Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
APPENDICES
1 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
LIST OF APPENDICES
1 LISTING OF CONTAMINANTS AND CONTAMINANT SOURCES ...... 1 1.1 Contaminant Listing 1 1.2 Contaminants in Industrial Wastes 3 1.3 Water Quality Criteria 5 1.3.1 Drinking Water Quality Criteria and Suggested Standards (NHMRC, 1980, ANZECC 1992)...... 0 1.3.2 Water Quality Indicators and Criteria - Stock and Irrigation Use ...... 3 1.3.3 Water Quality Guidelines Recommended for some Food and Beverage Industries (concentrations in mg/L unless otherwise indicated)...... 5 1.3.4 Tabulation of the Average Daily Water Requirements for Livestock...... 0 1.3.5 Guideline Values For Pesticides In Raw Water Sources: NHMRC/AWRC (1987), NHMRC (1989)...... 0 1.3.6 Water Quality Guidelines Organics in for Raw Waters for Drinking Purposes subjected to coarse screening. (ANZECC, 1992)...... 2 1.3.7 Water Quality Criteria for Ecosystem Support (after EPAV, 1983)...... 2 2 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS...... 4 2.1 Detail of analytical and sampling techniques 1968-1983. 4 2.2 Analytical Techniques used from 1983 onwards for analysis of groundwater samples, State Water Laboratories (RWC). 6 2.3 Changes in GSV pollution bore sampling techniques and pollution data storage 9 2.3.1 Quality Assurance ...... 10 2.3.2 Freshwater Stratification in Bores by Fractionation and Condensation Trickle...... 11 2.3.3 Sample Filtration...... 11 2.3.4 Errors Propagated or initiated by Electronic Database Management...... 12 3 GROUNDWATER POLLUTION MONITORING BORES LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION DATA ...... 19 3.1 The Newer Basalts - Dual Aquifer Concept 19 3.2 Bore Construction (Western Suburbs) 20 3.2.1 Bore Construction a Transient Situation in the Western Suburbs...... 20 3.3 Details of Geological Survey and EPA funded Groundwater Monitoring Bores 21 3.3.1 List of Western Suburbs Pollution Monitoring Bores: ...... 34 3.4 Geological Survey Victoria (GSV) Basalt Survey Bores 38 3.5 Government Investigation Bores Located At Industrial Waste Disposal Sites (1973 - 1987). 39 3.5.1 Co-Disposal Industrial Landfills accepting Liquid Industrial Waste ...... 39 3.5.2 Government Investigation bores drilled at Industrial Waste Lagoons and Unlined Disposal Pits...... 39
2 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
3.5.3 Government Investigation bores at Industrial Waste Injection sites or waste recharge pits ...... 40 3.5.4 Government Investigation sites at Dairy Waste Injection sites...... 40 3.5.5 Sites Examined with Spillage and Fire Waters ...... 40 4 REGIONAL GROUNDWATER POLLUTION MONITORING BORES ...... 42 4.1 Western Suburbs 42 4.2 Regional observation bores in the Northern Suburbs 42 4.3 Regional groundwater monitoring bores in the South Eastern Suburbs 42 5 GOVERNMENT INITIATED GROUNDWATER POLLUTION MONITORING PROGRAMS...... 44 5.1 Government Investigation and Monitoring of Landfill Sites 44 5.1.1 Country landfill sites...... 44 5.1.2 Suburban Landfill Sites...... 44 5.1.2.1 Western Suburbs ...... 44 5.1.2.2 Northern and Eastern Suburbs...... 45 5.2 Summary Monitoring Results from Tullamarine Industrial Waste Disposal Landfill (Co Disposal). 47 5.3 Summary Results from Bores at Other South Eastern Landfills 49 5.4 Summary of Results of the monitoring of the Bunny Road Landfill, Oakleigh 50 5.5 Pollution Bore Status December 1986 and Summer 1990-1991 51 5.5.1 Western Suburbs Monitoring Bore Status...... 51 5.5.2 Tullamarine Monitoring Bore Status...... 52 5.5.3 South Eastern Suburbs Monitoring Bore Status...... 54 5.5.4 Northern Suburbs Monitoring Bore Status...... 54 5.5.5 Country Pollution Monitoring Bores...... 55 5.6 Private Groundwater Observation bores 55 5.7 Health Department Land Waste Management (Delegated Authority) Licences 1971 - 1986 with monitoring bores. 56 6 PRIVATE GROUNDWATER BORES DRILLED AS A REQUIREMENT OF ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1970,...... 57 6.1 Additional Private and Self-Monitoring Bores 57 7 MISCELLANEOUS GSV GROUNDWATER POLLUTION INVESTIGATIONS...... 65 7.1 Collection of Landfill Leachate Samples. 65 7.2 Column Leachate Attenuation Tests. 65 7.3 Chemical and Nuclear Tracers; Radio Nuclide Tracing Techniques in the Basalt Aquifer. 65 7.4 Insitu and Biological Treatment. 65 7.5 DO and Conductivity Profiles of Groundwater Monitoring Bores. 65
3 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
7.6 Fluoride Concentrations in Groundwater at Portland. 65 7.7 Nitrate Concentrations on the Nepean Peninsula. 65 7.8 Arsenic Concentrations in Central Victorian Bedrock Waters. 66 7.9 Acid (pH < 3) Pit Waters 66 7.10 EPA Golf Course Bores Monitoring Program (16th March 1978) 66 7.11 List in Alphabetical Order to the Titles of Groundwater Pollution Files Cited or Referred to in this Report 67 8 SUMMARY OF SELECTED METROPOLITAN LANDFILL SITES...... 70 8.1 Surface discharge of Landfill Leachate or Landfill Burst 77 9 DEVELOPMENT OF PROTECTIOIN POLICY IN GOVERNMENT COMMITTEES AND APPEAL HEARINGS ...... 78 9.1 State Development Committees 78 9.2 Ministerial Statement 78 9.3 Interdepartmental Committee on Aquifer Pollution (ICAP) 81 9.4 Interdepartmental Committee for Liquid Waste Disposal (ICLWD) 83 9.5 Milestone Appeal Hearings: TCPAB and the AAT 85 9.5.1 The Sunshine Tip Appeals...... 85 9.5.2 The Shire of Flinders Appeal...... 86 9.5.3 Camberwell Appeal (Nos. 1990/26374 et al.)...... 88 9.5.4 ACI - Lang Lang East (AAT No. 1991/036953)...... 90 9.5.5 Lilydale Appeal (Nos. 1992/006131 & 1992/016807) ...... 92 9.5.6 Ondit Appeal (Nos. 1996/5620 and 1996/31995)...... 94 9.6 Task Force for New Regional Tip Site Approvals (TFFNRTS) 98 10 TERRAIN, RISK, SENSITIVITY AND VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS...... 100 11 VICTORIAN TOWNSHIPS THAT UTILISE GROUNDWATER...... 105
4 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The concentration of Total Iron in analyses from 1968 - 1992, showing the change in laboratories in 1983. 9 Figure 2. Variation in the three year moving average illustrating steps in concentration at the change in the water laboratories...... 10 Figure 3. Location of Pollution Monitoring Bores in the Western Suburbs (after Riha and Kenley, 1978) 14 Figure 4. Bore location inserts a, b, c (after Riha and Kenley 1978)...... 15 Figure 5. Bore locations at the Tullamarine Industrial Waster Landfill, insert d (after Shugg, 1979).....16 Figure 6. Pollution bores locations in the South Eastern Suburbs (after Thompson and Harris, 1972 and Shugg, 1976)...... 18 Figure 7. Bore construction for the Western Suburbs Pollution bores constructed by the GSV (Riha and Kenley 1978)...... 20
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Some Occurrences of Acid Pit water in the Southern Suburbs...... 66 Table 2. Shires or Water Boards which provide town water supplies (P part, F full) or emergency water supplies (DR drought relief, E emergency) either wholly or partly from groundwater...... 105
5 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
1 LISTING OF CONTAMINANTS AND CONTAMINANT SOURCES
1.1 Contaminant Listing
Industry Activity Contaminants Water and Waste Water o Treatment plant floc Heavy metals, high organics, nutrients (P, K, N), o Sewage sludge landfill faecal, bacteria, viruses, protozoa o Waste water land spreading o Septic tank effluent o Lagoons
Solid Waste Disposal o Municipal landfill Ammonia, alkalinity, sulphate, chloride, carbon dioxide, methane, TOC, high TDS, heavy metals o Industrial landfill Biological contaminants, fatty acids, leachates typically contain 1.5 kg TOC/tonne of waste, 1.2 kg Cl/tonne, 0.80 kg SO4/tonne and 0.30 kg NH3- N/tonne
Waste Treatment Disposal o Storage of hazardous waste A range of mainly organic contaminants. See the Industry o Waste handling "priority contaminant" list
Transport Industry o Storage of hazardous materials Hazardous materials "priority contaminant" o Fuel storage Petroleum hydrocarbons, benzene, ethylbenzene o Oil and grease discharge o Accidental spills
Fire Fighting o Disposal/seepage of Hazardous contaminants derived from contaminated fire fighting, industrial fire water
Agriculture and Agribusiness o Cropping practices Pesticides, herbicides, nitrates, o Dairies and Feedlots TDS, heavy metals. High nitrogen and phosphorous loads, biological contaminants.
Electricity Generation o Fly ash ponds and landfill Sulphate, heavy metals, TDS, Se, Ge, Petroleum o Waste briquettes, tars hydrocarbons, PAH's
Town Gas Production o Coal tar disposal Petroleum hydrocarbons, PAH's, phenols, sulphur o Gas-scrubber waste disposal compounds, cyanide, ammonia, heavy metals
Chemical and Petroleum o Hydrocarbon storage Petroleum hydrocarbons, PAH's, BTX, Vanadium Industry o Hazardous material process pentoxide o Wastewater lagoons and storage o Solid waste landfills o Accidental spills
1 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Mining and Mineral Industries o Mine water disposal High TDS, iron, sulphate, acidic & heavy metals, o Storage of fuel organic flocculants, hazardous chemicals mercury o Tailings dams cyanide, vanadium pentoxide, acidic water, petroleum hydrocarbons and hazardous materials o Heap leaching
Manufacturing Industry o Food processing Nutrients, Nitrogen, K, P, TDS, organics such as lignins, o Pulp & paper manufacture organochlorins, sulphites, organosulphur o Automotive industry Organic solvents, petroleum hydrocarbons o Paint and Printing Organic solvents, resin making compounds, heavy metals o Metal foundries, machinery Petroleum hydrocarbons, phenols, BTX, plating and fabrication heavy metals, cyanide, furans, organic solvents o Timber mills & preserving Tannins, arsenic, chromium, cresols, phenols, pesticide compounds nutrients o Tanneries Sulphides, TDS, chromium o Coke and Steel manufacture Metals, petroleum hydrocarbons
Source: Adapted from Young (1981). The Impact of Point Source Pollution on Groundwater Quality in Duiivenbooden et al, (eds.) Quality of Groundwater Studies in Environmental Science 17 Proceedings of an International Symposium of National Institute for Water Supply Elsevier Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
2 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
1.2 Contaminants in Industrial Wastes
Metals and inorganics: Antimony Lead Arsenic Manganese Asbestos Mercury Beryllium Nickel Cadmium Selenium Chromium Silver Copper Thallium Zinc Phthalates: Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthal Dimethyl phthalate Diethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate 1,2-Dichlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Aromatics: 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Toluene Benzene - Xylene
Polychlorinated biphenyls and related compounds(PCB): Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1254 Aroclor 1248 Aroclor 1260
Phenols & Cresols: 2,4-Dichlorophenol 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 2,4-Dimethylphenol Parachlorometa cresol 2,4-Dinitrophenol Phenol 2-Chlorophenol
Polycyclic aromatic 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Dichlorobromomethane hydrocarbons (PAH): 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene Endosulfan sulphate 1,2-dichloroethane Fluoranthene 1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene Fluorene Acenaphtene Halogenated aliphatics: Acenaphthylene Methylene chloride Anthracene Naphthalene Benzo (a) pyrene Phenanthrene Carbon tetrachloride Pyrene Chloroform Trichloroethylene (TCE) Chrysene
Pesticides and metabolites: 2,4 - D Chlordane 2,4,5 - T DDT 4,4'-DDD Dieldrin 4,4'-DDE Heptachlor a-BHC Heptachlor exposide Aldrin Isophorone
3 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
a-Endosulfan Lindane b-Endosulfan
Radionuclides: Radium Uranium Radon
Biological: Total Coliform Escherichia Coli Streptococci
Others: Cyanides Nitrates Metal complexes
Source: Adapted from USEPA 1985
4 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
1.3 Water Quality Criteria
Water quality criteria have been used to apply water standards to water supplies and in waste disposal for receiving water standards. Beneficail use criteria consider loading and as well as concentration
Water quality criteria have been subdivided into four general categories. • human (potable); • irrigation (agricultural); • industrial, and ; • ecosystem support.
The difficulty in application of water quality criteria is that they are not necessarily exclusive and some of the criteria relate to aesthetics and not health criteria.
5 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
1.3.1 Drinking Water Quality Criteria and Suggested Standards (NHMRC, 1980, ANZECC 1992). Characteristic NHMRC 1980 ANZECC 1992 Desirable current maximum Long term objectives Health investigation levels if Raw Water for Drinking Supply criteria maximum levels exceeded PHYSICAL Aluminium 0.2 Ammonia (as N) 0.01 Arsenic 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Barium 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Boron 1.0 Cadmium 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.005 Calcium 200 75 Chloride 600 200 400.0 Chromium (hexavalent) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Colour Units 50 5 15 Copper 1.5 0.05 10 1.0 Cyanide 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.1 Fluoride 1.5 (b) 1.5 (b) 5 Iron (Total) 1.0 0.01 0.3 Lead 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Magnesium 150 50 Manganese 0.5 0.5 0.1 Mercury 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Nickel 0.1 Nitrate (as N) 10 10 Nitrate-N 10.0 Nitrite-N 1.0 Odour Unobjectionable Unobjectionable Organics (CCE & CAE) 0.2 Oxygen DO > 6.5 (> 80% saturation)
0 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
PH range 6.5 to 9.2 7.0 to 8.5 < 6.5 or > 9.2 6.5-8.5 Phenolics 0.002 0.001 0.002 Selenium 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Silver 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Sodium (a) 300.0 Sulfide 0.05 Sulphate 400 200 400.0 Surfactant (MBAS) 1.0 0.20 0.2 Taste Unobjectionable Unobjectionable Not objectionable Total Dissolved Solids 1 500 500 1000 Total Hardness (as 600 100 500.0 CaCO3) Turbidity Units 25 5 Site-specific Zinc 15 5.0 15 5.0
RADIOLOGICAL Characteristic Desirable Current Maximum Criteria Long Term Objective Health Investigation Levels if Radiological: 1992 exceeded Bq/L Bq/L Bq/L Bq/L Gross Alpha 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Gross Beta (in absence of 40 40 40 Sr90 and Alpha emitters) Gross Beta activity 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 (excluding activity of K) (including Sr 90) Radium 226 0.4 0.4 0.4 Strontium 90 1.0 1.0 1.0
MICROBIOLOGICAL i. Coliforms Throughout any year, 95% of samples 2. No sample should contain more than 10 3. Coliform organisms should not be Total coliforms, up to ten coliform organisms may be should not contain any coliform organisms coliform organisms per 100 mL. detectable in 100 mL of any two occasionally accepted in 100 mL. Coliform organisms in 100 ml per 100 ml consecutive samples. should not be detectable in 100 mL of any two consecutive samples. Throughout any year, 95% of
1 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
samples should not contain any coliform organisms in 100 mL ii. E. Coli No sample should contain E. coli in 100 ml Throughout the year, 90% of all samples Throughout any year, 90% of all samples No sample should contain any faecal coliforms in 100 .per 100 mL should not contain levels in excess of those should not contain levels in excess of mL specified in Column 3 those specified in Column 3.1. Algae Up to 5,000 cells/mL, may be tolerated; levels of 1,000 - 2,000 cells/mL of cyanobacteria may result in problems
(a) Due to insufficient data, criteria for this characteristic cannot be recommended at this time. (b) Subject to any restrictions in accordance with 1.6 page 1, and WHO International Standards for Drinking Water, 1971 (3rd edn), page 26, Table 2. (c) Methylene Blue Active Substances.
2 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
1.3.2 Water Quality Indicators and Criteria - Stock and Irrigation Use
INDICATOR STOCK CRITERIA (mg/L)1 IRRIGATION (mg/L)1 NHMRC/AWRC (1987), ANZECC 199 NHMRC/AWRC (1987), ANZECC 1992 NHMRC (1989). NHMRC (1989). Algae Should not be visible Up to 10,000 cells/mL depending on the algal species present Aluminium 5.0 - 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0; High toxicity in acid soils Arsenic 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 Bacteria <1000/100 mL E.Coli 1,000 faecal coliforms/100 <1000/100 mL E. Coli Pathogens and parasites: 1,000 faecal ml,Tentative value. Geometric mean coliforms/100 mL Geometric mean for not less of not less than 5 water samples than 5 water samples taken per month; no more taken per month; no more than 20% than 20% should exceed 5,000 organisms per should exceed 4,000 organisms/100 10 mL. ml Beryllium - 0.1 0.1 0.1 Bicarbonate No guideline recommended 0.5-6.0 BOD5 No guideline recommended Boron 0.5 5.0 0.75 Cadmium 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Higher toxicity in acid soils Calcium 900 - 1000 1,000 - CCA & CAE2 0.2 - Chloride 1400 - 5600 30-700 crop feed sensitive 355 - 1775 Chromium 1.0 1.0 0.1 1.0 Limit chromium (VI) to 0.1 mg/L Cobalt 1.0 1.0 0.05 0.05 Copper 0.5 0.5; 0.5 sheep, 1.0 pigs and poultry - 0.20 0.2 5.0 cattle Fluoride 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 Gross Alpha 0.1 Bq/L
3 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Gross Beta 0.1 Bq/L Iron <50 No guideline recommended 5.0 1.0 Lead 0.1 0.1 5.0 0.2 Lithium - 0.075 - 2.5 2.5: Citrus: 0.075 mg/L Magnesium 250 - 500 - Manganese - No guideline recommended 0.20 2.0 If acid soils, limit to 0.2 mg/L Mercury 0.002 0.002 - 0.002 Molybdenum 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Nickel - 1.0 0.2 0.2 Nitrate 90 - 190 30 : 30 horses, 40 cattle, 60 sheep - Nitrite 10 10 - PAH's 2 0.0002 - PH - 4.5 - 9.0 4.5-9.0. Phenolics 0.0002 - Salinity (TDS) 3500 - 14000 0 - 350004 Selenium 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Sodium - See soils 2.60 Sulphate 1000 1,000 - Uranium 0.2 0.01 Vanadium 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.11 mg/L is recommended for sandy soil below pH 6 Zinc 20 20 2.0
1 unless otherwise stated 2 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons type 3 carbon-chloroform extract & carbon alcohol extract 4 dependent upon plant species, soil type
4 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
1.3.3 Water Quality Guidelines Recommended for some Food and Beverage Industries (concentrations in mg/L unless otherwise indicated).
Parameter Baking Brewing Carbonated beverages Confectionery Dairy Food canning, Food process (general) Sugar freezing, dried/frozen manufacturing pH (units) - 6.5-7.0 < 6.9 > 7 0 - 6.5-8.5 - - Colour (units) < 10 < 5 < 10 - N D < 5 5-10 - Turbidity (NTU) < 10 < 10 1-2 - - < 5 1-10 - Taste, odour bw low N D low N D N D low - Suspended solids - - - 50-100 < 500 < 10 - N D Dissolved solids - < 800 < 850 50-100 < 500 < 500 < 850 - Calcium NS* < 100 - - - < 100 - < 20 Magnesium-< 30-----< 10 Iron < 0.2 0.1-1.0 < 0.1 < 0.2 0.1-0.3 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 1.0 Manganese < 0.2** < 0.1** < 0.05 < 0.2** 0.03-0.1 < 0.2** < 0.2 < 0.1 Copper - - - - N D _ - _ Ammonium - - - - trace < 0.5 - - Bicarbonate - ND - - - - - < 100 Carbonate - < 50 < 5 - - - - - Sulfate - < 100 < 200 - < 60 < 250 - < 20 Chloride - 20-60 < 250 <250 < 30 < 250 - < 20 Nitrate - < 10 - - < 20 < 10 - - Fluoride - < 1.0 0.2-1.0 - - < 1.0 < 1.0 - Silica - < 50 N D - - < 50 - - Hardness (as CaC03) NS* < 70 200-250 - < 180 < 250 10-250 < 100 Alkalinity - < 85 50-128 - - 30-250 30-250 - Hydrogen sulfide < 0.2 <0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 - - - - Oxygen consumed - - < 15 - - < 1.0 - - Carbon tetrachloride extract - - Slight - < 10 < 0.2 - - Chloroform extract - - < 0.2 - - - - - Acidity - - - - - N D _ _ Phenol-N DN D--N D-N D Nitrite - - _ - - N D - - Organic matter - trace Trace - - - - trace * some requirements for yeast actions, excess retards fermentation ** Total Fe and Mn ND: Not detected. NS: Not specified. NTU: Nephelometric turbidity unit Sources: McKee and Wolf (1963), Hart (1974)
5 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
1.3.4 Tabulation of the Average Daily Water Requirements for Livestock
Class of livestock Daily water requirement (L) Dairy cattle 46 - 91 Beef cattle 32 - 68 Horses 36 - 91 Pigs 9 - 23 Sheep 3 - 7 Chickens, per 100 birds 18 - 46
Source: Hart (1974)
1.3.5 Guideline Values For Pesticides In Raw Water Sources: NHMRC/AWRC (1987), NHMRC (1989).
Compound Maximum concentration(µg/L)
2,4,5-T 2 2,4-D 100 3,6-Dichloropicolinic acid 1,000 Acephate 20 Alachlor 3 Aldrin 1 Amitrol 1 Asulam 100- Azinphos-methyl 10 Barban 300 Benomyl 200 Bentazone 400 Bioresmethrin 60 Bromazil 600 Bromophos-ethyl 20 Bromoxynil 30 Carbaryl 60 Carbendazim 200 Carbofuran 30 Carbophenothion 1 Chlordane 6 Chlordimeform 20 Chlorfenvinphos 10 Chloroxuron 30 Chlorpyrifos 2 Clopzralid 1,000 Cyhexatin 200 DDT 3 Demeton 30 Diazinon 10 Dicamba 300 Dichlobenil 20
0 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Dichlorvos 20 Diclofop-methyl 3 Dicofol 100 Dieldrin 1 Difenzoquat 200 Dimethoate 100 Diquat 10 Disulfoton 6 Diuron 40 DPA 500 Endosulfan 40 Endothal 600 Endrin 1 EPTC 60 Ethion 6 Ethoprophos 1 Fenchlorphos 60 Fenitrothion 20 Fenoprop 20 Fensulfothion 20 Fenvalerate 40 Flamprop-methyl 6 Fluometuron 100 Formothion 100 Fosamine (ammonium salt) 3,000 Glyphosate 200 Heptachlor 3 Hexaflurate 60 Hexazinone 600 Lindane 10 Maldision 100 Methidathion 60 Methomyl 60 Metolachlor 800 Metribuzin 5 Mevinphos 6 Molinate 1 Monocrotophos 2 Nabam 30 Nitralin 1,000 Omethoate 0.4 Oryzalin 60 Paraquat 40 Parathion 30 Parathion-methyl 6 Pendimethalin 600 Perfluidone 20 Permethrin 300 Picloram 30 Piperonyl butoxide 200 Pirimicarb 100 Pirimiphos-ethyl 1 Pirimiphos-methyl 60 Profenofos 0.6 Promecarb 60
1 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Propanil 1,000 Propargite 1,000 Propoxur 1,000 Pyrazophos 1,000 Quintozene 6 Sulprofos 20 Temephos 30 Thiobencarb 40 Thiometon 20 Thiophanate 100 Thiram 30 Trichlorofon 10 Triclopyr 20 Trifluralin 500
1.3.6 Water Quality Guidelines Organics in for Raw Waters for Drinking Purposes subjected to coarse screening. (ANZECC, 1992).
Compound Concentration µg/L Benzene 10.0 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.01 Carbon tetrachloride 3.0 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.3 1,2-Dichloroethane 10.0 Pentachlorophenol 10.0 Polychlorinated biphenyls 0.1 Tetrachloroethene 10.0 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 1.0 Trichloroethene 30.0 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 1.0 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 10.0
1.3.7 Water Quality Criteria for Ecosystem Support (after EPAV, 1983).
INDICATOR LEVELS OF PROTECTION1 LEVEL I2 II III IV Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)3 ->6>5>4 Total dissolved gases - <110% atm4 -- PH - 6.5 - 8.5 6 - 9 6 - 9 Salinity (mg/L) - N + 2% N + 5% N + 10% Suspended solids (mg/L) - 25 80 400 Turbidity and colour - N + 10% N + 25% N + 50% Settleable solids - N N N Temperature (oC) - 6 66 Nutrients and biostimulants no excessive, undesirable or deleterious effects Toxicants - 7 77
1. Levels of protection range from I (maximum protection) to IV (baseline protection) 2. Level I protection = waters should not be modified by human activities in any way 3. Dissolved Oxygen should not be less than that given by 2 II DOmin= 1.4M - 048M - 1.1 2 III DOmin= 1.4M - 042M - 1.1 2 IV DOmin= 0.67M - 026M + 0.58 for M = maximum seasonal background concentration 4. ATM = ambient atmospheric pressure 5. N = natural background levels
2 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
6. Where: Tog = Temperature for optimal growth, TL = Upper incipient lethal temperature should not exceed temperature:
II Tmax = Tog + (TL - Tog)/3 III Tmax = Tog + (TL - Tog)/2 IV Tmax = Tog + 2 (TL - Tog)/3
7. Levels should not exceed values for T = threshold concentration of chronic sublethal effects and N = natural background concentration of II N + 0.2 (T - N) III N + 0.5 (T - N) IV < T
3 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
2 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS
The Geological Survey is recognised as having made a significant contributions to the quantification of groundwater chemistry in Victoria. But, attention is drawn here to the not to the contribution of the GSV, but rather provide some background to the means of deriving the composition of the waters.
The first water analyses carried out and recorded by the GSV Government Analyst dates from around 1855. This was an analysis carried out by Dr. Maund (1855) of the Hepburn mineral water, but other qualitative analyses were being carried out by the Geologists at this time (see comments in Newbery, 1967). Old analyses were reported in combined form and concentrations expressed in grains per gallon. Analyses conducted by the GSV labs were compiled each year in the Annual Assay Reports, copies of these are held in the reference section of the DNRE - GSV Library. Many of the analyses have also been published in the annual drilling reports and records. Few groundwater analyses in the digital databases pre date 1968. The accession of new water chemistry data has changed since 1992. Rural farm bores now only have EC data collected.
The Geological Survey Laboratory carried out the first 34,000, or about 85% of the total number of analyses in the current DNRE groundwater digital database. In addition, there are around 4000 analyses held in hard form in GSV - DNRE files (see Section 7.11) that include minor element and pollutant analyses carried out .
2.1 Detail of analytical and sampling techniques 1968-1983.
Following are the broad outlines of analytical methods used by the Chemical Branch of the Geological Survey on water samples arising from the Geological Survey Pollution Investigation.
Total Dissolved Salts By summation of major cations and anions Chloride: Electrometric titration using a silver-silver chloride electrode and buffered quinhydrone halfcell. Galvanometer reading denotes end-point. Carbonate: Titration with standard acid, phenolphthalein indicator. Bicarbonate:Titration with standard acid using methyl orange indicator screen with xylene cyanol. Sulphate: Classical gravimetric. Nitrate: Phenoldisulphonic acid method with final measurement by colorimeter. Calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium and iron: Determined by atomic absorption spectroscopy. pH: Digital pH meter reading to 2nd decimal place.
Trace Heavy Metals: (zinc, copper, manganese, lead, cadmium, and chromium) Samples were acidified immediately they were received, concentrated by evaporation and determined by atomic absorption spectroscopy. The technique of standard addition was used for all six elements. Mercury Atomic absorption spectroscopy Phenolic Substances: As in "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater", involving (chloroform) extraction, distillation, development of antipyrine dye and measurement of colour on a spectrophotometer. Fluoride: As in "Standard Methods" using the alizarin visual method, preliminary procedure modified in several ways. Alternative use of selective ion probe.
4 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Surfactants: Modified methylene blue method. Radioactive isotope 51Cr This isotope in the form of an EDTA complex was injected into the Laverton bore, to serve as a tracer, but the isotope encountered some very acid effluent (pH 2), and would not have remained stable under such conditions. This factor would not explain the inability to detect the tracer in the many subsequent samples taken. Total Phosphate Colourmetric Total Nitrogen, Ammonia Nitrogen Kjehdahl method TOC TOC (total organic carbon) analyser IOC IOC (insoluble [particulate] organic carbon) analyser
J.C. Kennedy, CHIEF CHEMIST Mines Department1
1 taken from Riha, M., (1975) Geological Survey Report 1975/5.
