Appendix NN Decision Notice Approval Date: 13 November 2017 Application Number: DA421617

BARCALDINE REGIONAL COUNCIL: TOWN PLANNING REPORT (Version 2) BARCALDINE REGIONAL COUNCIL STATE AGENCY ASSESSMENT WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY —– BARCALDINE DIGITALLY STAMPED APPROVED DOCUMENT

Development Permit — Material Change of Use for: “Community Oriented Activity" — “Public Utility" — Waste Management Facility

referred to in and subject to the conditions in Council's Appendix NN Decision Notice Approval Date: 13 November 2017 Application Number: DA421617

Report:Report: ““StormwaterStormwater ManagementManagement PlanPlan””

CHTP File Ref: 1187_3141187_314 September 20120177

BARCALDINEW/ REGIONAL COUNCIL

71 Ash Street (PO BoxBox 191)191)

BARCALDINEBARCALDINE QLD 4725

BarcaldineBarcaldine RegionalRegional Council Yellow Jack DriveDrive Waste DisposalDisposal FacilityFacility

Stormwater ManagementManagement PlanPlan

CONSULTING AUGUST 2017 (9 GB ENGINEERS Barcaldine Regional Council Waste Disposal Facility Stormwater Management Plan

Document Control

Date Name Position Endorse/Approve

19/07/201719/07/2017 William Green Environmental Engineer Draft

09/08/2017 William Green Environmental Engineer Amendment

16/08/201716/08/2017 William Green Environmental Engineer Approve

Prepared by William Green Title Environmental Engineer, George Bourne & Associates Location 73 Elm Street, Barcaldine Qld GBA File/Doc No 140010/197782140010/197782

Contact for enquiries and proposed changes IfIf you have any questions regarding this document or ifif you have a suggestion for improvements,improvements, please contact:

Project Manager William Green Phone 07 4651 5177

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Waste Disposal Facility Stormwater Management Plan

Table of Contents 1.1. INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION ...... 11 2. SURFACE WATER RELEASE ...... 1 2.1. Release Water Characteristics ...... 1 2.2. Stormwater release events...... events...... 11 3. RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES ...... 2 3.1. Terrestrial Environment ...... 2 3.2. Aquatic Environment ...... 2 4. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS...... CONTROLS...... 5 4.1 Stormwater Control Devices...... Devices...... 5 5. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT OPERATIONAL PRACTICES ...... 7 5.1 Site Delineation and Planning ...... 7 5.2 Routine Inspection and Management of Waste ...... 7 5.3 Segregation of Contaminated Runoff ...... 7 5.5 Sediment Basin Storage Capacity ...... 7 5.4 Monitoring ...... 8 5.6 Correct Soil Handling and Storage ...... 8 6. MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS ...... 8 6.1 Diversion Banks and Catch Drains ...... 8 6.2 Leachate Collection and Sediment Basins ...... 9 7. EMERGENCY CONDITIONS AND RESPONSE ...... 1010 7.1 Contamination of Stormwater ...... 10 7.2 Leachate Evaporation Pond Freeboard Capacity Exceeded ...... 1010 7.3 Downstream Surface Water Contamination ...... 10 8. IMPACTSIMPACTS ON IDENTIFIEDIDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES ...... 11 9. REFERENCES ...... 1212

Table 11 Surface Water Environmental ValuesValues...... 3 Table 2 Surface Water Monitoring Program ...... 8

Appendix A Wetland Ecology Map Appendix B Waste Management Facility Site Erosion and Sediment Control Drawing

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Waste Disposal Facility Stormwater Management Plan Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION This Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) has been developed on behalf of Barcaldine Regional Council (BRC) for the management of storm water on the operational waste disposal facility. This document focuses on the design and operational aspects associated with managing the risk of contamination to the surrounding environment caused by stormwater releases.

The SMP has been prepared for the approval of a proposed new municipal Waste Management Facility (WMF) for the town of Barcaldine in response to the communities existing waste disposal site nearing its capacity. The SMP has been prepared in accordance with current best management practice relating to stormwater management for waste management activities.

Management and control of stormwater will be essential in the operation of Barcaldine’sBarcaldine‘s new WMF due to the potential for pollution to the surrounding environment and subsequent detriment to surrounding environmental values. Under QLD state legislation is an offence under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 to cause environmental harm and is a requirement under ERA 60 Conditions that the quality of water released from the site does not cause environmental harm.

The purpose of the SMP is to provide guidance to BRC for the management of stormwater at their proposed WMF in accordance with State Government Regulation.

2. SURFACE WATER RELEASE

2.1. Release Water Characteristics ItIt is the intention of BRC to manage stormwater inin a responsible manner in accordance with current best management practice, avoiding contamination to the receiving environment. The implementationimplementation of storm water management strategies will optimise the quality of site stormwater generated and limit the release of stormwater offsite.

The implementation of a range of stormwater management practices will avoid the mobilisation of contaminants in stormwater or contain contaminants in designated areas in an inert state. Management strategies implemented to minimise contamination are discussed in more detail in section 4 of this document. In the event of a large rainfall event which exceeds the capacity of the sediment basin the discharge water quality should not contain concentrations of contaminants capable of causing environmental harm, stormwater released from site will be sourced from areas of the site not likely to be contaminated with waste materials.

2.2. Stormwater release events The storm water that is generated onsite is to be managed appropriately in accordance with current best management practice. In accordance with DEHP Model operating conditions ERA 60 activities, a Sediment basin capable of containing a 11 in 1010 year event over a 24hr period event will be constructed. Therefore the release of stormwater will be limited to large rainfall events with no dry weather releases.

The stormwater release will be released to land via an outlet structure within the landfill site in accordance with DEHP’s guideline on storm water management for Environmentally Relevant activities the outlet structure will be capable of withstanding a 50 year ARI event. The area surrounding the outlet structure within the waste management site boundary is to be retained as remnant vegetation until such time as the site expands to the West (approx. 20 yrs). Therefore the area of discharge will be well vegetated and resilient to erosion. Following the construction of a firebreak adjacent to the discharge area a small rill approximately 300mm will be maintained to direct discharge water in a westerly direction within the site boundary.boundaw.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Waste Disposal Facility Stormwater Management Plan Page 2

3. RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES

InIn order to assess the potential impactimpact of the proposed activity on the surrounding environment it is importantimportant to identifyidentify the unique environmental values of the receiving environment and the appropriate management measures tailored to avoid or minimise impacts to those identified values specific to the area. This section aims to identify these values and establish a basis for the implementationimplementation of management practices required to avoid adverse impactsimpacts to the receiving environment.

3.1. Terrestrial Environment The point of release for the proposed activity will be directly to land. The release point will be approximately 1.5km1.5km from the nearest watercourse and approximately 750m from wetlands identifiedidentified as 1-50% wetland mosaic units. InIn this instanceinstance reference should be made to the terrestrial ecology adjacent to the site, as releases will be directly to land in an area identified as remnant vegetation.

3.1.13. 1. 1 VegetationVegetation The proposed development is located adjacent to category B Remnant Vegetation, least concern Regional Ecosystem 10.5.12 and 10.5.2a in accordance with The DNRM Mapping Database.

Regional Ecosystem 10.5.12 is described in the Regional Ecosystem Description database as; Eucalyptus populnea open woodland on sand plains where Eucalyptus Populnea dominates a sparse tree layer with a sparse ground layer of Triodia pungens and other Tussock grasses. A sparse low tree layer often consists of Archidendropsis basaltica and/or Eremophila mitchellii species and Lysiphyllum carronii, Acacia excelsa, Ventilago viminalis, Geijera parviflora, Grevillea striata and Acacia sericophylla are frequently present.

Regional Ecosystem 10.5.2a is described as Corymbia dominant woodland with C. dallachiana and C. plena dominating a sparse canopy forming open woodland on sand plains. A lower tree or shrub layer of scattered plants isis often present, includingincluding Acacia sericophylla and Petalostigma pubescens.

3.1.2 Fauna

Despite significant anthropogenic disturbances occurring at the proposed development site and surrounding area the area potentially contains significant ecological features, including EVNT lissted fauna species and habitat. As part of a biological assessment conducted an EPBC Protected Matters Report on-line database search including a 1km buffer area indicated that there isis the potential for endangered and vulnerable species to be present inin the area. Due to the possibility of these rare fauna species residing in the area the potential exists for native fauna to be adversely impacted by released contaminants.

3.2. Aquatic Environment Environmental value (EV) is a variably defined term, in the context of water quality management environmental values are defined in the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009, the principle legislative framework for water quality management in the state of QLD and provides a process for determining the EV’s of surface waters and determining corresponding water quality objectives. The table below Provides a list of EV’s relevant to the activity identified in the Queensland Water Quality Guideline.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Waste Disposal Facility StormwaterStorrnwater Management Plan Page 3

TableTable 11 Surface WaterWater Environmental ValuesValues

EV DEFINITION FROM QWQG RELEVANCE TO SITE RELEASE (DERM 2009A) Aquatic Level 2: Slightly–ModeratelySliqhtlv—Moderatelv Potential for contaminants released Ecosystems Disturbed EcosystemsEcosystems.. from site to adversely impact on As described in ADWG 2000 - biodiversity and ecosystem health rural streams receiving runoff from land disturbed to varying degrees by grazing or pastoralism, or marine ecosystems lying immediately adjacent to metropolitan areas.” (AWQG 2000; 3.1-10) Primary Industries Stock Water Local waterways including Lagoon Drinking water for stock Creek and Alice River are utilised by livestock as a water supply Farm Water Supply Water is sourced from locations such Water used for laundry and as the Barcaldine Weir, and Omar produce preparation waterhole Isisfordlsisford for domestic water supply. Recreation and Primary Recreation Particularly relevant at points such as Aesthetics recreation which involves direct the Barcaldine Weir, and Omar contact and a high probability of waterhole Isisford.lsisford. water being swallowed - for example, swimming SecondarySecondam Recreation Health of humans during recreation which involves indirect contact and a low probability of water being swallowed —– for example, wading, boating, rowing and fishing. Visual Recreation Amenity of waterways for recreation which does not involve any contact with water - for example, walking and picnicking adjacent to a watenivay.waterway. Drinking Water Raw Drinking Water Supply Particularly relevant points such as Suitability of raw drinking water the Isisfordlsisford Waterhole. supply. Cultural and IndigenousIndigenous and Non-IndigenousNon-lndiqenous Particularly relevant at points such as Spiritual Values Cultural Heritage the Barcaldine Weir, and Omar waterhole Isisford.lsisford.

3.2.1 Aquatic ecosystems The site is located between two watercourses, the Alice River to the South and Lagoon Creek to the North West, these two systems meet approximately 1010 km downstream from the Landfill site. The Alice River is the main drainage channel in the Barcaldine District. Itlt flows in a south-westerly direction past the proposed landfill activity. The Alice River does not flow permanently and is a relatively large episodic river where flows are associated with significant rainfall events in the catchment, natural ephemeral flow patterns in this part of the river have been permanently altered with the installation of a weir approximately 8.5km downstream from the site.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Waste Disposal Facility StormwaterStorrnwater Management Plan Page 4

Lagoon Creek is an ephemeral watenivaywaterway with a relatively small catchment with head water originating approximately 30km to the north-east of Barcaldine. Lagoon Creeks flow events are irregular,irregular, associated with heavy localised rainfall events. Lagoon Creek’s natural hydrological system is subject to disturbance, receiving treated water from the of Barcaldine’s sewerage treatment plant upstream from the proposed landfill site.

Upstream from the junction of the adjacent waterways are a series of flood channels forming a wetland habitat, mapped as RE 1-50%1-50% wetland (mosaic units), the landfill site will be approximately 750m from the edge of the mapped wetland areas. A map of wetland habitats is provided in appendix A.

3.2.2 Primary Industries The primary land use in the vicinity and downstream locations of the proposed landfill location is agriculture in the form of grazing. Surface waters downstream from the proposed activity are accessible by livestock and generally utilised by landholders as stock watering points.

Surface waters from the area may be utilised for farm water supplies, these areas would be restricted to permanent water sources along the Alice River and Barcoo River further downstream.

3.2.3 Recreational Use Although significant surface waters downstream from the proposed landfill activity are limited, surface waters may be utilised for primary and secondary recreational use. Usage for primary and secondary purposes is relatively limited due to the low population density of the area and dry climate. Examples of areas utilised for swimming, boating and fishing would include the Barcaldine weir, Isisfordlsisford water Hole and Omar Waterhole Isisford.lsisford.

Many of the surface waterholes in the Alice River and Barcoo River catchments are utilised for tertiary recreation sites, primarily utilised as camping sites for traveling tourists. Areas such as the Barcaldine Weir, Isisfordlsisford Caravan Park on the Isisfordlsisford Waterhole and Omar waterhole Isisfordlsisford are extensively utilised for tertiary recreational activities in the dry season by traveling tourists.

3.2.4 Drinking WaterWater Surface waters downstream from the proposed landfilling activity utilised for drinking water include Isisford’slsisford’s treated drinking water scheme from the Isisfordlsisford waterhole approximately 45 km from the Junction of the Alice River and the Barcoo River. Windorah also utilise surface waters for drinking water, Windorah’s water supply is from the lower reaches of the catchment extracted from Cooper Creek over 300km from the proposed landfilling activity.

3.2.5 Cultural and Spiritual ValuesValues The natural and manmade surface water supplies in the area are of significant importance to the residents of the area, for aboriginal people the rivers were an essential part of life for their survival. The river systems in the area play a vital role in the local economy’s providing drinking water for stock and attractions for tourists in the area.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Waste Disposal Facility Stormwater Management Plan Page 5

4. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS As identified in the previous section it has been determined that contaminants will be processed within the confines of the facility and that EV’s are present in the surrounding area. The identificationidentification of these values justifiesjustifies the requirement to mitigate potential risks associated with the operation of the WMF. This section discusses how the activity will be managed to mitigate the risk of contaminants having an adverse impact on the receiving environment.

4.1 Stormwater Control Devices

InIn accordance with DEHP’s Model Operating Conditions, it is a requirement that stormwater runoff from operational areas must be retained onsite or managed to remove contaminants before release. To achieve this, storm water controls will be designed to meet the recommended standards for rainfall intensity requirements, set out in the QLD government Model Operating Conditions and Stormwater Guidelines for Environmentally Relevant Activities.

The primary objectives of the storm water management design will be to:

∂o Divert clean water around the operational site.

∂0 Retain storm water from the operational area onsite.

∂. Segregate stormwater runoff from areas where stormwater contamination is imminentimminent or possible (leachate) and manage separately to uncontaminated stormwater.

A description of the storm water management controls are described below. An Erosion and Sediment Control Design Plan is provided in Appendix B.

4.1.14. 1. 1 Bunding Areas within the WMF with the potential to leach contaminants will be bunded, these areas include the storage areas within the waste transfer station where recoverable waste streams will be temporarily stored. These areas are the:

∂. Battery and Chemical Shelter: Covered structure 3mx6m for temporary storage of batteries will be constructed with impervious concrete bund. ∂. Green waste and Mulch stockpiles: these areas have the potential to produce organic contaminants with the potential to increase nutrient loads and biological oxygen demand in runoff; an earthen bund approximately 300mm high x 1m wide will be constructed on the down slope side of these storage areas to reduce runoff volumes from these areas. ∂. Construction waste, Scrap Steel and Tyre stockpiles: these areas have the potential to contain industry related contaminants and subsequently contaminate stormwaterstom1water runoff, therefore an earthen bund approximately 300mm high x 1m wide will be constructed on the down slope side of these storage areas to reduce runoff volumes from these areas. The earth bunds down slope of the transfer station stockpiles will retain storm water following rainfall events, the detention of water in these areas could become a source of contamination. Following rainfall where ponding of water has occurred the ponded water will be required to be removed. Extracted water will be utilised as a dust suppressant on the landfill working face. As an alternative management option the water may be discharged to the leachate evaporation pond.

4.1.2 Clean WaterWater Diversion The installation of clean water diversion earth banks on the high side of the operational site will be required to divert flows of uncontaminated clean water around the site, expelling these waters from the site. InIn accordance with IECAIECA and QLD Government Storm Water guidelines the diversion

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Waste Disposal Facility Stormwater Management Plan Page 6 banks should be constructed so that they are trapezoidal in shape and have a hydraulic free board of no less than 150mm150mm for a 11 in 1010 year event over a 24hr period.

4.1.3 Catch Drains

On the low sides of the operational area catch drains will be required to retain site stormwater from the operational area and direct the water into the sediment basin. For the effective retention of water, drains must be constructed at the appropriate levels to convey water for specified rainfall events. If the potential for high flow velocities in the catch drain are identified rock check dams should be integrated into the design to reduce water flow velocities and the erosion of the catch drain banks. These devices should also be trapezoidal in shape and have a hydraulic freeboard of no less than 150mm150mm for a 11 in 10 year event over a 24hr period.

4.1.4 Sediment Basin A sediment basin will be required for the retention of stormwater generated from the site operational area and must be designed to retain site runoff for events up to a 24 hr storm event with an ARI of 1 in 10 years. The sediment basin should also be designed with a sediment storage zone equal to 50% of the total storage volume required. The sediment basin design will be required to incorporateincorporate a spillway to allow for large flow events. The spillway will require a well-defined channel that can fully contain and is effectively armoured to withstand a 50 year ARI critical event.

4.1.5 WasteWaste TransferTransfer Station First Flush Stormwater TreatmentTreatment The waste transfer station is the receiving point for recyclable waste streams and general waste dropped off by members of the community. The transfer station is a point of segregation for different waste streams; temporary storage of waste streams at the transfer station will provide a potential source of contamination onsite due to the potential for contaminants to be incorporated amongst stockpiled wastes.

Stormwater runoff from the transfer station is to be managed in isolation from other areas of the WMF due to the potential for contaminants to be present in the stormwater. A first flush collection system is proposed to contain stormwater from this site, the first flush collection facility will be designed to capture rainfall from a minimum 20mm rainfall event. Management practices implementedimplemented to avoid contaminant releases beyond the transfer facility include:

∂0 Appropriate Design —– the first flush retention system will be designed by an RPEQ engineer with appropriate qualifications in hydraulic analysis and design. The pond will be lined with a poly liner suitable for industrial containment purposes.

∂. Maintain sufficient freeboard —– after rainfall events sufficient to trigger the flow of water into the collection system stormwater may be extracted from the pond to a level sufficient to ensure the required capacity isis available for forecast rainfall events. Extracted water will be utilised as a dust suppressant on the landfill working face. As an alternative management option the water may be discharged to the leachate evaporation pond.

∂0 Clean water runoff exceeding of a 20mm rainfall event will be diverted into the site stormwaterstomwater catchment via the clean water bypass channel once the first flush collection pond is full.

∂0 The intake of the first flush retention pond will be sloped inward towards the retention pond and be lower than the clean water bypass channel to avoid the ingressingress of first flush water intointo the bypass system.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Waste Disposal Facility StormwaterStorrnwater Management Plan Page 7

5. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT OPERATIONAL PRACTICES

5.1 Site Delineation and Planning

Prior to the installation of stormwater control devices, the required operational area for the facilities first stage should be clearly delineated identifying designated operational areas such as green waste, scrap steel and clean fill etc. and should minimise land disturbance without compromising safe work distances.

5.2 Routine Inspection and Management of Waste The BRC WMF will be managed to avoid the unnecessary migration of contaminants on site or to the surrounding environment. Council will delegate staff to the management of the facility ensuring that waste is deposited and stored in the correct locations. Regular inspections of the site, particularly the waste transfer station will aim to identify any potential contaminants deposited in incorrectincorrect locations with potential to contaminate site stormwater. These potential contaminants will be appropriately disposed of to landfill or if they are regulated waste materials unauthorised for disposal at the facility they will be appropriately stored and transported offsite by a regulated waste transporter.

