Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED
ABN: 95 006 829 787
Ardlethan Tin Mine
Prepared by
Pitt & Sherry Pty Ltd
December 2016
Specialist Consultant Studies Compendium Volume 1, Part 1
Groundwater Impact
Assessment
This page has intentionally been left blank
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED
ABN: 95 006 829 787
Prepared for: R.W. Corkery & Co. Pty Limited
62 Hill Street
ORANGE NSW 2800
Tel: (02) 6362 5411
Fax: (02) 6361 3622
Email: [email protected]
On behalf of: EOE (No.75) Pty Limited
ABN: 95 006 829 787
Level 2, 53 Berry Street
NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2060
PO Box 1506
NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2059
Telephone: (02) 9959 5599
Fax: (02) 9959 5577
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Pitt & Sherry Pty Ltd
Surrey House
199 Macquarie Street
Hobart TAS 7000
Tel: (03) 6210 1400
Fax: (03) 6223 1299
Email: [email protected]
Job Number No: HB16462
December 2016
Groundwater Impact
Assessment
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 2
Note: A colour version of this report is available on the digital version of this document
This Copyright is included for the protection of this document
COPYRIGHT
© Pitt & Sherry Pty Ltd 2016
and
© EOE (No.75) Pty Limited 2016
All intellectual property and copyright reserved.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright
Act, 1968, no part of this report may be reproduced, transmitted, stored in a retrieval system or adapted in any form or by any
means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without written permission. Enquiries should be
addressed to Pitt & Sherry Pty Ltd.
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 3
Pitt and Sherry Groundwater Assesment Groundwater Impact Assessment
Job Number HB16462
Prepared for RW Corkery & Co Pty Ltd | 15 December 2016
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES
Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 4
Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-7
1.1 Study Area .......................................................................................................... 1-7
1.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................... 1-7
1.3 Scope of Work .................................................................................................. 1-11
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 1-11
3. Legislative Context ..................................................................................................... 1-12
3.1 Water Management Act .................................................................................... 1-12
3.2 Water Sharing Plan ........................................................................................... 1-12
3.3 Aquifer Interference Policy ................................................................................ 1-12
4. Existing Environment .................................................................................................. 1-13
4.1 Site Location ..................................................................................................... 1-13
4.2 Geology ............................................................................................................ 1-15 4.2.1 Regional Geological Setting .................................................................. 1-15 4.2.2 Local Geology ....................................................................................... 1-15
5. Existing Groundwater Environment ............................................................................. 1-18
5.1 Background ...................................................................................................... 1-18
5.2 Regional hydrological and groundwater setting ................................................. 1-19
5.3 Regional Water Bore Inventory ......................................................................... 1-20
5.4 Regional and intermediate scale numeric groundwater modelling ..................... 1-21
5.5 Adopted study area for the GIA ......................................................................... 1-23
5.6 Groundwater Quality ......................................................................................... 1-23 5.6.1 1995 Groundwater sampling event ........................................................ 1-23 5.6.2 Groundwater sampling event in 2011 .................................................... 1-24 5.6.3 Groundwater sampling event in 2016 .................................................... 1-27
5.7 Historic Site Observations ................................................................................. 1-28 5.7.1 Anecdotal groundwater observations ..................................................... 1-28 5.7.2 Geotechnical investigations for site rehabilitation in 1995 and 1997 ...... 1-29
5.8 Groundwater Levels .......................................................................................... 1-33 5.8.1 Water table depths at the Mine Site ....................................................... 1-33 5.8.2 Water level in the AWC Open Cut ......................................................... 1-33 5.8.3 Analytical estimates of groundwater inflow to the AWC Open Cut ......... 1-33
5.9 Conceptual Model ............................................................................................. 1-35
6. Classification under AIP .............................................................................................. 1-41
6.1 Groundwater Source ......................................................................................... 1-41
6.2 Level 1 Minimal Impact Considerations ............................................................. 1-41 6.2.1 Water Table ........................................................................................... 1-41 6.2.2 Water pressure ...................................................................................... 1-42 6.2.3 Water Quality ......................................................................................... 1-42
7. Impacts Assessment for SEARs ................................................................................. 1-42
7.1 Preliminary water balance for the AWC Open Cut catchment ........................... 1-42
7.2 Changes in water table in the AWC Open Cut .................................................. 1-42
7.3 Groundwater use-inflows/outflows .................................................................... 1-47
7.4 Changes in groundwater quality in the AWC Open Cut ..................................... 1-47
8. Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 1-49
9. References ................................................................................................................. 1-50
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 5
List of tables
Table 1: Groundwater environmental issues extracted from Table A2-2 of DPE (2016) ......... 1-9
Table 2: Surface and groundwater analyses, November 1995 ............................................. 1-24
Table 3: Recent water table depths and field parameters from three 1995 geotechnical drill holes, and the AWC Open Cut ..................................................................... 1-27
Table 4: Analysis of groundwaters and water from the AWC Open Cut, November 2016 .... 1-28
Table 5: Summary of 1995 geotechnical drilling .................................................................. 1-30
Table 6: Typical permeability ranges for unconsolidated materials. Red type indicates materials like those described in Table 2 for the Mine Site .................................. 1-31
Table 7: Summary of 1997 excavator test pitting (Source: Amaral 1997) ............................. 1-32
Table 8: Estimates of annual groundwater flow from the sides and bottom of the AWC Open Cut ............................................................................................................ 1-35
Table 9: AWC Open Cut estimated freeboard and groundwater flow conditions during tailings reprocessing ........................................................................................... 1-45
Table 10: Trace metal analysis of tailings samples, November 2016 ................................... 1-48
Table 11: Leachate testing of tailings samples, November 2016 ......................................... 1-48
List of Figures
Figure 1: Regional Location ................................................................................................... 1-8
Figure 2: Site Layout ........................................................................................................... 1-14
Figure 3: Regional geology of the Ardlethan district ............................................................. 1-16
Figure 4: Local geology of the Mine Site .............................................................................. 1-17
Figure 5: Aspects of the land-based hydrological cycle........................................................ 1-18
Figure 6: Fundamentals of hydrogeology in a gravity-driven groundwater system, with local, intermediate and regional groundwater systems ........................................ 1-19
Figure 7: Mine Site Location within Murrumbidgee River Basin. .......................................... 1-20
Figure 8: Recorded groundwater bores drilled in the past century in the Ardlethan district .. 1-22
Figure 9: Dissolved constituents in groundwater in the Main Pit and surface water from the northeast and northern evaporation ponds. Locations of samples are otherwise unspecified. ........................................................................................ 1-25
Figure 10: Dissolved constituents in surface water in the Mill Valley Catchment. ................. 1-26
Figure 11: Conceptual half-cross section and simple analytical model through the Ardlethan/Wild Cherry Open Cut ......................................................................... 1-34
Figure 12: Conceptual hydrogeological model of the Mine Site: Section A – B .................... 1-36
Figure 13: Conceptual hydrogeological model of the Mine Site: Section C – D .................... 1-37
Figure 14: Conceptual hydrogeological model of the Mine Site: Section E – F .................... 1-38
Figure 15: Conceptual hydrogeological model of the Mine Site: Section G – H .................... 1-39
Figure 16: Conceptual hydrogeological model of the Mine Site: Section I – J ...................... 1-40
Appendices
Appendix 1 .......................................................................................................................... 1-53
Appendix 2 .......................................................................................................................... 1-59
Appendix 3 .......................................................................................................................... 1-62
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 6
Prepared by: Date: 15 December 2016
William Cromer
Reviewed by: Date: 15 December 2016
Edith O’Shea
Authorised by: Date: 15 December 2016
David Lenel
Revision History
Rev No.
Description Prepared by Reviewed by Authorised by Date
A Draft for comment WC EO DL 12/12/16
B Draft for comment WC EO DL 14/12/16
00 Final WC EO DL 15/12/16
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 7
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 STUDY AREA
R.W. Corkery & Co. Pty Ltd (RWC) commissioned Pitt & Sherry to compile a Groundwater Impact Assessment (GIA) Report to support an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposal to rehabilitate and reprocess tailings at the historic Ardlethan Tin Mine (the “Mine Site”) in south-central New South Wales. The regional location is shown in Figure 1.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
Issues required to be addressed in the EIS are listed in the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE), Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) issued on 1 September 2016. Those issues paraphrased from the SEARs (Table A2-1) specifically relating to the GIA Report are:
an assessment of the likely impacts of the development on the quality and quantity of groundwater resources, having regard to the requirements of DPI Water, EPA and Council (Attachment 2); and
a detailed description of the proposed, water monitoring program and other measures to mitigate groundwater impacts.
The environmental issues required to be covered in the EIS are listed in Table A2-2 of the SEARs, with those specifically relating to the current GIA Report summarised in Table 1.
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 8
Figure 1: Regional Location
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 9
Table 1: Groundwater environmental issues extracted from Table A2-2 of DPE (2016)
Govt. Agency
Paraphrased Requirement Relevance to Report
EPA 26/07/16
A detailed and contemporary hydrogeological impact assessment that documents local and regional groundwater features and includes a comprehensive description of the measures that will be implemented in the Ardwest/Wild Cherry open cut pit to protect groundwater.
