Amhara Hydrology Impact Assessment Report

Amhara Hydrology Impact Assessment

Report Amhara IAIP and RTC

Report Produced by:

WSP in collaboration with Zereu Girmay Environment Consultancy (ZGEC)

DATE: DECEMBER 2017

Hydrology Impact Assessment Report Amhara IAIP & RTC December 2017

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1

2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ................................. 1

3 METHODOLOGY ................................................ 1

3.1 Desktop Assessment ..................................................... 1

3.2 Site Assessment and Hydrocensus.......................... 1

3.3 Water Quality Monitoring Programme ..................... 1

3.4 Detailed Risk Assessment ........................................... 2

4 BASELINE ENVIRONMENT ........................... 3

4.1 Geology .............................................................................. 3

4.2 Hydrogeology ................................................................... 3

5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................ 10

6 CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMENDATIONS ....................................... 11


1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Chapter is to describe the receiving environment in terms of groundwater within the Project site and surrounding area, to identify any potential impacts to the hydrogeological environment as a result of the Project and to recommend associated mitigation measures. The study was carried out by conducting a detailed site investigation of the IAIP and RTC sites and carrying out a hydrocensus in their vicinities in order to identify and classify all groundwater sources.

2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The main aims of the groundwater investigation are as follows:

— To identify all groundwater users within and surrounding the Amhara IAIP and RTC sites;

— To describe the baseline hydrogeological environment prior to development;

— To identify any potential risks to the hydrogeological environment associated with the development of the IAIP and RTC sites; and

— To propose mitigation measures associated with the identified risks.

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 DESKTOP ASSESSMENT

A detailed desktop assessment was undertaken for the Amhara IAIP and RTC sites prior to site work commencing. All available data, including topography data, climate data, hydrogeological classification maps, drilling and pump testing reports and design plans, was reviewed. This data allowed for the establishment of general hydrogeological conditions on site, and was used as the basis for the planning of the site investigation.

3.2 SITE ASSESSMENT AND HYDROCENSUS

Site visits were conducted from the 17th to the 18th of August 2017 at the Amhara IAIP and RTC sites. During the sites visit, a detailed hydrocensus was carried out across the areas in order to identify all groundwater users and/or groundwater abstraction points. A total of nine points were identified at the IAIP site and five points at the RTC site. The following steps were taken and data gathered at each identified point:

— Location of the point was recorded using a hand held GPS;

— The depth to groundwater was measured and recorded using an electronic dip meter;

— Information was gathered from the water source owner or the water users regarding water use, abstraction volumes, water reliability and availability between wet season and dry season and water quality; and

— Water samples were collected in laboratory approved containers in accordance with internationally accepted best practice guidelines and were submitted to a suitably accredited laboratory for chemical analysis.

3.3 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAMME

The water quality monitoring programme was developed in accordance with the IFC World Bank Group Guidelines (IFC, 2007) which states the following:

— A water quality monitoring program with adequate resources and management oversight should be developed and implemented to meet the objective(s) of the monitoring program. The water quality monitoring program should consider the following elements:


— Monitoring parameters: The parameters selected for monitoring should be indicative of the pollutants of concern from the process, and should include parameters that are regulated under compliance requirements;

— Monitoring type and frequency: Wastewater monitoring should take into consideration the discharge characteristics from the process over time. Monitoring of discharges from processes with batch manufacturing or seasonal process variations should take into consideration of time-dependent variations in discharges and, therefore, is more complex than monitoring of continuous discharges. Effluents from highly variable processes may need to be sampled more frequently or through composite methods. Grab samples or, if automated equipment permits, composite samples may offer more insight on average concentrations of pollutants over a 24-hour period. Composite samplers may not be appropriate where analytes of concern are short-lived (e.g., quickly degraded or volatile).

— Monitoring locations: The monitoring location should be selected with the objective of providing representative monitoring data. Effluent sampling stations may be located at the final discharge, as well as at strategic upstream points prior to merging of different discharges. Process discharges should not be diluted prior or after treatment with the objective of meeting the discharge or ambient water quality standards.

— Data quality: Monitoring programs should apply internationally approved methods for sample collection, preservation and analysis. Sampling should be conducted by or under the supervision of trained individuals. Analysis should be conducted by entities permitted or certified for this purpose. Sampling and Analysis Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) plans should be prepared and, implemented. QA/QC documentation should be included in monitoring reports.

3.4 DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT

The main issues and potential impacts associated with the proposed project were determined at a desktop level, based on existing information, as well as from site investigations and specialist input. The following methodology was used:

— Identify potential sensitive environments and receptors that may be impacted on by the proposed project.

— Identify the types of impacts that are most likely to occur (including cumulative impacts);

— Determine the nature and extent of the potential impacts during the various development phases including, construction, operation and decommissioning; and

— Summarise the potential impacts that will be considered further in the EIA Phase through detailed specialist studies.

An impact screening tool has been used in the scoping process. The screening tool allows impacts of negligible and very low significance to be excluded from the detailed studies in the EIA Phase. The screening tool (Table 1) is based on two criteria, namely probability; and, consequence, where the latter is based on general consideration to the intensity, extent, and duration of the identified impact.

Table 1: Significance Screening Tool

CONSEQUENCE SCALE

PR

OB

AB

ILIT

Y

SC

AL

E

1 2 3 4

1 Negligible Very Low Low Medium

2 Very Low Low Medium Medium

3 Low Medium Medium High

4 Medium Medium High High

The scales and descriptors used for the scoring probability and severity are detailed in Table 2.


Table 2: Probability Scores and Descriptors

Score Description

4 Definite

Where the impact will occur regardless of any prevention measures

3 Highly Probable

Where it is most likely that the impact will occur

2 Probable

Where there is a good possibility that the impact will occur

1 Improbable

Where the possibility of the impact occurring is very low

The nature of the impact must be characterised as to whether the impact is deemed to be positive (+ve) (i.e. beneficial) or negative (-ve) (i.e. harmful) to the receiving environment/receptor. For ease of reference a colour reference system (Table 3) has been applied according to the nature and significance of the identified impacts.

Table 3: Impact Significance Colour Reference System

NEGATIVE IMPACTS POSITIVE IMPACTS

Negligible Negligible

Very Low Very Low

Low Low

Medium Medium

High High

4 BASELINE ENVIRONMENT Baseline information has been gathered from available regional geological and hydrogeological maps and reports, as well as drilling and pump testing reports for boreholes drilled in the Bure (IAIP site) and Moto (RTC site) areas. However, according to the geological and hydrogeological maps consulted, the geological and hydrogeological conditions at the IAIP site is similar to that encountered at the RTC site. Thus the general hydrogeological baseline conditions will be described as a whole for both the IAIP and RTC sites in the following sections.

4.1 GEOLOGY

The geological map of Ethiopia (Kazmin, 1972; and Mengesha Tefera et.al., 1996) showed that both the IAIP and RTC regions are underlain by basalts. The local geology was confirmed through the drilling of water supply boreholes for Bure and Motta towns, which encountered predominantly basalt and basalt-related weathering products.

4.2 HYDROGEOLOGY

AQUIFER TYPES AND FLOW DIRECTION

Two main aquifer types are anticipated in the IAIP and RTC project areas:

— Weathered Aquifer


A shallow, weathered aquifer system exists in the weathered basalt and clay formations. Groundwater levels within the weathered aquifer tend to be relatively shallow and under unconfined conditions. The weathered aquifer is typically targeted for hand dug supply wells. Five hand dug wells were encountered in close proximity to the IAIP site and four were encountered in close proximity to the RTC site. Static water levels ranged from 5.48 meters below ground level (mbgl) to 8.27 mbgl at the IAIP site and 4.0 mbgl to 7.0 mbgl at the RTC site.

— Fractured Aquifer

A deeper, fractured rock aquifer occurs in the basalts underlying the weathered zone. Groundwater flow occurs in discrete fractures which form preferential flow paths within the geological unit under confined conditions. The fractured rock aquifer represents the major aquifer in the region, with deep supply wells being drilled to supply both Bure and Mota towns. Two water supply wells were encountered at the Bure IAIP site and one at the Mota RTC site. Local inhabitants and officials indicated that additional water supply boreholes exist around both towns. Water levels in the boreholes encountered were relatively shallow, with static water levels of 2.78 mbgl encountered at the IAIP site and 13.30 mbgl at the RTC site.

The general groundwater flow direction in all aquifers is expected to be from north to south, broadly flowing the topography and surface water drainage.

HYDRAULIC PARAMATERS

The hydraulic parameters of an aquifer describe the ease with groundwater (and thus potential contaminants contained within the groundwater) move through the subsurface and is used to predict the rate of groundwater movement. The higher the hydraulic conductivity and/or transmissivity, the faster groundwater will move through an aquifer. The hydraulic parameters are obtained by conducting aquifer tests on borehole drilled into the relevant aquifer units.

Aquifer testing information for both the IAIP and RTC sites was very limited, with no aquifer testing reports available for any of the water supply boreholes drilled in either area. Aquifer testing information from a drilling report for the Bure Cool Water Factory, located approximately 9km south west of the IAIP site, contained the only detailed aquifer testing information which could be obtained for the region. Aquifer parameters were obtained by conducting step tests, constant discharge tests and recovery tests on the borehole. Aquifer parameters were obtained using the Cooper Jacob and Theis Recover methods to analyse the data. The results of this testing has been summarised in Table 4. The full borehole drilling report is attached in Appendix A.

Table 4: Summary of Calculated Aquifer Parameters

ANALYSIS METHOD CONSTANT RATE TEST

Transmissivity Conductivity

Cooper Jacob 1.54E+1m2/d 4.32E-1 m/d

Theis Recovery 6.61E+0m2/d 1.86E-1 m/d

HYDROCENSUS

During the August 2017 site investigation, a detailed hydrocensus was carried out across the IAIP and RTC Site areas. The hydrocensus resulted in the following findings:

— IAIP Site

— Groundwater use in Bure Town is extensive, with the majority of the town’s water supply coming from boreholes in and around the town. Two of the Town’s water supply boreholes (AHAGW01 and AHAGW02) are located within relatively close proximity to the IAIP Project Site (approximately 1.2km and 1.3km respectively). However, at that distance it is unlikely that activities at the IAIP Site will have any impact on these boreholes.

— Private groundwater use around the IAIP site is prolific, with five shallow hand dug wells (AHAGW03, AHAGW04, AHAGW07, AHAGW08 and AHAGW09) and two springs (AHAGW05 and AHAGW06) being identified in the area.

— Water levels in these wells were relatively shallow, with water levels ranging from 0mbgl to 8.27mbgl.

— The two springs were relatively strong flowing, with local inhabitants indicating that they flow year round.


— RTC Site

— Groundwater use in Mota Town is also extensive, with the majority of the town’s water supply coming from boreholes in and around the town. One deep groundwater borehole was identified approximately 850m north east of the RTC Site. Groundwater level in this borehole was 13.30 mbgl.

— Private groundwater use around the IAIP site is prolific, with four shallow hand dug wells (Motta1 to Motta4) being identified in the area.

A total of nine groundwater points were identified at the IAIP Site and five groundwater points at the RTC Site. A summary of all of the groundwater points identified is provided in Table 5, and their locations are shown in Figure 1 (IAIP Site) and Figure 2 (RTC Site).

Table 5: Tigray IAIP & RTC site groundwater point summary

GROUNDWATER POINT EASTING NORTHING TYPE STATUS STATIC WATER LEVEL (MBGL)

COMMENTS

IAIP Site

AHAGW01 289608 1181209 Deep borehole Not in use

2.78 Deep borehole drilled in marshy ground to the south of the IAIP site. Planned as municipal supply borehole for Bure town. Not currently in use.

AHAGW02 289146 1181313 Deep borehole In use Unable to measure Deep borehole drilled in marshy ground to the south of the IAIP site. Currently being used as a municipal water supply borehole for Bure town.

AHAGW03 289744 1181182 Hand dug well In use 5.48 Hand dug well in private dwelling. Used for domestic water supply.

AHAGW04 289865 1183966 Hand dug well In use 0.00 Hand dug well in headwaters of wetland. Used for domestic water supply

AHAGW05 290401 1182837 Spring In use N/A Spring to the south of the site boundary. Used for domestic water supply

AHAGW06 288932 1182902 Spring In use N/A Spring to the west of the site boundary. Used for domestic water supply.