5 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
2.2 Analytical Techniques used from 1983 onwards for analysis of groundwater samples, State Water Laboratories (RWC)2.
Specific Test Technique Total Dissolved Solids, 105oC gravimetric APHA 2540 B Total Dissolved Solids, 180oC: gravimetric APHA 2540 C Total Dissolved Salts (summation) pre 1983: Cl, HCO3, CO3, SO4, NO3, Ca, Mg, Na, K, Fe tot, Fe sol, SiO3 post 1983: Cl, HCO3, CO3, SO4, NO3, Ca, Mg, Na, K Chloride, as CL potentiometric titration APHA 4500- ClD Total Alkalinity, as Ca CO3 potentiometric titration APHA 2320 B Carbon Dioxide (titrated) as CO2 titration 4500-CO2 C Sulphate, as S04 direct ICP5 Nitrate, as Nauto colorimetric APHA-NO3- F Nitrite, as N auto colorimetric APHA-NO3- F Nitrate & Nitrite, as N auto colorimetric APHA-NO3- F Magnesium, as Mg direct ICPl Sodium, as Na direct ICPl Potassium as K direct ICPl Fluoride, as F ion .selective electrode APHA 4500-FC Iron, total as Fe direct ICP on AAS # Iron, as Fe (USN) USN/ICP2 @ Silica, reactive as SiO2 auto colorimetric APHA 4500-Si F 5 Silica, total as SiO2 direct ICP pH, units electrometric APHA 4500 H-*B Hardness, CaC03 titration APHA 2340 C EC 25oC, microS/cm contuctometric APHA 2510 B
Colour Pt/Co Units visual comparison Nessler tubes APHA 2120 B Turbidity, NTU nephelometric Hach 2lOOA APHA 2130 B Suspended Solids gravimetric APHA 2549 D Volatile Suspended Solids gravimetric APHA 2540 E
Aluminium as Al (direct) direct ICP Aluminium, as Al (graphiteAA) Graphite FAAS Aluminium, as Al (USN) USN/ICP2 Antimony, as Sb direct ICP Arsenic, as As hydride generation4 Boron, as B (direct) direct ICP Boron, as B direct ICP Barium, as Ba (USN) USN/ICP2 Total Bromide + Iodide, as Br colorimetric (fluorescein)$ Cadmium, as Cd direct direct ICP1 Cadmium, as Cd (solvent) solvent extract ICP Φ
2 Information provided by Mr R. Bannister of WATER ECOscience.
6 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Cadmium, as Cd (USN) USN/ICP Chromium, as Cr direct direct ICP1 Chromium, as Cr (solvent) solvent extract ICP Chromium, as Cr (USN) USN/lCP2 Cobalt, as Co (direct) direct ICP Copper, as Cu (direct) direct ICP Copper, as Cu (solvent) solvent extract ICP Copper, as Cu (USN) USN/ICP2 Iodide as I selective ion electrode $ Lead, as Pb (direct) direct ICP1 Lead, as Pb (solvent) solvent extract ICP Lead, as Pb (USN) USN/ICP2 Lithium, as Li direct ICP Manganese, as total Mn direct ICP or AAS Manganese, as Mn (USN) USN/ICP2 Mercury as Hg cold vapour Molybdenum, as Mo direct lCP Nickel, as Ni (direct) direct ICP1 Nickel, as Ni (solvent) solvent extract ICP Nickel, as Ni (USN) USN/ICP2 Selenium, as Se hydride generation Silver, as Ag direct AAS Strontium, aa Sr direct ICP Tin, as Sn direct ICP Zinc, as Zn (direct) direct ICP1 Zinc, as Zn (solvent) solvent extraction ICP Zinc, as Zn (USN) USN/ICP2
Ammonia, as N selective electrode APHA 4500 NH3 F Azure -A Active substances extraction colorimetric $ Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 day APHA 5210 Chemical Oxygen Demand APHA 5220 Cyanide, as Cn total 4500-CN C+D Dissolved Oxygen as DO (lab) DO Meter & titration APHA 4500-O C & G Phosphorus, reactive as P auto colorimetric APHA 4500-P F Phosphorus, total as P persulphate digestion APHA 4500-P B(5) Phenolic Compounds, as Phenol distillation colorimetric APHA 5530 B&C Sulphide, total as S (titrated) titration 4500-S=E Tannins and lignins colorimetric APHA 5550 B Total Kjehdahl Nitrogen, as N SWL digestion (APHA 4500-Norg C) Total Organic Carbon combustion IR APHA 5310 B Trihalomethanes, total(µg/L) head space GC$
AAS - Atomic Adsorption Spectrophotometry ICP - Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectrometry CG - Gas Chromatography
APHA American Public Health Association Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Waste Water 17th Edition
7 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
$ - State Laboratory Method
# -0 Direct ICP - digestion 10% HCl 5h./110oC
USN/ICP - ultrasonic nebulisation ICP (after digestion 10% HCl 5h./110oC)
Φ - solvent extraction ICP - digestion in 1% HNO3 (boiling for 10 m.) APDC/NaDDC chelation then extraction into DIBK.
Comments
1. Direct ICP analysis was used from January 1984 onwards, prior to that time AAS was used for these metals.
2. Before the USN/ICP method was employed in July 1988, evaporation was used as a concentration technique prior to analysis by ICP, the detection limits were similar.
3. Cold vapour AAS was used until January 1986 when the current procedure using a dedicated long path length mercury detector was implemented.
4. Until March 1985 a combination of manual hydride AAS and automated hydride AAS (using a SWL developed technique) were used, after that time automated ICP and then AAS with hydride attachment in May 1991 were used.
2- 5. Prior to January 1984 sulphate was analysed by turbidmetric procedure (current APHA 4500 - SO4 E) and silica by colorimetric technique listed above.
8 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
2.3 Changes in GSV pollution bore sampling techniques and pollution data storage
Analytical, sampling and preservation techniques have changed significantly over the past three decades. In the data from the groundwater monitoring and groundwater pollution studies some of these changes are hidden or embedded in the digital and other analytical records. Some attempt is made here to redress the anonymity of these changes by outlining some of the procedures and techniques.
An attempt in this document has been made to include information that may be useful in assessing historical Government data easier. However, in evaluating old data the adage "today's records are the historical records of the future" is particularly relevant. This not an attempt to discredit contemporaneous analyses but to provide information that will provide value to data collected in the past.
The author is particularly concerned with respect to the perceived changes in values of heavy metals detected in groundwaters after the introduction of micro filtration, improved sample preservation and the more rapid transit to the laboratories. An example (Figure 1) of the impact of change in method and laboratory is depicted in the total iron concentration in groundwater. The sample points are from a random selection of mainly stock and domestic bores around the State.
1000
800
600 Total Iron (1968 - 1983) = -3.67916 Year + Total Iron (1984 - 1992) = 3.47249 * Year + - Number of data points used = Number of data points used = Average Total Iron = Average Y = Coef of determination, R-squared = Coef of determination, R-squared =
400
200
0 1970 1980 1990
Figure 1. The concentration of Total Iron in analyses from 1968 - 1992, showing the change in laboratories in 1983.
9 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
The data represented in Figure 2 are from the minor element analyses and represent monitoring sites with time series data, the change in Laboratories occurred in 1983. At this time there is a step in some determination levels when the data is smoothed. This is pronounced for zinc, which falls, arsenic and cadmium which rise then fall. The data comes from time series sites. Iron total and soluble occur at higher concentrations than the other heavy metals and their concentration is plotted on the right hand linear scale. The trend exhibited by Lead and soluble iron may be used as a control for the determinations.
Variation in Heavy Metal Concentrations Three Year Moving Aveage
10 400
1 300 3 yr MAv Zn 3 yr M Av Cd 3 yr M Av Pb 0.1 200 3 yr M Av As 3 yr MAv Fe Tot 0.01 100 3 yr M Av Fe sol Three Year Moving Average Moving Year Three 0.001 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 Date
Figure 2. Variation in the three year moving average illustrating steps in concentration at the change in the water laboratories.
2.3.1 Quality Assurance
In the early 1990's the assessment of Quality Assurance (QA) became important during the proliferation of litigation in environmental management. QA and chain of custody (CoC) became important aspects of analysis if litigation was anticipated or if it become an EPA audit requirement. The analyses carried out by the Government Laboratories had in house QA and CoC systems in place. Quality control and due care were a highly developed cultural aspect of Government Laboratories many of whom established NATA procedures. CoC was established in the delivery, labelling and reporting procedures.
In the assessment of historical data a judgement should only be made with due consideration and knowledge of the QA/QC and CoC procedures.
The method of obtaining samples from bores in the groundwater pollution program evolved through the course of the government pollution investigations. Many of the practices and techniques used today were first applied in the pollution sampling program. This applies equally to the sample collection, determination method and to sample preservation. Generally, the standards at the time of sampling were applied or developed and significantly, the Mines Department Laboratory was on the national consultative committee that developed the NATA standards and standard methods.
10 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
2.3.2 Freshwater Stratification in Bores by Fractionation and Condensation Trickle.
In profiles of pollution monitoring bores vertical variations in conductivity, temperature and DO were measured versus bore interval. A well established trend that identified water stratification in boreholes became apparent. The implication for representative sampling became obvious. A upper layer of fresh water often several metres in thickness resulted from: either the condensation of water vapour on the bore wall or casing and then the trickle down inside the bore, or the gradual fractionation of ions in the water column over a extended period of "stagnation". The result was a 2 to 3 m layer of fresh water at the top of the bore water column. Special efforts were made to overcome the logistical problems of obtaining a representative sample, taking into account bore column fractionation and aquifer redox. It was during this period that Mirko Riha developed the Riha sampling pump at the Geological Survey. The special pump enabled withdrawal of a representative sample from the aquifer without contact with atmospheric gases.
Sampling of narrow diameter pollution bore holes had presented many different logistical difficulties. A range of different sampling techniques were tried; mechanical and power winch operated bottom bailers, ball and clacker valve bailers, surface bailers, jet pumps, Riha pumps, and peristaltic pumps. Evacuation of a sufficient amount of "water" from a borehole to enable a "representative" sample was always an objective of sampling. In the gambit of the wide range of sampling scenarios particular difficulty was encountered when columns had an immiscible liquid phase or when the column height required movement of a trailer mounted turbine pump to the site, bores as deep as 1400 m were sampled.
The bore sampling devices were either dedicated to particular sites or appropriately cleaned and rinsed to prevent cross-contamination. In some instances it was necessary for the laboratory to be notified when samples would arrive so that precautions against cross contamination or fouling of equipment in the laboratory could be made. Health and Safety issues were also a concern in the laboratory.
The depth of the pollution monitoring bores was usually in the range 15- 50 m, though standing water levels may be as deep as 30 m. Outside the pollution network deep bores (400 - 1400 m) in the Otway and Gippsland basins required special logistical considerations.
2.3.3 Sample Filtration
With a change in Government laboratories sites in 1983, different on sample site preservation techniques were initiated. Turbid waters and those with flocculants were not suitable for the new analytical apparatus, and membrane filtration of samples was introduced for iron and heavy metal determinations. It became important where the filtration was carried out and when, ie. before or after acidification. It should be noted that most of the bores were in fractured rock aquifers and did not return turbid water. If on site filtration was carried out before acidification, then the water became aerated and the Eh and pH would rise, this would result in the iron and heavy metals becoming insoluble. Thus on site filtration before acidification ensured loss of the metals, aeration of the sample during transfer from the sample device to the filter reservoir was sufficient to achieve this. Manganese and iron adhere to the membrane substances and then scavenge other heavy metals, leading to lower heavy metal concentrations being recorded. For instance filtration of groundwaters can lead to the loss of 90-95% of the total iron and associated heavy metals (see Lamb, Hughes and Hughes 1996). Groundwater may have Eh - pH values in which metals are highly soluble (see Eh - pH diagrams in Garrels and Christ 1965). Groundwater characteristics are highly volatile and when exposed to the atmosphere spectacular
11 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management change in the water equilibrium may occur. This can reduce the solubility of the heavy metals by several orders of magnitude.
Many aspects of the water chemistry have not been recorded in the groundwater database files. Sample filtration for heavy metal determinations was introduced. Initially filtration was carried out on site, later filtration in the laboratory after acidification on site (preservation) was preferred by the laboratory.
2.3.4 Errors Propagated or initiated by Electronic Database Management
Some of the groundwater database management issues have been of short duration, but may have had a lasting impact on the data. Chemical methods, software and hardware have influenced the design and operation of record storage. Fields with codes were widely used, and in the case of some determinations prior to 1969, zeros were used to identify the presence or absence of a constituent: eg. Sulphate 0 - left zero - indicates that the ion is present 0000 - zero filled - indicates that the ion is present at trace levels (analytical sensitivity bias) 0 - right zero - indicates the ion was not present in the analysis - blanks - indicates that the ion was not analysed for
If this does not complicate the treatment of the data, then for a short time at the Geological Survey (ie. before 1989) empty or null determination fields were zero filled by one of the database managers.
The method of calculating TDS varied, and was coded in the data base as, U, E, C, or S.
U - Unknown E - Evaporation C - Calculated from electrical conductivity (EC * f where f is a constant usually 0.76) S - Summation of ions NOTE ions included in the summation changed from pre 1983 Geological Survey Chemical Laboratories to post 1983 RWC Water Laboratories,
pre 1983 Cl, HOC3, CO3, SO4, NO3, Ca, Mg, Na, K, Fe tot, Fe sol, SiO3 post 1983 Cl, HOC3, CO3, SO4, NO3, Ca, Mg, Na, K
From 1983 to 1989 several fields in the groundwater database were calculated: these were: HOC3, CO3, NO3, SiO3 and Hardness. This was due to different methods employed by the laboratories.
This influences the treatment of nitrate values in the database. In addition nitrate determined at the State Water Labs (RWC) from 1983-1992 and was expressed in elemental form with new lower detection limits. These were smaller than the database field allowed, therefore rounded data was put in the database for some period. From 1983 onwards the bicarbonate was calculated in the database management from a total alkalinity value. The method of determination and expression of silica changed, elemental calculated to SiO2 versus the old expression as SiO3.
For a review of the database design refer to Mack (1978).
12 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
The groundwater database currently (1999) contains around 40,000 groundwater analyses. Only a small proportion include major cation and anion chemistry. From 1992 onwards new data is restricted with little or no increment of major ion chemistry and virtually no nitrate data. Instead, data in a abbreviated form as conductivity are input into the data base. About 3000 analyses were collected in the groundwater pollution monitoring program. Around 34000 (85%) of the chemical records were collected by the Geological Survey prior to 1988.
The historical information sets include many determinations made on samples from private water bores may not have been analysed many months after their collection. Lag periods occurred between drillers forwarding or drilling inspectors collecting the waters, and transfer from the labelling and identification at the core laboratory to the water laboratory. When old records from the groundwater database are used due attention should be placed on the recorded date of analysis and the date of bore construction. This may be a significant consideration for principal ions such as: calcium, carbonate - bicarbonate, iron, silica and nitrate.
The recognition of historical events is important in the analysis of the "old data". This relates to change in water laboratories and methods of determination, as cited above and also to the evolution of the digital databases and the changes in location of the data management.
13 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Figure 3. Location of Pollution Monitoring Bores in the Western Suburbs (after Riha and Kenley, 1978)
14 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Figure 4. Bore location inserts a, b, c (after Riha and Kenley 1978).
15 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Figure 5. Bore locations at the Tullamarine Industrial Waster Landfill, insert d (after Shugg, 1979).
16 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
17 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Figure 6. Pollution bores locations in the South Eastern Suburbs (after Thompson and Harris, 1972 and Shugg, 1976).
18 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
3 GROUNDWATER POLLUTION MONITORING BORES LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION DATA
3.1 The Newer Basalts - Dual Aquifer Concept
For many years the Newer Volcanic lava fields of Victoria were thought to be characterised by two distinct phases of volcanicity which produced the basaltic flows and tephra of the volcanic plains. This concept was extended to a dual aquifer model for the hydrogeology of the Werribee Plains basalt aquifers. However as more detail has been revealed in drilling and from the exploration of the basalt plains for rock material, the dual aquifer model is recognised as a simplification of a more complex heterogeneous and multilayered system.
The dual aquifer hypothesis provided a more sophisticated treatment of the aquifer system than a single aquifer approximation. The splitting of the basalt aquifer into two has had a beneficial effect in reaching a better understanding of the complexity of the aquifer. In some areas the separation was based on the existence of a well developed palaeosols between composites of basalt flows. There are several of these palaeosols and they are difficult to map.
On the basalt plains west of Melbourne as many as or more than eight separate and distinct flows of lava may occur in the 50 to 60 m section of basaltic rock encountered in a borehole. Each basalt flow may possess a separate "aquifer zone". Sometimes flows have been separated by palaeosols (fossil soils) of varying thicknesses. These fossil soils vary in development and persistence, reflecting the active weathering of the volcanic terrain during a period of quiescence. One of the palaeosols in the Brooklyn area was used as a marker bed to separate the upper and lower aquifers of the basalt. The soil horizon did not persist, either in its development or areal extent. Often more than one palaeosol was found in a borehole section indicating that more than two hydraulic units might be recognised within the basalt aquifer at that location. The palaeosols may result in the formation of perched aquifers. In some cases the perching was observed as ephemeral, in others the indications were that the perching was a result of more secular phenomena.
In the parishes of Kororoit, Pywheitjorrk and Maribyrnong not all the pollution bores penetrated the full thickness of the basalt aquifer. Though these bores were constructed to develop two levels as an "Upper" and a "Lower" aquifer.
In petrographic examinations of cores from the basalts of the Werribee Plains Wylde (1975) and Stewart (1977) recognised more than thirty different lava flows. The basalt aquifer constitutes an anisotropic and heterogeneous medium. Vertical stratification within the basalt aquifer may be pronounced with marked hydrodynamic and hydrogeochemical differences. This has been quantified in data some of the pollution sites. Pollution at a site might be confined to the upper zone of the aquifer in contact with the pollutants. While, the lower zone may have ambient concentrations. The relationship depends on the vertical hydraulic gradients and hydraulic properties of the aquifer. Some private monitoring bores have cased of the upper contaminated zone and the bore monitors the uncontaminated lower waters. The constructing of bores in the basalt must always be carefully evaluated.
The splitting of the basalt aquifers into two has enabled some clarification of the processes that are active in the aquifer. It has enabled an understanding of potentiometric relationships within a vertical section of the aquifer, and has demonstrated that significant vertical hydraulic gradients exist within the
19 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management aquifer. Water quality in the basalt aquifer may vary markedly between the upper and lower aquifers, and this is an important reason for splitting the aquifer into two.
The construction of a monitoring bores by some authorities and private companies has ignored the dual or multi aquifer conceptual model of the basalts of the Newer Volcanics. The construction of monitoring bores should take into account the natural variations in the aquifers. This is not a problem if only the upper aquifer is developed. However, bores developing the full thickness of the basalt aquifer may average or apportion water quality and also give a false indication of hydraulic relationships and water levels in the aquifer. A monitoring bore can be constructed to fail to detect groundwater pollution by purposely developing either a lower or upper uncontaminated portion of the aquifer. It is in circumstances such as this that the responsible authority should have required nested piezometers.
3.2 Bore Construction (Western Suburbs)
Some confusion has arisen about the construction of government groundwater pollution monitoring bores in the Western Suburbs of Melbourne, this is due to several factors. The bores have had their construction changed in time, in some instances twice, and that the digital records are not consistent with the current bore status. The data base does take into account transient bore design.
3.2.1 Bore Construction a Transient Situation in the Western Suburbs
A short note of explanation is included here because some confusion has arisen with respect to the pollution monitoring bores in the basalt aquifers bores of the western suburbs, that is:
• the construction; and • the changing construction status. The pollution bores of the western suburbs had a special telescopic bore construction (Figure 7).
Surface casing with locking cap
Dual 10 mm WL measuring casing
Slotted interval in Upper 100 Change in internal mm casing structure
Orifice plate Screw in casing placed in reducing coupling 100 - 50 coupling for intra mm aquifer pumping Combined aquifers tests Slotted interval with upper portion in Lower 50 mm of 50 mm casing casing scewed out
Figure 7. Bore construction for the Western Suburbs Pollution bores constructed by the GSV (Riha and Kenley 1978).
20 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
The MDV driller for the program was Mr D. Grimsted, he reported the construction details in the weekly drilling reports. This data has been reproduced here to represent the bore construction at the time of drilling. It is not to be confused with the water intersections.
The lower aquifer was developed in a slotted length of 50 mm PVC casing. This 50 mm casing ran to the surface inside the upper 100 mm PVC casing string. A reducer at the base of the 100 mm casing enabled coupling with the lower part of the 50 mm casing. The upper portion of the 50 mm PVC casing was attached by a screw coupling reducer in the base of the 200 mm casing string. The upper 100 mm casing string was also slotted at the upper monitoring interval. Two strings of 10 mm casing were located outside the inner strings for water level measurements. These enabled water level data to be collected that was not influenced by in bore turbulence.
During the period 1976 - 1977 Mr M. Riha of the GSV modified the internal construction of some of the monitoring bores. This was achieved by screwing out the inner or top section of 50 mm PVC casing to produce a telescopic reducing construction. In some instances the top string of 50 mm casing was reinserted. This was not always possible and some of the bores now act as combined piezometers. This enables inter-aquifer communication of waters, which is not necessarily desirable.
3.3 Details of Geological Survey and EPA funded Groundwater Monitoring Bores
The symbol *, denotes Geological Survey Basalt Mineral Resource Bores. GSV, denotes Geological Survey Groundwater Pollution Investigation Bores. EPA denotes bores that were drilled by the Mines Department, with funding received from the EPA. Most of instances these bores were monitored by the Mines Department only.
Data collected from these bores has been released in open file reports available in the DNRE Library and on micro film and is considered to be in public domain.
21
Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Details of Geological Survey and EPA funded Groundwater Monitoring Bores
PARISH Par No. Bore Aq GWDB Ne Fr To Aquifer Authority Location Details DD MM Year st
Bolinda 2174 2 302048 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 19 11 1969
Bolinda 2174 3 302049 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 09 02 1970
Bolinda 2174 7 302053 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 03 10 1972
Bolinda 2174 9 302055 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 16 04 1973
Bulla Bulla 2258 19 302687 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Gellies Rd..Sunbury 07 12 1969
Bulla Bulla 2258 20 302688 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 11 03 1970
Cranbourne 2462 63 1 57178 Y 22.5 28.5 Baxter Formation (gr sands) GSV Cranbourne Tip, Cemetery Rd. 02 06 1987
Cranbourne 2462 64 1 57179 Y612Baxter Formation (gr/br sand) GSV Cranbourne Tip, Cemetery Rd. 04 06 1987
Cranbourne 2462 65 1 57180 Y0.512Baxter Formation (y/gr sands) GSV Cranbourne Tip, Cemetery Rd. 11 06 1987
Cut Paw Paw 2478 246 1 109474 Y 10.7 14.3 Newer Volcanics GSV Cecil St. Williamstown 05 02 1971
Cut Paw Paw 2478 246 2 109475 Y 21.3 26.2 Newer Volcanics GSV Cecil St Williamstown 05 02 1971
Cut Paw Paw 2478 247 1 109476 Y49.2Newer Volcanics GSV Race Course Rd 10 08 1971
Cut Paw Paw 2478 247 2 109477 Y 13.1 25.3 Newer Volcanics GSV Race Course Rd 10 08 1971
Cut Paw Paw 2478 248 1 109478 Y 9.2 15.2 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 07 09 1971
Cut Paw Paw 2478 248 2 109479 Y 19.8 28.4 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 07 09 1971
Cut Paw Paw 2478 249 1 109480 Y3.14.6Newer Volcanics GSV Westgate Bridge 08 10 1971
Cut Paw Paw 2478 249 2 109481 Y 25.9 27.4 Newer Volcanics GSV Westgate Bridge 08 10 1971
Cut Paw Paw 2478 250 1 109482 Y 9.2 15.2 Newer Volcanics EPA Sulphate – Stauffer Chemicals –NRE 01 08 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 250 2 109483 Y 36.6 42.7 Newer Volcanics EPA Sulphate – Stauffer Chemicals –NRE 01 08 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 251 1 57909 Y 7.6 22.9 Newer Volcanics EPA Margaret St Newport 08 08 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 252 1 109484 Y 7.6 19.8 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 18 08 1972
23 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Cut Paw Paw 2478 252 2 109485 Y 45.1 51.2 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 18 08 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 253 1 109486 Y 9.2 24.4 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 24 08 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 253 2 109487 Y 37.8 50 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 24 08 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 254 1 109488 Y 17.4 23.5 Newer Volcanics EPA Old Geelong Rd. Brooklyn 17 08 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 254 2 109489 Y 33.5 51.8 Newer Volcanics EPA Old Geelong Rd. Brooklyn 17 08 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 255 1 109490 Y 10.1 17.4 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 08 09 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 255 2 109491 Y 48.2 50.9 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 08 09 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 256 1 109492 Y 10.7 22.9 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 19 09 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 256 2 109493 Y 34.5 52.7 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 19 09 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 257 1 109494 Y 6.1 24.4 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 27 09 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 257 2 109495 Y 40.6 52.7 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 27 09 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 258 1 109496 Y 12.2 24.4 Newer Volcanics GSV Tyre Lug Factory, Brooklyn 06 10 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 258 2 109497 Y 45.1 51.2 Newer Volcanics GSV Tyre Lug Factory, Brooklyn 06 10 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 259 1 109498 Y 14 24.4 Newer Volcanics EPA West Footscray Rail Rd 08 09 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 259 2 109499 Y 48.2 50 Newer Volcanics EPA West Footscray Rail Rd 08 09 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 260 1 109500 Y 1.5 19.8 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 31 08 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 260 2 109501 Y 40.6 52.7 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 31 08 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 261 1 109502 Y8.59.2Newer Volcanics GSV Off Dynon Rd 27 09 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 261 2 109503 Y 14.3 16.8 Newer Volcanics GSV Off Dynon Rd 27 09 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 262 1 109505 Y 10.7 13.7 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 20 10 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 262 2 109506 Y 30.2 39 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 20 10 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 263 1 109507 Y 11.3 14.3 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 27 10 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 263 2 109508 Y 34.2 34.8 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 27 10 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 264 1 109509 Y 14.6 16.5 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 06 11 1972
Cut Paw Paw 2478 264 2 109510 Y 49.1 50.9 Newer Volcanics GSV Monsanto-Huntsman-Chemplex 06 11 1972
24 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Cut Paw Paw 2478 275 1 57920 Y842Newer Volcanics EPA Lysagh Durham chemicals 15 05 1975