All
DPI – Office of Water
2/08/16
Assessment of potential impacts to surface water and groundwater resources, water users, riparian land and groundwater dependent ecosystems, and measures proposed to reduce and mitigate these impacts. Assessment against the NSW Aquifer Interference Policy (2012) using DPI Water’s assessment framework will be required where groundwater is intercepted or potentially impacted. This is especially relevant to the Ardwest/Wild Cherry Open Cut.
All and see EIS
Section 6
Details of water proposed to be taken (including through inflow and seepage) from each surface water and groundwater source
Section 7.2
Groundwater Assessment
To ensure the sustainable and integrated management of groundwater sources, the EIS needs to include adequate details to assess the impact of the project on all groundwater sources including:
Any proposed groundwater extraction, including purpose, location and construction details of all proposed bores and expected annual extraction volumes.
N/A
Bore construction information is to be supplied to the DPI Water by submitting a “Form A” template. The DPI Water will supply “GW” registration numbers (and licence/approval numbers if required) which must be used as consistent and unique bore identifiers for all future reporting.
N/A
A description of the watertable and groundwater pressure configuration, flow directions and rates and physical and chemical characteristics of the groundwater source (including connectivity with other groundwater and surface water sources).
Section 5
Sufficient baseline monitoring for groundwater quantity and quality for all aquifers and GDEs to establish a baseline incorporating typical temporal and spatial variations.
Section 5.9
The predicted impacts of any final landform on the groundwater regime. Section 6, Section 7
The existing groundwater users within the area (including the environment), any potential impacts on these users and safeguard measures to mitigate impacts.
Section 5.3
An assessment of groundwater quality, its beneficial use classification and prediction of any impacts on groundwater quality.
Section 5.3
An assessment of the potential for groundwater contamination (considering both the impacts of the proposal on groundwater contamination and the impacts of contamination on the proposal).
Section 7
Measures proposed to protect groundwater quality, both in the short and long term. Section 7
Measures for preventing groundwater pollution so that remediation is not required. Section 7
Protective measures for any groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs). Section 6
The results of any models or predictive tools used. Section 5.9
Where potential impact/s are identified, the assessment will need to identify limits to the level of impact and contingency measures that would remediate, reduce or manage potential impacts to the existing groundwater resource and any dependent groundwater environment or water users, including information on:
Any proposed monitoring programs, including water levels and quality data. Section 7
Reporting procedures for any monitoring program including mechanism for transfer of information. Section 7
An assessment of any groundwater source/aquifer that may be sterilised from future use as a water supply as a consequence of the proposal.
N/A.
Identification of any nominal thresholds as to the level of impact beyond which remedial measures or contingency plans would be initiated (this may entail water level triggers or a beneficial use category).
N/A.
Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems
The EIS must consider the potential impacts on any Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) at the site and in the vicinity of the site and
Identify any potential impacts on GDEs as a result of the proposal including:
the effect of the proposal on the recharge to groundwater systems; Section 6
the potential to adversely affect the water quality of the underlying groundwater system and adjoining groundwater systems in hydraulic connections; and
Section 6
the effect on the function of GDEs (habitat, groundwater levels, connectivity). N/A.
Detailed modelling of potential groundwater volume, flow and quality impacts of the presence of an inundated final void (where relevant) on identified receptors specifically considering those environmental systems that are likely to be groundwater dependent;
N/A.
The measures that would be established for the long-term protection of local and regional aquifer systems and for the ongoing management of the site following the cessation of the project.
Section 7
EPA 26/07/16
Potential impacts on water quantity and quality A hydrogeological assessment must be undertaken to assess potential groundwater impacts. In particular, the proponent must.
a) Comprehensively determine whether the water contained within the Ardwest/Wild Cherry Open Cut includes any intercepted groundwater;
Section 5.8
b) Identify surrounding groundwater users that may be affected by any adverse impact on groundwater quantity or quality;
Section 5
c) Quantify the impacts that any proposed water extraction may have on the groundwater source; and Section 7
d) Detail any potential groundwater quality impacts from this proposal and identify appropriate measures that will be undertaken to mitigate any potential adverse impact.
Section; EIS
Coolamon Shire
Council 17/08/16
Permeability: The proponent needs to establish the existing water table and soil permeability of the disposal area of the site, in particular the Wild Cherry Pit. Whilst it has regularly been advised that it is impermeable, there has been no documentation or proof to verify this statement.
Section 5
This page has intentionally been left blank
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 11
1.3 SCOPE OF WORK
This GIA Report is based on:
a review and compilation of relevant hydrogeological information from a variety of
sources,
the construction of a subregional numeric groundwater model,
use of a empirical analytical groundwater model to estimate hydrological conditions at
the Ardwest/Wild Cherry Open Cut (AWC Open Cut),
the extent to which current understanding of the hydrogeology of the Mine Site
addresses the requirements of the NSW Aquifer Interference Policy (AIP), and the
DPE’s SEARs dated 1 September 2016 for the Proposal, and
a recent site inspection of the Mine Site by RWC, including water sampling, and
laboratory testing of surface and groundwaters.
This GIA Report also classifies the Mine Site groundwater system(s), and reviews Table 1 of
the NSW AIP in relation to minimal impact considerations.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Applicant proposes to seek development consent for the following (Figure 2).
Extraction of approximately 10 million tonnes (Mt) of tailings from the Main and Spring
Valley Tailings Storage Facilities.
Transportation of approximately 9.5Mt of pre-flotation tailings to the run-of-mine (ROM)
Pad.
Transportation of approximately 0.5Mt of post-flotation tailings to the White Crystal
Open Cut which has previously been used for placement of post-flotation tailings.
Reprocessing of the extracted tailings using a gravity separation reprocessing plant to
produce a tin concentrate suitable for sale to international customers.
Transportation of the tin concentrate from the Mine Site to port via road.
Rehabilitation of sections of the Mine Site, including:
– the footprints of the Main and Spring Valley Tailings Storage Facilities;
– the former processing plant, workshop and office area; and
– other areas disturbed as a result of the Applicant’s activities.
Placement of the reprocessed tailings into the Ardwest/Wild Cherry Open Cut.
Four reprocessing stages over about 13 – 15 years are proposed:
Stage 1 250,000tpa
Stage 2 500,000tpa
Stage 3 1Mtpa
Stage 4 1.5Mtpa
Water from the AWC Open Cut will be used to slurry the tailings for processing. Except for minor fugitive losses during operations, it is assumed that the process water circuit is closed.
Operations will raise the level of the water in the AWC Open Cut.
The Proposal is a Designated Development, with Coolamon Council the determining authority.
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 12
3. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
3.1 WATER MANAGEMENT ACT
The Water Management Act, 2000 (WMA) guides water management activities in NSW. The objectives of the WMA are the sustainable and integrated management of the state's water for the benefit of both present and future generations.
The main tool the WMA provides for managing the state's water resources are Water Sharing Plans (WSP). These are used to set out the rules for the sharing of water from a particular water source between water users and the environment, and include rules for the trading of water in a particular water source.
3.2 WATER SHARING PLAN
The Mine Site is covered by the Water Sharing Plan for the NSW Murray-Darling Basin Fractured Rock Groundwater Sources specifically the Lachlan Fold Belt MDB Groundwater Source. Which commenced in January 2012.
The NSW Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) fractured rock groundwater sources are located within the NSW portion of the MDB. In general, the plan area includes all fractured rock groundwater sources of the MDB that are not included in other water sharing plans. The plan also includes miscellaneous, unmapped alluvial sediments that overly outcropping fractured rock groundwater sources as well as porous rock sediments that occur within groundwater sources that are predominantly fractured rock.
The Lachlan Fold Belt MDB Groundwater Source covers an area of 16,722,000 hectares. It consists of Cambrian to Lower Carboniferous rock successions.
3.3 AQUIFER INTERFERENCE POLICY
The NSW Aquifer Interference Policy, 2012 (AIP) details the water licensing and impact assessment processes for aquifer interference activities under the WMA and other relevant legislation.
There are three key parts to the policy:
All water taken must be properly accounted for.
The activity must address minimal impact considerations for impacts on water table,
water pressure and water quality.
Planning for measures if the actual impacts are greater than predicted, including
making sure that there is sufficient monitoring in place.
This GIA Report classifies the Mine Site groundwater system(s), and reviews Table 1 of the
AIP in relation to minimal impact considerations.
AIP issues include:
Accounting for or preventing the taking of water.
Addressing the minimal impact considerations.
Proposing remedial works if impacts are more than expected.
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 13
Minimal impacts relate to:
Changes in the water table.
Changes in potentiometric (piezometric) levels.
Changes in groundwater quality.
4. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
4.1 SITE LOCATION
The Mine Site is located about 5.5km WNW of Ardlethan in the shire of Coolamon.