RTC Site

Motta 1(Akobo deep well) 379676 1225558 Deep borehole In use Unable to measure Deep borehole drilled to the north east of the RTC site. Used as a municipal supply well for Motto town

MOTGW01 378905 1224563 Hand dug well In use 3.0 Hand dug well in private dwelling. Used for domestic water supply.


MOTGW03 379516 1224503 Hand dug well In use 6.15 Hand dug well in headwaters of wetland. Used for domestic water supply


Figure 1: Amhara IAIP Groundwater Points

Figure 2: Amhara RTC Groundwater Points

GROUNDWATER POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS

The main source of potential groundwater contamination at both the IAIP and RTC sites is micro biological contamination from faecal waste originating from septic tank and sewage system discharge, infiltration of domestic waste and unlined pit latrines.

GROUNDWATER QUALITY

Five water quality samples were collected from the Amhara IAIP site for chemical analysis. Samples were submitted to an internationally accredited laboratory for analysis during the August 2017 site visit. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 6. The complete laboratory report is attached in Appendix B.

Table 6: Water Quality Results for the Amhara IAIP site

TEST UNITS ETHIOPIAN STANDARD

WHO GUIDELINES AHAGW03 AHAGW04 AHAGW05 AHAGW06 AHAGW07

Aluminium µg/l 200 100 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20

Antimony µg/l - 20 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

Arsenic µg/l 10 10 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5

Barium µg/l 700 700 20 39 40 38 8

Boron µg/l 300 500 <12 <12 <12 <12 <12

Cadmium µg/l 3 3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Total Chromium

µg/l 50 50 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5

Copper µg/l 2000 2000 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7

Total Iron µg/l 300 - <20 146 <20 40 <20

Lead µg/l 10 10 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Manganese µg/l 500 400 <2 <2 <2 59 8

Mercury µg/l - 6 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Nickel µg/l - 70 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

Selenium µg/l - 10 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

Sodium mg/l 200 40 7.4 9.8 8.0 5.7 5.7

Uranium µg/l 15 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Zinc µg/l 5000 3000 6 <3 4 <3 <3

Fluoride mg/l 1.5 1.5 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

Sulphate as SO4

mg/l 1.9 1.3 1.9 1.2 0.8

Chloride mg/l 250 - 0.9 3.2 5.5 1.0 1.0

Nitrate as N mg/l 50 50 2.52 1.15 6.22 2.20 5.31

Nitrite as N mg/l 3 3 <0.006 0.021 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006

Total Cyanide mg/l 70 70 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Electrical Conductivity

µS/cm - 246 369 276 179 162

TEST UNITS ETHIOPIAN STANDARD

WHO GUIDELINES AHAGW03 AHAGW04 AHAGW05 AHAGW06 AHAGW07

Free Ammonia as N

mg/l 1.5 1.5 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006

Free/Residual Chlorine

mg/l 0.5 5 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

pH pH units 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 7.10 7.16 7.05 6.95 6.94

Total Dissolved Solids

mg/l 1000 600 128 262 134 135 116

Turbidity NTU - 5 0.6 1.0 0.6 1.4 1.9

The results of the groundwater quality analysis indicate that the groundwater quality in the area is good, with all analysed constituents falling within the recommended guidelines.

GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAMME

A groundwater monitoring programme should be initiated once the IAIP and RTC Sites become operational. As there are currently a limited number of accessible groundwater abstraction points in the areas surrounding both Sites, additional monitoring borehole may be required. This should be assessed once the proposed water supply programme for the IAIP and RTC Sites has been finalised, as the location of the water supply boreholes will be the main driving factor behind the design of the monitoring programme. The programme should ensure that monitoring wells are positioned both up gradient and down gradient of the operations, and be positioned to provide adequate information on water quality between the site and potential down gradient receptors. Monitoring boreholes should take preferential groundwater flow paths into consideration. Groundwater monitoring should be carried out on a quarterly basis.

5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT The main issues and potential impacts on groundwater associated with the proposed project were determined based on existing information, as well as from site investigations and specialist input. Table 7 is a summary of the identified risks associated with the Tigray IAIP and RTC sites and the proposed mitigation measures.

Table 7: Identified Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Pre-mitigation Rating

Mitigation

measures

Post-Mitigation Rating

Construction Phase

No construction phase impacts to the hydrogeological environment are expected

Operational Phase

Lowering of groundwater levels through abstraction of groundwater for use at the IAIP and RTC sites

Moderate Supply alternate water sources to affected community members should an impact be identified

Minor

Contamination of groundwater resources from contaminated surface water runoff or subsurface leakages from

Moderate Monitor groundwater quality in the vicinity of the site. Contain and treat surface water runoff in

Minor

Impact Pre-mitigation Rating

Mitigation

measures

Post-Mitigation Rating

underground chemical storage and/or effluent systems

order to prevent it entering the groundwater environment

Loss of recharge area for the springs through reduction of permeable surface

Moderate

Monitor spring discharge in order to determine whether the Amhara IAIP site has had a detrimental impact. Provide alternate water source should an impact be identified

Moderate

Decommissioning Phase

No decommissioning phase impacts to the hydrogeological environment are expected

Cumulative Phase

Contamination of groundwater resources from contaminated surface water runoff or subsurface leakages from underground chemical storage and/or effluent systems

Moderate

Monitor groundwater quality in the vicinity of the site. Contain and treat surface water runoff in order to prevent it entering the groundwater environment

Minor

Based on the findings of the impact assessment, it has been concluded that the development and operation of the Amhara IAIP and RTC will have a minor impact on the receiving groundwater environment.

6 CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMENDATIONS The following conclusions regarding the hydrogeological setting of the Amhara IAIP and RTC Sites were made:

— Groundwater use in the regional area is extensive, with the towns of Bure and Mota relying heavily on groundwater for water supply;

— Private groundwater use around both the IAIP and RTC Sites is prolific, with five hand dug wells being identified at the IAIP Site and four at the RTC Site;

— There are two main aquifer types in the region: a shallow, weathered aquifer and a deeper fractured aquifer. The weathered aquifer has been targeted quite extensively for hand dug wells at both the IAIP and RTC Sites. The fractured aquifer is exploited on a larger scale, with water supply boreholes targeting it for domestic water supply in both Bure and Mota Towns;

— Groundwater flow in the region is generally from north to south;

— Groundwater quality in the area is good, with micro biological contamination from human excrement being the main contaminant of concern; and

— The construction and operation of the proposed IAIP and RTC Sites is expected to have a minor impact on the receiving hydrogeological environment.

Based on these conclusions, the following recommendations are made:

— A groundwater monitoring programme should be initiated once the IAIP and RTC Sites become operational in order to identify any potential impacts to groundwater quality and quantity in the area. Monitoring boreholes should be placed both up gradient and down gradient of the operations, and

take preferential groundwater flow paths into consideration. Groundwater monitoring should be conducted on a quarterly basis; and

— Should negative groundwater related impacts be identified, alternative water supply options should be supplied to the affected communities.

APPENDIX A

WATER WELLDRILLING ENTERPRISE

Contractor: Water Well Drilling Enterprise

Client: Moha Soft Drinks Industry S.C Bure Plant

Consultant: Amhara design and Suppervission Works Enterprise

WELL COMPLETION REPORT OF BURE COOL WATER

FACTORY AT WEST GOJJAM ZONE BURE WOREDA

Contractor: Water Well Drilling Enterprise Well Completion Report of Burie cool

i Client: AWRDB Consultant: Amhara Design and Supervision Work Enterprise

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 General ................................................................................................................................................ 4

1.2 Scope of the work and project area .......................................................................................... 4

1.2.1 Scope of the work ......................................................................................................................... 4

1.2.2 Location, Accessibility, & Geology of the area and the well site .................................... 4

1.2.3 Geology of the area ..................................................................................................................... 5

2. objective of the work ......................................................................................................................... 7

3. Methodology of the Drilling .............................................................................................................. 7

4. Man power, Equipment and materials used ............................................................................... 7

4.1 Man Power .......................................................................................................................................... 7

4.2 Equipment and Materials Used ..................................................................................................... 8

5. drilling and construction history of the well .................................................................................. 8

5.1 Drilling ................................................................................................................................................... 8

5.2 DRILLING DIAMETER ........................................................................................................................... 9

6. WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................... 9

6.1 ROCK SAMPLING AND LITHILOGICAL LOGGING ...................................................................................... 9

6.2 PENTRATION RATE ............................................................................................................................ 12

6.3 Electrical logging ............................................................................................................................ 13

6.4 CASING ARRANGMENT .................................................................................................................. 17

6.5 SURFACE CASING AND OBSERVATION PIPE ............................................................................. 19

6.6 GRAVEL PACKING ........................................................................................................................... 19

6.7 WELL DEVELOPMENT AND CLEANING ....................................................................................... 19

6.8 SANITARY SEAL/GROUTING ........................................................................................................... 20

6.9 WELL HEAD CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................................... 20

7. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ 20

8. ENCOUNTERD PROBLEMS ................................................................................................................ 21

9. Pumping test ....................................................................................................................................... 21

9.1General ............................................................................................................................................... 21

9.2 Objective of the test ...................................................................................................................... 21

Specific aims ........................................................................................................................................... 21


ii Client: AWRDB Consultant: Amhara Design and Supervision Work Enterprise

9.3. Methodology, equipments and materials used for testing ............................................... 22

9.4. Pump and Generator ................................................................................................................... 23

9.5 Water level measuring device .................................................................................................... 23

9.6 Measurement of time interval ..................................................................................................... 24

10. Stages of Pumping test and its analysis .................................................................................... 24

10.1 Preliminary test ............................................................................................................................... 24

10.2 Step drawdown test ..................................................................................................................... 25

10.2.1 The discharge rate and measurement intervals .............................................................. 26

10.2.2 Step test water level measurement time intervals ........................................................... 26

10.2.3 Well efficiency ............................................................................................................................ 27

10.3 Constant rate test ......................................................................................................................... 29

10.3.1Discharge rate measurement intervals ................................................................................ 30

10.3.2 Duration of the test ................................................................................................................... 30

Specific capacity(c) ............................................................................................................................. 33

10.4 Well Recovery ................................................................................................................................ 33

11. Water quality .................................................................................................................................... 34

11.1 Sampling method ......................................................................................................................... 35

Measures of Groundwater Water Quality and Evaluation ........................................................ 35

11.2 Physical analysis ............................................................................................................................ 35

11.3 Chemical Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 35

11.3.1 PH ................................................................................................................................................... 35

8.3.2 Total hardness ............................................................................................................................... 36

11.3.3 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and Electrical Conductivity (EC) ....................................... 36

11.4 Presentation and Interpretation ............................................................................................... 37

Pie charts .................................................................................................................................................. 37

12. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................ 40

12.1. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 40

12.2. Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 40

ANNEX1: PENTRATION RATE DATA ..................................................................................................... 42

Annex: 2 Raw data of electrical logging ........................................................................................ 43

Annex-3: Lithologic Description ......................................................................................................... 45

Annex-4: Pumping Test Raw Data, Analysis Graph and laboratory Water Quality report 46


iii Client: AWRDB Consultant: Amhara Design and Supervision Work Enterprise

List of Figures

Figure 1: location map of the well ......................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2: Lithological Logging ............................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 3: Penetration rate curve of the well .................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4: graph of electrical logging ................................................................................................................ 16

Figure 5: Well Design of Bure Cool well ....................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 6: Pre-test graph ......................................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 7 step drawdown test ............................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 8 discharge versus S/Q ............................................................................................................................. 28

Figure 9 time-water level & recovery graph of constant test .................................................................... 31

Figure 10 Cooper Jacob analyses .................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 11 Thies recovery of Burie cool water well .......................................................................................... 34

Lists of Tables

Table 1: Man Power ................................................................................................................................................ 7

Table 2: Lithological Logging .............................................................................................................................. 10

Table 3: raw data of electrical logging .............................................................................................................. 13

Table 4: casing arrangement of the well ........................................................................................................... 17

Table 5 designed of water level measurements ............................................................................................. 24

Table 6 calculation of well efficiency .............................................................................................................. 29

Table 7 summary of constant discharge measurement interval .............................................................. 30

Table 8 result of transmissivity, and hydraulic conductivity ........................................................................ 32

Table 9 Water quality analysis summary .......................................................................................................... 39

Table 10:- Design parameter for Burie cool well ............................................................................................ 41

Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole

4

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

An agreement was made between MOHA Soft Drinks Industry S.C Bure Plant and

Water Well Drilling Enterprise (WWDE on February 2015. The objective of the

agreement was the contractor shall drill, construct and make a pumping test of

a bore hole that will give service for Bure cool water factory with the project

name of Bure cool water factory.