5.3 Segregation of Contaminated Runoff

InIn order to avoid the release of contaminants offsite, storm water will be partitioned on site based on the likelihood of contamination from sources of contaminants located onsite. The stormwater management system has been designed to capture and treat stormwater which comes in contact with waste streams stored or deposited onsite. Two areas where the potential for the contamination of stormwater is possible include the waste transfer station and the areas containing municipal general waste; management of runoff from general waste areas are discussed below.

5.3.1 Municipal General WasteWaste Runoff Municipal general waste has been characterised and documented in a number of waste management resource documents, the characterisation of this waste has identified a number of contaminants present in Australian municipal general waste facilities, as such stormwater which comes in contact with this material has the potential to absorb and transport contaminants across itsits flow path and isis considered “leachate”. The stormwater design of Barcaldine’s WMF separates leachate material from site stormwater to avoid contaminant releases, the separation of leachateleachate material is achieved by:

∂. Bunding around landfill cells to divert stormwater around the landfill cells.

∂. Containment of general waste at the transfer station in water tight skip bins, containing liquids which have come in contact with the general waste.

∂0 Maintaining a high level of organisation and segregation of materials at the site; conducting routine inspections across the site and correctly storing or disposing of potential contaminants if out of place.

5.5 Sediment Basin Storage Capacity After significant rainfall events the storage capacity of the sediment basin will be decreased. In accordance with best management practice the sediment basin must be managed in a way that within 120hrs120hrs of the most recent rainfall event, the required design capacity of the sediment basin (a 24 hr storm event with an ARI of 11 in 10 years) is available for capture and storage of stormwater from another runoff event.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Waste Disposal Facility StormwaterStorrnwater Management Plan Page 8

5.4 Monitoring

Following large rainfall events which exceed the storage capacity of control devices, releases of storm water will occur, controlled releases of stormwater will be conducted in order to maintain sufficient storage capacity of the sediment basin for future runoff events. Prior to the release of stormwater following large rainfall events water samples will be taken for analysis, to identify if the water quality is suitable for release in accordance with the release parameter identified in table 2 below.

Water monitoring techniques must be in accordance with the methods prescribed in the current edition of the DEHP’s Water Quality Sampling Manual. In accordance with the manual, all samples taken must be representative samples and a minimum of three grab samples shall be taken at 10cm100m below the water surface.

Surface water will be sampled from the lower end of the sediment basin adjacent to the sediment basin outlet structure. Each sample will be used to test for the specified contaminants in Table 2

TableTable 2 Surface WaterWater Monitoring Program

Compositional Analysis

Analyte Limit Type Frequency Units pH Range 6-8 pH Dissolved Oxygen Min 6.5 mg/l Suspended Solids Max 50 mg/lmg/I Electrical Conductivity Max 1000 uS/cm

Visual Inspection InspectInspect water prior to discharge for evidence of hydrocarbons such as oil sheen, visible floating grease, scum, litter or other contaminants.

5.6 Correct Soil Handling and Storage To avoid unnecessary erosion and sedimentation occurring onsite, specific requirements for the handling and storage of soils should be adhered to. Topsoil material should be kept separate form any subsoil stored onsite and stockpiled no higher than 2m. Any stockpiled materials should be protected from erosion; topsoil material should be seeded with a seed mix approved by Councils Rural Lands Officer to provide stabilisation through vegetative cover. Any stockpiled subsoils that are unsuitable for vegetative growth should be covered with a suitable material such as mulch, woodchip, soil binder or geo fabric to avoid erosion.

6. MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS

6.1 Diversion Banks and Catch Drains Diversion banks and catch drains should be maintained to ensure effective stormwater management. Routine monitoring particularly after significant rainfall events should aim to identify and repair any defects. Maintenance works should aim to:

∂0 Ensure diversion banks are maintained and any degraded areas are repaired.

∂. IdentifyIdentify if water is pooling against diversion banks or catch drains and improve flow through these areas.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Waste Disposal Facility Stormwater Management Plan Page 9

∂. InstallInstall velocity controls such as check dams if high velocity flows are causing damage to banks.

∂0 Any build-up of sediment impeding flows should be removed.

6.2 Leachate Collection and Sediment Basins Routine monitoring and maintenance of the sediment basin and leachate dam will be required to ensure structural integrity is not compromised. A maintenance program should include the following tasks:

∂. Erosion to containment banks should be monitored and repaired if required.

∂. IfIf sediment or sludge build up is determined to be significantly reducing the storage capacity to the point where desired settlement volumes cannot be achieved desilting will be required. Desilted material is to be utilised as cover material in the disposal cell.

∂0 After desilting liner integrity should be assessed and repaired if required.

∂. Sediment basin spillway should be assessed after large flows to check for overtopping or damage and make necessary improvements.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Waste Disposal Facility Stormwater Management Plan Page 10

7. EMERGENCY CONDITIONS AND RESPONSE All surface water onsite will be contained in either the leachate pond or the sediment basin to minimise the risk of uncontrolled release to the surrounding environment.

The following situations have been identified requiring emergency response:

∂. Stormwater dam has been contaminated with either leachate or sediment and stored water is unable to be released to the downstream environment.

∂. Freeboard capacity of the leachate bund is exceeded with the potential to overtop the spillway.

7.1 Contamination of Stormwater IfIf the sediment basin has been contaminated with leachate and stored water is unable to be released to the downstream environment, the following emergency response actions shall be implemented:implemented:

∂. Contaminated water shall be pumped to the leachate storage dam for temporary storage; and

∂o IrrigatedIrrigated over the waste mass.

7.2 Leachate Evaporation Pond Freeboard Capacity Exceeded During and immediately after periods of high rainfall, the storage capacity of the leachate dam must be inspected and excess leachate transferred to the landfill waste cell.

The following emergency response actions need to be implemented:

∂0 IrrigationIrrigation back into the landfill if there is sufficient storage available within landfill waste mass; or

∂. Leachate is to be recirculated through the leachate collection and storage systems until evaporation has reduced levels to the desired freeboard capacity.

7.3 Downstream Surface Water Contamination IfIf surface water pollution has been reported in the downstream catchment, an investigation must be undertaken. Surface water monitoring at upstream and downstream locations will be required and subsequent analysis to determine if contaminants can be linked to the WDF.

InIn a situation where contamination to the surrounding environment has or is likely to have occurred the following steps will be undertaken:

∂. Take immediate action to contain the pollution.

∂. Notify the regulating body detailing:

o The nature and source of contamination/spill

o0 Actions taken

o0 Future corrective actions to prevent recurrence.

∂0 ImplementationImplementation of approved actions.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Waste Disposal Facility Stormwater Management Plan Page 11

8. IMPACTS ON IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES The release to ground of stormwater originating from within the confines of the proposed WMF is not expected to adversely impact on the environmental values identified in the downstream environment. The potential for contaminant release to the receiving environment has been mitigated primary through planning/siting the activity in a location where site water can be effectively managed, in a location where a suitable proximity from aquatic ecosystems is achieved. Also the implementation of best management practice stormwater management systems will mitigate the risk of contaminants being released offsite.

Management practices implemented to avoid contaminant releases identified in this report include:

∂. Segregation of leachate material avoiding contaminants associated with general waste from entering stormwater

∂. IdentifyingIdentifying sources of potential contaminants and implementing management measures to contain these contaminants in an inert capacity

∂0 Minimising the operational catchment area, diverting clean water around the operational area to reduce site generated stormwater volumes.

∂0 Erosion and sediment controls designed in accordance with current best management practice, optimising stormwater quality and reducing releases.

Environmental values have been identified downstream from the proposed activity including aquatic ecosystems and potential social impacts. A major consideration in assessing the potential for impacts to the surrounding environment is the nature of the releases and the distance from aquatic values. The release of stormwater from the facility will correspond with large rainfall events and will therefore not impact on the ephemeral nature of the associated waterways.

The proposed releases from the waste management facility are only expected to contain trace amounts contaminants from site, therefore any water released to the surrounding environment should not have any detrimental effects on the health of the aquatic ecosystems or water quality if release water were to reach the adjacent waterways.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Waste Disposal Facility Stormwater Management Plan Page 12

9. REFERENCES

Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council Australian DrinkingDrinkinq water Guidelines 2016

Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts Emission estimation technique manual for Municipal Solid WasteWaste (MSW) LandfillsLandﬁlls 2010

Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine WaterWater Quality 2000

Queensland Government Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009

Queensland Government Department of Environmental and Heritage Protection Environmental values and water quality objectives

Queensland Government Department of Environmental and Heritage Protection Healthy water for Queensland: Environmental values, management goalsqoals and water quality objectivesobiectives

Queensland Government Department of Environment and Heritage Protection Stormwater and environmentally relevant activities

Queensland Government Department of Environment and Heritage Protection TechnicalTechnical Guide —– WastewaterWastewater release to Queensland waters

Queensland Government Department of Environment and Heritage Protection Queensland WaterWater Quality Guidelines 2009

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Waste Disposal Facility Stormwater Management Plan

Appendix A

Wetland EcologyEcology MapMap

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 1 1 1 1

4 300,000 310,000 4 3320,00020,000 34 30,000 340,000 4 350,000 5 5 5 5 ° ° ° ° E 1 2 3 0 0 0 ' ' ' E E E 0 0

0 23°30'S 0 0 0 , , 0 0 0 0 4 4 , ,

237 °30'S 7 F r e s h w a te r C C r e l i f e t k o

r e e

Lake Sanderson

BARCALDINE !

Creek Cedar Ce dar C reek 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0

9 River 9 3 Alice 3 , , 7 7

3539px“. gqq~I0“" ‘90‘ V sIIW?‘9!“ II , s : ’O’o‘o's A l x3’63? i s~ . ‘3} in c .yozofo’A e

‘9’4‘ R

W »‘vv i v e %6 e

s r

r n 23°40'S k

C e

e C

23°40'S

w 0 0 0 0

e - l A 0 0

, a.“ , z v l 0 i 0

a c 8 “We?“\30’1 e 8 3 3

H , ,

7 R 7 iv e r

s r

w e

e iv r R d n e

A ic l t A L S ed g ek er Cre C rick r k Pat ee e k re C k ic tr a G P ree nhid L e G e ull d y g e r C re e B k a r c e Pa k iv tric k C C R ree E r e k vo e r c a Cre e li ek k A 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0 7 7 3 3 , , 7 Pa 7 trick Cr eek

A ~.—

4‘10.»

eek Blackboy Cr

k e e 23°50'S r .. C s w“. 223°50'S3°50'S w 54%? re d n e‘,‘,. A t S 0‘

r "xx.“ e “0:... v i

0 R 0 0 0 0 0 , e , 0 0 c 6 i eek 6 3 l e Cr 3 , Hom , 7 A 7

r e , v i /

R 9 e c r \ O‘voD029:0)!‘1x., i #33333}.oooooo’999902 l 9099,..09, w‘N« 94‘:9.9.0 9.0, regory Creek A ’90 o‘0 G ono,‘09,.N o9999999.0\ Alice River

r e S iv a R nd e y ic C l re S A ek a lt C re e k 0 0 0 0 0 0 , ek S , 0 e a 0

5 r 5 C l 3 k t 3 , e , Cre y C 7 Rocky ck 7 B Wet o r R e o t e r e e W k e

C r e San e dy Cr k eek

v H DDlyry RRocky o o ocky Creek r m a

e C

C r e r e e e k k

24°S E E E ' ' '

24°S 0 0 0 E 1 2 3 ° ° ° ° 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 1 300,000 331010,000000 1 320,000 330,000 1 340,000 1 350,000

Further information on wetland mapping (including methodology and digital data) is available from www.wetlandinfo.ehp.qld.gov.au

Accuracy information: The positional accuracy of wetland data mapped at a scale of 1:100,000 is +/-100m with a minimum polygon size WWaterater bbodiesodies aandnd wwetlandetland rregionalegional eecosystemscosystems of 5ha or 75m wide for linear features, except for areas along the east coa st which are mapped at the 1:50,000 scale with a positional Queensland Wetlands 2013 accuracy of +/-50m, with a minimum polygon size of 1ha or 35m wide for linear features. Wetlands smaller than 1ha are not delineated on WWetlandetland the wetland data. Consideration of the effects of mapped scale is necessary when interpret ing data at a larger scale, e.g. 1:25,000. For Water rregionalegional property assessment, digital linework should be used as a guide only. The extent of wetlands depicted on this map is based on rectified bodies eecosystemcosystem MAP SERIES VERSION 4.0 2013 Landsat ETM+ imagery supplied by Statewide Landcover and Trees Study (SLATS), Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation (DSITI). The extent of water bodies is based on the maximum extent of inundation derived from available Landsat ima gery MMarinearine ssystemystem ((e.g.e.g. oopenpen oocean)cean) OOpenpen ooceancean eextendingxtending ttoo tthehe QQueenslandueensland 33nmnm ccoastaloastal llimit.imit. IIncludesncludes sshallowhallow up to and including the 2013 imagery. coastal indentations or bays without appreciable freshwater inflows, and coasts that are exposed to oceanic coastal indentations or bays without appreciable freshwater inflows, and coasts that are exposed to oceanic Data sources: Water body mapping derived from satellite imagery, DSITI; regional ecosystem mapping, DSITI; drainage mapping, waveswaves aandnd ccurrents.urrents. WaterWater rregimesegimes aarere ddeterminedetermined pprimarilyrimarily bbyy ooceanicceanic ttides.ides. BARCALDINE Geoscience Australia (GA), Department of Defence and DSITI; Roads, MapInfo Australia Pty Ltd, 2006; Towns and Built-up areas, GA, EEstuarinestuarine ssystemystem ((e.g.e.g. mmangroves,angroves, ssaltalt fﬂlatsats aandnd eestuaries)stuaries) IIncludesncludes wetlandswetlands withwith ooceanicceanic waterwater tthathat aarere 2003; Coastline, GA, 2004; Queensland 3NM Limit, Australian Maritime Boundaries Information System (A MBIS), GA, 2001; Digital significantly diluted with freshwater derived from land drainage. significantly diluted with freshwater derived from land drainage. 7950 Cadastral Database (DCDB), Department of Natural Resources and Mines, July 2015; Queensland springs database, Queensland Herbarium, 2015; SRTM 90m DEM, USGS/NASA, 2006. Landsat ETM+ imagery supplied by the Australian Centre for Remote Sensing RRiverineiverine ssystemystem ((e.g.e.g. rriveriver aandnd ccreekreek cchannels)hannels) WWetlandsetlands aandnd ddeepwatereepwater hhabitatsabitats ccontainedontained wwithinithin a cchannel.hannel. (ACRES), Australian Surveying and Land Information Group (AUSLIG), Canberra. The satellite imagery used in this product has b een pre- Due to scale constraints these areas may include fringing palustrine vegetation. Due to scale constraints these areas may include fringing palustrine vegetation. processed by SLATS, DSITI.

LLacustrineacustrine ssystemystem ((e.g.e.g. llakes)akes) WWetlandsetlands aandnd ddeepwatereepwater hhabitatsabitats ssituatedituated iinn a ttopographicopographic ddepressionepression oorr a Disclaimer: While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this product, the Queensland and Australian governments and MapInfo ddammedammed rriveriver cchannel.hannel. IIncludesncludes aareasreas wwherehere eemergentmergent pperennialerennial vvegetationegetation hhasas llessess tthanhan 330%0% aarealreal ccoverageoverage ¯ Australia Pty Ltd make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose aandnd ttotalotal wwaterbodyaterbody aarearea eexceedsxceeds 88ha.ha. and disclaim all responsibility and all liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994 indirect or consequential damage) and costs which might be incurred as a consequence of reliance on the product, or as a resu lt of the PPalustrinealustrine ssystemystem ((e.g.e.g. vvegetatedegetated sswamps)wamps) WWetlandsetlands ddominatedominated bbyy ppersistentersistent eemergentmergent vvegetationegetation oorr wherewhere water in deepest part of the basin is less than 2m, active wave formed shores or bedrock features are lacking. product being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason. water in deepest part of the basin is less than 2m, active wave formed shores or bedrock features are lacking. Projection: Map Grid of Australia 1994 (MGA94 Zone 55) Date of map production: July 2015 © The State of Queensland 2015 # WWetlandetland ppointoint ffeatureseatures ((e.g.e.g. ssprings,prings, rrockholes)ockholes) 0 2 4 6 8 10

RRiverineiverine ssystemystem ((drainagedrainage llines)ines) Kilometres MAP LOCATION IN QUEENSLAND AAreasreas tthathat mmayay iincludenclude wetlandswetlands Scale 1:100,000 at A1 size RRemnantemnant rregionalegional eecosystemcosystem 551780%180% wetlandwetland ((mosaicmosaic uunits)nits) ADJOINING MAPS :ovo'ovw ..”’.’.‘ ! RRemnantemnant rregionalegional eecosystemcosystem 11750%50% wetlandwetland ((mosaicmosaic uunits)nits) Weipa

ILFRACOMBE BOWYER GARFIELD CORAL TThehe aabovebove ddescriptionsescriptions aarere aann aabbreviatedbbreviated vversionersion ooff tthehe ffullull ddescriptionsescriptions iinn tthehe WWetlandetland MMappingapping aandnd CClassilassifﬁiccationation MMethodologyethodology wwww.ww.wweettlandinfo.landinfo.eehp.hp.qgld.ld.ggov.auov.au 7851 7951 8051 SEA WetlandsWetlands ! Cairns FForor tthehe ppurposesurposes ooff mmappingapping aandnd cclassification,lassification, wwetlandsetlands aare:re: ! aareasreas ooff ppermanentermanent oorr pperiodic/intermittenteriodic/intermittent iinundation,nundation, wwithith waterwater tthathat iiss sstatictatic oorr flowingflowing ,, fresh,fresh, bbrackishrackish oorr ssalt,alt, iincludingncluding aareasreas ooff mmarinearine Georgetown wwaterater tthehe ddepthepth ooff whichwhich aatt llowow ttideide ddoeoe s nnotot eexceedxceed 6 mm.. TToo bbee a wetlandwetland tthehe aarearea mmustust hhaveave oonene oorr mmoreore ooff tthehe followingfollowing aattributes:ttributes: ! Townsville I. at least periodically the land supports plants or animals that are adapted to and dependent on living in wet conditions for a tleast part i. at least periodically the land supports plants or animals that are adapted to and dependent on living in wet conditions for a t least part OAKHAMPTON BARCALDINE BUSTHINIA ooff ttheirheir llifeife ccycle,ycle, oorr ! Mount Isa the substratum is predominantly undrained soils that are saturated, ﬂooded or ponded long enough to develop anaerobic condit ions in ! ii. the substratum is predominantly undrained soils that are saturated, flooded or ponded long enough to develop anaerobic condit ions in 7850 7950 8050 Mackay tthehe uupperpper llayers,ayers, oorr iii. tthehe ssubstratumubstratum iiss nnotot ssoiloil aandnd iiss ssaturatedaturat ed wwithith wwater,ater, oorr ccoveredovered bbyy wwaterater aatt ssomeome ttime.ime.