The site has a history of mining dating back to the discovery of tin in 1912. Large scale hard rock mining operations were undertaken from 1964 to 1986 by Ardlethan Tin NL. Further recovery of alluvial tin (in the form of cassiterite) was undertaken by Telminex NL (a subsidiary of Marlborough Resources NL) between 2000 and 2003. All mining at the site ceased in 2003.
Rehabilitation activities have been undertaken in the past, including reinstatement of alluvial mining areas and removal of processing and office infrastructure, although the majority of the site has not been rehabilitated.
The following are located at the site:
A number of filled Tailings Storage Facilities
Three open cut pits (Stackpool, Ardwest/Wild Cherry and White Crystal)
A number of dams and water management features including bunds and pipes
Stockpiles which may include tailings and overburden material
Waste Rock Dumps
Site roads and access tracks, and
Perimeter fencing.
The location of major site features is indicated in Figure 2.
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 14
Figure 2: Site Layout
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 15
4.2 GEOLOGY
4.2.1 Regional Geological Setting
The Mine Site is in the western part of the Lachlan Fold Belt1 within what is called the Wagga Anticlinorial Zone. The oldest rocks are Upper Ordovician clastic sedimentary rocks which have been tightly folded in a north to north-northwest trend, and undergone low-grade regional metamorphism (Paterson, 1990) (Figure 3).
The Upper Ordovician sediments have been intruded by two types of Upper Silurian granitic rocks (Figure 5): the Kikoira Suite (map symbol SG1; dated at about 417 million years) of muscovite-biotite adamellites2 and similar rocks, and a younger group of porphyries and volcanics including the Ardlethan Suite (map symbol SG2; dated at 410 million years).
The sediments and two suites of granites are unconformably overlain by Late Devonian clastic
sediments called the Cocoparra Group, which has been gently folded along north-northwest
trending axes.
4.2.2 Local Geology
In the Mine Site area (Figure 4), the Upper Ordovician sediments were first intruded by the
Mine Granite, a weakly foliated biotite-muscovite adamellite with low tin values, and narrow
metamorphic aureoles, with graded outwards alteration of the intruded country rocks to schists,
then phyllites and slates (Lannen, 1996).
The Mine Granite was then intruded by narrow (up to 5m wide) dykes of olivine basalt (now
altered and brecciated) followed by high level porphyritic intrusives (Kikoira Granite; SG1) and
related extrusions (lavas) of rhyolite, dacite and ignimbrite.
Lastly, the Ardlethan Granite (SG2) was emplaced, trapping at the upper levels of the magma
chamber a volatile-rich porphyry which explosively intruded the Mine Granite, forming
hydrothermal breccias and an alteration pipe with major chloritic alteration, and hosting
cassiterite-wolframite-pyrite-arsenopyrite-bismuthinite mineralisation (tin up to 15,000ppm).
During the Quaternary and Tertiary Periods, erosion produced cassiterite-bearing alluvial
deposits emanating from the subdued uplands around the Mine Site.
1 The Lachlan Fold Belt or Geosyncline is a large geological terrane stretching from Tasmania to Queensland along the eastern
portion of the Australian continent. It is composed of folded and faulted rocks of Middle Palaeozoic age (450 to 340 million years ago). 2Adamellite is a light-coloured, coarse-grained granite with roughly equal proportions of pink orthoclase and white plagioclase
feldspars.
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 16
Figure 3: Regional geology of the Ardlethan district [after Paterson (1990)]
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 17
Figure 4: Local geology of the Mine Site
*Based on Paterson (1990)] but including the mine site boundary, tailings dams, open cuts, surface water catchments, borehole and excavator test pit locations, and cross sections.
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 18
5. EXISTING GROUNDWATER ENVIRONMENT
5.1 BACKGROUND
Critical to an understanding of the hydrogeology of the Mine site and surrounds are the
concepts of hydrological cycle3, groundwater systems4 at local, intermediate and regional
scales, and recharge and discharge conditions (Figure 5 and Figure 6).
It is important to note that discharge conditions create Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems
(GDE), and recharge conditions create Groundwater Independent Ecosystems (GIE).
Figure 5: Aspects of the land-based hydrological cycle
3 The hydrological cycle is the circulation of water in various phases through the atmosphere, over and under the earth’s surface,
to the oceans, and back to the atmosphere. The cycle is solar-powered. Because water is a solvent it dissolves elements, and geochemistry is a fundamental part of the cycle, which is a flux for water, energy, and chemicals. Water enters the land-based cycle as precipitation; it leaves as surface streamflow (runoff), evapotranspiration, or subsurface infiltration. The route which groundwater takes from a recharge point to a discharge point is a flow path.
4 A groundwater system can be defined (Sophocleous, 2004) as “a set of groundwater flow paths with common recharge and
discharge areas. Flow systems are dependent on the hydrogeologic properties of the soil/rock material, and landscape position. Areas of steep or undulating relief tend to have dominant local flow systems (discharging to nearby topographic lows such as ponds and streams). Areas of gently sloping or nearly flat relief tend to have dominant regional flow systems (discharging at much greater distances than local systems in major topographic lows or oceans).” A three-dimensional closed groundwater flow system that contains all the flow paths is called the groundwater basin. In areas of moderate to high relief, the near-surface dominant groundwater flows to depths of the order of a hundred metres or so will be as local systems, with recharge on elevated areas discharging to streams. As depth increases, the dominant groundwater flows become increasingly intermediate and then regional in nature. It is therefore important to recognise the local site in the context of the larger groundwater system.
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 19
Figure 6: Fundamentals of hydrogeology in a gravity-driven groundwater system, with local, intermediate and regional groundwater systems [Adapted from Sophocleous (2004)]
5.2 REGIONAL HYDROLOGICAL AND GROUNDWATER SETTING
The Mine Site is located within the central north sections of the Murrumbidgee River Basin, some 50km southwest of the Basin’s northeast boundary (Figure 7).
Within the catchment area, groundwater flow directions are towards surface drainage lines at all scales: at a local scale, flow is towards minor streams in small catchments; at an intermediate scale, flow is towards longer watercourses in larger catchments; at a regional scale, flow is towards major rivers.
On this basis, it would be expected that intermediate and regional flows in the vicinity of the Mine Site would be in a generally southwest direction, towards and under Mirrool Creek to the Murrumbidgee River.
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 20
Figure 7: Mine Site Location within Murrumbidgee River Basin.
*Adapted from waterinfo.nsw.gov.au/pinneena/interactive/410-mbg-map2.pdf
5.3 REGIONAL WATER BORE INVENTORY
Figure 8 shows the locations of 40 groundwater bores drilled in the past century over an area of some 1,000km2 centred on the Mine Site. Available records of the same bores are tabulated in Appendix 1. Relevant observations are
The average depth drilled was 79m (range: 8m to 218m).
Bedrock types recorded in drillers’ logs included limestone, sandstone, shale,
conglomerate and granite in varying degrees of weathering (from “hard rock” to “pug”).
Unconsolidated sediments included sand, clay and gravel, in some instances to depths
of tens of metres.
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 21
Groundwater was reportedly encountered in 18 (45%) of the 40 bores. The average
reported standing water level in 16 of the 18 bores was 55m below ground (mbg; range
3mbg to 72mbg).
Reported bore yield averaged 0.7L/s (range 0.01L/s to 5L/s). Only one yield exceeded
1.5L/s, and if this outlier is excluded from the data, the average yield reduces to 0.4L/s.
Four out of the 40 bore records include a comment about groundwater quality. In one
bore, quality was recorded as “good”. Another was stated to have TDS in the range
1,000 – 3,000mg/L, and a third had a TDS of >14,000mg/L.
These notes suggest a highly variable groundwater quality with TDS ranging between
1 000mg/L and 14,000mg/L.
No known groundwater users within a radius of at least 5km of the Mine Site were
identified.
The review of from the regional bore inventory indicates/suggested:
Groundwater conditions are unconfined at all scales; there is no artesian water to the
depths drilled, so no potentiometric (piezometric) surface exists.
The unconfined bedrock types are fractured rock aquifers.
The unconsolidated sediments constitute alluvial, unconfined aquifers.
Drilling success rates are low; almost all bores were abandoned.
Bore yields are low (average 0.7L/s, with no yields exceeding 5L/s) reflecting low
permeability aquifers.
Groundwater quality data are sparse, and suggest a fair degree of variability in salinity,
(from low to high); beneficial use of the groundwater would vary similarly.
The paucity of bores over a relatively wide area spanning a century suggests low
groundwater prospectivity. In terms of the AIP groundwater source categories, the
regional aquifers in the area covered in Figure 8 and Appendix 1 are considered “Less
productive groundwater sources”.
5.4 REGIONAL AND INTERMEDIATE SCALE NUMERIC GROUNDWATER MODELLING
Appendix 2 presents the results of numeric groundwater modelling covering about 120km2 centred on Mine Site. The modelling is based on water level data in two bores north and south of the Mine Site, and water level records of five bores drilled within the Mine Site boundary in 1995. Other inputs were estimated in the absence of actual measurements.
