National Water Quality Management Strategy

Guidelines for
Groundwater Protection in Australia

September 1995

Agriculture and Resource

Management Council of Australia and New Zealand
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

i
Copies of this publication may be obtained from:

Australian Water and Wastewater Association

PO Box 388
ARTARMON NSW 2064
Telephone (02) 9413 1288 Facsimile (02) 9413 1047

or: Commonwealth Government bookshops in the States and Territories

Telephone: 132 447

For further information, contact:

The Secretary
Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand
Department of Primary Industries and Energy
GPO Box 858
CANBERRA ACT 2600

Tel: (06) 272 5216 Fax: (06) 272 4772

or:

The Secretary
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council
GPO Box 787
CANBERRA ACT 2600
(02) 6274 1428 Fax: (02) 6274 1858

(c) Commonwealth of Australia 1995

ISBN 0 642 19558 7

ISSN 1038 7072

Printed on recycled paper.

Printed in Australia for the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and
New Zealand, and the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council.

Web Version prepared 25 September 2001

ii
 SUMMARY

These guidelines are part of the National Water Quality Management Strategy. The objective
of these guidelines is to provide a framework for protecting groundwater from contamination
in Australia. This framework will enable each State, Territory and the Commonwealth to
develop policies and strategies which are tailored to their specific legislative and resource
management situations.

One million people in 600 communities around Australia enjoy great benefits from their
groundwater resources. Groundwater is an important source of water for major cities,
industries and rural towns. For many isolated communities and rural properties, their very
existence relies on the availability of good groundwater. Many features on our landscape,
such as wetlands and lakes, are directly linked to the groundwater beneath.

A benchmark report. The Status of Groundwater Contamination and Regulation in Australia,

was published in 1990. The report showed that for most of the States and Territories there was
adequate legislation available to protect groundwater, even if it was fragmented across several
areas of government in some States and Territories. However, little protective action was
actually taking place.

The protection framework outlined in these guidelines involves the identification of specific
beneficial uses and values for every major aquifer, i.e. the classification of groundwater
bodies. Depending upon specific circumstances, there are a number of protection strategies
which can emerge to protect each aquifer, but all involve monitoring. A public planning
process is required in order to examine possible options and select the best set of strategies.
The protection strategies which emerge will mainly be pro-active in nature but some current
problems will also require remedial action.

The major types of protection strategies are classified into three 'legislative' groups. First,
there is a whole range of traditional groundwater management measures available, such as
vulnerability maps, aquifer classification systems and wellhead protection plans. Secondly,
there is a range of land-use planning measures which can help prevent contamination
occurring at inappropriate locations. Finally, there is a variety of environmental protection
measures emerging which tackle modern waste management problems in progressive ways.
Nearly all protection strategies will rely on government intervention backed by community
support.

Protection planning processes are at an early stage of evolution in Australia. These guidelines
assist by providing a case example of the steps involved in developing a regional protection
plan for groundwater. This case study aims to assist and guide managers and the community
towards a successful outcome from their planning.

Finally, a national goal is set for all groundwater managers in Australia. The goal is for all
States Territories and the Commonwealth to have a beneficial use classification in place for
all significant aquifers by the end of the decade. Consequently, this goal will help ensure that
the first step is talon towards adequately planning for the protection of Australia's
groundwater resource.

iii
 Contents
Page

SUMMARY i
Acknowledgments iv

1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objectives of Guidelines 1
1.3 Scope of Guidelines 2
1.4 National Water Quality Management Strategy 3
1.5 Terminology 3

2. THE NEED FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION 5

2.1 The Benefits of Groundwater 5
2.2 Groundwater Contamination Sources 6
2.3 Groundwater Protection in Australia 7
2.4 The Need for Protection 8

3. UNDERLYING PRICIPLES FOR GUIDELINES 9

3.1 Groundwater: A pervasive Resource 9
3.2 Beneficial Use Framework and Polluter Pays Principle 10
3.3 Achieving Equity 12

4. APPROACHES TO GROUNDWATER PROTECTION 14

4.1 Forms of Intervention 14
4.2 Types of Protection Strategies 16
4.3 Groundwater Management Measures 18
4.4 Land Use Planning Measures 27
4.5 Environment Protection Measures 29
4.6 Other Measures 31

5. DEVELOPMENT OF A PROTECTION PLAN 33

5.1 Background 33
5.2 Public Involvement 35
5.3 Strategic Assessment of Grounwater Resources 38
5.4 Protection Objectives and Beneficial Uses 39
5.5 Identifying Beneficial Uses and Appropriate Criteria 40
5.6 Narrative and Prescriptive Criteria 41
5.7 Point of Application Criteria 42
5.8 Land Use Planning Options 43
5.9 Environment Protection Options 45
5.10 Monitoring and Review 46
5.11 Contingency Measures 47
5.12 Selection and Implementation of Preferred Options 48

iv
6. CONCLUSION 50

APPENDICES

I. Types and Sources of Contaminants 51

II. Water Quality Criteria 55
III. Technical Guidance Documentation 58

Glossary 73

Chapter Notes 76

Bibliography 81

Tables

1. Groundwater use and vulnerability categories 22

2. Example of a wellhead protection zone for public water supplies 27
3. Examples of some protection measures 32

Figures*

3. Examples of steps in developing a regional protection plan f

or groundwater 37
4. Adaptive management approach to protection 39

Appendices

I-1 Contaminants and sources 52

I-2 Priority contaminants in industrial waste streams 54
III-1 Prevention and remedial measures 70
III-2 Methodologies for aquifer clean-up 72

[* For technical reasons, Figures 1 and 2 have not been reproduced in this downloadable web version]

i
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The preparation of these guidelines was undertaken by the Water Resources Management
Committee of ARMCANZ. Appreciation is extended to the numerous contributions to the
various versions of these guidelines since the first draft appeared in 1958. Editing and writing
was carried out by Jim Keary. Harry Ventriss wrote the original version of Chapter 5.

ii
I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Contamination of Australia's groundwater resources and the resultant undesirable effects on

the environment and humans has been a growing concern among water managers in all States
and Territories of Australia for some years. In the first comprehensive publication on
groundwater in Australia published by the Australian Water Resources Council (AWRC) in
1975, the threat of contamination from 'waste chemicals…percolating from the surface…’
was clearly recognised1 . In 1979 a conference in Perth sponsored by AWRC documented
numerous cases of groundwater contamination and showed the general level of concern about
these matters in the water sector2 .

Work on these guidelines was initiated by the AWRC Water Resources Management
Committee following a recommendation from the former AWRC Groundwater Technical
Committee. This committee had earlier commissioned an inventory study of incidents of
groundwater contamination in Australia. It was recognised that while that study gathered a
substantial database and illustrated that the issue of groundwater contamination is of concern
across Australia, the study needed to be supplemented by further work which assessed the
significance of this contamination since groundwater and its environment vary widely across
Australia. It was also evident that a number of significant incidents and types of
contamination were not reported thus giving a distorted view of the distribution of
contamination across Australia.

Since there were general concerns among Australian groundwater managers regarding
contamination which needed to be addressed, the primary purpose of further work was to be
directed towards development of groundwater protection guidelines. These guidelines could
then be used to assist State, Territory and Commonwealth Governments in the formulation of
policies to protect groundwater from pollution.

These national guidelines were developed to address this common need. They provide the
common national framework under which each State, Territory and the Commonwealth can
create appropriate management arrangements to protect this continent's groundwater resource
from undesirable degradation.

These guidelines focus on a specific part of groundwater management, viz. the protection of
the quality of groundwater from contamination, and also focus on land-based management of
the groundwater resource. Whilst the scope of any guidelines is limited, it is important to
recognise the boundaries of guidelines from the outset and realise that these guidelines need
to be viewed as a small but important step towards better management of this nation's water
resource.

1.2 Objectives of Guidelines

The objective of these guidelines is to provide a national framework for the protection of
groundwater from contamination. This framework will enable each State, Territory and the
Commonwealth to develop policies and strategies which are tailored to their specific needs.
They are written primarily for managers and specialists working in this field. They also
provide a valuable information source for many other interested individuals and groups.

1
The guidelines were written to provide this broad framework since there is great variation in
actions being taken and in the legislation available in each State, Territory and the
Commonwealth . The aim of these guidelines is to provide an overall vision for groundwater
protection and strategies. Individual States, Territories and the Commonwealth would then fill
in the strategic details which are pertinent to their institutional, legislative and physical
situations.

Many States are currently preparing a second generation of strategies for groundwater
protection in critical areas. These guidelines will provide a timely focus for coordinating this
new set of strategies within an Australian context.

1.3 Scope of Guidelines

The starting point for these guidelines is the current set of actions which are occurring
throughout Australia to protect groundwater. The background report The Status of
Groundwater Contamination and Regulation in Australia3 provides a description of this
starting point.

The desired end point is a situation where general protection strategies cover all major
Australian groundwater bodies and detailed protection strategies are in place for localities
with high potential for groundwater pollution. These guidelines provide the framework in
which government groundwater and environmental managers can develop strategies to
achieve this desired end-point.

Chapter 2 makes use of local and overseas experience to describe the benefits of groundwater,
the ways contamination can occur and identifies the need for groundwater protection. This
chapter sets the scene for the non-specialist.

Chapter 3 initially outlines the difficulties associated with managing and protecting
groundwater. Principles are then described which are the basis for the framework of these
guidelines.

Many types of protection measures are used throughout the world. Chapter 4 classifies and
describes the prominent measures and presents a planning framework which will allow
relevant groundwater management and protection plans to be drawn up in each Australian
State, Territory and the Commonwealth.

Groundwater protection plans and strategies can be developed in a multitude of ways. A

practical approach to the development of a regional protection plan using conventional
regulatory provisions is outlined, step by step, in Chapter 5. This chapter demonstrates to the
practitioner how the principles and components of protection strategies can be brought
together into a workable plan and draws upon the details of several practical approaches from
the United States.

The appendices provide a ready reference for detailed technical information which is required
in the development of protection strategies. The appendices and an accompanying document,
A Preliminary Guide to the Standard Operating Procedures for Groundwater Sampling4 ,
provide technical guidance for the specialist who will be required to document various
technical processes and' procedures for protection plans.

2
1.4 National Water Quality Management Strategy

The Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand
(ARMCANZ). which incorporates the activities of the former AWRC, and the Australian and
New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) are developing a National
Water Quality Management Strategy. The Strategy consists of a series of policy and guideline
documents which will help water authorities, environment protection agencies, catchment
managers and the community manage the quality of the nation's water resources in a
sustainable way. The documents cover topics including:

• Policies and Principles

• Implementation Guidelines
• Wetter Qualitv Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters
• Drinking Water Guidelines
• Guidelines for Sewerage Systems
-Acceptance of Trade Waste (Industrial Waste)
-Effluent Management
-Sludge (Bio-solids) Management
-Use of Reclaimed Water
-Sewerage System Overflows'
• Rural Land Uses and Water Quality
• Guidelines for Urban Stormwater Systems
• Effluent Management Guidelines for Farm Dairies and Dairy Processing Plants
• Effluent Management Guidelines for Piggeries
• Effluent Management Guidelines for Wool Scouring
• Effluent Management Guidelines for Tanning arid Related Industries
• Effluent Management Guidelines for Wineries and Distilleries
• Monitoring and Reporting Water Quality

These guidelines on groundwater protection were written to be generally consistent with other
documents in the series. However, every document has its own particular points of emphasis
or use of special terminology depending on the topic. There are also some areas of overlap
between the documents, which is to be expected. The groundwater guidelines do not attempt
to cover all topics in detail and they specifically refer to other guidelines and documents
where this is appropriate.

1.5 Terminology

For those who are unfamiliar with groundwater terminology, a glossary is included which
defines many terms. However, it is also important that some terms are clearly defined at the
outset so as to avoid any misunderstanding by the variety of people from different disciplines
who will read and use this document.

First, a distinction between the terms 'contamination' and 'pollution' is useful when discussing
some particular facets of groundwater protection. The terms are often referred to in a
colloquial manner, and their meanings can depend upon the audience. For this reason a brief
explanation is required of the usage of these terms in these guidelines.

3
These guidelines refer mainly to groundwater contamination. Contamination is defined in
these guidelines to mean a change in water quality that produces a noticeable or detectable
change in its characteristics. Contamination occurs when substances are introduced into an
aquifer, whereas pollution occurs when the contamination reaches a level that restricts the
beneficial use of groundwater.

The term pollution may have various meanings and may be confined by definitions found in
legislation. It has not been uncommon in Australia for several definitions to be found in
legislation within one State which offer different refinements of meaning.

The term pollution is used in these guidelines to refer to a state of contamination for which
the water quality has deteriorated to a point where the ability of the water to support or
maintain the existing or potential identified beneficial uses is diminished.

The distinction between contamination and pollution is consistently applied throughout the
guidelines except for the term 'polluter pays'. This term really should be referred to for the
sake of consistency in these guidelines as 'contaminator pays'. However, the term 'polluter
pays' is adopted because of its broad use in international literature.

Second, the term beneficial use is adopted throughout this text. The benefits of water use or
non-use cover a range of exploitative benefits as well as an emerging set of environmental
and conservation benefits and values. An analogous term is environmental values.
Environmental values are defined as values or uses of the environment which are conducive
to public benefit. welfare. safety or health and which require protection from the effects of
pollution, waste discharge and deposits.

The terms 'beneficial use' or 'beneficial uses and values’ are used throughout this text for
reasons of internal consistency and readability of the document. These terms are also
commonly used by groundwater managers.

Finally, the term, well and wellfield are adopted throughout the guidelines as generic terms
which include bore and borefield respectively. The term 'well' is now internationally
accepted as meaning both small and large diameter holes, and is independent of the means of
construction.

4
2. THE NEED FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

2.1 The Benefits of Groundwater

Groundwater in the broad sense is all water which occurs within the 'hydrologic cycle' below
the land surface. It is a pervasive resource, interacting with the land surface, streams and
lakes, but because it occurs below the Earth's surface, its occurrence and movement are
generally poorly understood.

Groundwater plays a significant role as a resource which is necessary to sustain life, either as
a source of water for human use or as water which helps sustain life in surface waters such as
streams and wetlands in dry periods. In the broader context, it also forms a major component
of many water supply systems where aquifers are used as sole water supply sources or to
balance surface water surpluses and deficiencies. Underlying each of these uses is the
economic value of groundwater, particularly where it forms a resource which would need to
be replaced, at some cost, should that groundwater become polluted.

Groundwater as a Water Source

Groundwater is commonly used as a source of domestic, recreational, rural and industrial

water both in Australia and overseas, although in the experience of many Australians living in
the Eastern State capital cities, its relative importance is poorly perceived.

Major urban centres in Australia benefit from groundwater. Figure 1* shows the amount of
water derived from groundwater sources1 for some of Australia's major cities.

The figure highlights the importance of groundwater sources to the greater Perth metropolitan
area where groundwater accounts for two-thirds of all the water used.

In addition to major urban centres, many smaller centres rely on groundwater as their sole
source of reliable water. Figure 2* shows the number of communities and the estimated
populations relying upon groundwater for their drinking water supply in Australia2 .
Groundwater is the principal source of domestic water for about 600 communities, with a
total population of almost one million people across Australia.

The use of groundwater in urban areas has been quantified in Figures 1* and 2* to show its
importance and economic benefit to Australians. It is harder to present a comparable
quantitative impression for groundwater use by agricultural and rural industries. Yet,
groundwater availability is for many rural people the reason for their existence in their current
location and enterprise.

For example, many agricultural industries have developed in isolated areas due to the
availability of good groundwater sources. These industries vary from pastoral activities in
western Queensland to grape growing in South Australia. The development of these parts of
the Australian landscape is directly linked to groundwater. In fact, about 18% of Australia's
total water use is derived from groundwater sources.

[* For technical reasons, Figures 1 and 2 have not been reproduced in this downloadable web version]

5
Overseas, the reliance on groundwater for public water supply is even greater than in
Australia. Groundwater accounts for 38% of the total water supply for 34 of the 100 largest
cities in the United States3 and 50% of the total population rely partially or completely on
groundwater4 .

Most European countries derive over 50% of their total water supply from groundwater5 .
Groundwater provides approximately 30% of all public water supplies in Britain6 . For
example, in the Severn-Trent Water Authority area of the English Midlands, groundwater
provides 40% of all public water supply in a region of 8 million people7 . These groundwater
resources, which are a significant part of the total water supply for many European
communities, are directly linked to public health and community prosperity. Therefore, great
importance is given to their protection and maintenance.

There are indirect pathways for human exposure to groundwater contaminants apart from
drinking water. For example, the consumption of vegetable crops irrigated with contaminated
groundwater or products from animals which drank contaminated water, can constitute a
public health risk. Consequently, groundwater can be a 'silent messenger', capable of
insidiously communicating contamination in ways not intuitively connected with the
contamination source.

Water for the Environment

In Australia, the role of groundwater as a significant component in the physical environment

has only recently been realised. Strangely, this realisation has come about from two extreme
but opposing effects; rising water levels and falling water levels. A consequence of rising
water levels is the flow of contaminated or poor quality groundwater into streams and
wetlands. Falling water levels have resulted in the drying of some wetlands. The ubiquitous
nature of groundwater and its interaction with most streams and wetlands indicates the
dependence of surface water quality on groundwater quality. The protection of surface water
can, therefore, be often closely linked to the protection of groundwater.

In many situations, the poor natural quality of a groundwater resource lessens the perceived
need for protection unless the environmental significance of the groundwater is taken into
account. Contamination of brackish aquifers, particularly where aquifers are highly
permeable, can lead to serious degradation of interconnected surface waters and the
ecosystems which depend upon them. Consequently, ecological issues can in some cases be
the critical factor which determines protection measures, for groundwaters.

The Aquifer Structure as a Resource

Groundwater bodies not only provide an important source of public water supply and
environmental water in Australia, but aquifers with favourable hydraulic properties play other
valuable roles in water supply systems. Aquifers are used as conduits for the distribution of
water and as places to store water, which may be from surplus surface water. The usefulness
of aquifers in such situations results from the flow transmission and storage properties of the
aquifer structure. These properties are themselves resources which deserve protection from
degradation.

5
2.2 Groundwater Contamination Sources

Contamination of groundwater has been observed world-wide, and it is becoming self-evident

that concentrated human activity will lead to groundwater contamination . In general, it has
been shown to occur wherever three main components exist; a potential source of
contamination, an underlying aquifer, and a pathway for transfer between the two. This
pathway can be either indirectly through the soil or directly through man-made structures
which intersect the watertable such as pits, wells, trenches and quarries.

Sources of contamination are most often referred to as either point sources or diffuse
sources. Point sources refer to cases where contamination is localised and often is centred on
one or more identifiable structures or surface facilities. Alternatively, diffuse sources are
broad scale and cannot be ascribed to a sole source, but are caused by either a widespread
land-use practice (e.g. use of agricultural pesticides) or by a widespread collection of small
point sources (e.g. septic tanks in an unsewered area).