1.2 SCOPE OF THE WORK AND PROJECT AREA

1.2.1 SCOPE OF THE WORK

This completion report contains drilling and construction history of the well, well

design and construction for the Bure cool water factory well. The drilling and

construction history of the well includes drilling methods and drilling diameter of

the well. On the other hand well design and construction of the well includes

rock sampling and lithological logging, penetration rate, casing arrangement,

surface casing and observation pipe, gravel packing, well development and

cleaning, sanitary seal/grouting and well head construction. Pumping test and

its related activities are also incorporated.

Bure cool water factory well, the anticipated or proposed depth was 90 meters

and recommended drilling method was both Mud and Air Rotary (DTH). So as to

the drilling was completed at 86 meter depth and the drilling technique

required and applied was DTH drilling method.

Although the total drilled depth of the well was 86 meter, only 83 meter depth

was cased by 8 inch productive casing. From 83 meter to 86 meter the well is

back fill.

1.2.2 LOCATION, ACCESSIBILITY, & GEOLOGY OF THE AREA AND THE WELL SITE

Bure cool water factory, (at Bure town) is located in Bure Woreda, West Gojjam

Administrative Zone of the Amhara National Regional State. It can be accessed

through Bahir Dar – Kosober- Bure 150km asphalt road. The project area, Bure


5

cool water factory is found in Denbun Kebele, Bure woreda, West Gojjam

Administrative zone of Amhara National Regional State at about 11 km south

west of Bure town near Fetam River.

Geo graphically the well site is located by 280823 E, 1179215N and 2022m mean

above sea level.

1.2.3 GEOLOGY OF THE AREA

Bure and surrounding area, the regional geology is typically composed of Tertiary

volcanic of the Cenozoic era, (i) Ashangi Basalts and (ii) Aiba Basalts, and the

sedimentary formations, as interpreted from the regional mapping by the Ethiopian

Institute of Geological Surveys (1996).

The local geology of the area is covered by clay, vesicular and scoracious

basalts, some alluvial and unconsolidated deposit materials along Fetam River.

The top layer of the well (0-2 meter) is covered by a layer of clay, from 2m to 6m

is covered by highly weathered basalt, and from 6m to 14m it is covered by

moderately weathered and fractured basalt. Slightly and moderately fractured

basalt is the dominant lithology and Clay is found at different depths for this well.

The hydrogeology of the project area is influenced mainly by the topography

and geology of the area. The groundwater in the area is mainly located within

primary porosities and the fractured volcanic rock


6

Figure 1: location map of the well


7

2. OBJECTIVE OF THE WORK

The main objective of this project was to provide clean and safe water for Bure

cool Water factory.

3. METHODOLOGY OF THE DRILLING

The major procedures or steps / activities used for the completion of this project

are as follows:

Mobilization of manpower and equipment for drilling and construction

materials

Site hand over from the representative

Site clearing, leveling and setup of rig

Borehole drilling

Borehole logging(Lithological or cutting sampling)

Electrical logging

Installation of pvc (productive)casing 8"

Installation of 3/4" GI observation pipe

Supply& pack river gravel

Well cleaning & development

Capping or sealing borehole

Grouting of the well

Well head construction

Demobilization of manpower& equipment of drilling

4. MAN POWER, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS USED

4.1 MAN POWER

No Position/Responsibility No- Qualification/Experience

1 Geologist One Bsc in Geology

2 Chief Driller one >5 years’ experience in drilling

3 Ass. Driller Four Auto mechanics, Mechanical Engineering in

Advance, and > four years in experience

4 Operator four Level-1 to level -5

Table 1: Man Power


8

4.2 EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS USED

There are many different tools and equipments were transported to the site in

order to complete the well which has different purposes. Some necessary

materials are listed below:

G20#1 rig or Soil mech (drilling Rig with Mud Pump, Foam Pump,, and Air

ASTRA Compressor with maximum bar of 30 bar, Crane truck & Toyota light

vehicles. Drilling Rig (G 20 #1) completely hydraulic with the maximum pull

up of 18 tones.

20” tungsten carbide inserted.

17’’ rock bit

14 ½ ‘’ rock bit

14 3/4 " tungsten inserted carbide bit

14 ¾’’ hammer bit

Dewatering pump

14’’ steel surface casing and

Other many accessory tools/equipments necessary for drilling

5. DRILLING AND CONSTRUCTION HISTORY OF THE WELL

5.1 DRILLING

The life span of drilling and construction of the well was started using G20#1 rig

on 26/08/2007 E.C and was completed on 10/09/2007E.C. The life span of the

project includes from Rigging up of the rig to the final work of Well head

construction.

DTH method was applied in order to drill 86 meter depth. Firstly, 14 ½ ‘’ Air Rotary

drilling system has applied to drill the upper surface of the well until 4 meter

depth. From 4 meter depth to 86 meter depth, the well was drilled and

completed using DTH rotary method and foam and water used as drilling fluids.


9

5.2 DRILLING DIAMETER

The upper surface 4 meter of the well was drilled using 14 ½ inch internal

diameter of rock bit. The rest layers of the well or from 4 meter to 86 meter the

well was drilled using 12 1/2 inch internal diameter of hammer bit.

6. WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

6.1 ROCK SAMPLING AND LITHILOGICAL LOGGING

The accuracy of geological logging, which is highly required for well design, is

a serious job which need somewhat more detail attention in properly

describing the collected samples. Such log furnishes a description of the

geologic character and thickness of each stratum encountered as a function

of depth and thereby enabling aquifers to be delineated.

Lithologic logging of the well was done by visual inspection and describing the

cutting samples; by identifying the rock type, its degree of weathering,

fracturing and others which reflect the hydro geological characteristics of the

sample. Cutting samples were collected from the well every two meters

interval. The cutting was carried out to the ground surface by drilling fluids.

During sampling different litho logy were encountered such as top soil, clay,

scoracious basalt and vesicular basalts with different degree of fracturing and

weathering.


10

Drilled

Depth(m)

Lithologic Description

Thickne

ss

Type of

formation

Remar

k From To

0 2 Top soil 2 Soft

2 6 Highly weathered basalt 4 soft

6 14 Moderately weathered and fractured

basalt 8

Medium

14 18 Slightly fractured basalt 4 Hard

18 20 Moderately weathered and fractured

basalt 2

Medium


30 36 Moderately fractured vesicular basalt

with secondary material 6

Medium

36 44 Moderately fractured basalt 8 Medium

44 46 clay 3 Soft


54 58 Moderately fractured Scoracious basalt 4 Medium

58 62 Moderately fractured basalt with

secondary materials 4

Medium



72 76 Moderately weathered scoracious

basalt 4

Medium

76 86 Slightly fractured basalt with clay 10 Hard

Table 2: Lithological Logging


11

Figure 2: Lithological Logging


12

6.2 PENTRATION RATE

The rate of penetration for this well is recorded mostly every 6 meter intervals

and sometimes recorded according to the drilling conditions.

Figure 3: Penetration rate curve of the well


13

6.3 ELECTRICAL LOGGING

The fragments of rock flushed to the surface during drilling are often difficult to

interpret as they have been mixed or disturbed by the drilling fluids and often

provide little information on the physical properties of the down the hole

information, Therefore, geophysical well logging provides supportive information

about subsurface formation to arrange and installed production casings; in

addition to penetration rate of rocks and cutting logging.

There for, geophysical logging is used to collect subsurface formation and had

been made casing arrangement.

As shown in Figure 4 below the electrical logging of this well is characterized

mostly by slightly and moderately fractured formations at different depths (look

figure 4).

Table 3: raw data of electrical logging

depth Gr Vsp SPR N16 N64 N8 N32

m Cps mV ohm Ohm.m ohm.m ohm.m ohm.m

8.4 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9.4 26.7934 199.8 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