The main observations arising from the modelling are:
Groundwater flow directions are from the northeast to the southwest, in agreement with
the direction inferred from basic hydrogeological principles. At a local to intermediate
scale, flow directions vary. Groundwater flow rates also vary, from very slow over most
of the modelled area, to higher rates on lower, flatter ground. The low flow rates are
caused by very low permeability fractured bedrock, and the high flow rates by higher
permeability unconsolidated alluvials.
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 22
Figure 8: Recorded groundwater bores drilled in the past century in the Ardlethan district
*Source:http://allwaterdata.water.nsw.gov.au//water.stm
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 23
Water table elevations across the modelled area range from about 250m Above Sea
Level (ASL) on elevated areas within the mine site boundary, decreasing to below
140mASL on the surrounding plains to the southwest. Steep water table gradients
south of the mine site boundary relate to topography and changes in rock types across
geological boundaries. Modelled water table elevations agree within approximately 10m
of observed elevations in the bores, which is a robust result given the paucity of field
measurements.
The model was developed specifically to explore groundwater conditions at regional and intermediate scales. Its “cell size” is too coarse to shed any useful detail on local-scale groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the AWC Open Cut.
5.5 ADOPTED STUDY AREA FOR THE GIA
The local geological map of the Mine Site and environs (Figure 4) encompasses the relatively
elevated topography of the Mine Site and extends outwards in all directions to include the
surrounding plains. This range of geological and topographic features encompasses all
possible groundwater issues in relation to the proposed rehabilitation and reprocessing
operation, and is therefore the defined study area.
Figure 4 is a compilation from various sources, and includes:
bedrock geology;
superficial Quaternary alluvial deposits;
tailings storage facilities;
topography;
surface water catchments (numbered 1 – 6);
the AWC, White Crystal and Stackpool Open Cuts;
the Mine Site boundary;
approximate locations of bore holes and excavator test pits dating from 1997; and
the locations of five cross sections used to generate five conceptual hydrogeological
models across the study area (refer Figure 4).
5.6 GROUNDWATER QUALITY
5.6.1 1995 Groundwater sampling event
Analyses of seven groundwater and surface/shallow seepage water samples collected during
the 1995 geotechnical drilling program are summarised in Table 2.
A distinct chemical difference existed between the two water types:
the groundwater in the three shallow bores exhibited near-neutral pH and salinity in the
1,000 – 3,000mg/L range (average 1,800mg/L), and is predominantly of the sodium
chloride – calcium/magnesium bicarbonate type with mostly non-detectable trace
metals.
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 24
surface and shallow seepage waters from tailings in Spring Valley and Mill Valley were
noticeably acidic (pH in the 2.6 – 3.1 range), of variable but generally higher salinity
(range 1,500 – 9,000mg/L; average 4,500mg/L), and were of variable major-ion
chemistry with elevated sulphate and trace metals.
Table 2: Surface and groundwater analyses, November 1995
All results in mg/L
pH TDS Na Ca K Mg Cl F NO3 SO4 HCO3 PO4
BH3 7.4 1060 380 13 12 8.5 380 2.4 <0.1 75 330 <0.1
BH5 7.4 3240 760 110 29 120 240 1.8 <0.1 1740 440 0.1
BH9 7.1 1290 420 18 12 26 550 1.7 <0.1 180 120 <0.1
Fresh Water Dam 3.1 8830 2910 500 220 570 970 3.2 <0.1 5290 <1 <0.1
Mill Valley Dam 2.6 4170 150 125 1 190 140 1.5 1.7 2930 <1 1.2
Spring Valley #2 3.1 1470 85 40 <0.1 29 16 3..3 1.3 1055 <1 0.15
Spring Valley #3 2.8 3640 280 175 93 220 240 6.4 <0.1 2323 <1 <0.1
All results in mg/L
NH3-N CN
Phenol Al Cu Pb Zn Cd Cr Fe Mn As Hg
BH3 <0.1 ND ND <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.04 <0.01 <0.00
1
BH5 0.2 ND ND <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.00
1
BH9 <0.1 ND ND 0.4 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.21 <0.01 <0.00
1
Fresh Water Dam 21 ND ND 33 1.6 0.04 260 0.37 0.02 27 110 <0.01
<0.001
Mill Valley Dam 1 ND ND 76 34 0.03 270 1.4 0.04 295 31 0.62 <0.00
1
Spring Valley #2 <0.1 ND ND 95 60 0.02 115 0.92 <0.01 7.4 7.8 0.02 <0.00
1
Spring Valley #3 10 ND ND 0.4 2.1 0.03 105 0.12 0.01 125 27 <0.01 <0.00
1
Notes
Compiled from Amaral (1997) and Appendix G of Lavis (2011)
Borehole (BH) numbers correspond to those in Figure 4 and Table 5.
The Fresh Water Dam is located at the lower end of the Spring Valley Catchment
The Mill Valley Dam is located at the lower end of the Mill Valley Catchment
Spring Valley #2 and #3 are located on the tailings surface and at the toe discharge respectively, upgradient from the Fresh Water Dam
5.6.2 Groundwater sampling event in 2011
Lavis (2011) resampled surface and groundwater from the catchments of the Spring Valley
and No. 1 Tailings Dams, and elsewhere on the Mine Site. Figure 9 and Figure 10 are two of
Lavis’ chemical variation diagrams.
Collectively, the water quality results in Table 2 and Figure 9 and Figure 10 are of limited
comparative value since they involve sampling events sixteen years apart.
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 25
Figure 9: Dissolved constituents in groundwater in the Main Pit (AWC Open Cut), and surface water from the northeast and northern evaporation ponds. Locations of samples are otherwise unspecified.
*Reproduced without amendment from Lavis (2011)
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 26
Figure 10: Dissolved constituents in surface water in the Mill Valley Catchment. Dark blue = Reclaim wall; orange = Borehole BH5; aqua = Borehole BH9. *Reproduced without amendment from Lavis (2011)
In summary:
The Northern evaporation ponds appear to have a different chemical signature, which may indicate a lack of connectivity with the AWC Open Cut as inferred by the flow directions of the regional numerical model.
The North Eastern ponds are influenced by runoff from waste rock emplacements upslope.
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 27
Groundwater down gradient of the Mill Valley Catchment appears to be influenced by seepage from Mill Reclaim Dam.
5.6.3 Groundwater sampling event in 2016
RWC conducted limited resampling of the 1995 shallow geotechnical bores that were able to be located, and of the water in the AWC Open Cut, in November 2016. Results5 are summarised in the two tables provided below.
Table 3 summarises field parameter recorded for groundwater in drill holes BH1 and BH9 (BH10 was dry) and the AWC Open Cut. Drill hole BH1 is located downslope from the Spring Valley Tailings Dam, and drill hole BH9 is downstream of the Northern Evaporation Ponds.
The groundwaters are of neutral to slightly acid pH (similar to the 1995 results), and the water
in the AWC Open Cut is acidic (pH = 3.1). BH9 returned a field salinity of about 18,500mg/L,
fifteen times higher than the salinity recorded in 1995 (Table 5). The salinity of approximately
4,000mg/L for the Open Cut is consistent with that recorded by Lavis (2011) in Figure 9.
The laboratory analyses in Table 4 generally confirm the field-measured pH and salinities of the samples. The two groundwaters differ considerably in their character: that from BH1 is sodium sulphate water, whereas that from BH9 is dominantly a sodium chloride water. Both show relatively low trace metals (except for manganese in BH1). The dominant major ions in the AWC Open Cut are sodium, magnesium, sulphate and chloride, with relatively elevated dissolved zinc (130mg/L).
Table 3: Recent water table depths and field parameters from three 1995 geotechnical drill holes, and the AWC
Open Cut
WGS84
Easting Northing Elevation (mASL;
GPS)
Depth (m) to water table
Depth (m) to base bore
Temp (0C)
DO (ppm)
EC
(µS/cm) pH
ORP (mV)
Notes
BH1 485739 6200510 272m 0.12m 6.7 17.4 5.7 3950 7.1 -72 Water approx. 0.10m above ground level. Well purged dry after 20L removed. Allowed to recover over 30 mins and then sampled.
BH9 486926 6202497 250m 4.64 7.9 19.8 3.74 18490 5.9 13 Well purged dry after 10L removed. Allowed to recover over 2 hrs and then sampled.
BH10 486798 6201490 265m Dry 14.5 - - - - - Well dry.
AWC Open Cut
- - 20.6 5.14 3930 3.1 493 Sampled at bottom of ramp. Water level was approx. 1m below top of tongue in centre of pit.