Both point and diffuse sources of contamination are of comparable significance and concern,
and the nature and extent of groundwater contamination can often be indicated by the
distribution and nature of land uses in an area. For example, areas of concentrated
manufacturing industry are often associated with contamination by heavy metals and organic
compounds. Areas of intensive horticulture have been related to excessive pesticide and
fertiliser contamination, and landfills generate leachate which can result in groundwater
contamination from a range of contaminants. Thus, the expected chemical character of
groundwater contamination can initially be gauged by knowledge of the chemical profile of
the potential sources of contamination. From this information, the environmental and public
health significance of any such contamination can be assessed. Appendix I outlines the types
and sources of contaminants found in groundwater around the world.

The assessment of groundwater contamination has been the subject of investigations by State
and Commonwealth Governments for many years. Contamination has been recorded in most
industrialised areas of Australia, however the extent and severity of the problem is highly
variable.

Incidents which have led to groundwater contamination have recently been summarised by
the AWRC. The sources of these incidents and the associated contaminant types are:

• industrial effluent and manufacturing wastes;

• leaking underground storage tanks and pipelines;

• landfill stockpiles or contaminated soil producing leachate;

• intensive agricultural fertiliser and pesticide use or waste generation;

• contamination from septic tanks and from sewage and wastewater lagoons;

• mining industry processes and wastes;

• contamination from wells;

6
• urban stormwater;

• atmospheric fallout;

• interaquifer contamination by alteration of flow;

• firefighting accidents;

• emergency response wastes during and after chemical fires;

and
• energy generation and town gas sites.

In addition, contamination incidents due to accidental spillage are a concern throughout

Australia.

2.3 Groundwater Protection in Australia

Overseas, there is a history behind the development of groundwater protection strategies in

recent decades. This development of strategies is continuing. The Netherlands and the United
Kingdom have adopted 'wellhead protection areas' to protect drinking water wells from
contamination. These measures are supported by broader policy directives from the European
Community9 .

A wide variety of protection strategies have been adopted in the United States. The Federal
Environment Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a broad set of groundwater protection
guidelines. Individual States have, however, often developed their own measures which rely
on a mixture of technical solutions for clean-up, hazardous waste control, hazardous materials
controls, land-use controls and financial arrangements.

In contrast, relatively little work has been carried out to develop groundwater protection
strategies in Australia.

Control of water resources and water quality in Australia is a State and Territory
responsibility with coordination and some funding of national programs being provided
through the Commonwealth Government. Protection of groundwater has been catered for in
State water legislation since the beginning of this century and more recently by State
environmental protection legislation. However, much of this legislation was generally reactive
and simply prohibited wilful or negligent acts of pollution. The regulations deriving from this
legislation have now been adapted to some extent to provide pro-active protection
mechanisms.

Victoria released a draft State Environment Protection Policy for Groundwaters of Victoria in
October 1994. Provision is made in the Environmental Protection Act 1986 of Western
Australia for the development of statutory policies, with one finalised and several more under
development. Policy development is also starting in some of the other States. However, there
is no systematic framework for policy development and implementation across Australia. The
main purpose of these guidelines is to provide guidance through specifying a systematic
framework for protection.

7
2.4 The Need for Protection

Groundwater remains an important domestic resource for at least one million people in 600
communities around Australia. It makes a substantial contribution as a source of water to
maintain aquatic environments and is an integral component in the long-term management of
water resources on a regional and national scale. Groundwater is an important commodity and
a vital input to both urban and rural industries, and our economy.

Consequently, the need to protect groundwater resources is directly related to the value of
these resources and the risk of devaluation or destruction of this resource due to human
activities.

8
3. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDELINES

3.1 Groundwater: A Pervasive Resource

There are many pervasive features of groundwater which were considered when adopting a
framework for the national guidelines. The major features are discussed in this section to
provide a background for policy makers.

First, the extent of the groundwater resource is difficult to specify with precision in many
places. Geologic features can make assessment of the physical boundaries of aquifers costly
to explore and difficult to map precisely. There can also be great uncertainty in the
determination of parameters related to the flow and storage properties of aquifer materials.
Uncertainty in resource boundaries and parameters makes groundwater assessment and
management a complex and costly task.

Next, the maintenance of groundwater quality can be directly affected by an overdraw of the
stock of water stored in an aquifer. Overuse will lead to a lowering of the watertable. This can
induce polluted water or poorer quality water to enter and contaminate the good quality water.
Consequently, resource allocation and protection are interdependent management task.

Protection of groundwater is generally easier when the source of contamination is

concentrated at a point rather than spread over a broad area. Yet even for problems which
involve point-source contamination, the flow of contaminants to an aquifer may take years or
decades before being noticed. By the time contamination or pollution is observed in the
aquifer, the offender may have abandoned the site and left. Subsequently, the cost of cleaning
up pollution may be left with the general community if the offender cannot be found or has no
money.

Fortunately, water bodies generally have some ability to undergo a self-cleansing process as
contaminants are deposited. But the effectiveness of such cleansing processes depends upon
the nature of the contaminants and on the rate at which they are deposited. For groundwater,
the rate of cleansing is often very low and contaminants can accumulate quickly. Self-
cleansing of large contaminated bodies of groundwater then is only a prospect aver a
geological time-scale.

These foregoing points show that groundwater is a resource which is often difficult to define,
requires skilled management, can be polluted by contaminants which were released many
years ago, and may not have the ability to assimilate contaminants at significant levels. In
addition, the cost of cleaning up groundwater, once it is polluted, is often extremely high, if
indeed it is technically possible.

This goal aims for development that improves the total quality of life, both now and in the
future in a way that maintains the ecological processes on which life depends1 .

-12-

9
Australia's groundwater resource provides benefits to a wide range of people through its use
to support the current standard of living. The task confronting us is to manage this resource on
a sustainable basis to ensure that the needs of tomorrow's generations are incorporated into
today's decisions.

The pervasive nature of the groundwater resource and its susceptibility to contamination
means that deliberate decisions need to be taken now to protect groundwater bodies for the
benefit of future generations. In many instances, no decision or action will have the same
long-term effect as making a deliberate decision to allow contamination to occur. Therefore,
these guidelines aim to promote the development of groundwater protection strategies for
every major groundwater body in Australia, and to place the cost of contamination firmly
with potential polluters

In order to focus on the development of broad-scale protection strategies across Australia in

the next decade, a specific goal for groundwater protection was formulated.

The goal of groundwater protection is to protect the groundwater resources of the

nation so that these resources can support their identified beneficial uses and values
in an economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable and acceptable manner.

The goal recognises that not all groundwater is of the same value and that the focus for action
in the coming years across Australia is to get strategies in place for protecting all major
aquifers.

At the end of the decade it will be appropriate to review groundwater contamination incidents
and the coverage of Australia by various protection strategies. This review will hopefully find
that there is a diverse group of strategies in place across Australia and lead to a more
sophisticated set of guidelines for following decades.

3.2 Beneficial Use Framework and Polluter Pays Principle

The guidelines for groundwater protection rely on a framework in which there is the
identification of existing or potential beneficial uses for each groundwater resource. These
classifications of beneficial use assist in determining the level of protection afforded to each
groundwater body.

The choice of a beneficial use classification for a groundwater body will depend upon the
quality of water present and the potential values of the groundwater in the long term.
Generally, the designated beneficial use of a groundwater body should aim to protect water
quality to the greatest extent. Complexities which arise in the implementation of this principle
are described in Section 5.4.

Once a beneficial use determination has been made, the developer of an industry or activity
which has the potential to contaminate the groundwater body should bear the full costs of
protection of the aquifer against any threats which the development may pose. In these
instances, the developer would be required to show on a continuous basis that the activity did
not pollute the groundwater body.

10
This approach is consistent with the 'polluter pays principle'. The 'polluter pays principle' is a
concept where the costs of preventing or abating pollution are borne by those who could
potentially place contaminants in a situation where they will ultimately degrade
environmental values. The principle can be applied to many situations. For example a
groundwater user who deliberately overdraws an aquifer which leads to deterioration should
expect penalties commensurate with the damage caused. It must be clearly understood by all
members and organisations in society that no-one has the right to pollute groundwater in a
way that creates a significant risk to the public health, ecosystems or other valued uses of
water.

Beneficial Uses and Values

There are numerous ways of categorising beneficial uses and values. The classification
system adopted in these guidelines follows the five broad categories of environmental values
outlined by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council
(ANZECC) in Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters2 . The five
categories are:

• ecosystem protection;

• recreation and aesthetics;

• raw water for drinking water supply;

• agricultural water; and

• industrial water.

Groundwater may be extracted to provide these values directly or may need protection
because of indirect effects on surface waters and their values.

A description of each of these categories is provided in Appendix II. This is not a

comprehensive list since aquifers can have other values. For example, the water in some
aquifers can vary in age both in an aquifer and through an aquifer ie, it is fossilised. The
waters in these aquifers can have significant value to both research and education. In other
cases, special beneficial uses may be created to cover specialised uses of groundwater, such as
mineral water.

Also some confined aquifers, particularly in the sparsely settled areas of Australia, contain
groundwater of extremely poor quality. The water body is confined and far from the surface
and there is no presently foreseen commercial use nor ecological link with the water body. In
this instance, where there is no identified beneficial use or value, developments which affect
the water quality in the aquifer would have to be carefully evaluated and justified in a way
that meets the precautionary principle. These are likely to be rare developments but they still
need to be fully evaluated by all government agencies and the community on a case by case
basis.

11
The ANZECC water quality guidelines provide a useful reference document for identifying
water quality criteria associated with each beneficial use.

Some issues associated with applying water quality criteria for protecting groundwater are:

• The beneficial use classes chosen are necessarily wide and therefore more than one set
of criteria may apply to each class.

• Water quality criteria, especially for environmental purposes, are often specified
broadly and local research findings may allow for more specific criteria to be chosen.

• For groundwater, the point of application of criteria involves some special

considerations and these are discussed further in Section 5.7.

3.3 Achieving Equity

When strategies for protecting groundwater are being developed, difficult situations can often
arise in dealing with past, current and future contamination problems. There are numerous
legal and technical aspects involved and fundamental issues arise, such as:

• the extent of financial liability far contamination;

• the responsibilities and liabilities of authorities, owners, operators and lenders;

• applying liabilities retrospectively; and

• the impact of future changes in standards on current liabilities.

All of these issues involve major judgments on social equity. Some of these issues will be
dealt with by government legislation and edicts, and others under common law.

Managers can improve the equity of their decision making by becoming aware of social
theories which deal with the issue of developing procedures and with the concept of
distributive justice There is one theory that says if the process of decision making is seen to
be fair, the decisions arising from that process will be more likely to be accepted by those
parties affected. There are also methodologies which assess the rules that are applied to
people when making judgments about the fairness of particular decisions 6,7. Finally, fairness
in some societies is often assessed against a 'yardstick'8,9.

It is important that groundwater planners and protectors do not become overly distracted in
trying to achieve social justice over pollution incidents which have occurred in the past. These
will always be difficult issues to deal with and there will not always be quick or equitable
outcomes.

12
Rather, protection is about the future. The main objective is to create a 'benchmark' position
so that new strategies are put in place to protect the groundwater resource from further
undesirable contamination. Once the benchmark is in place, the polluter pays. The conflict
and the difficulty of dealing with pollution incidents can consequently be reduced
significantly in the future.

13
4. APPROACHES TO GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

4.1 Forms of Intervention

Intervention by government to improve the activities of companies and individuals can take
place in three main ways, viz. by direct command or fiat over activities, by the introduction of
market approaches, and by raising social awareness through community participation and
education. The effective use of each type of intervention relies on the circumstances present
but there is now available a basic understanding of when each form of intervention is
effective.

First, intervention can be by command or fiat over specified activities or practices. The most
common example would be the many government regulations which directly control actions
and activities. Government regulations are a forthright way of achieving a stated objective.
They are the quickest way of stopping contamination when it can be easily identified. A
specific threat is identified and a protective regulation is appropriately formulated. Problems
are met by a response which offers an assured outcome. For example, an edict can be written
and enforced which stops contaminants from a point-source entering into a highly valued
aquifer.

However, in many circumstances, the link between a contamination source and the long-term
vulnerability of an aquifer to contamination can be hard to define or the source of
contamination can be widespread. These problems may not justify a blunt form of
intervention over long periods since the monitoring, enforcement and political costs to
government can be very high. Regulations, by their nature, also tend to be rigid and
unresponsive to legitimate differences in local circumstances.

Three specific disadvantages are associated with this relative inflexibility of regulatory
approaches:

• Regulations generally provide no incentive to achieve better than a prescribed

standard.
• Regulations do not consider the distributional aspects of reducing environmental
damage, either in terms of equity or efficiency.
• Regulations often do not allow individuals to choose the lowest cost response to meet
environmental objectives.

The second type of intervention can be by market approaches which provide financial
incentives for proper behaviour and provide more efficient and equitable distribution of the
costs of contamination or, for the purposes of these guidelines, the cost of protection
measures. Market approaches in other fields rely on regulations which set limits on
contamination and/or have the real costs of contamination met by dischargers. Dischargers
then have a financial incentive to optimise the marginal costs and benefits of their
contamination and to look at least-cost ways of reducing the release of contaminants. Market
incentives harness the initiative, knowledge and judgement of individual dischargers to create
a set of efficient behaviour rather than force all dischargers to behave alike, regardless of the
damage they do or the contamination-control costs they face.

14
The efficient and equitable implementation of one or a mix of market approaches to
groundwater requires a thorough economic analysis to be made of each situation. A good
understanding of the aquifer's vulnerability, dimensions, and flow and storage parameters is
also required. A range of market instruments can then be suggested which have different
efficiencies, distributional consequences and administrative costs for improving the situation.
The instruments might include taxes, optional insurance covers and bond arrangements.

For groundwater protection strategies, application of the 'polluter pays principle 1 would lead
to potential polluters paying for the monitoring and reporting of contaminant levels in
aquifers. Financial instruments, such as insurance bonds, can provide added incentive for
potential polluters not to pollute groundwater.

The third form of intervention covers a range of social actions and processes which involve
community participation and education. In the development of strategies, public participation
processes can greatly improve the general understanding of the need for groundwater
protection and lead to the ready adoption and implementation of strategies. A community
participation process informs the community of the problems and their options, improves
decision making by getting community input, and creates a sense of ownership of a strategy
by the community. When these processes involve a social learning process, they can lead to a
wide variety of people voluntarily changing their actions or create community pressure for
potential polluters to stop bad practices.

Long-term protection of groundwater from dispersed pollution is an example which requires

the development of protection strategies through a community participation process.
Awareness and appropriate action needs to be developed by all levels of government as well
as by community groups. Often the result will be in the form of a plan of coordinated and
cooperative action. This form of intervention is strongly recommended as part of the
development of any and all broad-scale strategies for groundwater protection.

The three types of intervention discussed all have a part to play in groundwater protection.
Most strategies will involve action derived from utilising more than one of these intervention
methods.

15
4.2 Types of Protection Strategies

The three major types of government intervention have just been outlined. A protection
strategy is in part a plan for intervention. It is made up from a detailed set of policies, plans
and actions which together aim to achieve certain objectives. Consequently, the purpose of
strategy development is to plan ways in which the government and the community at large
can adopt a coordinated and comprehensive approach to the protection and management of a
State's or Territory's groundwater resources.

There are various types of groundwater protection measures which are used in different part
of the world. Each measure has its strengths and weaknesses. Consequently, there is not one
measure which can be universally adopted to protect Australia's groundwater. Each State and
Territory will need to examine the range of, measures available and adapt one or more of
these measures to their particular circumstances and local needs. The choice of suitable
measures will not only depend on the physical properties of the groundwater body and the
nature and type of contamination, but also can legislative, financial, social, environmental and
political considerations.

If groundwater is to be protected in the long term then a viewpoint must be adopted on the
desired outcome. For groundwater, determination of a beneficial use will provide an initial
focus for this desired outcome. A plan can then be drawn up to manage and protect the
resource so that this outcome can be achieved in the long term. This planning activity will
also determine the protection measures which are pertinent to the situation being examined.

There are a variety of State, regional and local government legislative powers which can be
utilised to develop and implement groundwater protection plans. This legislation can be
grouped under three broad headings:

• -Groundwater Management;
• -Land-use Planning; and
• -Environment Protection.

Groundwater management legislation is weighted towards management issues related to the

allocation and utilisation of the resource. Groundwater may be integrated with surface water
management on a catchment or regional basis, and may, or may not, involve other specialised
bodies such as State departments of mines or geological survey. Legislation typically includes
controls on groundwater extraction rates, the gathering of hydrogeological information, and
monitoring of critical over-draw situations. Controls can cover aquifer contamination issues
through the reservation of special areas, well construction and abandonment measures, and
driller licensing. Disposal of waste liquids via wells may be included.

In some cases, groundwater management legislation will also specifically include powers to
protect groundwater quality particularly in stressed areas or public water supply areas. These
powers can take the form of by-laws to control activities, regulate the disposal of materials,
control the storage of materials underground, and intervene in risky activities.

Land-use planning legislation places controls over the broad uses to which land is put.
Inevitably, long-term effects result from land uses which are detrimental to groundwater or
social reasons, significant use has not been made of planning legislation to control slo

16
degradation of groundwater over large regions of Australia. One exception is the Planning Act
(1982) in South Australia which prohibits or restricts certain land-use activities which can
degrade groundwater. However, land-use controls are likely to be more widely adopted as
contamination problems become more critical over broad areas in future. Land-use planning
is a critical factor in implementing effective groundwater management strategies at a regional
scale.

Environment protection legislation varies in its coverage, though it tends to be generally

built on pollution control concepts. As such, it can protect aquifers by directly applying
controls to point-source contamination and indirectly applying controls to diffuse-source
contamination through regulations on contaminants such as agricultural chemicals. Such
legislation would also be expected to cover the remediation of contaminated sites and polluted
groundwater bodies.

A protection plan will need to take into account the available legislative tools, which in most
States and Territories will involve the above three elements. If current legislation is deficient
it will be necessary to recommend new legislation or changes to existing legislation to ensure
that an adequate legislative base exists for groundwater protection.

These guidelines favour measures which derive their intervention power from existing
groundwater management legislation. This bias is present because the main audience for these
guidelines will be groundwater managers in the water sector and they can readily intervene
under this type of legislation.

Protection of groundwater in the long-term will not only rely on traditional groundwater
management measures but will also rely more and more on land-use planning and
environmental protection measures. In all States and Territories, groundwater managers over
the next decade need to be the leaders in the creation of awareness and the development of co-
ordination mechanisms between groundwater managers, planners and environmental
protection managers so that these alternative measures can be implemented.