Cut Paw Paw 2478 276 1 57921 Y 7 39.5 Newer Volcanics EPA Lysagh Durham chemicals 22 05 1975
Cut Paw Paw 2478 334 1 57922 Y14Newer Volcanics GSV Hyde St. Yarraville 03 11 1983
Cut Paw Paw 2478 335 1 57923 Y2329Newer Volcanics GSV Hyde St. Yarraville 15 11 1983
Cut Paw Paw 2478 336 1 109511 Y2127Newer Volcanics GSV Jones Rd, Brooklyn 05 02 1987
Cut Paw Paw 2478 336 2 109512 Y3648Newer Volcanics GSV Jones Rd, Brooklyn 05 02 1987
Cut Paw Paw 2478 337 1 57924 Y1224Newer Volcanics GSV Williamstown tip 09 12 1986
Cut Paw Paw 2478 338 1 57925 Y1224Newer Volcanics GSV Williamstown tip 11 12 1986
Derrimut 2516 2 1 109513 Y 15.2 21.3 Newer Volcanics GSV Boundary Rd.& Fairburn Rd. 05 04 1971
Derrimut 2516 2 2 109514 Y 31.1 37.2 Newer Volcanics GSV Boundary Rd.& Fairburn Rd. 05 04 1971
Derrimut 2516 3 1 109515 Y 13.1 18.3 Newer Volcanics GSV Boundary Rd. 07 05 1971
Derrimut 2516 3 2 109516 Y 0.3 26.8 Newer Volcanics GSV Boundary Rd. 07 05 1971
Derrimut 2516 5 1 109517 Y 15.2 19.8 Newer Volcanics GSV Robinson Rd. & Western hwy 22 10 1971
Derrimut 2516 5 2 109518 Y 30 36.6 Newer Volcanics GSV Robinson Rd. & Western hwy 22 10 1971
Derrimut 2516 6 306031 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 20 04 1972
Derrimut 2516 7 306032 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Greigs Rd. Rockbank 13 06 1972
Derrimut 2516 9 1 59412 Y2230Newer Volcanics GSV Robinson & Western Hwy 30 08 1983
Derrimut 2516 10 1 59413 Y 16.5 19 Newer Volcanics GSV Robinson & Western Hwy 01 09 1983
Derrimut 2516 11 1 59414 Y 21.5 27 Newer Volcanics GSV Fairbairn & Boundary Rd 08 09 1983
Derrimut 2516 12 1 59415 Y1619Newer Volcanics GSV Fairbairn & Boundary Rd 09 09 1983
Doutta Galla 2541 82 1 109523 Y 9.2 13.7 Recent fill GSV JJ Holland Park 02 06 1971
Doutta Galla 2541 82 2 109524 Y 15.2 17.7 Older Volcanics GSV JJ Holland Park 02 06 1971
Doutta Galla 2541 83 60671 Dry hole onlap on bedrock GSV Essendon Airport 25 06 1971
Eumemmerring 2603 225 62947 12.2 18.3 Brighton Group (sandy clay) GSV ACI Factory Dandenong 11 09 1973
Eumemmerring 2603 227 62949 11 17.1 Transition zone to hornfels GSV Lyndhurst Rd. 28 09 1973
25 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Eumemmerring 2603 228 62950 48.8 57.9 Hornfels – bedrock GSV Lyndhurst Rd. 22 11 1973
Frankston 2619 80 63795 15.2 30.5 Bedrock GSV Frankston Tip 31 12 1973
Frankston 2619 81 63796 6.1 9.1 Brighton Group (sand & clay) GSV Frankston Tip 19 10 1973
Havelock 2746 1 307888 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 20 06 1973
Havelock 2746 2 307889 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 19 09 1973
Havelock 2746 3 307890 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 07 11 1973
Havelock 2746 4 307891 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 22 11 1973
Havelock 2746 5 307892 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 18 12 1973
Havelock 2746 6 307893 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 07 02 1974
Jika Jika 2796 467 68271 9.5 15.5 Newer Volcanics EPA Field St Collingwood 17 05 1974
Jika Jika 2796 492 68272 2.8 15 Newer Volcanics EPA/GSV Yarana Av Northcote-Alphington 29 05 1976
Kalkallo 2819 6 310874 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Summerhill Rd 03 06 1970
Kalkallo 2819 7 310875 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Summerhill Rd 12 06 1970
Kalkallo 2819 8 310876 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 25 06 1970
Kalkallo 2819 9 310877 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Donnybrook Rd 13 07 1970
Kororoit 2927 10 1 109574 Y1722Newer Volcanics GSV Leaks Rd; Rockbank 27 05 1971
Kororoit 2927 10 2 109575 Y 28 37.5 Newer Volcanics GSV Leaks Rd; Rockbank 27 05 1971
Kororoit 2927 11 311290 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Ribank & Sydenham Rd 09 03 1972
Kororoit 2927 12 311291 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Rockbank Rd 30 05 1972
Kororoit 2927 13 311292 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Beattys & Paynes Rd 12 07 1972
Kororoit 2927 14 311293 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 28 08 1972
Kororoit 2927 15 311294 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 04 04 1975
Kororoit 2927 16 311295 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 06 05 1975
Kororoit 2927 65 1 73199 Y 19.5 31 Newer Volcanics GSV Leaks Rd 13 10 1983
Kororoit 2927 66 1 73200 Y 49.5 57 Newer Volcanics GSV Leaks Rd 20 10 1983
26 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Lyndhurst 3025 140 1 109581 Y06.1Brighton group (sands & shells) GSV Chelsea tip 06 07 1973
Lyndhurst 3025 140 2 109582 Y 73.8 84.4 Werribee Fm (coal & sand) GSV Chelsea tip 06 07 1973
Lyndhurst 3025 141 76199 30.5 42.7 Werribee Fm (shells & gravel) GSV Pillars Rd, Bangholme 05 04 1974
Lyndhurst 3025 152 76206 010Baxter Formation (brown sand) GSV Stevensons Rd, Cranbourne tip 05 06 1987
Lyndhurst 3025 153 76207 2.5 9 Baxter Formation (yellow sands) GSV Stevensons Rd, Cranbourne tip 11 06 1987
Lyndhurst 3025 154 76208 7.5 13.5 Baxter Formation (yellow sands) GSV Stevensons Rd, Cranbourne tip 16 06 1987
Lyndhurst 3025 155 76209 915Baxter Formation (grey sands) GSV Stevensons Rd, Cranbourne tip 16 06 1987
Maribyrnong 3061 35 1 109583 Y4.37.6Older Volcanics St Albans Rd, Greens Gully, Keilor 17 06 1971
Maribyrnong 3061 35 2 109584 Y 13.1 16.2 Palaeozoic bedrock GSV St Albans Rd, Greens Gully, Keilor 17 06 1971
Maribyrnong 3061 36 1 109585 Y 24.4 30.5 Newer Volcanics GSV Holden and Plumpton Rds. 04 08 1971
Maribyrnong 3061 36 2 109586 Y 42.7 62.5 Newer Volcanics GSV Holden and Plumpton Rds. 04 08 1971
Maribyrnong 3061 37 315725 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Melton 29 10 1971
Maribyrnong 3061 38 315726 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Old Rockbank and Melton Rd 23 11 1971
Maribyrnong 3061 39 315727 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 04 11 1971
Maribyrnong 3061 40 315728 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Taylors Rd. St Albans 10 12 1971
Maribyrnong 3061 42 315730 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 11 02 1972
Maribyrnong 3061 43 315731 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Taylors Rd. St Albans 24 03 1972
Maribyrnong 3061 44 1 109587 Y 15.9 29.6 Newer Volcanics EPA 18 07 1972
Maribyrnong 3061 44 2 109588 Y 43.9 54.6 Newer Volcanics EPA 18 07 1972
Maribyrnong 3061 45 1 109589 Y 7.6 12.2 Newer Volcanics Nettlefold St. St Albans 31 08 1972
Maribyrnong 3061 45 2 109590 Y 23.8 25.6 Newer Volcanics Nettlefold St. St Albans 31 08 1972
Maribyrnong 3061 46 77219 51 63 Newer Volcanics GSV Pet Ref Aust quarry Sydenham 03 11 1972
Maribyrnong 3061 47 1 109591 Y 13.1 16.2 Newer Volcanics GSV Station Rd. Sunshine 20 05 1971
Maribyrnong 3061 47 2 109592 Y 41.5 45.1 Newer Volcanics GSV Station Rd. Sunshine 20 05 1971
Maribyrnong 3061 48 1 109593 Y1441Newer Volcanics EPA Hullet St. Sunshine Tip 05 04 1975
27 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Maribyrnong 3061 48 2 109594 Y Newer Volcanics EPA Hullet St. Sunshine Tip 05 04 1975
Maribyrnong 3061 49 1 77220 Y1348Newer Volcanics EPA Hullet St. Sunshine Tip 08 04 1975
Maribyrnong 3061 49 2 77220 Y Newer Volcanics EPA Hullet St. Sunshine Tip 08 04 1975
Maribyrnong 3061 50 1 77221 Y1122Newer Volcanics EPA Hullet St. Sunshine Tip 23 04 1975
Maribyrnong 3061 50 2 77221 Y Newer Volcanics EPA Hullet St. Sunshine Tip 23 04 1975
Maribyrnong 3061 50 3 77221 Y Newer Volcanics EPA Hullet St. Sunshine Tip 23 04 1975
Maribyrnong 3061 51 1 109596 Y 23 45.5 Newer Volcanics EPA Hullet St. Sunshine Tip 07 07 1976
Maribyrnong 3061 51 2 109597 Y Newer Volcanics EPA Hullet St. Sunshine Tip 07 07 1976
Maribyrnong 3061 52 1 109599 Y12Newer Volcanics EPA Hullet St. Sunshine Tip 08 06 1976
Maribyrnong 3061 52 2 109600 Y1621Newer Volcanics EPA Hullet St. Sunshine Tip 08 06 1976
Maribyrnong 3061 53 1 109601 Y69Newer Volcanics EPA Hullet St. Sunshine Tip 09 06 1976
Maribyrnong 3061 53 2 109602 Y2027Newer Volcanics EPA Hullet St. Sunshine Tip 09 06 1976
Maribyrnong 3061 54 77222 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 18 06 1976
Maribyrnong 3061 55 77223 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 25 06 1976
Maribyrnong 3061 56 77224 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 25 06 1976
Mepunga 3087 18 78549 12 42.8 Port Campbell Limestone EPA East of Factory 21 03 1975
Mepunga 3087 19 78550 11 42.8 Port Campbell Limestone EPA Cobden Rd. 26 03 1975
Mepunga 3087 20 78551 12 41.5 Port Campbell Limestone EPA North of Factory 02 05 1975
Mepunga 3087 21 78552 13 41.5 Port Campbell Limestone EPA South of Factory 26 04 1975
Mepunga 3087 22 78553 9 40.3 Port Campbell Limestone EPA South West of Factory 18 04 1975
Moorabbin 3163 28 80245 15.2 21.3 Newport Formation (silty marl) EPA Banksia Reserve Beaumaris 12 04 1973
Moorabbin 3163 29 1 109613 Y 6.1 12.2 Brighton Group (sandy clay) EPA Brighton Depot; Centre Rd.(67h12) 10 05 1973
Moorabbin 3163 29 2 109614 Y 18.3 24.4 Newport Formation (green silty marl) EPA Brighton Depot; Centre Rd.(67h12) 10 05 1973
Moorabbin 3163 29 3 109615 Y 48.8 57.9 Bedrock (mudstone) EPA Brighton Depot; Centre Rd.(67h12) 10 05 1973
Morang 3183 44 320422 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Gordons Lane 01 06 1971
28 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Morang 3183 45 320423 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Plenty Rd. Sth Morang 21 06 1971
Morang 3183 46 320424 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Epping Sth Morang Rd 22 07 1971
Morang 3183 47 320425 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Morang Rd 27 07 1971
Mordialloc 3186 299 81419 34 40 Werribee Formation (gr silty clay) EPA/GSV Springvale (79C12) 27 11 1971
Mordialloc 3186 300 81420 12.1 18.3 Brighton Group (coal sandy gravel) EPA/GSV Clayton Tip, Victory Rd 31 01 1973
Mordialloc 3186 301 81421 31 43 Newport Formation (silty clay) EPA/GSV Din San Nursery,(88C2) 21 02 1973
Mordialloc 3186 303 81422 915Brighton Group (sandy clay) EPA/GSV Brighton Tip Ball Rd, Heatherton (78E9) 24 05 1973
Mordialloc 3186 303 81422 33.5 39.5 Newport Formation (fossil green marl) EPA/GSV Brighton Tip Ball Rd, Heatherton (78E9) 24 05 1973
Mordialloc 3186 303 81422 41.2 47.2 Bedrock (mudstone) EPA/GSV Brighton Tip Ball Rd, Heatherton (78E9) 24 05 1973
Mordialloc 3186 304 1 109632 Y 9.1 15.2 Brighton Group (coal grey s/clay) EPA Springvale Tip, E side Spring St 30 07 1973
Mordialloc 3186 304 2 109633 Y 18.3 30.5 Newport Formation (pyritic sand & silt) EPA Springvale Tip, E side Spring St 30 07 1973
Mordialloc 3186 305 1 109634 Y 6.7 12.8 Brighton Group (sand) EPA Oakleigh; Bunny Rd. Tip 17 08 1973
Mordialloc 3186 305 2 109635 Y 29.6 38.1 Newport Formation (course sand & clay) EPA Oakleigh; Bunny Rd. Tip 17 08 1973
Mordialloc 3186 306 81423 22.9 32 Newport Formation (green marl) EPA Oakleigh; Bunny Rd Ttip 05 12 1973
Mordialloc 3186 307 81424 12.2 18.3 Recent Fill (garbage & putrescible waste) EPA Oakleigh; Bunny Rd. Tip 17 12 1973
Mordialloc 3186 308 81425 6.1 12.2 Brighton Group (gravel) EPA Oakleigh; Bunny Rd Tip, Bunny Rd 01 02 1974
Mordialloc 3186 309 81426 23.8 29.9 Newport Formation (brown sandy silt) EPA Oakleigh; Bunny Rd Tip, Bunny Rd 13 02 1974
Mordialloc 3186 335 81427 25.3 31.4 Newport Formation (gravel & clay) EPA Oakleigh; Bunny Rd Tip, Bunny Rd 21 02 1974
Mordialloc 3186 336 81428 13.7 Brighton Group (green silty marl) EPA Oakleigh; Bunny Rd Tip, Bunny Rd 27 02 1974
Mordialloc 3186 337 81429 12.8 18.7 Brighton Group (sand) EPA Oakleigh; Bunny Rd Tip, Bunny Rd 05 03 1974
Mordialloc 3186 338 81430 28 34.2 Newport Formation(grey marl & limestone) EPA Oakleigh; Bunny Rd Tip, Elder St 12 03 1974
Mordialloc 3186 339 81431 9.1 15.2 Brighton Group (sandy gravel) EPA Oakleigh; Bunny Rd Tip, Elder St 18 03 1974
Mordialloc 3186 341 81433 28 30 Newport Formation (sandy silty clay) EPA Springvale tip 09 04 1976
Mordialloc 3186 342 81434 12 15 Brighton Group (clayey sand) EPA Springvale tip 23 04 1976
Mordialloc 3186 343 81435 14.5 15.5 Brighton Group (fine-medium sand) EPA Springvale tip, Clarke Rd. 29 04 1976
29 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Mordialloc 3186 344 81436 15.5 18.5 Brighton Group (grey silty sand) EPA Oakleigh; Bunny Rd Tip, Elder St 14 05 1976
Porepunkah 3413 1 1 109653 Y1015Shepparton Formation (gravels) EPA Porepunkah Tip; Roberts Creek 21 05 1979
Porepunkah 3413 1 2 109653 Y3942Lower Ovens Alluvial Gravels EPA Porepunkah Tip; Roberts Creek 21 05 1979
Porepunkah 3413 2 88271 10 15 Shepparton Formation (gravels) EPA Porepunkah Tip; Roberts Creek 07 06 1979
Porepunkah 3413 3 88272 10 15 Shepparton Formation (gravels) EPA Porepunkah Tip; Roberts Creek 13 06 1979
Porepunkah 3413 4 88273 915Shepparton Formation (gravels) EPA Porepunkah Tip; Roberts Creek 20 06 1979
Pywheitjorrk 3431 4 326202 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Faulkner's Rd 08 07 1975
Sherwood 3487 108 91080 3.5 9.5 Baxter Formation (fine sand) GSV Bullarto Rd 17 06 1987
Sherwood 3487 109 91081 4.5 10.5 Baxter Formation (yellow sand) GSV Botanic garden gates 18 06 1987
Tarneit 3552 3 1 109683 Y 13.7 17.7 Newer Volcanics GSV Laverton 17 03 1971
Tarneit 3552 3 2 109684 Y 23.8 34.5 Newer Volcanics GSV Laverton 17 03 1971
Tarneit 3552 4 1 109685 Y 15.2 21.3 Newer Volcanics GSV Laverton 26 03 1971
Tarneit 3552 4 2 109686 Y 31.1 37.2 Newer Volcanics GSV Laverton 26 03 1971
Tarneit 3552 8 329265 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 17 09 1975
Tarneit 3552 19 1 93705 Y1219Newer Volcanics GSV Boundary & Tarneit Rds. 23 08 1983
Tarneit 3552 20 1 93706 Y 9.5 35.5 Newer Volcanics GSV Tarneit & Hogan 30 09 1983
Truganina 3651 16 1 109707 Y 15.2 21.7 Newer Volcanics GSV Laverton 18 02 1971
Truganina 3651 16 2 109708 Y 24.4 42.1 Newer Volcanics GSV Laverton 18 02 1971
Truganina 3651 17 1 109709 Y4.98.8Newer Volcanics GSV Laverton 24 02 1971
Truganina 3651 17 2 109710 Y 10.1 13.7 Newer Volcanics GSV Laverton 24 02 1971
Truganina 3651 18 1 109711 Y 22.3 29 Newer Volcanics GSV Laverton 05 03 1971
Truganina 3651 18 2 109712 Y 35.1 36.6 Newer Volcanics GSV Laverton 05 03 1971
Truganina 3651 19 1 109713 Y 6.7 12.8 Newer Volcanics GSV Blandons Rd.laverton 21 04 1971
Truganina 3651 19 2 109714 Y 36.6 42.7 Newer Volcanics GSV Blandons Rd.laverton 21 04 1971
Truganina 3651 20 1 109715 Y 14.6 35.4 Newer Volcanics GSV Boundary & Palmers 16 09 1971
30 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Truganina 3651 20 2 109716 Y 45.7 54.3 Newer Volcanics GSV Boundary & Palmers 16 09 1971
Truganina 3651 21 1 109717 Y 6.4 10.1 Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 19 11 1971
Truganina 3651 21 2 109718 Y 13.1 16.2 Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 19 11 1971
Truganina 3651 22 1 109719 Y5.88.5Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 08 12 1971
Truganina 3651 22 1 109720 Y5.88.5Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 08 12 1971
Truganina 3651 23 1 109721 Y 7.6 11.6 Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 27 01 1972
Truganina 3651 23 2 109722 Y 31.4 44.8 Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 27 01 1972
Truganina 3651 24 1 109723 Y 10.1 16.2 Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 10 02 1972
Truganina 3651 24 2 109724 Y 21.3 33.5 Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 10 02 1972
Truganina 3651 25 1 109725 Y58.8Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 11 05 1972
Truganina 3651 25 2 109726 Y 27.4 34.5 Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 11 05 1972
Truganina 3651 26 1 109727 Y 10.1 11.3 Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 03 06 1972
Truganina 3651 26 2 109728 Y 38.7 41.2 Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 03 06 1972
Truganina 3651 27 1 109729 Y79.2Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 14 06 1972
Truganina 3651 27 2 109730 Y 35.7 36.6 Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 14 06 1972
Truganina 3651 29 1 109731 Y 10.7 16.8 Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 04 07 1972
Truganina 3651 29 2 109732 Y 40.5 46.6 Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 04 07 1972
Truganina 3651 30 1 109733 Y 7.9 10.4 Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 24 07 1972
Truganina 3651 30 2 109734 Y 32.3 39.6 Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 24 07 1972
Truganina 3651 31 1 109735 Y 12.2 18.3 Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 01 08 1972
Truganina 3651 31 2 109736 Y 24.4 30.5 Newer Volcanics GSV Pigment Manu Aust Laverton 01 08 1972
Truganina 3651 32 1 96883 Y3.19.8Newer Volcanics GSV Mayston Rd, Altona 23 08 1972
Truganina 3651 32 2 96883 Y 15.9 28 Newer Volcanics GSV Mayston Rd, Altona 23 08 1972
Truganina 3651 48 1 96899 Y 3.1 15.2 Newer Volcanics GSV Mason St, Altona 14 09 1972
Truganina 3651 49 1 109737 Y 6.7 11.6 Newer Volcanics GSV Mason St, Altona 21 09 1972
31 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Truganina 3651 49 2 109738 Y 22.3 27.4 Newer Volcanics GSV Moyston St Altona 21 09 1972
Truganina 3651 53 1 96900 Y3138Newer Volcanics GSV Boundary & Robinson 21 09 1983
Truganina 3651 54 1 96901 Y 21 27.5 Newer Volcanics GSV Boundary & Robinson 26 09 1983
Truganina 3651 55 1 Y 0 14.5 Newer Volcanics GSV
Truganina 3651 56 1 Y Newer Volcanics GSV
Tullamarine 3654 1 1 109739 Y 20.7 23.8 Newer Volcanics GSV Hillcrest Dr. Tullamarine 09 06 1971
Tullamarine 3654 1 2 109740 Y 23.8 25.3 Newer Volcanics GSV Hillcrest Dr. Tullamarine 09 06 1971
Tullamarine 3654 3 1 109741 Y 30.5 36.6 Brighton Group GSV Western av, Tullamarine 25 10 1972
Tullamarine 3654 3 2 109742 Y 42.7 48.8 Older Volcanics GSV Western av, Tullamarine 25 10 1972
Tullamarine 3654 4 97000 Industrial Waste GSV In core of Tullamarine Landfill 26 04 1974
Tullamarine 3654 5 97001 Industrial Waste GSV In core of Tullamarine Landfill 04 05 1974
Tullamarine 3654 6 97002 Industrial Waste GSV In core of Tullamarine Landfill 04 05 1974
Tullamarine 3654 7 97003 Industrial Waste & Older Volcanics GSV In core of Tullamarine Landfill 10 05 1974
Tullamarine 3654 8 97004 32 38 Older Volcanics GSV Western Av, Tullamarine 25 06 1980
Tullamarine 3654 9 97005 33 42 Older Volcanics GSV Victoria Av., Tullamarine 09 07 1980
Tullamarine 3654 10 97006 34 40 Older Volcanics GSV Victoria Av., Tullamarine 23 07 1980
Tullamarine 3654 11 97007 32.5 38.5 Older Volcanics GSV Airport Dr., Tullamarine 04 08 1980
Tullamarine 3654 12 97008 45 48 Older Volcanics GSV South Centre Rd. Tullamarine 21 08 1980
Tullamarine 3654 10001 97012 10.7 15.2 Older Volcanics Brambles-IWC On bench, quarry 03 02 1972
Tullamarine 3654 10002 97013 17.4 18.3 Werribee Formation Brambles-IWC W floor quarry 11 02 1972
Tullamarine 3654 10003 97014 15.8 17.4 Werribee Formation Brambles-IWC NW floor quarry 11 02 1972
Tullamarine 3654 10005 97016 45.7 51.2 Older Volcanics Brambles-IWC E side Q wall 18 09 1973
Tullamarine 3654 10006 97017 10.1 17.4 Older Volcanics Brambles-IWC N side of Quarry 11 10 1974
Tullamarine 3654 10010 97021 11 28.6 Brighton Group Brambles-IWC S side of Quarry 08 02 1977
Tullamarine 3654 10011 97022 10.4 17.4 Brighton Group Brambles-IWC SE side of Q 10 02 1977
32 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Tullamarine 3654 10012 97023 12.6 24.6 Brighton Group Brambles-IWC NE side of Q 08 02 1977
Tullamarine 3654 10016 97027 Y4153Older Volcanics Brambles-IWC Between 3 & 10005 31 01 1980
Tullamarine 3654 10017 97028 Y3338Brighton Group Brambles-IWC Between 3 & 10005 29 01 1980
Tullamarine 3654 10018 109743 Y1425Brighton Group Brambles-IWC W side of Quarry 06 02 1980
Tullamarine 3654 10018 109744 Y2733Older Volcanics Brambles-IWC W side of Quarry 06 02 1980
Tullamarine 3654 10019 109745 Y513Older Volcanics Brambles-IWC N side of Quarry; Moonee Ponds Ck 08 02 1980
Tullamarine 3654 10019 109746 Y1519Older Volcanics Brambles-IWC N side of Quarry; Moonee Ponds Ck 08 02 1980
Wallan Wallan 3707 1 330483 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Hume Hwy Wallan 10 05 1974
Wallan Wallan 3707 2 330484 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Windham St Wallan 10 06 1974
Wannaeue 3730 44 100024 0.5 18 Quaternary alluvium and swamp sediment GSV Trumans Rd, Rye Tip 11 12 1980
Wannaeue 3730 45 100025 0.5 6 Quaternary alluvium and swamp sediment GSV Trumans Rd, Rye Tip 20 02 1981
Wollert 3855 7 331667 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Cemetery Rd. Epping 16 06 1971
Wollert 3855 10 1 103937 Y 3.1 12.2 Newer Volcanics EPA Near Cooper & High St Epping 10 10 1972
Wollert 3855 10 2 103937 Y 52.4 64.4 Newer Volcanics GSV Near Cooper & High St Epping 10 10 1972
Yan Yean 3955 2 333831 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 11 02 1971
Yan Yean 3955 3 333832 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW 24 02 1971
Yan Yean 3955 4 333833 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Masons Lane 07 04 1971
Yan Yean 3955 5 333834 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Masons Lane 16 04 1971
Yan Yean 3955 6 333835 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Masons Lane 03 05 1971
Yuroke 4005 9 334697 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Whites Road Craigieburn 13 09 1971
Yuroke 4005 10 334698 Newer Volcanics GSV MinGW Patullos Lane, Somerton 02 09 1971
33 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
The GDB Number: The application of the groundwater database number has had difficulties with nested piezometers in particular to those in the Melbourne area. One bore with two piezometer zones may have three, two, one or no GDB number. Further, the construction details and chemical data linked to the GDB number will not necessarily correspond with the appropriate piezometer, ie. the three possibilities are: i) data lost, ii) data correct, iii) data falsely assigned. Therefore, searches based on the GDB Number will not return a full data set. Much confusion arose in attempting to transfer of major ion chemistry from the GSV data suite to the GDB for the pollution bores. This is best expressed at the pollution monitoring bore at the Brighton City Depot. The site had a nested piezometer, with three separate bore strings, each string had 10 analyses, in the GDB there was a total for all three of 17 analyses, ie. 13 analyses had been displaced. Further, one bore interval recorded 13 of the 17 records with more than 3 records falsely being assigned. It is strongly recommended that the source of hard copies be mentioned in section 7.11 in this compilation should be referred to
3.3.1 List of Western Suburbs Pollution Monitoring Bores:
The bore construction details listed in the following tabulation give two versions of the construction intervals. The interval noted as "slotted interval" is the interval at the time of construction and taken from the weekly drilling reports, the second interval is that recorded by the project geologist. It should be noted that the special bore construction in the Western Suburbs enabled changed in bore construction over time.
The old Mines Department numbers are used to identify the bores, in most instances the bores were nested piezometers and had an upper (1) and lower aquifer (2). The Mines Department numbers are used because there have been numerous transposition errors in the transfer of this information into the later GDB system, see above in Section 3.3. Analyses and bore construction data has been lost and or mixed up in the GDB in a "stochastic" manner. Therefore the raw information is reproduced below.
Parish Bore Aquifer No Slotted interval Interval (M. Riha) Parish of Cut Paw Paw (2478) 2478 246 1 10.7-14.3 2478 246 2 21.3-26.2 09.7-14.2 2478 247 1 04.0-09.2 2478 247 2 13.1-25.3 01.2-03.2 2478 248 1 09.2-15.2 7.7-12.2 2478 248 2 19.8-28.4 02.74-22.86 2478 249 1 03.1-04.6 23.46-40.53 2478 249 2 25.9-27.4 1.60-3.6 2478 250 1 09.2-15.2 7.6-11.6 2478 250 2 36.6-42.7 13.3-15.3 2478 251 1 07.6-22.9 26.3-27.3 2478 251 2 21.3-22.3 12.3-17.3 2478 252 1 07.6-19.8 12.19-25.9 2478 252 2 45.1-51.2 27.43-42.06 2478 253 1 09.2-24.4 11.13-19.81 2478 253 2 37.8-50.0 23.77-43.89 2478 254 1 17.4-23.5 17.28-36.57 2478 254 2 33.5-51.8 38.1-53.34 2478 255 1 10.1-17.4 10.4-16.15 2478 255 2 48.2-50.9 16.76-39.01 2478 256 1 10.7-22.9 11.2-29.87 2478 256 2 34.5-52.7 30.78-51.2 2478 257 1 06.1-24.4 15.17-23.16 2478 257 2 40.6-52.7 28.34-52.73 2478 258 1 12.2-24.4 15.02-29.26 2478 258 2 45.1-51.2 34.44-49.68 2478 259 1 14.0-24.4 10.29-18.28 2478 259 2 48.2-50.0 19.81-53.34
34 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
2478 260 1 01.5-19.8 09.37-26.80 2478 260 2 40.6-52.7 28.34-50.80 2478 261 1 08.5-09.2 00.6-2.40 2478 261 2 14.3-16.8 07.60-11.60 2478 262 1 10.7-13.7 09.57-13.10 2478 262 2 30.2-39.0 16.15-40.53 2478 263 1 11.3-14.3 09.91-39.01 2478 263 2 34.2-34.8 40.53-49.68 2478 264 1 14.6-16.5 11.97-17.67 2478 264 2 49.1-50.9 20.72-51.20 2478 275 1 08.0-42.0 12.80-37.40 2478 275 2 38.3-40.3 2478 276 1 07.0-39.5 07.30-30.90 2478 276 2 33.8-35.1 2478 334 1 01.0-4.0 2478 335 1 23.0-29.0 Parish of DERRIMUT(2516) 2516 2 1 15.2-21.3 12.40-28.00 2516 2 2 31.1-37.2 30.00-37.90 2516 3 1 13.1-18.3 11.00-19.00 2516 3 2 00.3-26.8 22.00-32.00 2516 5 1 15.2-19.8 13.60-25.60 2516 5 2 30.0-36.6 27.40-36.10 2516 9 1 22.0-30.0 2516 10 1 16.5-19.0 2516 11 1 21.5-27.0 2516 12 1 16.0-19.0 Parish of DOUTTA GALLA(2541) 2541 82 1 09.2-13.7 03.10-16.10 2541 82 2 15.2-17.7 Parish of KOROROIT(2927) 2927 10 1 17.0-22.0 08.70-12.70 2927 10 2 28.0-37.5 15.50-29.20 2927 65 1 19.5-31.0 2927 66 1 49.5-57.0 Parish of MARIBYRNONG(3061) 3061 35 1 04.3-07.6 05.30-06.80 3061 35 2 13.1-16.2 08.30-09.80 3061 36 1 24.4-30.5 25.80-27.80 3061 36 2 42.7-62.5 31.30-55.50 3061 44 1 15.9-29.6 14.80-27.50 3061 44 2 43.9-54.9 3061 45 1 07.6-12.2 08.10-16.10 3061 45 2 23.8-25.6 18.10-28.10 3061 47 1 13.1-16.2 09.60-15.60 3061 47 2 41.5-45.1 16.60-30.60 3061 48 1 14.0-41.0 13.40-28.40 3061 48 2 31.40-38.40 3061 49 1 13.0-48.0 10.50-29.50 3061 49 2 39.50-44.50 3061 50 1 11.0-22.0 08.00-33.00
35 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
3061 50 2 35.00-38.20 3061 50 3 42.10-48.50 3061 51 1 23.0-45.5 15.10-24.20 3061 51 2 27.10-41.10 3061 52 1 01.0-02.0 04.80-11.80 3061 52 2 16.0-21.0 13.80-15.80 3061 53 1 06.0-09.0 03.10-14.20 3061 53 2 20.0-27.0 17.10-24.20 3061 54 3061 55 3061 56 Parish of TARNEIT(3552) 3552 3 1 13.7-17.7 10.80-17.00 3552 3 2 23.8-34.5 20.30-38.00 3552 4 1 15.2-21.3 14.40-29.90 3552 4 2 31.1-37.2 3552 19 1 12.0-19.0 3552 20 1 9.5-35.5 Parish of Truganina(3651) 3651 16 1 15.2-21.7 10.50-16.80 3651 16 2 24.4-42.1 19.00-36.50 3651 17 1 04.9-08.8 05.60-07.10 3651 17 2 10.1-13.7 07.60-13.60 3651 18 1 22.3-29.0 3651 18 2 35.1-36.6 3651 19 1 06.7-12.8 02.80-10.80 3651 19 2 36.6-42.7 18.30-36.40 3651 20 1 14.6-35.4 07.90-14.40 3651 20 2 45.7-54.3 15.90-25.90 3651 20 3 08.4-34.9 3651 21 1 06.4-10.1 3651 21 2 13.1-16.2 3651 22 1 05.8-8.5 3651 22 2 31.7-53.1 3651 23 1 07.6-11.6 3651 23 2 31.4-44.8 3651 24 1 10.1-16.2 3651 24 2 21.3-33.5 3651 25 1 05.0-8.8 3651 25 2 27.4-34.5 3651 26 1 10.1-11.3 3651 26 2 38.7-41.2 3651 27 1 07.0-9.2 3651 27 2 35.7-36.6 3651 29 1 10.7-16.8 3651 29 2 40.5-46.6 3651 30 1 07.9-10.4 3651 30 2 32.3-39.6 3651 31 1 12.2-18.3 3651 31 2 24.4-30.5 3651 32 1 03.1-09.8 04.60-19.60
36 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
3651 32 2 15.9-28.0 21.60-22.60 3651 48 1 03.1-15.2 04.20-05.20 3651 49 1 06.7-11.6 04.20-10.70 3651 49 2 22.3-27.4 21.20-26.70 3651 53 1 31.0-38.0 3651 54 1 21.0-27.5 Parish of TULLAMARINE(3654) 3654 1 1 20.7-23.8 DRIED UP 3654 1 2 23.8-25.3 20.3-26.3
37 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
3.4 Geological Survey Victoria (GSV) Basalt Survey Bores
The Geological Survey drilled an extensive array of basalt resource exploration bores on the lava plains around Melbourne. The bores were NX size diamond drill holes, and cores were taken to enable thin section examination of the basalt (Stewart 1975/75, 1977/26,27,56). Some of these bores were recovered and used for a short time to record groundwater level observations. Water levels and chemical data was collected in Shugg (1978/68).
The bores were equipped with slotted PVC casing. Generally construction was: a 6 m blank string at the base of the bore and then alternating lengths of slotted (with hack saw on site) and blank PVC casing to the standing water level. It was observed that little circulation of water occurred in the bores. Submersible conductivity probes were used to profile the salinity stratification in the bores. The stratification resulted from the trickle of fresh condensation down the casing wall, in some cases this resulted in a 2-5 m thick fresh water layer at the top of the water column. Thus groundwater water samples taken from these bores should be interpreted with due care. The small diameter of the bores and the twist of the casing strings usually meant that only top bailed samples were taken.
The Extractive Industry exploratory basalt bores were used for a number of years, but found as unsatisfactory for due to the small diameter of the bores (36 mm casing). The bores were also subject to damage and the sampling of water from the narrow diameter bores was not reliable due to fractionation of the solute in the stand pipe (GSV UR 1978/68).
38 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
3.5 Government Investigation Bores Located At Industrial Waste Disposal Sites (1973 - 1987).
In the period 1969 - 1976 the onus for groundwater pollution protection investigation rested with the Government Departments, mainly the Geological Survey. This attitude was to change after the land mark hearing of the TCPT (see Section 9.5.1) on the protection of groundwater from pollution by land waste disposal. Prior to the hearing the Geological Survey initiated numerous pollution investigations at Industrial manufacturing and waste disposal sites.
3.5.1 Co-Disposal Industrial Landfills accepting Liquid Industrial Waste
Co disposal was the practice of combined liquid and solid waste disposal. The Land Waste Management Branch of the EPA established some protocols for the disposal of liquids in unlined landfills. In effect, this was the permitted ratio of liquid to solid for landfill management purposes and mirrored the Statewide production ratio of these wastes. Under the operating conditions the saturation of the landfill pile was permitted. Of the Co disposal sites listed below only the commercially operated Tullamarine landfill utilised lining and at Tullamarine this was only used for the formations above the Older Volcanic. As a consequence a large number of Government bores were drilled on private land.
Tullamarine Industrial Waste Disposal Site Tullamarine Government bores 3 (u=1, l=2), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9,10,11,12 Private bores 10 001, 10 002, 10 003, 10 005, 10 006, 10 010, 10 011, 10 012, 10 016, 10 017, 10 018(1,2), 10 019(1,2) Sunshine City Hulett Street Tip Maribyrnong 47,48,49,50,52,53,57, 61,62,63,64,65 Albion Reid Quarry, oil dump Maribyrnong 44,51 adjacent to tip east of Hulett Street Broadmeadows City Camp Road, Broadmeadows No bores Preston City Gremel Street, Preston No bores Watts Street, Preston No bores Oakleigh City Harris Reserve, Ferntree Gully No bores, pits and ponds with Road leachate treatment
3.5.2 Government Investigation bores drilled at Industrial Waste Lagoons and Unlined Disposal Pits.
Unlined disposal pits and lagoons and the basalt aquifer of the Western Suburbs were considered the panacea for industrial and liquid waste disposal (see Hancock 1968/9, Thompson 1972). The following sites were investigated by the Geological Survey, the results initiated manufacturing reform and new waste disposal practices. The results of the investigation programs can be reviewed in Riha and Kenley (1978) and an EPA consultancy report (Leonard, 1980).