10.4 20.3488 241.8 -999 3334.67 10991.7 1741.77 6209.64

11.4 20.8783 327 1094.76 2514.38 7770.97 1405.36 4728.98

12.4 16.9742 313.8 740.447 1669.15 4728.49 874.171 2998.04

13.4 14.2857 375.6 634.829 985.483 1046.22 594.53 1634.53

14.4 20.4521 382.2 691.659 866.817 891.921 562.895 1099.25

15.4 28.8363 383.4 829.104 1405.01 2138.94 828.137 2109.77

16.4 24.7934 438.6 743.138 1282.76 1659.1 762.514 1873.74

17.4 21.6272 464.4 465.235 355.856 557.044 272.127 426.932

18.4 16.8176 470.4 314.652 168.32 509.845 118.671 279.569

19.4 19.5822 460.2 289.114 160.322 519.633 105.069 279.859

20.4 22.0779 427.8 405.473 366.122 545.697 256.204 468.387

21.4 29.3367 384 608.602 816.921 1017.9 510.044 1125.74

22.4 31.6857 385.2 750.648 1242.92 1977.93 739.953 1893.18

23.4 31.6857 429.6 805.344 1478.79 2627.01 853.737 2286.44

24.4 31.8878 501.6 793.86 1456.82 2406.2 848.878 2243.59

25.4 23.3766 501.6 623.929 735.038 490.343 495.764 696.992

26.4 6.48508 451.8 269.298 133.435 385.523 85.4459 224.92

27.4 7.62389 418.8 301.807 120.922 237.198 99.7122 183.161


14

28.4 8.84956 412.2 345.696 178.366 188.611 157.475 189.489

29.4 2.53165 453 390.77 256.636 164.396 193.382 265.509

30.4 2.55428 487.8 386.483 124.841 191.319 130.944 134.758

31.4 5.20833 506.4 221.049 64.5618 234.127 44.6316 118.33

32.4 7.8329 514.2 197.351 70.1286 245.071 43.8482 128.012

33.4 8.98588 494.4 187.66 72.9679 257.852 47.4365 131.546

34.4 11.5681 477 286.734 86.6162 237.415 71.6528 136.321

35.4 20.4604 410.4 440.693 367.688 243.083 268.572 388.619

36.4 12.7877 403.8 394.357 357.976 387.699 255.116 417.013

37.4 7.61283 409.2 387.248 313.848 474.819 221.907 404.988

38.4 12.5 415.2 433.855 386.55 619.107 264.341 523.963

39.4 11.0345 398.4 523.044 565.9 872.489 367.47 794.117

40.4 14.9051 378 602.403 824.77 1135.39 510.615 1153.14

41.4 2.71003 392.4 593.026 843.917 1168.35 521.944 1236.01

42.4 12.1622 408 567.855 659.682 210.975 439.234 748.801

43.4 15.0273 427.2 206.893 19.2694 48.5021 17.3212 30.4357

44.4 5.52486 466.8 196.225 18.1866 66.633 22.5554 29.8158

45.4 9.61539 457.8 191.971 24.999 88.7201 25.7421 42.5515

46.4 4.08719 445.8 121.787 24.6065 89.2347 14.9558 47.2461

47.4 10.8844 447 175.07 28.646 92.1925 22.6888 47.5467

48.4 13.587 466.2 211.924 70.6383 99.7083 62.147 77.8928

49.4 4.07609 471 272.15 135.839 137.266 108.54 143.965

50.4 6.90608 456 247.108 131.577 188.52 108.458 152.301

51.4 10.7672 454.2 294.475 275.317 216.323 199.787 289.429

52.4 13.2275 384 338.592 258.48 213.997 203.939 277.51

53.4 11.8734 379.8 277.864 127.409 60.5994 112.407 105.627

54.4 19.7109 382.2 167.488 35.8519 52.4152 28.7264 47.1861

55.4 18.6418 367.8 166.776 25.7134 39.3499 25.3698 28.4855

56.4 4.02685 376.8 131.813 14.8254 32.4101 13.4058 20.7337

57.4 9.25926 378.6 141.868 17.2407 38.229 19.8464 20.9226

58.4 7.93651 385.8 107.475 19.265 52.7171 15.0808 29.4824

59.4 2.63852 378.6 150.117 32.7451 56.4902 29.7471 40.0945

60.4 1.3369 -999 184.925 79.3985 78.4771 64.8588 85.4159

61.4 5.39084 358.8 220.922 214.885 208.588 148.759 274.495

62.4 3.96825 336 273.16 360.766 456.475 227.076 488.304

63.4 1.321 311.4 301.043 431.522 670.846 266.102 632.799

64.4 0 298.8 337.741 543.07 908.576 322.777 815.332

65.4 13.3869 284.4 354.861 691.188 1229.88 394.42 1079.46

66.4 10.7527 289.8 320.711 679.088 1359.65 383.214 1092.23

67.4 13.3156 290.4 338.431 653.613 1267.22 373.317 1035.29

68.4 10.568 297.6 338.279 608.177 1159.38 349.285 956.72

69.4 9.23483 318.6 321.755 548.753 847.367 322.742 813.859

70.4 12 354.6 265.758 333.032 299.412 210.533 441.598


15

71.4 5.38358 373.2 141.357 65.3615 96.2565 51.0709 77.3252

72.4 5.36193 379.2 121.463 40.3265 95.17 30.9218 57.5216

73.4 10.5402 385.8 114.816 41.1435 95.409 30.929 61.0276

74.4 3.95778 383.4 121.905 48.5906 107.13 37.5247 70.0104

75.4 6.61376 370.8 114.917 62.3875 133.282 43.6098 92.1479

76.4 12.1622 359.4 174.933 172.659 160.871 122.747 190.609

77.4 6.70241 351 209.389 247.603 331.892 158.02 339.819

78.4 -999 331.2 196.088 270.453 433.478 167.307 390.163

79.4 3.73134 283.8 203.336 316.083 443.985 190.766 457.799

80.4 2.30415 254.4 -999 282.349 409.616 168.949 407.988

81.4 2.64784 257.4 145.427 274.617 392.838 163.479 396.809

82.4 -999 265.8 144.603 271.11 388.66 161.031 391.706

83.4 -999 -999 144.004 271.437 -999 160.669 391.019


16

Figure 4: graph of electrical logging


17

6.4 CASING ARRANGMENT

Casings, in general, may serve the following purpose to protect the borehole

wall from caving, to protect surface water from entering into the well and to

seal out undesired groundwater, and to protect the pump from damage.

Casing arrangement was done on the bases of the data obtained from

lithological and drilling rate of the well

Although the total drilled depth of the well is 86 meter, the casing arrangement

is only for 83 meter because of backfilling. The casing type that installed was

PVC and the well that is 83 meter depth cased by 8 inch diameter PVC casing.

From 83 meter casing, 35.52 Meters of the well is covered by Screen and the

remaining 48.27 meters with stick up is covered by blind PVC.

Interval No. of Screen or Blind

From To

83 77.08 1 blind

77.08 71.16 1 screen

71.16 59.32 2 blind

59.32 47.48 2 screen

47.48 41.56 1 blind

41.56 29.72 2 screen

29.72 17.88 2 blind

17.88 11.96 1 screen

11.96 0+0.79 2.155blind

Table 4: casing arrangement of the well

.


18

Figure 5: Well Design of Bure Cool well


19

6.5 SURFACE CASING AND OBSERVATION PIPE

The top 4 Meters depth of the well was covered by 14 inch, internal diameter,

steel surface casing and left cased permanently. But we have welded 1 meter

steel casing which is 14 inch internal diameter for well head construction, so as

to the entire surface casing is 5 meter that was permanently cased.

To follow the water level change during the pumping test and in the future

during water withdrawal from the well, GI observation pipes of ¾ inch in

diameter was installed to a depth of 72m. To follow water level drop during

pumping in the future out of this the part between 66m to 72m is covered with

slotted observation pipe.

6.6 GRAVEL PACKING

After the installation of production casing and observation pipe, the next steps of well

construction were packed selected river gravels. Because Gravel packing helps to

protect sand from passing into the screen, to strengthen the borehole

construction by supporting the wall of the borehole, to increase the yield of the

well by removing the formation material and replacing it with special type of

well sorted and small sized rounded material. Furthermore, it helps the casing to

stand still vertically and take the space between the well wall and the casing,

the annulus. Therefore, 8 metric cube of selected and well-rounded 5 to 8 mm

size gravel is packed in to the well annulus.

6.7 WELL DEVELOPMENT AND CLEANING

The purpose of well development is to improve the well performance and to

remove undesired sediments, fine materials and drilling fluids contaminated in

the well wall and the water. Hence, a productive well has to be cleaned from

drilling cutting, drilling fluid that is foam and bentonite in our case, an unwanted

fine and dust particles, waste materials which is inserted during drilling activities

and during gravel packing. Moreover, the aquifer has to be developed to keep

its maximum transmissivity. Hence, this well was cleaned and developed

5.53hours. During these activities its yielding capacity is estimated as 18 litters


20

and the static water levels of this well was 3m as soon as developing was

terminated. According to the arrangement of the production casing and litho

logical logging, the pump position for this well was decided 66m. Therefore, the

well has been developed for 5.53 hours by compressed air.

6.8 SANITARY SEAL/GROUTING

To avoid the rescue of pollution and for sanitary purpose, the well is grouted with

non-swelling clay over the gravel pack and Grouted internally by mass

concrete to a depth of 5m by (1:3:6 mix ratio)

6.9 WELL HEAD CONSTRUCTION

The construction of well head is constructed for placing of the pump and for protection

of surface flooding. Hence, 70cm height, 60 cm width and 60cm length of trapezoidal

shape of well head is constructed.

7. SUMMARY

Well Name Bure cool water factory

GPS Location Adindan, Grid zone 37p at UTM reading, 280823E ,

1179215N

Elevation 2022m a.s.l

Drilling method DTH

Drilling diameter 14 ½ inch for surface casing and 12 ½ inch

Drilled depth 86m

Cased Depth Blind 48.27M with stick up

Screen 35.52m

Estimated and Yield

18l/sec.

Static water level 3m

Developing Time 5.53hrs

Surface Casing Type Steel

Dia.(inch) 14”

Length(m) 5m ; permanently installed

Water strike depth 12m, 29m, 48m, 72m

Aquifer interval 11.96m-17.88m, 29.72m-41.56m, 47.48m- 59.32 is

major

Observation pipe

installed

Dia.(inch) 3/4

Length(m) 72m

Recommended

pump position

66m


21

Grouted depth(m) 5m

Well head model trapezoidal

Well status Productive

Table 5: Well summary

8. ENCOUNTERD PROBLEMS

During drilling of this well no problems was encountered.

9. PUMPING TEST

9.1GENERAL

After the well drilling and related work completed successfully, the next step

after well construction is pumping test; determination of hydraulic parameters of

the well and the aquifer in order to choose optimal working depth, rate of

pumping and pumping equipment conditions as well as pump type. The

pumping test work has started on June 18, 2015 and completed on June 22,

2015.

The different stage of pumping tests (Pre-test, Step drawdown test, constant rate

test and recovery test) were conducted and water samples for laboratory

analysis were taken. Data analyses are done by using aquifer test v 3.5, Aqua-

chem and excel software’s.

9.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE TEST

The general objective of a pumping test is in order to determine the

performance characteristics and efficiency of the well (Well test), to determine

the hydraulic parameters of the aquifer (Aquifer Test) and hydraulic parameters

of a basin (Basin test).

SPECIFIC AIMS

To check the well efficiency (construction performance).

To determine the potential of a well and the sustainable discharge of

the specific well for the required purpose.

To select the appropriate type of pump and its position in the well.

To obtain information about the groundwater quality of the well.


22

To keep data and information of the pumping well and use as a

reference for future related activities.

To avoid undesired consequences (salt-water production).

9.3. METHODOLOGY, EQUIPMENTS AND MATERIALS USED FOR TESTING

During the test, water is pumped from the well at the same time with known

discharges for specified period. The corresponding water level was measured &

recorded through the observation pipe. Fairly accurate readings were made by

using deep meter. This test result can be used to compute the required

parameters by using aquifer test software. All the collected data have to

processing mainly includes conversion and correction of the pumping test data.

All measurement of the water level, time and discharge of the pump should

preferably note on preprinted formats.

The pumping test equipments and its accessories and other materials

are checked whether they are in a working condition before the starting

of tests, in order to avoid or minimize the problems that a riser after the

pumping test commences. Moreover, prior to planning and

experimentation with the equipment and personnel was done to

eliminate potential errors that may occur during the actual pumping

test.

Check all equipment’s, materials are in good operating status

Check environment favorable for running pump test (all facilities are in

place and ready)

Install the pump unit properly up to the required depth. (Pump unit

should be positioned in blind casing to avoid suck of fines).

Place and fix necessary discharge measuring equipment’s (Barrel, water

meter).


23

Measure the water level in both the pumping well and observation well

before running test (note that the water level measuring tape should

place in observation well)

Make ready data recording format.

The following things are full fill before conducting pumping test:

A. Complete set of pump unit- sufficient yield and head

Generator set-sufficient capacity to run the pump

Discharge measuring equipment’s such as Barrel to measure the yield.

Dip-meter-for water level measurement, data recording format,

permanent pen

B. Man powers

Hydro geologist /geologist

Crane operator and technician

Skilled electrician

Drivers/operators

Laborers/guards

C. Camp facilities

Adequate light

Tent

9.4. PUMP AND GENERATOR

Installation of pump type and power is Deynteck pump and 92kw which gives a

maximum capacity of 28 l/sec at a full gate valve, is used to pump the water during the

pump test. During the test pump placed at the desired depth. A power source of

450kva generator that uses diesel was used to drive the pump.

9.5 WATER LEVEL MEASURING DEVICE

An electrical water level indicator was used to measure water level (drawdown)

of the test wells. It consists of an electrode, two wire cable, a light and sound

dials, which indicate a closed circuit when the electrode touches water. This

instrument is powered by 1.5volt of four medium sized batteries to an electrical

signal.


24

9.6 MEASUREMENT OF TIME INTERVAL

We indicate measuring of time interval with mint to agree our consultant. See

the design below table.

Table 5 designed of water level measurements

Time interval (minutes) Measurement intervals (minutes)

0 – 5 0.5

5– 10 1

10 –20 2

20– 60 5

60 –120 10

120–180 20

180-360 30

360 -1440 60

10. STAGES OF PUMPING TEST AND ITS ANALYSIS

10.1 PRELIMINARY TEST

Pre-test is performed for the short period and done to check the following

points:

To estimate the possible discharge of the well.

To check the maximum anticipated drawdown of the water level and to

see its speed.

To decide the pump position for the next stage of test.

To choose the type of test and its duration.

To decide on the best method to measure the yield.

To determine the number of the step test & their discharges.

To know whether the pump is proper or not for the well.

To check all the equipment’s are well function in.


25

Preliminary test was conducted at a pump position 63m for 120 minutes with

discharge rate of 12 l/sec. During this time the water level has dropped from

3.63m to 61.92m and a drawdown of 58.29m was recorded.|

Figure 6: Pre-test graph

10.2 STEP DRAWDOWN TEST

This test is performed to obtain the following information:

To estimate the borehole performance.

To determine the efficiency of the borehole (whether the well need

further development or not).

To determine the hydraulic characteristics of the well, i.e., to calculate

aquifer and well losses.

To determine a suitable discharge rate for the constant rate test.

To check or look at fracture positions.


26

10.2.1 THE DISCHARGE RATE AND MEASUREMENT INTERVALS

In order to determine the performances of the well at different pumping rates

are done, a three-step-drawdown test conducted each for one hour, which is a

total of 180 minute, with discharge rates of 6, 9 and 12 liters per second from

step-1 to step-3, respectively. The step-test was done at the pump position of 63

meter and the static water level was 4m but the dynamic water level was

58.1meter and a drawdown of 54.1m was recorded. Furthermore, as the

drawdown in a pumped well is the result of two components aquifer loss and

well loss, the conduction of step-drawdown test is necessary to determine the

formation and well loss coefficients.

10.2.2 STEP TEST WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT TIME INTERVALS

The water level measurement intervals step test drawdown test can be

designed as follows and measurements have to be taken accordingly.

At every 30 second up to 5 minutes

At every 1 minutes up to 10 minutes




27

Figure 7 step drawdown test

10.2.3 WELL EFFICIENCY

On the bases of step test we can calculate aquifer and well lose coefficients

which are help to know efficiency of the well. Aquifer and well loss coefficients

of the wells are determined by using the following equations to estimate the

efficiency of the well.