An example of the need for this leadership role is the growing trend to discharge sewage
effluent to land rather than discharging the effluent to inland rivers or the ocean.
The implications of replacing one pollution sink (an inland stream or ocean) with another sink
(the land and its groundwater) are not readily recognised. Those most familiar with
groundwater, i.e. groundwater specialists and managers, need to contribute their expertise to
those debates so that more informed decisions are made about the options available. This
knowledge must be integrated into planning at a strategic level so that the management of
groundwater becomes part of the whole water cycle.

-20-

17
4.3 Groundwater Management Measures

4.3.1 Groundwater management plans

Groundwater policies and regulations have traditionally been developed within a planning
framework. This approach aims to integrate the many issues involved with resource
management and provide an efficient plan for allocation and development of the resource by
users.

The objectives and components of this traditional approach to groundwater management will
be discussed initially. The discussion will then turn to how the objectives and issues of
groundwater protection and the principles of beneficial uses can be incorporated into this
planning approach.

Once a groundwater body reaches a stage of being used by many competing users, the net
benefits of resource use will be maximised if a common plan exists for regulating individual
behaviour. The formation of this common plan has traditionally involved setting some
common objectives. The planning process involves component studies which take into
account, inter alia:

• an assessment of the resource base;

• water demands and their location;

• appropriate methods of extraction;

• recharge and discharge characteristics;

• water quality variation;

• environmental and land subsidence issues;

• controls of application rates of contaminants;

• monitoring needs; and

• regulations and charges.

Traditionally, the focus of many groundwater management plans was on resource utilisation
and the aim was to maximise the net benefits to users of groundwater. Consequently, these
users were the main beneficiaries of the plan.

Logically, this traditional approach to planning for allocation of a resource can be adapted so
that the initial allocation decisions are improved in view of current data and knowledge, and
also extended so that the beneficiaries of planning are a broader community of interests. In
some circumstances, the planning will need to cover both surface water and groundwater
issues if there is a high level of interaction between these resources.

18
Integration of allocation and protection issues starts with the identification of the benefits or
values of groundwater. Groundwater values are most often defined in terms of some
classification system which, for the purpose of groundwater resource mapping in Australia,
usually combines water quality criteria with a measure of aquifer productivity. In the United
States, the system of classification is much simpler, the main criterion being the use of
groundwater for drinking water (or sustenance of a unique ecosystem). In Europe, all
groundwaters are taken to be highly valued or closely linked to the human environment, and
are thereby uniformly protected.

A significant impediment to the definition of a simple groundwater classification system is

the multi-dimensional nature of groundwater systems. Even where the time dimension is
ignored for the purposes of simplicity, a three dimensional problem remains within which
'protection areas' need to be defined. The boundaries of these areas are defined by natural
hydrogeological entities such as 'aquifers', 'aquifer Systems', 'groundwater flow systems' or
'groundwater basins'. Once these areas are identified, each area requires a 'beneficial use'
classification.

The designation of a beneficial use is approached with care for the unknown. The degree of
natural variation within hydrogeological systems does always not lend itself to simple
definitions of protection areas. The classification of groundwater is also limited by the
knowledge and cost of investigating the resource. However, a degree of conservatism can be
brought to bear on these decisions to allow for the uncertainties in decision making. The
categories for beneficial use which have been adopted for these guidelines were discussed in
Section 3.2. More information and references for linking water quality criteria to these
categories is contained in Appendix 11 and Section 5.3 also discusses this issue.

Protection of groundwater can be improved in the planning processes for allocating water if
protection issues are integrally linked into the analysis. Allocation of groundwater has
traditionally been aimed at maximising the net benefits to groups in society who extract
groundwater. This does not necessarily maximise the net benefits to society of a range of
conservation and environmental values which do not rely on the extraction of groundwater. A
public education and consultation process needs to be part of the process if these broader
values are to be incorporated into an overall allocation and protection plan to manage the
resource.

Groundwater management plans have traditionally relied on government regulation for

implementation. Market incentives can assist in this management task. Once there are many
competing demands on aquifers, proper prices and transfer mechanisms will achieve efficient
allocation of the resource. Protection of the resource can be improved by taxes and charges on
contaminant releases or activities that lead to contamination and by performance bonds and
non-compliance fees on industries which produce contaminants. Complex problems involving
multiple sources of major contamination can be dealt with by tradeable pollution permits. The
use of these economic instruments is in an early stage of development and greater adoption of
these instruments will occur as Australia's contamination problems gain greater recognition as
the economic environment matures.

Groundwater managers can facilitate the move toward the introduction of market mechanisms
for protection of aquifers in the long-term by introducing market mechanisms for other
purposes first, such as user pays pricing and trading in water rights. A familiarity with market

19
mechanisms on the quantity side will promote their introduction on the quality side in the
longer term to both users, and managers.

The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Water Reform Policy framework agreed in
February 1994 recommended that management arrangements relating to groundwater be
considered by ARMCANZ by early 1995 and advice from such considerations be provided to
individual jurisdictions and the report be provided to COAG.

The COAG reform framework embraces pricing reform based on the principles of
consumption based pricing and full cost recovery, the clarification of property rights, the
allocation of water to the environment, the adoption of trading arrangements in water,
institutional reform and public consultation and participation.

In the final analysis, the effectiveness of a groundwater management and protection plan will
depend on its enforcement. This requires a good monitoring program and adequate
enforcement procedures with the backing of financial and human resources.

The planning approach is an excellent way to integrate many issues and the classification of
beneficial uses will provide an initial basis for protecting Australia's groundwaters from
contamination. However, there are several other groundwater management techniques which
usually need to be considered in the formulation of resource use and protection plans. These
techniques are particularly pertinent to the more intensively developed parts of the continent.

4.3.2 Vulnerability and vulnerability mapping

One technique for assisting the development of groundwater protection strategies is based on
determining a groundwater body's vulnerability to contamination. The vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination varies both within and between natural hydrogeological
systems. Vulnerability may be defined as a relative evaluation of the potential exposure of a
groundwater resource (and consequently, its beneficial use) to contamination from planned
and unplanned sources. It provides a means of assessing the need for groundwater protection
mechanisms according to the loss of a beneficial use of that groundwater resource. Ranking of
vulnerability needs to incorporate a number of hydrogeological variables such as:

• thickness of the unsaturated zone;

• nature of the overlying soils;
• degree of confinement and nature of porosity;
• geochemistry of the aquifer;
• sedimentary architecture, e.g. shoestring sands;
• hydraulic properties of the aquifer;
• topography and groundwater flow system;
• impact on surface waters; and
• land and water (i.e. catchment) management.

A number of different schemes for mapping vulnerability, using these types of parameters,
have been devised. These maps provide a good guide to groundwater resource vulnerability
on a regional to subregional basis, but have only limited potential for classifying the true
vulnerability at specific sites. Interpretation of such maps therefore requires some caution as
the subtle variations in natural hydrogeological systems geometry can be misleading. For

20
example, a groundwater basin which contains an unconfined aquifer that is close to the
surface and of high quality water may be considered to be more vulnerable to contamination
than deep confined aquifers in the basin which are covered by dense and impermeable
sediment. Vulnerability mapping and ranking schemes commonly in use include the 'Drastic'2
and 'Le Grand'3 systems. Simplified ranking systems have also been used in regional studies
around Melbourne for determining suitable sites for industrial waste disposal.

In Australia, the Le Grand method of site assessment was proposed by the EPA in Victoria in
a Draft Landfill Policy4,5 as a means of assessing sites for suitability for landfills, but the
method was not adopted in the final policy 'State Environment Protection Policy - Landfills'.7
The Le Grand methodology is considered to be fundamentally different to most vulnerability
mapping methods. Although it is based on a specific methodology, it is site specific and has
been used to assign a rank score to enable a comparison of different sites. It should not be
confused with vulnerability mapping methods which can be applied over broad areas.

Vulnerability mapping schemes generally assume that the source of contamination is at or just
under the land surface. Sources such as spills, landfills, storage tanks or industrial plants fall
into this category. However, another group of contaminant sources are the man-made conduits
which reach deep into the sub-surface. These include water supply wells, mineral exploration
wells, oil wells, gas wells, and most importantly waste injection wells. Contamination from
inadequately designed and constructed deep wells produces a significant increase in the risk
of contamination vulnerability in what would otherwise be low vulnerability groundwater
systems, and must be classified accordingly.

The vulnerability of a groundwater system (aquifer, flow system car basin) to contamination
can therefore be assessed on a regional basis using an appropriate analysis by a skilled
hydrogeologist or groundwater engineer. This vulnerability may be mapped on a flow system
scale to illustrate conditions at the surface. Once a vulnerability map has been produced, it
may then be used by any professional to assess the relative priorities for groundwater
protection and be incorporated into the groundwater management planning process. An
example is now given of a groundwater vulnerability assessment exercise.

The assessment system in this example combines the five beneficial use classes with two
arbitrary vulnerability classes, high and low, which correspond to the two end members of a
spectrum of aquifer types. High vulnerability aquifers are shallow (usually unconfined),
highly permeable aquifers with little attenuation character, whereas low vulnerability aquifers
are, taken to be deep, usually confined systems or have properties that slow and attenuate
contaminant transport. Given the number of variables needed to define vulnerability the
potential number of vulnerability classes could be very large. However, in this example, two
categories were adopted. The resultant groundwater beneficial use and vulnerability
categories are presented in Table 1.

Idle categories (E1, E2, R1, R2, .. .. I1, and I2) would be related to various allowable and
prohibited activities. A map which adopted these categories could then be used to provide this
information to the public in an easily understood format.

21
 TABLE 1
GROUNDWATER USE AND VULNERABILITY CATEGORIES

Use Vulnerability

High Low

Ecosystem Protection E1 E2

Recreation and Aesthetics R1 R2

Raw Water for Drinking D1 D2

Agricultural Water A1 A2

Industrial Water I1 I2

4.3.3 Aquifer classification systems

Aquifer classification systems allow development of protection strategies that take account of
the specific attributes of the resources to be protected. These attributes may include:

• designated beneficial use;

• water quality (usually in terms of Total Dissolved Solids);

• social value;

• economic value;

• ecosystem values:

• vulnerability to contamination;

• current and planned land tenure and use;

• availability of alternative sources;

• current extent of contamination and potential for successful clean-up; and

• hydraulic relationship with other resources (surface and groundwater).

22
A working example of a comprehensive aquifer classification system is that developed and
adopted by the State of Connecticut in the United States. The System is a four-class
groundwater classification system based on water use rather than discharge criteria. The most
protected class applies to water utility and municipal drinking water supplies. The next two
classes apply to private drinking water supplies, and water supplies that may require treatment
to make them potable because of past impacts upon water quality. The final class designates
areas where there are no plans to use groundwater and in which certain treated industrial
wastes and major residential waste disposal practices are allowed. For each class, the
compatible discharges that may be permitted is prescribed. This approach is generally
narrative, and relates to the protection goals determined for each aquifer class. The system has
been effectively used to direct the priorities of the State's enforcement program8,9,10 .

The Connecticut example illustrates the successful integration of water quality standards,
landuse policies and discharge permits. However, its final class which allows for waste
disposal differs significantly from 'no identified beneficial use' in these guidelines under
which waste disposal may be permitted if it can be shown to benefit society.

The development of the 'sole source aquifer' concept by the USEPA11 for principal drinking
water sources is another example of a form of aquifer classification that allows the setting of
clear goal-oriented protection programs for high priority sources.

4.3.4 Setting levels of action

Conventional approaches to groundwater protection have relied heavily on technology and

designing containment systems for waste disposal facilities. In the USA, hazardous waste
disposal sites have been the focus, while in Australia municipal landfills have been a focus in
some States.

The approach which has evolved to manage the level of groundwater contamination in these
hazardous situations involves a hierarchy of increasing intervention. 'Levels of action' are
designated for particular protection areas dependent upon the perceived threat from
contamination in that area.

This type of approach is generally reactive rather than proactive. However, there may be
situations in Australia where contamination is already present and this type of strategy needs
to be adopted. For many protection plans, the details of this type of approach will also be
pertinent to contingency plans (Section 4.6).

Action levels need to be chosen to match the long-term beneficial use of groundwater in view
of the source of contamination present. Sources include operational waste sites, abandoned
sites, new operations, point sources and diffuse sources.

In the following example six levels of action are adopted. The guiding principles
underpinning these action levels are:

• protection must relate to risk;

• containment of hazardous waste cannot be assured;

23
• prevention of pollution is far less costly than clean-up;

• wellhead protection may be needed;

• some specification of hydrogeological assessments is required; and

• the rigidity of water quality criteria may not be helpful.

The six levels of action are as follows:

LEVEL I NO ACTION

In areas which have low groundwater value, where groundwater discharge to surface waters is
not significant and where no obvious source of contaminant occurs, no action is required. In
order to make this judgement on 'no action', significant amounts of information are required.
This information is unlikely to exist for low-valued groundwater and so this classification
level would be rarely, if ever, adopted.

LEVEL II GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT REPORT

In areas where one or more of the variables might indicate a potential risk to groundwater or
the environment, a desk study to identify the concerns and the need for further action is
required. A standard format hydrogeological report would result. This could also be the only
measure applied in cases where controlled degradation was occurring.

LEVEL III SITE INVESTIGATION WITH MONITORING

In areas where the level II assessment indicates a potential risk or where it is otherwise known
to exist, a site investigation and groundwater monitoring is required. The extent of work
should involve a limited amount of site investigation, soil and water sampling and testing,
definition of flow systems and reporting.

LEVEL IV DEMONSTRATED GROUNDWATER PROTECTION SYSTEM

In areas where the risk to groundwater is demonstrated by Level II and III assessment or is
otherwise known and where these effects cannot be tolerated, a demonstrated groundwater
protection system should be implemented. The work should include level II and III
assessments plus implementation of an on-going monitoring program. In addition the
protection design (considering natural attenuation, hydraulic: barriers, physical barriers etc.)
need to be shown (by modelling for example) to be effective.

LEVEL V DEMONSTRATED REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN

In cases where the potential risk is so great or where the impact of contamination in a high
ranking aquifer is evident but not sufficient to warrant clean-up a demonstrated remedial
action plan is advised. The work should include level II, III and IV assessments and
monitoring plus a feasibility plan for clean-up which analyses the effectiveness of the

24
remediation approach in achieving designated water quality criteria (by bench tests, models,
protocols etc).The financial capacity of the responsible party to enact the plan should also be
evaluated.

LEVEL VI PROHIBITION/CLEAN-UP

In the event that the risk to groundwater is unacceptable an activity may be banned by the
responsible authority. This might not be feasible in many cases without substantial financial
damage to the affected parties and thus would need to be phased-in so that lower levels of
protection could be broadly applied. If the current state of contamination is unacceptable then
a clean-up order could be issued. In this event a Demonstrated Remedial Action Plan should
be required prior to clean-up to ensure its effectiveness.

Appendix III provides considerable detail of the reports, monitoring, protection schemes and
action plans which are necessary for this type of approach.

4.3.5 Wellhead protection plans

Protection of public water supply wells (wellfields, bores or borefields) is a high priority in
some countries where the main source of drinking water is from unconfined and very
vulnerable aquifers. A similar type of protection is provided in parts of Australia, for example
the Underground Water Pollution Control Areas around the public water supply wellfields
near Perth in Western Australia.

• Water supply wells can become contaminated in a number of ways including:

• incompatible land-use practices within well recharge areas, eg. septic tanks;

• leakage of contaminants into the well or around the outside of the casing, if not properly
sealed or poorly operated and maintained;

• aquifer contamination by leakage of poor quality or contaminated groundwater from one

aquifer to another via improperly constructed or corroded wells;

• interaquifer leakage in wellholes drilled for mineral or oil and gas exploration which are
not properly abandoned; and

• drill stems not properly cleaned, thus transferring bacteria or contaminants.

Measures to prevent occurrences identified in the latter three mechanisms are included in
groundwater control laws in most States which require driller licensing and the adoption of
proper well construction methods. However, the control of non-water boring activities is
generally less stringent. Attention is required in groundwater strategies to remedy this
weakness in current groundwater protection.

The contamination prevention measures provided in present groundwater legislation do not

provide adequate protection for water supply wells. Some better assurance of protection and
definition of the response to a contamination incident is required. This could be provided by a
plan which specifies technical details including the construction of the collar of the well,

25
integrity of the casing, operation and maintenance procedure, safe storage of hazardous and
tainting substances, monitoring pumped water and nearby aquifers for pollution indicators, or
an appropriate response plan in the event of contamination from any source.

Consequently, all public water supply wells should be subject to a Wellhead Protection Plan,
whether they are in shallow unconfined, vulnerable systems or deep confined aquifers of low
vulnerability. This is based on the rationale that shallow systems will need protection because
of their high vulnerability to contamination by surface sources whereas deep aquifers are
potentially at risk from interaquifer contamination or well failure. Adoption of a Wellhead
Protection Plan will also heighten the awareness of water supply operators and the public
about groundwater protection. Based on previous experience of the lack of care in the
operation of some town supply wellfields, such protection is overdue.

The Wellhead Protection Plan is a system of groundwater protection which involves the
following components:

- Well Integrity Assurance: A set of actions to assure that the well is properly designed
and constructed to achieve protection objectives. This includes provision of adequate
protection of the well collar against physical damage and seepage of contaminants.

- Wellhead Protection Zones: The delineation of protection zones around the wellhead
aims at protecting that part of the groundwater flow system which contributes to the
discharge of the well. This will include the nearby cone of influence defined by drawdown
of the watertable and the flow field up gradient not affected by drawdown. The size and
location of these zones needs to be defined on a site specific basis to allow for effective
designs of the monitoring system. These may need to account for non- advective particle
motion since density, dispersion and diffusion effects can predominate in many
circumstances.

- Monitoring System: Water quality within the aquifer and in the pumping well needs to be
monitored to protect against contamination. Monitoring the pumping well alone is
inadequate as no warning of an imminent contamination incident is provided. Monitoring
is needed within the aquifer at positions at sufficient distance up-gradient to allow time for
preventative and if necessary, remedial action to be implemented in the event of
contamination being detected. Groundwater near the contamination sources within the
zone also needs to be monitored.

- Contamination Sources/Land-use Control: The location and nature of existing

contamination sources within the protection zones needs to be documented and controls
placed upon these or potential land-uses within the zones.

Given the degree of complexity of the Wellhead Protection Plan design and implementation
process, it follows that a degree of technical guidance documentation is needed, to enable the
responsible parties (water boards, councils etc.) to implement such plans.

Table 2 presents an example of one approach to a Wellhead Protection Plan.