! Longreach ! Rockhampton

OOtherther FFeatureeature Bundaberg ! PORTLAND BLACKALL GLENUSK ! DOWNS 0 TTownsowns GI BBuilt-upuilt-up aareasreas ooff QQueenslandueensland Roma ! 7949 8049 ! RRoadsoads - OOceancean ooutsideutside 33nmnm llimitimit 7849 Brisbane CCadastraladastral bboundariesoundaries ((>05k>0.5km² aarea)rea) - LLandand aatt lleasteast 11kmkm ooutsideutside ooff QQueenslandueensland Barcaldine Regional Council Waste Disposal Facility Stormwater Management Plan

Appendix BB

Waste ManagementManagement FacilityFacility Site ErosionErosion and Sediment Control DrawingDrawing

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 mEExm mEoEoE #3 View Eon 9E 058m“. mco_< bmuczom

Existing monitoring \\

21 38m: 30m Fire Break Fencing Along Lot Boundary bore28 RN 163316 )4 A: T .f _ ,Te‘apew HT . : . x f x s .T :2 , T , ., s ,. ﬁ

Outlet structure . , : mzsoux. .. T. . J JIJI .. .

||[[|_.||_L‘| CD 8&€.n~.8nv.8¢8.nv8nv8nv8.nv8$8$8$8$8too.¢ooloowoo¢no¢oo|~oow CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD ..:,68Jeoboowoowvoob

% TB mmlvmmlv mmlvmmlvmmlvmmlvmmlvmmlv a

.m E CD ﬁ 520 Lw mmhmcowa oboobw EB EB EB EB EB EB EB EB ﬁ .l ol T T ._|

EB m>> M

EB Clear Water Discharge w“. @ : m TB TB TB TB m ,T

EB g

EB SEE;

e TB

TB m a B LT \ T f First Flush a w swam ﬁ E

EB TB 828:8

Sediment basin EB T B

"‘ CD ﬂ Collection Basin mmAI mmAl ﬂ BAIQ D u

e EB EB

I. EB m 98;

TB :o_§m§mce._.

T TB 4 ,

CD TB B m Waste Transfer Station D i m x z T e w m. e e

T CD m.

TB __. im i D a

968:5 $2

TB CD a :8 38a =8 a. mg W w Unloading Area e i i ﬁ .m Existingxm cell Proposed cell ,_ #2. m.

e CD 2

£33m «:85 mmsm WB i . umo

TB cozeoqgm

Stage 1a Stage 3a __E CD C T a

T TB . , .B B D

i Evaporation Existing Road TB i Eon ,_ m n. u __ 8% H m

K]: CD e

Pond ,

Proposed cell +9 CD

TB TB i i J mm

EB EB mm mm mm mm mm E 8 T I.“ I. .v I» I.

, Stage 2a

m am TB CD EB EB EB EB EB EB

EB 6 9 I. m a T ME

m TB TTT; »

mm CD

w,.

WB TB H Bx

EB 4W .,

WB $l mm mm a i i T. O T. CD EB m? EB EB D T , T

93$ EB masconsoE e .mE?Ef Future TB Internal Fencing fi f fi , f fi 3 f

ﬁ TB f ﬂ f

ﬁ CD Use ?T TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB i .. s, T . $2 .H e, 4 T

Area i

CD TB i i H i a i T,

i i CD

m TB .M 38%;. =8 i 888K :8 i H 883; :8 T x i i

. Proposed monitoring bore

Proposed cell Proposed cell Proposed cell a i i ammsm 8235 £ mama T .

T CD F a c. . a; mama

Stage 2b Stage 1b i Stage 3b i .T T D Tyre Storage TB T

i i Regulated i i

2.3; CD w 00 00 s

T TB i i .

Waste H among ._ e “T i i a m”

i Disposal i T ,_ T

. CD m i i

T TB H r. 4 a 4 ﬂ . we . J _|

. CD T | | | | | | . #m EV 3"-..v Erw {Evy $3 {EMTETVE E Eb JEIEI. EVEIve .. Iv, [v.3 fi fi vEJEJEJEJEJE uvm TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB . fl lo cm_n_ >>m_>

9.:Q ms‘éEoE Plan View “Emma; Existing monitoring 28m 88; zm 38m: bore28 RN 163314 Scale 1:2000 Legend m>> \>on-mo>> xcmm $>o=om IV WB Woa-boy / Rollover Bank m.._. __omao._. xcmm Iv TB Topsoil Bank Do cogmo ESQ Iv CD Catch Drain mm ctmm xcmm Iv EB Earth Bank Freeboard2898; fi zm cz End 52.0 fl am fi m. m. m. e .:_E .55 fi 0.5m min. Non-dispersiveéoz material 0.15m min. 3 3 3 toczm SE Runoff Ho//

Em; Runoff I l/./ xcmm / 0.15m min..gE 256

Bank 5., 8:025 2630 2 Max..32 grade Direction of flow

1 t\§\\\\\\\\\\\\\x\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\§\\ <7 ; [55; £92.. *0 8 “o: 50 0;c / Cut Height of bank to be not Emma :9: 8:59 l§<

/ greater than 150mm x09“ acrosswmoLom accesswmmoom track 8.8;; :0m :28 599 5; ﬁ veg V28 §o__oE 003923” Catch Drain with Bankg Topsoil Bank Whoa-boy / Rollover bank 28m 8: Emom om; Scale28w 1:50om; Scale 1:50 Scale 1:100 11:26:00 LLOZILOILZ

:26 m 0mm— Z_Dn_<0m_> $980 958 $5582 a 353:8 £22 _S§__2c_ 9: $83n 250m megoségea s m_ ﬁ éeg George Bourne and Associates Client: u ._

mm CONSULTING E Enwo Associates and will not be copied without written authorisation from George m $3265 3 33 Egg a as; ESE D Site Erosion and Sediment Control Modifications GC 20/07/2017 E2; Hzm2m0

Phone: 07 4651 2177ﬁ Fax: 07 4651 1587

Bourne & Associates. gmm .5 .02 .u _ = u . a :83: 0 2 5 E a u g 3 a ENGINEERS Project: u m v. ,_ :98 o_o 9 m9 cm m 0 box hoommmoue

w Drawing No. Rev. GBA . . WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY 21/07/2017 C Modified fire break and added battery disposal shelter design BD 04/04/2017 Email: [email protected] 35228 8885 3 32083.». E388 :pewud D _\ O _\ DOV 405.200 Dz< ._.zm_>__n_mw m._._m zQwOmm 3.80 258 m_ m_;._. ”2E. Co am umuu< m Exams @53t 2: Eom .662:t ﬁ .um>o.§a<

mo This document is produced by George Bourne & Associates solely for the

00 Title: £3 Eco 5 2% E23 3 new E23 ﬁ I .VO\N 2: E390 8n8$ 2E3 mm: o

. SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL . . B Added 30m perimeter fire break to drawing BD 07/03/2017 benefit of and use by the client in accordance with the terms of the czwwm Approved: new :95 a ﬁ 6: a: Drawn: GC

Allmwwhwmyz dimensions shown 98598 ow _mc_m_._o < 2:33 3% $6383 363 353 140010-2/04 D msm .«cmEmEmm

agreement. George Bourne & Associates does not and shall not assume mbwrwmowmm ﬂ Ezicm Ema

9190 in metres unless 93% 2228 A Original Issue JC 26/09/2016 otggm 358% mm 83:26 m< m< Z>>OIm .vmxomco SLJ Bourne ﬁ gab D m m _ _ D _ .u m bum .w_mom « any responsibility or liability whatsoever to any third party arising out of any m m > 9.53 :9 co_m_>m Etc . Eesg 22:8 E3 otherwise specified. 9:8 > _ 3: 8:225 . . Rev..>m Revision Description By Date Checked: SB (RPEQ 1513) Scale: AS SHOWN Size: A3

Date Printed: Date Printed: use or reliance by third party on the content of this document. BARCALDINE REGIONAL COUNCIL: TOWN PLANNING REPORT (Version 2) STATE AGENCY ASSESSMENT BARCALDINE REGIONAL COUNCIL WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY —– BARCALDINE DIGITALLY STAMPED APPROVED DOCUMENT Development Permit — Material Change of Use for: “Community Oriented Activity" — “Public Utility" — Waste Management Facility referred to in and subject to the conditions in Council’s Appendix O0 Decision Notice Approval Date: 13 November 2017 Application Number: DA421617

Report:Report: “Groundwater“Groundwater ManagementManagement Plan”Plan”

CHTP File Ref: 1187_3141187_314 September 20120177

BARCALDINEW/ REGIONAL COUNCIL

71 Ash Street (PO BoxBox 191)191)

BARCALDINEBARCALDINE QLD 4725

BarcaldineBarcaldine RegionalRegional Council Yellow Jack DriveDrive Waste DisposalDisposal FacilityFacility

Groundwater ManagementManagement PlanPlan

CONSULTING AUGUSTAUGUST 2017 \) GB ENGINEERS Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan

Document Control

Date Name Position Endorse/Approve

28/07/2017 William Green Environmental Engineer Draft 14/08/201714/08/2017 William Green Environmental Engineer Revision 18/08/201718/08/2017 William Green Environmental Engineer Approval

Prepared by William Green Title Environmental Engineer, George Bourne & Associates Location 67 Elm Street, Barcaldine Qld GBA File/Doc No 140010/197782140010/197782

Contact for enquiries and proposed changes IfIf you have any questions regarding this document or ifif you have a suggestion for improvements,improvements, please contact:

Project Manager William Green Phone 07 4651 5177

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan

Table of Contents 1.1. INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION ...... 11 2. BACKGROUND ...... 1 3. RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES ...... 1 3.1. IdentifiedIdentified Environmental Values ...... 11 3.2. Aquatic Ecosystems ...... 2 3.3. Primary Industries ...... 3 3.2.3 Recreational Use ...... 3 3.2.4 Drinking Water ...... 3 3.2.5 Cultural and Spiritual Values ...... 3 4. RISK FACTORS ...... 4 4.1. Climate ...... 4 5. GROUND WATER CHARACTERISTICS ...... 4 5.1. Assessment of Local Groundwater Bores ...... 4 5.2. Proximity to Landfill Site ...... 5 5.3. Assessment of Groundwater Depths ...... 5 5.4. Groundwater Composition and Quality ...... 6 6. RISK MANAGEMENT ...... 6 6.1. Cells Design and Capping ...... 6 6.2. Natural Leachate Barrier ...... 6 6.2.1 Groundwater Separation Depth ...... 6 6.2.2 Geotechnical Properties ...... 7 6.3. Double Lined Landfill liner ...... 8 6.3.1 Liner Specifications ...... 10 6.4. Minimisation of Leachate Generation ...... 12 6.5. Screening of Waste ...... 1212 6.6. Leachate Collection and Treatment ...... 12 6.5.1 Leachate Evaporation Pond Design ...... 1212 6.5.2 Leachate Evaporation Pond Freeboard Exceedance ...... 12 7. MONITORING ...... 1313 7.1. Water Quality ...... 1313 7.2. Monitoring Frequency ...... 1313 7.3. Monitoring Protocol ...... 1313 7.4. Trigger Levels ...... 1414 7.5. Data Management and Analysis ...... 1414 7.6. Reporting ...... 1515

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan 8. RESIDUAL RISKS TO ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES ...... 15 8.1. Aquatic Ecosystems ...... 15 8.2. Cultural and Spiritual Values ...... 16 8.3. Groundwater Users ...... 1616 9. REFERENCES ...... 18

Table 1 Environmental Values - Groundwater ...... 2 Table 2 Test Hole Locations and Depths ...... 6 Table 3 Test Hole Inspection Results ...... 7 Table 4 HDPE Geomembrane & GCL Products ...... 9 Table 5 Characteristics of suitable GCL bentonite products ...... 10 Table 6 Monitoring Program Summary ...... 14

Figure 1 Barcaldine Climate Graph ...... 4 Figure 2 Extraction Depth v's Distance from Landfill ...... 5

Appendix A Bore Details & Bore Water Quality Data Appendix B Bore Locations and Status Study Area Appendix C Water Balance

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION This Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) has been developed on behalf of Barcaldine Regional Council, (BRC) it assess the potential of the activity to adversely affect groundwater and related values. The document also identifies the design and operational aspects associated with managing the risk of contamination to groundwater.

The GMP has been prepared for the approval of a proposed municipal Waste Disposal Facility (WDF) for the town of Barcaldine due to the communities existing waste disposal site nearing its capacity. The GMP has been prepared in accordance with current QLD regulation and guidelines relating to groundwater management for waste management facilities.

Avoiding adverse effects to groundwater from the waste disposal facility and subsequent detriment to surrounding environmental values will be essential to ensure environmental compliance. Under QLD state legislation is an offence under the Environmental Protection Act 19941994 to cause environmental harm and is a requirement under ERA 60 Conditions that the quality of water released from the site does not cause environmental harm.

2. BACKGROUND The landfilling of waste at municipal waste facilities has the potential to adversely affect the groundwater resources through the migration of contaminants through the underlying geology. The composition of waste from municipal landfills and associated chemicals have been documented in a number of studies, which confirm the presence of potential contaminants within municipal general waste. Barcaldine’s proposed WMF will receive predominantly municipal general waste to be deposed of to landfill, and therefore has the potential to contaminate groundwater.

The proposed facility is located within the Great Artesian Basin Resource Area which is the largest and deepest basin in the world, it is a vitally important water resource in inland Queensland, providing the primary source of potable water in many communities. As well as providing potable water supplies artesian groundwater is an important source of water for agriculture and mining industries.industries. Due to the potential risk of the proposed landfill to contaminate groundwater; a vitally importantimportant resource inin the area and further afield, itit is a requirement for BRC as the authorised operators of the activity to manage the facility to avoid adverse impacts on groundwater values in accordance with QLD government environmental regulation.

The identified groundwater values and subsequent risks to these values relating to the proposed waste management facility are discussed in this document along with management practices to be implementedimplemented to avoid adverse impactsimpacts to the identifiedidentified values.

3. RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES

3.1. Identified Environmental Values Environmental values are defined in the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009, the principle legislative framework for water quality management in the state of QLD and provides a process for determining the EV’s of surface waters, this model has been adopted for the purpose of determining environmental values for groundwater values. This model is appropriate given the direct linkage between ground and surface waters.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan Page 2

The Table 1 below Provides a list of EV’s relevant to the activity identified in the Queensland Water Quality Guideline.

TableTable 11 Environmental ValuesValues - Groundwater

EV DEFINITION FROM QWQG RELEVANCE TO SITE RELEASE (DERM 2009A) Aquatic Level 2: Slightly–ModeratelySliqhtlv—Moderatelv Potential for contaminants released Ecosystems Disturbed EcosystemsEcosystems.. from site to adversely impact on As described in ADWG 2000 - biodiversity and ecosystems reliant on rural streams receiving runoff from groundwater discharge, such land disturbed to varying degrees ecosystems may include artesian ” by grazing or pastoralism,.pastoralism,.” springs. (AWQG 2000; 3.1-10) This level of protection has been adopted due to the direct linkage between ground and surface water and disturbance levels associated with land usage in the surrounding areas. Primary Industries Stock Water Groundwater is commonly used in the Drinking water for stock region for stock drinking water and Farm Water Supply domestic supply. Water used for laundry and produce preparation Recreation and PrimaryPrimam Recreation Groundwater may be used as a water Aesthetics recreation which involves direct source for municipal and private contact and a high probability of swimming pools. water being swallowed - for example, swimming SecondarySecondam Recreation Health of humans during recreation which involves indirect contact and a low probability of water being swallowed —– for example, wading, boating, rowing and fishing. Visual Recreation Amenity of waterways for recreation which does not involve any contact with water - for example, walking and picnicking adjacent to a watenivay.waterway. Drinking Water Raw Drinking Water Supply Groundwater is utilised as a raw Suitability of raw drinking water drinking water supply in many supply. communities and residences. Cultural and Indigenouslndiqenous and Non-IndigenousNon-lndiqenous Bore water is culturally important to Spiritual Values Cultural Heritage areas dependant on the resource, groundwater discharge areas have significant historical importance.

3.2. Aquatic Ecosystems IdentifiedIdentified aquatic ecosystems in the vicinity of the site includeinclude wetland ecosystems associated with lagoon Creek and the Alice River, these wetland areas are unlikely to be affected by groundwater as they have formed in flood plain areas and are a function of surface water ecology rather than ground water.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan Page 3

The Barcaldine region is a significant area for artesian springs and lies within one of the eight artesian spring super groups within Queensland. The artesian springs within the great artesian basin are fragile and susceptible to groundwater interference, these wetlands environments have formed in isolation of other aquatic environments which over time has led to the evolution of unique species endemic to these environments. Changes to the composition of water in these springs could have detrimental effects on the ecology of these environments. It is however unlikely that the proposed activity will adversely impact on the ecology of the artesian springs, QLD DEHP wetland infoinfo mapping identifiesidentifies the closest artesian springs to be approximately 30km to the NE of Barcaldine.

3.3. Primary Industries The primary land use in the vicinity and of the proposed landfill location is agriculture in the form of grazing. Groundwater in the local area is extensively utilised for livestock drinking water. Ground water is also commonly used as a domestic water supply.

3.2.3 Recreational Use The use of groundwater for primary recreational use includes the use of groundwater in swimming pools, an example of this type of activity is the Barcaldine’s swimming pool, where water is sourced from the municipal water supply, consisting of untreated artesian water. Private swimming pools in Barcaldine as well as further afield also source water from groundwater supplies.

3.2.4 Drinking Water InIn inland communities bore water isis often used as a drinking water supply, where groundwater is accessible and is of a reasonable quality it is often preferred as a water source over surface water supplies, due to its confined origins it can be provided with minimal treatment as the risk of pathogenic infection is low. Barcaldine’s municipal water supply is sourced from an artesian aquifer which provides high quality drinking water. Artesian bores on rural properties in the district are also utilised for drinking water, the artesian source in the district can provide water of a relatively high quality suitable for drinking independent of climatic conditions.

3.2.5 Cultural and Spiritual Values The Aboriginal peoples of inland Queensland have strong cultural associations with GAB spring dating back thousands of years. Artesian springs have been critical to the survival of Aboriginal peoples of the arid interior, providing a source of water, food and other material resources, as well as having ceremonial and spiritual values. Artesian springs also provide non indigenous heritage as evidence of their past and present use by the pastoral industry,industry, includingincluding stock camps, watering points for cattle and sheep grazing, and for horse, bullock and camel teams. GAB springs may also have historic heritage values associated with early exploration, surveying, land transport and agriculture. The utilisation of groundwater in many inland areas has significant historical value, the utilisation of groundwater had a significant impact on development, providing increased water resources for pastoral activities and settlement.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan Page 4

4. RISK FACTORS

4.1. Climate Barcaldine has a sub-tropical continental climate dominated by generally dry conditions with an average annual rainfall of approximately 500mm. In general winter days are warm and sunny and nights are cold. During summer days tend to be hot and nights warm. Summer weather is influencedinfluenced by a semi-permanent trough that lieslies roughly north-south through the interiorinterior of the state. The trough is normally the boundary between relatively moist air to the east and dry air to the west. It is best developed and generates most weather during spring and summer months. The trough often triggers convection with showers and thunderstorms, these wetter months coincide with high evaporation rates.

Average maximum temperatures are 35-36 degrees during summer and 23-26 degrees during winter. Minimum overnight temperatures are 22-23 degrees during the summer months and 8-10 degrees during winter. Maximum temperatures can reach the low to mid 40's from mid-spring through summer intointo autumn. Minimum overnight temperatures below freezing are relatively common during winter.

Figure 11 Barcaldine Climate Graph

Barcaldine Climate Graph

100 40 90 90 35 80 30 70 25 606 0 50 20 4 40 15 303 10 20M 000 5 101

0OO 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JulAug Sep Oct Nov Dec —MeanMean Rainfall mm 85.9 78.9 59.3 35.3 29.7 25.3 22.5 16.1 16.9 28.840.3 63.4 —MeanMean DailyDailyTemp°C Temp °C 35.6 34.5 33.3 30.1 26 22.9 22.7 24.9 28.7 32.2 34.6 35.8

5. GROUND WATER CHARACTERISTICS

5.1. Assessment of Local Groundwater Bores

An assessment of groundwater bores was conducted to assess the potential risk that the proposed activity may have on users of groundwater in the area, data was sourced from DNRM groundwater database (data summary attached in Appendix A) for registered bores. An assessment of all bore locations within a 10 km radius of the landfilllandfill site was conducted, this assessment identified 21 active bores within this area, a large proportion of these are located near or within residential areas of Barcaldine, associated with historical activities in the town, a map of bore location and status is provided in Appendix B. There are two bores in Barcaldine RN 69904 and RN313 dedicated for municipal water supply, the remaining bores are primarily used for stock watering, however due to the generally high quality of water found in the area it is possible that bore water will be used for drinking water on rural properties.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan Page 5

5.2. Proximity to Landfill Site Planning of the activity has allowed for the site to be located in low density population area, as such there is not a high demand on groundwater resources in the immediate area, with the closet bore located approximately 2.5km from landfill site. The next closest Bore is the closer of Barcaldine’s two drinking water supply bores located approximately 3.3km from the landfill cells. Figure 2 below details bore distance data, for bores with information on extraction depth.

