groundwater Modelling Guidelines and use a recognised groundwater modelling
platform such as the Feflow or Modflow family of models.
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 18
4 Comments and Conclusions
We have identified no hydrogeological fatal flaws that would otherwise preclude this Site
from use as a WMF, although the occurrence of relatively high permeability spongolite under
the Site would not be considered best practice for the siting of a WMF. Nonetheless, many
WMFs are in hydrogeological environments that are less ideal than this Site but manage to
be acceptable according to ESD principles based on the robustness of their containment
design and implementation; the adequacy of their monitoring plan and trigger levels; and the
demonstrated effectiveness of their contingency recovery system in the event of a liner
failure.
The Referral, as it stands, fails to deliver us with confidence that:
appropriate clay resources for the liner (that are free from spongolite) have been
demonstrated locally to construct of the containment system as designed;
the baseline hydrogeology is sufficiently understood to develop an early detection
groundwater monitoring plan; and
Talis’s understanding of the Site Hydrogeology and model simulation is insufficient to
facilitate the development of an effective leachate recovery strategy in the event of a
liner failure.
Specifically, our review of the hydrogeological aspects of the Referral documents concludes
that:
the Phase 2 of the Referral failed to address most of the issues that were raised by
DPaW after its review of Phase 1 of the Referral;
the Referral greatly understates how rapidly groundwater could migrate from the
WMF to the surface environment south of the location should the WMF liner fail;
The regional hydrogeology, and the nature of the spongolite facies of the Pallinup
FM, is described in the following public documents: GSWA (1998) Esperance –
Mondrain Island 1: 250,000 hydrogeological series map sheets’; GSWA investigation
holes in the Bandy Creek – Coramup Creek area; and Esperance Water Deficiency
drilling. The hydrogeological knowledge from these documents hasn’t been
adequately captured in the Referral. The drilling on the Site failed to adequately
define the extent and hydraulic properties of the spongolite aquifer;
The Landsim semi-analytical unicell modelling presented in the Referral was not a
spatially distributed numerical model and therefore is incapable of meaningful impact
assessment on downstream receptors or the simulation of the effectiveness of
potential leachate recovery measures.
4.1 Recommended Hydrogeological Scope of Works
We recommend that Talis engage the services of a hydrogeologist for the Public
Environmental Review phase of the project. The Scope of Works for the hydrogeological
investigations should include the following:
Surface EM geophysical survey to identify any shallow bedrock and allow better
characterisation of the site hydrogeology;
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 19
At least two aquifer test bores constructed into the Spongolite aquifer for pump
testing. The existing monitoring bores would be good for observation points during a
pump test;
An optional deeper bore may be drilled to test the stratigraphy of the Werillup
Formation and completed as a monitoring bore. Test pumping of this bore would be
a low priority as the risks to this aquifer are likely to be low;
Although Talis’s assumption in the Referral that groundwater flow from the Site is
toward the coast and not towards Lake Warden seems likely, this nonetheless was
not demonstrated. It is desirable that several additional monitoring holes be
constructed south of the location toward and about the escarpment and Doombup
Creek to better map groundwater flow and for ongoing water quality monitoring;
All monitoring and production bores should be constructed in accordance with the
NUDLC (2011) “Minimum Construction Requirements for Water Bores in Australia”.
Specifically, the annulus of each bore must be sealed with a cement grout above the
water table in order to properly seal off connection with potential perched aquifers;
The existing core should be relogged, as it appears much of the previous descriptions
have misrepresented the lithology;
A regional water bore census of existing groundwater users should be conducted,
including depth to water, water quality and status. Talis refer to testing of some
private landholder bores and tanks in surrounding area (Section 7 of the Referral), but
have not provided details for the landholder bores, only output from a DWER bore
search was provided;
The PER will need to include a Contingency Action Plan to be actioned if
environmental triggers are exceeded in the Monitoring Plan;
Contingency measures should include interception bores to pump contaminated
groundwater from the aquifer and prevent it from migrating further from the site;
The contingency plan should include commitments by the Shire to implement the
actions; and
The effectiveness and appropriateness of contingency actions needs to be
demonstrated through a numerical groundwater flow and solute transport simulation
model, which must be developed in accordance with the Australian Groundwater
Modelling Guidelines.
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 20
5 References
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY 1992. Intergovernmental
Agreement on the Environment
AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION COUNCIL
2000. National Water Quality Management Strategy – Australian and New Zealand
guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. Paper No.4
AUSTRALIAN GREENHOUSE OFFICE (2000) Land clearing a social history. The national
carbon accounting system. Technical Report No4
AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION 2012. Australian Groundwater Modelling
Guidelines. Waterlines report series No.82
BADDOCK, L.J., 1995a. Esperance water deficiency area bore completion reports. Western
Australia Geological Survey, Hydrogeology Report 1995/9.
BADDOCK, L.J., 1995b. Coramup – Bandy Creek, Esperance groundwater investigation.
Western Australia Geological Survey, Hydrogeology Report 1995/13.
CHALMER, P 2017. Siting of Landfills, Best Practice Environmental Management EPA
Victoria 2015
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND WILDLIFE (2017) Letter to Mathew Scott (Shire of
Esperance) Re. Review of Hydrogeological Report for the proposed waste
management facility – Lot 12 Kirwan Road – 30 June 2017;
EMTAG 2017a. Summary hydrogeological investigation comments Merivale Rubbish Tip –
dated 24 June 2017;
EMTAG 2017b) Merivale Rubbish Tip, New Information;
JOHNSON, S.L. and BADDOCK, L.J., 1998. Hydrogeology of the Esperance – Mondrain
Island 1:250 000 sheet, Western Australia. Water and Rivers Commission,
Hydrogeological Map Explanatory Notes Series, Report HM 2, 24 p.
KRUSEMAN, G.P. and DE RIDDER, N.A., 1990. Analysis and evaluation of pumping test
data, second edition. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement,
The Netherlands, 1994.
NATIONAL UNIFORM DRILLERS LICENCING COMMITTEE 2011. The minimum
construction requirements for water bores in Australia. Version 3
SHIRE OF ESPERANCE 2017a. Letter to Greg Mair (Dept of Parks and Wildlife) Re. Review
of Hydrogeological Report for the proposed waste management facility – Lot 12
Kirwan Road – dated July 2017.
STANDARDS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA (1993) Australian Standard for Geotechnical
Site Investigations. AS 1726-1993 ISBN 0 7262 7878 5
TALIS CONSULTANTS 2017b. Esperance Waste Management Facility – EPA Referral –
Phase 1 Hydrogeological Investigation. CMS17230 – dated Jun 2017
TALIS CONSULTANTS 2017c. Esperance Waste Management Facility – EPA Referral –
Phase 1 Hydrogeological Risk Assessment. 19.1c – dated Jun 2017
TECHNICAL REVIEW Hydrogeology - Esperance Waste Management Facility Environmental Referral
Page 21
TALIS CONSULTANTS 2017d. Esperance Waste Management Facility – EPA Referral –
Supporting Document – Phase 2. CMS17230 – dated 20 Oct 2017
TALIS CONSULTANTS 2018a. Esperance Waste Management Facility – EPA Referral –
Phase 2 Hydrogeological Risk Assessment. V1a – dated Mar 2018
TALIS CONSULTANTS 2018b. Esperance Waste Management Facility – Response to EPA
Request for further information TW17082 – dated 22 Jan 2018