26
 TABLE 2
EXAMPLE OF A WELLHEAD PROTECTION ZONE FOR
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES

Zone Boundaries Restrictions

I 50 m radius No storage of hazardous or tainting

(or within the wellfield) material, implementation of an integrity
assurance plan.
II No waste dumps, implementation of a
10 years residence time monitoring system, including monitoring
for response to a contaminated plume within
the boundary.
III No restrictions beyond those imposed by a
Greater than 10 years regional protection plan and monitoring
residence time system to provide warning of deterioration
in water quality.

The approach is based on the definition of concentric protection zones around the wellhead.
The nearest zone (Zone 1) would commonly encompass the water authority compound around
the wellhead but could also include adjacent properties. The most stringent controls on land
use and materials handling would apply in this zone. The second zone (Zone II) is arbitrarily
defined as the maximum distance a contaminant particle would have travelled if it took 10
years to reach the well. The controls on land use in this zone would require a monitoring
system for all potentially polluting activities within the area. Monitoring of groundwater
within this area, particularly up-gradient or within the capture zone of a well would give early
warning of contamination.

The third zone (Zone III) would correspond with the regional protection area where greater
than 10 years residence time is available. This is usually the 'catchment area' of the
contributing aquifer. Definition of the size in outer protection zone(s) would require adoption
of a standardised methodology for estimation of the area within the specified residence time
zone(s). The approach to management within this area would be largely affected by the nature
of the aquifer being protected, particularly its degree of confinement.

When wellhead protection zones are declared for existing bores supplying towns and cities,
careful thought needs to be given to the implementation strategy. The zoning will only protect
against future contamination threats and so the strategy must look at all existing threats and
take remedial action.

4.4 Land-use Planning Measures

The planning process for land and resource utilisation is complex, and usually has many tiers
of authority, delegation and appeal. In many parts of Australia, surface water supply
catchments have long been afforded special status and protection. Groundwater protection in
the planning process has usually been implemented in the form of conservation areas, i.e.

27
an area or zone to be protected from over extraction, or reserved specifically for public water
supply.

There are only a few examples in Australia of specific catchment protection measures for the
protection of groundwater recharge zones. In Western Australia, by-laws are promulgated for
designated areas. These are termed either 'water reserves' under the Country Areas Water
Supply Act 1947 (WA) or 'pollution control areas' under the Metropolitan Water Supply,
Sewerage and Drainage Act 1909 (WA).

Land-use planning controls are a powerful instrument in situations, such as:

(a) Mining and quarrying (especially in recharge areas)

Competition for resources by mining and quarrying can impact on the quality of groundwater,
by firstly mining the aquifer material and secondly replacing it with incompatible low
permeability material. This reduces recharge and diminishes the yield of the water resource.
The competition for the resource should be recognised in the land-use planning stage and
appropriate controls recommended.

(b) Reclamation and regulation of waste disposal

Sources of contamination such as waste disposal sites are normally regulated by authorities
that are independent of the water sector. Land-use or catchment management plans should
include provision for the exclusion of some types of waste disposal operation in areas where
groundwater is vulnerable to contamination.

(c) Land clearing and development

The clearing of native growth and land development for industrial or rural activities can
induce changes in water quality and recharge rates to aquifers or directly contaminate
groundwater. This should be recognised in the land-planning process. Land planning can
ensure that land development activities take place in areas appropriate to each type of
development. Urban and rural runoff may also have to be addressed in a whole-of-catchment
approach to groundwater quality protection.

These are just three possibilities where land-use planning can greatly assist groundwater
protection. The power of this regulatory instrument should not be underestimated in the
development of groundwater protection strategies. Land-use planning controls should be the
subject of much public discussion in the strategy development process and this will involve
coordination between groundwater managers and local/regional government planners.

The implementation of land-use controls can often be most effectively achieved through the
existing local government planning process. The challenge for groundwater managers
associated with State Government departments and agencies is to educate and convince local
governments and their communities of the need for groundwater protection. They must then
provide hydrogeological expertise and maps so that groundwater protection needs can be
easily analysed by local government planners.

28
4.5 Environment Protection Measures

During the 1970s, Environment Protection Agencies (EPAs) were incorporated into
governments overseas and in various Australian States. In more recent time, the
Commonwealth has formed an Environment Protection Agency. It has focused on the chronic
waste disposal problems that have emerged in cities and across the countryside.

A joint State, Territory and Commonwealth Ministerial Council, known as the National
Environment Protection Council will have responsibility for developing National
Environment Protection Measures. These measures may include standards, guidelines, goals
and protocols in any combination that the Council considers appropriate.

Waste management measures were developed to deal with not only protecting the
environment from waste pollution but also minimising the production of waste. These
strategies rely on a hierarchy of actions which are approached in the following order
according to a decreasing desirability:

• waste avoidance;
• waste re-use;
• recycling or waste reclamation;
• waste treatment to reduce potential degrading impacts; and
• waste disposal.

If there is more of the first then consequently there will be less need for the last. A range of
action can be taken on each of these measures through regulation, market incentives or
consumer education. The action of EPAs in these areas can have significant flow-on effects
for groundwater protection. It is likely that for many urban problems, environment protection
measures will be more effective in the long-term than many of the traditional groundwater
protection measures.

An example of direct action on groundwater protection by an EPA is Victoria. The EPA in

Victoria produces State Environment Protection Policies (Sepp) on special subjects and has
developed a draft State Environment Protection Policy for Groundwaters of Victoria. The
policy goal is to maintain groundwater quality sufficient to protect existing and potential
beneficial uses of aquifers throughout Victoria, by the prevention of pollution. It identifies
beneficial uses to be protected for groundwater of different quality and provides water quality
objectives based on the Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters
(ANZECC, 1992). The policy also includes a program for the attainment of these objectives.
The draft policy is due to be finalised and become State legislation in 1995.

Western Australia's water resource and environmental protection agencies have recently
established an Environmental Protection Policy (EPP) for groundwater, wetlands and native
vegetation of a groundwater resource north of Perth. This policy establishes beneficial uses
and quality objectives, for that groundwater, prohibits certain activities, and has the force of
law as though part of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

29
Some basic steps in environmental discharge management can achieve a significant level of
protection with only a little effort. Most of the potential sources of contamination are small
point sources or collections of small point sources. Under current environmental law in most
States these would be regulated by waste discharge licensing, septic tank regulations etc.,
although groundwater protection in general has only recently become a concern requiring
address as part of this process. Exceptions to this are underground storage tanks, some mining
activities and most abandoned waste disposal sites, all of which are high on the priority lists
of groundwater protection authorities.

By using this approach to protection, it is believed that the majority of new potential
contamination sources can be designed to minimise contaminant impact potential and protect
groundwater (or alternatively prohibited on the grounds of potential impact to groundwater).
Consequently, the appropriate level of protection in the case of point-sources, may be defined
by an impact assessment based on the relevant classification of beneficial use for groundwater
in the area. This may then be implemented as part of the existing environmental management
or waste discharge licence system.

The protection of groundwater at specific sites, such as landfills, can be achieved in a number
of ways. One potential protection scheme is the multi-barrier concept which applies in
Germany to landfills located over groundwater bodies. The owner of the landfill must show
the regulatory authority that it has barriers in place to handle a variety of risks. These barriers
cover:

• the stability and characteristics of the site (a geological barrier);

• the sealing system (a technical barrier);

• controls over the waste (a material barrier); and

• subsequent safeguarding of the landfill after closure.

The application of a protection scheme to new proposals for potentially contaminating

activities is straight forward. These schemes can also be applied in cases which involve
diffuse sources, such as fertiliser and pesticide contamination. For example, the use of
pesticides in some agricultural systems requires compliance with chemical handling
regulations, and the relevant Department of Agriculture would normally have some regulatory
or advisory role. If pesticide use in a certain area becomes a concern to the water sector or the
environment agency, then the agriculture authorities or a group of land owners might be
required to comply with a groundwater protection order and undertake work to ensure an
appropriate protection level.

There is a large variety of actions that can be taken under emerging environmental legislation.
Some specific examples of possible actions, including the use of market incentives, are
provided in Section 5.7.

30
4.6 Other Measures

The development of protection strategies should also include suitable arrangements for
monitoring and reviewing the performance of protection measures. An example is given in
Section 5.8 of the development of suitable monitoring and review arrangements.

A strategy should also allow for the worst and have a contingency plan. Section 5.9 provides
an example of this component of a protection strategy. In addition, significant technical
guidance is provided in Appendix III to various facets of investigation, monitoring, reporting
and remedial action which could comprise a contingency plan.

Strategies can be implemented under various legislative powers of State and local
Government. Examples of some protection measures which can be implemented under State
and local government powers are given in Table 3. A comprehensive tabulation of all
available measures for each Australian State and Territory along the lines of this tabulation
would be a useful starting point for identifying the list of potential players in groundwater
protection.

For each State, Territory and the Commonwealth, a possible initial step in development of a
plan would be to examine all legislation and organisations which have groundwater protection
responsibilities associated with them. The strengths, weaknesses and aspects not covered or
inadequately controlled by legislation or organisations should be found. This could be
followed by a survey of the adequacy of groundwater contamination information and
monitoring. Once this Statewide position is known, and deficiencies remedied if necessary,
development of protection plans can proceed for each aquifer or groundwater province.

31
 TABLE 3
EXAMPLES OF SOME PROTECTION MEASURES

State Government Local Government

Water -provision of vulnerability maps -assist in the implementation of

Management Wellhead Protection Plans
Measures -driller licensing

-prioritising protection areas

Land-use -requirement for groundwater -amendments to planning controls

Planning assessment for prescribed activities over land clearing and development
Measures in protection areas to protect groundwater

-provision of referral advice on -enforcing conditions placed on

groundwater protection areas development and land clearing

Environmental -requirements for impact -developing and implementing waste

Management assessment and monitoring at management strategies
Measures landfill sites
-improved garbage collection and
-compliance policies for all new recycling to minimise waste disposal
projects
-preparing and amending local
-underground storage tank environmental plans to protect
monitoring groundwater

-providing professional advice on

local issues

-information dissemination to the

community

-co-operative measures to police

environmental legislation

32
5. DEVELOPMENT OF A PROTECTION PLAN

5.1. Background

Strategies can be applied to a specific groundwater resource under an overall protection plan.
Groundwater protection plans and their component measures may take many forms. They
may vary from policy statements outlining broad management objectives to prescriptive
regulatory programs, including statutory controls and specific regulations on contaminating
activities. Their intent may be limited to influencing decision making regarding approval of
potentially contaminating activities, or it may be to closely control these activities. Protection
plans may apply to specific geographic localities of various sizes from Statewide to a small
aquifer. They may cover part or whole of an aquifer, or groups of aquifers. Groundwater
protection plans may be directed to minimising future contamination of groundwater, or to
detecting and managing contamination associated with past or existing activities.

The scope of protection plans and the range of measures which may be incorporated in these
plans is endless. One practical approach to development of a groundwater protection plan has
been selected for description in this chapter. This approach has the flexibility to be adapted to
a large variety of political, institutional, legislative and physical circumstances. It is a case
study of plan development at a regional level using mostly conventional regulatory
provisions. The text is written with detailed examples from good overseas practice so as to
illustrate major points in plan development. The steps in the overall development of this plan
are illustrated in Figure 3. The Implementation Guidelines of the National Water Quality
Management Strategy provide further information.

Development of a protection plan for a specific region will need to address several issues. The
involvement of the public in the planning process will be an important initial decision.

The physical characteristics of the resources which are to be protected need to be understood.
Once there is an understanding of the resource in terms of its quantity, quality and extent, the
objectives of protection need to be identified in terms of their existing and potential beneficial
uses. For each category of beneficial use, appropriate criteria then need to be selected. A
separate set of processes and decisions will apply if there are no identified beneficial uses or
values.

33
 Define broad objectives for Set up Task Force
protection planning

Assess the resource C

O
M
Identify beneficial uses and
values
M
U
Formulate specific protection
N
policies I
Education and
Participation T
Set water quality standards Y

Assemble a range of I
protection
N
V
Look at monitoring and
review requirements O
L
Draw up contingency V
measures
E
M
Select preferred options and
finalise plan
E
N
T
Implement protection plan

FIGURE 3: EXAMPLE OF STEPS IN DEVELOPING A REGIONAL

PROTECTION PLAN FOR GROUNDWATER

34
Various components of the protection plan need to be considered at this stage. Aquifer
classification systems, the assessment of vulnerability, land-use controls, and considerations
of the risk and consequences of contamination by different activities and substances are some
of the measures which can be evaluated. These components need to be packaged as part of an
overall plan of action under legislation from the groundwater management, land-use planning
and environment protection areas of government.

Other issues such as contingency actions and monitoring requirements also need careful
consideration. Implementation will also require definition of the roles of the various agencies,
and co-ordination of their efforts. It is important that there be unambiguous lines of
responsibility for decision making and management. Part of any groundwater protection plan
will require identification of these responsibilities, proposed outcomes and timetables for
action, followed by regular reporting to government and the community on the success or
otherwise of the protection plan and agency responsibilities.

A groundwater protection plan is not a static event. It must evolve with improvements in the
information base and changes in society and land use. This requires an adaptive management
approach. This will require regular review of strategies, their priorities, effectiveness,
direction and focus and the evolution of adapted or different strategies in order to continually
meet protection objectives. This cycle of events is simply illustrated in Figure 4.

These issues are discussed in further detail through the remainder of this chapter.

5.2 Public Involvement

In today's society, the management of natural resources must have public involvement.

There is a clear trend of increasing expectation within the community for high standards of
protection of the environment and the quality of drinking water sources. The public therefore
must be involved in the development of a groundwater protection plan as it will be both
affected by the plan, and will have a desire to support, amend or oppose components of the
plan. An informed public is a valuable asset in achieving the implementation of a plan.

Statutes and policies are limited in their ability to provide effective protection of groundwater
resources. Development and implementation of these require community support and
cooperation in the long term. This is best achieved through an aware and informed public who
can debate the issues and give support to initiatives that, in a less informed community, may
be politically unacceptable.

The value of public involvement is not restricted to adequately addressing public concerns.
There is a potential for greater public identification and ownership of strategies fostering
mutual trust and understanding, particularly where trade-offs may need to be made. After all,
if people have the same information as the decision makers then they are likely to come to the
same conclusions.

35
Adaptive Management Cycle

Develop Initial Plan

Implement Protection Plan
Develop Appropriate measures to correct deficiencies
Monitor and review performance of plan against objectives
Identify deficiencies

FIGURE 4: ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO PROTECTION

36
Public involvement has two related components: public education and public participation.
Public education is the comprehensive provision of information to the public to improve
awareness of the nature, value and sensitivity of groundwater resources. Public participation
is the involvement of various sectors of the community in the development and
implementationof programs to protect, conserve, use and monitor groundwater resources.

It is probably fair to say that, in Australia, the level of understanding of groundwater by the
lay public is poor. This is in terms of understanding how and where groundwater occurs, the
processes affecting its recharge, movement and discharge, and how it is affected by
interaction with human activities. The traditional 'mythology' associated with groundwater
plays an important role in preserving the status quo in respect of the public's understanding. It
should be a priority of any Statewide strategy to include a program of public information to
raise the level of public understanding of groundwater and its associated management issues.
The myths need to be explained, and where appropriate, dispelled. The level of debate on
groundwater issues involving an informed public can then be more useful than the hindrance
often presented by uninformed debate.

The experiences of resource management agencies in New York State clearly show how
public education and participation have been an integral part of successful resource
management on Long Island. There have been major achievements in development and
implementation of groundwater protection programs for the resources underlying the island.
These achievements were made within a society that resists State Government regulatory
activity that affects the freedom or rights of an individual. The New York programs are so
restrictive that they could be considered to even exceed the reasonable expectations of
programs that could be put in place within a more compliant Australian society.

The New York agencies overtly recognise the important role that public education plays in the
successful development of groundwater protection programs and regulations. Typical agency
efforts at public education and participation include:

• public hearings and/or information meetings on new regulations or programs;

• public hearings and/or information meetings on controversial regulatory decisions,

permits, enforcement cases, etc.;

• routine publication of agency public information magazines, bulletins, pamphlets and

reports;

• speeches, press interviews, magazine articles by agency representatives on elements of

government programs;

• responses to citizen questions and/or complaints; and

• public information 'hot lines'1 .

A first step in developing a groundwater protection plan may be to form task forces that both
inform the community and obtain its view through several initiatives. These initiatives could
include public seminars and hearings, meeting with local public officials and interest groups,
and publishing handbooks and brochures explaining groundwater issues.

37
An important ingredient of successful public involvement is development of an extensive,
professionally competent press coverage of issues. This should consciously form a component
of any major planning process.

It should be recognised, that as important as public involvement is, there should not be an
expectation of universal participation, nor of achieving an outcome entirely satisfactory to all
parties. The reality is that somewhat small numbers of the community participate, and there
are often conflicting concerns that cannot be reconciled to everyone's complete satisfaction.
What is important, is that the public are involved to the extent that they are satisfied their
concerns receive consideration in determining an outcome.

5.3 Strategic Assessment of Groundwater Resources

The choices related to development of a specific protection plan require a strategic assessment
of the groundwater resource. This assessment involves an appreciation of the magnitude and
quality of the resource, its recharge and discharge zones, its interaction with surface water and
other groundwater resources, environmental links and demands, and consumptive demands on
the resource by all consumer groups. Most assessments will be limited by the amount of good
data available.

A precursor to development of a protection plan is knowledge of the resource to be protected.

This requires an understanding of water quantity in terms of the water balance of the resource,
including -anthropogenic and ecosystem water demands and the availability of water to meet
these demands. The water demands and potential resource yields will form the basis for
designation of beneficial uses and values to the resources through an allocation process that is
discussed further in Section 5.4. The designated beneficial uses and values then provide a
rational basis for development of detailed protection goals.

An understanding of the water quality regime is necessary for the development of water
quality protection goals. Some aquifers are of pristine quality and their protection program
could be different to that of an aquifer whose quality is so poor (naturally or through
contamination) that it may be unusable.

The location of aquifers is also important. Fresh water aquifers are of high value regardless of
where they occur. In arid areas aquifers could require a particularly high level of protection
activity because of their extremely high value to communities. Some fresh groundwater at
great depths may have limited economic or environmental value. These resources may not
warrant as high a level of protection activity at this stage.

This assessment of resources should not be limited to waters of potable quality. Brackish and
saline resources are often valuable sources of water for industry, or as feed water to
desalination plants in areas where fresh resources are or may become scarce. They also
require decisions on their potential use.

Finally, an understanding of the physical characteristics of the groundwater resource requiring

protection is necessary so that the protection area boundaries can be determined.

38
5.4 Protection Objectives and Beneficial Uses

The general policy approach on the objectives of protection needs to be clearly defined and
articulated in formulating any strategy. This policy approach is the basis for determining
water quality objectives.

The objective of a regional protection plan should be consistent with the national water
quality policy objective. The national objective aims to “achieve sustainable use of the
nation's water resources by protecting and enhancing their quality while maintaining
economic and social development”.