5.3. Assessment of Groundwater Depths An assessment of groundwater depths for the registered bores in the study area was conducted, extraction depth was determined based on log descriptions, specifically depth of installation of perforated slotted pipe, in some instances data was not available to determine the depths of extraction, particularly in some of the older bores. Figure 2 below identifies the water extraction depths for bores within 10km of the waste management facility, the chart also indicates the distance from the bore as an additional risk indicator when assessing the depths of water utilised in the area.

The data indicates as described above in Section 5.2, that the proximity of the bores is in excess of 2.5km. The minimum extraction depth is 108m, three other bores in the study area draw water from depths less than 154m,154m, which are greater than 5km from the waste management facility. All other bores in the study have a minimum extraction depth of between 213 and 528m.

Figure 2 Extraction Depth v's Distance from LandfillLandﬁll

Bore Min and MaxMax ExtractionExtraction DepthsDepths V's Distance From LandfillLandfill 1400 10

o 1200 ’ ’ o o 8 1000 . . . ) ) A o 6 Em E 800 o x k m Q V(

v( e h c

ct 8 n

ap g a e

. t

g 600500 . E s D 4 i

D D

400 2 200

0 I I I I o0 /\ «(3° $0’5 ,o<0 <60“<9 $65‘9 @0509(o (60%‘9 ~0\V (o‘9 Qyoq‘(o N, (be?(o 0““‘o QJo“‘9 $0“<9 (270*‘9 ‘9 <9 v 9 0; V 5 <9 «$0 \« ~1~ <2: ‘3 6) 0v «‘90 3% ®0$ $9 (*6 $9 49*?» «$0 85$ «3‘60 «5%» (35$ (95 02% <83» v8 <3? 0&7 «2° [$n ‘<0 v” «‘29 5* q,n cﬁ Q,oV 0v ,QZ‘ 0 ‘9 V «<0 <90330 $‘3’ 5% l Min extraction depth l Max extraction depth 9 Distance

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan Page 6

5.4. Groundwater Composition and Quality Water quality data for bores located within the study area has been extracted from DNRM groundwater database, the data extracted from the database is attached in Appendix A. The data indicatedindicated that the majority of bores have targeted artesian aquifers and water quality is generally high, meeting ADWG health guidelines in most cases.

6. RISK MANAGEMENT As identified in the previous sections it has been determined that contaminants will be present in waste material within the confines of the facility and that environmental values are present in the surrounding environment. The identification of these values justifies the requirement to mitigate potential risks associated with the operation of the facility. This section discusses how the activity will be managed to mitigate the risk of contaminant migration and subsequent impact on groundwater resources.

6.1. Cells Design and Capping Cells sizes have been designed to provide the optimum size for the operation of the facility. The cells have been designed for 3-4 years use and to be extended in a forward direction to allow for another 3-4 years use in the second stage, providing a manageable are for operational activities such as managing the tipping face and interim waste covering. The relatively short lifespan of cells allows for operational efficiency but also reduces the potential for leachate generation and migration through the underlying geology by limiting the catchment area and subsequent volumes generated.

Capping of landfill cells with a final capping layer is to be conducted immediately following cell closure. Capping in to be constructed in accordance with best practice management with a minimum 500mm of cover. The Capping design will incorporate a minimum 200mm of impermeableimpermeable clay capping overlayed with subsoil material and vegetated topsoil. The immediateimmediate capping of landfill cells will limit the potential for leachate to permeate through the underlying geology by sealing the surface and restricting the flow of water into the landfill cell.

6.2. Natural Leachate Barrier A Hydrogeological Investigation Report has been conducted for the site, which details the geological properties of the site and should be referred to for a more detailed explanation of the sites geology.

6.2.1 Groundwater Separation Depth Four test holes were drilled at 2 locations in 2014; a southern and a northern location. The southern location is mid-way along the southern boundary of the facility and the northern location is adjacent to the southern test hole location on the northern boundary. Table 2 below provides a summary of the test hole locations and depths.

TableTable 2 TestTest Hole Locations and Depths

Test Hole ID Location - Lat Location - Lon Depth (m) 001 Southern -23.58760223.587602 145.265333 04.0 002 Site -23.587584 145.265333 18.0 003 Northern -23.585134 145.265131 11.2 004 Site -23.585116 145.265131 04.0

The drilling of test holes at two locations with maximum drilling depths of 1818 and 11m at the Southern and Northern sites respectfully was conducted without the detection of groundwater.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan Page 7

InspectionsInspections following the drilling of the bores has failed to identify any water at theses depths even following substantial rainfall events. Table 3 below provides the results of recorded inspection dates from diary records of Council employees test hole inspections. Several inspections of the test holes were conducted prior to the recorded inspections detailed below, however records of these inspectionsinspections could not be attained, BRC staff have verified that these inspections failed to locate ground water.

TableTable 3 TestTest Hole Inspection Results

Groundwater Test Hole ID Inspection Date ID Inspection Date PresentEli'gggrdtwater 11 no Southern Site 2 14/12/2015 no”0 3 no Northern Site 4 no 11 no Southern Site 2 21/07/2016 no“0 3 no Northern Site 4 no 11 no Southern Site 2 06/07/2017 no 3 no Northern Site 4 no

The inspections conducted in 2015 and 2016 were undertaken in response to significant rainfall events, on the 3131Stst Nov 2015 105mm of rain was recorded in Barcaldine, this corresponds with an average rainfall reoccurrence frequency of 11 in 5 years over a 24hr period, this was followed up in early December with 25.2mm prior to the inspection. In June and July 2016 unseasonal rainfall patterns were experienced with 202mm occurring in the first half of winter, 159.4mm was recorded inin June 2016, Barcaldine’s wettest June on record with records from the Barcaldine Post office dating back to 1887. These records indicate that there is a significant separation depth between the landfill cell base and the highest water table.

6.2.2 Geotechnical Properties The test hole strata descriptions identify a uniform strata formation across the site. Materials testing from the deepest of the test holes (Test Hole 002) provides Atterberg limits and Particle Size Distributions for core samples between the depths of 8-17m. The materials testing values for the core samples demonstrates fine grained material is present at these depths; plasticity and linear shrinkage values indicateindicate a high levellevel of plasticity consistent with clay material. These clay materials prevailing to significant depths below the landfill cell identify the absence of porous or fractured material.

Material testing below the landfill cell sampled at 0.5 and 1.5 depth in four locations provided values for Atterberg Limits, Moisture Density and Permeability. This material was characterised as a Sandy Clay. The Atterberg Limit values identify these soils to be slightly —– medium plastic, in correlation with the plasticity values linear shrinkage values were low and ranged from 2.4-3.8%. These plasticity values identify a low susceptibility to desiccation cracking, a desirable characteristic for landfill cell base material. Permeability results indicate low permeability values for these soils ranging from 6x106x10'9-9 —– 8x108x1 0"",-10, although these results show some variation they indicate the capacity to greatly restrict the leaching of contaminants from the landfill cell.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan Page 8

6.3. Double Lined Landfill liner 6.3.1 Discussion: Alternate Design

The prevention of contaminant releases to groundwater and subsequent adverse impacts to linked environmental values cannot be guaranteed through the implementation of operational management strategies or favourable geological properties. As such, as a precautionary measure to prevent adverse impacts to groundwater a double lined landfill liner will be constructed.

The system will be designed to align with the DEHP’s risk based approach for the conditioning of environmental protection measures. Within the waste management industry the prescribed level of protection cannot be determined on a uniform basis due to differing extents of risks posed on environmental values. Due to the limited risk factors and operational management strategies implementedimplemented resulting inin a relatively low residual risk level to environmental values an alternate design has been proposed for the lining system of the BRC WMF landfill cells. As an alternative to the “Double Liner” system defined in DEHP’s Model Operating Conditions for waste disposal activities, which defines a “double liner” system utilising a High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) liner. The AlternateAltemate design will utilise a high grade Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) in preference to a HDPE liner system. The alternate design will be capable of achieving a high level of protection comparable with a HDPE liner system with the aim to reduce logistical complexity and financial burden associated with a small scale HDPE system in a remote area. The alternate system will also reduce some of the risks associated with using a HDPE system.

The protective liner to be installed is comprised of five separate layers of material, figure 3 below provides an outline of the components of the liner system.

Figure 3 LandfillLandﬁll liner design

Landfill Cell Double Liner System

44 4

4 Leachate Drainage A

,_"_ _ _, . FineSand ' ‘ ' _, ', Cushioning100mm Geosynthetic Clay Liner

Impermeable Clay Liner 600mm

l I / // / / / / / / \ / \ /// I, I //// //// //I/ //ll //// //// // / / /// // // /\/\/\/\/\/\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\// // // //\//\//\//\// \ \ / Compacted Subgrade \/\\/\\/\\/\/// / ////\\/\/§\/\\/\\/\§/\§/\\/\§/\\/\\/\\/\/\\/\/\/\\///\//V///\//\////////\///\//V/V/ // \ /\/\\ /\ \ 150mm §®W4\/\\<\\/\/\/\\\/\\<\\/\>/\\\/\\/\\/\\<\>//\\\///>\//\//\//\//>//>\//>\7\/

The design of the alternate lining system has been based primarily on a GCL and compacted clay liner system identifiedidentified inin the SA EPA guideline for Environmental management of landfill facilities, as a suggested liner system for small landfill facilities utilising geosynthetic materials for leachate management. The BRC landfill liner design does not follow the SA EPA suggested design entirely, but provides additional protection by maintaining a 600mm clay liner, where most GCL systems

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan Page 9 specify a shallow clay liner of approximately 200mm depth, a 600mm clay liner has been prescribed to ensure an increased level of protection from contaminant migration.

The installation of a HDPE lining system is not the most practical means of achieving a high level of protection in BRC’s circumstances due to the logistical complexities of installing a HDPE lining system. One of the main disadvantages of HDPE in comparison to a comparable GCL system are installationinstallation costs, HDPE linersliners require specialist welding contractors for the installation of the product. Due to the relatively small scale of the project and the remote location, establishment costs and other expenses associated with the deployment of installation teams are unavoidably going to reduce the economic efficiency of the installation. In addition to high costs associated with a HDPE liner there are additional risks associated with the use of a high density product, namely punctures, which can be reduced through the utilisation of an alternate system. The advantages of an alternate system in comparison to a HDPE system are identified below in Table 4.

A GCL and compacted clay liner will have a number of benefits over a HDPE membrane and compacted clay liner system. In addition to reduced costs associated with installation, the use of a GCL reduces the risk of puncturing, HDPE products are frequently accidently punctured, which can result in high leakage rates. GCL products have self-healing capabilities offering a level of puncture resistance for small punctures due to their self-healing characteristics. GCL products are capable of withstanding differential settlement allowing them to mould to the underlying strata avoiding wrinkling affects and associated air pockets which can cause desiccation of underlying clays. A comparison table below provided by Global Synthetics provides a summary of advantages that the GCL lining system will provide.

TableTable 4 HDPE Geomembrane & GCL Products

HDPE Geomembrane (GM) GCL Products Very Susceptible to damage Less Susceptible to damage Slower installation (GM+Welding+ Faster installation (No need for welding, GT Geotextile(GT)+Welding Tests) and testing) More expensive installation Cheaper installation (No need for welding, (GM+Welding+GT+Welding Tests+Surface (GM+Welding+GT+Welding GT, testing and Surface preparation) preparation) Difficult to repair (Hot air welding + Extrude Easy repair with Bentofix patch and welding) bentonite paste No need for exactly flat formation level Exact formation level necessary (Flexible material) Limited ability to absorb settlement forces Absorbs settlement forces Special equipment required for welding No welding overlapsoveﬂaps No specialspecral contractor or specialistspecrallst for Needs contractor for installation installation No self-healing capability Self-healing for small holes Additional protection layer (Geotextile) No damage protection required requiredaciditlrggal More difficult installation of cover material in Less difficult installation of cover material slope areas (low interface friction angles) (higher interface friction available) Wrinkles in the geomembrane will cause performance and durability problems and No wrinkle higher risk for installation damages Disadvantages associated with the use of GCL products have been identified in a number of circumstances. A potential problem associated with the use of GCL can be associated with the

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan Page 10 type of bentonite in the GCL, where chemical components of leachate can increase the hydraulic conductivity of the bentonite. It is therefore important to utilise high quality benotnite products formulated for landfill applications. The bentonite products utilised for GCL products are selected will be required to meet industry recommended compositional characteristics. A table is provided below identifying the characteristics of recommended bentonite characteristics for GCL products utilised in landfill liners.

TableTable 5 Characteristics of suitable GCL bentonite products

Property Industry Standard Range or value* Montmorillonite content 70 wt% Carbonate content* 1 to 2 wt% Natural Na-bentonite BentoniteBentonlte form or >80 % sodium as activated bentonite

Powdered (e.g. 80% passing 75-micron Particle size sieve) or Granulated (e.g <1%<1 % passing 75-micron sieve) Cation exchange capacity ≥27070 meq/100 g (or cmol/kg) Free swell index ≥2 24cm3/2g24cm3/29 **lndustryIndustry standard extracted from EPA Vic BPEM landfills,landfills, Appendix E3

Hydraulic conductivity values for HDPE products are extremely low to the point where the permeation through HDPE membranes are difficult to quantify. Although GCL’sGCL‘s are not able to achieve hydraulic conductivity values as low as HDPE liners, they are able to provide very low values, <5x10<5x10'11m/s-11m/s for GCL products currently on the market meeting Geosynthetic Research InstituteInstitute GRI-GCL5*GRl-GCL5* specifications. A high quality GCL product will be utilised for the double lining system utilised for BRC’s WMF a product with a low hydraulic conductivity <3x10<3x10'11m/s-11m/s will be utilised and meet industry standards identified below for utilisation in landfills.

Although the lining system designed to be utilised at the BRC WMF is not a standard design for general waste landfills it has been designed to provide a high level of protection in a relatively low risk environment and reduce the economic burdens to BRC associated with the installation of a HDPE liner in a remote area.

6.3.1 Liner Specifications Subgrade

The correct preparation of the subgrade material will provide a platform for the installation of a clay capping layer and ensure the system drains effectively throughout the life of the landfill cells.

Subgrade preparation must achieve:

o0 A smooth surface sloping towards the leachate sump o Compaction to a minimum dry density ratio of 95% relative of standard compaction to a minimum depth of .15m.15m o0 Provide a sound platform for subsequent liner construction.

Clay liner

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan Page 11

The clay liner is to be constructed from low permeability clay material with a minimum thickness of 600mm. To achieve the required in situ hydraulic conductivity of less than 11 x 1010‘9m/s,–9m/s, the clay will have high plasticity and a suitable particle-size distribution, with no particles greater than 50mm in any dimension.

The construction methodologies must ensure:

o0 Uniform compaction in layers of less than 200mm compacted thickness using a padfoot roller. o0 Effective bonding between layers. o0 Constructed with suitable slope towards the leachate sump to effectively drain leachate.

Poly lined Geosynthetic Clay LinerLiner::

The geosynthetic clay liner is to be installed to limit landfill gas and leachate migration. Properties of the GCL must include:

o Aadequate strength, flexibility and durability to maintain performance over the entire life of the landfill, includingincluding the operating and post-closure periods. o0 Be reinforced, bonded by needle punching or stitching to enhance the internalintemal shear strength of the geosynthetic clay liner. o0 Be made from bentonite that is stable in slightly acidic conditions.

The product suggested for use is to be developed in accordance with industry standards for the production and use of geosynthetic materials, including, Geosynthetic Research Institute quality assurance specifications:

o0 GRI-GCL3:GRl-GCL3: Test Methods, Required Properties and Testing Frequencies of Geosynthetic Clay Liners and o GRI-GCL5:GRl-GCL5: Design Considerations for Geosynthetic Clay Liners.

Cushioning layer

A cushioning layer is to be laid on top of the GCL layer to protect the GCL from puncturing. It is importantimportant that the application of this material utilises a small rubber wheeled machine such as a small to medium sized positrack machine with a mass of <2 tonne to limit the forces applied during the application of the cushioning layer. This material will meet the following specifications:

o0 No material >2mm diameter. o0 > 50% of the material <.25mm. o0 Physical properties of the material require that the material forms a cast when wet, will crumble easily and will not form a ribbon.

Leachate Drainage Layer

The gravel drainage material should:

o0 Consist of hard, strong, durable and clean gravel that will maintain the required performance under the maximum loads likely to be imposed on it in service. o0 Be a pervious material and have a saturated hydraulic conductivity greater than 1x101x10—5–5 cm/s when tested in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1289.6.7.1.1289.611. o0 Be non-reactive in mildly acidic conditions and chemically resistant to the leachate in the landfill.landfill. o0 Not have a shape and angularity that will damage the underlying geomembrane liner.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan Page 12

o0 Be installed in a continuous layer at least 300 millimetres thick across the entire base of the landfill cell, sloped with at least a 1%1% longitudinal gradient and 3% transverse gradient.

6.4. Minimisation of Leachate Generation Waste identified as having potential for releasing potentially harmful contaminants will be managed to minimise leachate generation. The largest potential source of leachate is from general waste sources. General waste received from municipal waste collection is to be disposed of directly to landfill cells. The active landfilllandfill cell isis to be constructed with stormwater controls to divert stormwater around the landfill cells thus minimising leachate volumes.

6.5. Screening of Waste The BRC WMF will be managed to avoid the unnecessary generation of leachate. Council will delegate staff to the management of the facility ensuring that waste is correctly stored and disposed of or if necessary taken offsite. Regular inspections of the site, particularly the waste transfer station and municipal loadsloads from council pick up will be conducted to identify any unauthorised waste types such as liquid hydrocarbons or lead acid batteries have not been added to general waste streams. These potential contaminants will be appropriately stored and transported offsite by a regulated waste transporter.

6.6. Leachate Collection and Treatment A leachate collection system has been designed to drain, collect and pump leachate from the landfill cell. The pumping system will be designed to maintain the leachateleachate to a maximum level of 300mm above the landfill cell base. Once leachate is collected and pumped from the landfill cell it isis transferred to a purpose built leachateleachate evaporation pond. The pond is to provide the primary treatment process through evaporation. A water balance has been conducted for modelled leachate generation rates allowing for sufficient storage to evaporate leachate from a wet year receiving rainfall from a 11 in 20yr ARI event over a 24hr period followed by average rainfall over a 11 year period (refer to Appendix C for water balance).

6.5.1 Leachate Evaporation Pond Design

The design of the pond is quite shallow to provide a large surface area to volume ration therefore optimising evaporation rates to completely evaporate stored leachate in the majority of years. The optimum size has been determined through the development of a water balance which is attached inin appendix C.

The liner of the leachate evaporation pond will be a double lined liner system constructed in accordance with the landfill cell liner described in section 6.3 above.