Notes Data provided by RWC, December 2016
DO = Dissolved Oxygen EC = Electrical Conductivity ORP = Oxidation Reduction Potential
5Emailed to Pitt & Sherry December 2016
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 28
Table 4: Analysis of groundwaters and water from the AWC Open Cut, November 2016
Sample Units LOR BH1 BH9 AWC Open Cut
Date sampled 8/Nov/16 8/Nov/16 8/Nov/16
pH pH Units 7.2 6.5 3.1
Electrical Conductivity µS/cm 1 7,100 26,000 4,500
Total Dissolved Solids (grav)
mg/L 5 6,100 21,000 4,200
Calcium - Dissolved mg/L 0.5 250 2.6 150
Potassium - Dissolved mg/L 0.5 72 90 14
Sodium - Dissolved mg/L 0.5 1,500 8,100 500
Magnesium - Dissolved mg/L 0.5 420 890 250
Hydroxide Alkalinity (OH-) as CaCO3 mg/L 5 <5 <5 <5
Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 5 330 89 <5
Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 5 <5 <5 <5
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 5 330 89 <5
Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 3,500 2,400 1,800
Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 490 8,200 500
Nitrate as N in water mg/L 0.005 0.37 12 0.5
Aluminium-Dissolved µg/L 10 30 <10 29,000
Arsenic-Dissolved µg/L 1 100 1 6
Barium-Dissolved µg/L 1 14 19 10
Cadmium-Dissolved µg/L 0.1 2.3 0.3 1,600
Chromium-Dissolved µg/L 1 <1 <1 3
Copper-Dissolved µg/L 1 11 2 17,000
Iron-Dissolved µg/L 10 <10 <10 12,000
Mercury-Dissolved µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Manganese-Dissolved µg/L 5 5,800 43 23,000
Molybdenum-Dissolved µg/L 1 160 1 <1
Nickel-Dissolved µg/L 1 33 9 540
Lead-Dissolved µg/L 1 <1 7 79
Selenium-Dissolved µg/L 1 <1 1 7
Zinc-Dissolved µg/L 1 1,300 82 130,000
Silicon*- Dissolved mg/L 0.2 26 11 22
Notes
LOR = Limit of Reporting
Samples collected by R. W. Corkery Pty Ltd
Participating laboratory: NATA-accredited Envirolab Services, Chatswood, 2067
Laboratory report 157182 dated 21 November 2016
5.7 HISTORIC SITE OBSERVATIONS
5.7.1 Anecdotal groundwater observations
Several reviewed documents [Iliff (1996), Amaral, 1997), Mineral Resources NSW (1998), Perram & Partners (1998), Kolback (1999), EES (2003), Lavis (2011)] include or repeat anecdotal evidence of groundwater conditions at the Mine Site during large-scale open cut mining (1965 – 1986), and subsequently during geotechnical investigations for possible tailings reprocessing in the late 1990s.
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 29
Observations of relevance to the present report are:
During open cut and underground mining, no major aquifers were encountered.
Groundwater was never encountered in production drilling.
Water pumped from underground averaged less than 2L/s, ranging from 50 – 70MLpa.
Areas exposed by mining remained dry for the life of the mine.
Blasting of wall rocks had no observable effect on water inflow into the open cuts.
5.7.2 Geotechnical investigations for site rehabilitation in 1995 and 1997
In November 1995, nine shallow power augured and diamond drilled holes (BH1 – BH9) were
installed across the mine site. Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) was done during drilling,
and soil and water samples submitted for laboratory Atterberg Limits testing and chemical
analyses respectively. The bores were screened, and falling head permeability testing done.
Figure 4 shows the bore locations (including two former mine site bores), and Table 5 summarises bore hole logs and permeability results. The bores, all of them downgradient of water storage or collection dams, are scattered over the study area and provide useful indications of near-surface geology and permeability.
Materials tested included unconsolidated sand/silt/clay/gravel mixtures (presumably near-
surface soils and/or weathered bedrock) and bedrock including granite, siltstone and
sandstone – all within the surface 10m or so.
Permeability in 11 bores ranged from about 5 x 10-10m/s to 4 x 10-9m/s (4 x 10-5 to
3 x 10-4m/day). This is a relatively small range, which increases confidence in applying similar
permeability values across the area.
The geometric mean permeability of the results is 1 x 10-09m/s (1 x 10-4m/day).
Table 6 shows that the measured permeabilities for the ‘Material tested’ column in Table 5 are within the expected range for those materials.
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 30
Table 5: Summary of 1995 geotechnical drilling
Permeability
Bore hole
Depth (m)
Collar RL (m;
approx.)
Depth (m) to water
(m/s) (m/day) Tested interval (m)
Material tested Comment
BH1 8.0 270+/-2 5.1 5 x 10-10
4 x 10-05
5.1 – 8.0 EW HW granite Affected by
Tailings Dam
BH2 9.02 269+/-2 0.3 2 x 10-09
2 x 10-04
1.4 – 5.3 VD silty sand/gravel (N.50)
Affected by Tailings Dam
BH3 8.45 255-256 5.6 1 x 10-09
1 x 10-04
5.5 – 8.4
VSt to H clay/sand/gravel (N26 – 33)
Affected by water supply dam
BH4 6.1 259-260 "Below 5.3m…"
3 x 10-09
2 x 10-04
0 – 6.1
0-3m clay/sand/silt (N18->50); 3-6.1 siltstone, sandstone; subvertical joints
Affected by Reclaim Dam; may not be stabilised
BH5 7.3 258-259 2.9 2 x 10-09
2 x 10-04
4.8 – 7.3
0-7m clay/sand/silt (St-VSt; N13-23); 7-7.3 siltstone, sandstone
Affected by Reclaim Dam; may not be stabilised
BH6 >10 260-262 "Dry" 2 x 10-09
1 x 10-04
0 – 10.0 soil and EW rock
BH7 >10 258-260 "Dry" 2 x 10-09
1 x 10-04
0 – 10.0 soil and EW rock
BH8 >10 261.5-263.5 "Dry" 1 x 10-09
1 x 10-04
0 – 10.0 soil and EW rock
BH9 8.0 246 5.3 2 x 10-09
1 x 10-04
0 – 8
Hard clay/sand/silt/gravel (N>30)
Affected by evaporation ponds
P585 17.1 248
4 x 10-09
3 x 10-04
"Below RL
255"
Affected by White Crystal Pit
P591 17.4 249
5 x 10-10
4 x 10-05
"Below RL
248"
Affected by White Crystal Pit
Geometric mean 1 x 10-09
1 x 10-04
Notes
From Tables 2, 3 and 4, and borehole logs, of Amaral (1997) Blank cell indicates no data reported Elevations for bores 1 – 9 estimated from contour map P585 and P591 are mine drill holes Permeability tests are described as "Variable head permeability tests" – i.e. falling head tests
Reported permeabilities are rounded to 1 decimal place HW = Highly Weathered; EW = Extremely Weathered D = Dense; H = Hard; VSt = Very Stiff; VD = Very Dense N>50 means more than 50 blows/0.3m from Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 31
Table 6: Typical permeability ranges for unconsolidated materials. Red type indicates materials like those described in Table 2 for the Mine Site
Twenty-eight excavator test pits were dug in the program; 17 in 1995 and 11 in 1997. Figure 6 shows the approximate locations of 16 pits between the Spring Valley Tailings and Catch Dams. Table 7 summarises the logs of 11 of the 16 pits, dug in 1997 with a 28t excavator to depths of up to 8m. Details of the 1995 pits have not been located.
Minor seepage was reported from two pits. The rest remained dry 36 hours after digging.
Materials encountered were sandy or clayey silt soil/tailings, weathered granite and
metamorphosed sedimentary rocks.
These results suggest a 1997 water table depth of at least 8m except for local, small-scale
perched conditions, between the two dams.
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 32
Table 7: Summary of 1997 excavator test pitting (Source: Amaral 1997)
Test pit Depth
(m) Collar RL (m;
approx.) Groundwater Summary log
18 5.8 266-267 Pit still dry 36hrs after digging
0-0.5m sandy silt; 0.3-5.8m Granite (EW-HW-MW);
19 7.9 266-267 Minor seepage (perched) at 2m, but
slowing
0-0.6m sandy silt; 0.6-7.9m Granite (EW)
20 7.8 268-269 100L +/- infiltrated overnight
0-0.5m sandy silt; 0.5-7.8m Granite:(EW-HW-EW)
21 7.5 269.5-270.5 Pit still dry 35hrs after digging
0-0.8m sandy silt; 0.8-7.5m Granite (EW)
22 6.8 279.5-280.5 Pit still dry 26hrs after digging
0-0.8m sandy silt; 0.8-6.8m Granite (EW-HW)
23 2.0 277.5-278.5 Pit still dry 3hrs after digging
0-1.1m sandy silt; 1.1-2m Granite (HW-MW); refusal
24 7.1 262.5-263.5 Pit still dry 4hrs after digging
0-0.5m sandy silt; 0.5-7.1m metamorphosed sediments; close-jointed (<0.2m); EW-HW)
25 7.6 259.5-260.5 Pit still dry 3hrs after digging
0-5m clayey silt with sand, gravel; 5-7.6m metamorphosed sediments?; (EW-HW); granitic texture
26 6.3 268-270 Pit remained dry for 1.5hrs during digging
0-0.8m clayey silt; 0.8-6.3m Granite; (EW-HW-MW)
27 6.4 270-272 Pit remained dry for 1.1hrs during digging
0-2.5m silty sand with clay, gravel; 2.5-6.4m Metamorphosed sediments (EW)
28 6.0 265-267 Pit remained dry for 0.7hrs during digging
0-6m clayey silt with sand, gravel; grading to metamorhposed sediments below 4m (EW)
Notes See Figure 6 for approx. test pit locations between the Spring Valley Tailings Dam and Catch
Dam
HW = Highly Weathered; EW = Extremely Weathered
Test pits dug October 1997; Locations shown on site sketch (no grid coordinates)
Equipment was 28t 325B Cat Excavator; 1.2m GP bucket (5 teeth) and 0.9m single tyne ripper
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 33
5.8 GROUNDWATER LEVELS
5.8.1 Water table depths at the Mine Site
Limited data is available on water table depths at the Mine Site, except for the measurements in several 1995 drill holes (Table 5), and readings collected by RWC from three original bores and the AWC Open Cut in November/December 2016 during visits to the site.