The well efficiency can be calculated by applying the following formula.

100*2CQBQ

BQEfficiencyWell


28

Figure 8 discharge versus S/Q

The above graph show aquifer and well loss coefficients then we can calculate well

efficiency.

S=BQ+CQ2 S/Q=B+CQ

100*2CQBQ

BQEfficiencyWell

S is total drawdown, BQ is aquifer loss, CQ2- well loss, S/Q is specific drawdown, and the

reverse, Q/S is well specific capacity.

Well loss- drawdown due to poor well construction and development

Aquifer loss- drawdown due to formation such as due to aquifer permeability

Well efficiency- a measure of quality of well construction and development

(I.e. measures drawdown in the well casing and drawdown in the well adjacent to the

casing

The coefficient B and C can be obtained from the discharge with time, discharge with

water level and water level with time data by using aquifer test software.


29

Table 6 calculation of well efficiency

steps Q(m3/day)) C B BQ CQ2 BQ+CQ2 BQ/BQ+CQ2 well effi

1 518.4 2.94E-05 3.45E-04 0.178848 7.900914 8.079762 0.022135306 2.21

2 777.6 2.94E-05 3.45E-04 0.268272 17.77706 18.04533 0.014866563 1.49

3 1036.8 2.94E-05 3.45E-04 0.357696 31.60365 31.96135 0.011191517 1.12

Average 1.61

B (d/m2) and C (d2/m5) coefficient can be used to estimate the expected

drawdown inside your pumping well for a rational discharge (Q) at a certain

time (t).This relationship can allow you to select a best possible yield for the well,

or to obtain information on the conditions or efficiency of the well.

Generally, if the well efficiency is lies between 65% and 100%, it is taken as

acceptable design and constructed well. The efficiency of this well calculated

falls between 2.21% and 1.12 % then by calculating the average, its value is

1.61%.

10.3 CONSTANT RATE TEST

This type of test is performed by pumping the well for a significant length of time

with a constant rate. This specific well was pumped for 24 hours. And the

constant discharge rate was 10 liter per second conducted at 63 meters of

pump position. The static water level was 5.1meter and the dynamic water level

52.83 meter and drawdown of the test is 47.73meter. The recovery was very fast

that took 20 mints and the drawdown recovery percentage was 95.6%.The

following are the desired out puts of this type of test.

To determine the sustainable abstraction rate.

To determine the aquifer parameters, i.e. transmissivity and storage

coefficient. To determine the storage coefficient, i.e. specific yield for

unconfined aquifers and storativity for confined aquifers. Water level


30

versus time data from observation wells is vitally important to determine

storativity values.

To collect groundwater samples for field and further laboratory analysis

10.3.1DISCHARGE RATE MEASUREMENT INTERVALS

It is very important to be able to measure the discharge rate properly and

accurately. The quality and reliability of the data has direct influence in the

overall analysis and evaluation or results.

We measured discharge rate from the initial of time up to the end of the test.

Table 7 summary of constant discharge measurement interval

Time interval(mint) Discharge rate measurement interval

0-60 at every 5 to 10 minutes interval

60-360 at every 30minutes interval

Up to the end of the test every hours

10.3.2 DURATION OF THE TEST

The duration of the constant rate test entirely depends upon the degree of the

quality of the information required from the test. But we can complete constant

rate test based on the agreement of the well.


31

Figure 9 time-water level & recovery graph of constant test

From the graph we can understand all real aquifers are limited by geological or

hydro geological boundaries. In time drawdown plot that shows the time

drawdown data is stabilized, this implies pumping rate and recharge are equal.

From geological log, water level and the plot of drawdown versus time curve on

semi logarithmic paper, it was tried to deduce the aquifer is confined. Therefore,

it was tried to select Cooper Jacob method from aquifer test software for

confined aquifer to analyze the aquifer parameters.


32

Figure 10 Cooper Jacob analyses

Table 8 result of transmissivity, and hydraulic conductivity

No. Analysis method Constant rate test

Transmissivity Conductivity

1. Cooper Jacob 1.54E+1m2/d 4.32E-1 m/d

2 Theis recovery 6.61E+0m2/d 1.86E-1 m/d

According to Zekai Sen, 1995, the transmissivity (m2/day) classifications as follow

when T >500, it is high productive, when T =50-500, it is moderately productive,

when T =5-50, it is low productivity and when T<5, it is poor productivity.

According to the classification of transmissivity, this well characterized by low

productive aquifer potentiality because this well has an average transmissivity

analysis by Cooper Jacob and Theis recovery of a well is (11m2/day).


33

SPECIFIC CAPACITY(C)

One of the parameters determined is the specific capacity of the well defined

as the ratio of discharge (Q) to the total drawdown (S). The specific capacity

values were computed using the constant discharge rate of 864m3/day and a

total maximum drawdown of 47.73m.

Accordingly, the specific capacity of the well will be:

Specific capacity (c) = Q/S

=864m3/d/47.73m

= 18.1m2/day

10.4 WELL RECOVERY

After the pumping test is stopped, the water level in the well starts to rise towards

its original level. This is called well recovery. At initial period, it recovers fastly due

to high head difference (i.e., h0-h very high) and gradually becomes slow and

sluggish as the water level approaches the original water level (ho). Well

recovery is the function of aquifer transmissivity.

At the end of the pre-test, the last step drawdown test, and the constant rate

test, usually recovery measurements must be taken. Recovery tests should not

be omitted because they help to verify the accuracy of the pumping data and

assist to confirm the results of the aquifer parameters determined by the

constant test.

Recovery measurement data are more reliable than the pumping data for the

very reason that no pumping is involved during this test and hence no water

level leading problem associated with the pumping action is encountered.

The percentage of recovery =

100*Re

covReRe

downDrawofadingLast

LevelWaterryLevelWaterPumpingofadingLast


34

% recovery= (52.83-7.2)/(47.73)*100=95.6% it has very fast recovery it was recorded for

20mints only to reach 95.6% of recovery.

Figure 11 Thies recovery of Burie cool water well

11. WATER QUALITY

Quality of water depends upon quality and quantity of inorganic and organic

compounds present in water. During its traverse water picks up impurities in

varying amounts; Gases from atmosphere, Inorganic and organic salts from top

soil and geological strata. And also, water gets contaminated by inorganic and

organic salts sometimes beyond desirable limits.

Purposes of Water Quality Assessment are:

To measure concentration of the constituents in quantity for

Characterization of water for different uses


35

Of the various parameters in potable water few are objectionable even

when present in very small quantity

Others if only present in unusual quantities as to relegate the water from

the potable to the unusable class

11.1 SAMPLING METHOD

The sampling plastic bottles were thoroughly cleaned prior to use. The method

of cleaning was such that no residue remains and the sampling plastic bottles

were rinsed with a sample. This will prevent the mixing of rinse water with the final

sample. Samples were taken from the borehole when the pumping period is 24

hours since the pumping started.

MEASURES OF GROUNDWATER WATER QUALITY AND EVALUATION

In specifying the quality characteristics of groundwater, physical, chemical, and

biological analyses are normally required.

11.2 PHYSICAL ANALYSIS

Properties of groundwater evaluated in a physical analysis include temperature,

color; turbidity, odor, and taste. From field in-situ measurement was taken that is

PH (7.63), TDS (4.85mg/l) and EC (8ųs).

11.3 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

A complete chemical analysis of a groundwater sample includes the

determination of the concentrations of the dissolved inorganic constituents,

dissolved organic constituents, and dissolved gases. The analysis also includes

measurement of pH, TDS and specific electrical conductance.

11.3.1 PH

The balance of positive hydrogen ions (H+) and negative hydroxide ions (OH-) in

the water determines how acidic or basic the water is. The pH scale ranges from

0 (high concentration of positive hydrogen ions, strongly acidic) to 14 (high

concentration of negative hydroxide ions, strongly basic). In pure water, the


36

concentration of positive hydrogen ions is in equilibrium with the concentration of

negative hydroxide ions, and the pH measures exactly 7. Drinking water with a pH value

of between 6.5 and 8.5 is generally considered as satisfactory. In this specific water well

the pH value is 7.24 which are found in acceptable range for drinking purpose.

8.3.2 TOTAL HARDNESS

The total hardness is defined as the sum of calcium and magnesium

concentrations, both expressed as CaCO3 in mg/l. It can be determined by

substituting the concentration of Ca2+ and Mg2+, expressed in milligrams per

liter, in the expression

The degree of hardness of the water is classified in terms of its calcium

carbonate concentration (after Sawyer and McCarty, 1967). The laboratory

analysis indicates that the total hardness value is 70mg/l (CaCO3). These values

indicate that the sample from the borehole is soft water. The WHO maximum

allowable concentration is 500 mg/l (CaCO3).

11.3.3 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) AND ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY (EC)

The Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentrations in groundwater vary over many

orders of magnitude. As it is cited in Fetter (1994), more than 90% of the total

dissolved solids in groundwater can be attributed to eight ions, Na+, K+, Ca2+,

Mg2+, Cl-, CO32-, HCO3-, and SO42-. These ions are usually present at

concentration greater than 1 mg/l.

The presences of all these chemical constituents give water the ability to

conduct electricity. Thus, the electrical conductivity (EC) of water is an indirect

measure of its dissolved constituents. In practice, EC is often expressed in terms

of mill Siemens (ms) and micro Siemens. The TDS and the EC are in a close

connection. The more salts are dissolved in the water; the higher is the value of

the electric conductivity.

This specific water sample has a Total Dissolved Solid (TDS) value of 182 (mg/l)

and Electrical conductivity (EC) value of 280 (μS/cm). And the water is grouped


37

under fresh water. The portability of water in terms of TDS is suggested ‘excellent’

when TDS value is <300 mg/l (WHO, 1984).

11.4 PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION

Tables showing results of analyses of chemical quality of groundwater may be

difficult to interpret, particularly where more than a few analyses are involved.

To overcome this, graphic representations are useful for display purposes, for

comparing analyses, and for emphasizing similarities and differences. Graphs

can also aid in detecting the mixing of water of different compositions and in

identifying chemical processes occurring as groundwater moves. A variety of

graphic techniques have been developed for showing the major chemical

constituents.

PIE CHARTS

The pie charts are used to plot the concentrations ratio of the major ions (or any

combination of parameters) for individual samples. As with the Stiff and radial

diagrams, the pie chart is used to graphically compare the concentration ratios

of several measured parameters for several different samples. The color and

patterns used to identify each parameter are customizable.


38


39

Table 9 Water quality analysis summary

Sample ID Bure Cool Water Factory

Site Denbun

Location West Gojjam

Cations (mg/l) (meq/l)

Na+ 2.125E+01 9.243E-01

K + 4.109E+00 1.051E-01

Mg++ 2.097E+00 1.725E-01

Ca++ 1.779E+01 8.877E-01

Mn++ 1.000E-02 3.640E-04

Anions (mg/l) (meq/l)

F- 4.000E-01 2.105E-02

Cl- 1.200E+00 3.385E-02

SO4-- 4.000E+00 8.328E-02

NO3- 3.300E+00 5.322E-02

HCO3- 1.160E+02 1.901E+00

Calculated values:

Sum of Anions (meq/l) 2.0928

Sum of Cations (meq/l) 2.0900

Balance: : -0.07%

Calculated TDS(mg/l) 83.5

Hardness meq/l °f °g mg/l CaCO3

Total hardness 1.06 5.30 2.97 53.0

Permanent hardness 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0

Temporary hardness 1.06 5.30 2.97 53.0

Alkalinity 1.9 9.51 5.32 95.1

(1 °f = 10 mg/l CaCO3/l 1 °g = 10 mg/l CaO)

Major ion composition

mg/l mmol/l meq/l meq%

Na+ 21.25 0.924 0.924 22.09

K + 4.109 0.105 0.105 2.51

Ca++ 17.79 0.444 0.888 21.23

Mg++ 2.097 0.086 0.173 4.136

Cl- 1.2 0.034 0.034 0.813

SO4-- 4.0 0.042 0.083 1.984

HCO3- 116.0 1.901 1.901 45.448

Ratios Comparison to Seawater

mg/l mmol/l mg/l mmol/l

Ca/Mg 8.484 5.146 0.319 0.194

Ca/SO4 4.448 10.659 0.152 0.364

Na/Cl 17.708 27.308 0.556 0.858

Dissolved Minerals: mg/l mmol/l

Halite (NaCl) 54.072 0.9243

Sylvite (KCl) 1.98 0.0267

Carbonate (CaCo3) 31.628 0.3163

Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2): 15.881 0.086

Anhydrite (CaSO4) : 5.672 0.042


40

12. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

12.1. CONCLUSIONS

The layer of the well is mostly characterized by basalts, vesicular and

scoracious basalts. These formations are also characterized by different

degree of fracturing and weathering.