6.5.2 Leachate Evaporation Pond Freeboard Exceedance Pond capacity must allow for a freeboard that can accept rainfall directly on the dam from a 24 hour rainfall event with a 1-in-251-in-25 year average recurrence interval without overflowing (freeboard = 160mm).160mm). In circumstances where the leachate collection pond has exceeded freeboard levels alternate methods of treatment will be utilised in order to manage excess leachate. In these situations irrigation of leachate over the waste mass will be conducted, this will aid the decomposition of the waste and reduce the leachate volume through evaporation. Irrigation should be conducted at a sustainable rate, enabling the waste to absorb the leachate. Reinjection should not create excessive leachate levels over cell base, leachate in excess of the wastes holding capacity should be continuously withdrawn from the cell to ensure that the depth of leachate over the liner does not exceed 300mm.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan Page 13

7. MONITORING A groundwater monitoring system will be implemented at the BRC WMF to monitor groundwater from depths sufficient to identify contamination to the underlying aquifers. Bores will be located to monitor from hydraulically up-gradient and down-gradient locations. BRC have installed monitoring bores at two locations at the landfill site to a maximum depth of 18m, these monitoring bores have not reached water aquifers. BRC in July 2017 have requested quotations from suitably qualified professionals with hydrogeological experience to review the current monitoring bore design and provide guidance in the implementation of a groundwater monitoring system to detect the migration of contaminants from the waste management facility.

7.1. Water Quality Due to back ground water quality data not being available in the vicinity of the site from upper level aquifers, as a default Australian and New Zealand Water Quality Monitoring Guidelines (ANZECC and ARMCANZ 2000) have been used to assess the water quality.

The ANZECC guidelines are written to assess surface water quality, and not specifically groundwater quality. However, because groundwater and surface water are often linked systems, and because groundwater is an essential water source for many water uses, the guidelines are applied to groundwater in such a way that when it comes to the surface, it will not affect the quality of surface water systems or compromise the EVs. Therefore, ANZECC trigger values for surface water quality are used as an initial assessment of groundwater quality criteria. Where ANZECC trigger values could not be ascertained ADWG aesthetic threshold values have been utilised as well, these trigger levels are indicated in the monitoring program summary below in Table 6.

The surrounding area in and around the landfill is predominantly used for agriculture and residential land use. Over the years, these practices have modified the landscape, affecting the volume and rate of runoff, the flow characteristics of creeks and the recharge of groundwater. As such, the aquatic ecosystems of the area have been modified. Because of historical use, the regional aquifers in the area surrounding the site can be classified as slightly - moderately disturbeddisturbed.. ItIt has therefore been proposed that groundwater samples are to be assessed against ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) protection of slightly-moderately disturbed ecosystem criteria where possible.

7.2. Monitoring Frequency Monitoring events should be undertaken on a six month frequency (April and November). These events should be scheduled at the same time each year (i.e. within 30 days of the previous year’s event) to provide consistency in comparing results due to any possible seasonality effects that can occur in groundwater systems. These events are designed to monitor for post-wet season period (April) and post-dry season period (November). The two events should form the data set for the annual groundwater monitoring summary.

7.3. Monitoring Protocol Low-flow groundwater sampling is recommended for all bores, unless the recharge capacity of bores exceeds the conditions for low-flow sampling procedure (i.e. >10cm>100m decrease in SWL during constant rate purging). If this condition is exceeded, the bore volume purging method can be used inin substitute. Sampling methodologies should be conducted in accordance with Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management’s Monitoring and Sampling Manual 2009 (Version 2); All samples must be submitted to a NATA (National Association of Testing Authorities) accredited laboratory for all of the analytical parameters. All samples need to be transported to laboratories under industry standard chain of custody procedures.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan Page 14

7.4. Trigger Levels Trigger levels for the groundwater monitoring program are given in Table 6. It is important to note that not all analytes are contaminants of groundwater; but are important as identifiers of landfill leachates. Those analytes that do not have trigger levels under ANZECC or ADWG guidelines are still important as indicators of landfill impact. Therefore, those analytes should be used for interpretationalinterpretational purposes of groundwater.

TableTable 6 Monitoring Program Summary

Analyte Unit Trigger Level Source pH pH Units 6 Min —– 8 Max ANZECC EC μpS/cmS/cm For interpretational purposes ADWG - Sodium mg/L 180mg/L Sodium mg/L 180mg/L 2231266Aesthetic Magnesium mg/L For interpretational purposes Potassium mg/L For interpretational purposes Calcium mg/L For interpretational purposes ADWG - Chloride mg/L 250mg/L Chloride mg/L 250mg/L 22$:tAesthetic ADWG - Sulphate mg/L 250mg/L Sulphate mg/L 250mg/L aggriti-cAesthetic Cadmium mg/L 0.0002mg/l ANZECC Chromium mg/L 0.001mg/L0.001 mg/L ANZECC IronIron mg/L For interpretational purposes ANZECC Lead mg/L 0.0034mg/L ANZECC Manganese mg/L 1.9mg/L ANZECC Zinc mg/L 0.008 ANZECC Nitrate mg/L 0.70-7 ANZECC Ammonia mg/L 0.9 ANZECC Total nitrogen mg/L 0.3 ANZECC Disolved Oxygen mg/L 6.8 ANZECC Dissolved Organic Carbon mg/L For interpretational purposes

7.5. Data Management and Analysis Following the implementation of monitoring data analysis will be conducted, the following data analysis is required to assess if any impact on groundwater is being caused by landfill operations: ∂. Analysis of groundwater levels to assess groundwater flow direction ∂. Checking laboratory reports for data integrity (i.e. analytes measured within holding times, relative percentile differences of duplicate samples are within appropriate ranges). ∂. Comparison of groundwater quality data against relevant trigger levels presented in Table 6. ∂0 Analysis of individual groundwater quality constituents for trends that may assist in explaining ongoing impact from landfill operations. Iflf results indicateindicate that trigger levels have been exceeded, then data analysis should aim to determine the reason for threshold exceedance and weather it has occurred as a result of contaminant leaching from the landfill or is occurring independent of the landfilling activity. In the

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan Page 15 occurrence that back ground water data indicated anolyte values in exceedance of trigger values a review of the monitoring program trigger values should be implemented.

7.6. Reporting As a minimum water testing data is to be kept on record for a minimum of five years. Regular reporting of groundwater data to the regulator will be conducted in line with licence conditions. If results indicate that contamination of groundwater is occurring these results must be reported to the DEHP within 24 hours of receiving the information. InIn a situation where contamination to the surrounding environment has or is likely to have occurred the following steps will be undertaken: ∂. Take immediate action to contain the pollution; ∂. Notify the regulating body detailing: o The nature and source of contamination/spill; o0 Actions taken; o0 Future corrective actions to prevent recurrence; and ∂0 ImplementationImplementation of approved actions. 8. RESIDUAL RISKS TO ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES This plan has identified environmental values relating to groundwater, the associated risks to these values and risk management practices implemented to mitigate the risk of contaminant migration causing adverse impacts to the groundwater resource. This section discusses the perceived residual risk to the identified environmental values following the implementation of risk management practices.

Section 3 of this plan documented environmental values associated with groundwater and identifiedidentified how the proposed waste management facility could adversely impactimpact on these environmental values, the identified values are summarised below:

Environmental Value Relevance Aquatic Ecosystems IncludingIncluding groundwater discharge areas forming artesian springs Primary Industry Stock drinking water and domestic use Primary Recreation Groundwater utilised in swimming pools

Groundwater utilised for human consumption from municipal and Drinking Water Drinking private supplies

IndigenousIndigenous cultural heritage in the form of artesian springs providing a vitally important resource Cultural and Spiritual Values Non indigenous cultural value relating to reliance of artesian springs for early settlers and groundwater in inland communities

The expected level of residual risk relating to the waste management facility and its effect on the environmental values are discussed below.

8.1.8.1.Aquatic Aquatic Ecosystems From the assessment of environmental values in Section 3 it was identified that the greatest risk to aquatic ecosystems is associated with groundwater discharge areas forming artesian springs. These artesian springs are significant environmental features due to the isolated nature of these

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan Page 16 systems and the adaptation of species dependant on them. Many species endemic to these systems are EVNT listed species due to the unique susceptibility from anthropogenic influences such as grazing and groundwater use which can degrade these environments and reduce groundwater discharge volumes. Despite the high level of susceptibility it is unlikely that the activity will have an impact on these systems. An assessment of the location of artesian springs has identifiedidentified that the proximity of the landfillinglandfilling activity is greater than 30km from any springs and the potential for contamination to surrounding environments is mitigated through operational strategies.

8.2.8.2.Cultural Cultural and Spiritual Values Groundwater plays an extremely important role in dry inland environments. Historically groundwater discharge areas provided a water source for indigenous people, early explorers and settlers, as such these areas where imperative for survival and have significant heritage values. The drilling of bores and its rapid expansion in the late 1800’s1800’s provided greater opportunities for industryindustry expansion inin inlandinland areas, particularly within the great artesian basin. The township of Barcaldine is a great example of this, where high quality artesian bore water provides the only source of municipal water supply from two high yielding bores; it is therefore evident groundwater has significant cultural value.

8.3.8.3.Groundwater Groundwater Users From the assessment of environmental values, it is evident that the greatest risk the posed by the waste management facility is the release of contaminants causing a reduction in groundwater quality. The release of contaminants to groundwater could potentially have implications through increasedincreased health risk from the contamination of drinking water, contamination of recreational use water such as swimming pools and implications to primary industry from the contamination of stock water.

InIn this report risk factors were assessed and risk management practices were described. An investigationinvestigation of site characteristics have assessed potential risk factors associated with ground water usage in the surrounding area. This assessment identified that there are 21 registered existing bores in a 10km radius of the landfill site, the closest groundwater extraction site is greater than 2.5 km from the site with the next closest 3.2km from the site. The assessment of groundwater bores in the area identified that the majority of bores are drawing water from deep depths targeting artesian aquifers with an average minimum extraction depth of 304m. There are three bores in the area extracting water from shallower depths between 108-162m108-162m these bores are located greater than 5km from the site. Based on this analysis it would appear that ifif contaminants were to migrate from the landfill site due to the lateral and vertical travel path required the risk of contaminating bore water is very low.

Risk management practices have been proposed to mitigate the risk of contaminant migration form the site. The siting of the facility has located the facility on a site with geological features conducive to restrict the migration of contaminants. Geotechnical investigations of the site have provided data which identifies the material immediately below the landfill cell to have low permeability rates. Drilling logs to a depth of 18m indicate clay material to be present to a depth of 18m18m below ground level.

The design of the land fill cells will incorporate a liner system, the liner is to be constructed with a double liner consisting of a poly coated GCL layer as well as a clay liner constructed in accordance with industry best management practice. The installation of the clay and geosynthetic liner system will provide a leachate barrier that will greatly restrict the migration of contaminants to groundwater, slowing the flow of leachate to an extremely low rate.

A leachate management system will be an integral risk management strategy to avoid contaminant leaching from occurring at the facility, under wet conditions where leachateleachate is produced leachate is

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan Page 17 to be pumped from the landfill maintaining a maximum depth of 300mm, the water is then to be treated inin a leachate evaporation pond with an impermeable double liner system.

Avoidance of leachate generation is integral to the minimisation of leachate migration and contaminant loads generated from the facility. Reducing leachate volumes and contaminant levels will be achieved in a number of ways, Including: ∂. Waste Screening, a high level of presence from trained council staff will be maintained onsite to segregate waste and screen for unauthorised materials deposited to the landfill ∂. Storm water management, segregating storm water from leachate to reduce leachate volumes generated ∂0 Optimising landfill cell size, reducing the catchment size for leachate generation

A groundwater monitoring program is to be implemented to detect if contamination of the groundwater is occurring as a result of the activity. The detection of contaminants migrating from the site provides a mechanism for the evaluation of the performance of the sites environmental management objectives relating to groundwater quality.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan Page 18

9. REFERENCES

ANZECC and ARMCANZ 2000. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Australian and New Zealand Environmental and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.

Department of Environment and Resource Management Queensland Water Quality Guidelines,Guidelines. Version 3, DERM 2009.

Australian Government, Environment Protection Authority Environmental Management of Landfill Facilities 2007.

Queensland Government Department of Environment and Heritage Protection Model OperatingOperatinq Conditions 2013.

Queensland Government Department of Environment and Heritage Protection Guideline —– Landfill Siting,Sitinq, Design,Desiqn, Operation and Rehabilitation 2013.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan

Appendix A

A1 BoreBore DetailsDetails A2 BoreBore Water Quality DataData

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan

A1 Bore Details Study Area

Distance Perforated Slot Bore Distance Bore Bore Bore Name Easting Northing from BRC Bore Perfcg‘atoiDepthep ﬁ Number DepthDe th WMF 9 Top Bottom

69904 Acacia Street 324320 7393555 3.2km 464.45 332 464.45 13891389 The Patrick NoNO 3 321521 7384955 5.7km 640.08 N/A 605.3 13731373 Dunblane Bore 316044 7395667 8.7km 493.8 304.8* 493.8* New Pomona Bore Yew 93744 Pomona Bore Yew 325795 7393824 4.2km 462 447 453 93744 Stgf‘” 325795 7393824 4.2km 462 447 453

93431 Power Station Bore 328078 7394327 6.2km 460 N/A N/A

13631363 Lexington Bore 328858 7394980 7.3km 303.7 N/A N/A

1184061 18406 Stibbards Bore 331426 7393031 8.7km 408.6 337 397 93606 93606 329122 7390962 6km 666 540 666 146117146117 Janes Bore 329644 7387661 7.1km7.1 km 252.4 213 247 23043 EssoESSO Foxhall 1 Oil 325251 7389197 2.5km 1280 528* 1280* 13751375 All Fives Bore 319913 7393714 4.5km 374.9 253.9*2539* 374.9* 13721372 Westbourne Bore 315504 7394001 8.3km 548.03 340 520 313 Ash Street NoNO 11 325002 7394136 4.14.1kmkm 625 437 651 13541354 Brackhill Bore 328267 7395050 6.8km 305.41 128* 305.4* 146439146439 Saltern Creek Bore 319808 7396669 6.9km 422 330 420 13641364 Prospect Bore 324249 7396989 6.5km N/A N/A 312 Baths Bore 325350 7394465 4.5km 210.9 N/A N/A Barcaldine Golf Club 93483 G0" 0'“ 326415 7394902 5.5km 162 153 161 93483 BoreEgga'dine 326415 7394902 5.5km 162 153 161

146722146722 Slaughteryard Bore 327348 7394035 5.5km N/A N/A

163631163631 JoshsJOShS Bore 329991 7394696 8km 138 108 132 163630163630 Darryls Bore 331072 7394760 9km 144 1131 13 138

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 _mco_mmm __oc:oo BarcaldinemEEmoEm. Regional Council xomw Bmm>> $8n Yellow>>o__m> Jack Drive$25 Waste Disposal Facility>0___omn_ EmEmmmcmE Groundwater09959590 Management Plancm_n_ 2 5:030 Sun. A2 BoreSam Water.5003 Quality Data 203% N< 3:020 20m 02.00 03005 200 605:2 Bore Number A2 - Bore Study Area Water Quality TOTAL<50 TOTAL<50 DEPT0&0 COND028 Si_0 IONS029 SOLIDS00:00 30;; 30;; 30:0 Ev €303 020 I v.20 In v. 8 08: 08 U 002 000 _< 0 5 Bore080 Name050.2 DATE H (m) RMK (uS/cm) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) NaK02 Ca Mg02 Mnc2 HC03 Fe00 CO3 CI F NO3 SO4 Zn0N AIB Cu 6990400000 ACACIAEmEm

1389 THE PATRICK NO 3 20/03/1974 641 PU 460 8.1 318.78 224.24 85 2 3.8 0.2 186 0.24 104 40 0.14.0 0000\N0N00 000 0N0 0.0 0N 00.N0N N0.00N 0N 0.0 N.0 0 80.9 000 00.0 0.N 00 N.0 0.0V 0.0 8.? 00 No.0 8.?

09/07/1986 640 370 8.4 26 287.99 230.12 79 1.9 3.2 0 <0.001 165 0.04 2.5 30 0.2 <0.5 5.5 <0.01 <0.10.0v 0.02 <0.01 25/03/2004000NN00N0N PU00 358000 8.50.0 290N 293.97N0.00N 237.17N0.N0N 83.10.00 1.90.0 1.90.0 0 0 169.40.000 0.0100.0 3.10.0 29.50.0N 0.260N0 0 4.80.0 0 0 0.10.0 0 0000\N0N00 N00 0.0 0N 0N.00N N0.0NN 00 0.0 0.N 0.0 8.9 N.N00 00.0 0.0 0.0N 0N0 0 0.0 00.0 00.0v 00.0v 00.0v

0N00 0250200 008 14/12/1993 357 8.5 24 290.21 228.97 83 1.5 2.1 0.1 <0.02 167.7 0.03 3.3 26.4 0.23 1 4.5 0.13 <0.05 <0.10 <0.05

1373 DUNBLANE BORE N00NN00N00 0.000 <2 000 0.0 0N 00.00N 0N.0NN N0 0.0 0.0 00.0v 0N0 00.0v 0.N 0.0N N.0 0.0V 0.0 8.9 00.0v 00.0 00.0v 30/10/2002 493.8 MA 365 8.4 23 289.66 226.25 82 1.6 1.8 <0.03 170 <0.01 2.3 26.5 0.2 <0.5 4.6 <0.01 <0.05 0.03 <0.03 9374400N00 NEW2,02 POMONA ST00 29/05/2003000NN00N0N 3700N0 8.2N.0 240N 295.260N.00N 235.3900.00N 790N 3.30.0 3.7N.0 0.30.0 0.0300.0 165000 0.028.0 1.50.0 3800 0.2N.0 <0.50.0V 3.60.0 <0.018.9 <0.0500.0v <0.02N0.0v <0.0300.0v 9343100000 POWER00260 STATION29200 BORE0060 26/10/19980000\00N0N 460000 395000 1000 30 225.8800.0NN 196.8600.000 780N 3.30.0 0.80.0 0.10.0 0.028.0 6300 0.078.0 40.50.00 3300 0.30.0 0.50.0 60 0.02N00 0.12N00 0.1400.0 0.0500.0 13630000 LEXINGTON290209 BORE008 29/10/2002N00NN00N0N MA<2 356000 8.50.0 22NN 278.9900.0NN 220.4800.0NN 79.50.0N 1.40.0 2.50.N 0.10.0 <0.0300.0v 158.40.000 <0.018.9 2.60.N 29.2N.0N 0.22NN.0 <0.50.0V 4.40.0 <0.018.9 <0.0500.0v 0.0400.0 <0.0300.0v 118406000000 STIBBARDS00020900 BORE008 10/12/2003000NNN0N00 408000 PU00 345000 8.40.0 230N 277.92N0.NNN 219.5900.00N 780N 1.40.0 2.50.N 0.10.0 <0.0300.0v 160000 0.0800.0 2.2N.N 28.50.0N 0.2N.0 <0.50.0V 4.2N.0 <0.0100.0v <0.0500.0v 0.12N0.0 <0.0300.0v 0000\00N00 N00 <2 000 N.0 NN 0N.N0N 00.NNN 00 N.0 000 0.0 N.0 000 00.0 0 0.00 N.0 0.0V 0.0 8.9 N.0 00.0v 00.0v

00000 00000 13/08/1999 462 MA 360 8.7 22 287.24 227.91 81 1.7 301 0.1 0.2 160 0.45 4 30.5 0.2 <0.5 4.8 <0.02 0.7 <0.10 <0.05