The recent data are presented in Table 4, which shows the water table at the surface in drill hole BH1 below the Spring Valley Tailings Dam and 4.6m below ground in drill hole BH9 downgradient from the Northern Evaporation Ponds (Figure 4). Drill hole BH10 was dry to 14.5m.
5.8.2 Water level in the AWC Open Cut
The water level in the AWC Open Cut was reported to be slowly rising after mining stopped in 1986.
Inspection of Google Earth satellite imagery of the AWC Open Cut for early 2003 and late 2015 indicates that the water level in the excavation has remained essentially constant (within a few metres) over that period.
The current water level reported by RWC during the site inspection in November 2016 is 194mAHD, approximately 80m below the top of the excavation.
The water is groundwater (mixed with incident rain and surface runoff) which enters from the sides and base of the excavation. The rate of groundwater entry has slowly decreased over time as the water level rose and reduced the head difference between it and the surrounding water table.
Due to historic disturbance as a result of mining activity, approximately 20% of rainfall in the AWL contributing catchment reports as runoff to the pit in below average rainfall years (460mm/yr). During above average rainfall, due to saturated catchment conditions, approximately 30% of rainfall reports as runoff with the Stackpool Open Cut and its contributing catchment also becoming hydraulically connected to the AWC and provides recharge to the pit.
In addition, evaporation rates from the Pit lake are influenced by the exposed area of the water surface which is in turn influenced by the volumes in storage (as a consequence of pit geometry). Therefore, groundwater inflows to the pit are in the order of 20ML/yr (refer to Table 8).
The preceding observations indicate that the Open Cut is a groundwater discharge zone on a local scale. Groundwater is flowing towards the AUL Open Cut from all horizontal directions, and from beneath.
5.8.3 Analytical estimates of groundwater inflow to the AWC Open Cut
Figure 11 shows a conceptual half-section through the discharge zone of the unconfined, fractured-rock aquifer at the AWC Open Cut. It illustrates:
rain infiltration to a water table,
groundwater flow to the excavation via a seepage face, and
horizontally and vertically from beneath.
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 34
Steady-state analytical equations (Marinelli and Niccoli, 2000) have been applied to the model
to estimate groundwater flow to the excavation. Of the inputs to the model, annual evaporation
and rainfall is also known, with the proportion of rain infiltrating the water table being estimated
from previous experience in fractured rock regimes. Water depth in the Open Cut is known, as
is the overall depth of the excavation (i.e. ho and hp in Figure 11)
The shallow water table depth, and horizontal and vertical permeabilities (Kh and Kv in Figure 11), are estimated from Table 7.
Reasonable inputs generate a reasonable output (about 20ML/year; Table 8) for the volume of groundwater entering the Open Cut from its sides and bottom – at the higher end of the 25 – in agreement with that estimated in the evaporation/rainfall approach in Section 5.8.2.
Figure 11: Conceptual half-cross section and simple analytical model through the Ardlethan/Wild Cherry Open Cut
*Simplifying assumptions are: isotropic and homogeneous subsurface conditions, steady-state, unconfined, horizontal radial flow; uniformly distributed recharge at the water table, the pit walls approximate a right circular cylinder, the pre-mining water table is horizontal, there is no groundwater flow between Zones 1 and 2, and there is horizontal flow in Zone 1.
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
35
Table 8: Estimates of annual groundwater flow from the sides and bottom of the AWC Open Cut
Q1 + Q2
ho hp d rp ro ho
(calc) Q1 Q2 Qt Qt
m m m m m m m3/s m3/s m3/s ML/year
144 130 74 100 350 144 0.0004 0.00025 0.00067 21
Evaporation from pit
Annual rainfall
infiltrated
Pit long axis at water level (m) 300 Estimated
Rain (mm/year) 460
Historical data
Pit short axis at water level (m) 210 Estimated
% infiltration 1.5 Estimated
Area of pit at water level (m2) 48 900 Calculated
Infiltrated rain
(mm/year) 6.9 Calculated
Evaporation (m/year) 1.35 Historical data
Infiltrated rain (m/year) 0.0069 Calculated
Evaporation from pit (ML/year) 66 Calculated
Infiltrated rain (m/s) 2 x 2E
-10
Calculated; W
Horizontal and vertical permeabilities
Adopted Kh1 (m/s) 1 x 4E
-08 Est from Table 5 Interim calculations
Adopted Kh2 (m/s) 1 x 4E
-08 Est from Table 5 hp^2 W/Kh1 ro/rp ro^2ln(ro/rp)
(ro^2 - rp^2)/2
Adopted Kv2 (m/s) 1 x 4E
-09 Est from Table 5
m (= (Kh2/Kv2)^0.5) 3.2 Calculated 12100 0.079274 3 197750 40000
*Symbols are as for Figure 11. The estimated total inflow (Qt) is about 0.00000067L/s (about 20ML/year). The radius of influence extends to approximately 350m in all directions.
5.9 CONCEPTUAL MODEL
The following figures present five conceptual hydrogeological cross-sections through the Mine Site. Refer to Figure 4 for the locations of the sections. The interpretations are consistent with groundwater principles and currently known hydrogeological site observations. In the following discussion, refer also to the numeric groundwater model in Appendix 2.
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 36
Figure 12: Conceptual hydrogeological model of the Mine Site: Section A – B
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED
Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 37
Figure 13: Conceptual hydrogeological model of the Mine Site: Section C – D
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 38
Figure 14: Conceptual hydrogeological model of the Mine Site: Section E – F
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED
Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 39
Figure 15: Conceptual hydrogeological model of the Mine Site: Section G – H
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 40
Figure 16: Conceptual hydrogeological model of the Mine Site: Section I – J
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 41
The main features from the hydrogeological cross sections are:
Elevated, undulating and locally disturbed topography (most of the study area and the
Mine Site) some 50 – 100m higher than and surrounded by a gently undulating to flat
plain.
Steeply-dipping, folded and fractured Ordovician sedimentary rocks intruded by Silurian
granites, with local development of unconsolidated Quaternary/Tertiary alluvial leads on
the southeast, east and northeast sides of the topographic high.
A single unconfined, fractured rock aquifer in the Silurian-Ordovician bedrock.
Alluvial aquifers in each of the Quaternary/Tertiary leads.
Regional-scale groundwater flow beneath the topographic high from the northeast to the southwest.
Intermediate-scale groundwater flow radiating in all directions from the topographic high, but at very low rates of movement in bedrock due to very low fracture permeability.
Local-scale groundwater conditions, with variable flow directions, except in the vicinity of the AWC Open Cut where groundwater enters the excavation from all horizontal directions from a distance of probably several hundred metres horizontally;
Recharge conditions (and groundwater independent ecosystems; GIEs) over most of
the study area.
The water surface of the AWC Open Cut is a groundwater discharge area; ordinarily,
this would constitute GDE conditions, except that there are no known ecosystems to
support within the ponded water body. Other discharge areas are very localised.
6. CLASSIFICATION UNDER AIP (DPI – WATER, 2012)
6.1 GROUNDWATER SOURCE
Based on the data available (refer Section 5), groundwater within the Mine Site area is in the
“Less Productive Groundwater Source” and “Fractured Rock” categories.
6.2 LEVEL 1 MINIMAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS
6.2.1 Water Table
Whilst placing tailings in the AWC Open Cut will likely raise the water table, this variation will generally be restricted to the radius of influence, which is approximately 350 metres.
The nearest high priority groundwater dependent ecosystem (GDE) listed in the WSP for the Murray-Darling Basin Fractured Rock Groundwater Sources (Lachlan Fold Belt) is located more than 40km from the Mine Site. Other discharge areas are very localised and are not recorded or in on the WSP.
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 42
The WSP also contains the following statement with regards to high priority culturally significant sites:
Culturally significant sites will be identified as a part of the assessment undertaken by the NSW Office of Water during the processing of an application for the granting or amending of a water supply work approval.
As part of the current EIS, the Applicant commissioned a due diligence aboriginal heritage assessment which identified a registered site 49-3-0001 at (AMG 55) 485140E, 6200260N. This site is identified as a water hole/well in the granite hills approximately 1,900m west of the Ardwest/Wild Cherry Open Cut. The area was inspected as part of the due diligence assessment but no site was observed. Refer Appendix 3 for the results of the registered site database search.