Anon. Landfill adjacent to the Cut Paw Paw 259 Tottenham Hotel
39 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
AGI Australian fibre glass industries Eumemmerring 225 unlined lagoons APC Altona Petrochemical Complex Truganina 17,32,494 (Galvin station) Monsanto Monsanto (Huntsman, Cut Paw Paw 248,252,253,255,256,257, Chemplex) 260,263,264 Sunshine City Sunshine Tip, east of Hulett Maribyrnong 45 Council Street (alkaline slurries) Victorian Railways Railway Reserve, Footscray Cut Paw Paw 261 (land) (Tannery Residue)
3.5.3 Government Investigation bores at Industrial Waste Injection sites or waste recharge pits
The injection of waste was practiced by ICI (now Orica) at several of its manufacturing sites. The PMA sites was reported on by Riha (1975/5) and Stephan et al. (1979). The Derrimut nitrogenous waste plume extends around 6 - 8 km extending from Deer Park to Brooklyn, the plume has been detected in private water supply bores though it has not undergone detailed investigation.
ICI – PMA Pigment Manufacturers (ICI) Truganina 18,19,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28, Australia, Laverton (injection 29,30, bore) ICIANZ – ICI – ICI Derrimut Melbourne Derrimut 3 Orica University Agriculture Farm: nitrocellulose acid waste, and fabrics plant waste
3.5.4 Government Investigation sites at Dairy Waste Injection sites.
In Western Victoria the dairy industry had for many decades utilised underground disposal of milk processing waste including whey and washing waters. The waste has an extremely high BOD and is very reactive and fermentative. At the Allansford a plume extends several kilometres from the factory disposal bores towards the Hopkins River estuary (Shugg, 1975/55, 1984, 1998). The Timboon site was of special interest as the highly reactive nature of the waste resulted in the dissolution of a large amount of limestone and the collapse of the adjacent road way (Herald 1979, Nargun 1977, Shugg 1979/19). Common to all of these sites and the waste plumes is the production of copious quantities of gas (CH4 and CO2).
Allansford Kraft and Warrnambool Cheese Mepunga 18,19,20,21,22 and Butter Factories Heywood Butter and cheese whey No bores disposal, factory now abandoned Timboon Casein whey disposal to No bores collapse dolina
3.5.5 Sites Examined with Spillage and Fire Waters
Sites near leaky fuel terminals and several sites that were flooded by fire fighting waters were investigated.
40 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Ampol Beechworth Minor leak to Sampled in the Sheep Station Creek BP Station Pier Port Melbourne, Melbourne more than 50 bores Terminal South Butlers Freight Terminal Footscray (Melway 42G5) Four EPAV bores were drilled at the site by a consultant for the EPAV Corio Shell Parade (Melway Hydrocarbon seepage 224H8) Petroleum Refineries Kororoit Creek Road, Altona Uncontested prosecution in 1989 by the EPAV Australia Yarraville Oil Terminal Stony Creek (Melway Cut Paw Paw Hydrocarbon seepage, origin(s) 42B11) uncertain see CPP 249 files and Riha and Kenley (1978).
41 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
4 REGIONAL GROUNDWATER POLLUTION MONITORING BORES
4.1 Western Suburbs
Numerous bores were drilled to establish background and reference levels of pollutants in the aquifer systems. Many of the bores have been retained in the State Government Observation Bore network.
Cherry Lake, Altona Truganina 55 ICAP Reconnaissance Cut Paw Paw, Derrimut, Maribyrnong, Tarneit, Private farm bores Bore Sampling 1972 Truganina Kensington Council Doutta Galla 82 Reserve Robertson Reserve, Cut Paw Paw 246 Williamstown Regional Cut Paw 8051 WTS-1 Derrimut 5,9,10 Deutgam 8034 WTS 35 Deutgam 8035 WTS 38 Kororoit 10,65,66 Maribyrnong 35,36,58 Tarneit 3,4,20,19 Tarneit 8009 WTS 4 Tarneit 8010 WTS 29 Truganina 20,53,54,56 MMBW - WTS-41 MMBW - WTS-50 * MMBW bores are Melbourne Water bores details of these bores may still be obtained from Melbourne Waters Map Room at Rickets Road, Mt Waverley.
4.2 Regional observation bores in the Northern Suburbs
On the basalt plains of Bolinda 2,3,7,9 the northern suburbs and Bulla Bulla 19,20 non metropolitan areas Derrimut 6,7 Havelock 1,2,3,4,5,6 Bores were the result of Kalkallo 6,7,8,9 the cooperative study Kororoit 11,12,13,14,15,16 with the mineral Maribyrnong 37,38,39,40,42,43 resources group at the Morang 44,45,46,47 GSV Pywheitjorrk 4 Tarneit 8 Tullamarine 2 Wallan Wallan 1,2, Wollert 7 Yan Yean 2,3,4,5,6, Yuroke 9,10
4.3 Regional groundwater monitoring bores in the South Eastern Suburbs
Banksia Reserve Moorabbin 28
42 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Brighton City Council Moorabbin 29(1/2/3) Depot
43 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
5 GOVERNMENT INITIATED GROUNDWATER POLLUTION MONITORING PROGRAMS
5.1 Government Investigation and Monitoring of Landfill Sites
During the early 1970's the State Government funded numerous investigations around municipal and industrial landfill sites. The investigation programs were carried out by the Geological Survey, with some of the bore construction being funded by the EPA. Objectives of the investigation were to collect data that might be useful in determining landfill license conditions and ascertain the local impact of landfill leachates on groundwater and surface waters. The results of the studies are documented in numerous unpublished reports. Data from the studies are contained in Department of Natural Resources and Environment files listed in Section 7.11.
5.1.1 Country landfill sites
Two sites were selected in quite different but sensitive hydrogeological settings. The site in the Ovens valley showed rapid leakage from the groundwater system to Roberts Creek and then to the Ovens River. The Rye landfill was situated on the edge of the Tootgarook swamp.
Parish name Parish name Bore number Shire of Bright, Porepunkah Roberts Road landfill, Porepunkah 1 - 4 Shire of Flinders, Rye Landfill Wannaeue 44,45 East of football reserve Truemans Road, Rye on the edge of Tootgarook Swamp
5.1.2 Suburban Landfill Sites
A large number of urban landfills of different types were examined. At this time there were no requirements for groundwater monitoring bores at landfill sites. The Geological Survey, Health Department and EPA initiated the process of drilling monitoring bores.
In some instances the monitoring of specific bores was short in duration. Loss of monitoring bores resulted from landfill remediation and landscaping works, fire fighting operations, eg. at the Epping Tip during the two year fire (Whittlesea Shire), road works or loss by vandalism. Bores within the landfills were particularly vulnerable to destruction by heavy landfill earth moving equipment. In no instance did a municipality replace damaged bores. In the extreme case at the Sunshine tip, replacement observation bores were rendered unserviceable within one day.
5.1.2.1 Western Suburbs
Industrial and municipal waste disposal sites were examined. Sites included bores near unlined pits, lagoons and waste disposal. In many instances a bore proved that the "disposal" site leaked and this resulted the initiation of a clean up process or change in manufacturing process to reduce the effluent stream.
Parish name Parish name Bore number Interval Somerville Rd. Landfill (galvanising plant east of Cut Paw Paw 275,276 Monsanto
44 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
ICI - Albright and Wilson Landfill (sulphuric acid Cut Paw Paw 254, 336, 10009, digested rock phosphate) 10010, 10011, 10012, 10013, 10014 City of Williamstown, Margaret Street Cut Paw Paw 251, 337, 338 City of Footscray, Hyde Street (west footing of Westgate Cut Paw Paw 249,334,335 bridge) Sulphate Industries - Stauffer Australia Cut Paw Paw 250 one MW bore Sunshine Tip East, Albion Reid quarry and the adjacent Maribyrnong 44, 51 oil dump Petroleum Refineries Australia, heavy oil and refinery Maribyrnong 46 dump, Sydenham Pesticide Factory - Arsenic Dump Williamstown Road Footscray, site investigation bores have been drilled in waste. Elevated arsenic is found in the soils and waters of the site. It is located adjacent to the "sinking village" site in High Street, Yarraville, which received soluble sugar lime.
5.1.2.2 Northern and Eastern Suburbs
A number of waste disposal sites were investigated in the inner northern and south eastern suburbs. Landfill receiving municipal and industrial waste had observation bores located near them.
Parish name Parish name Bore number Interval Brighton Tip, Ball Road Mordialloc 303 9-15: 33.5-39.5: 41.2-47.2 Chelsea Landfill Lyndhurst 140 73.8-84.4 Collingwood, Field Street Jika Jika 467 Commercial Waste Disposal Landfill - (Lyncardle) Eumemmerring 227, 11.0-17.1 228 48.8-57.9 Commercial Waste Disposal (CWD) Mordialloc 301 31-43 Cranbourne Tip, Stevensons Rd., Cranbourne Cranbourne 63, 64, 65 Sherwood 108, 109 Lyndhurst 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 Moorabbin Tip Mordialloc 300 12.1-18.3 Northcote City, Separation Street & Yarana Street Jika Jika 492 Alphington Oakleigh Landfill, Bald Hill Park - Bunny Road, South Mordialloc 305 (1) 6.7-12.8 Oakleigh 305 (2) 29.6-38.1 306 22.9-32.0 307 12.2-18.3 308 6.1-12.2 309 23.8-29.9 335 25.3-31.4 336 7.6-13.7 337 12.8-18.7 338 28.0-34.2
45 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
339 9.1-15.2 340 ( 344) 15.5-18.5 Springvale Tip, Spring Street Springvale Mordialloc 304 (1) 9.1-15.2 304 (2) 18.3-30.5 341 18-30 342 12-15 343 14.5-15.5 Whittlesea Shire, Cooper and High Streets Epping Wollert 10
46 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
5.2 Summary Monitoring Results from Tullamarine Industrial Waste Disposal Landfill (Co Disposal).
Bore Aq Interval Formation Location & Authority Date drilled Initial Dec 1991 WL Initial TDS Dec 1991 TDS TOC last RWL Change Change reading Government monitoring bores 3 1 30.5-36.6 Brighton Group GSV-Western Av Oct 1971 88.51 91.1 +3.4 3000 10000 +7000 56 3 2 42.7-48.8 Older Volcanics GSV-Western Av Oct 1971 83.91 88.83 +4.9 2729 2400 -271 75 4 abandoned Industrial Waste GSV-in core of landfill Jun 1974 100.3 NA 2800 5 abandoned Industrial Waste GSV-ibid Jun 1974 99.5 NA 3000 6 abandoned Industrial Waste & Older Volcanics Jun 1974 92.8 NA 6400 7 abandoned Ibid GSV-ibid Jun 1974 93.6 NA oily 8 32.0-38.0 Older Volcanics GSV-Western Av Jun 1980 91.55 92.71 +1.16 1256 2220 +964 - 9 33.0-42.0 Older Volcanics GSV-Victoria Av Jul 1980 80.64 81.35 +0.71 5243 5550 +207 4 10 34.0-40.0 Older Volcanics GSV-Victoria Av Jul 1980 78.50 79.51 +1.01 5897 5500 -397 4 11 32.5-38.5 Older Volcanics GSV-Airport Dr Jul 1980 89.52 91.75 +2.23 3298 5470 +2172 3 12 45.0-48.0 Older Volcanics GSV-South Centre Rd Aug 1980 62.65 63.16 +0.49 10219 9880 -339 2 Privately constructed bores - by the Private Waste Disposal Company 10001 10.7-15.2 Older Volcanics IWC- on bench, quarry Feb 1972 96.4 NA NA 7601 1598 +5003 - 10002 17.4-18.3 Werribee Formation IWC- W floor quarry Feb 1972 87.78 NA NA 1858 1826 -32 6 10003 15.8-17.4 Werribee Formation IWC- NW floor quarry Feb 1972 89.68 NA NA 2371 653 -1173 3 10005 45.7-51.2 Older Volcanics IWC- E side Q wall Sep 1973 88.30 92.28 +3.98 2535 4500 +1965 85 10006 10.1-17.4 Older Volcanics IWC- N side of Quarry Sep 1974 89.02 90.4 +1.38 2379 5090 +2711 11 10010 11.0-28.6 Brighton Group IWC- S side of Quarry Feb 1977 96.57 94.55 -2.02 7782 10200 +2418 100 10011 10.4-17.4 Brighton Group IWC- SE side of Q Feb 1977 dry 10012 12.6-24.6 Brighton Group IWC- NE side of Q Feb 1977 dry 10016 MB4A 41.0-53.0 Older Volcanics IWC- between 3&10005 Jan 1980 91.97 92.60 +1.37 770 1900 +1130 200 10017 MB4 33.0-38.0 Brighton Group IWC- between 3&10005 Jan 1980 90.7 93.27 +2.57 2800 11000 +8200 90 10018 MB5U 14.0-25.0 Brighton Group IWC- W side of Quarry Feb 1980 91.93 93.69 +1.76 3195 9000 +5805 200 10018 MB5L 27.0-32.0 Older Volcanic/Werribee Formation 91.88 93.69 +1.81 221 8500 +8279 150 10019 MB6U 05.0-13.0 Older Volcanics IWC- N side of Quarry Feb 1980 93.64 92.62 -0.98 5255 9600 +4345 150 10019 MB6L 15.0-19.0 Silurian Dargile Formation between landfill & Moonee Ponds 93.40 92.34 -0.96 6464 9500 +3036 160 Ck
• The stage of the Moonee Ponds Creek was measured at the quarry access bridge north of 10 006, av stage was 88.4 m. ** The commercial waste disposal company operating the site has changed its name on several occasions; names used include, Brambles Waste Disposal (c. 1971-1973), Land Reclamation (c. 1973-1977), Industrial Waste Collection (c. 1977-1980), Cleanaway (c. 1980-1988), Enviroguard (1988-) and Cleanaway. Around 1988, Melbourne Water for the State Government operated a hazardous waste fixing plant at the site for a period
47 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
of about 3 years and it was called Vic Waste. Vic Waste did not construct any observation bores, and its sludge solidification bays were unlined. *** In this region of the quarry up to 6 m of sands are intercalated between flows of Older Volcanics. • Extensive Government files exist on the Tullamarine site, some the Mines - DNRE technical files including are referred to in Section 7.11 of this report. In addition there are several open file published and unpublished reports on the geology and groundwater monitoring at the site see, Bell 1960, Golder Associates, 1976, Shugg 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1994, Thornton, 1987.
48 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
5.3 Summary Results from Bores at Other South Eastern Landfills
The history and monitoring details for the south eastern suburbs monitoring may be found in the following GSV reports and unpublished reports by Harris, 1974, Shugg,1976, 1977, 1987 and Shugg, and Paskevicius, 1977. A multitude of sites was selected for monitoring and Brighton Group and Newport Formation (later referred to as Fyansford Formation) were initiated. Many of the bores were drilled in a joint study with the EPA, the authority provided funds for the construction of the bores, and the Geological Survey maintained a monitoring program. Bore Aq Interval Formation Location & Authority Date Initial Last Change Initial Dec 1988 Change TOC last drilled RWL or TDS (or last) reading 1988 TDS RWL Moorabbin 1 6.1 - 12.2 Brighton Group (sandy clay) Brighton Depot; Centre Rd. 29 Brighton (67H12) collection of 2 18.3 - 24.4 Newport Formation (green silty marl) background control data 3 48.8 - 57.9 Bedrock (mudstone) Mordialloc 1 23.0-26.0 Newport Formation(green clayey EPA - Grange Rd Springvale Nov 1971 14.3 4.4 +9.9 231 885 +654 5 299 & 34-40 gravel) Werribee Formation(grey silty (79C12) - Pig Farm and IWC clay) Co Disposal 300 12.1-18.3 Brighton Group (coal sandy gravel) EPA - Clayton Tip, Victory Rd Dec 1972 6.7 5.8 +0.9 340 194 -146 301 31.0-43.0 Newport Formation (silty clay) Din San Nursery, (88C2) Feb 1973 8.3 4.7 +3.6 892 1589 +597 40 303 1 09.0-15.0 Brighton Group (sandy clay)Brighton Tip Ball Rd, Jun 1973 5.4 5.4 0 386 473 +87 5 Heatherton (78E9) 2 33.5-39.5 Newport Formation (fossiliferous Jul 1973 green marl) 3 41.2-47.2 Bedrock (mudstone) Jul 1973 304 1 09.1-15.2 Brighton Group (coal grey s/clay) EPA-Springvale Tip Jul 1973 7.0 6.2 +0.8 1398 1522 +124 2 18.3-30.5 Newport Formation (pyritic sand & silt) East of Spring St (88J2) Jul 1973 9.2 9.3 -0.1 738 1141 +303 342 12.0-15.0 Brighton Group (clayey sand) EPA-Spring St (88J2) 1976 3.5 3.9 -0.4 2240 608 -1632 17 343 14.5-15.5 Brighton Group (fine-medium sand) EPA- Bunny Road Tip 1976 8.8 8.5 +0.3 397 535 +138 5
A number of these monitoring bores have been lost due to vandalism. In the time series data in Shugg (1987/15) some trends are evident in the analyses, these indicate that after 10 - 20 years of monitoring migration is still active from the landfill sites, although some of the constituents may have peaked in their concentration at the monitoring site.
49 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
5.4 Summary of Results of the monitoring of the Bunny Road Landfill, Oakleigh
Bore Aq Interval Formation Location & Authority Date Initial Last or Change Initial Dec 1988 Change TOC last drilled RWL 1988 TDS (or last) reading RWL TDS Brighton Group Aquifer (surface unconfined aquifer) 305* 1 06.7-12.8 Brighton Group (sand) EPA-Bunny Rd Tip Aug 1973 45.75 45.4 +0.35 6703 3287 -3416 216 307* 12.2-18.3 garbage & putrescible waste EPA-ibid 1973 46.74 45.85 +0.11 8921 4719 -4202 320 308 6.1-12.2 Brighton Group (gravel) EPA-ibid 1974 45.26 46.29 +0.03 332 2006 +1274 54 336 7.6-13.7 Brighton Group (green silty marl) EPA-ibid 1974 45.55 46.36 -0.19 180 247 +67 5 337 12.8-18.7 Brighton Group (sand) EPA-ibid 1974 45.49 45.47 -0.02 414 2800 +2386 12 339 9.1-15.2 Brighton Group (sandy gravel) EPA-ibid 1974 44.61 44.18 -0.43 177 179 +2 2 340 replaced by 344 Brighton Group EPA-ibid 1974 48.86 NA 233 344 15.5-18.5 Brighton Group (grey silty sand) EPA-Bunny Rd Tip 1976 48.42 -0.44 97 -136 2 Fyansford Formation (Newport Formation - lower aquifer, recharge by vertical leakage from Brighton Group) 305 2 29.6-38.1 Newport Formation course sand & clay S Oakleigh (78K4) 1973 27.85 40.9 +13.05 4864 166 -4698 6 306* 22.9-32.0 Newport Formation (green marl) EPA-ibid 1973 31.8 43.52 +11.72 7499 1061 -6438 43 309 23.8-29.9 Newport Formation brown sandy silt EPA-ibid 1973 246 602 +356 5 335 25.3-31.4 Newport Formation (gravel & clay) EPA-ibid 1974 28.77 37.91 +9.14 269 220 -49 2 338 28.0-34.2 Newport Formation grey marl & EPA-ibid 1974 38.83 37.73 -1.1 158 170 +12 1 limestone
* The early samples from the bores near the centre of the tip were troubled by the settlement of the landfill mass, this caused sealing problems with the bore holes which led to the mixing of Brighton Group and Fyansford Group waters. Such were the troubles that the bores near the centre of the landfill did not however last for long. Subdivision of the area south the landfill led to the abandonment of several bores in Bunny Road west of Eulinga Road. After landscaping of the Bunny Road one of these bores became artesian flowing with a mixture of leachate and groundwater. The discharge was coloured and spilled to the storm water drain, the bore was plugged with cement. The emergence of a groundwater leachate mixture was reported by the City of Oakleigh in a housing allotment south of the Landfill. The South East Regional Water Group drilled a number of bores near the site in 1987. It appears that these bores were constructed in the Fyansford Formation. The groundwater modelling of the unconfined aquifer's response by the consultants for the SER used data from the EPA/Mines and their own bores in the Fyansford Formation.
50 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
5.5 Pollution Bore Status December 1986 and Summer 1990-1991
The bores that remain in this listing were nearly all drilled in a joint program by the Mines Department with funds provided by the Environment Protection Authority (and are marked with an *). For a while a joint sampling program was conducted by the EPA and DMV although the sites remained EPA bores. Bores not mentioned on this listing have had an unserviceable status for a considerable time, most of the bore destruction can be attributed to either vandalism or unsuccessful alteration to the bore construction. Some attempt has been made to renovate or redrill important sites. Bores located in landfills never had a pronounced longevity. The landfill bores were lost due to many causes, including Council earth moving equipment. The combination of several fire fighting events at the Shire of Whittlesea's old tip in Epping (Melway 8 K1) culminated in the loss of Wollert 10. Bores annotated with the symbol # were sampled in the summer of 1990-1991.
5.5.1 Western Suburbs Monitoring Bore Status
Bore Status 1986 Sampled EPA/DMV 1990/1991 Cut Paw Paw 246 upper serviceable 246 lower serviceable 247 upper serviceable # 247 lower serviceable # 250 upper collapsed * 250 lower serviceable, but bent casing * 251 single serviceable # * 254 upper blocked at 18 m * 254 lower blocked * 259 upper blocked * 259 lower blocked at 10.5 m * 334 single serviceable # 335 single serviceable # 336 U&L # 337 # 338 # 275 single damaged by MW works *
Derrimut 3 upper blocked at 12.5 m 3 lower serviceable # 9 single serviceable # 10 single serviceable #
Doutta Galla 82 abandoned
Kororoit 65 # 66 #
Maribyrnong 35 upper blocked 44 upper blocked at 12 m * 44 lower serviceable * 47 single serviceable #
51 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
48 single lost under fill * 49 single lost under fill * 50 single lost under fill * 51 single blocked at 18 m * 52 single lost under fill * 53 single lost under fill * 57 single serviceable # 58 single serviceable #
Tarneit 3 single serviceable # 4 single serviceable 19 single serviceable # 20 single serviceable #
Truganina 17 single blocked 32 single serviceable # * 48 single blocked * 49 upper serviceable # * 49 lower serviceable # 53 single serviceable # 54 single serviceable # 55 single serviceable #
5.5.2 Tullamarine Monitoring Bore Status
Tullamarine (all serviceable unless otherwise stated)
Bore Status 1986 Sampled 1990/1991 1 unserviceable 3 upper # 3 lower # 4 abandoned 5 abandoned 6 abandoned 7 abandoned 8 # * 9 # * 10 # * 11 # * 12 # * 10 001 abandoned 10 002 abandoned 10 003 abandoned 10 005 # * 10 006 # * 10 010 # * 10 011 dry-abandoned 10 012 dry-abandoned 10 016 (M4A)redrilled in 1984 # * 10 017 (M4)redrilled in 1984 # * 10 018 upper(M5U) # * 10 018 lower(M5L) # * 10 019 upper(M6U) # * 10 019 lower(M6L) # *
52 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
The Tullamarine 10 000's series bores were drilled by the site operator as a condition of the waste disposal licences. The site operator has used different numbers for these bores; M4-M6 or MB4 etc. The bores 10 016 and 10 017 were redrilled in around 1987 because of a construction failure, which was reflected in the water quality monitoring.
53 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
5.5.3 South Eastern Suburbs Monitoring Bore Status
Bore Status 1986 Sampled EPA/DMV 1990/1991 Cranbourne 63#, 64#, 65 #
Bore Status 1986 Sampled EPA/DMV 1990/1991 Eumemmerring 227 # 228 #
Lyndhurst 152#, 153#, 154#, 155, 156 #
Mordialloc 301 # * 308 # * 337 # * 338 # * 339 # * 343 # * 344 # *
(one of the Bald Hill bores has been renovated and now reappears on this listing)
Moorabbin 28 # * 29 upper # * 29 middle # * 29 lower # *
Sherwood 108 # 109 #
5.5.4 Northern Suburbs Monitoring Bore Status
Jika Jika 467 serviceable, but must dig to access * 492 unserviceable *
Maribyrnong 46 serviceable *
Wollert 10 buried under landfill during a tip fire *
Diamond drill holes listed in section 3.2 And listed below have not been included in the pollution sampling program, few are now extant:
Bolinda 2,3,7,9 Bulla Bulla 19,20 Derrimut 6,7
54 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Havelock 1,2,3,4,5,6 Kalkallo 6,7,8,9 Kororoit 11,12,13,14,15,16 Maribyrnong 37,38,39,40,42,43 Morang 44,45,46,47 Pywheitjorrk 4 Tarneit 8 Tullamarine 2 Wallan Wallan 1,2, Wollert 7 Yan Yean 2,3,4,5,6, Yuroke 9,10
5.5.5 Country Pollution Monitoring Bores
Bore Status 1986 Sampled EPA/DMV 1990/1991
Mepunga - Allansford Cheese and Butter Factory Whey Disposal Plume
18 unserviceable, built over * 19 serviceable * 20 serviceable # * 21 serviceable - clogged with slime * 22 serviceable # *
Porepunkah - Shire of Bright Tip, Bright Back Road
1 serviceable * 2 serviceable * 3 serviceable * 4 serviceable *
Wannaeue - Shire of Flinders Tip (east of football ground)
44 serviceable # 45 serviceable #
• Although some bores are identified as being drilled with funds provided by the EPA, it should be noted that the pollution monitoring program with was conducted as a joint project by the Geological Survey and the EPA; drilling, data collection and data review were conducted by inter departmental committee. Many reviews were conducted in committee within the interdepartmental committees of ICAP and ICLWD. Later the EPA and Health Department files were reviewed by a consultant for the EPA (Leonard,1980).
5.6 Private Groundwater Observation bores
These bores were drilled under the provisions of the Health Act 1958 Section 49A, and the Groundwater Act 1969, these acts or sections were rescinded in 1989.
55 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Site Location Bores Port of Melbourne Harbour Trust Melbourne South 2 bores Landfill, at Port Melbourne City of Oakleigh Heatherton Rd, at South Clayton Leachate bores/wells Harris Reserve. Ferntree Gully Rd Leachate monitoring City of Prahran, Simpson's Rd, South Clayton Shire of Corio Limeburners Bay, Corio 8 Shire of Flinders Browns and Truemans Roads Initially 6 Albright and Wilson Jones Road Brooklyn 4 City of Sunshine Jones Road Brooklyn 8 City of Williamstown Margaret Street (NE corner) 3 GSV bores James Hardie Industries Somerville Road, Yarraville, Cut Paw Paw CPP 10 004 Shire of Myrtleford Sewerage Lagoons 10 bores Amcor Maryvale Sulphate Disposal 2 bores
5.7 Health Department Land Waste Management (Delegated Authority) Licences 1971 - 1986 with monitoring bores.
The delegated authority stipulated the use of monitoring bores in the licenses for disposal to land. Digital data from many of the sites is available and in the public domain. Though access may be difficult and rely on the assistance of Health Department and EPA staff familiar with the records.
Company Licence Bores A.S.R, Altona HS 532 2 bores Albright & Wilson, Brooklyn HS 1364 8 bores Alcoa, Point Henry HS 1689 6 bores Alcoa, Portland HS 1648 4 bores Alcoa, Point Henry HS 71 4 bores B.F. Goodrich Chemical, Altona HS 984 2 bores Bright Sewerage Authority ES 255 3 bores City of Sunshine Brooklyn Tip Hulett St WA 162 GSV bores Cleanaway Tullamarine HS 346 8 bores Commonwealth Department of Productivity HS 1451 1 bore Corio Shire Tip HS 1386 4 bores Dow chemical Co., Altona HS 994 2 bores Hoecht, Altona ES 199 1 bore ICI Yarraville HS 309 1 bore James Hardie Wunderlich HS 315 1 bore Phosphate Coop You Yangs HS1362 8 bores Port of Melbourne Authority ES 263 3 bores Shire of Flinders WA 72 10 bores Stauffer Chemicals (Sulphate Chemicals) HS 1200 1 bore N.E. Tannery ES 231
56 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
6 PRIVATE GROUNDWATER BORES DRILLED AS A REQUIREMENT OF ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1970,
6.1 Additional Private and Self-Monitoring Bores
(Sites included on this list are those that have registered monitoring bores or investigation bores. This is not a list of contaminated sites, for such refer to the EPA Contaminated Sites Register.) Observation bores are now a site management requirement. The listing below provides some indication that there are suites of groundwater analyses that may be available in the open file groundwater data bases.