The

main aquifers tapped by the well are mostly moderately fractured basalt

(vesicular and scoracious basalt).

The pumping test was conducted 24 hours at constant rate of 10l/sec at

the pump position 63m and during the test the water level dropped from

5.1m to 52.83m and its maximum drawdown is 47.73 meters

Based on the physical parameters, i.e. Transmissivity, hydraulic

conductivity and well efficiency calculate from the pumping test data,

the aquifer shows low ground water potential.

The transmissivity of the well is 15.4m2/day with conductivity 0.432m/day

from constant test analysis by Cooper Jacob and the transmissivity of the

well is 6.61m2/day with conductivity 0.186m/day from recovery of

constant test analysis by Theis recovery.

Water type of the well is Na-Ca-HCO3

Specific capacity (c) of the well is 18.1m2/day.

According to WHO water quality standards, all the elements are found

under the maximum allowable concentration values. Hence, the water of

the well is potable.

12.2. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is highly recommended that this well must be strongly protected from

flooding because it is found close to Fetam River and the area is swampy.


41

The pumping duration of the wells should not exceed 10 hours and

enough time should be given for the water level to recover. Close

monitoring of the water level in the well are the principal source of

information about the hydrologic stresses acting on aquifers and how

these stresses affect ground-water recharge, storage, and discharge.

Table 10:- Design parameter for Burie cool well

well name Burie Cool

NO. Design parameters

1 Total depth(m) 86

2 Well diameter(inch) 14.5

3 Casing type(steel or PVC) PVC

4 Casing diameter(inch) 8

5 Static water level(m) 3.63

6 Dynamic water level during test(m) 52.83

7 Constant discharge during test(l/s) 10

8 Pump position during pumping test(m) 63

9 Recommended pump position(m) 63

10 Recommended discharge(l/s) 10


42

ANNEX1: PENTRATION RATE DATA

HOLE ID from to Penetration Rate

Bure cool water factory 0 3 7.20


Bure cool water factory 4 8.3 12.90

Bure cool water factory 8.3 14 7.95

Bure cool water factory 14 20.00 12.86













43

ANNEX: 2 RAW DATA OF ELECTRICAL LOGGING

depth Gr Vsp SPR N16 N64 N8 N32

m Cps mV ohm Ohm.m ohm.m ohm.m ohm.m

8.4 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9.4 26.7934 199.8 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

10.4 20.3488 241.8 -999 3334.67 10991.7 1741.77 6209.64

11.4 20.8783 327 1094.76 2514.38 7770.97 1405.36 4728.98

12.4 16.9742 313.8 740.447 1669.15 4728.49 874.171 2998.04

13.4 14.2857 375.6 634.829 985.483 1046.22 594.53 1634.53

14.4 20.4521 382.2 691.659 866.817 891.921 562.895 1099.25

15.4 28.8363 383.4 829.104 1405.01 2138.94 828.137 2109.77

16.4 24.7934 438.6 743.138 1282.76 1659.1 762.514 1873.74

17.4 21.6272 464.4 465.235 355.856 557.044 272.127 426.932

18.4 16.8176 470.4 314.652 168.32 509.845 118.671 279.569

19.4 19.5822 460.2 289.114 160.322 519.633 105.069 279.859

20.4 22.0779 427.8 405.473 366.122 545.697 256.204 468.387

21.4 29.3367 384 608.602 816.921 1017.9 510.044 1125.74

22.4 31.6857 385.2 750.648 1242.92 1977.93 739.953 1893.18

23.4 31.6857 429.6 805.344 1478.79 2627.01 853.737 2286.44

24.4 31.8878 501.6 793.86 1456.82 2406.2 848.878 2243.59

25.4 23.3766 501.6 623.929 735.038 490.343 495.764 696.992

26.4 6.48508 451.8 269.298 133.435 385.523 85.4459 224.92

27.4 7.62389 418.8 301.807 120.922 237.198 99.7122 183.161

28.4 8.84956 412.2 345.696 178.366 188.611 157.475 189.489

29.4 2.53165 453 390.77 256.636 164.396 193.382 265.509

30.4 2.55428 487.8 386.483 124.841 191.319 130.944 134.758

31.4 5.20833 506.4 221.049 64.5618 234.127 44.6316 118.33

32.4 7.8329 514.2 197.351 70.1286 245.071 43.8482 128.012

33.4 8.98588 494.4 187.66 72.9679 257.852 47.4365 131.546

34.4 11.5681 477 286.734 86.6162 237.415 71.6528 136.321

35.4 20.4604 410.4 440.693 367.688 243.083 268.572 388.619

36.4 12.7877 403.8 394.357 357.976 387.699 255.116 417.013

37.4 7.61283 409.2 387.248 313.848 474.819 221.907 404.988

38.4 12.5 415.2 433.855 386.55 619.107 264.341 523.963

39.4 11.0345 398.4 523.044 565.9 872.489 367.47 794.117

40.4 14.9051 378 602.403 824.77 1135.39 510.615 1153.14

41.4 2.71003 392.4 593.026 843.917 1168.35 521.944 1236.01

42.4 12.1622 408 567.855 659.682 210.975 439.234 748.801

43.4 15.0273 427.2 206.893 19.2694 48.5021 17.3212 30.4357

44.4 5.52486 466.8 196.225 18.1866 66.633 22.5554 29.8158

45.4 9.61539 457.8 191.971 24.999 88.7201 25.7421 42.5515

46.4 4.08719 445.8 121.787 24.6065 89.2347 14.9558 47.2461


44

47.4 10.8844 447 175.07 28.646 92.1925 22.6888 47.5467

48.4 13.587 466.2 211.924 70.6383 99.7083 62.147 77.8928

49.4 4.07609 471 272.15 135.839 137.266 108.54 143.965

50.4 6.90608 456 247.108 131.577 188.52 108.458 152.301

51.4 10.7672 454.2 294.475 275.317 216.323 199.787 289.429

52.4 13.2275 384 338.592 258.48 213.997 203.939 277.51

53.4 11.8734 379.8 277.864 127.409 60.5994 112.407 105.627

54.4 19.7109 382.2 167.488 35.8519 52.4152 28.7264 47.1861

55.4 18.6418 367.8 166.776 25.7134 39.3499 25.3698 28.4855

56.4 4.02685 376.8 131.813 14.8254 32.4101 13.4058 20.7337

57.4 9.25926 378.6 141.868 17.2407 38.229 19.8464 20.9226

58.4 7.93651 385.8 107.475 19.265 52.7171 15.0808 29.4824

59.4 2.63852 378.6 150.117 32.7451 56.4902 29.7471 40.0945

60.4 1.3369 -999 184.925 79.3985 78.4771 64.8588 85.4159

61.4 5.39084 358.8 220.922 214.885 208.588 148.759 274.495

62.4 3.96825 336 273.16 360.766 456.475 227.076 488.304

63.4 1.321 311.4 301.043 431.522 670.846 266.102 632.799

64.4 0 298.8 337.741 543.07 908.576 322.777 815.332

65.4 13.3869 284.4 354.861 691.188 1229.88 394.42 1079.46

66.4 10.7527 289.8 320.711 679.088 1359.65 383.214 1092.23

67.4 13.3156 290.4 338.431 653.613 1267.22 373.317 1035.29

68.4 10.568 297.6 338.279 608.177 1159.38 349.285 956.72

69.4 9.23483 318.6 321.755 548.753 847.367 322.742 813.859

70.4 12 354.6 265.758 333.032 299.412 210.533 441.598

71.4 5.38358 373.2 141.357 65.3615 96.2565 51.0709 77.3252

72.4 5.36193 379.2 121.463 40.3265 95.17 30.9218 57.5216

73.4 10.5402 385.8 114.816 41.1435 95.409 30.929 61.0276

74.4 3.95778 383.4 121.905 48.5906 107.13 37.5247 70.0104

75.4 6.61376 370.8 114.917 62.3875 133.282 43.6098 92.1479

76.4 12.1622 359.4 174.933 172.659 160.871 122.747 190.609

77.4 6.70241 351 209.389 247.603 331.892 158.02 339.819

78.4 -999 331.2 196.088 270.453 433.478 167.307 390.163

79.4 3.73134 283.8 203.336 316.083 443.985 190.766 457.799

80.4 2.30415 254.4 -999 282.349 409.616 168.949 407.988

81.4 2.64784 257.4 145.427 274.617 392.838 163.479 396.809

82.4 -999 265.8 144.603 271.11 388.66 161.031 391.706

83.4 -999 -999 144.004 271.437 -999 160.669 391.019


45

ANNEX-3: LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION

Drilled Depth(m)

Lithologic Description

Thickness

Type of

formation

Remark From To

0 2 Top soil 2 Soft

2 6 Highly weathered basalt 4 soft

6 14 Moderately weathered and fractured basalt 8 Medium


18 20 Moderately weathered and fractured basalt 2 Medium


30 36 Moderately fractured vesicular basalt with

secondary material 6

Medium


44 46 clay 3 Soft


54 58 Moderately fractured Scoracious basalt 4 Medium

58 62 Moderately fractured basalt with secondary

materials 4

Medium



72 76 Moderately weathered scoracious basalt 4 Medium

76 86 Slightly fractured basalt with clay 10 Hard

Production Casing Arrangement

Interval No. of Screen

or Blind

Interval No. of Screen

or Blind From To From To

83 77.08 1 blind

77.08 71.16 1 screen

71.16 59.32 2 blind

59.32 47.48 2 screen

47.48 41.56 1 blind

41.56 29.72 2 screen

29.72 17.88 2 blind

17.88 11.96 1 screen

11.96 0+0.79 2.155blind

Note: from 83m to 86m is Backfill

Lithologic Description and casing arrangement done by: Andualem Mezegebu and Abebaw Kumlie

Signature: _________ ___________________

Contractor side Consultant/client side

Name: Abebaw Kumlie Name: Andualem Mezegebu

Sig.: __________________________________ Sig.: ____________________________________


46

ANNEX-4: PUMPING TEST RAW DATA, ANALYSIS GRAPH AND LABORATORY WATER QUALITY

REPORT

1. Pre-test raw data

Time (min) after pumping started

Pumping Remarks

Water level (m) Drawdown (m)

0 3.63 0

0.5 38 34.37 at 0.5mint 22l/s

1 57.7 54.07

1.5 58 54.37 at 2minnt 16.7l/s

2 59 55.37

2.5 59.1 55.47

3 59.7 56.07

3.5 60.03 56.4

4 60.05 56.42

4.5 60.1 56.47

5 60.15 56.52

6 60.25 56.62

7 60.32 56.69

8 60.39 56.76 at 8mint 14.3 l/s

9 60.5 56.87

10 60.55 56.92

12 60.8 57.17

14 61.15 57.52

16 61.17 57.54

18 61.2 57.57 at 18mint 12l/s

20 61.35 57.72

25 61.4 57.77

30 61.5 57.87

35 61.55 57.92

40 61.55 57.92

45 61.58 57.95

50 61.6 57.97

55 61.63 58

60 61.64 58.01

70 61.64 58.01

80 61.85 58.22 Ph=7.98

90 61.89 58.26 TDS=3.96mg/l

100 61.9 58.27 EC=6.2ųs

110 61.91 58.28

120 61.92 58.29


47

2. Step test raw data

Time (min) since

pumping started

Pumping

Step 1: Q1=6 l/s Step 2: Q2= 9 l/s Step 3: Q3= 12 l/s

Water level (m)

Drawdown (m)

Water level (m)

Drawdown (m)

Water level (m) Drawdown (m)