Within this broad policy objective, there is the normal process of defining beneficial uses and
values in which the policy of protection or, if possible, enhancement of the resource is to be
pursued. The most straight-forward protection decisions for aquifers are when non-
degradation policies are strictly applied in sensitive zones. These situations occur when an
aquifer is identified as requiring maintenance of quality at its current level for conservation
reasons. A broad range of exclusion policies can be applied to keep the aquifer in a pristine
state. However, these pristine situations are becoming rarer with time.

For some large aquifers which are subject to development it may be desirable to identify
different beneficial uses and values for different parts of these larger scale systems. Some
reasons for adopting a variety of beneficial uses and values are:

• differing vulnerability to contamination may require different levels of protection to be

provided;

• certain contaminants may either be fixed within an aquifer or be subject to chemical or

biological degradation prior to impact on a beneficial use;

• the types of uses of the resource may vary and each use requires a different level of
quality to be maintained, e.g. beneficial uses;

• there may be variations in the expected degree of treatment of different resources before
use;

• there may be variability in the existing quality of different resources that suggests
different levels of protection should apply;

• the importance of some aquifers over others in terms of their value and consequence of
loss ;

• an assessment of the economic and social values of land and other resources within some
catchments may require absolute protection via total exclusion from risky contamination
activities.

A protection plan flowing from these objectives can incorporate one or a variety of the
groundwater management measures outlined in Section 4.3. Vulnerability assessment and
mapping, various aquifer classification systems, systems based on levels of protection and

39
wellhead protection provisions are available. Adoption of these measures will depend on
factors such as regional groundwater conditions, aquifer vulnerability and the type of
contaminant which poses a threat.

There are also instances when protection policies are written to preserve groundwater quality
above certain specified criteria. Such policies should be developed recognising the need to
sustain beneficial uses. The standards specifying degradation limits can be expressed in either
prescriptive or narrative forms. The prescriptive forms can be qualified by the requirement for
application of best management practices.

There will be rare circumstances where aquifers have no identifiable beneficial uses and
values. An example is where there is a deep confined aquifer in stable geological structure
which contains extremely poor quality water because of high salt or radioactivity levels. This
confined aquifer may be sought to be developed as a long term depository for wastes.

There will also be complex decisions which involve requests for further degradation of
polluted aquifers where there is no foreseeable opportunity on technical and economic
grounds for rejuvenation. There needs to be a careful case-by-case assessment carried out of
these situations to ensure that there are no remnant beneficial uses and values that require
protection. The costs of investigating and developing these aquifers can fairly lay with the
proponent. The proponent also needs to show that there are long-term benefits to society by
taking this course of action.

In making these assessments of the use of underground sites for waste deposition, there needs
to be a strong recognition given to the precautionary principle. This principle implies that we
should not put wastes into an aquifer if there is even a minor chance of this leading to
significant future problems or militating against possible future beneficial uses. It must be
remembered that the injection of liquid or gaseous pollutants will increase the potential for
groundwaters to migrate and the option of clean-up is unlikely to exist.

5.5 Identifying Beneficial Uses and Appropriate Criteria

A regional groundwater protection strategy should include a program for the assignment of
designated beneficial uses to water bodies. This program will usually involve the following
sub-programs:

• an assessment of the total water resource in the region in terms of both quantity and
quality;

• an assessment of the existing and planned developments in the region in terms of their
potential demands for water and the type of water use;

• an assessment of the important environmental features that are reliant on the region's
water resources; and

• specification of the policies for water allocation which should identify any existing
commitments to the environment and a conservative estimates of general environmental
requirements.

40
This information provides the basis for the designation of beneficial uses for the region's
water resources.

In some instances, it will be necessary to examine the ecological and consumptive

management objectives associated with a water body in more detail as a single beneficial use
category may not be adequate for protection purposes.

For example, if a resource has the two perceived priorities for protection of ecological value;
and drinking water, the beneficial use of ecological protection would be most likely chosen as
aquatic ecosystems generally have more stringent water quality criteria. However, some
specific parameters such as fluoride are not critical in ecological systems but constitute a
health concern in drinking water. The converse applies to phosphate which is neither of health
nor aesthetic: concern in drinking water but is critical in wetlands. It is therefore appropriate
to form protection criteria that are a combination of those from the two normal beneficial use
categories in order to protect the two primary objectives. These criteria will normally be the
most restrictive value from the two sets of criteria.

It is obvious, but should be stated nonetheless, that existing uses should be designated for
protection unless other beneficial uses requiring more stringent objectives are defined.

5.6 Narrative and Prescriptive Criteria

Water quality criteria are a vital part of any groundwater protection plan. These may be
narrative or prescriptive. They will relate closely to the designated beneficial uses for which
the water is being protected.

Narrative criteria allow maintenance of flexibility in determining the acceptability of

potentially polluting activity. However, there is a risk of inconsistency of approach, and
difficulties can be created by establishing undesirable precedents in such decision making.
Decisions under narrative criteria can often be challenged as arbitrary or capricious.
Consequently, narrative criteria are less informative than prescriptive criteria and are harder to
enforce.

On the other hand, prescriptive criteria provide a basis for consistent decision making. They
provide clear goals for proponents of potentially polluting activities to meet. Prescriptive
criteria suffer from a lack of flexibility, and are difficult to develop in terms of covering all
the potentially polluting substances or activities.

In developing prescriptive criteria, maximum water quality criteria for the designated
beneficial use should not always be directly adopted. A non-degradation objective may
override these criteria in circumstances where the existing levels of contaminants are lower
than the criteria.

For example, the ARMCANZ/National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC)
drinking water guideline values may not be directly applicable as water quality protection
objectives for a groundwater resource with a designated beneficial use of drinking water. If
the guideline values are used directly, there is a potential for them to be used as 'target' levels
for contamination. The ultimate result could be that a resource becomes contaminated to
levels just below or at the guideline values. While this may mean that a resource still

41
satisfies the drinking water guidelines, such high levels of contamination may not be publicly
acceptable. There is also the strong risk that any review of drinking water guideline values
may result in development of more stringent guidelines. In such a case, the previously
contaminated but unpolluted resource may become technically polluted.

A combination of prescriptive and narrative criteria provides another possible solution. The
narrative will allow some flexibility. It also ensures interpretation of the prescriptive criteria
towards achievement of a well-defined protection goal. For example, the State of Wisconsin
has legislation in its Groundwater Standards Law (1984)2 which provides a possible approach.
Under this law, a two-tiered system of water duality standards is established for every
substance already detected in groundwater or with the potential to reach groundwater. The
two standards are an 'enforcement standard (ES)' and a 'preventive action limit (PAL)’.These
represent concentrations of the substances in groundwater.

The ES is set at the level necessary to sustain the beneficial use of the resource. For example,
the ES for drinking water is the equivalent of the drinking water quality guideline values. The
PAL is either 10, 20 or 50% of the ES, based on potential health effects of the substance: 10%
applies to carcinogenic substances, 20% to substances with potential health effects (non
carcinogenic), and 50% to substances without health concerns but with aesthetic implications.

The PAL is used for several purposes:

• to stabilise the criteria for design of facilities (e.g. a landfill);

• to set up rules for use of certain products (e.g. agricultural chemicals) to prevent
contamination from the outset;

• to serve as an early warning and trigger to a remedial response;

• to provide a buffer against the accidental exceeding of design criteria; and

• to provide a buffer against future review of use related water quality criteria.

The ES is a level beyond which the regulatory agency must act to prevent continuation of the
contaminating activity. When substances are detected entering the groundwater at
concentrations equal to or above the ES, a violation occurs and the activity is subject to
immediate enforcement action. Unlike the PAL, where technical and economic feasibility of
remedial actions are considered, a regulatory agency must prohibit continuation of the activity
unless an alternative response will achieve compliance with the ES.

5.7 Point of Application of Criteria

Policy decisions must be made on the point of application of adopted water quality criteria.
Three options are usually available for this location:

• at the boundary of a zone of discharge sufficient to allow for dilution and possible
subsurface degradation of contaminants;

42
• at the boundary of the property upon which the effluent is discharged; and

• at the point of discharge of effluent.

The 'zone of discharge' approach allows more flexible approaches to be taken to

contaminating activities. It does require a detailed knowledge of the hydrogeology and
hydrochemistry of the receiving aquifer, and may require the installation of extensive
monitoring networks to ensure compliance. The zone of discharge may be within or extend
beyond the boundaries of the property containing the discharge point. If the zone extends
beyond the boundaries, there must be careful consideration of the impact of contaminated
water underlying adjoining properties.

The main disadvantage of the zone of discharge or 'property boundary' approach is the
potential for a large concentrated plume of contaminated water to exist within the system
boundaries. The future movement of this plume may result in criteria being exceeded at the
designated boundaries. Remediation or contingency action may be either difficult or
expensive.

The 'point of discharge' approach is a preventive approach and ensures much tighter control of
the discharge process, before significant contamination aggregates in the aquifer. Water
quality standards for point of discharge policies can be developed based on the expected
natural dilution and degradation within the aquifer, and on its expected assimilative capacity.

The most effective policy is a combination of the point of discharge with either of the other
approaches. This allows monitoring and management of the discharge at source since the flow
of contaminants to the aquifer may be slow, and provides for monitoring and management in
terms of the effect of the discharge within the aquifer.

The adoption of this combined approach should not rule out other options. For example, in
some circumstances the water table or a particular confining layer or strata boundary may be
more appropriate locations for monitoring. In future, the vadose zone (the intermediate zone
between surface recharge areas and aquifer receptors) may become a better location and
provide an early warning of contamination. Significant improvements in monitoring should
not be ruled out.

Water quality objectives could form part of an Environmental Protection Policy for an aquifer
if opportunities are available to use such policies to implement a groundwater protection plan
(see Section 4.5).

5.8 Land-use Planning Options

Land-use controls are a principal means of providing protection for groundwater resources.
Section 4.4 has already indicated some possible situations where they would assist with
groundwater protection.

Land zoning creates expectations among landholders about activities that can be carried out
on their land. This creates considerable difficulty if those activities conflict with protection of
an underlying aquifer. An extreme example is an industrial zoning overlying a drinking water
source with high protection priority. In these circumstances, the type and extent of

43
industrial activity that could be carried out would be extremely limited. The ability of
landholders to make reasonable use of their land commensurate with its zoning would be
curtailed accordingly. On the other hand, appropriate land zoning can ensure that landholder
expectations are aligned to land uses commensurate with required levels of protection of
underlying groundwater resources.

A completely prescriptive approach to the compatibility of land-use options with specific

levels of groundwater protection is usually not practical. Most land uses can be managed to
reduce the risk of contamination. For example, residential land can be subject to requirements
for reticulated sewerage that provide a significant reduction in potential contamination
compared to unsewered developments. However, it is not possible to comprehensively
prescribe the management requirements for all land-use options. In particular, it is difficult to
protect unconfined aquifers in urban environments.

An approach to this problem is to develop a land-use risk matrix to help decision making on
the compatibility of land uses. The land-use alternatives can be few or many depending on
specific needs, and the risks of each can be assessed in terms of particular water quality
parameters.

The differences between risk and consequence of contamination make rigorous unequivocal
assessment of land-use compatibility difficult. While the risk of a particular type of
contamination resulting from a land-use activity may be low, the consequences may be
considerable. The converse also may apply. The specific hazard resulting from any particular
contamination source will depend on how much is released, when it is released, and where it
is released3 .

There is a degree of subjectivity in developing risk matrices, and there could be considerable
argument about the specific assessments of matrix components. However, they can provide a
useful guide to the relative levels of compatibility of different activities. For example,
managed residential development can be of lower risk than poorly managed rural or industrial
land uses.

Groundwater management options for protection of a resource under the various land uses can
be developed from inspection of detailed risk matrices. For example, residential areas with
reticulated sewerage, high integrity protection of underground storage tanks, and limited
commercial areas provide a relatively low risk of groundwater pollution.

Land zoning and groundwater management options to provide required levels of groundwater
protection must account for the existing situation in terms of land tenure and existing land
planning. There needs to be a balance between groundwater protection objectives and broader
community expectations and considerations for land use.

The trend towards the utilisation of sewage effluent on land has significant implications for
groundwater. The decision over the siting, type and level of sewerage treatment and the
disposal of effluent require recognition of the role of groundwater as a transporter of wastes
and also as the sink for wastes in the long term. These decisions require a broad scale
planning approach.

44
The difficulties that may arise if groundwater allocation policies or protection plans become
de facto land plans should also be recognised. Land planners require advice on the criteria
they need to consider to ensure land-use plans are compatible with groundwater protection
objectives. To this end, land planning strategies and processes need to complement
groundwater protection plans, and allow the land-use component of protection plans to be
implemented. Water resource and environmental agencies can be given one of a range of legal
rights to deal with these interrelated issues such as reservation rights over certain lands and
veto or referral or appeal rights over development and land use change proposals.

5.9 Environment Protection Options

There is a body of environment protection legislation emerging from State and Federal
Governments in Australia. This legislation not only aims to protect the environment from
waste pollution but also protect the environment by minimising the production of waste.
Consequently, groundwater protection decisions can be improved not just by considering
contamination controls but also by minimising the amount of waste produced by the recycling
and reuse of waste products.

The conventional regulatory approach to protection concentrates on permissible activities. In

future, community action and market mechanisms may considerably improve the mix of
options available. The introduction of market mechanisms, such as tradeable permits, will
require explicit and exclusive definition of rights to produce or dispose of waste, and the
administrative and monitoring skills to enforce these permits at a reasonable cost.

5.9.1 Permissible activities

One regulatory approach to groundwater protection which has emerged from environmental
legislation is the prescription of activities or types of discharges that will be allowed over a
specified aquifer or class of aquifers. Definition of activities that will not be permitted can
also help in clarifying prescriptive or narrative standards. This approach may be applied with
a formal aquifer classification system as discussed in Section 4.3.3.

Strategies should provide specific guidance on how to deal with potentially contaminating
activities within designated protection areas. This applies to activities such as waste disposal
sites, underground and above around storage tanks, surface impoundments and material
stockpiles.

For example, waste disposal sites need to be considered from several different aspects
including:

• whether they will be completely excluded from particular areas;

• whether they will be permitted subject to application of certain construction technologies

to enhance containment (e.g. lining);

• whether they will require underdrainage for leachate recovery;

• whether they will be controlled in terms of the materials allowed to be deposited;

45
• the extent to which monitoring will be required; and

• the nature of contingency action that may be required

similar considerations need to be applied to all other potentially contaminating activities

involving the handling, storage or disposal of hazardous or toxic materials.

5.9:2 Market incentives

Market incentives can be introduced in many forms. If pesticides are contaminating

groundwater across broad areas then a tax on pesticides would reduce their use and
consequently reduce contamination. However, there are inefficiencies in doing this, since
many users of pesticides may be located in areas not overlying important groundwater bodies.

Market incentives are more likely to be introduced to improve the efficiency of existing
regulatory arrangements. For instance, it is common for States to require a permit for any
discharge of waste or contamination. In future, there may be a locality where these discharges
go directly into an already degraded groundwater body. When there are a large number of
discharge permits, market arrangements can be set up to improve the allocation of the
available number of permits across multiple dischargers.

Under a normal market arrangement, the groundwater or environmental manager is required

to determine the total amount of contamination which can be tolerated over a set time within
the groundwater and subsequently the effect on beneficial uses. This is a difficult task which
requires a significant amount of information and analysis.

The application of this type of market situation to groundwater is likely to be extremely

limited since the focus. for all, highly valued aquifers for many years to come will be on
protection from contaminants rather than introducing them. However, a case might evolve for
market permits in the long term at some specific site.

5.10 Monitoring and Review

A program of monitoring and review should be an integral component of any protection plan.
Two distinct sub-programs are required. One sub-program should monitor the effectiveness
(if a developed groundwater strategy, in the broader sense. The second sub-program should
involve technical groundwater resource monitoring and review.

It is important that the plan is monitored to evaluate its effectiveness. Effectiveness needs to
be considered from two broad viewpoints:

• the extent to which the plan has been implemented; and

• the extent to which the plan has succeeded in meeting the desired goals for protection.

Attention should be given to the difficulties experienced in implementation, including an

assessment of the extent of implementation. An issue to be considered in measuring the
success of a plan is the extent to which compliance with requirements is enforced.

46
Groundwater resource monitoring and review are important elements of protection program to
determine whether, when and how groundwater contamination is controlled. In practice, such
monitoring is neither cheap nor simple. The parties responsible for any potential
contamination should be responsible for the costs of monitoring and review of the data.
Agreement on the implementation of a monitoring and review program should be reached
before any potential contaminating activity is approved. This is an efficient approach since it
internalises the full costs of potential contamination with the potential polluter.

The monitoring program should be consistent with adopted policy on the point of application
of water quality standards (see Section 5.5). For example, if the policy applies standards at the
point of discharge, then obviously monitoring should at least include that point. Monitoring
programs also should attempt to define the impact of the discharge on the aquifer, and
monitoring of the resource also should be included where practical. This particularly applies
where 'zone of discharge' or 'property boundary' water quality standards apply.

The monitoring program should include a commitment for regular professional review and
reporting of the data to the regulating agency.

Provisions also should be made for contingency action on detection of adverse impacts on the
receiving aquifer. This is discussed further in the next section.

5.11 Contingency Measures

Approvals for potentially contaminating activities should include provisions for contingency
measures. They should specify the contingency action that will be implemented. They also
should prescribe as closely as possible, when an action should be implemented. Appendix III
outlines technical details which will assist documenting actions which should be undertaken.

Contingency measures may vary from simply doing nothing, to ceasing the contaminating
activity, through containing the area of contamination, to clean-up action.

In deciding the level of action to be taken, it is useful to assess the costs of proposed action
against the benefits likely to be achieved. This will require several assessments including:

• the extent to which any existing or future beneficial uses may be compromised by the
contamination incident;

• the alternative water sources available to those affected by the contamination incident;

• the range of potential remedial actions that may be implemented; and

• the likely outcome of any proposed remedial action in terms of meeting water quality
standards, and the time expected to achieve the outcome.

Clean-up actions may be in situ and these usually involve a combination of techniques,
including containment techniques. In-situ techniques are difficult, often expensive and often
not totally successfully unless conditions are extremely favourable. They have yet to prove
substantial cost savings. New in-situ remediation techniques, such as bioremediation for

47
organics and nitrates, show promise although they are largely untried. Alternatively, clean-up
may require abstraction of the contaminated groundwater followed by several combinations
of options including treatment and re-injection, discharge to other receiving waters with or
without treatment, or 'point of use' treatment. These techniques are also expensive and often
not totally successful.

Use of an alternative source of water may be less expensive than clean-up. This option should
generally be avoided where possible as it can create a precedent and expectation that it is
acceptable to pollute a resource provided an alternative is available. The long-term
consequences of this approach could be extremely undesirable, particularly where there is a
strong demand for limited water resources such as cities and industrial areas.

