Key considerations that can make or break a closure-focused groundwater-monitoring program

Authors: Gemson, WJ; Weaver, TR; Heemink, BL

Open access courtesy of:

DOI https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_rep/1915_107_Gemson

Cite As:
Gemson, WJ, Weaver, TR & Heemink, BL 2019, 'Key considerations that can make or break a closure-focused groundwater-monitoring program', in AB Fourie & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2019: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1367-1376, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_rep/1915_107_Gemson

Download citation as:   ris   bibtex   endnote   text   Zotero


Abstract:
Potential long-term water quality impacts present one of the main challenges for effective closure of mine sites. As such, groundwater-monitoring programs form an inherent part of closure. At many mine sites, groundwater-monitoring programs develop organically over time, in response to specific issues that may arise during the life of the mine. When transitioning from operational to closure-focused groundwater monitoring the programs often undergo greater scrutiny by stakeholders. This transitioning also offers the opportunity to re-evaluate the fundamentals underpinning the program, allowing for the alignment of monitoring efforts with the site and scenario-specific monitoring and closure objectives. If gotten right significant efficiencies can be gained in achieving outcomes that support closure, but if not, quite the opposite. This paper presents key considerations for a closure-focused groundwater-monitoring program. These include: 1) thorough assessment and confirmation of the constituents of potential concern (COPCs); 2) background concentration thresholds for COPCs that occur naturally (especially important in mineralised areas); 3) the setting of appropriate assessment criteria for water quality monitoring taking into account background concentrations and water uses; 4) developing the program within a source-pathway-receptor framework that clearly considers the environmental setting and potential changes in hydrodynamics following closure; 5) regulatory requirements; and 6) consideration of sampling frequency and temporal trends to develop trigger levels and actions to increase or decrease monitoring effort, to maintain flexibility within the program and to assist with the setting of reasonable end-points.

Keywords: water quality, groundwater, monitoring

References:
Adamson, DT, Mahendra, S, Walker, KL, Rauch, SR, Sengupta, S & Newell, CJ 2014, ‘A Multisite Survey To Identify the Scale of the 1,4-Dioxane Problem at Contaminated Groundwater Sites’, Environmental Science & Technology Letters, vol. 1, pp, 254–258.
CRC CARE 2014a, Development of guidance for contaminants of emerging concern, CRC CARE Technical Report no. 32, CRC for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment, Adelaide.
CRC CARE 2014b, Environmental impact of priority contaminants: A literature review, CRC CARE Technical Report no. 29, CRC for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment, Adelaide.
CRC CARE 2018, Practitioner guide to risk-based assessment, remediation and management of PFAS site contamination, CRC CARE Technical Report no. 43, CRC for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment, Newcastle.
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources 2007, Managing Acid and Metalliferous Drainage, Commonwealth of Australia.
International Network for Acid Prevention 2014: Global Acid Rock Drainage Guide. Version number 1.0,
International Council on Mining & Metals 2019, Integrated Mine Closure: Good Practice Guide, 2nd edn.
Khamkhash, A, Srivastava, V, Ghosh, T, Akdogan, G, Ganguli, R & Aggarwal, S 2017, Mining-Related Selenium Contamination in Alaska, and the State of Current Knowledge, Minerals 2017, vol. 7, issue 3, p. 46.
National Environmental Protection Council 2013, National Environmental Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999, National Environment Protection Council, Canberra.
Robertson, E, Robertson, S & Kirsten, BC 1990, Monitoring Acid Mine Drainage, Mine Environmental Neutral Drainage Program Project 4.7.1.
Stefaniak, S, Dutta, A, Verbinnen, B, Shakya, M & Rene, ER, 2018, ‘Selenium removal from mining and process wastewater: a systematic review of available technologies’, Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology-Aqua, vol. 67, issue 8, pp. 903–918.
Thorbjornsen, K & Myers, J 2007, ‘Identifying Metals Contamination in Groundwater Using Geochemical Correlation Evaluation. Environ’, Forensics, vol. 8, issue 1–2, pp. 25–35.
Thorbjornsen, K & Myers, J 2008, ‘Geochemical Evaluation of Metals in Groundwater at Long-Term Monitoring Sites and Active Remediation Sites’, Remediation, vol. 18, issue 2, pp. 99–114.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2014, Extracting site-specific background dataset for a constituent from a broader dataset consisting of onsite constituent concentrations & estimating background level constituent concentrations.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015, ProUCL Version 5.1: Technical Guide, EPA/600/R-07/041, Office of Research and Development.
U.S. Navy 2004, Guidance for Environmental Background Analysis. Volume III: Groundwater, UG-2059-ENV, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington.
Weaver, TR, Price, AD, Patterson, O & Gemson, WJ 2013, ‘Developing Resilient Water Monitoring Programs in Changing Climate Conditions’, Proceedings of the Water in Mining 2013 Conference, Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Carlton.




© Copyright 2024, Australian Centre for Geomechanics (ACG), The University of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
View copyright/legal information
Please direct any queries or error reports to repository-acg@uwa.edu.au