Site Monitored Location Mel Parish Bore Aquifer Interval First H.S. Waste Groundwater Contamination Ref Analysed Licence
ACI Fibreglass Frankston-Dandenong Rd 95F2 Eumemmerring 8023 Brighton Group 8-21 Sep 1973 Process waters, heavy metals
Dandenong 225 Brighton Group
Albright and Jones Road, Brooklyn 40J8 Cut Paw Paw 254,(rep by 336) Newer Volcanics Dec 1981 HS 1364 Gypsum and acid leachate from fertiliser Wilson manufacture MMBW155 Newer Volcanics
10009 Newer Volcanics 24.00-30.50 Dec 1981
10010 Newer Volcanics 37.00-58.00 Dec 1981
10011 Newer Volcanics 25.00-30.50 Dec 1981
10012 Newer Volcanics 37.50-58.00 Dec 1981
10013 Newer Volcanics 20.00-36.50 Dec 1981
10014 Newer Volcanics 39.00-58.00 Dec 1981
Alcoa, Portland Portland 4 bores Bridgewater Fm. HS 1648 Alumina production, Fluoride
Alcoa Pt Henry, Geelong 6 bores HS 1689 Alumina production
Alcoa Point Henry 4 bores HS 71
Australian Kororoit Creek Rd 54C6 Truganina 10022 Newer Volcanics Apr 1977 HS 532 Liquids and sludge, Synthetic
Rubber (ASR) Altona North 10023 Newer Volcanics Apr 1977 Sulphate, Cl, As, Pb, Fe
57 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Site Monitored Location Mel Parish Bore Aquifer Interval First H.S. Waste Groundwater Contamination Ref Analysed Licence
B.F. Goodrich Kororoit Creek Rd 53K6 Truganina 10024 Newer Volcanics Nov 1977 HS 984 PVC waste water,oil,grease,surfactant Chemical
Altona North 10025 Newer Volcanics Nov 1978 nitrogen,high salinity
BP Australia P/L Cut Paw Paw 15009, 15021, 15022, 15023 Nov 1988, ct 1990
BP Australia P/L Jika Jika 15002, 15003, 15004, Oct 1990 15005, 15006,
BP Australia P/L Melbourne North 15001 Nov 1988
BP Australia P/L Grieve Parade, Altona 54H4 Truganina 2 bores Newer Volcanics Nov 1978 HS 1303 Sludge from motor spirit tanks
BP Australia P/L Truganina 15012, 15013, 15014, 15015 Aug 1990
BP Australia P/L Eumemmerring Eumemmerring 10023 Baxter Fm (sands) 9.5-11 Feb 1983
Bright Sewerage Porepunkah 11 bores Shepparton Unlined sewerage lagoons with paper Authority Formation processing black liqueur
Monsanto Somerville Rd, Brooklyn 40J8 Cut Paw Paw 248, 252, 257, 259, 264, Newer Volcanics Aug 1971 Organic resin derivatives, phenolic Huntsman 15031, 15032, 15033, compounds, dioxin,pentachlorophenol a Chemplex 15034, 15035, 15036, Sep 1972 significant contaminant 15037, 15038, 15040, Oct 1990
15041, 15042, 15043, Nov 1990 15044, Dec 1990
Altona City Truganina 10007 Jun 1974
Camberwell City Mordialloc 15005, Jan 1990
15006, 15007, 15008 Feb 1990
Frankston City Frankston 15002 Jun 1990
15003 Jun 1990
58 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
15004 Jun 1990
15005 Jun 1990
10080 Apr 1984
10001 Apr 1972
10002 13.2-20.42 Jul 1972
10003 20.12-22.25 Aug 1972
10004
Site Monitored Location Mel Parish Bore Aquifer Interval First H.S. Waste Groundwater Contamination Ref Analysed Licence
City of Moorabbin Moorabbin 10225 Sandstone Oct 1988
Mordialloc 10059 Sandstone Dec 1982
10087 Sandstone 52.00-64.00 Aug 1985
10094 Sandstone 52.20-57.90 Jun 1985
City of Northcote Yarana Avenue 31D9 Jika Jika 10005 4.30-6.50 Jun 1984 Gas producing landfill
City of Oakleigh Heatherton Rd. South 79E11 Mordialloc 10097 Brighton Gp 7.80-8.50 Sep 1985 Landfill with leachate burst Clayton
City of Prahran Simpsons Rd South Clayton 79C10 Mordialloc 10036Brighton Group Jul 1983 Municipal garbage depot
10037 39.00-51.50 Jul 1983 Drought relief
City of Mulgrave Clayton Rd. Clayton Mordialloc 8019
City of Port Melbourne South 10005 Melbourne 10006
City of Moorabbin 10039, 29.60-42.70 Jan 1983 Sandringham 10111
City of Springvale Mordialloc 15003 Jun 1988
15004 Dec 1988
59 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Site Monitored Location Mel Parish Bore Aquifer Interval First H.S. Waste Groundwater Contamination Ref Analysed Licence
City of Sunshine Jones Rd. Brooklyn 40H8 Cut Paw Paw 15001 Newer Volcanics Aug 1989 Western Region Garbage Depot municipal waste adjacent to Kororoit Ck 15002 Newer Volcanics Aug 1989
15003 Newer Volcanics Aug 1989
15004 Newer Volcanics Aug 1989
City of Whittlesea Cooper & O'Hearns Rds Wollert 15001 Newer Volcanics Jul 1989 Northern Region Waste Disposal Site Epping Municipal Garbage Disposal 15002 Newer Volcanics Jul 1989
15003 Newer Volcanics Jul 1989
15004 Newer Volcanics Jul 1989
15005 Newer Volcanics Jul 1989
15009 Newer Volcanics Jul 1989
15010 Newer Volcanics Jul 1989
15011 Newer Volcanics Jul 1989
City of Margaret Street North east Cut Paw Paw 251 Newer Volcanics Aug 1972 Municipal garbage Williamstown corner New Port Lakes 338 Newer Volcanics Dec 1986
339 Newer Volcanics Dec 1986
Cleanaway Western Avenue Tullamarine Government 3(1&2),4,5,67,8,9,10,11,12 1972 Melbourne Industrial Waste site Industrial and Hazardous Waste
Private10 001,10 002,10 003,10 005,10 00610 010,
10 011,10 012,10 016,10 01710 018(1&2),
10 019(1&2)
Colour and Grainers Rd, Footscray 41J5 Cut Paw Paw 1 bore Newer Volcanics Jun 1978 HS 451 Sodium Sulphate and metals Chemicals
Comm. Dept. Productivity 1 bore HS 1451
Dow Chemical Co. Kororoit Ck Rd. Altona North 54A6 Truganina 10008 Newer Volcanics Oct 1975 HS 994 Liquids, EPI polymers
CaCl2,Hg,Cu,Cr,Fe,HCL
60 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
10021 Newer Volcanics Sep 1976
Esso Francis St, Yarraville 42C10 Cut Paw Paw 15013 Jun 1991 Oil storage terminal
15014 Oct 1990
15015 Oct 1990
15016 Oct 1990
15017 Oct 1990
15018 Oct 1990
15024 Oct 1990
15025 Nov 1990
15026 Dec 1990
15027 Dec 1990
15028 Jan 1991
15029 Nov 1990
15030 Jan 1991
Gas and Fuel Corp Foote St. Port Melb 57D4 Melbourne 4 boresPort Melbourne 1973 Gasworks site PAH's,coal tar South1 Sands derivatives 7 bores 1988
Hoecht Kororoit Ck Rd Altona 53K5 Truganina 10044 Newer Volcanics Aug 1984 ES 199 Chemical plant effluent Member of Kororoit Ck Complex
ICI Australia Whitehall St Yarraville 42D10 Cut Paw Paw 10002 Newer Volcanics HS 309 Brine purification sludge Limited.,; BaSO4,SiO2,Mg(OH)2,Hg,CaCO3
ICI Fabric Factory. Station & Tilburn Road, 13E11 Derrimut 8001 Newer Volcanics Explosives and Fabric plant effluent Deer Park High NO3 waste water substantial 8002 Newer Volcanics nitrate plume 8003 Newer Volcanics
ICI Laverton - Laverton 39D5 Truganina 18-30 Government Newer Volcanics 1971-1972 Acid waste, colour factors Factory PMA(Pigment effluent Manufacturers 8001 c 1968 Australia) 8003 c 1968
61 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
15006 Nov 1989
15008 Nov 1989
15009 Nov 1989
15010 Nov 1989
15011 Nov 1989
ICI Dulux - Brooklyn Cut Paw Paw 10002 Australia 15010 Jun 1990
15011 Jun 1990
15012 Jun 1990
James Hardie Mc Intyre Rd. Sunshine 26G9 Cut Paw Paw 10004 Newer Volcanics Oct 1978 HS 315 CaCO3, Asbestos, sand slurry Wunderlich
James Hardie Hardie Rd. Brooklyn 41E10 Maribyrnong 10006 Newer Volcanics Nov 1977 HS 347 Asbestos cement slurries, high pH Industries
N.E. Tannery ES 231
Phosphate Co-Op Woolatta, Little River You Wurdi Youyang 8 bores Granite and granitic Jul 1978 HS 1362 Solids from fertiliser manufacture, inc. NA Yangs scree H2SiF6
Port of Melbourne Todd Rd. Port Melbourne 56F2 Melbourne South 10007Port Melb. Sands Aug 1975 ES 263 Port facility landfill, incs; all wastes, Authority quarantined waste High 10008 Aug 1975 salinity,Cr,Hg,Mn,Cd,SO4 10009 Aug 1975
Petroleum St Albans Rd. Sydenham.13E2 Maribyrnong 8008 Newer Volcanics 60.35-61.5 Nov 1972 Refinery Heavy Oils/waxes vanadium, Refineries army and municipal waste Australia(Mobil) 46
Petroleum Millers Rd., Altona55B6 Cut Paw Paw 15019 Newer Volcanics Sep 1990 Refinery site, hydrocarbons some leaks Refineries to Kororoit Ck, drains Australia (Mobil) 15020 Newer Volcanics Sep 1990
Reichold Centre Rd., Springvale 79K4 Mordialloc 8008 Chemicals P/L
62 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
8009
8010
80011
8012
8013
8014
8018
Shell Co. of Hume Highway Kalkallo 10014 Oct 1974 Australia 10056 20.0-43.0 Mar 1980
Shire of Corio Tip Limeburners Bay Moorpanyal 4 bores HS 1386
Shire of Flinders Trumans Rd. Rye (old tip Wannaeue 44 Swamp deposits 0.5-18.0 Dec 1980 Municipal waste beside football reserve) 45 Swamp deposits 0.5-6.0 Feb 1981
Shire of Flinders Browns & Truemans Rds Wannaeue 10 bores Bridgewater Fm WA 72 Municipal waste disposal site Rye 10084 Sandstone 37.20-39.30 Apr 1981
10193 Sandstone 4.40-7.40 Dec 1985
10194 Sandstone 8.25-10.25 Dec 1985
10195 Sandstone 7.90-9.90 Dec 1985
10196 Sandstone 10.89-12.89 Dec 1985
10204 Sandstone 42.70-46.70 Mar 1986
Shire of Myrtleford Myrtleford Sewerage Murmungee 10 bores Coonambigal Fm < 15 m Unlined leaky sewerage lagoons Faecal Lagoons pollution and sulphate from paper processing black liqueurs
Shire of Werribee CA R S 3823 Deutgam 10170 Mar 1984
Heaths Rd Mossfiel Tarneit 10029 Dec 1983
CA 2A Truganina 10004 Mar 1973
South Eastern Clayton Road, South Mordialloc 15009 Refuse Disposal Clayton Group
63 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
15010
15011
15012
Stauffer Chemicals New Street, Spotswood 41F11 Cut Paw Paw 8053 Newer Volcanics Jul 1978 HS 1200 Slurry alum wastes Fluoride and metals
8054
MMBW WTS no?
250
Warrnambool Allansford RoadMepunga 18 - 22 GSV boresPort Campbell 1976 Whey, milk process waters storm water. Cheese & Butter Limestone Factory 32B 08070 Dec 1970 Crown Allotments 31B 10065 May 1978 Polluted plume extends > 2 km 34B 10138 Oct 1983
34B 10102 Feb 1983
31B 10133 Nov 1985
64 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
7 MISCELLANEOUS GSV GROUNDWATER POLLUTION INVESTIGATIONS
7.1 Collection of Landfill Leachate Samples.
A process of collection of landfill leachate samples was initiated in the early 1970's by the Geological Survey at landfills around the State and the analyses were summarised in Shugg (1976). More recent information on Victoria landfill leachates has been collected under the EPA licenses for waste disposal sites and this information is to be placed on the open file.
7.2 Column Leachate Attenuation Tests.
Leachate attenuation tests on aquifer material have been carried out by private consultants, by the waste disposal groups and by the Geological Survey (Shugg, 1983). These tests have usually been of short duration and conducted under experimental conditions. When the attenuation results are compared with the long term monitoring results from landfills there are substantial departures in response. There are difficulties in attempting to replicate the long term insitu aquifer conditions. In part, this may be due to gas migration, redox changes, ion exchange, flux and absorption - desorption rates that cannot be easily factored into the column experiments.
7.3 Chemical and Nuclear Tracers; Radio Nuclide Tracing Techniques in the Basalt Aquifer.
At Laverton, the migration of a acid waste plume was tested using radioactive isotopes. The tests were unsuccessful due to the solubility of the carrier compound in highly acidic waters. The results are discussed in Riha (1975) and Riha and Kenley (1978).
7.4 Insitu and Biological Treatment.
In aquifer bacteriological sulphate and phenol reduction were examined in the waste plumes in the basalt aquifer of the Western Suburbs (Riha, 1981/79).
7.5 DO and Conductivity Profiles of Groundwater Monitoring Bores.
The stratification of water in the observation bores was examined by Riha and Kenley (1978). The most marked observation was the accumulation of as much as 2-4 m of fresh water in the top of the bore columns.
7.6 Fluoride Concentrations in Groundwater at Portland.
The fluoride concentration in the shallow groundwater around Portland was examined and a study conducted to provide background information for further reviews (Shugg, 1987).
7.7 Nitrate Concentrations on the Nepean Peninsula.
Moderate levels of nitrate accumulation occur in the shallow aquifers of the Nepean Peninsula. This is attributed to the effluent from areas serviced by septic tanks.
65 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
7.8 Arsenic Concentrations in Central Victorian Bedrock Waters.
Arsenic in groundwaters of Central Victoria is recognised as a potential health hazard to both animals and the human population. Arsenic geochemistry and occurrence has been examined by Shugg (1989), Department of Manufacturing and Industry Development (1992) and Hinwood et al. (1998).
7.9 Acid (pH < 3) Pit Waters
Acid pit waters have been a concern of the Sand Producers and to the Community, EPA and Water Authorities in the South Eastern suburbs of Melbourne. The Brighton Group sediments of the area include carbonaceous sands and ligneous coals. Pyrite or marcasite (FeS2) is a common accessary mineral. When exposed in the extractive industry pits during the warm summer months the sulphide readily oxidises. This has led to the formation of sulphuric acid based "acid pit waters" and led to water management problems for many of the operators and sites.
On balance however groundwaters in the South Clayton area near the Spring Valley Golf Course did have naturally occurring pH's of less than 6 before quarrying activities. Sand extraction and lowering of the water table around quarry sites can leads to the exasperated the acid pit water situation.
Table 1. Some Occurrences of Acid Pit water in the Southern Suburbs.
South Clayton City of Prahran, Simpson's Road. City of Camberwell, Clayton Road. Pravnoski's - Ready Mix pit, Victory Road. Ryans Road., South Clayton Mornington Peninsula Devil Bend Quarry
7.10 EPA Golf Course Bores Monitoring Program (16th March 1978)
The EPA sampled a number of pumping bores located at the golf clubs in the South Eastern Suburbs. This was to provide a suite of background samples from at sites not associated with Landfill activities.
Commonwealth Mordialloc 8036, 10004, 10010 Kingston Heath, Metropolitan Royal Melbourne Moorabbin 8048 Victoria Moorabbin 8020 Yarra Yarra Moorabbin 8010(?), 8011(?), 8012 (?), 10 001
Further information on the golf course bores may be found in the GSV unpublished reports (Lanarus & Giofre, 1975 ) groundwater databases and in the unpublished report , and on the DNRE file.
66 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
7.11 List in Alphabetical Order to the Titles of Groundwater Pollution Files Cited or Referred to in this Report GUIDE TO TITLE3 FILE No. ALLANSFORD DAIRY WASTE DISPOSAL POLLUTION STUDY CS/03/0057 P & CS/03/0101 P
ARSENIC DUMP YARRAVILLE - GW POLLUTION CS/03/0036 P
ARSENIC IN GW AT TALGARNO VIA WODONGA #DOE 15:09:1988 INFORMATION ON 225050 P 000
AVALON DISPOSAL SITE CS/07/0097
BROOKLYN DISPOSAL OF GYPSUM WASTE FROM ACID DIGESTION OF ROCK PHOSPHATE CS/07/0103 P
CRANBOURNE TIP GW ANALYSES TO 1992 CS/03/0049 P
CRANBOURNE TIP INVESTIGATIONS - STEVENSONS ROAD - GW POLLUTION CS/03/0035 P
DAIRY EFFLUENT DISPOSAL HEYWOOD CS/07/0082 P
DAIRY FARM GW WASTE 95/20-0479-1
DISPOSAL OF PHOSPHOROUS MUD CS/07/0095
DOW CHEMICAL SITE GROUNDWATER CS/07/0102
DOW CHEMICALS GW POLLUTION CS/03/0042 P
EPA - GW MONITORING CS/07/0099 P
EPA - NRE CALP BOARD GW COMMENTS YARRA - PORT PHILLIP CAT CS/07/0114 P
FLINDERS WASTE DISPOSAL APPEAL & MONITORING CS/07/0146
GAS WORKS - CONTAMINATION PORT MELBOURNE CS/07/0173 P
GAS WORKS - REDEVELOPMENT OF GASWORKS SITES PROBLEMS ARISING CS/03/0119 P
GAS WORKS - SITE; PICKLES ST, PORT MELBOURNE CS/07/0100 P
GW ISSUES CITY LINK PROJECT CS/07/0128 P
GW POLLUTANTS 94/20-0990-1
GW POLLUTION 70/19-3479-1
HON.A.J.HUNT - DISPOSAL OF LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE (Extract from Parliamentary papers) CS/07/0086 P
ICAP - INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR AQUIFER PROTECTION CS/07/0094 P
ICAP - INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR AQUIFER PROTECTION (POLLUTION): WESTERN CS/03/0056 SUBURBS GROUNDWATER POLLUTION - EPA/DoM & ICAP
ICI - DEER PARK - MT DERRIMUT NITRATE PLUME CS/07/0106 P
ICI - PMA LAVERTON INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL CS/07/0093 P
ICLWD - INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL CS/07/0098
INSECTICIDE - OAKLEIGH INSECTICIDE FUNGICIDE TIP CS/07/0096 P
LAND DISPOSAL K SERIES PUTRESCIBLE WASTE CS/03/0032 P
LANDFILLS - ARTICLES & PAPERS CS/03/0116
LANDFILLS - EPA. SURVEY OF LANDFILLS IN THE GREATER MELBOURNE AREA 1997 CS/03/0091 P
LANDFILLS - GW - ARTICLES & PAPERS CS/03/0116 P
3 The titles may differ from that listed, either through brevity or for purposes of sorting in the above list.
67 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
LANDFILLS - MUNICIPAL GARBAGE - ANALYSES CS/07/0161
MONSANTO GW POLLUTION BROOKLYN (ALIAS CHEMPLEX, HUNTSMAN ETC.) CS/07/0092 P
MONSANTO PLUME GW CONTAMINATION CS/03/0044 P
MOVEMENT OF BACTERIA IN GW CS/03/0117 P
NITRATE - DIFFUSE SOURCE NITRATE CONTAMINATION OF GW #IND 139722 P 000
NITRATE - NEPEAN GW NITRATE 94/20-0497-1
NITRATE - SOIL CONTAMINATION - NITRATES BLACK HILL, GORDON CS/03/0076 P
NITRATE - STUDY - LWRRDC 1997 CS/07/1047
NITRATE - WARRNAMBOOL NITRATE SURVEY CS/07/0081 P
NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL & GW CS/03/0118 P
PAPER CLIPPINGS - GW POLLUTION CS/07/0101 P
PAPER FOR IAH CONFERENCE 1998 LONG-TERM GW RESOURCE PLANNING CS/07/0141 P
PESTICIDES IN GW - BACKGROUND INFORMATION CS/03/0087 P
POLLUTION ANALYSES - MISCELLANEOUS ITS AND DISCHARGES - WITH INDEX CS/03/0128 P
POLLUTION ANALYSES - MISCELLANEOUS ITS AND DISCHARGES - WITH INDEX CS/03/0128 P
POREPUNKAH TIP STUDY SHIRE OF BRIGHT CS/07/0105
SE SUBURBS ACID PIT WATERS, LEACHATES AND ATTENUATION CS/03/0099 P
SE SUBURBS ADMINISTRATION AND TECHNICAL - GW POLLUTION CS/03/0070 P
SE SUBURBS ADMINISTRATIVE FILE - GW POLLUTION CS/07/0084 P
SE SUBURBS BUNNY ROAD LANDFILL NOTES AND SUMMARY INFORMATION CS/03/0097 P
SE SUBURBS BUNNY ROAD TIP - OAKLEIGH - GW POLLUTION CS/03/0069 P
SE SUBURBS ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION POLICY DRAFT CS/07/0085 P
SE SUBURBS GOLF COURSE HYDROGEOLOGICAL DATA CS/03/0046 P
SE SUBURBS GW POLLUTION ANALYSES CS/03/0068 P
SE SUBURBS APPLIC & ADMIN APPEALS TRIBUNAL EVIDENCE CS/03/0093 P
SELF MONITORING EPA - GDB INPUT: AJAX FASTENERS BRAESIDE CS/07/0260
SELF MONITORING EPA - GDB INPUT: ALLIED SAND NOMINEES CS/07/0256
SELF MONITORING EPA - GDB INPUT: CITY OF KNOX - CATHIES LANE SCORESBY CS/07/0257
SELF MONITORING EPA - GDB INPUT: CLAYTON REGIONAL LANDFILL ( SERWMG ) CS/07/0265
SELF MONITORING EPA - GDB INPUT: CLEANAWAY CLAYTON AND FRAZER ROADS CLAYTON SOUTH CS/07/0263
SELF MONITORING EPA - GDB INPUT: CLEANAWAY ORNISH ROAD DANDENONG SOUTH CS/07/0261
SELF MONITORING EPA - GDB INPUT: CLEANAWAY RYANS & DEALS ROADS CLAYTON CS/07/0262
SELF MONITORING EPA - GDB INPUT: CLEANAWAY RYANS ROAD LANDFILL CLAYTON CS/07/0266
SELF MONITORING EPA - GDB INPUT: FRANKSTON CITY - Mc CLELLAND DRIVE FRANKSTON LANDFILL CS/03/0212
SELF MONITORING EPA - GDB INPUT: GENERAL COMMENTS & RECORDS OF CORRESPONDENCE CS/03/0216
SELF MONITORING EPA - GDB INPUT: HEINZ - WATTIES AUSTRALIA DANDENONG SITE CS/07/0264
SELF MONITORING EPA - GDB INPUT: KINGSTON QUARRIES TOOTAL ROAD, DINGLEY CS/03/0213
SELF MONITORING EPA - GDB INPUT: PIONEER AUST WASTE CARROLL RD,CLARINDA CS/03/0217 PROPOSED/LANDFILL
SELF MONITORING EPA - GDB INPUT: PIONEER FRASER ROAD CLAYTON LANDFILL CS/03/0219 68 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
SELF MONITORING EPA - GDB INPUT: SITA - BFI LYNDHURST CS/07/0258
SELF MONITORING EPA - GDB INPUT: STONNINGTON CITY-SIMPSONS RD(PRAHRAN CITY)LANDFILL CS/03/0215
SELF MONITORING EPA - GDB INPUT: WHELAN KARTAWAY P/L ELDER ST CLAYTON CS/07/0259
SEPTIC TANKS & GW POLLUTION CS/03/0034 P
SEPTIC TANKS & GW QUALITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PLANNING GUIDELINES CS/03/0009 P
STATE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - GARBAGE DISPOSAL / DESTRUCTION - TRANSCRIPT OF CS/07/0107 PROCEEDINGS
STATION PIER PETROLEUM CONTAMINATION NOTES CS/07/0080 P
SUNSHINE TIP - ANALYSES 1988-1992 CS/03/0054 P
SUNSHINE TIP - APPEAL - EVIDENCE CS/07/0087 P
SUNSHINE TIP - HULETT STREET - DISSOLVED OXYGEN REGIME IN GW PLUME CS/03/0052 P
SUNSHINE TIP - OTHER CHEMICAL ANALYSES CS/03/0050 P
TASK FORCE FOR NEW TIP SITE APPROVALS: CAMBERWELL CITY GARBAGE DEPOT 70/19-4708
TASK FORCE FOR NEW TIP SITE APPROVALS: MEETINGS BALLARAT REGION 90/19-3042
TULLAMARINE LANDFILL - GW MONITORING 94/20-0454-1
TULLAMARINE LANDFILL - INDUSTRIAL WASTE - SUMMARY DATA - LOGS CS/03/0048 P
TULLAMARINE LANDFILL - INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL SITE SUMMARY DATA CS/03/0047 P
TULLAMARINE LANDFILL - INDUSTRIAL WASTE SITE - REPORTS CS/03/0037 P
TULLAMARINE LANDFILL - TIP INDUSTRIAL WASTE SITE - REPORTS CS/03/0037
TULLAMARINE LANDFILL - TIP MINUTES OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEETINGS CS/03/0197
WASTE DISPOSAL APPLICATIONS 1969 -1989 HEALTH DEPARTMENT REFERRALS - INDEX OF CS/07/0116
WESTERN SUBURBS GW POLLUTION ANALYSES: 1 CS/03/0055 P
WESTERN SUBURBS GW POLLUTION ANALYSES: AND WATER LEVELS - SUMMARY CS/03/0053 P
WESTERN SUBURBS GW POLLUTION ANALYSES: EPA/DME & ICAP CS/03/0056 P
WESTERN SUBURBS GW POLLUTION ANALYSES: EPA/DME & ICAP CS/03/0056 P
WESTERN SUBURBS GW POLLUTION ANALYSES: FROM MMBW BORES CS/03/0062 P
WESTERN SUBURBS GW POLLUTION ANALYSES: MARYBYRNONG 35,36,47 & TARNEIT 3 & 4 CS/03/0066 P
WESTERN SUBURBS GW POLLUTION ANALYSES: ORIGINAL OF SURFACE WATERS (INC. LAGOONS) CS/03/0078 P
WESTERN SUBURBS GW POLLUTION ANALYSES: PRIVATE MONITORING BORES CS/03/0074 P
WESTERN SUBURBS GW POLLUTION ANALYSES: TRUGANINA 24-29 CS/03/0073 P
WESTERN SUBURBS GW POLLUTION ANALYSES: TRUGANINA 30 - 31 & TULLAMARINE 1 CS/03/0127 P
WESTERN SUBURBS GW POLLUTION DRILLING CIRCA 1987 CS/03/0043 P
WESTERN SUBURBS GW POLLUTION RIHA & KENLEY 1978, WITH / FIGS CS/03/0115 P
WESTERN SUBURBS GW POLLUTION ANALYSES: CUT PAW PAW 246 - 252 CS/03/0067 P
WESTERN SUBURBS GW POLLUTION ANALYSES: CUT PAW PAW 253, 255-8, 260, 262-264 CS/03/0060 P
WESTERN SUBURBS GW POLLUTION ANALYSES: DERRIMUT 2,3 & 5; DOUTTA GALLA 82, KOROIT 10 CS/03/0061 P
WESTERN SUBURBS GW POLLUTION ANALYSES: DISCHARGES - MONSANTO; DOW; HOECHST; PMA; CS/03/0063 P
WESTERN SUBURBS GW POLLUTION ANALYSES: TRUGANINA 16-23 CS/03/0058 P
69 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
8 SUMMARY OF SELECTED METROPOLITAN LANDFILL SITES
This compilation lists a selection of waste disposal sites that have been active during the past two to three decades. Many other sites exist around the Metropolitan area. There are several sites in this listing that have had groundwater, gas and surface water discharge problems. Attention is drawn waste composition and to surface leachate discharges to streams and storm water systems, leaky sites are highlighted in the comment column.