The ability to achieve clean-up action is largely dependent upon the legislative support to the
groundwater protection strategy. In some States (eg. Victoria and Western Australia),
environmental protection legislation provides considerable power to enforce clean-up. These
provisions include a retrospective capability. A practical consideration is the cost and viability
of clean-up for the polluting industry. In Western Australia to date, the mining industry, the
oil industry and some land developers have attempted to clean-up sources of groundwater
contamination often on a voluntary basis. Development of a groundwater plan should
therefore consider the legislative requirements to allow it to be effective.

5.12 Selection and Implementation of Preferred Options

From the discussion in this chapter it is evident that there are several alternative approaches to
be taken and issues to be considered in formulating a protection plan. A broad approach for
Statewide application should be selected from the alternatives and clearly defined. Within
this, more detailed local measures can be developed that conform with the general approach
selected.

One important aspect of implementation relates to co-ordination between interested agencies.

The following agency types usually have an interest and need to be considered:

• water resources management agencies;

• water resources assessment agencies;

• environmental protection agencies;

• land management agencies;

• land planning agencies;

• health agencies;

• local government; and

• other agencies with responsibilities for related activities such as storage of explosives and
dangerous goods, transport regulation, and public safety.

48
A high level of cooperation is required to effectively implement strategies with a multiplicity
of agencies involved. The opportunity for more integration of agency functions may exist in
some States.

It will be necessary to define the functions for which each agency will be responsible, and to
decide the legislation most appropriate to each program within a protection plan. There should
be consistency and co-ordination in the development and implementation of protection
programs at various levels, and in various localities. There also needs to be a consistency of
approach with similar or complementary plans that may be developed for surface water
protection.

A rigorous economic evaluation of options will greatly assist policy makers when
groundwater protection involves issues of degradation or diffuse-source contamination.
Nitrate contamination of groundwater is an example of this type of problem.

In the latter case, extensive areas are often affected by contamination, and there are
potentially long residence times within sails and groundwater systems. Very careful
consideration of social, economic and environmental effects, such as land-use changes to
reduce groundwater pollution, over the lifetime of a strategy need to be made. This requires a
multi-disciplinary approach to planning. Another requirement of success is that the chosen set
of options should be communicated, understood and accepted by the community.

49
6. CONCLUSION

The groundwater protection guidelines proposed in this report are intended to provide
assistance to States, Territories and the Commonwealth in implementing or extending their
groundwater protection policies. The guidelines are intended to address a broader range of
basin/catchment management issues than are currently considered in groundwater protection
strategies elsewhere, and allow for the integration of groundwater planning with surface water
planning.

The guidelines are based on a planning approach. They adopt the principle of 'beneficial use'
for groundwater classification and risk assessment to derive appropriate protection measures.
The concept of 'polluter pays' is also adopted to ensure that parties responsible for potentially
polluting activities share the responsibility for protection.

The guidelines have been framed so that they can be readily adapted to the different
regulatory situations in each State, Territory and the Commonwealth. However,
implementation of such a groundwater protection policy will require co-ordination between a
number of government agencies with jurisdictions in areas such as water management, public
health, environmental protection, land-use planning and waste management.

The protection of groundwater from contamination will always be dominated by regulatory

measures. This is because of the long term and often irreversible nature of the damage
imposed. However, there is considerable room for more community involvement in protection
planning and also for the gradual introduction of market mechanisms where these are
appropriate.

When States, Territories and the Commonwealth are developing groundwater protection plans
for the first time, the initial effort should be focused where contamination will cause the
greatest harm. The highest priority should be to protect resources which are used for drinking-
water and that support important ecosystems. In view of attaining the objectives of these
guidelines, it is concluded that a national goal should be set which is to at least provide a
beneficial use classification for all significant aquifers in each State and Territory over the
coming decade.

50
 APPENDIX I

TYPES AND SOURCES OF CONTAMINANTS

51
 TABLE I.1
CONTAMINANTS AND SOURCES

Industry Activity Contaminants

Water and Treatment plant floc Heavy metals, high organics, nutrients
Waste Water Sewerage sludge landfill (P,K,N), faecal bacteria, viruses,
Waste water land spreading protozoa
Septic tank effluent
Lagoons

Solid Waste Municipal landfill sulphate, chloride, ammonia, TOC,

Disposal Industrial landfill high TDS, Biological contaminants,
fatty acids, leachates.

Waste Storage of hazardous waste A range of mainly hazardous

Treatment Waste handling contaminants. See the 'priority
Disposal contaminant" list.
Industry
Transport Storage of hazardous materials Hazardous materials on the 'priority
Industry Fuel storage contaminant' list. Petroleum
Oil and grease discharge hydrocarbons, benzene, ethylbenzene
Accidental spills

Fire Fighting Disposal/seepage of Hazardous contaminants derived from

contaminated fire fighting water industrial fire and fire fighting water
Agriculture and Cropping practices Pesticides, herbicides, nitrates, TDS,
Agribusiness Dairies and feedlots heavy metals. High nitrogen and
phosphorus loads, biological
contaminants

Electricity Fly ash ponds and landfill Sulphate, heavy metals, TDS, Se, Ge,
Generation Waste briquettes, tars petroleum hydrocarbons, PAH

Town Gas Coal Tar disposal Petroleum hydrocarbons, PAH, BTX,

Production Gas scrubber waste disposal phenols, sulphur compounds, cyanide,
ammonia, heavy metals

Chemical and Hydrocarbon storage Petroleum hydrocarbons, PAH, BTX

Petroleum hazardous material process
Wastewater lagoons and storage
Solid waste landfills
Accidental spills
Vanadium Pentoxide

52
 Table I-1 CONT

Industry Activity Contaminants

Mining and Mine water disposal High TDS, iron, sulphate, heavy
Mineral Storage of fuel and hazardous metals, organic flocculants, mercury
Industries chemicals cyanide, vanadium pentoxide, acidic
Tailings dams water, Petroleum hydrocarbons and
Heap leaching hazardous materials.
Manufacturing Food processing Nutrients, Nitrogen, K, P, TDS,
industry Pulp and paper manufacturing Organics such as lignins, organo-
chlorines, sulphites, organosulphur
Automotive industry Organic solvents, petroleum
hydrocarbons
Paint and printing Organic solvents, resin making
compounds, heavy metals.
Metal foundries, machinery Petroleum hydrocarbons, phenols,
plating and fabrication BTX, heavy metals, cyanide, furans,
organic solvents.
Timber mills and preserving Tannins, arsenic, chromium, cresols,
Tanneries phenols, pesticide compounds,
nutrients, Sulphides, TDS, chromium
Coke and steel manufacture Metals, petroleum hydrocarbons.

Source: Adapted from Young (1981)1

53
 TABLE I.2
PRIORITY CONTAMINANTS IN INDUSTRIAL WASTE STREAMS

Metals and inorganics: Pesticides and metabolites: Aromatics:

antimony aldrin benzene -
arsenic a-BHC 1,2-dichlorobenzene
asbestos lindane 1,4-dichlorobenzene
beryllium dieldrin ethylbenzene
cadmium DDT toluene
chromium chlordane xylene
copper 4,4'-DDE
metal cyanide complexes 4,4'-DDD Phenols and cresols:
lead a-endosulfan 2-chlorophenol
manganese b-endosulfan 2,4-dichlorophenol
mercury endosulphan sulphate 2,4-dinitrophenol
nickel heptachlor 2,4-dimethylphenol
selenium heptachlor expoxide phenol
silver isophorone 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
thallium 2,4 .- D Parachlorometa cresol
zinc 2,4,5 - T

Halogenated aliphatics: Polycyclic aromatic Polychlorinated biphenyls

hydrocarbons (PAH): and related compounds
(PCB):
carbon tetrachloride acenaphthylene aroclor 1242
chloroform acenaphtene aroclor 1248
dichlorobromomethane anthracene aroclor 1254
1,2-dichloroethane benzo (a) pyrene aroclor 1260
1,2-trans- dichloroe chrysene
thylene
methylene chloride fluoranthene Biological:
1,1,2,2- fluorene Escherichia coli
tetrachloroethylene naphthalene
1,1,1-trichloroethane phenanthrene Others:
trichloroethylene pyrene nitrates
cyanide
Phthalates: Radionuclides: dioxins (chlorinated)
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate radon
di-n-butyl phthalate radium
diethyl phthalate uranium
dimethyl phthalate

Source: Adapted from US EPA (1985)2

54
 APPENDIX II

WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

55
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

Specific water quality criteria are often ascribed by water resource managers to individual
beneficial use classes to assist in the implementation process.

A range of documents are available which list water quality criteria according to beneficial
use (or protected environmental values) and provide methodologies for assessment (National
Health and Medical Research Council 19871 , World Health Organisation 1984 a & b2 , and
Environmental Protection Authority of Victoria 19833 ).

Recently, the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council
(ANZECC) carried out a study to provide national water quality reference values for specific
environmental values (beneficial uses) of water. The ANZECC guidelines4 focus on surface
waters but are substantial and a useful starting point for setting water quality criteria for
groundwaters around Australia. Other factors to be considered in establishing suitable criteria
are local conditions, risks, economics and state policies.

The following provides a brief description of the five environmental values for which
reference values are provided by ANZECC:

Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems

This category covers the protection of freshwater and marine aquatic ecosystems. The
guidelines cover biological and physico-chemical factors, toxicants, and additional guidelines
for protecting fish and water-associated wildlife.

Recreational Water Quality and Aesthetic

This category covers values for primary body contact, secondary body contact (less frequent)
and visual use (no body contact) recreational sporting activities for water bodies.

Raw Water for Drinking Water Supply

The guideline values presented are taken from the document 'Guidelines for Drinking Water
Quality in Australia', produced jointly by NH&MRC and AWRC in 1987. A new set of
drinking water guidelines will be produced as part of the National Water Quality Management
Strategy and these will supersede the values presented in the ANZECC document. A separate
document from NH&MRC is likely to be produced covering algal toxins.

56
Agricultural Water Uses

Values are provided for the purposes of irrigation and livestock water use. A brief description
is provided on farmstead water use which in normal times should be up to the standards of
drinking water.

Industrial Water Quality

Guidelines values are provided for various industrial uses covering a range of generic
processes (heating, steam generation and cooling); hydro-electric power generation, textile,
chemical, food and beverage, iron and steel, tanning and leather, pulp and paper and
petroleum industries.

57
 APPENDIX III

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTATION

58
 TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTATION

Significant technical detail is required to establish the "Levels of Protection' approach

described in Section 4.3.3 or contingency plans for groundwater protection. These technical
details for assessing, reporting, investigating and monitoring contamination or pollution
require technical guidance documents. In addition, details are also provided for documenting
demonstrated groundwater protection systems and remedial action plans.

Many textbooks are available to assist with this task of documentation. However, much of the
current state-of-the-art with respect to geotechnical practice for waste disposal is summarised
in the proceedings of an American Society of Civil Engineers conference in 19871 .

1. GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT

An impact assessment methodology for groundwater contamination assessment will need be

designed, based on:

(a) Definition of criteria for unacceptable impact. These criteria should include:

- aquifer value;
- aquifer vulnerability;
- nature, type and source of hazard posed by proposed activity;
- technological safeguards for contaminant containment;
- operational advantages and disadvantages of contaminant manage systems;
- proposed monitoring system;
- clean-up mobilisation lag time; and
- impact of loss of amenity.

(b) Design of the analytical process to combine the inputs and arrive at a measure of
impact.

Further technical guidance needs may be defined by analysing the inputs required in the
implementation of the protection levels. This has been proposed in Section 3.3 of this report.

2. GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION REPORT

The requirement for preparation of an assessment report would be ineffective some guidance
as to the content of such a report is provided, much the same as for an Environment Impact
Statement. It is proposed that specifications for the format and the level of detail in such
reports be prepared for adoption by the States. Preparation of such reports will be largely
dependent upon the availability of information on groundwater quality and characterisation of
the potential sources using an industrial chemistry database. Formalisation of access to this
information for groundwater professionals will also be required.

59
The contents of a groundwater contamination report should encompass that normally
expected in a hydrogeological report. This would include:

a. Geographic Setting: This should provide a concise explanation of the physical setting
of the site in terms of climatic regime; the topographic position of the site in the
landscape and its relationship to the surface water drainage system; additional
information on land use and vegetation can be relevant.

This section should also present information on climatic averages, at least monthly
and annually and preferably an adequate number of parameters to enable estimation of
potential evapotranspiration. In particular it would be relevant to identify the periods
of the year when recharge of groundwater is most likely.

b. Geology, Aquifers and Vulnerability: This section should describe the geology of
the area in such a way that it enhances the readers understanding of the occurrence of
groundwater rather than the geological history of the area, for example, the geological
sequence should be described noting the lithologic units and structure. A typical
stratigraphic column or cross section should be presented. The groundwater bearing
and transmission properties of each major geological unit should be discussed and data
on hydraulic properties presented where possible. The hydraulic relationships between
each unit should be explained and potentiometric levels discussed if possible.

The vulnerability of each aquifer should also be addressed in terms of the thickness of
the unsaturated zone, the mineralogy of the formations, and other geochemical
properties of the aquifer.

c. Groundwater Flow Systems : This section is presented separately to emphasise the

need to appreciate the groundwater flow system as an important aspect of describing
and investigating groundwater conditions. The flow systems should be described or
interpreted on the basis of geological and topographic information, both at local and
regional scale.

Areas of recharge should be identified for confined aquifers and discharge areas
should be indicated or at least postulated. It is important to identify or postulate areas
with significant vertical flow components in the flow system as this can have
significant consequences for the interpretation of field data.

In addition it is important to explain any relevant interrelationships between surface

waterbodies and the groundwater flow system; for example, where groundwater might
discharge to wetlands or as stream baseflow.

60
d. Groundwater quality, Beneficial Uses and Contamination: This section should
present information on the water quality of the main aquifers, the background levels of
contamination and any evidence of elevated levels of contamination. The relationship
between observed and expected water chemistry should be discussed.

A statement of the designated or potential beneficial uses of groundwater is the area

that should be provided by reference to extant policy documents, the ambient water
quality and available water quality criteria.

A statement of the potential fate of these contaminants and their impact in terms of the
flow system, the aquifer vulnerability and beneficial use should also be provided.

e. Groundwater Resources and Current Usage: This section describes significance of

groundwater as a resource and its current level and type of usage.

Estimates of replenishable and permanent resource volume in the basin or the local
segment of the basin should be provided if available. This can be compared with
current level of usage.

The types of current groundwater usage should be discussed in order to reinforce or

contrast the discussion on potential beneficial uses of the groundwater.

f. Potential Impact of Proposal: This section discusses the potential impact of the
existing proposed project or land use on groundwater quality. The potential
contamination threats to groundwater quality should be identified and the chemical
names and characteristics of the potential contaminants should be presented if
possible. The significance of this impact in time and space should be assessed and
discussed. The appropriate level of action should be identified and recommended.

g: Summary and Conclusions: A concluding section should be provided to succinctly

describe the groundwater regime and make conclusions about the rank of the resource,
the flow system and interrelationship to surface water and the vulnerability or
contamination status of the groundwater systems in question.

3. SITE INVESTIGATION AND MONITORING

The level of activity at a particular site requires a substantial amount of documentation of

procedures, in order to provide an adequate level of Quality Assurance and Quality Control
such that variation in results between sites or at different times as a result of technical
procedures, is minimised. The validity of a sample or test can therefore be established to the
extent that it conforms to a defined standard.

The specific areas of procedures which need to be documented include:

• monitor well design and construction;

61
• groundwater sampling

• soil sampling

• chain of custody procedures

• field testing of groundwater

• laboratory test methods

• Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) for laboratory testing; and

• Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) procedures for workers.

Some of these issues are more significant than others and those areas of immediate interest to
the water sector are discussed in more detail below. A preliminary guide to the standard
operating procedures for groundwater sampling has been prepared by the Water Resources
Management committee of AWRC 2 . A number of reference documents containing such
standard operating procedures are included in this document.

3.1 Groundwater Monitoring Systems

Groundwater monitoring systems of various types are implemented for a number of purposes,
but in general they can be one of two basic types:

• Groundwater Quality Monitor Systems

These are designed for long-term monitoring of ambient conditions and to characterise the
hydrogeology and background status of aquifers.

• Groundwater Contamination Site Investigation/Validation Systems

These are designed to evaluate the contamination arising at specific sites and as a
secondary function to monitor groundwater at least until there is no statutory need for the
expense. This period of time could be long term.

Groundwater monitoring systems consist of a number of components which could be loos

classified as either 'hardware' or 'software' components having associated capital or
operational costs. The hardware usually consists of wells and measurement instruments while
the software consists of manpower inputs to visiting and maintaining the system and data
processing.

These systems generally function in the following manner and sequence:

1. Design of the monitoring system.

2. Installation of monitoring wells and equipment.

62
2. Characterisation of the baseline groundwater conditions.

3. Periodic measurement of water levels and water quality parameters.

4. Analysis and reporting of monitoring data.

6 Decision making on the future actions needed in response to the monitoring reports.

System Design: It is critical that monitoring systems are properly designed. This may first
involve the establishment of the objectives of monitoring and consideration of the of the
system in the management decision making process.

The design process will also determine the location of wells with respect to the groundwater
flow system and sources of contaminants. Other specific aspects to be defined in the design
stage
include the well design, the program of monitoring, resources needed, and the management
and
reporting system.

Well Location: The location of monitoring wells depends on the purpose for which they
installed.
In the case of site investigations, wells are constructed to evaluate contamination in
groundwater:

-entering the site boundary;

-leaving the site boundary; '
-deriving from specific point sources within the site, and if possible; and
-evaluate ambient uncontaminated background quality.

The number of monitoring wells required near a suspected point source of groundwater
contamination
will depend to a large extent on the size of the contamination source, and its perceived impact
on groundwater quality.

In general the investigation of a point source will require the construction of at least wells
to characterise conditions and evaluate the groundwater flow direction. However in isolated
rural
conditions there may be only the need for one or two wells for cases such as small landfill
sites with non-toxic materials.

In the case of a groundwater quality monitor system, wells would generally be located within
principal aquifers across a region to enable evaluation of the time and spatial variation in
quality.
Components of this system could also be located within or downgradient of areas of suspected
or
know contamination to monitor the long term effects on groundwater broad scale.

66

Well Design and Construction: In terms of the hardware (the wells and fitments) all systems

63
are basically similar, however the selection of materials and well design in a short term
monitoring
system will often be different from that needed for a long term monitoring system. For
example,
long term monitoring for organic contaminants may justify the use of stainless stell well
casing,
whereas for short term assessments PVC casing materials may be adequate. Further details on
material
selection are available in reference books.