Given that no high priority GDE’s or high priority sites of cultural significance exist within 40m of the potential area for groundwater level impact, the Proposal is considered to fall within Level 1 minimal impacts for water levels.
6.2.2 Water pressure
A review of available regional bore data is provided in Section 5.3. Drilling was not generally successful with very low yield and most bores were abandoned. No active production bores were identified within 1,000m of the Mine Site.
Given that the potential area of groundwater impact is restricted and in the absence of any recorded beneficial use, the Proposal is considered to fall within acceptable Level 1 minimal impacts for water pressure.
6.2.3 Water Quality
Based on the available data the AWC Open Cut is a groundwater discharge zone. Groundwater enters the Open Cut from all sides. The Proposal will maintain local-scale discharge conditions. The proposal is therefore considered to fall within acceptable Level 1 impacts for water quality.
7. IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FOR SEARS
7.1 PRELIMINARY WATER BALANCE FOR THE AWC OPEN CUT CATCHMENT
A preliminary annual site water balance for the AWC Open Cut catchment is presented in Appendix 4 of the EIS for the Proposal.
7.2 CHANGES IN WATER TABLE IN THE AWC OPEN CUT
Water used for reprocessing the tailings at the Mine Site will be taken from the AWC Open Cut, tailings will be added, and except for very minor losses of fugitive water, and tin concentrate, the tailings and water will be returned to the excavation.
This is essentially a closed circuit.
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 43
In the AWC Open Cut, the added tailings will raise the water table6 by an amount equal to their volume in the loose state, less their effective porosity (say, 25%)7. The raised water level will result in a decreasing rate of groundwater discharge into the excavation8. Evaporation will continue to be unaffected by operations.
Table 9 presents estimates of annual water levels in the Open Cut for 13 years of reprocessing, assuming reasonable values of tailings volume and porosity, volume of the excavation, and the changing area of the rising lake within it.
If the AWC Open Cut remains a groundwater discharge zone for the life of the reprocessing operations, then operations will have no effect on groundwater flow conditions elsewhere in the study area.
To remain a discharge zone, the level of the unaffected water table outside the AWC Open Cut must remain higher than the water level in it (i.e. a head difference must be maintained). Table 9 presents estimates of this head difference for each year of operation, but uncertainties up to perhaps 10 – 20m or so remain in relation to water levels and head differences.
As indicated previously in Table 8 the radius of influence is likely to be in the order of 350m and any groundwater impacts are therefore also likely to be restricted to this area.
6 Because the groundwater system is unconfined, there is no potentiometric (piezometric) water level.
7For example, 250,000tpa of tailings (a nominal year’s processing in the early stages) at a dry density of 1.8t/m3 is 140,000m3
with a porosity of (say) 25%. This is a solid volume of about 100,000m3. If the surface area of the water in the Open Cut is 50,000m2, its water level is raised by about 2m. The volume of water required to first saturate the tailings for reprocessing is taken from the Open Cut and returned, so does not enter these calculations. 8 Tailings placed in the Open Cut will also tend to physically move into any open fractures in bedrock in the base and walls of the
excavation. This is unlikely to have a significant clogging effect (ie a reduction in groundwater flow into the Cut) since the tailings themselves are likely to be of the same order of permeability as, or more permeable than, the bulk rock permeability of the bedrock. Tailings are typically described as having permeabilities (depending on grain size and distribution, plasticity, etc) in the 10-9 to 10-4m/s (Sarsby, 2000, Table 15.7; SRK Consulting 2010).
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 44
This page has intentionally been left blank
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 45
Table 9: AWC Open Cut estimated freeboard and groundwater flow conditions during tailings reprocessing
AWC Open Cut volume calcs (assume cone fulstrum)
Top pit radius (r2; m) 175 Estimated
Bottom pit radius (r1; m) 50 Estimated
Height top to bottom (h; m) 160 Estimated
Volume (m3) 7.0E+06
Dry tailing density (t/m3) 1.700 Assumed
Lake short axis (m) 215 Estimated
Lake long axis (m) 300 Estimated
Surface area of lake in Year 1 (m2) 47405
Top of Open Cut (mASL) 260 Estimated from contours
Lake water level (mASL) at start of Year 1 190 Measured November 2016 as 197mAHD
Annual evaporation from lake surface (m) 1.7
Assume AWC Open Cut approximates a cone fulstrum (above)
Elevation (mASL) of unaffected water table in vicinity of Open Cut 260 Uncertain +/-10m or so. Should be monitored during operations
AWC Open Cut estimated freeboard and groundwater flow conditions during tailings reprocessing
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13
Tailings reprocessed (Mt) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5
Cumulative tailings reprocessed (Mt) 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.25 1.75 2.25 3.25 4.25 5.25 6.25 7.75 9.25 10.75
Volume of tailings reprocessed (m3) 150,000 147,000 147,000 294,000 294,000 294,000 588,000 588,000 588,000 588,000 882,000 882,000 882,000
Cumulative volume of tailings reprocessed (m3) 150,000 290,000 440,000 740,000 1,030,000 1,320,000 1,910,000 2,500,000 3,090,000 3,680,000 4,560,000 5,440,000 6,320,000
Surface area of lake (m2) 47,405 49,676 50,406 54,973 59,154 61,078 65,631 73,663 76,335 78,917 87,828 97,545 103,210
Water level (mASL) at end of year (less evap) 191 193 194 198 201 204 211 218 224 229 238 245 252
Freeboard (m) remaining in excavation 69 67 66 62 59 56 49 42 36 31 22 15 8
Head difference (m) driving water inflow to Open Cut 69 67 66 62 59 56 49 42 36 31 22 15 8
Groundwater entering Open Cut based on above input assumptions? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Very
probably Very
probably Probably Probably Uncertain Uncertain
COMMENT To eliminate potential groundwater effects (of reprocessing) outside the radius of influence of the Open Cut, it is important that the excavation remains a discharge zone for the life of operations. This means that groundwater must flow to it for the life of operations. This means that there must remain a head difference between the unaffected water table elsewhere over the Mine Site, and the water level in the Open Cut (with the latter being at a lower elevation). This can be managed by (a) knowing the current water level in the Open Cut, (b) monitoring the unaffected water table levels, and (c) diverting, if necessary, process water and/or tailings elsewhere.
This page has intentionally been left blank
This page has intentionally been left blank
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 47
7.3 GROUNDWATER USE-INFLOWS/OUTFLOWS
Provided reprocessing operations are managed so as not to reverse water table gradients in the vicinity of the AWL Open Cut, there will be no change to groundwater flow directions, and no groundwater effects at all outside the radius of influence of the cone of depression surrounding the excavation. Accordingly, no measures are necessary to protect groundwater conditions outside the radius of influence before, during and after reprocessing operations.
Provided the extraction of tailings for reprocessing is managed to not alter the current surface water catchments of the existing tailings dams, there will be no changes to local surface flow conditions in the vicinity of the dams.
7.4 CHANGES IN GROUNDWATER QUALITY IN THE AWC OPEN CUT
During the November 2016 site visit, RWC collected two tailings grab samples for trace metal analysis and leachate testing. The latter was intended to simulate possible leaching conditions which might act on reprocessed tailings placed in the AWC Open Cut, and which in turn might affect the chemistry of the water within it. Table 10 shows that arsenic, copper, manganese, lead and zinc are the dominant trace metals in the two tailings samples.
Table 11 summarises the results of two leaching techniques9 (at different pH’s) on the same tailings samples. The TCLP technique used test water collected from the AWC Open Cut. This water had significantly higher concentration of metals than that which was leached from the tailings and this effectively “blinded” the analyses. To provide a clearer picture the ASLP test (using deionised water) was subsequently done. It is likely that the process water will need to be treated to raise its pH so the ASLP results are probably more indicative of post-operations pit water than the current low pH pit water.
Reprocessing mixes tailings with water from the AWC Open Cut. Limited data is available on the AWC Open Cut, and although the tailings samples were collected from a composited pile that is considered to be the most representative of tailings on the Mine Site, uncertainty regarding the leachability of the tailings in the AWC Open Cut remains.
On the basis that operations will retain water in the Open Cut, and that on balance no net water leaves the excavation other than via evaporation, it is unlikely that chemical changes to the contained water will be environmentally significant.