93606 93606 000N\00\0N 000 00 000 0.0 NN 000 00N 00 0N 0.0 N.0 00.0 N00 8.9 0 00 N00 0.0V N.0 00.0v 00.0v 00.0 00.0v 24/01/2008 666 PU 439 8.1 22 330 259 69 20 9.4 1.7 0.09 182 <0.01 1 43 0.37 <0.5 3.2 <0.01 <0.05 0.06 <0.03 146117N00000 JANES002<0 BORE008 28/01/2009000NN00N0N PU00 15100000 8.40.0 230N 126000N0 905000 3710N0 1.60.0 3.30.0 0.2N.0 <0.0100.0v 73800N <0.018.9 1100 130000 2.50.N <0.50.0V <1.00.0V <0.0100.0v <0.0500.0v 1.10.0 <0.0300.0v 26/02/1982N000NN0N0N PU00 560000 7.80.N 3900 434.50.000 351.5100.000 82N0 230N 22NN 2N 24000N 0.90.0 6000 10 30 00000000 0N0 00 000 0 0 0N 000 00N N0 0N 0N N0 N 0v 8 000 0 8 0 0 00 0 N 0v 0 NV 0 0v 8 0 0 0 00 0v 8 8 .0 0000N o000 0._<_._xo0 0 do 15/11/1988 528 PU 440 8.1 24 356 283.42 70 23 12 2 <0.01 190 0.01 1.6 54 0.7 <0.5 <2.0 <0.01 0.1 0.06 <0.01

23043 ESSO FOXHALL 1 OIL 0000\00N0N 00 000 0.0 0N 000 00 0N.00N NN N 0N 0 00 0 N N 8.9 000 0 0v 0.N 00 0 N.0 0.0V 0.Nv 00.0v 0v 00.0 8.0 00 23/11/1990 PU 484 8.3 24 368.09 295.26 77.7 24.1 13.3 2.2 <0.01 190.5 <0.01 2.3 54.6 0.7 <0.5 <2.0 <0.01 <0.05 0.07 0.04 27/03/2003000N\00\NN 128000N0 MA<2 469000 7.40.N 250N 361.0600.000 288.52N0.00N 73.90.0N 23.40.0N 12.50.N0 2.2N.N 0.0300.0 191.90.000 0.028.0 0.30.0 53.60.00 0.6500.0 <0.50.0V <2.00.Nv <0.0000.0v <0.0000.0v 0.0600.0 <0.0000.0v NN00\00\0N 0N0 00 0000 N.0 0N.0000 00.N00 000 0 0 00.0v 0N0 00.0 0N0 0.0 0.0V 0 8.9 00.0v 0.0 00.0v

0N00 j< 00>: 0000 21/04/1972 375 PU 1380 8.2 1166.25 847.04 345 5 3 <0.03 628 0.03 175 3.6 <1.0 4 <0.01 <0.05 1.5 <0.03

1375 ALL FIVES BORE N00N\00\00 0.0N0 <2 0000 0.0 0N 00.0000 N0.0N0 N00 0.0 0.N 0.0 0 0.000 00.0 00 0.000 00.0 0 0.0 0 0 00.0 8.0 30/10/2002 374.9 MA 1390 8.6 20 1096.15 828.47 342 1.5 2.8 0.1 0 565.6 0.03 16 164.1 3.91 0 0.5 0 0 1.49 0.01 21/04/1972NN00\00\0N 548000 PU2 390000 8.30.0 326.30.0N0 228.2N.0NN 8600 60 2N 193000 50 3000 0.30.0 40 0000\N0N00 000 000 0 N NN 00N N0 0NN NN 0N 0 N N 0 0 0v 8 0N0 0v 8 0 0 NN 0 N 0 0 0 N 0 N0 0v 00 0 N0 0v 8

NN00 008020080002, 05/12/1985 548 360 8.2 22 290.67 223.72 78 1.7 2.4 0 <0.01 175 <0.01 1.5 27 0.2 0.5 4.2 0.02 <0.10 0.02 <0.01

1372 WESTBOURNE BORE 0000\N0N00 N00 0.0 0N 00.00N 00.0NN 00 0 0.0 N. 0 8.9 0N0 8.9 0.0 NN N.0 0.0 N.0 8.0 8.9 No.0 00.0v 14/12/1993 362 8.4 24 289.83 229.91 81.1 1.4 2 0 <0.01 175 <0.01 1.5 27 0.2 0.5 4.2 0.02 <0.10 0.02 <0.05 14/12/2011000N\N0\00 547.50.N00 PU2 3710N0 8.2N.0 240N 28000N 2210NN 8000 1.40.0 2N 0.10.0 <0.018.0v 164000 0.0500.0 1.7N.0 260N 0.1900.0 <0.50.0V 4.40.0 <0.018.0v <0.0500.0v 0.0300.0 <0.0300.0v 01/10/1967N000\00\8 PU2 8280N0 7.7N.N 559.9500.000 443.0400.000 149000 250N 30 23000N 134000 0.9500.0 1800 13/10/19690000\00\00 PU2 79000N 7.90.N 589.8500.000 465.82N0.000 1700N0 200N 0 24400N 155000 0.8500.0 0 15/12/19930000\N0\00 200N PU2 11500000 8.2N.0 210N 745.1300.00N 654.9600.000 198000 21.60.0N 33.40.00 2N 0.0800.0 218.7N.00N <0.02N0.0v 2.2N.N 25500N 1.5300.0 9.7N.0 2.10.N 0.10.0 <0.0500.0v 0.30.0 <0.0500.0v 000N\N0\00 0.0N0 <2 000 0.N NN 00.000 0N.0N0 N00 0.00 0.NN N.0 00.0 0.N0N 0 0.0 0.N00 0N.0 0 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 313000 ASH10< STREET000000 NO02 10 06/12/2003 624.9 MA 854 7.6 22 568.18 479.71 142 19.5 22.6 1.7 0.03 217.5 0 0.5 162.5 1.25 0 0.5 0.01 0.01 0.45 0.01 10/04/19650000\00\00 306000 PU2 0 223.4500.0NN 168.2N.000 64.40.00 2.90.N 1.40.0 108.7N.000 4.30.0 37.2N.N0 0.250N.0 4.30.0 N00N\00\0N 0.000 <2 N00 0.0 NN 00.00N 00.0NN 0.0N 0.0 N.N 0.0 00.0v 0.000 8.0v N 0.00 0N.0 0.0 0.0 8.0v 00.0v 00.0 00.0v 13540000 BRACKHILL0003:5300 BORE 29/10/2002 305.4 MA 357 8.4 22 280.13 221.56 79.8 1.5 2.7 0.1 <0.03 158.5 <0.01 2 30.3 0.24 0.5 4.3 <0.01 <0.05 0.06 <0.03 0083 0986 05:00. 090800000 George Bourne &.0 Associates 140010 EN N August00302 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan

Appendix BB

BoreBore LocationsLocations and Status Study Area

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 _mco_mmw_ __oc:oo BarcaldinemEEmEmm. Regional Council Emoaw xomw 9wm>> 350m“. >>o__m> $25

Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposalfi Facility EmEmmmcmE Groundwater$626390 Management Plancm_n_ aka 0 wmowm vwm fi .0 @ mmvov fi . Aw \\ OW . h «G a .9 Amy vmm momH fi 963 . 8320 :32 Ema so" Es: . . . man u u I HMVMm Nnm mu . EB: fi N “9: m2; mam mommrvvmmm mmma fifl vommo moon; O 05.03 *IHHHHHW 8v H. 0E2 8m an: 3R2 mmm I fi :92 . 2am: ndsboroug mvomw H19” max 0 $3 ucmm fl 5:5 3:25 Emu 935 83m .8»: 5:5 5% acumen. 8.8 9. LEE: Raoucmnm can uw>ou$c uéom U .8035 232, “8580.. D 883$ __EEm._ 5:80.. 38m mama”. I 36383 Sim wage. mwm fi _ w Oreo: mahowo wcSom w fl George Bourne & Associatesm_ooww< 140010 am N August5.9% 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan

Appendix C

Water BalanceBalance

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Yellow Jack Drive Waste Disposal Facility Groundwater Management Plan

BardfimflasteflaEMFflfi'.‘I'll'iz-rBalame LaachahedSize Fondiize 115] m2

Vdmmofm 1h25yreventfur24h= 155 rrm WHWBEW 25m r112 Tounﬂ= 7?5 m3 Wasaeabsawm ?‘1G.1'Elnairig= 12a m3

Ilium-I Jan Feb lull: Apr May Jim Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DE: A“??? Iainfall {mi (139 [mg [hm 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01.2 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Rainfal‘u'ultme [m3] 3111.24 2714.53 203.15 124.41 104.50 33.?5 77.43 55.25 54.31 10105 140.04 221.01 Septic Wasbe (“13) 3.1!] 3.30 330 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 331} 3.30 3.30 Evan-135m {m} 0.34 0.27 0.23 023 0.1? 0.14 0.15 0.10 025 0.33 0.35 0.3? Emmi-aim a T011. [m) 0.24 0.13 0.10 0.15 0.12 0.03 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.23 025 0.25 Evaporaim volume {H131 35.32 213.15 222.13 133.3? 136.55 103.53 116.73 154.50 205.23 255.45 239.30 209.45 Frau-inns volume [m3] 720.715 747.37 307204 T0531 ?35.55 711130 535.07 540.14 553.13 406.05 242.03 00.53 Hesichal {m3} ?47.3? 307.04 235.31 7135.55 705.10 335.07 340.14 553.13 405.03 242.05 05.53 21.33 lDepIqvﬂertm} 0.650 0.?02 0.032 0.540 0.515 0.506 0.554 0.431 0.353 0.211 0.134 0.0113

Water Balance: 11 50m: Pond

11.5111

0.4111 mm noepm EllaEHm) M 0.311]

0211]

mm —

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 BARCALDINE REGIONAL COUNCIL: TOWN PLANNING REPORT (Version 2) BARCALDINE REGIONAL COUNCIL STATE AGENCY ASSESSMENT WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY —– BARCALDINE DIGITALLY STAMPED APPROVED DOCUMENT

Development Permit — Material Change of Use for: "Community Oriented Activity" — ”Public Utility" — Waste Management Facility

referred to in and subject to the conditions in Council’s Decision Notice Appendix PP Approval Date: 13 November 2017 Application Number: DA421617

Report:Report: “Landfill“Landfill Gas ManagementManagement Plan”Plan”

CHTP File Ref: 1187_3141187_314 September 20120177

BARCALDINEV/ REGIONAL COUNCIL

71 Ash Street (PO BoxBox 191)191) BARCALDINE QLD 4725

BarcaldineBarcaldine RegionalRegional Council Yellowjack DriveDrive Waste ManagementManagement FacilityFacility

LandfillLandfill Gas ManagementManagement PlanPlan

AUGUST 2017 @GBACENsgRN: Document Register

Document History

Date Name Position Endorse/Approve 21/07/2017 William Green Environmental Engineer Draft

21/08/2017 William Green Environmental Engineer Approve

Prepared by William Green Title Environmental Engineer, George BourneBoume & Associates, Barcaldine Qld Location 73 Elm Street, Barcaldine Qld GBA File/Doc no. 140010

Contact for enquiries and proposed changes IfIf you have any questions regarding this document or if you have a suggestion for improvements,improvements, please contact:

Project Manager William Green Phone 07 4651 5177

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 TableTable of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.01.0 IntroductionIntroduction...... 11 2.0 Scope ...... 11 3.0 Site Overview ...... 1 3.1 Surrounding Land Use ...... 2 3.2 Final Land Use ...... 2 4.0 Estimation of LFG Generation ...... 2 4.1 Methodology ...... 2 4.2 Uncertainty ...... 2 4.3 Model Results ...... 3 5.0 Landfill Gas Risk Assessment ...... 3 5.1 Objectives and Methodology ...... 3 5.2 Potential Sources of LFG ...... 3 5.3 Potential Pathways ...... 4 5.4 Potential Receptors ...... 4 6.0 Hazard Identification and Screening ...... 4 6.1 Assessment of Hazard ...... 4 6.2 Assessment of Pathways ...... 5 6.3 Assessment of Receptors ...... 5 6.4 Risk Assessment ...... 5 7.0 Monitoring Program ...... 13 7.1 Landfill Subsurface Emissions Monitoring ...... 1313 7.2 Landfill Gas Surface Emissions Monitoring ...... 13 7.3 Landfill Gas Accumulation Monitoring ...... 13 8.0 Contingency Planning...... Planning ...... 1414 8.1 Subsurface Gas Emissions ...... 1414 8.2 Surface Gas Emissions ...... 1414 8.3 Accumulation of LFG in Facility Structures ...... 1414 8.4 Odour ...... 14 9.0 Conclusions ...... 1515

AppendixAppendixA A LandGEM Model Output Appendix B Sensitive Receptor Map

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Landfill Gas Management Plan —– Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION This Landfill Gas Management Plan has been developed for the Barcaldine Regional Council BRC to support a Development Application for the proposed landfill Located on Yellowjack Drive, Barcaldine. This report presents the results of our assessment and proposed management practices to mitigate the risks associated with landfill gas emissions.

2.0 SCOPE The proposed activity will be categorized as ERA 60 1(a)1(a) municipal waste landfill with a small contingent of regulated waste including septic waste from semi-rural dwellings; accordingly landfill gas (LFG) production is expected. The scope of this LFG Management Plan is to ensure that air quality objectives are met in accordance with relevant regulatory guidelines including EHP guideline —– Landfill siting, design, operation and rehabilitation and Model operating conditions for ERA 60 waste disposal. The objective of identifying and managing landfill gas at the site are to: ∂. Prevent impacts to human health, safety and the environment; ∂. Prevent off site nuisance odours; and ∂0 Meet regulatory requirements. The Plan provides a summary of potential hazards and expected risk levels and addresses management of LFG for the proposed facility. The management options were evaluated inin accordance with the estimated LFG generation rates projected for the site.

3.0 SITE OVERVIEW The Barcaldine landfill Facility is Located off the Landsborough Highway approximately 4km south of Barcaldine on 1/SP223525 in Central Western Queensland. A locality plan of the site is provided in Figure 11 below, the site covers an area of approximately 20ha. Access to the site is Yellow Jack Drive which can be accessed when traveling in a north or south direction along the Landsborough Highway.

ﬁbﬁEF—sh‘o'r 'u'glFHighway 5 ':-"*\v_;. .- ,j ll 41%- 7‘ EELT’ Barcaldine

Lg:::::::::-li., - l '

-.l""""17'

MAP LEGEND 7L ,1" m andAccessRoadBarcalmne Waste Faclllry — Stale Controlled Roads Barcaldine Reglonal Councrl - . |:| aeﬂy Boundanes

Figure 1 Landfill location map

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Landfill Gas Management Plan —– Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility Page 2 3.1 Surrounding Land Use The surrounding land uses in the area are predominantly agriculture with state reserve land surrounding the site in all directions for a minimum distance of approximately 700m, utilised as town common for cattle grazing. ∂c To the North approximately 2km, the nearest residents of Barcaldine are located where the predominant land use is residential ∂c To the East of the site are 2 semi-rural allotments located a minimum distance of approximately 1.2 km from the site, beyond these premises land is utilized for grazing with predominantly remnant vegetation ∂c To The west and south of the site the land use is utilized for grazing with predominantly remnant vegetation ∂o A rest area is located approximately 700m, to the east on the Landsborough Hwy

3.2 Final Land Use Following the closure and final rehabilitation of the landfill site, the area of past waste placement will be revegetated with pasture species selected based on their suitability for rehabilitation purposes. ItIt is proposed that after the site has been closed for a sustained period and rehabilitated areas have stabilised that the land will be utilised for grazing purposes in accordance with the surrounding council reserve area utilised for town common grazing purposes.

4.0 ESTIMATION OF LFG GENERATION

4.1 Methodology A landfill gas simulation model, LandGEM V3.02 has been used to model the potential LFG generation for the site. LandGEM is a freely available LFG resource assessment and risk assessment model developed by the US EPA. LandGEM is based on a first-order decomposition rate equation for quantifying emissions from the decomposition of landfilled waste in municipal solid waste landfills. The software provides a relatively simple approach to estimating landfill gas emissions. Model defaults are based on empirical data from U.S. landfills. Waste tonnages, operating time frame and annual waste acceptance rates are input into the model to estimate the gas generation capability of the waste facility. Waste acceptance volumes were estimated on current waste generation rates and extrapolated using an estimated population growth of 0.1% (sourced from Queensland Governments Statisticians Office) with an estimated lifespan of 50 years. LandGEM follows a decay model that estimates landfill gas generation. Default values are provided for anaerobic decomposition of landfilled waste. The LandGEM model was used to estimate potential landfill gas generation from the proposed landfill. The estimation of LFG generation contributes to the development of the landfill gas risk assessment discussed below.

4.2 Uncertainty ItIt isis noted the LandGEM model is a predictive tool and should not be relied upon for exact landfill gas generation rates, rather its purpose in this application is to provide an indicative order of magnitude estimate of landfill gas generation from the facility. Variations to the estimate of landfill gas generated may be influencedinﬂuenced by complex site conditions not addressed in the model, hence the results should be considered as estimates for the purpose of this Development Approval.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Landfill Gas Management Plan —– Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility Page 3

4.3 Model Results The LandGEM model estimates LFG generation from estimated commencement of the proposed Landfill in 2017 with an estimated lifespan of 50 years. Based on the assumptions and future predictions stated above, the results of the LandGEM modelling suggests that peak LFG generation, in the order of 93 m³/hour,m3/hour, occurs in 2067 at estimated completion of the facility. The predicted indicative gas generation curve is shown in Figure 2 below.

Landfill Gas Production 100

90 so

n13x‘hr SC SC

:10

Emissions SC 20 1C

a n 9 0 0 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 2045 2048 2051 2054 70F7 20F0 r7003 2077 7075 7070 2081 2084 2087 2090 2093 7096 ), m

—Total landfill gas —l‘.lethane Figure 2 Total Bulk Landfill Gas Produced

5.0 LANDFILL GAS RISK ASSESSMENT

5.1 Objectives and Methodology The objective of the LFG risk assessment is to address the potential hazards and risks associated with LFG generation at the proposed landfill facility. This LFG risk assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the following guidelines; ∂. The DEHP Guideline —– Landfill siting, design, operation and rehabilitation dated December 2013. ∂o The DEHP Model operating conditions, dated 11Stst July 2016. ∂0 Queensland Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008, dated 8 July 2008. The proposed design for the proposed facility were used to form the basis of this LFG risk assessment. The following steps were taken to assess the site specific risks associated with LFG generation; ∂. Evaluate the interaction between risk sources, pathways and receptors and potential consequences. ∂0 Hazards were identified and risk screening undertaken. ∂o The level of risk was assessed using a qualitative matrix by considering the likelihood of a risk occurring and the magnitude of an adverse consequence. ItIt isis anticipated this LFG risk assessment would undergo periodic review as part of the operation of the landfill and would be progressively updated to includeinclude cell capping, landfilllandfill activities, monitoring results, and rehabilitation works or changes to surrounding land uses.

5.2 Potential Sources of LFG As a municipal waste landfill, the activity is expected to produce a moderate quantity of LFG, as described above. LFG may be generated via three processes;

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Landfill Gas Management Plan —– Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility Page 4 ∂0 Bacterial decomposition: the majority of LFG is produced when naturally occurring bacteria within the waste breaks down the organic material. ∂. Volatilization: organic compounds present in the waste may change from a liquid or solid into a vapour contributing to the generation of LFG. ∂0 Chemical reactions: certain chemicals within the waste may react to generate LFG. The rate, volume and quality of LFG is dependent on the waste composition, age of the waste, moisture content, presence of oxygen and temperature of the landfill.

5.3 Potential Pathways The natural tendency of LFG is to diffuse and flow out of the landfill to the surrounding areas with lower gas concentrations. LFG will tend to migrate from areas of higher pressure to lower pressure such as from the landfill pressure to atmospheric pressure. The ability of LFG to migrate isis restricted by the permeability of the surrounding media. Gases that are lighter than air, such as the methane component of landfill gas, tend to move upwards. However, where compacted or saturated waste layers and/or landfill caps are present to impeded flow, the gas can migrate horizontally (lateral migration) as pressure driven flow until it can resume the upward path. LFG that is heavier than air, such as the carbon dioxide component of landfill gas, tends to accumulate at the bottom of subsurface structures such as services trenches or basements. The potential pathways for LFG migration for the proposed site include: ∂ Direct release to atmosphere from surface emissions and leachate storages ∂ Subsurface migration via subsurface trenches, pipes and pits; ∂ Subsurface migration via side wall and geological strata; and ∂ Migration of dissolved LFG in leachate or groundwater.