Owner HD Road Suburb Municipality Mel Ref Type Type of Waste Landfill No of Aquife Comm Ceased Comments File Bores r enced no. Agolu Investments 1 384 Boundary & Heatherton Springvale Springvale '79 B12 CT Inert putrescible including Sand pit TS 78 C Roads garbage Albright & Wilson 1 364 Highfield Road Brooklyn Sunshine '40J8 Chem. Solids Chemical Gypsum (cont. Quarry 3 NV 78 C Base lined with plastic sheet. Adj. `Jones Road' ICI F, P) quarry Alcoa of Aust 276- Pt. Henry - 1147- Geelong Bellarine ' MG Var. Org; Chromium (F A G Ponds QS <73 C Virtually on seaboard; surrounded by bay 280 1148.1267 pot line dump) oily etc. Landfill Chem,,Liquid, Solid Altona City of 222 Grieve Parade Altona Altona '40G12 MG Gen. refuse Quarry NV 74 C Bank of Kororoit Creek North Bench Altona City of 261 North Avenue Altona Altona '53G9 MG Gen. refuse A G fill NV 74 77 On bank of Laverton Ck Aust Packaging Ltd 896 McArthurs Road Altona Altona '54K2 Spray booth High pH, Na (OH), Cr, Pb A G fill NV ? 77 Ceased (- sewer) North chem. Aust. Synthetic 532 Maidstone St Altona Altona '54B6 Chem Sulphate, pH, chloride, A G ponds 2 NV 770 C Gross pollution in Mon. bores: CCl4 & EDC Rubber As, Pb B F Goodrich Chem 984 Kororoit Ck Rd Altona Altona '53K6 PVC waste Oil, surfactants, TDS, N. A G ponds 2 NV <75 C Bores contaminated initially water Bacchus Marsh Shire 607 Albert St Bacchus Bacchus ' MG Gen. Refuse A G Valley Q TS <73 C of Marsh Marsh Fill Ballan Shire of 236 Gillespie Rd Ballan Ballan ' MG Gen. refuse A G or NV 62 C Trenches Bellarine Shire of 808 St. Bellarine ' MG *Inlet ? C adjacent to ocean Leonards Brighton City of 226 Ball Road Moorabbin Moorabbin '78 E9 MG Gen. Refuse Sand pits TS <73 C Broadmeadows City of 1 152 Bright St Campbellfi Broadmeado '7F9 MG Gen. refuse & putrescible Quarry TS B 76 78 Some hazardous waste taken illegally eld ws Broadmeadows City of 812 Camp Road Broadmead Broadmeado '7F9 MG Gen. refuse & putrescible Clay TS B ? 76 ows ws Quarry Broadmeadows City of 1 331 Mahoneys Road Campbellfi Broadmeado '7H9 MG+ Refuse & sched. liquids & Quarry TS B 78 C eld ws hazardous 70 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Brunswick City of 1 150 Harrison St East Brunswick '30A6 MG+ Gen. refuse + scheduled Clay pit B 74 C Brunswick liquids in '76 Owner HD Road Suburb Municipality Mel Ref Type Type of Waste Landfill No of Aquife Comm Ceased Comments File Bores r enced no. Brunswick City of 602 Lea St East Brunswick '30B7 MG Gen. refuse Quarry NV 71 C Brunswick Bulla Shire of 906 Craigieburn Road Craigieburn Bulla '116H4 Dry refuse only Clay Pit B 72 C Bulla Shire of 1 230Riddells Road Sunbury Bulla '114B2 MG Gen. refuse Valley Fill B 77 C Filter Dam & diversion works installed. No g/w problem. Bulla Shire of 907 Stewarts Lane Sunbury Bulla '114H5 MG Gen. refuse Broad B <73 78 Trenches Camberwell City of 1 241 Doncaster Road Greythorn Camberwell '46J1 MD Dry waste only A G fill 76 C Camberwell City of 460 Glen Iris Road Glen Iris Camberwell '60B6 MD Dry waste only Valley fill - 70 75 Camberwell City of 461 Musca Street North Camberwell '32A12 MG Gen. Refuse A G fill - 62 77 Balwyn Chelsea City of 739 Scotch Pde & Thames Chelsea Chelsea '93 E12 MG Gen. Refuse Sand pit TS <67 77 Pde Coburg City of 1 142 Newlands Road Coburg Coburg '18A8 MG Gen. Refuse Quarry NV 73 C Extended above grid 224 Collingwood City of 783 Ramsden Road Clifton Hill Collingwood '44G2 MG Gen. Refuse Quarry 1 NV 43 C Colours & Chemicals 451 Graingers Rd West Footscray '41J5 Chem. liquids6% Na2 SO4 w. trace Filled 1 NV <73 C Restrictions & monitoring reqd. in '78 Footscray metallic napthenates quarry Comm. Dept. of 1 451 Ballarat Road Albion Sunshine '25K8 Chem. Ca, SO4 sludge A G Ponds 1 NV 78 C Productivity Corio Shire of 308 Corio Corio ' Seaboard Landfills 1386 Cranbourne Shire of 265 Stevensons Rd Cranbourn Cranbourne '133F8 MG Gen. Refuse Sandpit TS <71 C Leachate troubles e Croydon City of 232 Trawalla Road Kilsyth Croydon '51D6 MG Gen. Refuse <67 C n Dept. of Agriculture 972 Myers Ck Rd Healesville Healesville ' Liquid Haz. Seed dip: organic MG Surf. B<74C chloride + formalin Irrigation Diamond Valley Shire 306 Yan Yean Rd Plenty Diamond '11E1 MG Gen. refuse Valley fill B 68 C Surface leachate of Valley Doncaster City of 635 Commercial & Stinton Doncaster Doncaster & '35B8 MG Gen. refuse Valley fill B 73 C Surface leachate Roads Templestowe Dow Chemical Co 994 Kororoit Ck Rd Altona Altona '54A6 Chem. liquids CaCl2, HCl(di) A G ponds 1 NV <73 C Chlorine & Chlor.H/C manuf. bore once used for Epichlorhydrin Cu, Cr, Hg disposal EFI Polymers etc. 71 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Eltham Shire of 730 Graham Road Kangaroo Eltham ' MG Gen. refuse Sand pits TS B 73 C Surrounded by basement rock Ground Eltham Shire of 397 Susan Street Eltham Eltham '21H6 MG Gen. refuse <73 74 Owner HD Road Suburb Municipality Mel Ref Type Type of Waste Landfill No of Aquife Comm Ceased Comments File Bores r enced no. Englehard Industries 492 Settlement Road Thomastow Whittlesea ' Liquid Chem. Neutralised pickling acids In Ground NV <73 75 Pty Ltd n - hydroxides, & Pool carbonates of Cu, Ni, Zn, Dc, Sb, Fe. Flinders Shire of 317 Truemans Road West Flinders '169E6 MG Gen. Refuse A G Landfill TS <73 C Rosebud Footscray City of 590 Myers Road Footscray Footscray '42B1 MG Gen. refuse & putrescible Quarry NV 70 C Footscray City of 669 McLelland Drive Langwarrin Frankston '103 E1 MG Gen. Refuse Sand pit TS C Gisborne Shire of 722 Goode St Gisborne Gisborne ' MG Gen. refuse Gully B ? 75 No problem Gisborne Shire of 1 027 Hobbs Rd Bullengaro Gisborne ' MG Gen. refuse Gravel B75CNo problem ok Quarry Gisborne Shire of 721 Norton Rd Macedon Gisborne ' MG Gen. refuse Trench B 70 76 No problem Greenhaigh & Sons 1 353 98 Cooper St Epping Whittlesea '116A11 Liquid Chem. Tanning: Lime, alum with Unlined NV ? C sulphates & inert chromic Ponds salts Hawthorn City of 1 297 Auburn Rd & Burgess Hawthorn Hawthorn '59F3 MG Gen. refuse Clay pit B 77 C Hawthorn City of 231 Symonds St Hawthorn Hawthorn '45G12 MG Gen. refuse Clay pit B <73 C Old Fritz Holtzer Brick Works, leachate discharge Healesville Shire of 501 Glenburn Rd Yarra Glen Healesville ' MG Gen. Refuse Trench/Fill B 63 C Healesville Shire of 502 Mt Riddell Rd Healesville Healesville ' MG Gen. Refuse Trench/Fill B 61 C Hoechst Aust 848 Kororoit Ck Rd Altona Altona '53K6 Inert Chem Metal hydroxides, Al & Ti A G ponds NV <73 C Sludge oxides as filter cake sludge ICI 309 Whitehall St Yarraville Footscray '42D10 Chem. Brine purification sludge AG Pond 1 NV <73? C Pond lined in '77 cont. Ba SO4, Silica, CaCO3, Mg (OH)2, Hg (160 ppm) ICI - Nylex Corp MW28 Mt Derrimut Station Deer Park Sunshine '39E9 Liquid Chem Sulphate, Nitrate, TSS: 6 pit in ash 1 NV 61 78 Subsurface discharge via , pollution of aquifer 6 Road 500, Iron, Surfactants ICI Aust 307 Jones Road Brooklyn Footscray '40J8 Chem. solids Chemical gypsum Quarry 1 NV 69 C (contains F&P) ICI Aust - West Tottenham Footscray Footscray ' Chem. solids Chemical gypsum Filled NV ? 69 Previous site filled
72 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
(contains F&P) quarry ICI Aust 312 Ballarat Road Deer Park Sunshine '25G9 Inert Chem. Insol. Urea formaldehyde Brick lined NV 43 78 powder pits ICI Aust 1 352 Leakes Rd Laverton Werribee '53D5 Liquid Chem. Aqueous soln. with Vinyl Ponds + NV 78 C *Lined with `Rivaseal'. Settled effluent irrigated. North Chloride, NaCl, CrO4. Irrigation PMA bores James Hardie & Co 347 Hardie Road Brooklyn Footscray '41E10 Asbestos cement Quarry 1 NV 27 C Discharges to cease within one year ingredients High pH Owner HD Road Suburb Municipality Mel Ref Type Type of Waste Landfill No of Aquife Comm Ceased Comments File Bores r enced no. James Hardie & 315 47 McIntyre Ro Sunshine Sunshine '26G9 Chem. Asbestos Cement A G Landfill 1 27 C Discharge to cease within one year Co(ex. Wunderlich) Keilor City of 553 St Albans Road St Albans Keilor '14F8 MG Gebn. refuse, putrescible Bench on NV 64 C Leachate direct to Taylors Ck. Ck. bank Knox City of 228 Cathies Lane Wantirna Knox '72E3 MG+ Gen. refuse + liquids in Clay pit B? 72 C extended mid 77 with lic. for sched. liquids South mid 77 - it is believed that little was taken Land Reclamations 346 Western Ave Tullamarine Bulla '5E5 All wastes Non putrescible solids & Quarry Nv OV 70? C P/L scheduled industrial liquids Land Reclamations 348 Ryan & Clayton Rds Clayton Oakleigh '79 B9 CT Solid inert, putrescible Sand pit TS <73 C leaching problem? P/L Land Reclamations 349 Grange Road Springvale Springvale 88 CT Solid inert putrescible Sand pit TS < 73 78 P/L Lilydale Shire of 297 Baileys Rd Mt Evelyn Lilydale '118H11 MG Gen. refuse ?A G fill <73 C Leachate in creek in '76 Lilydale Shire of 1 264 Ingram Road Coldstream Lilydale '174F12 MG Gen. refuse Valley B *76 C *Previously used some years ago Head Fill Lusteroid 860 Cochrane Road Moorabbin Moorabbin '77 K7 Chem. Turps, caustic soda, paint Ground TS <73 76 washings soakage Lyncadle, P.L. 243 Hastings-Dandenong Lyndhurst Cranbourne '129A1 Solids Solid inert waste only Sandpit TS <73 C Rd Lysaght Durham 857 Somerville Road Footscray Sunshine '41D6 Pickling H2SO4, pH 2.5, Zn, Cr quarry ? NV <73 76 West Galvan'g etc. Marbon Chem (Aust) 248 Hammond Road Dandenong Dandenong Liquid & ABS resin (insol. inert) AGP's <73 C sludge lates Melbourne Harbour 531 Todd Road Port Port '56F2 Special All wastes incl. Sand pit 3 Qs <73 C Trust Melbourne Melbourne disposal quarantined wastes from shipping Melton Shire of 1 382 Ferris Rd Melton Melton ' MG Gen. refuse Above NV 78 C ground L/Fill 73 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Melton Shire of 750 Paynes Rd Rockbank Melton ' MG Gen. refuse (previously Quarry NV 68 75 oily sludge) Monsanto Aust 341 Somerville Rd West Sunshine '41A5 Org. Chem Phenolic compounds quarry & Sev. NV ? 74 Cross pollution of aquifer. See Riha '78 Footscray ponds Moorabbin City of 941 Carroll Road South Moorabbin '78 G5 MG Gen. Refuse Sand pit TS <73 77 Oakleigh Moorabbin City of 1 102 Clayton Road South Moorabbin '79 A9 MG Gen. Refuse Sand pit TS <67 78 Clayton Mordialloc City of 229 Spring Road Dingley Springvale '88 G4 MG Gen. Refuse Sand pit TS <73 C Mornington Shire of 429 Moorooduc Rd Mt Eliza Mornington '105K9 MG Gen. refuse Valley Fill* Q TS 72 C *Levee banks along Balcombe Ck banks Northcote City of 1 291 Clifton and Wales Northcote Northcote '30G7 Dry only Clay pit B 77 C Street Owner HD Road Suburb Municipality Mel Ref Type Type of Waste Landfill No of Aquife Comm Ceased Comments File Bores r enced no. Northcote City of 583 Collins Street Thornbury Northcote '31B5 MG Gen. refuse Quarry NV 73 C Northcote City of 225 Yarana Road Alphington Northcote '31D9 MG Gen. Refuse Quarry NV 67 76 Surface leachate to river - continuing problem Nunawading City of 230 Burwood Road East Nunawading '63A9 MG Gen. Refuse A G fill 62 76 extension of same Burwood Nunawading City of 1 048 Burwood Road East Nunawading MG C Burwood Oakleigh City of 1 345 Bunney Road Clarinda Oakleigh '78J4 MG Gen. Refuse Sand pit TS 78 C Oakleigh City of 1 388 Heatherton Road Clayton Oakleigh '79E11 MG Ge. Refuse Sand pit 78 C South Oakleigh City of 223 Huntingdale Road Oakleigh Oakleigh '78 J2 CT Gen. refuse and Sand pit TS <73 75 putrescible Oakleigh City of 797 Stamford and Estelle Oakleigh Oakleigh '69J6 MG Gen. refuse and Clay pit B 74 C putrescible Oakleigh City of 1 211 Stamford Road Oakleigh Oakleigh '69H6 MG Gen refuse and scheduled Clay pit B 76 79 liquids after 77 Oakleigh City of 1 279 Talbot Avenue Clayton Oakleigh '78J3 MG Gen. Refuse Sand pit TS 77 78 Olympic Tyre & 1 10713 mile post, Hume Somerton Whittlesea ' Liquid Chem. Septic & plant effluent Unlined NV <73 C * Now controlled <1 mg/L Rubber Co. Highway with hexavalent Cr.* Pond P M Aust (Pigment 560 Old Geelong Road Laverton Werribee '53D6 Liquid Chem Sl: pigment, Alumina, Borehole NV <68 C *+A G Ponds. B/H disp. phased out by 1977. See Manufactrers) gypsum, salts.Bore: disposal RIHA Acidic, high TDS, SO4, Cu, Fe, ABS Petroleum Refineries 350 Millers & Kororoit Ck Altona Altona '55B7 Chem. Oily & phenolic liquids A G ponds NV <73 C Ponds clay lined Aust Roads 74 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Phosphate Co-Op 1 362 Sandy Ck Rd Little River Corio ' Solid Chem. Chemical gypsum (with F) A G* Fill DG 79 C *Underdrained Port Melbourne City of 481 Todd Road Port Port '56G2 MG Gen. Refuse Sand pit Qs <73* C *Tipping in sand pits & filling in old river ch. since Melbourne Melbourne 1909. Preston City of 227 Arunta Ave Reservoir Preston '18B6 MG Gen. refuse & industrial Quarry NV 68 77 solids and liquids inc. ethyl acrylate Preston City of 1 170 Gremel Road East Preston '19C8 MG+ Gen. refuse & scheduled Quarry TSB 76 C Reservoir liquids R J Gilbertsons P/L 869 Kyle Rd Altona Altona '41E12 Solids, waste Solid wastes incl. Quarry NV <73 C North water asbestos cement waste from Hardies, wash down water (putrescible) Ringwood City of 666 Wonga Road Ringwood Ringwood '36B12 MG Gen. refuse (later dry) Valley fill B 73 C surface leachate problem North Owner HD Road Suburb Municipality Mel Ref Type Type of Waste Landfill No of Aquife Comm Ceased Comments File Bores r enced no. Rohm & Haas Aust 1 149 Hayes Rd Pt Henry Bellarine ' Liquid Chem Water from acrylic mfr. A G Ponds QS <73 C Some irrigation to land (S.S.) neutral - no heavy metals Romsey Shire of 480 Chintin Rd Monegeett Romsey ' MG Gen. refuse Cutting B ? 75 Discharge to Deep Creek a Romsey Shire of 479 Cullys Rd Lancefield Romsey ' MG Gen. refuse Cutting NV ? 75 Romsey Shire of 478 Gap Road Riddell Romsey ' MG Gen. refuse ? B ? 75 Romsey Shire of 1 175 Tickawarra Rd Romsey Romsey ' MG Gen. refuse Old Rly NV 75 C Cutting Rylands Wires 310 Walch's Rd North Corio ' A G fill Shore Rylands Wires 1 161 Walch's Rd North Corio ' Liq. Chem H2SO4 and: 1. Ferrous A G Ponds) 75 C *2. Since '78 only Shore sulphate in holding ponds *2. Pretreat sludge with Fe, Pb, Zn, Cu SEC Vic 418 Geelong & McDonalds Sunshine Sunshine '40K9 Inert, + Haz Mostly dry solids, some quarry NV 67? C Small amounts unlikely to be a problem Roads Chem creosotes etc. from wood preserving Shell Co. of Aust 505 Corio Corio ' Var. oil On seaboard wastes Sherbrooke Shire of 483 Wellington Rd Lysterfield Sherbrooke '83H7 MG Gen. Refuse Valley Fill B(G) <52 C Surf. runoff problem Simsmetal 976 McDonald Road Brooklyn Sunshine '41B7 Battery H2SO4*, Pb quarry NV 78 C Acid now ceased Breaking 75 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Smith, E J 634 Old Dandenong Road Dingley Springvale '88 C2 CT Solids & inert industrial Sand pit TS <73 C waste* SPC Ltd 1 057 Camms Rd Monbulk Sherbrooke '124G3 Liquid Putres. Treated effluent Lagoons B <73 C Surf. runoff problem Irrigation Springvale City of 939 Rowan Road Springvale Springvale '88 J5 MG General Refuse, Sand pit TS <73 C Pre-licensing wastes unknown putrescible Stauffer Chem Co 1 200 New Street Spotswood Altona '41F11 Sulphate Slurry 2% Al Sulphate, F. Quarry NV <72 79 Sunshine City of 641 Hulett St Sunshine Sunshine '26C8 All wastes Garbage, refuse, quarry 3 NV 69 78 Gross pollution proven both aquifers industrial, hazardous, liquids etc Sunshine City of 1 275 Hulett St Sunshine Sunshine '26D8 MG Gen. refuse, inert Quarry NV 78 C industrial solids Upper Yarra Shire of 637 Old Warburton Rd Wesburn Upper Yarra ' MG Gen. Refuse Trench/ A B? <52 C G Fill Vic. Railways Board 701 Somerville Road Brooklyn Sunshine '41A7 Industrial Gen. inert solids and oily quarry NV <73 C Oily sludges were tipped against quarry walls liquids Werribee Shire of 855 West's Road Werribee Werribee ' MG Gen. Refuse Quarry NV 74 C Owner HD Road Suburb Municipality Mel Ref Type Type of Waste Landfill No of Aquife Comm Ceased Comments File Bores r enced no. Whittlesea Shire of 1 249 Donnybrook Road Woodstock Whittlesea ' MD Dry refuse only Quarry NV 76 C Whittlesea Shire of 325 High St Lalor Whittlesea '8K2 MD Dry refuse only Quarry NV <73 78 Whittlesea Shire of 324 Lot 2 Thomas Road Whittlesea Whittlesea ' MG Gen. refuse Valley Fill <73 77 Whittlesea Shire of 1 254 McKimmies Rd Bundoora Whittlesea '9G3 MG Gen. refuse Quarry NV 74 C Whittlesea Shire of 1 342 Off "McKimmies Lane" Morang Whittlesea '9G4 MG Gen. refuse & putrescible Quarry NV 78 C South solids Williamstown City of 951 Johnston St Newport Williamstown '55H2 MG Gen. refuse Quarry NV 74 76 Williamstown City of 1 025 Johnston-Bruce St Newport Williamstown '55G2 MG Gen. refuse Quarry NV 75 C Williamstown City of 629 William St, Newport Williamstown '55J3 MD Dry waste Quarry NV 71 76 Buried 3 large R.C. oil tanks formerly strategic, in situ Winchester Aust 322 Pt. Henry Geelong Bellarine ' Liquid Chem A G Ponds QS <73 C 716
# Old Waste Management Branch of the Health Commission File Number
76 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
8.1 Surface discharge of Landfill Leachate or Landfill Burst
The more detailed tabulation of municipal landfills included above does not necessarily highlight the wide spread phenomena of leaky landfills with surface breaches. The processes that gives rise to leachate burst were discussed in Shugg and Young (1986). In most instances the leachate has discharged to storm water drains and then to local creeks
City of Northcote, Separation Road (E) Alphington (Melway 31 D10) City of Brunswick, Albion Street - Harrison Street (Melway 30 A6 ) City of Broadmeadows Johnstone Street, Jacana Reserve (Melway 6 E9 ) Camp Road (Melway 7 F10) Camp Road (Melway 7 F9 ) City of Camberwell Rose Street (Melway 45 G12) City of Oakleigh Heatherton Road (Melway 79 E11) Reg Harris Reserve (Melway 70 A7 ) Bald Hill Park (Melway 78 J4 ) City of Knox Ferntree Gully Road (Melway 72 C10) City of Springvale Rowan and Spring Roads (Melway 88 G5 ) Din San Nursery Old Dandenong Road (Melway 88 C2 ) Shire of Lilydale Ingram Road Coldstream (Melway 174 F11)
77 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
9 DEVELOPMENT OF PROTECTIOIN POLICY IN GOVERNMENT COMMITTEES AND APPEAL HEARINGS
9.1 State Development Committees
The State Development Committees were active in the 1960's and 1970's. Their reports cited below provide and insight into the processes of State and of the development of policy and direction in: resource planning, environment protection and the establishment of suitable waste management practices. The committees examined evidence from participant parties and make recommendations based on that information. Only two State Development Committee reports are considered in this document.
The protection of the State's groundwater resources and the disposal of garbage, refuse and liquid wastes were the subject of detailed enquires by the following State Development Committees:
1962-1964 :Underground Water Resources
1972 :Disposal and or Destruction of Garbage and other Rubbish with particular reference to the Disposal of Industrial Wastes
9.2 Ministerial Statement
Significant statements of policy occur as Ministerial Statements and often can be seen as beacons marking the change in policy direction. For groundwater protection such a statement was presented to Parliament in 1974 by the Hon. A.J. Hunt.
1974 :The Disposal of Liquid Industrial Wastes (Parliamentary Debates April 24, 1974).
The waste disposal dilemma had been highlighted by an example in 1968 when the company Mayne Nickless Pty. Ltd. sought the formal opinion of the MDV with regard to the disposal of effluent into the basalt aquifer of the south western suburbs (including Yarraville, Spotswood, Brooklyn, Altona). At that time disposal was in a manner that was largely uncontrolled and probably could be considered illegal under the existing legislation, including the General Sanitary Regulations and the Schedules of the Health Act 1958. Before the operation of the Groundwater Act 1968 the control of the pollution of groundwater came under Section 82 of the Health Act 1958. In essence the Health Act 1958 stated that no water supply might be legally allowed to be polluted by effluent disposal. Hancock (1968) in a report for the MDV posed the question of whether disposal should be permitted and perhaps that a more pragmatic approach should be taken. In this case the specific problem was the disposal of liquid transport flushing fluids (18 m3/d) into disused quarries in the Brooklyn area. The fluids contained: aniline, benzene, toluene, creosote, latex, phenol, industrial oils, edible oils, lubricating oils, palm resin, kerosene, motor spirits and the detergents Surfax K6, Gibson Kelite and Surfax Extra. Hancock (1968) recommended a treatment program, monitoring bores and a trial disposal period. Although not prohibited, liquid waste disposal to the land, either with or without solid waste, continued almost unabated until 1976 when the Town and Country Planning Board made the significant but inevitable Sunshine Tip ruling. The policy determined by the planning tribunal panel was that Co-Disposal to unlined basalt quarries was no longer permitted.
The industries producing large volumes of waste relied on government, local government and statutory bodies for their waste disposal. The change in the legislative framework and the result of the Sunshine 78 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Tip Appeal (EPA, 1975 -1976) rapidly changed this, a large number of the waste generators were caught in the resulting disposal hiatus.
The State Development Committee 1962 - 1964 "Underground Water Resources of Victoria" examined the evidence of pollution of groundwater and made the following comments;
Problems of pollution and contamination were frequently mentioned in evidence. Expert witnesses differed in their opinions as to what constitutes contamination. It seems to the Committee that the distinction between the two terms is largely artificial. It is proposed therefore, to use the term pollution in the wider sense to cover both pollution and contamination.
Pollution of underground water supplies, broadly speaking, may be of bacterial or chemical origin. Night soil, insufficiently treated septic tank effluent, and industrial wastes coming into contact with underground water supplies can give rise to pollution. Intrusions of salt-water into fresh water aquifers are a further source of pollution.
The need for protection of underground water supplies against pollution is as vital as the need to prevent excessive depletion. Serious pollution of water supplies which renders them unusable effectively depletes the total supply. The Committee considers, therefore, that the development and use of drainage and disposal bores should be strictly policed, and that adequate safeguards should be provided against salt-water intrusions into underground water supplies. While there is existing legislation covering the disposal of nightsoil, septic tank effluent, and garbage, it appears that it may need to be extended to cover more effectively the disposal underground of industrial wastes, which at present appear to be covered rather inadequately by the provisions of the Health Act applying to the disposal of garbage.
Another aspect requiring attention is the disposal upon the surface of the ground of any noxious substance which may penetrate the soil and so contaminate underground water supplies.
With particular respect to the contamination of groundwater the Committee made the following recommendation:
(34) That provision be made for adequate safeguards as a construction requirement against anything that may cause a deterioration of the quality of the underground water supplies concerned, and for prevention of the disposal of trade and other wastes in any form within aquifers or areas connected with or associated with aquifers.
Following the work of the ICAP which incorporated the examination by the MDV and EPA of the extent of groundwater pollution in the western suburbs of Melbourne the Government prepared a statement on liquid waste disposal. In April 1974 the Hon. A.J. Hunt, Minister for Local Government, issued a statement on the Disposal of Liquid Industrial Wastes (Extract from the Parliamentary Debates in the Legislative Council, April 24, 1974), commenting on the need for further studies and the proposed treatment plant on MMBW land at Brooklyn, and that the Government had taken steps to purchase land for future needs at Avalon. At this time Tullamarine was taking 70% of all the States liquid industrial wastes. The Minister drew attention to the role of the ICAP in the tender process for the proposed Brooklyn treatment site.
79 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Two main problems remain at Tullamarine. It can not be assumed that there will never be significant pollution from the treatment works. The site has been monitored continuously by the EPA and the Mines Department, and the company, with results which can only be described as satisfactory. On occasions during the monitoring period slight and highly diluted traces of potential pollutants have been detected in aquifers close to the site, but these are of no current environmental significance. Their significance lies solely in warning us of the need for constant and continuous vigilance. The monitoring program is therefore to be stepped up in view of the continuing use of the works.
Thus it was disclosed in the ministerial statement that leakage and contamination of the aquifers was occurring as early as 1974, and that the Tullamarine site needed continual monitoring. The monitoring network was enlarged by the MDV. The status of the site was reviewed at interdepartmental meetings held on a regular basis between the EPA and MDV up to 1980. From that date the EPA has relied on internal review of the sites operations and review of the sites licence conditions. During that period the EPA fined the company on several occasions for odour emission.
In 1992 it was proposed that the site's licence be changed to incorporated the monitoring of the MDV bores off site. A resume of the monitoring results (Appendix 3.5) indicates that leakage has been observed at all the monitoring bores on site, and some increase in levels of indicators has been registered in off site locations. The results indicate that a full review of the sites performance is necessary.
The assessment of the State's waste stream was based on information supplied on a voluntary basis from industry, it was largely confidential and necessarily incomplete. It was recognised that there was a change in the waste stream this was attributed largely to the proclamation of the Environment Protection Act 1970 in March 1973, the licensing of discharges and to the cost of disposal at Brambles (Cleanaway) Tullamarine Co-disposal site.
The 1972 SDC conclusions in relation to groundwater contamination recognised that more controls were required on the disposal of liquid wastes. Special attention was drawn to the vulnerable nature of the aquifers in the south eastern suburbs, disposal sites in no circumstances should take liquid wastes, that such operations should terminate. The aquifers of the south eastern suburbs should not be allowed to be contaminated by leachates from the disposal of municipal wastes.
Evidence of groundwater contamination was presented to the SDC by the MDV in camera, but details of this evidence was published before the report of the SDC (I. Baker, Fouling up the City's Groundwater The Review 1971). The five western suburbs contamination sources referred to by the MDV were:
1.Laverton - A Pigments Manufacturing Plant, with more than 10 years of underground disposal of acid effluent into the basalt aquifer at a rate of 650 to 1 300 m3/d.
2.Deer Park - High nitrate effluent from a nitrocellulose and fabrics manufacturer disposed of into the basalt aquifer, at a rate of 870 m3/d.
3.Tottenham - Somerville & Market Roads - a Chemical plant disposing of phenolic and spent resin wastes. The groundwater was extremely contaminated and threat it may reach the bay, it was also noted that this contaminated groundwater was detected in an adjacent quarry in Market Road.
80 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
4.Brooklyn - Jones Road, a high fluoride and sulphate waste derived from the acid leaching of rock phosphate. A sulphate rich plume of groundwater was migrating from the site southwards and beyond the MMBW sewer.
5.Spotswood - Aluminium and sulphate rich wastes were dumped into an old basalt quarry. High sulphates were recorded in the groundwater monitoring bores.
The committee recognised the urgent need for more drilling and investigation and that there was serious pollution of the aquifers in the western suburbs. Industry should modify the processes and techniques to reuse and recycle. Industry should assume the full responsibility for treating liquid wastes to the standard necessary. The SDC also stated that in the south eastern suburbs:
Because of the high permeability of these sands; and the value of the groundwater resources, these pits should not be used for disposal of liquid or soluble solid wastes.
In 1975, the Town and Country Planning Association responded with a consultants report "Waste Disposal in Melbourne" by Stevan Teodorvic and Associates. Among the conclusions of this report was a considered panacea for waste disposal, ie. reservation of extractive industry pits for waste disposal. This proposal ignored the broader social and environmental considerations, but it did offer a simple solution to the waste disposal problem. It was noted however that the MDV was not likely to include such a condition in an extractive licence. A proposal in the report was made that a committee should be established to see that extractive holes become available for future regional municipal waste disposal sites. In effect history demonstrates that few extractive pits escape this fate.
9.3 Interdepartmental Committee on Aquifer Pollution (ICAP)
This committee was also referred to as the Interdepartmental Committee on Aquifer Pollution (ICAP) in the western suburbs. It was the forerunner to several interdepartmental committees that played an important and developing role in the early stages of the application of Groundwater Act 1969 and Environmental Protection Act 1970. ICAP was active in the period before 1976, when the liquid industrial waste disposal dilemma erupted due to the rejection of liquid waste disposal at the Sunshine Tip Appeal. The committee consisted of representatives from: Premiers Department, Environment Protection Authority, Mines Department (Geological Survey), Commission of Public Health, Local Government Department, State Rivers and Water Supply Commission and the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works.
The committee coordinated the examination of the occurrence of groundwater contamination particularly in the industrial western suburbs of Melbourne. Two member organisations, the EPA and MDV, arranged for the sampling of private bores. A limited sampling of private bore was made under the ICAP program in August 1972, it included sampling for oil in the Albion Reid Quarry at Sunshine. These private water supply bores were not considered suitable for the setting up of a observation network, thus the GSV drilled new bores for this purpose, and in subsequent years drilled a total of about two hundred pollution monitoring bores around the State.
In August 1972 under ICAP the GSV drilled a series of new observation bores. These were selected at factory and disposal sites, that were suspected of causing groundwater contamination. They included the following:
St Albans - Albion Reid quarry refinery residues - heavy oils. 81 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Sydenham - City of Keilor Quarry - petroleum refinery and munition wastes Spotswood - Sulphate and aluminium wastes Newport - Marget & Leslie Street private waste disposal Brooklyn - Jones Road - sulphate and gypsum disposal Footscray - Footscray Tip formerly used by Michaelis Bayley
The role of ICAP developed from the coordination of policy and the protection of groundwater. Through ICAP the Government played the leading role in the selection process for new waste disposal sites and overcome the liquid and industrial waste disposal crisis that existed in Victoria. Thus the role of ICAP increasingly became the identification of “safe” disposal sites in attempt the find a solution to the liquid waste disposal problem.
The Committee was an avenue for the reporting the results of groundwater monitoring of pollution incidents and the migration of contamination from disposal sites. The leakage of leachates from the Sunshine Tip was noted in early bores drilled by the GSV near the site, and contamination of groundwater at the Tullamarine tip was observed in the close monitoring bores. The licence conditions at both sites were modified as a result. At Tullamarine the escape of leachate was noted in a Ministerial statement to Parliament in 1974. The leakage at Tullamarine required new monitoring bores to be drilled and the inside of the landfill site to be lined with a compacted clay and membrane liner. The licence was changed so that groundwater contamination should not extend beyond the site boundaries (a summary tabulation of the results of the monitoring bores is included in Appendix 3.5).
At a special meeting of the ICAP on 7 March 1974, the committee was informed that Tullamarine was leaking to the groundwater system. This revelation was crucial in spurring on the investigation of other potential liquid waste disposal sites in the Melbourne area. The reliance on Tullamarine alone was seen as a weakness in the waste management policy. At Tullamarine four government bores were drilled in the base of the landfill to ascertain the leakage at the site (Tullamarine 4 - 7). Other investigations undertaken by the Geological Survey into potential sites for the disposal of liquids or Co-disposal of liquids which were considered of importance to the Interdepartmental Committees were at:
Werribee - Avalon Two sites (land was later purchased at Avalon) Brooklyn - Jones Road beside Kororoit Creek (a site now occupied by the Western Regions municipal tip) South Eastern Suburbs Oakleigh Cranbourne-Lyndhurst Tullamarine - Brambles/IWC/Cleanaway site Dargile - Heathcote Mc Ilroy Old Quarry Moorooduc Private quarry
The advertisement for the Brooklyn lease of land in Jones Road for provision and operation of industrial liquid wastes treatment facilities, first appeared in "The Age" on 6/9/72.
The ICAP committee went into recess in about 1975, but the outcome of the Sunshine Tip Appeal in 1976 required the renewal of its function. Its membership was inducted into the newly formed Interdepartmental Committee for Liquid Waste Disposal (ICLWD), see Appendix 5.3.
82 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
9.4 Interdepartmental Committee for Liquid Waste Disposal (ICLWD)
In September 1976, the State Cabinet requested a Co-ordination Council to reconvene as the ICLWD (previously known as ICAP). Membership of ICLWD consisted of representatives from: Department of the Premier, EPA, Health Commission, MMBW, Local Government Department, SRWSC, MDV and observers from: Town and Country Planning Board, Western Industries Association, Victorian Waste Management Association, Public Works Department, and the State Co-ordination Council.