9Leachable metals and other potential contaminants in tailings (and other wastes) may be determined by the Australian Standard
Leaching Procedure (ASLP; AS4439.2 and AS4439.3), or alternatively, the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP; USEPA). See, for example, DER (2015). Both are designed to obtain the likely quality of leachate after percolating water through a soil medium (in this case, tailings)
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES
Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 48
Table 10: Trace metal analysis of tailings samples, November 2016
Units LOR Tailings 1 Tailings 2
Date sampled 8/Nov/16 8/Nov/16
Arsenic mg/kg 4 220 320
Barium mg/kg 1 4 6
Beryllium mg/kg 1 <1 <1
Boron mg/kg 3 <3 <3
Cadmium mg/kg 0.4 0.5 0.6
Chromium mg/kg 1 8 8
Cobalt mg/kg 1 1 1
Copper mg/kg 1 220 170
Mercury mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Molybdenum mg/kg 1 <1 <1
Manganese mg/kg 1 180 190
Nickel mg/kg 1 3 3
Lead mg/kg 1 150 240
Antimony mg/kg 7 <7 <7
Selenium mg/kg 2 <2 <2
Tin mg/kg 1 14 17
Zinc mg/kg 1 64 83
Notes
LOR = Limit of Reporting
Samples collected by R. W. Corkery Pty Ltd
Participating laboratory: NATA-accredited Envirolab Services, Chatswood, 2067
Laboratory report 157182 dated 21 November 2016
Table 11: Leachate testing of tailings samples, November 2016
Units LOR Tailings 1 Tailings 2
Date sampled 8/Nov/16 8/Nov/16
Australian Standard Leaching Procedure (ASLP)
Antimony in ASLP µg/L 1 <1
Arsenic in ASLP µg/L 1 2
Boron in ASLP µg/L 5 <5
Barium in ASLP µg/L 1 1
Beryllium in ASLP µg/L 0.5 <0.5
Cadmium in ASLP µg/L 0.1 2.4
Chromium in ASLP µg/L 1 <1
Cobalt in ASLP µg/L 1 2
Copper in ASLP µg/L 1 390
Lead in ASLP µg/L 1 <1
Manganese in ASLP µg/L 5 51
Mercury in ASLP µg/L 0.05 <0.05
Molybdenum in ASLP µg/L 1 <1
Nickel in ASLP µg/L 1 2
Selenium in ASLP µg/L 1 <1
Tin in ASLP µg/L 5 <5
Zinc in ASLP µg/L 1 300
pH of Leaching fluid pH units 0.1 3.1 3.1
pH of final Leachate pH units 0.1 3.2 3.2
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 49
Table 11: Leachate testing of tailings samples, November 2016 (Cont’d)
Units LOR Tailings 1 Tailings 2
Date sampled 8/Nov/16 8/Nov/16
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
Arsenic in TCLP mg/L 0.05 0.05 <0.05
Boron in TCLP mg/L 0.2 0.3 0.3
Barium in TCLP mg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Beryllium in TCLP mg/L 0.01 0.02 0.02
Cadmium in TCLP mg/L 0.01 1.6 1.6
Chromium in TCLP mg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Copper in TCLP mg/L 0.01 20 21
Cobalt in TCLP mg/L 0.02 0.7 0.7
Mercury in TCLP mg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005
Manganese in TCLP mg/L 0.01 23 23
Molybdenum in TCLP mg/L 0.03 <0.03 <0.03
Nickel in TCLP mg/L 0.02 0.6 0.6
Lead in TCLP mg/L 0.03 <0.03 <0.03
Antimony in TCLP mg/L 0.15 <0.15 <0.15
Selenium in TCLP mg/L 0.12 <0.12 <0.12
Tin in TCLP mg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Zinc in TCLP mg/L 0.02 140 140
pH of final Leachate pH units 0.1 5
Notes
LOR = Limit of Reporting
Samples collected by R. W. Corkery Pty Ltd
Participating laboratory: NATA-accredited Envirolab Services, Chatswood, 2067
Laboratory report 157182 dated 21 November 2016
8. CONCLUSIONS
The main conclusions arising from this GIA are:
Based on the data available, groundwater within the Mine Site area is in the “Less Productive Groundwater Source” and “Fractured Rock” categories for AIP assessment.
Given the low, localised potential for groundwater level and quality impact, the absence of GDEs or culturally significant sites within 40m of the potential impact area, and the absence of beneficial use, impacts from the proposal are considered to be acceptable Level 1 impacts under AIP.
The AWC Open Cut is a groundwater discharge zone. Groundwater enters it from all sides.
Provided reprocessing operations are managed so as not to reverse water table gradients in the vicinity of the Open Cut, there will be no change to groundwater flow directions, and no groundwater effects at all outside the radius of influence of the cone of depression surrounding the excavation.
On the basis that operations will retain water in the Open Cut, and that on balance no net water leaves the excavation other than via evaporation, it is unlikely that chemical changes to the contained water will be environmentally significant.
Accordingly, no measures are necessary to protect groundwater conditions outside the radius of influence before, during and after reprocessing operations.
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES
Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 50
As a general recommendation, groundwater water level and quality monitoring in at least three
monitoring bores in the vicinity of the AWC Open Cut should commence before tailings
reprocessing, and should continue through the life of the operation. Existing groundwater
bores should be restored or if this is not possible, additional monitoring bore installed. Bores
should be installed in accordance with the Minimum Construction Requirements for Water
Bores in Australia (National Uniform Drillers Licensing Committee, 2012). It is recommended
that groundwater quality and levels be monitored on a quarterly basis to enable quantification
of water quality and quantity and to assist with meeting regulatory requirements.
Water quality in the AWC Open Cut should also monitored on a similar basis.
9. REFERENCES
Corkery (2016). Ardlethan Tin Mine: Background Paper for Rehabilitation and Tailings Reprocessing Project. Report prepared by R W Corkery & Co Pty Ltd for EOE (No. 75) Pty Limited, July 2016. DER (2015). Background paper on the use of leaching tests for assessing the disposal and re-use of waste-derive materials. Department of Environment Regulation, Government of Western Australia, July 2015. DPE (2016). Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARS) for the current Ardlethan Proposal. Tables A2-1 and A2-2, Department of Planning and Environment, 1 September 2016. DPI (2012). NSW Aquifer Interference Policy. NSW Department of Primary Industries, September 2012. DPI (2013). Assessing a proposal against the NSW Aquifer Interference Policy – step by step guide. Aquifer Interference Assessment Framework. NSW Department of Primary Industries, August 2013. EES (2003). Mine water characterisation and optimisation study, Ardlethan alluvial tin mine, Ardlethan, New South Wales. Report No 103136 from Environmental & Earth Sciences Pty Ltd to Telminex NL, December 2003. Fitts C. (2016). AnAqSim User Guide: Analytic Aquifer Simulator, 105 p., (available at http://www.fittsgeosolutions.com/AnAqSimUserGuide.pdf) Kolback Environmental Services Pty Ltd (1999). Ardlethan Solid Waste Landfill Project - extract from Commission of Enquiry Report. Iliff, G. D. (1996). Geology and Hydrogeology Of White Chrystal Pit Ardlethan Tin Mine New South Wales. Unpublished report by F. W. Lannen & Associates Pty Ltd for ERM Mitchell McCotter Pty Ltd, January 1996. [Appendix H in Perram & Partners (1998). Ardlethan Mine Rehabilitation Using Solid Waste Landfill: Environmental Impact Statement Volume 2 (Appendices)]. Lavis, R. (2011). The effects on Groundwater from the Ardlethan Tin Mine. Major Project Ground Water EMSC 6025. Unpublished report Marinelli, F. and Niccoli, W. L (2000). Simple Analytical Equations for Estimating Ground Water Inflow to a Mine Pit. GROUND WATER Vol 38, No. 2, March-April 2000, pages 311 – 314
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 51
Mineral Resources NSW (1998). Environmental Performance Review Ardlethan Tin Mine. NSW Government Pineena Maps Basin 410 Murrumbidgee River Map 2. http://waterinfo.nsw.gov.au/pinneena/maps.shtml Paterson, R. H. (1990). Ardlethan Tin Deposits in Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australian and Papua New Guinea (Ed. F. E. Hughes) pp1357 – 1364. (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne) Perram & Partners (1998). Ardlethan Mine Rehabilitation Using Solid Waste Landfill: Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1, and Volume 2 (Appendices). Report for Kolbeck Environmental Services. Sarsby, R. (2000). Environmental Geotechnics. Thomas Telford Publishing, London. (Sophocleous (2004). Groundwater recharge, in Groundwater [Eds. Luis Silveria, Stefan Wohnlich and Eduardo J. Usunoff] in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK [www.eolss.net] SRK Consulting (2010). Tailings Material Properties. Tailings and HLP Workshop, 28 April to 1 May 2010. www.infomine.com/library/publications/docs/SRKTailings2010e.pdf
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES
Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 52
This page has intentionally left blank
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 53
Appendix
1
Re
gio
na
l w
ate
r bo
re s
um
ma
ry
Com
pile
d f
rom
reco
rds a
t htt
p://a
llwa
terd
ata
.wa
ter.
nsw
.go
v.a
u/w
ate
r.stm
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES
Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 54
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 55
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES
Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 56
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 57
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES
Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 58
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 59
Appendix 2 Regional – intermediate scale numeric groundwater modelling Compiled by hydrogeologist Mark Hocking
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES
Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 60
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 61
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES
Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 62
This page has intentionally left blank
SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Ardlethan Tin Mine Report No. 754/09
1 - 63
Appendix 3 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Assessment Locations of Cultural Significant Sites
EOE (NO.75) PTY LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES
Ardlethan Tin Mine Part 1 – Groundwater Impact Assessment Report No. 754/09
1 - 64