5.4 Potential Receptors Potential receptors include; ∂. Employees, contractors and site visitors; ∂. Residential properties near the site; ∂0 Ecology of surrounding remnant bushland and waterways ∂0 Rest area users 6.0 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING The LFG risk assessment assessed potential sources of risk, associated pathways and receptors. The following process was undertaken to identify hazards and evaluate their severity; ∂0 Hazard assessment: this considers the emission source and potential contaminants as well as events or accidents associated with other landfills in the shire. ∂. Pathway assessment: the surrounding geology, hydrogeology, subsurface infrastructure, atmospheric conditions are assessed to evaluated exposure to receptors. ∂. Receptor assessment: The sensitivity of receptors was assessed including residents, surface water and land of environmental significance.

6.1 Assessment of Hazard The main source of the hazard is identified as the degradation of waste deposited at the landfill. The modelling results indicateindicate that LFG generation isis worthy of consideration at the site.

The hazards associated with LFG include;

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Landfill Gas Management Plan —– Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility Page 5 ∂. ImpactsImpacts to humans; ∂. Risk of explosion and ororfire fire damage to persons, buildings and structures; ∂. ImpactsImpacts on groundwater; ∂. ImpactsImpacts on locallocal habitat and human amenity; and ∂0 Potential for asphyxiation in confined spaces. 6.2 Assessment of Pathways The following were identified as potential pathways of migration and release of LFG; ∂0 Gas migration through the sub-surface geology. ∂. Direct release to atmosphere.

6.3 Assessment of Receptors The key potential receptors for exposure to LFG at the site are considered to include; ∂o Onsite: o0 Employees, maintenance workers and Contractors; o0 Site huts and buildings where employees congregate; o0 Visitors to the site; and

∂o Offsite: o0 Members of the public and residents; o0 Travelers using rest area to east of the facility; and o Offsite personnel and workers The closest receptors or sensitive land uses to the site are shown in (APPENDIX B) and summarised as follows: ∂0 Sensitive residential receptors are to the east of the site, the closest being approximately 1.3 km from the proposed landfill. ∂o The rest area located approximately 750metres to the east of the site. ∂. Flora and fauna including: Remnant vegetation communities; including least concern and of concern RE identified as areas of state environmental significance approximately 1km from the site and potential for EVNT species presence within remnant vegetation areas. ∂. Waterways:Watenlvays: The site is located between two local waterways , Lagoon Creek to the NW and the Alice river to the SE both approximately 1.5km1.5km form the site ∂. Wetlands: wetland habitat, mapped as RE 1-50% wetland (mosaic units), the landfill site will be approximately 750m from the edge of the mapped wetland areas located to SW of the site.

6.4 Risk Assessment Our qualitative risk assessment rates the proposed activity as an overall ‘Acceptable’‘Acceptable‘ risk as described below. The qualitative risk assessment was adapted from the UK Environment Agency Guidance on the management of landfill gas (2004). The likelihood categories, severity categories, severity likelihood matrix and Risk evaluation scores are provided in Tables 11 and 2.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Landfill Gas Management Plan —– Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility Page 6

TableTable 11 Likelihood Categories

Category Range 1 Extremely unlikely Conditions are theoretically possible, but are unheard of in the landfill 2 Very unlikely Conditionsindustry are rarely encountered in the landfill industry Conditions are encountered several times in the landfill industry, 3 Unlikely however it is reasonable to assume that these conditions will not Conditionspresent themselves are assumedonsite to present themselves onsite during the 4 Somewhat unlikely lifetimelifetime of the landfilllandfill Conditions are assumed to present themselves onsite several times 5 Fairly probable during the lifetimelifetime of the landfill 6 Probable Conditions are assumed to present themselves onsite

TableTable 2 Severity Categories

Category Definition

1 Minor No health impacts Nuisance on site only No off site complaint

Noticeable nuisance off-site .e.g. discernible odours, loose rubbish Minor 2 Noticeable breach of permitted emission limits, but no environmental harm One or two complaints from the public Sustained nuisance, .e.g. strong offensive odours First aid required 3 Significant Numerous public complaints

Large environmental release or incident which directly affects offsite 4 Severe receptors Hospital treatment required Public warning and off-site emergency plan invoked Major evacuation of local population (residents) Permanent disabling injuriesinjuries sustained or fatality Serious toxic effect on beneficial or protected 5 Major Major species Widespread but not persistent damage to land

Substantial offsite impacts to broader environment, long-term environmental damage, extensive clean-up required 6 Catastrophic Complete failure of environmental protection controls Site shutdown

TableTable 3 Severity Likelihood Matrix

LikelihoLikelihoodod SeveritySeveri of consequence Minor Noticeable Significant Severe Major Catastrophic

Extremely unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very unlikely 2 4 6 8 10 12 Unlikely 3 6 9 12 151 5 18 Somewhat unlikely 4 8 12 16 20 24 Fairly probable 5 10 15 20 25 30 Probable 6 12 18 24 30 36

TableTable 4 Risk Evaluation

Magnitude of risk Score Insignificant 6 or less Acceptable 8 to 12 Unacceptable 15 or more

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Landfill Gas Management Plan —– Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility Page 7

The risk levels identified in Table 5 are described; ∂. Insignificant:Insignificant: the risk is negligible or low impact to receptors, perhaps reported by the public as a nuisance. ∂o Acceptable: the risk to the receptorsreceptors is considered to be acceptable due to control measures and available monitoring data. ∂0 Unacceptable: the risk to receptors is considered high due to lack of data, or control actions. Assessment of potential risks is based on the sensitivity of receptors and potential impacts. Due to the proportion of putrescible waste estimated to be received at the site, the associated LFG generation is unavoidable, as discussed in Section 5. Potential hazards include; fire, explosion, asphyxiation, toxicity to humans, flora and fauna, odour, corrosive gases and emission of greenhouse gases. However due to the location of the site, the scale of production and large buffer zones, the risks are considered to be low. The mitigation measures listed identify strategies to reduce the risk of LFG to the health and safety of persons potentially affected and the environment. ∂. The landfill cells have been designed with a minimum one kilometre buffer zone to permanent residents and approximately 700m from the rest area on the Landsborough Hwy. ∂. The proposed capping systems are designed to BPEM standards to minimise the uncontrolled migration of generated LFG. ∂0 Regular monitoring of sub surface LFG at the perimeter of the site detect if LFG is migrating outside the landfill footprint in high concentrations. ∂0 Regular monitoring of surface emissions detects LFG emissions identifying if levels are within safe working guidelines. Table 5 presents the results of the Risk Assessment

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 _0:0_00N_ __0::00 Barcaldine0:_0_00:0m_ Regional Council x00§>0=0> 0:0E000:0_>_ w ___..0:0._ 0:0E000:0_>_ 0>:n_ 0:00>> >:__00u_ 0001 000 :0_n_ Landfill Gas Management Plan –I Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility Page 8 *0 2k m «gm Table 5 AssessmentNCQEwwwqx of Risk 63:000.". x0: 0005.005 _0>0._ 00 :05. “00: :000004 0.20000m E. 90350.". :3 0:_00_xm 0.0::00 00:0:000:oo 0.050... Location Hazard or._o Receptors Potential Impact Pathways for risk Existing Controls Likelihood Consequence Level of Risk Environmental.0“:0E:o.__>:m_ Element/Aspect“00:0<\u:050_m_ _0._0u0._ 00 E00000 9 :_::>> :0_u0._0_E :0:0_x>::0< 0:_._0::0_>_ 0__0>> Within Lateral migration of Employees,.000>0_:Em_ Asphyxiation Monitoring wells adjacent to 0“: 00:00:00 :0:0..£ 00.6::0E 2 0:: 0:0 0:200:80 0: _‘

the site LFG generated Contractors, ._E0:0._

through Landfill, to be monitored m 0:0 :0 m E0030: :_::>> 0:: 0:00; 0:00:

:0:0_:E:000 2:0:000 1 00.02 _0E0.:xm_ boundary within the waste and public accumulation of quarterly. >>_0x__:3 5 5 Major “:00c_:0_0:_ 00:00:00 :0 on: 00:0:00 0:: Extremely :_ deposited at the users..0000: LFG in confined Insignificant 0:0

00:0:00 :3 Unlikely 9:0 0:03 00000 site spaces..000000 :0 on: Confined space entry work will :0_u0._0__>_ E0: 2005:: 00:000.. Migration of LFG from 0: :0 0:0 :0 _E0:0_ :0095 unlikely be required on site :0_00_0xm_ :0 0:: Explosion or fire of the0:: landfill through on: 00:::00 __000_00: :_ 0:: 0a 00:83 :0 _0:0:00 0 LFG in confined the rock/soil profile. 0:__E0:0_ Limited landfilling of general 5 00:00:00 .000000 0003 E0: spaces. 1 “:00c_:0_0:_ _0Er0:xm >>_0v___:3 m .

waste generated from 8.02

Ecwm Insignificant :0003000 Extremely 5 Major community (Approx..xEQAQCV population ﬂ 0 0000 0 wo Unlikely of 1600 people) _0:0_00m_ on: H :0: 0000: 0“: :_::>> :0:0_x>:00< 0: >0 :0_u0:0_E Within Residual LFG Employees,.000>o_0Em_ Asphyxiation The risk posed by LFG migration :0005 :0005 ___>> 0:: 0:0 0:::0> 0:900:80 the site venting through Contractors, through within:_::>> trenches00:0:0: will be0: 0:0 :0 00009000 9 E0050: 00:0:0: :0 0:00: 8:058:80 5:: 0:0:0>00x0 boundary trenches or and public r

accumulation of addressed prior to excavations m on: 00:0:00 < m

0:0:0>00x0 0:00: 1 :_ 00:03 0500090 .202 0&0:m >>_0v___:3 excavations users. .0:_0:0EEoo 5 LFG in confined commencing. A works procedure 5 Major “:00=_:0_0:_ :000 00:30: “0:: Extremely spaces000000 such as00 pits0:0 is0_ required that documents0::080000 Insignificant ::00: 0:0 3000

:0 0:580:30: Unlikely

or drains..0590 health and safety requirements .020 0: 02808800 00:03 .6 On: Migration8:00.03 of LFG fromSo: prior to commencing works. __%cm_ 5039.: 0.: . .6 E 0.0 :0_00_0xm_ 0

the landfill through 00:0:00 :3 0:03 x00:\__00 2:90 00000 EEO Explosion of fire of 0:“

0903:5000 Confined space entry work will 000 :_

the soil/rock profile 2005:: 00:309. accumulated gas in 0:0 0:390:02: 0: :0 0:0

c: 00: unlikely be required on site 00 0 0 0000 and underground 9 0 confined spaces, 002200 00:0:0: :.0:0

00 0 0: :0 services to trenches E00080 9 :0 such as pits or 0::0::0§ 0__0>> or excavations..0:0:0>00x0 Monitoring wells adjacent to r 0 .806 €23 8 88:85 9 m

drains. 1 8.02 m. _ Landfill, to be monitored >M 5 5 Major E00:_:0_0:_ ﬂ 2:00:03: Extremely mmm Insignificant quarterly. Unlikely __< 00>0E0: All ignition:0_::0_ sources000500 are00 removed 00:00.:0 E0: 0::

from the affected area..020 goo: 09000 0:.Som 00:0_0000< George Bourne &.m Associates 140010 August0:02 2017:8 5:063”. 200300 Barcaldinemc_0_mo.mm_ Regional Council xom_>>o__0> .cmEmmmcm_>_ a ___.vcm._ .cmEmmmcm_>_ 0>_.n_ 0.mm>> >.___0mu_ 0mm& mmo cm_n_ Landfill Gas Management Plan –I Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility Page 9 0.30: .0

Hazard or _m_...o.0n_ gm: 20....00 002.59.: _0>0._ .0 m .000:._ Location02.0004 Environmental_m.:o:.:0._>_.m_ Receptorsm.0.0000m_ Potential Impact Pathways90.550."— for.0. risk Existingm:_.m_xm Controls Likelihood Consequence0020300300 Level of Risk Element/Aspect.000m<..:o:.o_m_ 000300. .0 On: .095 .3000. .3 00020. m .0 0:0 c_r_._>> 0.._. 609.2025 02:00 .30 mc_.0._..0_>_ 0. 00 Within the Risk of odour,.3000 and Employees, Odour caused by Direct release of LFG 0. 0... 90.38.50 02.08.00. Monitoring to be carried out .0002: 0:0 0. 000.2. .0 ___.0..m_ .000 000.00 9.. 000.30 0E

.m.0.0m..coo ineffective cap, to the atmosphere

site impact to human Contractors, 590.... 0000000: 0.

£80.. 0:0 across the surface of the landfill b09300 0:030 62.005 2000 .000 damage to cap, through uncapped :0 0 0_00_.0n_ .mmmEmv boundary health. and public .0 0:0 09.00090 0.9.002 0.00.5 .0 on a biannual basis. Periodic 0.0m: .0 .0 3:095 stagnation of leachate waste and or 9.2.00q 0... 0...

users. .cmcm 02.0.0090 0.9.002 inspections of the integrity of the _ __..0 0 . .. .0000 ﬁ MMM_...w.0%% 9...: :0. 0... evaporation pond. stagnantm leachate

02.0.0090 landfill cap during routine evaporation pond..0000 operations. 4v .mcsmEow N w 05002.02 050.008.... .0 .mSomm mm: E_.0.c_ .0>00 Somewhat 2 Noticeable 8 Acceptable

Regular use of interim cover 293:: during9.230 waste0.00.5 fillingoc___... operations.002.9000 Unlikely __...0..m_ .cm__0:.00

Compliant landfill cap..000 .0 Recirculation:0_.m_:o._00m of leachate0.9.002 5.0.0:. 5030.... _E0..m_ 000 material through landfill and usemm: .0 of deodorising050200000 products0.2.00.0 when00...... required.00.500. m .0 009.00 .0 On: .025 ___.0..m_ .cm__ao cE._>> 0:. 0286.8 co_mo_0xm_ $020. .mmm>0_aEm_ Within the Risk of explosion Employees, Explosion caused Direct release of LFG Compliant landfill cap..000 .0 site0:0 Contractors,0.069.000 by>0 buildup0:250 of gasman to0. the05. atmosphere0.0500086 000 5030.5. 0000000: b00500 0:030 02.9.0808 2.9.030 .0 boundary and public concentration through uncapped 0:20:00...

0:0 Quarterly monitoring of 0.00: m_0>0_ 0.00.5 .0 0.9.002 momtzwnzw .

users. levels and waste or leachate .wmm

.0 0:00 subsurface gas.

80000.0 02.0.0005 1 m 30.02.03 m presence of evaporation pond. .205. 5 02:09 E85355

__< 00>0Eo. Extremely 5 Major 02:09 000.300 0.0 39:75 ignition sources..mmoSow All ignition sources are removed Insignificant

00.00.06 Unlikely fromE0... the0:. affected area,60.0 09.5.05... E 0000 Emc fi machineryom... maintained in good repair..500. Foo: 0 09000 0:.30m_ w0.m_00ww< George Bourne &.m Associates 140010 August.99... 2017tom _mco_mow_ __oc:oo BarcaldineoEENBNm. Regional Council xom§>o=m> 2mm>> EmEmmmcm 350m". op ___.6cm._ EmEmmmcm $25 mama mmo cm_n_ I fi Landfill Gas Managementfi Plan – Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility Page 10 Hana... .6 .mzcouom xm: £05200 3005.95 _o>o._ ho m

Hazard or gonna... 20:30.. who 36353 .8 mcz cocosuomcoo .mucoE:O.__>:m_ fi ooom fl Location Environmental Receptors Potential Impact Pathways for risk Existingxm Controls Likelihood Consequence Level of Risk Hooamiuco fi Element/Aspectom. Encouoa 3982 023:0 co_um_x>cn_m< 20380.. 0.5 m 3.23 :mto 8:99;; Outside o Asphyxiation Potential receptors are located a 59.25 or: 0% Lateral migration Offsite 0595228 mocmum E0: o5 ho on: £9.25 8098 the site through considerable distancefi from the ho _Evcm_ “memos £528.. Emvcsom co_ EEK _‘

of LFG through ﬁ

persons _:E:oom saw

Boundary or: 89:5

accumulation of landfill closest residents >1km m 2 0”: E 82:28 _Evcm_ vcm :52 m

or: 1 9.: E0: a: the sub surface 8.82 boEobxm. 5

to the 320%

LFG in confined from the landfill and built up 5 Major EmoEcE Loam bo Extremely mmomqm mm mama Exm.m E0: ﬁ éxoaam ho 0“: geology 285:: 2039.92 E0: North,.582 spaces such as areas approximately 3.5km from Insignificant Snow :25; 8.6228 Migration of LFG from 9% Unlikely mEmEmmmn ._o mv_o> m5 9m 50:95 9E South, basements or voids 9.: 9.: the site which are considered cam “mm; 295.88 285:: 889% the site through the 2 Eva: mg mc 3280 .mmEEEn ﬁ West and under buildings. csotsm extremely unlikely to be affected B. “mam. surrounding geology 3 vcm 23993::

East of by LFG..0”:

m5 mam and underground ho ﬁ 9 zcmE co_mo_axm Lo 2: the site Explosion or fire of $223

services to residential saw _m>m_ on: 855E308 can @826 mmo. 9.20q2. c_ LFG accumulated in mmEmQEQ 550 Sub surface gas level monitoring

properties and other _Evcm_ ___>> Emom 9 85:50 9.: me $0Q ﬁ m confined spaces .moEESn adjacent to the landfill will be

buildings. 85:88 25:35 9 Loam @255 such asmw basementsmucmEmmwn monitored quarterly to provide 26m *0 mEEQs mgmto c8998 r go mv_o> $95

or voids under early warning of offsite migration m

*0 __%cm_ 1 mmbxm m 5.52

.mmm 5 .mmEESn buildings. of landfill gas. Extremely 5 Major EmoEcQwE Unlikely>_mv___c3 Insignificant vcw mcw c028 mExo ﬁ mE

Methane and carbon dioxideﬁ vEm 28265 9 emitted indirectly to the9: 5995 :8 atmosphereEmcamoE through the9t soil orLo ﬁ x09. 395 86936 9 rock are96 likely to bemo dissipated vcm U926 ztocm Eta

and diluted shortly after release..mmmm fi : 9 The9:. pathway>m>>£ma to basementsmEmEmm orLo 852950 voidswv_o> isw_ considered incomplete063885 9 9 26 $396238 moc fi due to considerable distancewzu to subsurfacemomtzwnzw structures.$23026 050: 0980 mEsom wmgm_ooww< George Bourne &.m Associates 140010 August“99% 2017SN N _mco_mow_ __oc:oo BarcaldineoEENBNm. Regional Council xom§>o=m> 2mm>> EmEmmmcm 350m". 3 ___.6cm._ EmEmmmcm 025 mama mmo cm_n_ I fi Landfill Gas Managementfi Plan – Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility Page 11 Hana... .6