0 4 0 13.3 9.3 27.8 23.8

0.5 6.30 2.3 16.4 12.4 29.6 25.6

1 6.70 2.7 17.6 13.6 32.2 28.2

1.5 6.90 2.9 18.24 14.24 34.9 30.9

2 7.10 3.1 18.9 14.9 37.35 33.35

2.5 7.5 3.5 19.5 15.5 39.3 35.3

3 7.95 3.95 20 16 41.3 37.3

3.5 8.15 4.15 20.6 16.6 43.06 39.06

4 8.45 4.45 21.5 17.5 44.35 40.35

4.5 8.79 4.79 21.9 17.9 45.95 41.95

5 9.2 5.2 22.4 18.4 46.9 42.9

6 9.55 5.55 23.1 19.1 48.28 44.28

7 9.83 5.83 23.45 19.45 48.9 44.9

8 10.20 6.2 24.3 20.3 49.08 45.08

9 10.6 6.6 24.5 20.5 49.45 45.45

10 11.3 7.3 24.7 20.7 49.5 45.5

12 11.55 7.55 25 21 49.55 45.55

14 11.85 7.85 25.3 21.3 49.6 45.6

16 12.20 8.2 25.35 21.35 49.87 45.87

18 12.35 8.35 25.58 21.58 50.12 46.12

20 12.49 8.49 25.79 21.79 50.5 46.5

25 12.75 8.75 26.17 22.17 52.6 48.6

30 12.91 8.91 26.2 22.2 53.85 49.85

35 13.02 9.02 26.6 22.6 53.94 49.94

40 13.09 9.09 27.3 23.3 57.07 53.07

45 13.15 9.15 27.4 23.4 57.85 53.85

50 13.21 9.21 27.57 23.57 58 54

55 13.25 9.25 27.7 23.7 58.02 54.02

60 13.30 9.3 27.8 23.8 58.1 54.1


48

3. Constant test raw data

Time After pumping

started(min)

Water Level(m)

Drawdown (m)

Time After pumping

started(min) Water level(m)

Drawdown

(m) Remark

0 5.10 0.00 90 35.60 30.50 PH=7.63

0.5 15.20 10.10 100 38.38 33.28 TDS=4.85

1 18.10 13.00 110 39.37 34.27 EC=8ųs

1.5 20.35 15.25 120 39.49 34.39

2 22.10 17.00 140 39.80 34.70

2.5 23.25 18.15 160 39.80 34.70

3 24.45 19.35 180 40.53 35.43

3.5 24.70 19.60 210 40.80 35.70

4 24.85 19.75 240 40.95 35.85

4.5 25.00 19.90 270 41.20 36.10

5 25.30 20.20 300 42.00 36.90

6 25.40 20.30 330 42.75 37.65

7 25.80 20.70 360 43.15 38.05

8 26.00 20.90 420 43.3 38.20

9 27.00 21.90 480 42.42 37.32

10 27.70 22.60 540 45.17 40.07

12 29.09 23.99 600 46.33 41.23

14 30.04 24.94 660 46.74 41.64

16 30.20 25.10 720 46.95 41.85

18 30.55 25.45 780 47.13 42.03

20 30.70 25.60 840 47.2 42.10

25 31.08 25.98 900 47.6 42.50

30 31.60 26.50 960 47.98 42.88

35 31.95 26.85 1020 48.3 43.20

40 32.75 27.65 1080 49.6 44.50

45 33.50 28.40 1140 49.9 44.80

50 34.05 28.95 1200 51.3 46.20

55 34.42 29.32 1260 51.9 46.80

60 34.65 29.55 1320 52.09 46.99

70 35.15 30.05 1380 52.6 47.50

80 35.20 30.10 1440 52.83 47.73


49

4. Recovery raw data

Time(min) Since

pumping stopped Water Level(m)

Residual

Drawdown(m) Recovery (%)

0 52.83 47.73 0.00

0.5 42.4 37.3 21.85

1 35.6 30.5 36.10

1.5 28.7 23.6 50.56

2 26.65 21.55 54.85

2.5 21 15.9 66.69

3 17.4 12.3 74.23

3.5 13.65 8.55 82.09

4 12.6 7.5 84.29

4.5 11.7 6.6 86.17

5 11.05 5.95 87.53

6 9.55 4.45 90.68

7 9.15 4.05 91.51

8 8.8 3.7 92.25

9 8.5 3.4 92.88

10 8.32 3.22 93.25

12 7.95 2.85 94.03

14 7.7 2.6 94.55

16 7.51 2.41 94.95

18 7.32 2.22 95.35

20 7.2 2.1 95.60


50


51


52


53


54


55


56

APPENDIX B

Unit D2/5

9 Quantum Road

Firgrove Business Park

Somerset West

WSP Environmental & Energy Africa

Attention :

Date :

Your reference :

Our reference :

Location :

Date samples received :

Status :

Issue :

Twenty six samples were received for analysis on 13th September, 2017 of which twenty six were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our

Test Report which should be read with notes at the end of the report and should include all sections if reproduced. Interpretations and opinions are

outside the scope of any accreditation, and all results relate only to samples supplied.

All analysis is carried out on as received samples and reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Results are not surrogate corrected.

Analysis was undertaken at either Exova Jones Environmental (UK), which is ISO 17025 accredited under UKAS (4225) or Exova Jones

Environmental (SA) which is ISO 17025 accredited under SANAS (T0729) or a subcontract laboratory where specified.

NOTE: Under International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC), ISO 17025 (UKAS) accreditation is recognised as equivalent to SANAS

(South Africa) accreditation.

Simon Gomery BSc

Project Manager

48920

UNIOPS Ethiopia ESIA

13th September, 2017

Final report

Compiled By:

Test Report 17/15229 Batch 1

Gareth Lottreaux

25th September, 2017

1

Exova Jones Environmental South Africa

7130

South Africa

WSP House

Bryanston Place

199 Bryanston Drive

Bryanston 2191

Johannesburg

South Africa

QF-PM 3.1.1 v16Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced

All solid results are expressed on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. 1 of 10

Client Name: Report : Liquid

Reference:

Location:

Contact: Liquids/products: V=40ml vial, G=glass bottle, P=plastic bottle

JE Job No.: 17/15229 H=H2SO4, Z=ZnAc, N=NaOH, HN=HN03

J E Sample No. 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 22-24 25-27 28-30

Sample ID AHAGW03 AHAGW04 AHAGW05 AHAGW06 AHAGW07 AHASW01 AHASW02 AHASW06 AHASW08 OMAGW01

Depth

COC No / misc

Containers HN N P HN N P HN N P HN N P HN N P HN N P HN N P HN N P HN N P HN N P

Sample Date 20/08/2017 20/08/2017 20/08/2017 21/08/2017 21/08/2017 21/08/2017 21/08/2017 20/08/2017 21/08/2017 18/08/2017

Sample Type Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Surface Water Surface Water Surface Water Surface Water Ground Water

Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017

Dissolved Aluminium # <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Antimony # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Arsenic # <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Barium # 20 39 40 38 8 32 34 33 29 13 <3 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Boron <12 <12 <12 <12 <12 <12 <12 <12 <12 99 <12 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Cadmium # <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Total Dissolved Chromium # <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Copper # <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 ug/l TM30/PM14

Total Dissolved Iron # <20 146 <20 40 <20 <20 <20 109 241 <20 <20 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Lead # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Manganese # <2 <2 <2 59 8 191 180 244 138 870 <2 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Mercury # <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Nickel # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 2 5 <2 <2 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Selenium # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Sodium # 7.4 9.8 8.0 5.7 5.7 4.2 4.3 5.7 4.8 89.5 <0.1 mg/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Uranium <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Zinc # 6 <3 4 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 25 <3 ug/l TM30/PM14

Fluoride <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 1.8 <0.3 mg/l TM173/PM0

Sulphate as SO4 # 1.9 1.3 1.9 1.2 0.8 2.6 3.1 1.6 <0.5 3.7 <0.5 mg/l TM38/PM0

Chloride # 0.9 3.2 5.5 1.0 1.0 3.5 5.0 1.7 1.4 17.6 <0.3 mg/l TM38/PM0

Nitrate as N # 2.52 1.15 6.22 2.20 5.31 2.29 2.33 0.25 0.07 0.47 <0.05 mg/l TM38/PM0

Nitrite as N # <0.006 0.021 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 0.015 0.008 <0.006 <0.006 1.064 <0.006 mg/l TM38/PM0

Total Cyanide # <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/l TM89/PM0

Electrical Conductivity @25C # 246 369 276 179 162 137 187 222 196 622 <2 uS/cm TM76/PM0

Free Ammonia as N <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 mg/l TM176/PM0

Free/Residual Chlorine <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 mg/l TM66/PM0

pH # 7.10 7.16 7.05 6.95 6.94 7.59 7.47 7.56 7.64 7.58 <0.01 pH units TM73/PM0

Total Dissolved Solids # 128 262 134 135 116 <35 172 163 128 475 <35 mg/l TM20/PM0

Turbidity 0.6 1.0 0.6 1.4 1.9 44.3 33.3 3.7 3.9 0.7 <0.1 NTU TM34/PM0


Gareth Lottreaux

Please see attached notes for all

abbreviations and acronyms

LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.

Exova Jones Environmental


48920




Reference:

Location:



J E Sample No. 31-33 34-36 37-39 40-42 43-45 46-48 49-51 52-54 55-57 58-60

Sample ID OMASW01 OMASW02 OMASW03 SNNPGW04 SNNPGW05 SNNPGW10 SNNPSW01 SNNPSW02 SNNPSW03 SW4

Depth

COC No / misc

Containers HN N P HN N P HN N P HN N P HN N P HN N P HN N P HN N P HN N P HN N P

Sample Date 18/08/2017 18/08/2017 18/08/2017 16/08/2017 16/08/2017 17/08/2017 17/08/2017 17/08/2017 17/08/2017 30/08/2017

Sample Type Surface Water Surface Water Surface Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Surface Water Surface Water Surface Water Surface Water

Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017

Dissolved Aluminium # <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 45 75 22 <20 <20 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Antimony # <2 <2 <2 2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Arsenic # 2.9 <2.5 4.4 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Barium # <3 5 8 13 <3 <3 6 15 8 382 <3 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Boron 90 92 79 12 <12 <12 <12 <12 <12 <12 <12 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Cadmium # <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Total Dissolved Chromium # <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Copper # <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 11 <7 ug/l TM30/PM14

Total Dissolved Iron # <20 <20 <20 <20 22 <20 87 120 69 <20 <20 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Lead # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Manganese # 13 4 <2 4 <2 <2 5 54 19 <2 <2 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Mercury # <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Nickel # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Selenium # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Sodium # 81.9 77.5 78.9 24.1 35.8 49.4 6.9 6.4 6.6 7.3 <0.1 mg/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Uranium <5 12 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Zinc # <3 <3 <3 1687 9 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM30/PM14

Fluoride 2.1 2.0 2.0 0.5 1.2 0.9 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.4 <0.3 mg/l TM173/PM0

Sulphate as SO4 # 12.4 11.5 11.9 2.6 0.8 <0.5 1.0 1.0 1.1 10.7 <0.5 mg/l TM38/PM0

Chloride # 15.0 15.7 14.6 7.1 1.6 1.1 2.4 1.7 2.1 10.7 <0.3 mg/l TM38/PM0

Nitrate as N # 0.68 0.31 0.21 3.36 0.40 0.17 1.40 1.33 0.74 1.66 <0.05 mg/l TM38/PM0

Nitrite as N # <0.006 0.134 0.052 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 mg/l TM38/PM0

Total Cyanide # <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/l TM89/PM0

Electrical Conductivity @25C # 520 499 509 233 320 297 84 203 74 198 <2 uS/cm TM76/PM0

Free Ammonia as N <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 mg/l TM176/PM0

Free/Residual Chlorine <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 <0.02 mg/l TM66/PM0

pH # 8.15 8.27 8.34 7.23 7.37 7.27 7.41 8.11 7.42 7.65 <0.01 pH units TM73/PM0

Total Dissolved Solids # 369 371 369 261 299 300 163 144 140 196 <35 mg/l TM20/PM0

Turbidity 20.6 20.5 19.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 47.5 43.7 37.6 9.4 <0.1 NTU TM34/PM0

LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.