Their reconvening followed the EPA's Appeals Board Hearing for the City of Sunshine Co-disposal site licence held in August 1976. The Appeals Board ruled that the disposal of liquids at the site would cease.
Evidence had been presented by the HDV and the MDV that the basalt aquifer was being contaminated. This would eventually lead to the contamination of the waters of Port Phillip Bay.
The determination of the EPA Appeal Board that the Sunshine Tip should cease to accept any liquids wastes after 31st March 1977 had created a massive problem for liquid industrial waste disposal in Victoria. It had been possible to deposit up to 23 ML/annum (5 million gallons/year) of liquid industrial wastes at the unlined basalt quarries of the City of Sunshine Tip.
ICLWD's fourth report in September 1979 (p.21) referred to the major finding of the EPA Appeal Board hearing on the Sunshine Tip Licence in 1976. That was that contamination of the aquifers in the western area had occurred via boreholes, quarries and tips. That the waters of these aquifers did eventually flow into Port Phillip Bay, though this was at a very slow rate.
Terms of reference for the newly formed ICLWD - on October 8th 1976 were stated as:
1. To examine the methods of disposal of liquid wastes. 2. To determine the quantity and nature of the liquid waste. 3. To examine methods available for the reduction of the quantity of waste. 4. To consider the advantages and disadvantages of the present methods of disposal. 5. What restrictions are necessary on landfills to present the assessed beneficial uses of the groundwater. 6. Whether new methods of disposal are required, and if so how they could be established.
The urgency was recognised and the committee was instructed to report on the terms of reference Nos. 1,2 and 5 by December 1976. As its first task the committee was to examine the effect of the Sunshine decision. It recommended short term disposal solution through the re-directing of wastes to the existing privately owned treatment and disposal facilities and to municipal refuse disposal sites of Oakleigh, Knox, Brunswick and Preston. At this time Knox and Brunswick declined to accept the wastes in their facilities. As it resulted Tullamarine and Broadmeadows accepted the bulk of the displaced liquids from Sunshine. Although the City of Oakleigh at Harris Reserve continued to accept these wastes until November 1977.
In its conclusions the ICLWD considered the volumes of liquid waste being handled per annum:
• 50,000 ML to the sewers • 120 ML not to the sewers • 112 ML to Tullamarine and Broadmeadows 83 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
• 6 ML reprocessed • 2 ML added to the intractable waste stockpile
The main problems identified were:
• The disposal of intractable wastes • The life of the Broadmeadows and Tullamarine sites • That Industry was slow to reduce the production of intractable waste • Community and Local Government attitudes in accepting waste disposal facilities • The lack of expertise to evaluate economic and technical appraisals of the options
The existing sites were examined and the concerns of the committee regarding the operation of those sites were:
• They produced an unpleasant odour • Recent municipal rezoning allows for residential development up to the boundary of the most important site (Tullamarine) • A single facility provides up to 70% of the waste liquid disposal. If that site, Tullamarine, was closed there would be a very serious problem. • A further site is required, Avalon should be retained as a stand by site until.
The importance of Community Attitudes and Planning Decisions was recognised:
• Waste treatment facilities need to be accepted by the community • Ill informed debate inflames negative attitudes • Planning decisions are allowing encroachment of urban development at existing facilities and potential sites • Local opposition and a history of unsatisfactory operation discourage municipalities from accepting liquid wastes for Co-disposal with their solid wastes
At this time the Government adopted the principle that a Secure Landfill site was needed for Victoria and that sites with potential should be investigated. Potential Co-disposal sites examined by ICLWD were:
• Knox Tip • Brunswick Tip • Oakleigh Tip in Stamford Road • Preston in Gremel Road and in Watts Road • Northcote Quarry in Separation Road • Broadmeadows Quarries in Camp Road • Plenty in Memorial Drive
Many other Extractive Industry sites were examined and rejected from further consideration on either a hydrogeological, technical, sociological or on a logistical basis. A range of techniques for waste disposal were examined. The policy issues addressed were the health and well being of the community and the environment. The objective was to seek to minimise the adverse effects and progressively implement a long term waste management plan.
84 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
9.5 Milestone Appeal Hearings: TCPAB and the AAT
The Town and Country Planning Appeals Board (TCPAB) and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and currently the Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal (VCAT) have had a significant impact on aquifer and waterway protection in Victoria. The tribunal and appeals structure for the licensing of waste disposal sites in Victoria has evolved since the provision for appeal was incorporated in the Health, Planning and Environment Protection Acts. It has been the practice for proposed waste disposal sites the Environment Protection and Planning appeals are held concurrently whenever appropriate.
In the determination of State policy the appeals hearings have clarified and provided a guide for the protection of groundwater by source control management. The most significant appeal in relation to the land disposal of liquid and industrial waste in Victoria was the Sunshine Tip Appeal in 1975-1976. The Sunshine Tip was a "Co-disposal" site, disposing of liquid industrial wastes and municipal putrescible garbage, it employed only the most rudimentary tipping technology. The outcome of the Sunshine Appeal changed both the consideration of environmental controls and the handling of waste material in Victoria. Other milestone appeals include; the Shire of Flinders, City of Camberwell, Lang Lang and Lilydale.
9.5.1 The Sunshine Tip Appeals
The history of the Sunshine Municipal Tip (EPA transcripts and determinations, 1975 - 1976) is inexorably linked with the disposal of liquid waste and aquifer pollution in Victoria. The Sunshine Tip Appeals, there were several, involved several Government Departments which presented differing opinions on the importance of aquifer contamination and the consequences of leachate discharge from the landfill on the aquifer systems and the streams and waterways of the State, particularly Port Phillip Bay. Third parties, mainly industrial waste generators argued for the continued Co-disposal into the unlined rubbish tip.
In July 1969 the City of Sunshine applied under the Health Act 1958 to the Commission for Public Health (CPH) and was granted permission for operation of a municipal waste disposal site with no restriction on the disposal of liquid wastes. This licence was granted before the operation of the Groundwater Act 1969. The Groundwater Act 1969 altered Section 49A of the Health Act 1958 and required that a rubbish tip application be referred to the MDV. Had this provision been in place then the history of the Sunshine site may have been different.
The MDV drilled three groundwater pollution monitoring bores close to the Sunshine Tip in 1974-1975. The bores were financed by the EPA. In May 1975 the Land Waste Management Division of the CPH issued a licence for the site, the conditions were set in accordance with the recommendations of the MDV. Liquid and hazardous wastes were banned from the site and further leachates generated in the landfill should be confined to within the boundaries of the site.
There were third party appeals under the then Section 32(5a) of the Environment Protection Act 1970 by several of the industrial waste generators that used the Sunshine site. The grounds for a third party (industrial waste depositors) appeal was that the conditions of the licence would unreasonably and adversely affect their interests. The EPA determined in April 1976 that a reduced amount of liquids could be dumped at the site, but no amended licence was issued. After a second appeal the licence was referred to the EPA Appeals Board pursuant to Section 33(11) of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and the hearing commenced in July 1976.
85 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
The concerns of the MDV and CPH related to: the occurrence of leakage from the site observed in groundwater pollution monitoring bores, the beneficial uses of the aquifer, the communicability of leakage with the surface water system and the eventual discharge of polluted groundwaters from the aquifer to Port Phillip Bay. Similar grounds for objection were also expressed by the Conservation Council of Victoria and Dr. Curtain of the Western Suburbs Community Group. In summary, the concerns were:
1. Groundwater and aquifers were a valuable existing and future resource. That the EPA licence was inconsistent with the Groundwater Act 1969 and the State Environment Protection Policy. 2. In the future the aquifers may be drawn on to augment Melbourne's water resource. 3. Polluted underground waters may affect engineering structures. 4. Groundwater from the Basalt Aquifers does reach Port Phillip Bay. 5. That the foreshadowed amendments to the determination will not adequately protect the groundwater.
Also of note at this appeal was that the EPA's delegated agency, the CPH, was appealing against its principal the EPA.
The Board upheld the appeal agreeing to the amendment suggested by the CPH and the MDV, determining that liquid waste disposal should be discontinued from April 1977. Thus the effective policy for the disposal of liquid wastes in Victoria was determined by the MDV and the CPH and this were upheld by the determination of the Appeals Board. The EPA advocated a less environmentally conservative policy that the other two Departments.
9.5.2 The Shire of Flinders Appeal
This case was as significant for disposal of domestic and putrescible waste in Victoria as the Sunshine Appeal was for the disposal of industrial liquid and solid waste disposal. The case spurred into action the interdepartmental committee GSV/EPA SCGWP, which resulted in the EPA's Draft Groundwater Protection Strategy (1988, unpublished), and contributed to EPA drafting the policy on municipal landfills. Later expressed as the 1989 SEPP - The Siting and Management of Landfills receiving Municipal Wastes.
In May 1986 of the TCPAB heard evidence in an appeal against the granting of an EPA licence and a Planning Permit for the disposal of municipal garbage at the Shire of Flinders Tip in Truemans Road, Rye.
At the proposed site the aquifer material consisted of permeable calcareous sands of the Bridgewater Formation and the aquifers beneficial uses include; potable, domestic, stock and irrigation water supplies.
The Government Agencies: the CPH, EPA and the Planning Authority opted for the lining of the site complemented by a comprehensive array of groundwater monitoring bores around the site to detect the leakage of leachate and off site treatment and disposal of leachate. The planning authority had initiated most of the licence conditions relating to monitoring and site lining after exhaustive consultation with its referral agencies. The CPH adopted similar conditions for its licence. The other licensing authority at the time was the EPA and the EPA provided the Shire of Flinders with a set of licence conditions which enveloped those of the CPH and the planning authority. In effect, this was to licence the site with a limited potential for leakage and to have a comprehensive monitoring program, but to allow an attenuation process to mitigate any leakage that occurred within the boundaries of the site. It was a 86 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management controlled implementation of the dilute and disperse model of waste disposal. At the time of the appeal however there was no general agreement between the Government agencies with regard to the number and location of the monitoring bores, the specification of the liner or remedial action if leakage was detected. These details were in effect later to be determined by the TCPAB itself.
The Shire of Flinders hearing is a landmark case for this reason that it determined a nil discharge policy for the disposal of municipal waste in aquifers with water quality suitable for a potable beneficial use. In the SEPP for municipal Landfills the provision for an escape clause, the "Attenuation Zone", has been included, however this does not usually apply to aquifer with potable groundwater.
The Shire of Flinders Appeal was also noted for the representation of a rural community action group that opposed the landfill waste disposal from the new residential areas in the Shire. A ground for objection was that the tip would degrade the groundwater supplies. The community action group was known as the Cups Land Owners Association (CLOA). CLOA appealed against the EPA waste disposal licence and the Planning Permit for the site, the DPH determined that its permit was to be pursuant to the outcome of the appeal. At the appeal CLOA employed Legal Counsel and Groundwater Consultants.
The grounds for the appeal for the CLOA included that of contamination of groundwater by the disposal site and that the groundwater was of potable quality and used as a domestic supply by many of their members.
The Tribunal accepted the recommendations of some of the Government authorities and determined that; the site should be a containment site and no leakage be permitted, the site should be lined with a compacted clay liner and leachate from the site should be collected and discharged to the sewer. The TCPAB was sensitive to the issues and made the following requirements of the Shire of Flinders:
• A 2 m thick compacted clay liner was required for the site • 15 monitoring bores to assess the integrity of the site • A self monitoring program administered by groundwater consultants • Design of leachate collection facilities • Tanker leachate to the sewer for disposal • The results of the monitoring should be reviewed by the EPA
Following the hearing the CLOA approached the Ombudsman. CLOA considered that the evidence presented by the Department of Industry Technology and Resources (DITR), in particular the Groundwater Database information on bore locations, was incorrect and also that the aquifers on the Nepean Peninsula were becoming contaminated by nitrate. The location data in the Groundwater Database was sometimes inaccurate, those errors were inherent in a database and included; incorrect location details supplied by bore owners, data transposition errors and plotting and digitising errors. These errors still remain in the database which as it is presently administered for DNRE by SKM.
Following the Ombudsman's request a limited bore sampling program was conducted by the EPA and the DITR. It was concluded that there was evidence of nitrate accumulation in the aquifers of the Nepean Peninsula but that it was still at a low level. The most affected areas were the irrigation market gardens and some of the unsewered urban development of the Peninsula (Shugg 1985, 1987, 1988).
The Shire of Flinders Appeal indicates that the Tribunal determined to protect an aquifer which had potable groundwater from a waste disposal site with a nil leachate discharge and a substantial monitoring program. It remains to be seen if contingency plans will be implemented should leachate be recognised as having breached the liner. 87 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
9.5.3 Camberwell Appeal (Nos. 1990/26374 et al.)
The AAT heard the Camberwell case during 1991, and there were several adjournments. The duration of the case before the AAT panel was eight weeks. The AAT determined to issue consent to Camberwell for putrescible disposal at the site (AAT, 1991, Barton et al.).
The appeal resulted from the refusal of the EPA, the City of Oakleigh and the Regional Planning Authority (DPUG) to grant a putrescible waste disposal licence for the site. The grounds for refusal included to public nuisance, odour and groundwater protection. The Camberwell hearing of the AAT had considerable importance as a regional disposal site for between 0.3 - 0.7 million people. The refusal by the licensing agencies and the host council to permit the disposal of putrescible waste at the site as per the license application, and the large number of local and public objections to the proposal led to a protracted hearing, in which groundwater concerns were of major importance.
The site was purchased several years earlier by the City of Camberwell and later several other municipalities became co-owners, including the host municipality Oakleigh. Thus, at the time of the appeal, the Camberwell Sub-Region of the South East Regional Waste Disposal Group owned an operating sand quarry that might serve the waste disposal requirements for up to 1.3 million people. The hole was over 30 m deep and had a volume exceeding 4,000,000 m3. Approximately half of the hole was occupied by slimes, an aqueous suspension of fine sediment from the sand washing operations. The hole had been excavated to 20 to 25 m below the rebound level of the watertable.
The application by the Camberwell Sub-Region was fast tracked through the Ministerially convened Task Force for New Regional Tip Site Approvals (TFFNRTS). However, during this process several unusual events occurred. Additional works approval requirements and site management strategies had difficulty meeting the satisfaction of the EPA and the agencies concerned with water quality protection, in particular the Department of Water Resources (DWR). Further, the City of Oakleigh as a co-owner and joint proposer of the site informed the Task Force (TFFNRTS) that Council would oppose putrescible waste disposal at the site. This was a council decision and related to growing community concerns and councils recognition of its substantial future liabilities. Extractive industry licence difficulties were also encountered because the site was an active sand mine operation and there were still large amounts of recoverable sand at the site.
When the applications for Planning Permits and Works Approval were made, several hundred individual written objections were received by EPA and the Regional Planning Authority.
A key to the public opposition was that of the host municipality, Oakleigh, and it culminated in the host City's rejection of the planning proposal.
Planning considerations broadly concerned: social and economic issues; post disposal land use; future site maintenance costs; the incorporation of the site into a government green belt; though conceptual at this stage for the old tip sites in the Special Extraction Zone; the loss of the rate revenue base for the host municipality; and the sites proximity to areas that may be rezoned residential. The host municipalities apprehension arose from its recent experience at several landfills. At one litigation and a substantial compensation resulted and the other site jointly operated by several councils in the region required massive post disposal landscaping and installation of gas and leachate management. Oakleigh council was left alone by the contributing councils. And this certainly played a role in the councils stance on the South Clayton site.
88 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
The environmental grounds for refusal to licence the site included: odour, gas, groundwater protection and technical considerations relating to the proposed method of landfill operation. In particular, the handling of the slimes, site lining, the accumulative effect of and the number of landfills in the South Clayton area.
The Pioneer regional waste disposal site situated in Deals Road east of the Camberwell site was the first in the area to collect and flare landfill gases. At other sites the gases migrate laterally or discharge through the porous landfill surface. The copious quantities of landfill gas escaping from the landfills had led to odour problems and previously involved Oakleigh council in litigation at their Ferntree Gully Road tip site(Reg Harris Reserve). Another site in the South Clayton area could push the gas odour problem beyond a reasonable threshold level.
The groundwater aspects at the site related to the possibility of water table rebound, leachate discharge from the site, recharge area contamination and the further degradation of the beneficial uses of the aquifer system. The proponents had argued against lining the site. When a liner was discussed, the proponents considered a new untried technique, referred to as "slime curtaining", this design was conceptual and without technical specifications.
After the Camberwell Appeal the next tip proposal in the area which was made by Pioneer Quarries P/L was initially called in by the Minister for Planning and Environment under Section 95 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. At that time the Governor in Council was to make a determination after receiving submissions from selected parties under Sections 41(1) and 41 (2) of the Planning Appeals Act. The proposal was identified as raising major issues of policy concerning existing and anticipated beneficial uses of segments of the air environment, surface waters and groundwaters and the protection of residents and the environment from off-site effects arising from landfills. The Pioneer proposal was later passed through to the AAT process.
The AAT's ruling on the Camberwell case was voluminous. Arguments for the proponents about the movement of leachate from the proposed landfill were already suspect as illustrated by the influx into the site of leachate from the landfill to the north. Nevertheless the Tribunal accepted the opinions of the proponents groundwater advocate.
The Tribunal's decision placed great weight on a phrase contained on p.120 of the summary.
"There is a great need for a tip to dispose of putrescible waste generated over a substantial area of Melbourne."
The relevance of groundwater contamination to the Tribunal was further clarified in the comments relating to the groundwater production bore to the south of the site, Mr Baguley's bore. The Tribunal invoked a special interpretation of the attenuation zone provisions contained in the Landfill SEPP, and included Mr. Baguley's bore within that zone.
Significantly, the groundwater from bore of Mr. Baguley satisfied the potable water criteria set out in Section 6 (b) of the Landfill SEPP, and therefore under Section 16 (c) of the Landfill SEPP an attenuation zone should not be allowed in the drawdown catchment of the Baguley bore.
The Tribunals failed to recognise the importance of Sections 6 and 16 in its ruling on the implementation of the first landfill attenuation zone in Victoria. In justification, it would appear that the Tribunal's arguments rested with the assurance of the proponents advocates and groundwater expert. Antagonistic evidence detailing the physical reality of existing of leakage from landfills in the area and adjacent to the proposed landfill was not considered as relevant to the ruling. 89 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
The Tribunals decision presented an interpreted the Landfill SEPP's provision for a attenuation zone (Section 16 a-c) and the ruling extended or established an interpretation of the "attenuation zone". The Tribunal concluded that at the proposed Camberwell landfill the attenuation zone would be permitted to extend beyond Mr Baguley's bore. This in effect reclassified the attenuation zone definition with a tautology; that contaminated groundwater occurs in the attenuation zone and the attenuation zone occurs where there is contaminated groundwater. Implicit in this definition is that the attenuation zone will expand as contamination moves away from the landfill.
The Tribunal had to deal with several difficult to reconcile hydrogeological management and protection issues. The tribunal expressed the view that it was unable to predict the use of Mr Baguley's land in the future when the leachate arrived. In view of the definitions of beneficial use explicit in the EPAct 1970 and the Landfills SEPP this was not an issue that required any clarification. The Tribunal in its ruling:
• Acknowledged that groundwater contamination would occur;
• Provided a new interpretation of the application of the Beneficial Use choosing not to follow the definition in the EPAct 1970 and the Landfill SEPP, and
• That the future4 beneficial uses of land in the path of the plume could not be predicted.
Therefore, there was no uncertainty pollution would occur, that "existing" beneficial uses protected under the EP Act 1970 were not to be considered. On the basis of the following discussion the Tribunal made the confusing and contradictory statement:
"... we are of the opinion that beneficial uses outside the site perimeter will be maintained even in the absence of attenuation."
The determination of the Tribunal was clear, strong and ruled in favour of the waste disposal below the rebound water table,. There was a need for the landfill for a substantial proportion of Melbourne. This ruling is deviates significantly from that of the Landmark Sunshine case in the manner in which groundwater and groundwater capacity to transfer its load to other sectors of the environment should be viewed.
Significantly, the ruling departed from the definition of beneficial use definition as in the EP Act 1970 and now standards now adopted across Australia in the ANZECC 1992 guidelines.
9.5.4 ACI - Lang Lang East (AAT No. 1991/036953)
In 1991, the sand mining company ACI, proposed that the foundry waste from one of its clients be disposed of on the leased crown land at a Lang Lang East sand extraction site. The application was initially strongly opposed by officers of the Department of Water Resources. The Department of Water Resources objections were withdrawn after consultation with the EPA. The EPA had initially decided not to grant a licence, but on the basis of legal opinion and insistence from ACI it issued a works
4 The nomenclature, qualification and various usages for the term "beneficial use" have become confused. The phrase beneficial use is defined with a special meaning in the EPAct 1970 and this is the terminology that is applicable. Loby groups have attempted to water down the meaning by qualification. The phrase "realistic beneficial use" has been coined; it has failings in an objective sense, the phrase "future beneficial use" used in the ruling has similar difficulties neither can be applied in practice and neither relate to the benchmarks defined in the legislation and National Guidelines.
90 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management approval, the appeal then became a third party appeal. The groundwater protection issue in this potable water aquifer and recharge area for Western Port Sunklands aquifers was taken up by the local groundwater users and the RWC.
The sand mining and waste disposal operations are on leased Crown Land, but this had not become an issue with the DCNR Land Use Policy Division at the time, probably because it was not considered a realistic proposition. However, landfilling and waste disposal on public land was the subject of regular review and the DCNR LUPD which has a draft policy for landfills on public land. The Department principle concern is that of public liabilities for contamination and that these should rest with the landfill operator. In practice it would be easier to get an EPA license than agreement from DCNR.
The cases interest relates firstly, to the legal opinion tendered by the EPA to the AAT outlining the Tribunal's powers and secondly, the AAT expressing its disquiet regarding the use of an aquifer recharge area for the deposit of other than totally inert materials.
The site is in the major recharge zone for the groundwater aquifers of Western Port Basin. The groundwater in the aquifers is of potable quality and is used for human consumption, including the Lang Lang town water supply and agricultural and horticultural purposes.
On the powers of the Tribunal, the EPA tendered that:
Accordingly, whilst the Authority would consider most carefully any comments the Tribunal may wish to make in its determination concerning the proposed licence, it is respectfully submitted that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to include directions regarding the proposed licence conditions.
The Tribunal found that if the conditions in the amended Works Approval, are met, then the grounds of appeal allowed for in Section 33B 2(a) and 2(b)(ii) of the Environment Protection Act 1970 cannot be made out:
The Tribunal would like to record its disquiet regarding the use of an aquifer recharge area for the deposit of other than totally inert materials. In the particular circumstances of this appeal, the Tribunal finds itself constrained by the provisions of the Environment Protection Act (in particular Section 33B) and its conclusions regarding the improbability of an adverse affect on the third party objectors or the causing of pollution.
In practical terms, the outcome of this appeal and several immediately before it, and the interpretation of the provisions of Section 33B of the Environment Protection Act 1970, mean that the appeal process is no longer a practical avenue suitable for the protection of groundwater from contamination or pollution.
The Authority could and would issue a license in the full knowledge that this action would resulted in the pollution of a potable water supplies and lead to the disenfranchisement of legitimate water users and communities from their entitlements in preference to the interests of a waste disposer. On reflection this is a position the Authority found itself in during the Sunshine Tip Appeal - somewhere between waste management and environment protection.
The AAT vigorously highlighted these issues by strongly expressing its reasonable disquiet. The EPA's SEPP for Groundwaters of Victoria may in time address some of the groundwater protection issues. But others may in turn be addressed under the provisions of the Planning Overlays and the provisions Water 91 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Act 1989, and the Catchment and Land Management Act 1997 replacing the SC&LU Act 1958 provisions.
To conclude, this case may be viewed as an unfortunate event in the history of groundwater protection in Victoria. It demonstrates that:
• The application on crown land in the Western Port recharge area that should never have been made; • The license was issued on a legal technicality however with the impassioned damnation of the AAT; • The AAT and community recognised the EPA's reputation, and credibility were severely damaged; • That the EPA viewed protection of potable and town water supply groundwater as secondary to a contingency disposal operation.
That the waste disposal facility never came to fruition is a further insult to the Authority.
9.5.5 Lilydale Appeal (Nos. 1992/006131 & 1992/016807)
The Shire of Lilydale Ingram Road Tip has an extensive history of leachate production and when a site extension was proposed there were third party appeals under Section 33 B of the Environment Protection Act 1970. The Tribunal (Messrs Barton, Logan and Kinder) noted that the management of the leachate in the old tip was inadequate and did not satisfy the landfills previous operating conditions. The operating conditions for the new licence contained conditions that expressed the concept that leachate should remain on site.
The Tribunal expressed the view that it was bound in making a determination to consider that all the conditions in the Works Approval would be carried out. The Tribunal would not access the previous conduct of the Shire of Lilydale at the landfill. Further the Tribunal drew attention to the fact that the proposed licence conditions as such were not being appealed against, but rather the granting of the Works Approval.
The appeals were:
• 1992/006131 - Third Party Appeal pursuant to Section 33B of the Environment Protection Act 1970, against the issue of the Works Approval. • 1992/016807 - Appeal by objectors against a permit for removal of native vegetation.
The Tribunal rejected the appeals and the reasons for rejecting the appeals were based upon:
1. The need for a tip: the AAT has made similar assessments on the basis of the need of a tip. The Tribunal cited a previous determinations in which the need for a tip had been dealt with by the Tribunal.
2. The expansion of the Ingram Road Tip was justifiable on the grounds that it would:
• upgrade drainage • lessen uncontrolled potential leachate discharge • progressively reduce leachate generated at the site • further reduce potential for leachate contamination of groundwater and surface water.
92 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
The Tribunal panel referred to an earlier determination of the Camberwell Appeal (Appeal No. 1990/26374, Messrs Barton, Gould and Kinder) and made the following summary of salient points with regard to the consideration of the need for a tip.
• City of Sunshine v. Minister for Planning and Environment (1987) 32 APA 183 @ pp. 195 - 196:
The Board is entitled to assume and does assume that Councillors are not lunatics who are intent on setting up garbage disposal facility at vast cost without reasonable cause. and; The municipality is under statutory obligation to provide facilities for the disposal of rubbish and refuse pursuant to Section 48 of the Health Act 1958 (Vic.).
• Broadmeadows Tip Case (P88/2829 and E.89/0189 at p.42)
... We also take into account that anyone acquiring residential land in the vicinity of a quarry must have an expectation that ultimately the quarry is likely to be filled with garbage and that this activity is likely to generate a degree of discomfort and also the fact that the land filling operation is a transitory one after which the land is likely to be available for some other community use, such as open space.
The eventuality that a quarry will be filled with garbage is not true, it is false. Many urban quarries that satisfy the residential qualifications commented on above have not been infilled with garbage, but rather clean fill. The merits of clean fill are not just related to suburban amenity but to post disposal land stability, maintenance cost and reuse land value. Some of these sites were in hydrogeological settings considered suitable not only for domestic refuse disposal but also for the Co-disposal of liquid wastes (ICAP and ICLWD). It was recognised that was not necessarily in harmony with the amenity of the area. The tribunals opinion omitted to recognise the duel functions of property value and community influence. For instance quarries in Separation Street Northcote, Federation Street Box Hill, Harcourt Street Hawthorn, Burgess Street Hawthorn East, Elizabeth Street Malvern in the last two decades have been or are being infilled with clean fill, not garbage or liquid waste. Quarries in similar urban settings with respect to housing density and proximity in Broadmeadows (cited above), Oakleigh and Newport Lakes Williamstown have received putrescible waste. The Symonds Road tip in Hawthorn received a small amount of putrescible waste, but at the time it was surrounded by industrial development, factories, flats and unimproved housing stock.
In some instances the use of quarries in urban settings have been sponsored by Local Government as the host municipality and it has been required that the Local Authority opposed the proposition. In at least one instance (9.5.3) a Local Authority has found itself in the confusing position of both sponsoring and opposing the proposition.
In view of these and many other considerations many extractive industry sites have licence conditions that require back filling with spoil and earth. Thus quarries are not always destined to be rubbish tips.
• Spring Valley Tip Case (AATR p.143, 146)
While we accept that some detriment to residential amenity may result from the disposal of putrescible waste, this must be balanced against the community need for such waste to be disposed. The proposed conditions should minimise as far as possible any adverse impact which could result from the establishment and operation of a landfill facility in this location. 93 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
• Dom and others v Shire of Gippsland and Anor (1 PABR 203) Planning and Appeals Board.
.... should there be any non compliance with conditions the Board proposes in this instance, then the Responsible Authority has the power under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act to initiate procedures for revocation.
• Heaps v MPE and others (3 ATTR 236 at p. 244)
(The Tribunal) is mindful of the new enforcement provisions provided by the Planning and Environment Act which entitle the Objectors to seek an enforcement order in the event that the shire failed to comply with the said conditions. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is of the view that there are enough checks and balances on this particular site to ensure the minimum impact from the use compatible with the need for it.
The leakage of leachate from the Ingram Road tip site was detected in monitoring bores and was also carried over the ground surface with stormwater into Stringybark Creek. The creek is a tributary of the Yarra River which it enters above the intake to Lake Winneke a Melbourne Water storage facility. These considerations were resolved in evidence by the EPA as:
not adversely affecting the beneficial use of groundwater, but further groundwater monitoring will be required as a part of the landfill licence amendment.
To conclude, the determination in this appeal by the AAT has expresses the panels currently held views that:
• need for a tip is a basis for rejecting an appeal, and • the past poor performance and non compliance with licence conditions should not prejudice the outcome of an appeal.
Further, the EPA as the licensing agency, in examining the impact of the leachate discharges applied water quality criteria in lieu of beneficial use criteria, which might include environmental values of the water. The application of water quality criteria without recognition of the transient residence and migratory characteristics of the contaminated waters. This leads to confusion regarding the economic, social and environmental values of water systems and the transfer of contaminants in aqueous settings irrespective of the ambient water quality.
The poor performance in the past of the Shires in satisfying the waste disposal licence conditions and the failure of the regulatory authority to address the problem indicates a basic difficulty with the application of licensing system for the management and regulation of contamination.
A salutary lesson is to be learnt by all the potential polluters. The Tribunal recognised this point and in the case of Dom and others versus the Shire of Gippsland and Anor (1 PABR 203), and suggested that the appellants recourse was to approach the Responsible Authority to seek an enforcement order.
9.5.6 Ondit Appeal (Nos. 1996/5620 and 1996/31995)
94 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
The following passages are based on the transcripts and the summary of the transcript to the Ondit hearing AAT, 1996 (Sharkey and Atkinson).
The Ondit case like many landfill proposals had a complex background, much of which would not reach the transcripts of the Appeal hearing. At the Readymix Ondit site there would be an adjacent active extractive industry quarry and groundwater in the basaltic aquifer had a high beneficial use. The issues that arose during the hearing included impacts on the community, health and safety, agricultural economics, site water management, waste management and water and mineral resources.
The Ondit case served to highlight the differences between the formal and informal referral processes that led to the rejection of the Readymix waste disposal applications. An organisations status can vary between these referral processes. At Ondit in the Planning process the Department of Natural Resources and Environment was a Section 55 Referral Authority, while in the Works Approval process the Department and the Water Authorities were third parties and recognised as “protection agencies” by the EPA, ie. their involvement was sought as informal referral authorities.