Hazard or .mzcouom xm: £05200 3005.95 _o>o._ ho m gonna... 20:30.. .mucoE:O.__>:m_ who 99553 .8 mcz cocosuomcoo fi ooom fl Location Environmental Receptors Potential Impact Pathways for risk Existingxm Controls Likelihood Consequence Level of Risk Hooamiuco fi Element/Aspectom. fi “.382 scouon. Asphyxiationco_um_x>r_am< Potential receptors20389 are0.6 located am 59.25 2295228 mocmum E0: 05

through considerable distanceﬁ from the ho _Evcm_ _‘A “memos 32028.. co_ Ex r mmb ﬁ accumulation_:E:oom of landfill closest residents >1km m 0“: vmcccoo _Evcm_ cam :59

c_ E9: 9.: a: 1 Extremely 295::

m . 5 LFG in confined from the landfill and built up .6q EmoEcE Loam Exmd

mmomqm mm mama >_9mE_xo._q E9: Unlikely spaces such as areas approximately 3.5km from 5 Major Insignificant :25; 85228 3:3: 6% m5 mgm 9m

utility trenches,.8505: pits, the site which are considered 295.58 vmuomtm 2 865:9: ._o >_mx__c: mg

manholes or drains..9:v extremely unlikely to be affected E ___%cm_ by the9: landfill ho 9 5___S 9:. 8:99;. mac. 9E5 29:03 m. _ . L w ax :98 Lo 9: 0 The migration of gas to utility

Offsite workers 2 2:9: 9 $5825 >_9___c: 26

c_ 3:05: Lo Explosion or fire of on: 863E308 c_ structures is highly unlikely due to

in trenches or 65:369. 9 m5 moc 396

mcozw>moxm LFG accumulated in ﬁ E50 um: . m mmomam excavations the distanceﬁ to residential areas, 9 . momtsmnsm 8:99;. mmcccoo confined spaces, m Loam“ . . by“: mm subsurface migration to confines r mmbxm

mmbxm m 5 8Q 896 m_ >_9___c: 5.32 such as utility 1 Extremely EmoEcQwE 0:9. 5 space areas is extremely unlikely _mv___c3 5 Major > Insignificant trenches,.3 pits,.m Unlikely mm_occmE Lo 93w _m>m_ .mEEv manholes or drains. momtsm mmm accoEoE Sub surface gas level monitoring _Evcm_ ___>> Emom 9 9: me ﬁ adjacentm to the landfill will be 88:88 3.953 3305 monitored quarterly to9 provide 35m .6 early warning@2595 of offsitemtmto migration8:998 ”6 ___.6cm_

of landfill gas..mmm goo: @980 mEsom wEm_ooww< George Bourne &.m Associates 140010 August“994‘ 2017EN N _mco_mmw_ __oc:oo mc fifi Barcaldineemm Regional Council xom§>o=m> 2wm>> EmEmmmcm 350m". NF ___.6cm._ EmEmomcm 025 mama wmo cm_n_ I fi Landfill Gas Management Plan – Yellowjack Drive Waste Managementfi Facility Page 12 Hana... Hazard or.6 620529.35 .3229". gm: £95200 3005.95 _o>o._ ho m page. who 39553 .8 mcz oocosuomcoo 20:30.. fi ooom fl Location Environmental Receptors Potential Impact Pathways for risk Existingxm Controls Likelihood Consequence Level of Risk Hooamiuco fi Element/Aspectom. ho 20:33.2 ho 0”: 68:: 2 wgmto :25: 205992 E0: ho Migration of Offsite Impact to human Migration of LFG from 9:382 Bug/vases 5.m vcm

9% Monitoring of groundwater r6325 98:95 c_ m5 9.: 820mm? ___>> 8 dissolved @22q

.vw>_omm workers in health and the site through the @22q c_

ho dissolved methane will be menace: ._o co_umc_EmEoo mc 320mm 33: 2m cmxmtwvc: :0 cm mm ﬁ methane in csotsm 9232 ﬁ trenches or contamination of surrounding geology ._o vcm

BE undertaken on an as needs basis. mc_>_omm_v 9.: .mcozgmoxm leachate or excavations, groundwater..hwumz and dissolving into the «553235 ﬁ csem mgmto $532305 8.6238 9 9:. $3:q m_ mg groundwater. offsite groundwater system..Emugm

952mm; The pathway is considered to be _mo_tm> 92982: residents mm 99.: m_ EmA N or vcm

incomplete as there is >5m vertical >._m> __%cm_ :8 acum $95q 9.: 2 Very 10 m .

and ﬁ amm 282:: .6q

separation between the landfill cell m5m§woo< 99:03 vcm 9m 9: 5633306 5 Major Acceptable workers. waste and the groundwater level.._m>m_ Unlikely __< vm 5633306 3058 2m ﬁ All groundwater sources are locatedoe vcm 9% A > 2.5kmEm fromSo: the9: site and are2m 55% *0 :9: A drawnc266 fromEot am depth of > 100m,£59 high *0 82036 on: concentrationsmcozmbcmocoo of dissolved LFG 96 am;

are very unlikely..>_9___c: Foo: 0 09000 mEsom wEm_ooww< George Bourne &.m Associates 140010 August“99% 2017SN N Barcaldine Regional Council Landfill Gas Management Plan —– Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility Page 13

7.0 MONITORING PROGRAM Based on the results of the risk assessment for the proposed development a monitoring program is proposed to undertake periodic monitoring of landfill gas emissions from the facility. The monitoring program performance is based on ERA 60 model operating conditions action levels provided inin Table 6.

TableTable 6 LandfillLandﬁll Gas Action Levels

Action level and Monitoring Location Parameter(s) unit Frequency Subsurface geology at or beyond the Subsurface geology at or beyond the Methane landfilllandfill site boundary Methane 50,0000 ppm Quarterly concentration in air 50’0000 ppm Quarterly

50mm above the final and Methane intermediateintermediate cover surface includingincluding 500 ppm Quarterly concentration in air the batter slopes of the landfilllandfill unit

The landfill site boundary when Methane The landfill site boundary when Methane 12,500 ppm Quarterly measured in facility structures concentration in air 12’500 ppm Quarterly

7.1 Landfill Subsurface Emissions Monitoring The proposed subsurface monitoring locations for LFG are the test hole sites drilled in the initialinitial hydrogeological investigationinvestigation of the site located on the northern and southern boundaries of the site. These have been constructed with perforated casings between the depths of approximately 2-11m.2—1 1 m. Each well has been constructed with adequate security cover to prevent damage by vandals, animals, natural processes and operational machinery. Sampling at each well will be undertaken on a quarterly basis using a calibrated gas monitor, monitored in accordance with the current industry safe work practices. The ERA 60 Model Operating action levels for subsurface geology at the landfill boundary are provided in Table 6.

7.2 Landfill Gas Surface Emissions Monitoring The objective of surface gas emission monitoring is to demonstrate that dangerous levels of LFG are not flowing freely into the atmosphere in high concentrations. Surface emission monitoring is proposed to be carried out on a quarterly basis. Surface emissions monitoring will involve a 15m15m grid site walkover of landfill cells with a calibrated gas monitor in accordance with the current industry safe work practices to detect methane concentrations in parts per million (ppm). The site walkover will help to identify any point sources or fissures that may be emitting LFG.

7.3 Landfill Gas Accumulation Monitoring Buildings or structures at the facility will be monitored for the accumulation of LFG. The objective of monitoring of methane build up in buildings and structures is to protect human health. Monitoring is to be undertaken on a quarterly basis for all site buildings. Emissions monitoring, will be conducted with a calibrated gas monitor, in accordance with the current industryindustry safe work practices to detect methane concentrations inin parts per million (ppm).

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Landfill Gas Management Plan —– Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility Page 14 8.0 CONTINGENCYCONTINGENCYPLANNING PLANNING IfIf action levels are exceeded, the DEHP will be notified within 24 hours unless rectified beforehand. Remedial action will take place and further monitoring will be undertaken to demonstrate the effectiveness of the remedial works. A landfill gas remediation action plan may be required to be prepared and forwarded to the DEHP that details additional control measures required to be undertaken. The following remediation strategies are proposed as contingency measures in the event of a detection of LFG exceeding action levels.

8.1 Subsurface Gas Emissions IfIf uncontrolled laterallateral LFG emissions that exceed LFG Action levels are detected the extent of the lateral migration will be established through increased monitoring frequency and installationinstallation of additional monitoring wells ifif required. IfIf subsurface action levelslevels are exceeded; remediation of uncontrolled LFG emissions is likely to be required. Remedial actions may include and are not limited to; ∂ IncreasedIncreased frequency of monitoring; ∂ InvestigationInvestigation into the source of the LFG; ∂ Notify neighbor properties, workers, and DEHP; ∂ Subsurface extraction drains.

8.2 Surface Gas Emissions Corrective action for the exceedance of surface gas emission action levels may include; ∂0 InvestigationInvestigation into the source of the LFG surface emission; ∂. Review of waste screening processes to ensure unacceptable waste is not being accepted at the Site; ∂. Providing thicker cover material or changing the cover material to an alternative material; ∂. Repairing or replacing cover material or landfill cap materials and surface erosion control methods such as vegetation establishment; ∂o Repairing or replacing surfaces around cap penetrations. 8.3 Accumulation of LFG in Facility Structures Where there is an exceedance of 1250012500 ppm methane inside a building or structure, evacuation and immediate notification of emergency services is required. DEHP and other relevant regulatory bodies will also be notified. Daily testing will be undertaken until implementedimplemented control measures are proved effective. These control measures include; ∂. ImprovementImprovement to ventilation within the building or structure; ∂. IncreasedIncreased frequency of monitoring; and/or ∂0 IdentificationIdentification and remediation of nearby LFG sources. 8.4 Odour For off-site odour complaints, the following remedial actions will be implemented; ∂ Record complaint details in register; ∂ InvestigateInvestigate the source of the odour; ∂ Confirm if odour is caused by landfillingIandfilling activities; ∂ Undertake remedial actions at source of odour if required, i.e implement leachateIeachate odour management operations procedures identified in the LEMP; and ∂0 Notify the complainant that investigation was undertaken and remedial actions taken.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Landfill Gas Management Plan —– Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility Page 15 9.0 CONCLUSIONS This LFG Management Plan has been developed to address the requirements for LFG management for the proposed Barcaldine waste management facility in accordance with current regulations. This Landfill Gas Management Plan was prepared to support the Development Approval and may be subject to change during the future operation of the facility. The facility will be categorized as a general waste landfill with the acceptance of select regulated waste streams; accordingly LFG production is expected. The proposed site conditions were simulated to estimate the expected LFG generation, modelling results indicateindicate a relatively lowlow flow of LFG isis expected from the facility, with a peak flow in the order of 94 m³/hourm3/hour of landfill gas will be produced during the operational life of the landfill and reducing markedly into the post closure period.

Based on this rate, LFG management monitoring strategies are proposed. The proposed LFG Monitoring system is designed to ensure LFG concentrations remain below safe limits within and beyond the facility, ongoing monitoring of the site will provide qualitative data for determining the concentration levels at the prescribed locations of the site and; ∂. Prevent impacts to health, safety and the environment; ∂. Prevent off site nuisance odours; and ∂0 Meet regulatory requirements. The Plan provides a summary of existing site conditions and LFG monitoring systems and addresses the management of LFG for the proposed development. A LFG risk assessment has been prepared as a basis for the LFG monitoring strategy. Based on our risk assessment it is concluded that potential risks are considered to be Acceptable.

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Landfill Gas Management Plan —– Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility

Appendix A LandGemLandGem ModelModel Output

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Landfill Gas Management Plan —– Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility

Total landfill gas Methane Year (m3/year)(m3lyear) (m3/hr)(m3lhr) (m3/year)(m3lyear) (m3/hr)(m3lhr) 2017 0 0 2018 14080.0919714080.09197 1.6073164351 .607316435 7040.045984 0.803658217 2019 55675.91396 6.355697941 27837.95698 3.17784897 2020 95285.36629 10.8773249210.87732492 47642.68315 5.43866246 2021 133005.3676133005.3676 15.1832611515.183261 15 66502.68382 7.591630573 2022 168928.1099168928.1099 19.2840308119.28403081 84464.05497 9.642015407 2023 203141.2889 23.18964485 101570.6445 11.59482243 2024 235728.3233 26.90962595 117864.1617 13.45481298 2025 266768.5637 30.45303239 133384.2819 15.22651619 2026 296337.4905 33.82848066 148168.7453 16.91424033 2027 324506.9032 37.04416703 162253.4516 18.52208352 2028 351345.0993 40.10788805 175672.5497 20.05394402 2029 376917.0458 43.02706002 188458.5229 2121.51353001.51353001 2030 401284.5409 45.80873755 200642.2705 22.90436877 2031 424506.3693 48.45963148.4596311919 212253.1846 24.2298156 2032 446638.4484 50.98612424 223319.2242 25.49306212 2033 467733.9688 53.39428867 233866.9844 26.69714434 2034 487843.5268 55.68990032 243921.7634 27.84495016 2035 507015.2513 57.87845335 253507.6257 28.93922668 2036 525294.924 59.96517397 262647.462 29.98258699 2037 542726.0936 61.9550335161 .95503351 271363.0468 30.97751676 2038 559350.1851 63.85276085 279675.0925 31.9263804331 .92638043 2039 575206.6032 65.66285425 287603.3016 32.83142713 2040 590332.831 67.38959258 295166.4155 33.69479629 2041 604764.5233 69.03704604 302382.2617 34.51852302 2042 618535.5963 70.60908633 309267.7981 35.30454317 2043 631678.3118 72.10939633 315839.1559 36.05469816 2044 644223.3587 73.5414793 322111.67933221 1 1.6793 36.77073965 2045 656199.9287 74.90866766 328099.9644 37.45433383 2046 667635.7902 76.21413131 333817.8951 38.10706565 2047 678557.3573 77.46088554 339278.6787 38.73044277 2048 688989.7559 78.65179862 344494.8779 39.32589931 2049 698956.8864 79.7895989 349478.4432 39.89479945 2050 708481.4837 80.8768817 354240.7419 40.43844085 2051 717585.1741 81.91611577 358792.5871 40.95805788 2052 726288.529 82.90964943 363144.2645 41.4548247241 .45482472 2053 734611.1167 83.85971652 367305.5583 41.9298582641 .92985826 2054 742571.5511742571.551 1 84.7684419 371285.7755 42.38422095 2055 750187.5383 85.63784684 375093.7692 42.81892342 2056 757475.9211757475.921 1 86.46985401 378737.9606 43.23492701 2057 764452.7208 87.26629233 382226.3604 43.63314616 2058 771133.1772 88.02890151 385566.5886 44.01445075 2059 777531.7872 88.75933644 388765.8936 44.37966822 2060 783662.3405 89.45917129 391831.1703391831 .1703 44.72958565 2061 789537.9545 90.12990348 394768.9772 45.06495174

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Landfill Gas Management Plan —– Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility

Total landfill gas Methane Year (m3/year)(m3lyear) (m3/hr)(m3lhr) (m3/year)(m3lyear) (m3/hr)(m3lhr) 2062 795171.1066 90.77295738 397585.5533 45.38647869 2063 800573.666 91.3896879191 .38968791 400286.833 45.69484395 2064 805756.9231 91.9813839191 .98138391 402878.4615 45.99069196 2065 810731.6174 92.54927139 405365.8087 46.27463569 2066 815507.9649 93.09451654 407753.9824 46.54725827 2067 820095.6833 93.61822869 410047.8417 46.80911435 2068 824504.0167 94.12146309 412252.0083 47.06073155 2069 784292.4813 89.53110517 392146.2406 44.76555258 2070 746042.0856 85.16462164 373021.0428 42.58231082 2071 709657.1837 81.01109403 354828.5919 40.50554702 2072 675046.7945 77.06013636 337523.3972 38.53006818 2073 642124.3738 73.30186916 321062.1869 36.65093458 2074 610807.5986 69.72689481 305403.7993 34.86344741 2075 581018.1605 66.32627403 290509.0802 33.16313701 2076 552681.5704 63.09150347 276340.7852 31.5457517431 .54575174 2077 525726.9722 60.01449454 262863.4861 30.00724727 2078 500086.9652 57.0875531 250043.4826 28.54377655 2079 475697.4361 54.30336028 237848.718 27.15168014 2080 452497.3984 51.6549541551 .65495415 226248.6992 25.82747707 2081 430428.8398 49.13571231 215214.4199 24.56785615 2082 409436.5776 46.73933534 204718.2888 23.36966767 2083 389468.1201 44.45983106 194734.06 22.22991553 2084 370473.5357 42.29149951 185236.7679 2121.14574976.14574976 2085 352405.3282 40.22891874 176202.6641 20.120.114459371445937 2086 335218.3175 38.26693122 167609.1588 19.13346561 2087 318869.5272 36.40063096 159434.7636 18.20031548 2088 303318.0769 34.62535124 151659.0384 17.31267562 2089 288525.0797 32.93665294 144262.5399 16.46832647 2090 274453.5455 31.3303134231 .33031342 137226.7728 15.66515671 2091 261068.2882 29.802316 130534.1441 14.901158 2092 248335.8375 28.3488399 124167.9188 14.17441995 2093 236224.3558 26.96625066 118112.1779 13.48312533 2094 224703.558 25.651091125.651091 1 112351.779 12.82554555 2095 213744.6362 24.40007262 106872.3181 12.20003631 2096 203320.1873 23.21006704 101660.0936 11.60503352 2097 193404.1447193404.1447 22.07809871 96702.07236 11.03904936 2098 183971.7133183971.7133 21.0013371321 .00133713 91985.85664 10.50066857 2099 174999.3069174999.3069 19.9770898319.97708983 87499.65347 9.988544917 2100 166464.49166464.49 19.0027956719.00279567 83232.24502 9.501397833 2101 158345.9211158345.9211 18.0760183918.07601839 79172.96053 9.038009193 2102 150623.2994150623.2994 17.1944405717.19444057 75311.649687531 1.64968 8.597220283 2103 143277.3144143277.3144 16.355857816.3558578 71638.65718 8.177928902 2104 136289.5973136289.5973 15.5581732115.55817321 68144.79864 7.779086603 2105 129642.6752129642.6752 14.7993921514.79939215 64821.3376 7.399696073

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Landfill Gas Management Plan —– Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility Total landfill gas Methane Year (m3/year)(m3lyear) (m3/hr)(m3lhr) (m3/year)(m3lyear) (m3/hr)(m3lhr) 2106 123319.9273123319.9273 14.0776172714.07761727 61659.96366 7.038808637 2107 117305.5435117305.5435 13.3910437813.39104378 58652.77175 6.695521889 2108 111584.48461 1 1584.4846 12.7379548712.73795487 55792.24231 6.368977433 2109 106142.4451106142.4451 12.1167174812.11671748 53071.2225553071 .22255 6.058358738 2110 100965.817100965.817 11.5257781911.52577819 50482.90848 5.762889096 211121 1 1 96041.6559696041 .65596 10.9636593610.96365936 48020.82798 5.481829678 2112 91357.64913 10.4289553810.42895538 45678.82456 5.21447769 211321 13 86902.08401 9.920329224 43451.04243451 .042 4.960164612 2114 82663.81936 9.436509059 41331.9096841331 .90968 4.718254529 2115 78632.25731 8.976285081 39316.12866 4.488142541 211621 16 74797.31687 8.538506492 37398.65844 4.269253246 2117 71149.40868 8.122078617 35574.70434 4.061039308

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 Barcaldine Regional Council Landfill Gas Management Plan —– Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility

Appendix BB Sensitive ReceptorReceptor MapMap

George Bourne & Associates 140010 August 2017 5:063. __oc:oo mEEmo ﬁ Barcaldinem Regional Council xom_>>o__m> 2mm>> EmEmmmcmE 350m“. ___.6cm._ EmEmmmcmE m>_._n_ mmO cm_n_ Landfill Gas Management Plan –I Yellowjack Drive Waste Management Facility Igg._ \ imgw lull. llll $49. .,.r _ .. 233 3:355 .0330”. nus. ‘_ _ . * EV: 1 o.. 52:33 8588mm océacmgams. 92939 ._ 4 55, noEaQa Exm 2w . 0 . 0mm Emonoi .__Ec m. ﬁ 4 ._ o 02:03 Em: 281 or. .__ o 35q ‘3 m S ”in.“ “53..., n I 0891‘ w George09000 BourneoEzom & Associatesmo§oomm< 140010 August“gag 2017SN N