The selection of drilling methods used to construct a monitoring well also needs to take
account of
the potential for contamination of the aquifer, however the geological condition will often
dictate
the choice of methods available. Standard methods sometimes need to be modified to reduce
contamination
or to prevent personnel coming into contact with hazardous contaminants.

An important feature of monitor wells is the selection of a discrete interval in the aquifer to
be sampled. This is achieved by constructing the well using a short (1-3 m) length of screen
isolated by a bentonite seal above the screen. An artificial filter pack is generally places
around the screen. This also enables the installation of two or three piezometer tube
(50 mm diameter) in one well with screens isolated at different intervals to sample different
aquifers or zones within an aquifer.

Monitor well construction differs from conventional well construction in the level of precision
and attention to detail, much in the same way as practised in geotechnical drilling and testing.

The use of monitoring devices to measure and log water level and water quality parameter
would
tend to be justified where monitoring is intensive or where the monitor wells are widely
dispersed.
This is mainly because the software (monitoring) component soon becomes the most costly
component
of the system, for longer term monitoring.

Characterisation of Hydrogeology: The characterisation of the hydrogeological condition of a

site
is a key component of the establishment of a monitoring system, particularly for the
evaluation
of contaminated sites. The work should involve the recording of geological information
derived
from drilling, measurement of water levels, definition of the groundwater glow system, and
measurement of aquifer hydraulic properties.

These data and interpretations can then form the basis for the analysis of future monitoring
data and for the establishment of computer models of groundwater flow and contaminant
transport.

Monitoring Program: The monitoring program should be defined in the design phase as the
desired
program might not be feasible if the well depth, construction or materials are inappropriate.
64
67

Generally the monitoring program consists of a series of field measurements of water level
and
some water quality perameters; groundwater samples are taken and tested in the laboratory.
The selection of test perameters is often determined on the basis of the characterisation phase
when
a wide range of perameters would be tested. The monitoring program in the case of a site
investigation
monitoring system need only monitor for a set of indicator contaminants as the frequency of
sampling
is often quite high (weekly or monthly). In the case of regional groundwater monitoring
network
it is more likely that the program would require a comprehensive set of chemical tests but the
sampling
frequency is typically monthly, quarterly or even annually.

The standard operating procedures for sample collection, sample preservation and handling
chain-of-custody documentation and quality control/quality assurance are an integral part a
monitoring program. These must be available in written form for personnel involved
monitoring
to use as a guide to the performance of the work. A preliminary guide to the standard
operating
procedures for groundwater sampling has been published by the AWRC. This document will
help the
States prepare their own guidelines if they do not already exist.

Data Management: Another component of a monitoring system is data management a trend

analysis,
which should lead to decision making. While the emphasis may initially be on data
acquisition,
the decision to continue or change the program is also important because the system is
justified
on the basis of its use as a resource environment management tool.

The minimum requirement is for the data to be verified to assure that the reported result
relates to a specific sample and the laboratory results have been accurately input into
database,
preferably of a computer compatible form.

The data needs to be reported in a format which indicate sample location and number, the
limit
of detection and the units of measure.

The determination of trend or the significance of a value or group of values which exceed the
water quality criteria used for the program, needs to be performed in a systematic manner
using
appropriate statistical techniques.

3.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

65
A Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) system is required in the investigation of
serious
groundwater contamination incidents to assure the integrity and reproducibility tests and
provides a check on the contaminating potential of the sampling process.
QA/QC system for site investigations should include the use of:
Work Plan: A written Work Plan is required to be used as a guide to all personnel work on the
investigation. It should contain information on the sample locations and number system, the
standard operating procedures, the laboratory testing program and
Occupational Health and Safety Plan.

68

Qualified Personnel: Another aspect of QA/QC is the deployment of trained personnel

familiar with
the operating procedure and other aspects of quality assurance.

Chain of Custody: chain of custody procedures and documentation are used to ensure
identification
of the sample, non interference with samples and request for correct laboratory tests.

Equipment Blanks: A water sample derived by washing the sampling equiptment in

deioninsed water.

Background Samples: Samples taken from background wellholes during site assessment to
determine
background groundwater quality data.

Duplicate Samples: Two sub-samples of the same groundwater sample sent to separate
laboratories.

Spike Samples: Samples spiked with a known quantity of contaminant to test for recovery rate
by
laboratory method.

Detailed technical guidance documents of this type have been prepared in the United States
and
adopted and modified for use in Australia by local consultants. Further reference material on
well construction can be found in the Johnson Water Well Handbook.

3.3 Occupational Health and Safety

Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) is a matter of growing concern to authorities, site
owners and particularly consulting companies whose workers are regularly exposed to
hazardous
materials when investigating contaminated sites. In order to protect the health and safety of
their workers, companies implement ongoing OH&S monitoring programs.

These programs need to address the following:

• OH&S training;
• the hazards present on site;
66
• personal protection equipment requirements;
• on-site monitoring;
• site control;

69

•decontamination
•emergency response
•medical surveillance program

A number of extant American OH&S guidance documents for use on contaminated sites have
been adapted
by consultatnts for use in Australia.

3.4 Industrial Chemistry and Hazardous Materials Databases

Databases currently exist in Australia which may be used to quickly characterise the likely
contaminants present on a site and define the toxicity of specific contaminants or the chemical
constituents in a proprietary product. These databases which are currently derived from
overseas provide a comprehensive guide to the properties of compounds, the effects of
exposure and
their recommended handling procedures. They may be essential for an investigator in
assessing
either the risk of contamination or the significance of known contamination. For example,
the Kirk-Othmer database on industrial chemistry will ally the user to identify the chemicals
used in any manufacture process.

A selection of these databases is as follows:

'ADCHEM' - Material Safety Data Sheet Service;

'KIRK OTHMER' - Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology;
'NIOSHTIC' - Toxicological Database; and
'IRIS' - Integrated Risk Information Services;
'CHEMINFO' - a Canadian database with 40 000 compounds listed; and
'INFOSAFE' - a database marketed in Victoria.

Access to these systems is available through commercial information services or libraries.

The
ADCHEM service is located in Melbourne while some others are US based. Obvious these
databases
do not detail the locations of industries using compounds of environmental significance, and
there is a need for such locally-derived information.

4. DEMONSTRATED GROUNDWATER PROTECTION SYSTEM

This level of protection requires the provision of information which can demonstrate that
monitoring and protection system implemented will be effective in preventing acceptable
contamination of groundwater.

70

These systems can have active or passive components and the approach differs from a
remediation plan
67
only to the extent that the focus is prevention and not clean up.

The types of systems which can be considered within this category include:

• physical liner and barrier wall systems;

• hydraulic barriers and other groundwater movement control systems;
• numerical models of groundwater flow and contaminant transport; and
• a groundwater monitoring system.

This level of protection requires that the effectiveness of the system needs to be demonstrated.
Such demonstration can be achieved in at least two ways:
• by conformance with an accepted standard in the design and construction of the
system, for example, by adhering to a specification for a liner system; and
• by using the best available technology to demonstrate the space and time scale of the
range of contamination outcomes both with and without the protection system. This
could be achieved by numerical modelling using an accredited method.
It follows that an amount of technical guidance documentation will be needed in order to
provide
quality assurance at each stage of the design and demonstration of groundwater protection
systems.

5. DEMONSTRATED REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS

The purpose of this level of protection is to devise a plan to restore a degraded groundwater
body to a higher quality to satisfy a designated beneficial use. This could be required in the
case of contamination having already occurred or where it may potentially occur in the future.

While remediation of contaminated groundwater is a common occurrence in the USA and

Europe mainly
associated with hazardous waste and petroleum facilities, the specification of remediation
plans for as yet uncontaminated aquifer is less common. The remedial action plan proposed
herein
requires the proponent to demonstrate the technical feasibility of a clean-up in achieving the
desired water quality objectives. The cost of remediation also needs to be estimated in order
to
evaluate the practicability of achievement. In addition the financial resources need to be
assured to implement the clean-up, if necessary by the use of statutory financial assurance
devices. Such demonstration could be achieved by a combination of reference to precedent,
bench
and pilot tests, numerical and physical models and adoption of a QA/QC system.

71

The complex nature of the requirements of a remedial action plan necessitate the provision of
some separate guidelines for the level of technical analysis acceptable. For example, it would
be
desirable for proponents to know the ground rules prior to making formal proposals for a
project
such that pre-feasibility studies can include an assessment of the cost of remediation.

68
Remediation Methods: Groundwater contamination clean up is performed in a number of
ways, however
most methods incorporate some combination of physical controls and bio- hemical treatments
either in situ or at the surface. The most common method of groundwater remediation
practised in
the USA and Europe is pumping and treating. Table III-1 summarises the major methods for
controlling, recovering and treating groundwater.
Methods using in situ biological treatments are becoming more attractive for large scale
remediation where time is available to progressively achieve clean-up. These methods are
ultimately much less costly than those involving rapid recovery of contaminated groundwater
with disposal or conventional treatment by carbon filters and air stripping.

The most common approach to in situ bioremediation involves some form of groundwater
recovery
combined with reinjection or land spreading in which the selected micro-organism which can
consume
the contaminant compound is cultivated. The system can progressively improve the
groundwater
quality by recirculating between the spreading area and the recovery system, until acceptable
levels are reached.

Table III-2 summarises the main methods of groundwater remediation response to acute and
chronic
contamination problems. This emphasises the importance of the time constraints it the choice
of
method.

72

A. Recycling v
are to reduce the volume of waste to be handled, or reduce the

B. Resource recovery
threat a certain waste possesses by altering its physical or

C. Centrifugation
chemical make-up.

D. Filtration
'

E. Sand drying beds

II.
Physical/chemical alteration

measures

A. Chemical fixation
69
B. Detoxification

C. Degradation

D. Encapsulation

E. Waste segregation

F. Co-disposal

G. Leachate recirculation

Well Systems
Well systems for groundwater pollution control are based on

manipulation of the subsurface hydraulic gradient through

I.
Well point systems
injection, and/or withdrawal of water. Well systems are
II.
Deep well systems
designed to control the movement of the water phase directly
III.
Pressure ridge systems
and the subsurface contaminants indirectly. This approach is
IV.
Combined systems
referred to as plume management. Well systems are also used
V.
Immiscible (hydrocarbon)
for recovery of immiscible contaminants, usually hydrocarbons,

contaminant recovery systems

that float on the watertable.
Interceptor Systems
Interceptor systems involve excavation .of a trench below the

watertable, and possible the placement of a pipe in the trench.

I.
Collector drains
The trench can be left open (interceptor trench) or backfill can

A. Leachate collection systems

70
be placed on a pipe in the trench (collector drain). Interceptor

B. Interceptor drains
trenches can be either active (pumped) or passive (gravity

C. Relief drains
flow). These systems function similarly to an infinite line of

extraction wells by effecting a continuous zone of depression

II.
Interceptor trenches
running the length of the trench.

A. Actively pumped systems

B. Gravity flow, skimmer

pump systems

Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater treatment technologies are utilised at the surface to

treat contaminated ground water. The technologies most

I.
Air/steam stripping
widely applied to organic contaminants are air stripping, carbon
II.
Carbon adsorption
absorption and biological treatment. Chemical precipitation is
III.
Biological treatment
used for inorganics and metals removal.
IV.
Chemical precipitation

73
ii I
',
', ',
I
II ~ I

purpose. Surface water control measures reduce potential

I. Natural attenuation (no liner, no
71
infiltration by minimising the amount of surface water flowing
cap)
onto a site. Capping is designed to minimise the infiltration of
II. Engineered liner
any surface water or direct precipitation that does come onto a
III. Engineered cover
site. Impermeable liners provide ground water protection by
IV. Engineered cover and liner
inhibiting downward flow of low-quality leachate and/or

attenuating pollutants by adsorption processes.

Impermeable Barriers
Barriers are measures designed to influence the subsurface

hydraulic gradient by placing a low permeability material into

I. Steel sheet-piles
the subsurface. Barriers typically are constructed with driven
II. Grout curtains or cutoffs
sheet piles, injected grouts, or dug slurry walls. Sheet-piles
III. Slurry walls
provide immediate impermeability, while grouts and slurries

both are emulsions that require a hardening period to achieve

impermeability.
Ill situ Treatment
The in situ treatment methods involve adding materials to the

subsurface so as to cause or increase the rate of a reaction that

I. In-site chemical
will render a contaminant immobile or remove the contaminant.
II. In situ biological
The in situ chemical technologies attempt to immobilise

contaminants through some chemical reaction, while the in situ

biological techniques are designed to provide an environment

suitable for microorganisms to utilise the contaminant as food

source.
Innovative Technologies
Three of the innovative technologies that have yet to find wide

applicability are the block displacement method envirowall

I. Block displacement
concept, and fly ash stabilisation. The block displacement
II. Envirowall
method is similar to grouting except the emulsion is injected
III. Fly ash stabilisation
laterally with the effect of raising or isolating a whole block of

72
contaminated soil. The Envirowall concept involves vertical

placement of a synthetic liner material within a slurry wall. Fly

ash stabilisation involves injection of fly ash into an existing

impoundment to solidity the contained liquid or slurry. It is the

calcium oxide content of materials such as fly ash which are

the active stabilisers, and the right sort of fly ash, usually

'Class C', needs to be specified. Other materials such as

Portland cement and pulverised quicklime are commonly used

in stabilisation work.

Source: Canter et. al. (1987)8

74

Pollution problem Goal Methodologies

Acute Abatement In situ chemical fixation

Excavation of contaminated soil with
subsequent backfilling with 'clean' soil
Restoration Removal wells, treatment of
contaminated groundwater, and recharge
Removal wells, treatment of
contaminated groundwater, and discharge to surface drainage

Chronic

Restoration
Removalb wells, treatment of contaminated groundwater, and recharge Removal wells,
treatment of contaminated ground water, and discharge to surface drainage Removal wells
and discharge to surface drainage
In situ chemical fixation Excavation of contaminated soil with subsequent backfilling with
'clean' soil Interceptor trenches to collect polluted water as it moves laterally away from site
Surface capping with impermeable material to inhibit infiltration of leach ate-producing
rainfall Subsurface barriers of impermeable materials to restrict hydraulic flow from sources
Modify pumping patterns at existing wells Inject fresh water in a series of wells placed
around source or contaminated plume to develop pressure ridge to restrict movement of
pollutants
Removal wells, treatment of contaminated ground water, and recharge Removal wells,
treatment of contaminated ground water, and discharge to surface drainage Removal wells
and discharge to surface drainage In situ chemical treatment In situ biological treatment
Chronic
Abatement
73
Restoration
Source: Canter et. al (1987)$
Notes
Acute refers to one-off occurrences such as spillages and accidental discharges. Chronic refers
to long-to continuous discharges. The differentiation is made here to help with the preparation
of contingency measures but the abatement/restoration schemes mentioned will often apply
equally to both.
b Could also be referred to as interceptor wells.

75

Glossary

Aquifer: Rock or sediment in a geological formation, group of formations or part of a

formation which is capable of being
permeated permanently or intermittently and can thereby transmit water.

Aquifer, confined: A completely saturated aquifer that is overlaid and underlaid by confining
bed. The confining beds have a significantly lower hydraulic conductivities than
the aquifer. The groundwater is contained under sufficient pressure to allow it to rise above
the
aquifer if the overlying confining bed is penetrated. The level to which the water would rise
is the potentiometric surface. Synonyms are pressure or artesian aquifer.

Aquifer, unconfined: A permeable soil or rock layer which is either partly filled with water or
has no impermeable or semi
impermeable layer restricting a rise in the water table. It contains groundwater which is not
subjected to any pressure other than its own weight. Watertable aquifer is a synonym.

Attenuation: the removal of contaminants from a solution passing though a porous medium by
natural mechanisms such as ion exchange, chemical precipitation, absorption and filtration.

Confining bed or layer: A layer of low permeability material adjacent to one or more aquifers.
Its hydraulic conductivity may vary from near zero to some value much lower than that of the
aquifer.

Contamination: A change in water quality that produces a noticeable or detectable change

in its characteristics

Diffuse Sources: Source(s) of contamination which is spread across a large area or region.

Discharge area: An area in which there are upward movements of hydraulic head in the
aquifer.
Groundwater flowing toward the land surface in a discharge area may escape as a spring,
leading to a discharge, seep or baseflow, or by evaporation and transpiration.

Drainage Basin: The land from which runoff drains into a stream system.

Drawdown: The difference between the observed water level during pumping and the
non-pumping water level.

74
Ecosystem: An environment containing a community of adapted organisms interacting in
such
a manner that there is a transfer of energy through the system and recycling of material
resources within the system.

Groundwater: All waters occurring below the land surface.

Groundwater flow: The movement of water through an aquifer.

76

Groundwater Basin: The area pertaining to a groundwater flow system, which is more or less
separate from neighbouring groundwater flow systems. A groundwater basin may be
separated
from adjacent basins by geologic or hydrologic boundaries.

Hazardous Waste: Means any waste present in sufficient quantities to present a danger.
(i) to life or health of living organisms when released in the environment;
(ii) to the safety of humans; and
(iii) to the safety or operation of equiptment in disposal plants if incorrectly handled

Hazardous substances may possess toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic

characteristics
as well as flamability, chemical reactivity, infectious or other biologically damaging
properties
(including radioactivity).

Hydrogeology: Brance of science dealing with groundwater, and the geological controls on its
occurrence and movements,
its availability and chemistry.

Indicator: Any physical, chemical or biological characteristic used as a measure of

environmental
quality.

Infiltration: The flow of water downward from the land surface into the sub surface.

Leachate: A liquid which has percolated through and/or drained from waste material and
which
contains soluable components of the waste, including products of decomposition.

Municipal landfill: A site for the disposl of municipal waste to land.

Piezometer: A nonpumping well, generally of small diameter, which is used to measure the
elevation
of the watertable or potentiometric surface. A piezometer generally has a short well screen
through
which water can enter.

Point Source: A source of contamination which comes from a single point.

75
Pollution: A state of contamination for which the water quality has deteriorated to a point
where the ability
of the water to support or maintain the existing or potential uses is diminished.

Potable Water: Water which is fit for human consumption.

Travel time: The time that it takes a contaminant to travel from the source of contamination to
the
point of interest in the aquifer.

Recharge area; a geographical area in which water infiltrates then percolates to reach an
aquifer.

Unsaturated zone: The zone between the land surface and the watertable. it includes the root
zone, intermediate zone,
and capillary fringe. The pre spaces contain water at less than atmospheric pressure, as well as
air and other gases.

77

Vulnerability: A relative evaluation of the potential exposure of a groundwater resource

to contamination.

Watertable: The surface of the saturated zone in an unconfined aquifer.

Well: A hole drilled into an aquifer for the purpose of monitoring or extracting
groundwater. This generic term includes bores, water wells and tube wells.