The requirements for the grounds of objection in these two processes was different. In the planning process sufficient grounds for rejection was that the proponent had not furnished sufficient information to support the application. In its ruling the AAT also identified this as a weakness of the proposal. However in the EPA Works Approval process employs different procedures. The EPA works approval process can be iterative as a proponent may be required to supply additional information by the authority and this methodology is well suited to facilitating the licensing process.
At Ondit the timing of the waste disposal application was also a consideration. It coincided with the period that the Local Government Commissioners were in office, it was before the Shire had made the decision to adopt the proposed Waste Management Plan and it also coincided with the license application for an extension to the Extractive Industry License at the site by another division of Readymix. The EIL application was likely to encounter community opposition, and that would be aggravated by the concomitant landfill application.
In 1989 the Shires of Colac, Heytesbury, Leigh, Otway and Cities of Colac and Winchelsea commissioned Woodward-Clyde to prepare a regional waste management strategy, it was exhibited in August 1991. The strategy had examined and ranked several potential waste disposal sites. Though Readymix’s Ondit quarry was examined, the highest ranking was given to a site on the Colac-Murroon Road.
The Colac-Otway Shire Waste Management Plan was adopted in November 1995. Therefore the Shire would not need to rely on the Ondit site to fulfil its requirements for putrescible waste disposal. Council made arrangements with the City of Greater Geelong for waste disposal and was thus a “disinterested bystander” in the terms of the need for the Ondit site. Need, a recognised tool in the armory of a proponent had been blunted.
The AAT heard the appeals against the refusal to issue a planning permit and a works approval concurrently. Readymix Group CSR Ltd was the appellant, the responsible authority was the Colac Shire, while the EPA, Otway Region Water, Southern Rural Water and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment were “others”. There was one private objector and several other parties including representatives of the Victorian Farmers Federation who were represented at the hearing.
Grounds for refusal of the planning permit were: that the application did not satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposal would not have detrimental effects on: the groundwater, existing agricultural land uses, continuing economic use of agricultural land and there was a high degree of risk of irreversible 95 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management environmental impact. While the grounds for the refusal of the EPA license were identified as the proposal was inconsistent with many clauses of the State Environment Protection Policies including: Waters of Victoria, Water of Lake Colac and Catchment, Air, the draft Groundwater Policy, the Landfill policy and that the application was likely to contribute to pollution of the groundwater environment, contaminate surface water and produce offensive odours.
Landfill proposals require a considerable amount of work to be carried out before an application is made. Woodward Clyde for Readymix, discussed the groundwater dynamics of the site, the testing and hydrogeological assessment of the site, the groundwater flow estimates, modelling and the salt balance. The relevance to the Shires waste strategy document was discussed. The Ondit site had been identified in the strategy document, but it had received only a moderate ranking because of the qualifications on its use that related to: the fractured rock aquifer, the potential connection with the nearby lakes, and that it would have to be backfilled with clean fill to suitable height and then have a 2 m lining if it was to be used for putrescible waste disposal.
The consultants for Readymix discussed other Victorian sites where disposal below the water table had been permitted based on improvements of liner technology (cf. the outcome of the Appeal No. 1990/26374). Supporting arguments were also put forward that identified the site as a groundwater sink, the advantage of the increased air space that the site offered since earlier examinations and the positive economics of using the site.
Council for Readymix in summation identified the following issues: • it was possible to operate a well engineered solution, • construction would be based on the amended diagrams as well as the Works Approval documentation, • the site could serve as a regional tip for the Colac region; thus there was a need, • there was uncertainty considering the quality of the waters in the aquifer, • it was only speculation that re-injection and leakage will be detrimental to the aquifer, • any leakage would be attenuated to no impact levels • impacts on agriculture were not quantified,
The Shire as the Responsible Authority drew attention to: • there was no need for the landfill, • the Shire had concerns relating to, • conflicting and unresolved details of the submission • water management, • the limited analysis of the off site impacts on water resources • the re-injection of groundwater, • calculations of inflow, • adoption of modelled values rather than empirical observations, • the long term need to monitor the landfill, • impacts on adjacent land uses
The Shire identified that the proposal did not satisfactorily resolve how surface and groundwater would be managed, that any proposal to inject surplus water to the aquifer would be a substantial change to the application and could not be dealt with under the permit application.
Southern Water in supporting the refusal of the permit and license supported its position commenting that: • the groundwater in the area had an significant and ongoing economic value,
96 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
• irrigators have invested $4 million in pumps and bores and developing the Warrion aquifer, • there was no justification for the selection of the site in such a sensitive area, • the proposal is considered a needless risk and, • re-injection of water that might be polluted would not be licensed.
Sinclair Knight Merz for Southern Water and the EPA gave expert evidence corroborating that there was excellent quality groundwater in the aquifer, that there were 35 groundwater users within 2 km of the site and that the landfill design was flawed as leachate was likely to escape. Further, that the quarry water management was not sustainable and that it was sound to refuse the applications on environment protection and groundwater management grounds.
The rejection of the works approval application was made shortly after the planning permit had been refused on advice of one of the Section 55 Referral Authorities (DNRE). This rejection would usually halt the works approval process, as the works approval defers to the planning permit determination, however the EPA’s works approval refusal meant that both appeals could be heard jointly before the AAT.
The EPA supported its grounds for refusal of the works approval as: • the proposal is inconsistent with the policy objectives of: • Waters of Victoria, • Water of Lake Colac and Catchment, • Air, • the draft Groundwater policy, • the Landfill policy, • the site is in a high groundwater extraction area with high beneficial uses (potable quality), • the Warrion aquifer is a fractured rock aquifer in which flow is rapid and may be unpredictable, • the existing quarry has a history of water management problems, • disposal was proposed within 2 m of the groundwater level, • direct injection of waste or polluted waters would be prohibited, • the site requires containment of waste and leachate, • odour considerations • the application is not by a municipality, but a speculative application by a private operator,
In summary, the EPA stressed that:
• there is no compelling need for the landfill, • the aquifer • has potable quality water, • is potentially vulnerable, • the proposed water management plan has been rejected, • the modelling methodology was flawed, • there would be potential for leachate to escape, • a works approval must put forward works; not a hypothetical scheme, • it is not the EPA or Tribunals role to design a proponents proposal
The representative of the Victorian Farmer Federation (VFF) spoke of farmer submissions and the concern about groundwater contamination and the adverse effect to local farmers.
97 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
In the Administrative Appeals Tribunals summary it made the following ruling against the appeal by Readymix: • Groundwater will be polluted if the proposal proceeds in its present form; • this is contrary to the SEPP’s and • Planning scheme • Groundwater computation of inflow • was actually more than allowed for; • Re-injection proposals need further work, • noted a recent application for emergency discharge • The affects on land use and amenity • Need, while need is relevant • need is rarely an overriding consideration, • in this instance the need factor is outweighed by other concerns
To conclude, the Ondit case has special significance from the groundwater protection view point. The proposal also illustrated the different path ways followed by the formal and informal referral processes. Significantly the dual arguments of need and an engineered solution were rejected.
The appeal also illustrated the successful cooperation between the EPA, the Responsible Authority and the Water Authorities. Although the site was rejected some difficulty might have arisen if it had gained a planning permit or works approval as the proposed operation would have relied on licenses from the water authority that would not have been forthcoming.
9.6 Task Force for New Regional Tip Site Approvals (TFFNRTS)
The Task Force for New Regional Tip Site [Approvals] (TFFNRTS alternately the Task Force) was jointly convened by the Ministers for Local Government, Health, Water Resources, Industry Technology and Resources (the later two were adsorbed into the Department of Natural Resources and Environment), Conservation and Planning (EPA and the Planning Region). In effect the Task Force was a collection of representatives from the formal referral agencies of the time at one location in an interdepartmental committee. The aim of the Task Force was to speed up the licensing process without reducing the public input.
The Task Force had a dual function of negotiation; firstly, within the referral and responsible authorities and secondly as a Task Force with the proponents of the regional sites. The Task Force met and negotiated with proponents for Regional Tips sites.
The Task Force had considerable success in a number of instances speeding up the progress through the application stage for the large regional tip sites: Sunshine (Western Region), Springvale (South Eastern Region), Shepparton, Whittlesea (Northern Region), Williamstown and Werribee.
In the case of the Ballarat Regional Tip Site the Task Force had almost completed the assessment stage and was about to process a recommended site through the EPA works approval and licensing process by mid 1987. This administrative procedure was held in abeyance when the Minister for Planning required an Environment Effects Statement (EES) for the Ballarat Regional Tip.
The Ballarat regional tip was significant as it was the first tip site in the State was required to have an EES. It was required under the provisions of the newly proclaimed Planning and Environment Act 1987. In this instance all other statutory processes may be called in by the Minister responsible for Planning and Environment Act 1987. There was an issue concerning which act had precedence the
98 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Environment Protection Act 1971 or Planning and Environment Act 1987. At Ballarat the EPA works approval and licensing processes though already initiated were held over for the EES to be carried out.
During the EES process the Task Force continued by assisting with input and review in the EES scoping and with the EES working committees.
Some of the groundwork for the scoping of the EES had been previously covered during the preliminary stages of the EPA processes. However the EES required that this should be extended considerably and more rigour was invested in the assessment of potential sites. Unfortunately even in the EES process only landscapes including mining and quarry sites were considered. From a groundwater view point it was argued within the Task Force and in the EES scoping that other landscapes should also be considered.
The Ballarat Regional Tip Working Group (the Councils) was required to re-examine seven sites in the area to satisfy the scoping of the EES. Eventually two sites were selected in the EES process; these included the one selected by the Task Force four years earlier and another site which had been preferred by the Ballarat Regional Office of the Planning Department. It is the latter that was to be the first to commence waste disposal operations. The Ballarat Regional Tip site was the last in which the Task Force was convened. Following the EES process the outcome was determined by a Hearing before the AAT, the matter was resolved in late 1991.
In Victoria the selection of landfill sites has been biased towards the filling of old quarries sites. There are six common extractive industry settings in the State; cement or impure limestone quarries, granite, hornfels and basalt aggregate quarries, sand and gravel pits, and clay pits in the weathered Silurian and Devonian bedrock.
A good quarry site is determined not only by the proximity and availability the stone resource, but also as a compatible land use, it may not necessarily be the best stone, but it is available and close at hand. A good sand or gravel deposit may correspond with a groundwater intake area and is hydrogeologically unsuitable for waste disposal.
Further established practice allows some putrescibles and inert industrial waste into inert landfills, also licences have been amended to permit contingency disposal. When planning schemes are revised around operating quarries, the extractive industry may be compatible with the new zoning, such as urban residential, but the new zoning may be incompatible with some site reclamation activities.
During the operation of the Task Force proponents were often required to submit a number of alternate sites for evaluation. In many instances this was a requirement of particular members of the Task Force, in particular the EPA. Thus the EPA and Task Force whenever possible examined multiple sites in the evaluation process so that site selection was not determined by the availability of a quarry or abandoned mine site. Similarly, the Task Force in the committee process enabled referral authorities to negotiate with the responsible authorities for information and site assessment. This could then be addressed either directly by the applicant or through the EPA works approval process.
99 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
10 TERRAIN, RISK, SENSITIVITY AND VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS
Terrain, risk, sensitivity and vulnerability analysis are various methods of analysis of the landscape that may be seen as an input to the planning and management of the urban, rural and other landscapes. They provide a methodology that has been applied to communicate the protection requirements identified by groundwater practitioner to experts in the planning field.
Inherent in these techniques are the sound underlying assumptions and a process based on the objective judgement and the identification of reliable indicators. The overall aim remains communication across professional disciplines.
In each terrain evaluation methodology there is a heavy dependence on the numerate approach and the application of values or a ranking to landforms. This in turn leads to the abstraction away from the physical reality. The process of abstraction is further influenced by paucity of data and the scale of presentation. A fine balance exists between the smoothing of the data and its representative characteristics. A considerable amount of practitioner skill must be made in the process of objectively representing sparse randomly distributed spatial data.
In some instances the landform evaluation is aimed at assisting in either the protection of resources, reduction of degradation or to enable the selection of more suitable sites for a permitted activity. Though imprecision is implicit in each methodology, the process is a valuable incursion of engineering and geological considerations into the planning arena.
Over the past three decades practitioners in the fields of waste, groundwater and environmental management alike have advocated the systematic appraisal of aquifer and land system vulnerability to contamination. One objective has been to produce maps that depict in a 'readable' manner both the hydrogeological characteristics and a vulnerability ranking of aquifers and land systems. These maps and landscape evaluation may be used for vetting or comparing the merits of land subdivision, waste disposal sites and the suitability of other land uses.
In Victoria terrain analysis developed as a methodology to classify the suitability of land for urban growth. Grant (1972) devised a technique for Terrain Classification for the Melbourne Area. Earlier the TCPB had recognised a problem of land classification for the urban growth in the Port Phillip District of Victoria and that terrain classification might be used as a basis for urban and rural planning. Grant (1972) determined a complex system of classification for land terrain. The system provided for provinces, patterns, units and classes. Mapping was based on pre remote techniques and defined land in terms of geology, topography, slope, soil and vegetation characteristics. The hierarchy of classification used was:
provinces based on the underlying geology (five provinces) terrain patterns based on local relief amplitude and general physiography, terrain units based on topography, dominant soils and dominant vegetation, terrain classes based on length and width of terrain units, class of relief and class of stream density
Other methods of terrain classification evolved as the terrain analysis used aerial photography and provided input for planning processes associated with waste disposal site selection (Way, 1973). The analysis techniques provided tools for the planning and land management processes. Terrain evaluation techniques also served to communicate the physical limitations of segments of the landscape based on engineering and geological criteria. 100 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Terrain analysis using aerial photography interpretation (Way, 1973) was developed as a method of evaluating landscapes for the purpose of regulating land use and facilitating urban development.
The DRASTIC system proposed by Aller et al. (1987) was commissioned by the USEPA to provide a methodology of assessing disposal sites. The DRASTIC scheme has evolved from earlier less sophisticated schemes such as the Le Grand (1964) system for comparing potential landfill sites. Each of these schemes has had variants and employed different methodologies for obtaining a vulnerability ranking for a tract of land. The purpose to which a vulnerability map may be used is determined by the ranking methodology and data details. The DRASTIC system does not evaluate an area for the suitability of waste disposal, but may be used to identify areas for protection, monitoring and evaluation of land use activities.
The preparation of vulnerability maps requires careful examination and consideration of several important issues otherwise it will become a mapping project without clear goals. The issues that require resolution include:
• who will use the map ? • will the product, on the basis of existing data be reliable ? • can a reliability index be applied to the vulnerability ranking value ? • is a simple hydrogeological fact map more suitable ? • is a GIS system more appropriate ? • is the exercise a productive use of resources ?
That few vulnerability maps have been produced indicates that this systematic approach has transcended data distribution, reliability and has not been recognised as a need within the planning authorities. Aller et al. 1987 qualified the use of their DRASTIC system with the comments:
"In summary, in all the potential applications, DRASTIC cannot be used to replace site specific investigations or to preclude the considerations of particular factors which may be important at a site by a professional Hydrogeologist. While DRASTIC can be a very useful tool, the further the application strays from the assumptions inherent in the methodology, the greater the likelihood of problems with resultant accuracy."
Dalhaus (1985, 1986) applied engineering mapping techniques in the Melton area to assist in the land planning process and in the selection of a suitable location for the Melton Cemetery..
Similar analytical engineering geological approaches have been applied to specific land use, land stability and risk assessment by Neilson (1988, 1990, and 1991).
The recognition of the vulnerability of aquifers in the State has been largely based on the subjective appraisal of aquifer properties and response and the direct observation of groundwater contamination. To observe contamination requires time in terms of decades to validate the simple hydrogeological deductions, by which stage remediation is the option that may need evaluation.
One of the earliest Victorian vulnerability maps was prepared for the Greater Melbourne Area by the consultants Neilson Associates Pty Ltd in 1987 for Melbourne Water. This work was commissioned to help evaluate and select a suitable location for a hazardous industrial waste disposal site. Though the process helped in the selection of a site the socio-political factors saw that it never came to fruition. Thus the process did not succeed in the important planning arena.
101 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
In the catchments of the Mineral Springs near Daylesford land utilisation and risk assessment were examined by Bowman et al. (1996). In this study land in the catchment was identified in which certain activities might place a mineral springs at risk; the catchment areas were ranked in categories based on a DRASTIC approach. A map was produced that identifies the high risk areas, this may be used by the Hepburn Shire in land planning process.
As part of a strategic approach to the protection of groundwater from contamination the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, with assistance from the National Landcare Program (& now National Heritage Trust), has engaged Sinclair Knight Merz to undertake regional vulnerability mapping. These maps will be produced in a GIS format and will initially comprise those aquifers in Victoria which are of high beneficial use for potable supply.
Groundwater vulnerability to contamination is "the tendency or likelihood for contaminants to reach a specified position in the groundwater system after introduction at some location above the uppermost aquifer" (National Research Council, 1993). For the purposes of mapping, introduction of the contaminant at the ground surface is assumed. It is useful to recognise that vulnerability is not the same as risk. Risk is an estimation of the expected amount of harm that will occur to an asset. The concept of risk is related to vulnerability but also includes the likelihood of contaminant release, and assessment of the consequences on humans and/or the natural environment.
Following a review of the approaches that have been used to assess groundwater vulnerability to contamination, an approach known by the acronym GOD (Foster, 1987) has been adopted for use in regional scale vulnerability mapping in Victoria. In this method vulnerability maps are produced by the overlay and weighting of data which are fairly readily obtainable and which are commonly considered in many other approaches to be of major significance when assessing groundwater vulnerability.
The data comprise Groundwater Occurrence (confined, unconfined, etc), Overall Lithology of the beds overlying the water table where unconfined or aquifer where confined, and depth to water table where unconfined or to top of aquifer where confined. These variables relate to the hydraulic inaccessibility of the aquifer to contamination and the attenuation capacity of the unsaturated zone. In the original GOD scheme soils are not taken into account since for many (point) sources of contamination, the contaminant is applied directly to the subsurface and bypasses the soil zone (eg in pits, trenches, quarries). The soil zone is however a particularly important location for the elimination and attenuation of contaminants due to its relatively high clay mineral and organic contents and large bacterial population. The original GOD scheme, which essentially gives a "soil bypass" vulnerability assessment, has therefore been revised to take account of soils and give an .'overall" vulnerability assessment.
The assessment methodology was applied and developed through application to a pilot study area between Ballarat and Castlemaine. A soil bypass vulnerability map has been produced at a scale of 1:250,000. The methodology is not specific to a particular contaminant or land use, but provides an assessment of the intrinsic vulnerability to contamination by a universal contaminant which is soluble in water and can adsorb onto clay particles and organic matter. The maps show the relative vulnerability of different areas to contamination by contaminants having these properties. They do not show the vulnerability to mobile persistent contaminants which do not undergo significant retention or transformation during subsurface transport. For example, non-adsorbed diffuse pollutants such as chloride and nitrate suffer little attenuation in the unsaturated zone, particularly below the soil, and are likely to leach through it to the water table. In the pilot area there are over fifty locations (ie. bores) where groundwater nitrate concentrations are greater than 10 mg/L (NO3 as N). These high concentrations are more likely to be related to areal variations in nitrate loading, probably related to agricultural activities, than to the intrinsic vulnerability of the groundwater to contamination.
102 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Vulnerability maps of soil bypass-type will be most applicable to a general regional assessment of the effects of point sources of contamination rather than of diffuse pollutants. For diffuse contaminants which are likely to undergo some attenuation in the unsaturated zone (ie. not chloride or nitrate), the overall-type vulnerability maps will be more appropriate. Care must however be taken when interpreting these maps particularly in areas where the soil is thin or easily breached by routes (eg fissures) which allow rapid contaminant transport through the soil zone, or unsaturated zone. Furthermore, it should be noted that detailed analysis of point contamination cannot be performed using the vulnerability maps. Site specific studies should always take place in such circumstances.
Vulnerability maps can be of use in regional planning, contamination assessment, and education. In regional planning the maps when used in conjunction with other hydrogeological information can assist planners direct emphasis, and allocation of resources, to areas of highest vulnerability, for example. Similarly the maps can help groundwater professionals direct resources to particular areas of concern, particularly with regard to the collection of data. In education the maps can be important in raising public awareness of groundwater vulnerability. They can help to promote the awareness that "out of sight" is not necessarily "out of mind".
A further development of the intrinsic vulnerability mapping approach would be to undertake groundwater risk mapping. This would include taking account of specific contaminants or contaminant classes, the likelihood of their release, the hydraulic loading, and an assessment of the resulting consequences of the potential contamination upon the groundwater quality underlying the point of release. Such risk assessments would build upon the intrinsic vulnerability assessments, using data from them, but would require information about a much larger number of parameters and would involve considerably more data processing. However, their advantage would be that they would more closely address the questions that water managers need to ask when making decisions regarding existing or proposed land uses. Whereas vulnerability maps provide a fairly simple assessment of the relative vulnerability of different areas to groundwater contamination for any particular non-conservative contaminant, risk maps would relate to specific contaminants (including conservative contaminants) at particular loadings and address the consequences of such contamination. Where the contaminants and their loadings are known for particular activities, risk maps related to activities could be produced.
The collection of data from aquifers in the State has indicated that migration of liquors from waste disposal sites has been persistent, but rates of movement vary widely. Attenuation, retardation and release vary with the lithological character and conditions in the aquifer. In the sand belt of the South Eastern Suburbs migration rates are moderate to slow compared with those in the fractured basalt aquifers of the Western Suburbs. Rapid groundwater communication may between the basalt quarries and discharge to a nearby stream, waterway or wetland. The coastal unconfined sandy and calcareous aquifers are also particularly prone to the contamination by septic tanks. This is reflected in the nitrate build up in the shallow groundwater systems at Killarney, Warrnambool, the Nepean Peninsula, Venus Bay, Sandy Point and the Gippsland Lakes. But overall, the assessment of groundwater contamination involves considerable lag periods or hysteresis and incorporates the heterogeneity of migration directions and chromatographic chemical response. The effect of a contamination event or source may take decades to reach an observation point.
Thus in the assessment of sensitivity and vulnerability there is a need to evaluate not only the ease of entry and transmission, but the proximity to either discharge or a sensitive ecosystems. The application of receiving water standards or 'beneficial use' based on water quality criteria is not sufficient. Vulnerability mapping recognises the need for a systematic appraisal of hydrogeological and land system data, but it provides only a qualitative evaluation of the lands systems potential response. For deterministic appraisals site specific investigations are required.
103 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
104 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
11 VICTORIAN TOWNSHIPS THAT UTILISE GROUNDWATER
There are over 110 towns in Victoria that use groundwater for drought relief, as an emergency water supply, or for part or for all of their water supply. In Victoria a municipality may initiate groundwater quality protection in the local planning scheme. The Shires, Municipalities and Water Authorities included in Table 17 should examine the protection requirements for their groundwater resources for which they are responsible.
Table 2. Shires or Water Boards which provide town water supplies (P part, F full) or emergency water supplies (DR drought relief, E emergency) either wholly or partly from groundwater.
Authority Township Status Authority Township Status Alberton Ballan North E or DR Alberton West E or DR Beremboke E or DR Woodside E or DR Gordon F Yarram E or DR Greendale E or DR Arapiles Mount Egerton F Brimpaen E or DR Mount Wallace E or DR Gymbowen E or DR Ballarat WB Lower Norton E or DR Daylesford E or DR Wonwondah North E or DR Lake Burrumbeet E or DR Ararat SC Bannockburn Buangor E or DR Gheringhap E or DR ElmhurstE or DR Lethbridge E or DR Lake Bolac P Sutherland Creek E or DR Mafeking E or DR Barrabool MaroonaE or DR Bellbrae E or DR Mininera? Bass Moyston P Woodleigh E or DR Pomonal ? Beechworth Streatham F Gapsted E or DR Tatyoon E or DR Benalla Warrak E or DR Benalla E or DR Wickliffe P Glenrowan E or DR Willaura P Bet Bet Bealiba E or DR Avoca SC Llanelly E or DR Avoca P Murphys Creek E or DR Barkly E or DR Broadford Landsborough E Strath Creek E or DR Moonambel E or DR Bungaree Navarre E Leigh Creek E or DR Redbank E or DR Wallace E or DR Avon Buninyong Dargo E or DR Cargerie E or DR Munro E or DR Dunnstown E or DR Stockdale E or DR Charlton Bairnsdale Buckrabanyule E or DR Lindenow E or DR Charlton E or DR Mt. Taylor E or DR Coonooer Bridge E or DR Wy Yung E or DR Jeruk E or DR Ballan SC Chiltern WB Ballan E Barnawartha F 105 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Authority Township Status Authority Township Status Chiltern P Glenelg Colac Irrewillipe E or DR Grunnebergs Bridge E or DR Yeo E or DR Henty E or DR Yeodene E or DR SandfordE or DR Creswick Shire WB Glen-Wann WB Allendale E? Casterton P Broomfield E? Merino F Creswick, Dean E? SandfordP KingstonE? Grenville KingstonE or DR Cape Clear E or DR Newlyn E? Linton E or DR Smeaton E? Mannibadar E or DR Springmount E? Wallinduc E or DR Dimboola SC Hamilton, City Kiata ? BullawinE or DR Dundas SC Hamilton E or DR Byaduc E or DR Victoria Range E or DR Cavendish E Hamilton WB Dunkeld E or DR Hamilton E Glenisla E or DR Hampden SC Mirranatwa E or DR Derrinallum E or DR MoorallaE or DR Vite ViteE or DR Tarrington E Lismore P Victoria Point E or DR Heytesbury SC Woohlpooer E or DR Port Campbell F Yatchaw E or DR TimboonF Dunmunkle Heywood WB Ashens E or DR Branxholme E or DR Elmore WB Dartmoor ? Elmore F Digby E or DR Eltham Narrawong ? St. Andrews E or DR Heywood F Geelong DWB Kaniva SC Anglesea P Kaniva F Barwon Heads P Lillimur F Batesford P Miram F Birregurra P Serviceton ? Breamlea P Kara Kara Clifton Springs P ArchdaleE or DR DrysdaleP Beazleys Bridge E or DR Geelong P Logan E or DR Indented Head P Paradise E or DR Leopold P Sandy Creek E or DR Moriac P Kilmore Mount Duneed P Kilmore E or DR Ocean Grove P Wallan E or DR Point Lonsdale P Korong Portarlington P Korong Vale E or DR Queenscliff P Kurting E or DR St. Leonards P Powlett Plains E or DR Torquay P Rheola E or DR Winchelsea P Richmond Plains E or DR Gisborne Woosang E or DR GisborneE or DR Kowree WB
106 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Authority Township Status Authority Township Status Apsley F Mount Rouse SC Cooack E or DR Boorpool E or DR Douglas E or DR Dunkeld P Goroke F Glenthompson P Gymbowen South E or DR Nareeb E or DR Harrow F Penshurst F Harrow E or DR Yarrack E or DR Kanagulk E or DR Yuppeckiar E or DR MinimayE or DR Myrtleford SC Nurcoung E or DR Myrtleford P/F Wombelano E or DR Narracan SC Yulong Estate E or DR Trafalgar P Kyneton WB Willow Grove E or DR Trentham P Yallourn North F? Lang Lang WB Yarragon P Lang Lang F Newstead Learmonth WB Newstead E or DR Learmonth F Nhill WB Leigh Nhill F Shelford E or DR Numurkah SC Teesdale E or DR Katunga F Wingeel E or DR Strathmerton F Lexton WB Omeo SC Amphitheatre E or DR Beloka E or DR Lexton E or DR Benambra E or DR Waubra F Dinner Plain F Macalister WB Ensay South E or DR Boisdale F Omeo E or DR Briagolong F Swifts Creek E Macedon WB Orbost WB Macedon, Mt. Macedon ? Cann River E Mallacoota WB Mallacoota E or DR Mallacoota E WairewaE or DR Mansfield DWB Otway Bonnie Doon E Apollo Bay E or DR Marong Cape Otway E or DR Yarraberb E or DR Forrest E or DR McIvor Johanna E or DR Mia Mia E or DR Princetown E or DR Melbourne, (DCNR) Tanybryn E or DR Botanic Gardens E or DR Wimba E or DR Melton Wongarra E or DR Diggers Rest E or DR Wye River E or DR Metcalfe Wyelangta E or DR Metcalfe E or DR Yuulong E or DR Minhamite Oxley Hawkesdale E or DR Moyhu E or DR Macarthur E or DR Pakenham Mortlake WB Vervale E or DR Chatsworth E or DR Port Fairy WB Ellerslie E or DR Port Fairy F Hexham E or DR Portland WB MortlakeF Portland F Woorndoo E or DR Pyalong WB
107 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Authority Township Status Authority Township Status Glenaroua E or DR Wareek Nullavale E or DR E or DR Pyalong E Violet Town Ripon Caniambo E or DR Caramballuc E or DR Walpeup SC Eurambeen E or DR Cowangie F Raglan E or DR Daalko E or DR Snake Valley E or DR Murrayville F Romsey-Lancef'd WB Pine Plains E or DR Lancefield P Underbool E or DR Monegeeta E or DR Wangaratta CC Riddells Creek E or DR Wangaratta E Rosedale WB Wannon Gormandale E or DR Balmoral E or DR SeasprayE Coleraine E or DR Sale CC Coojar E or DR Sale F Gringegalonga E or DR Wurruk F Pigeon Ponds E or DR Seymour WB Waranga Avenel E ToolleenE or DR Shire of Ripon Warracknabeal Lake Goldsmith E or DR Brim E or DR Skipton WB Warragul Skipton F Cloverlea E or DR South Gippsland Ellinbank E or DR Fish Creek E or DR Nilma North E or DR Foster E or DR Warrnambool SC Toora E or DR Caramut F Welshpool E or DR Koroit F Yanakie E or DR Peterborough F Springhurst WB Warrnambool P Springhurst E Werribee Stawell SC Balliang East E or DR Callawadda E or DR Wimmera Glenorchy E or DR Drung Drung E or DR Great Western E or DR Golton E or DR Halls Gap ? Jung E or DR Stawell West E or DR LaharumE or DR Talbot and Clunes Marma E or DR Clunes E McKenzie Creek E or DR Tallangatta PimpinioE or DR Bethanga E or DR Winchelsea Bungil E or DR Barwon Downs E or DR Granya E or DR Buckley E or DR Tambo Carawatha E or DR Gelantipy E or DR Deans Marsh E or DR Swan Reach E or DR Ingleby E or DR Wulgulmerang E or DR MurroonE or DR Tarwin Valley WB Tutegong E or DR Dumbalk E Whoorel E or DR Meeniyan ? Wurdiboluc E or DR Traralgon WB Woodend WB Traralgon Sth F Woodend P/ Tullaroop Woorayl
108 Appendices - Statewide Framework for Groundwater Contamination Assessment and Management
Authority Township Status Pound Creek E or DR Wycheproof Wycheproof E or DR Yackandandah Sandy Creek Upper E or DR Yarrawonga Telford E or DR Wilby E or DR
E emergency, DR drought relief, P part supply, F full supply.
109