48920


Gareth Lottreaux






Reference:

Location:



J E Sample No. 61-63 64-66 67-68 69-71 72-74 75-77

Sample ID SW6 HH1 MESEBO BH AHA SW3 AHA SW4 AHA WS7

Depth

COC No / misc

Containers HN N P HN N P N P HN N P HN N P HN N P

Sample Date 30/08/2017 30/08/2017 01/09/2017 23/08/2017 23/08/2017 23/08/2017

Sample Type Surface Water Ground Water Ground Water Surface Water Surface Water Surface Water

Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017 13/09/2017

Dissolved Aluminium # <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Antimony # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 5 <2 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Arsenic # <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 3.7 <2.5 <2.5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Barium # 18 93 47 19 25 22 <3 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Boron 16 24 45 <12 <12 <12 <12 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Cadmium # <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Total Dissolved Chromium # <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Copper # <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 ug/l TM30/PM14

Total Dissolved Iron # <20 <20 <20 219 156 99 <20 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Lead # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Manganese # <2 32 <2 421 476 234 <2 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Mercury # <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Nickel # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 2 <2 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Selenium # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Sodium # 6.7 5.2 56.2 5.5 5.7 5.5 <0.1 mg/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Uranium <5 <5 6 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Zinc # <3 <3 750 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM30/PM14

Fluoride <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 mg/l TM173/PM0

Sulphate as SO4 # 4.9 5.8 17.6 1.2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 mg/l TM38/PM0

Chloride # 3.1 2.7 2.1 1.4 1.3 0.6 <0.3 mg/l TM38/PM0

Nitrate as N # 0.73 0.35 0.21 0.39 0.55 0.14 <0.05 mg/l TM38/PM0

Nitrite as N # <0.006 0.027 <0.006 <0.006 0.024 <0.006 <0.006 mg/l TM38/PM0

Total Cyanide # <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/l TM89/PM0

Electrical Conductivity @25C # 182 300 929 180 72 186 <2 uS/cm TM76/PM0

Free Ammonia as N <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 mg/l TM176/PM0

Free/Residual Chlorine <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.21 <0.02 0.02 <0.02 mg/l TM66/PM0

pH # 7.59 7.77 7.48 7.37 7.48 7.71 <0.01 pH units TM73/PM0

Total Dissolved Solids # 192 216 559 145 137 146 <35 mg/l TM20/PM0

Turbidity 33.2 4.8 0.3 2.0 2.9 2.7 <0.1 NTU TM34/PM0


Gareth Lottreaux



LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.



48920



Notification of Deviating Samples

Matrix : Liquid

J E

Job

No.

Batch Depth J E Sample

No.Analysis Reason

17/15229 1 Liquid Samples were received at a temperature above 9°C.

17/15229 1 1-3 EC, Mercury, pH Sample holding time exceeded

17/15229 1 1-3 Nitrate, Nitrite, TDS Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt





















Please note that only samples that are deviating are mentioned in this report. If no samples are listed it is because none were deviating.

Only analyses which are accredited are recorded as deviating if set criteria are not met.

OMAGW01

OMAGW01

OMASW01

OMASW01

AHASW02

AHASW02

AHASW06

AHASW06

AHASW08

AHASW08

AHAGW06

AHAGW06

AHAGW07

AHAGW07

AHASW01

AHASW01

AHAGW03

AHAGW03

AHAGW04

AHAGW04

AHAGW05

AHAGW05

Location: UNIOPS Ethiopia ESIA

Contact: Gareth Lottreaux

Sample ID


Client Name: WSP Environmental & Energy Africa

Reference: 48920

QF-PM 3.1.11 v3 Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced 5 of 10

Notification of Deviating Samples

Matrix : Liquid

J E

Job

No.

Batch Depth J E Sample

No.Analysis Reason





17/15229 1 40-42 Chloride, Cyanide, EC, Mercury, pH, Sulphate Sample holding time exceeded


17/15229 1 43-45 Chloride, Cyanide, EC, Mercury, pH, Sulphate Sample holding time exceeded










17/15229 1 67-68 Mercury, Metals Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt

17/15229 1 67-68 Metals Sample holding time exceeded

17/15229 1 69-71 EC, pH, TDS Sample holding time exceeded



Please note that only samples that are deviating are mentioned in this report. If no samples are listed it is because none were deviating.

Only analyses which are accredited are recorded as deviating if set criteria are not met.

MESEBO BH

AHA SW3

AHA SW4

AHA WS7

SNNPSW01

SNNPSW02

SNNPSW02

SNNPSW03

SNNPSW03

MESEBO BH

SNNPGW04

SNNPGW05

SNNPGW05

SNNPGW10

SNNPGW10

SNNPSW01

Sample ID

OMASW02

OMASW02

OMASW03

OMASW03

SNNPGW04

Reference: 48920

Location: UNIOPS Ethiopia ESIA

Contact: Gareth Lottreaux


Client Name: WSP Environmental & Energy Africa


JE Job No.:

SOILS

DEVIATING SAMPLES

SURROGATES

DILUTIONS

BLANKS

NOTE

NOTES TO ACCOMPANY ALL SCHEDULES AND REPORTS

Please note we are only MCERTS accredited (UK soils only) for sand, loam and clay and any other matrix is outside our scope of accreditation.

Where Mineral Oil or Fats, Oils and Grease is quoted, this refers to Total Aliphatics C10-C40.

17/15229

WATERS

It is assumed that you have taken representative samples on site and require analysis on a representative subsample. Stones will generally be

included unless we are requested to remove them.

All analysis is reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Results are not surrogate corrected. Samples are dried at 35°C ±5°C unless

otherwise stated. Moisture content for CEN Leachate tests are dried at 105°C ±5°C.

Surrogate compounds are added during the preparation process to monitor recovery of analytes. However low recovery in soils is often due to peat,

clay or other organic rich matrices. For waters this can be due to oxidants, surfactants, organic rich sediments or remediation fluids. Acceptable

limits for most organic methods are 70 - 130% and for VOCs are 50 - 150%. When surrogate recoveries are outside the performance criteria but

the associated AQC passes this is assumed to be due to matrix effect. Results are not surrogate corrected.

A dilution suffix indicates a dilution has been performed and the reported result takes this into account. No further calculation is required.

Where Mineral Oil or Fats, Oils and Grease is quoted, this refers to Total Aliphatics C10-C40.

Please note we are not a UK Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) Approved Laboratory .

If you have not already done so, please send us a purchase order if this is required by your company.

The calculation of Pyrite content assumes that all oxidisable sulphides present in the sample are pyrite. This may not be the case. The calculation

may be an overesitimate when other sulphides such as Barite (Barium Sulphate) are present.

Where analytes have been found in the blank, the sample will be treated in accordance with our laboratory procedure for dealing with contaminated

blanks.

ISO17025 accreditation applies to surface water and groundwater and usually one other matrix which is analysis specific, any other liquids are

outside our scope of accreditation.

As surface waters require different sample preparation to groundwaters the laboratory must be informed of the water type when submitting samples.

Where appropriate please make sure that our detection limits are suitable for your needs, if they are not, please notify us immediately.

Data is only reported if the laboratory is confident that the data is a true reflection of the samples analysed. Data is only reported as accredited when

all the requirements of our Quality System have been met. In certain circumstances where all the requirements of the Quality System have not been

met, for instance if the associated AQC has failed, the reason is fully investigated and documented. The sample data is then evaluated alongside

the other quality control checks performed during analysis to determine its suitability. Following this evaluation, provided the sample results have not

been effected, the data is reported but accreditation is removed. It is a UKAS requirement for data not reported as accredited to be considered

indicative only, but this does not mean the data is not valid.

Where possible, and if requested, samples will be re-extracted and a revised report issued with accredited results. Please do not hesitate to contact

the laboratory if further details are required of the circumstances which have led to the removal of accreditation.

Samples must be received in a condition appropriate to the requested analyses. All samples should be submitted to the laboratory in suitable

containers with sufficient ice packs to sustain an appropriate temperature for the requested analysis. If this is not the case you will be informed and

any test results that may be compromised highlighted on your deviating samples report.

Where an MCERTS report has been requested, you will be notified within 48 hours of any samples that have been identified as being outside our

MCERTS scope. As validation has been performed on clay, sand and loam, only samples that are predominantly these matrices, or combinations

of them will be within our MCERTS scope. If samples are not one of a combination of the above matrices they will not be marked as MCERTS

accredited.

Negative Neutralization Potential (NP) values are obtained when the volume of NaOH (0.1N) titrated (pH 8.3) is greater than the volume of HCl (1N)

to reduce the pH of the sample to 2.0 - 2.5. Any negative NP values are corrected to 0.

Where a CEN 10:1 ZERO Headspace VOC test has been carried out, a 10:1 ratio of water to wet (as received) soil has been used.

All samples will be discarded one month after the date of reporting, unless we are instructed to the contrary.

% Asbestos in Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) is determined by reference to HSG 264 The Survey Guide - Appendix 2 : ACMs in buildings

listed in order of ease of fibre release.



JE Job No.:

#

SA

B

DR

M

NA

NAD

ND

NDP

SS

SV

W

+

++

*

AD

CO

LOD/LOR

ME

NFD

BS

LB

N

TB

OC

17/15229

ABBREVIATIONS and ACRONYMS USED

ISO17025 (UKAS) accredited - UK.

Trip Blank Sample

AQC Sample

Suspected carry over

Limit of Detection (Limit of Reporting) in line with ISO 17025 and MCERTS

Not applicable

No Asbestos Detected.

Dilution required.

ISO17025 (SANAS) accredited - South Africa.

Outside Calibration Range

No Fibres Detected

Result outside calibration range, results should be considered as indicative only and are not accredited.

Results expressed on as received basis.

Surrogate recovery outside performance criteria. This may be due to a matrix effect.

MCERTS accredited.

Matrix Effect

Blank Sample

Client Sample

No Determination Possible

Indicates analyte found in associated method blank.

None Detected (usually refers to VOC and/SVOC TICs).

Samples are dried at 35°C ±5°C

Analysis subcontracted to a Jones Environmental approved laboratory.

AQC failure, accreditation has been removed from this result, if appropriate, see 'Note' on previous page.

Calibrated against a single substance



JE Job No: 17/15229

Test Method No. Description

Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

Description

ISO

17025

(UKAS/S

ANAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done

on As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis

TM20Modified BS 1377-3: 1990/USEPA 160.3 Gravimetric determination of Total Dissolved

Solids/Total SolidsPM0 No preparation is required. Yes

TM30

Determination of Trace Metal elements by ICP-OES (Inductively Coupled Plasma -

Optical Emission Spectrometry). Modified US EPA Method 200.7, 6010B and BS EN ISO

11885 2009

PM14Analysis of waters and leachates for metals by ICP OES/ICP MS. Samples are filtered for

dissolved metals and acidified if required.

TM30

Determination of Trace Metal elements by ICP-OES (Inductively Coupled Plasma -

Optical Emission Spectrometry). Modified US EPA Method 200.7, 6010B and BS EN ISO

11885 2009

PM14Analysis of waters and leachates for metals by ICP OES/ICP MS. Samples are filtered for

dissolved metals and acidified if required.Yes

TM34 Turbidity by 2100P Turbidity Meter PM0 No preparation is required.

TM38Soluble Ion analysis using the Thermo Aquakem Photometric Automatic Analyser.

Modified US EPA methods 325.2, 375.4, 365.2, 353.1, 354.1PM0 No preparation is required. Yes

TM66Determination of Free Chlorine which reacts with DPD (N,N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine)

reagent and measured spectrophotometrically.PM0 No preparation is required.

TM73Modified US EPA methods 150.1 and 9045D and BS1377:1990. Determination of pH by

Metrohm automated probe analyser.PM0 No preparation is required. Yes

TM76Modified US EPA method 120.1. Determination of Specific Conductance by Metrohm

automated probe analyser.PM0 No preparation is required. Yes

TM89

Modified USEPA method OIA-1667. Determination of cyanide by Flow Injection Analyser.

Where WAD cyanides are required a Ligand displacement step is carried out before

analysis.

PM0 No preparation is required. Yes

TM173 Analysis of fluoride by ISE (Ion Selective Electrode) using modified ISE method 340.2 PM0 No preparation is required.

Exova Jones Environmental Method Code Appendix


JE Job No: 17/15229

Test Method No. Description

Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

Description

ISO

17025

(UKAS/S

ANAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done

on As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis

TM176

Free ammonia based on the pH and temperature dependent equilibrium calculated in

accordance with NRA Water Quality Objectives 1994 using the ammoniacal nitrogen

result.

PM0 No preparation is required.

Exova Jones Environmental Method Code Appendix


Amhara Hydrology Impact Assessment Report

Documents

Transcript of Amhara Hydrology Impact Assessment Report