78

CHAPTER NOTES

Chapter 1 Introduction

1. Australian Water Resources Council (1975), Groundwater Resources of Australia,

AGPS, Canberra.
2. Australian Water Resources Council (1981), Proceedings of the Conference on
Groundwater Pollution, Perth 1979, AWRC Conference Series no. 1, AGPS,
Canberra.
3. Australian Water Resources Council (1990), The Status of Groundwater
Contamination and Regulation in Australia, Water Resource Management Committee,
Occasional Paper no. I, Corporate Image, Melbourne.
4. Australian Water Resources Council (1991), A Preliminary Guide to the Standard
Operating Procedures for Groundwater Sampling, Water Resource Management
Committee, Occasional Paper no. 2, Creative Solutions, Melbourne.
5. Australian Water Resources Council (1991), An AWRC Strategy for Water Quality
Management, a Discussion Paper, Department of Primary Industries and Energy,
Canberra.

Chapter 2 The Need for Groundwater Protection

76
1. Figure 1 is adapted from data contained in:
Australian Water Resources Council (1987), 1985 Review of Australia's Water
Resources and Water Use, Department of Primary Industries and Energy, vols l and 2, AGPS,
Canberra.
2. Data for Table 1 were collated from a telephone survey of state water agencies by
Dames and Moore in 1990.
3. United States Geological Survey (1985), National Water Summary 1984, Water
Supply Paper 2275, USGPO, Washington, USA.
4. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1985), Overview of State
Groundwater Program, Summaries vol. 1, USEPA, Washington, USA.
5. Vrba J. (1981), 'General Aspects of Groundwater Non-Point Pollution', in Van
Duijvenbooden, W., Glasbergen P. and Van Lelyneld H. (eds), Quality of
Groundwater, Environmental Science 17, Proceedings of an International Symposium
of the National Institute for Water Supply, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
6. Her Majesty's Stationery Office (1986), Nitrate in Water Pollution, Paper no. 26,
Department of Environment, Central Directorate of Environmental Protection, London.

79

7. Selby K.H. and Skinner A.C. (1981), 'Management and Protection of Quality of
Groundwater Resources in the English Midlands', in Van Duijvenbooden W.,
Glasbergen P. and Van Lelyneld H. (eds), Quality of Groundwater, Environmental
Science 17, Proceedings of an International Symposium of the National Institute of
Water Supply, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
8. Australian Water Resources Council (1990), The Status of Groundwater
Contamination and Regulation in Australia, Water Resource Management Committee
Occasional Paper no. 1, Corporate Image, Melbourne.
9. Ibid.

Chapter 3 Underlying Principles for Guidelines

1. Commonwealth of Australia (1992), National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable

Development, AGPS, Canberra.
2. Australian and New Zealand Environment Council (1990), National Water Quality
Guidelines, Draft Report.
3. Nancarrow, B.E. and Syme, G.J. (1991), Distributive Justice and the Allocation of
Water between Irrigation, Industry, the Community and the Environment, CSIRO,
Perth.
4. Heuer, L.B. and Penrod, S. (1986), 'Procedural preference as a function of conflict
intensity,' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 51, pp. 700-10.
5. Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice,
Plenum, New York.
6. Austin, W. and Hatfield, E. (1980), 'Equity Theory, Power and Social Justice', in G.
Mikula (ed.) Justice and Social Interaction, Huber, Vienna.
7. Rasinski, K.A. (1987), 'What's fair is fair . . . or is it? Value differences underlying
public views about social justice', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,
pp. 201-11.
8. Merton, R.K. and Rossi, A.S. (1957), 'Contributions to the theory of reference group
behaviour', in Merton, R.K. (ed.), Social Theory and Social Structure, rev. edn, Free
Press, New York, pp. 225-80.
77
9. Crosby, F. (1976), 'A model of egotistical relative deprivation', Psychological
Review, 83, pp. 85-113.

80

Chapter 4 Approaches to Groundwater Protection

1. Pezzey, J. (1990), 'Market Mechanisms of Pollution Control: 'Polluter Pays',
Economic and Practical Aspects', in Turner, R. Kerry (ed.), Sustainable Environmental
Management: Principles and Practice, Westview Press, Colorado, pp. 190-242.
2. Aller L., Benner T., Lehr J.H., Petty R.J. and Hackett G. (1987), Drastic: A Standard
System for Evaluating Groundwater Pollution Potential using Hydrogeologic Settings,
US Environmental Protection Agency, Publn. 600/2, Oklahoma, USA.
3. Le Grande, H. (1983), A ,standardised system for evaluating waste disposal sites,
National Water Well Association, USA.
4. Neilson Associates Pty Ltd (1987), The Application of Siting Criteria for an
Integrated Waste Treatment Facility, MMBW Industrial Waste Project, Victoria.
5. Environment Protection Authority (1988), Draft Groundwater Protection Strategy,
Environment Protection Authority, Melbourne.
6. Environment Protection Authority (1989), The Siting and Management of Landfills
Receiving Municipal Waste, Draft State Environment Protection Policy, Publication
no. 265, Environment Protection Authority, Melbourne.
7. Environment Protection Authority (1991), State Environment Protection - Landfills,
Environment Protection Authority, Melbourne.
8. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Connecticut's Groundwater
Strategy, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, Connecticut.
9. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (1987), Water Quality
Standards, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Water Compliance
Unit, Hartford, Connecticut.
10. National Research Council (1986) Groundwater Quality Protection, State and Local
Strategies, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 46-7; 94-101.
11. Page, G. William (1987), Planning for Groundwater Protection, ed. G. William Page,
Department of Urban Planning for Great Lakes Studies, University of Wisconsin
Milwaukee Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida, pp. 49-50.
12. Environment Protection Authority (1994) Draft State Environment Protection Policy-
Groundwaters of Victoria

Chapter 5 Strategy Development

1. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (1986), Long Island

Groundwater Management Plan, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Division of Water, pp. 66-7.

81

2. National Research Council (1986), Groundwater Quality Protection, State and Local
Strategies, National Academy Press, Washington, USA, pp. 110-13.
3. Washington Conservation Foundation (1987), Groundwater Protection, Groundwater:
Saving the Unseen Resource, The Final Report of the National Groundwater Policy Forum
and
A Guide to Groundwater Pollution: Problems, Causes, and Government Responses by The
Conservation
Foundation, The Conservation Foundation, Washington, USA, pp. 167-9.
78
Appendix I Types and Sources of Contaminants

1. Young C.P. (1981), The Impact of Point Source Pollution on Groundwater Quality,
in Van Duijvenbooden W., Glasbergen P. and Van Lelyneld H. (eds), Quality of
Groundwater, Environmental Science 17, Proceedings of an International Symposium
of the National Institute for Water Supply, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
2. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1985), Overview of State
Groundwater Program, Summaries vol. 1, Washington, USA.

Appendix II Water Quality Criteria

1. National Health and Medical Research Council (1987), Guidelines for Drinking Water
ire Australia, Department of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council
and the Australian Water Resources Council, Canberra.
2. World Health Organisation (19$4a), Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, vol. 1,
Recommendations, Geneva, Switzerland.
World Health Organisation (1984b), Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, vol. 2, Health
Criteria and other Supporting Information, Geneva, Switzerland.
3. Environment Protection Authority (1983), Recommended Water Quality Criteria,
Publication no. 165, Environment Protection Authority, Melbourne.
4. Australian and New Zealand Environment Council (1990), National Water Quality
Guidelines, Draft Report.
5. ANZECC (1992) Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters
Appendix III Technical Guidance Documentation
1. Wood, R.D. (ed.) (1987), Geotechnical Practice for Waste Disposal '87',
American
Society of Engineers, New York.
2. Australian Water Resources Council (1991), A Preliminary Guide to the
Standard
Operating Procedures for Groundwater Sampling, Water Resources
Management
Committee, Occasional Paper no. 2, Creative Solutions, Melbourne.

82

3. Barcelona, M., Keely, J.A., Pettyjohn, W.A., and Wehrmann, A. (1988), Handbook
for Groundwater Protection, Centre for Environmental Research Information of the
US Environmental Protection Agency, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
4. Australian Water Resources Council (1991), A Preliminary Guide to the Standard
Operating Procedures for Groundwater Sampling, Water Resources Management
Committee, Occasional Paper no. 2, Creative Solutions, Melbourne.
5. National Water Well Association (1986), RCRA Groundwater Monitoring Technical
Enforcement Guidance Document, National Water Well Association and United
States Environment Protection Agency.
6. Driscoll, F.G. (1986), Groundwater and Wells, 2nd edn, Johnson Division, Minnesota,
USA.
7. National Institute far Occupational Safety and Health (1985), Occupational Safety and
Health - Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities, US Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, USA.
8. Canter, L.W., Knox, R.C. and Canter, D. (1987), Ground Water Quality Protection,
79
Lewis Publishers, Inc., Michigan, USA.

83

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aller L., Benner T., Lehr J.H., Petty R.J. and Hackett G. (1987), Drastic: A Standard System
for Evaluating Groundwater Pollution Potential using Hydrogeologic Settings, US
Environmental Protection Agency, Publn. 600/2, Oklahoma, USA.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (1989), State of Arizona Groundwater
Protection Strategy 1989, prepared by L.K. Hastings and W.K. Hood, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, Arizona, 1989.
Austin, W. and Hatfield, E. (1980), 'Equity Theory, Power and Social Justice', in G. Mikula
(ed.), Justice and Social Interaction, Huber, Vienna.
Australian & New Zealand Environment & Conservation Council (1992), Australian Water
Quality Guidelines, Draft for Public Comment.
Australian Water Resources Council (1975), Groundwater Resources of Australia, AGPS,
Canberra.
Australian Water Resources Council (1981), Proceedings of the Conference on Groundwater
Pollution, Perth 1979, AWRC Conference Series no. 1, AGPS, Canberra.
Australian Water Resources Council (1987), 1985 Review of Australia's Water Resources and
Water Use, Department of Primary Industries and Energy, vols 1 & 2, AGPS, Canberra.
Australian Water Resources Council (1990), Water Quality - Towards a National Strategy,
Australian Water Resources Council, Canberra.
Australian Water Resources Council (1990), The Status of Groundwater Contamination and
Regulation in Australia, Water Resource Management Committee, Occasional Paper no. 1,
Corporate Image, Melbourne.
Australian Water Resources Council (1991), An AWRC Strategy for Water Quality
Management, a Discussion Paper, Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Canberra.
Australian Water Resources Council (1991), A Preliminary Guide to the Standard Operating
Procedures for Groundwater Sampling, Water Resources Management Committee, j
Occasional Paper no. 2, Creative Solutions, Melbourne.
Barcelona, M., Keely, J.A., Pettyjohn, W.A., and Wehrmann, A. (1988), Handbook of
Groundwater Protection, Centre for Environmental Research Information of the US
Environment Protection Agency, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Canter, L.W., Knox, R.C. and Canter, D. (1987), Ground Water Quality Protection, Lewis
Publishers, Inc., Michigan, USA.
Commonwealth of Australia (1992), National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable
Development, AGPS, Canberra.

84

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (1987), Water Quality Standards,

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Water Compliance Unit, Hartford,
Connecticut.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Connecticut's Groundwater Strategy,
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, Connecticut.
Connecticut General Assembly (1989), Report of the Aquifer Protection Task Force, State of
Connecticut General Assembly, Environment Committee, Hartford, Connecticut.
Crosby, F. (1976), 'A model of egotistical relative deprivation', Psychological Review, 83, pp.
85-113.
Driscoll F.G. (1986), Groundwater and Wells, 2nd edn, Johnson Division, Minnesota, USA.

80
Environmental Law Institute (1990), Survey and Analysis of State Groundwater
Classification Systems and Program Operations, prepared by the Environmental Law Institute
for the Office of Groundwater Protection, USEPA, USA.
Environmental Protection Authority (1983), Recommended Water Quality Criteria,
Publication no. 165, Environment Protection Authority, Melbourne.
Environment Protection Authority (1988), Draft Groundwater Protection Strategy,
Environment Protection Authority, Melbourne.
Environment Protection Authority (1989), The Siting arid Management of Landfills
Receiving Municipal Waste, Draft State Environment Protection Policy, Publication no. 265,
Environment Protection Authority, Melbourne.
Environment Protection Authority (1991), State Environment Protection Policy - Landfills,
Environment Protection Authority, Melbourne.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (1989), Florida's Ground Water Strategy,
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Groundwater Protection,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Freeze R.A. and Cherry J.A. (1989), 'What Has Gone Wrong', Groundwater, vol. 27, no. 4,
pp. 458-64.
Hem J.D. (1989), Study arid Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water,
United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2254, 3rd edn, US Government Printing
Office, Washington, USA.
Her Majesty's Stationery Office (1986), Nitrate ire Water Pollution, Paper no. 26, Department
of the Environment Central Directorate of Environmental Protection, London.
Heuer, L.B. and Penrod, S. (1986), 'Procedural preference as a function of conflict intensity',
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 51, pp. 700-10.

85

Lane A.P. (1988), Groundwater Quality Mapping and Monitoring Activities, Report 124,
Thai-Australia Northeast Village Water Resource Project, Australian Development Assistance
Bureau/MPW, Melbourne.
Lau, J.E., Commander, D.P. and Jacobsen, G. (1987), Hydrogeology of Australia, Department
of Resources and Energy Bureau of Mineral Resources Geology and Geophysics, Bulletin
227, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Le Grande, H. (1983), A standardised system for evaluating waste-disposal sites, National
Water Well Association, USA.
Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (198$), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice Plenum, New
York.
Merton, R.K. and Rossi, A.S. (1957), 'Contributions to the theory of reference group
behaviour', in Merton, R.K. (ed), Social Theory and Social Structure, rev. edn, Free Press,
New York, pp. 225-80.
Nancarrow, B.E. and Syme, G.J. (1991), Distributive Justice and the Allocation of Water
between Irrigation, Industry, the Community and the Environment, CSIRO, Perth.
National Health and Medical Research Council (1987), Guidelines for Drinking Water ire
Australia, Department of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council and the
Australian Water Resources Council, Canberra.
National Health and Medical Research Council (1991), Australian Public Health Discussion
Paper for the Rehabilitation of Contaminated Land, National Health and Medical Research
Council, Canberra.
NHMRC (1990), A Guide For Potentially Responsible Parties at Superfund Sites Morgan,
Lewis & Backius, Washington, USA.
81
National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (1985), Occupational Safety & Health
Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities, US National Institute for Occupational
Safety & Health, USA.
National Research Council (1986), Groundwater Quality Protection, State and Local
Strategies, National Academy Press, Washington, USA.
National Water Well Association (1986), RCRA Groundwater Monitoring Technical
Enforcement Guidance Document, National Water Well Association and United States
Environment Protection Agency, Ohio.
Neilson Associates Pty Ltd (1987), The Application of Siting Criteria for an Integrated Waste
Treatment Facility, MMBW Industrial Waste Project, Victoria.

86

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (1986), Long Island

Groundwater Management Plan, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Division of Water, N.Y.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and New York State
Department of Health (1989), Long Island Region Water Resources Management Strategy,
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York State Department
of Health, N.Y.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and New York State
Department of Health (1989), New York State Water Resources Management Strategy, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York State Department of
Health, N.Y.
Page, G. William (ed.) (1987), Planning for Groundwater Protection, Department of Urban
Planning for Great Lakes Studies, University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee, Academic Press, Inc,
Orlando, Florida.
Pezzey, J (1990), 'Market Mechanisms of Pollution Control: 'Polluter Pays', Economic and
Practical Aspects', in Turner, R. Kerry (ed), Sustainable Environmental Management:
Principles and Practice, Westview Press, Colorado, pp. 190-242.
Rail, Chester D. (1989), Groundwater Contamination - Sources, Control and Preventive
Measures, Technomic Publishing Company Ltd, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1989.
Rasinski, K.A. (1987), 'What's fair is fair ... or is it? Value differences underlying public
views about social justice', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, pp. 201-11.
Sawyer, A.H. (1987), California State Ground Water Quality Law, California Department of
Water Resources, Sacramento, California.
Selby K.H. and Skinner A.C. (1981), 'Management and Protection of Quality of Groundwater
Resources in the English Midlands', in Van Duijvenbooden W., Glasbergen P. and Van
Lelyneld H. (eds) Quality of Groundwater Studies, Environmental Science 17, Proceedings of
an International Symposium Studies in Environmental Science, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Tanenbaum, Edith G. (1986), The Long Island Groundwater Protection Program, Remarks of
Edith G. Tanenbaum presented before the Third National Symposium on Groundwater
Pollution Control, Atlanta GA, January 17, 1986.
US Congress (1988), Are We Cleaning Up? 10 Superfund Case Studies, Special Report
OTAITE-362, Office of Technology Assessment, US Government Printing Office,
Washington, USA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (1984), Groundwater Protection Strategy,
Office of Groundwater Protection, USEPA, Washington, USA.

87

82
United States Environmental Protection Agency (1985), Overview of State Groundwater
Protection Program, Summaries vol. 1, USEPA, Washington, USA.
United States Geological Survey (1985), National Water Summary 1984, Water Supply Paper
2275, USGPO, Washington, USA.
Van Duijvenbooden W., Glasbergen P. and Van Lelyneld H. (eds) (1981), Quality of
Groundwater, vol. 17, Proceedings of an International Symposium, Studies in Environmental
Science, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Victorian Irrigation Research and Advisory Services Committee (1980), Quality Aspects of
Furor Water Supplies, A report of the Victorian Irrigation Research and Advisory Services
Committee (VIRASC), 2nd edn, Victoria.
Vrba J. (1981), 'General Aspect`s of Groundwater Non-Point Pollution', in Van
Duijvenbooden W., Glasbergen P. and Van Lelyneld H. (eds), Quality of Groundwater,
Environmental Science 17, Proceedings of an International Symposium of the National
Institute for Water Supply, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Washington Conservation Foundation (19$7), Groundwater Protection, Groundwater: Saving
the Unseen Resource, The Final Report of the National Groundwater Policy Forum and A
Guide to Groundwater Pollution: Problems, Causes, and Government Responses by the
Conservation Foundation, The Conservation Foundation, Washington, USA.
Weston, Roy F. Inc. (1988), Remedial Technologies for Leaking Underground Storage Tanks,
Lewis Publishers Inc, Chelsea, Michigan.
Wood, R.D. (ed.) (1987), Geotechnical Practice for Waste Disposal '87', American Society of
Engineers, New York.
World Health Organisation (1984a), Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, vol. 1,
Recommendations, Geneva, Switzerland.
World Health Organisation (1984b), Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, vol. 2, Health
Criteria arid outer Supporting Information, Geneva, Switzerland.
Young C.P. (1981), The Impact of Point Source Pollution on Groundwater Quality, in Van
Duijvenbooden W., Glasbergen P. and Van Lelyneld H. (eds), Quality of Groundwater,
Environmental Science 17, Proceedings of an International Symposium of the National
Institute for Water Supply, Elsevier, Amsterdam.

88

83