Download - 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
Hydrology Impact Assessment Report Amhara IAIP & RTC December 2017
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:
Hydrology Impact Assessment Report Amhara IAIP & RTC December 2017
— 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.
Hydrology Impact Assessment Report Amhara IAIP & RTC December 2017
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
Hydrology Impact Assessment Report Amhara IAIP & RTC December 2017
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.
Hydrology Impact Assessment Report Amhara IAIP & RTC December 2017
— 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.
AHAGW07 289455 1182217 Hand dug well In use 6.27 Hand dug well in private dwelling. Used for domestic water supply.
AHAGW08 289803 1182448 Hand dug well In use 8.27 Hand dug well in private dwelling. Used for domestic water supply.
AHAGW09 289759 1182671 Hand dug well In use 6.80 Hand dug well in private dwelling. 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.
MOTGW02 378878 1224826 Hand dug well In use 6.5 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
MOTGW04 379490 1224585 Hand dug well In use 4.0 Hand dug well in private dwelling. 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
Contractor: Water Well Drilling Enterprise Well Completion Report of Burie cool
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
Contractor: Water Well Drilling Enterprise Well Completion Report of Burie cool
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
6
Figure 1: location map of the well
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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.
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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.
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
20 30 Slightly fractured basalt 10 Hard
30 36 Moderately fractured vesicular basalt
with secondary material 6
Medium
36 44 Moderately fractured basalt 8 Medium
44 46 clay 3 Soft
46 54 Moderately fractured basalt 7 Medium
54 58 Moderately fractured Scoracious basalt 4 Medium
58 62 Moderately fractured basalt with
secondary materials 4
Medium
62 66 Moderately fractured basalt 4 Medium
66 72 Slightly fractured basalt 6 Hard
72 76 Moderately weathered scoracious
basalt 4
Medium
76 86 Slightly fractured basalt with clay 10 Hard
Table 2: Lithological Logging
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
11
Figure 2: Lithological Logging
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
16
Figure 4: graph of electrical logging
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
.
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
18
Figure 5: Well Design of Bure Cool well
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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.
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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).
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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.
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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.
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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.
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
At every 2 minutes up to 20 minutes
At every 5 minutes up to 60 minutes
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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.
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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.
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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.
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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).
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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.
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
38
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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.
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
42
ANNEX1: PENTRATION RATE DATA
HOLE ID from to Penetration Rate
Bure cool water factory 0 3 7.20
Bure cool water factory 3 4 2.61
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
Bure cool water factory 20 26 6.55
Bure cool water factory 26 32 9.00
Bure cool water factory 32 38 16.36
Bure cool water factory 38 44 6.79
Bure cool water factory 44 50 18.00
Bure cool water factory 50 56 10.59
Bure cool water factory 56 62 27.69
Bure cool water factory 62 68 7.20
Bure cool water factory 68 74 7.20
Bure cool water factory 74 80 8.00
Bure cool water factory 80 86 5.63
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
14 18 Slightly fractured basalt 4 Hard
18 20 Moderately weathered and fractured basalt 2 Medium
20 30 Slightly fractured basalt 10 Hard
30 36 Moderately fractured vesicular basalt with
secondary material 6
Medium
36 44 Moderately fractured basalt 8 Medium
44 46 clay 3 Soft
46 54 Moderately fractured basalt 7 Medium
54 58 Moderately fractured Scoracious basalt 4 Medium
58 62 Moderately fractured basalt with secondary
materials 4
Medium
62 66 Moderately fractured basalt 4 Medium
66 72 Slightly fractured basalt 6 Hard
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.: ____________________________________
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
50
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
51
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
52
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
53
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
54
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
55
Well Completion Report of Burie Cool Water Factory Borehole
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
UNIOPS Ethiopia ESIA
Gareth Lottreaux
Please see attached notes for all
abbreviations and acronyms
LOD/LOR UnitsMethod
No.
Exova Jones Environmental
WSP Environmental & Energy Africa
48920
QF-PM 3.1.2 v11Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced
All solid results are expressed on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. 2 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. 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.
Exova Jones Environmental
WSP Environmental & Energy Africa
48920
UNIOPS Ethiopia ESIA
Gareth Lottreaux
Please see attached notes for all
abbreviations and acronyms
QF-PM 3.1.2 v11Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced
All solid results are expressed on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. 3 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. 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
UNIOPS Ethiopia ESIA
Gareth Lottreaux
Please see attached notes for all
abbreviations and acronyms
LOD/LOR UnitsMethod
No.
Exova Jones Environmental
WSP Environmental & Energy Africa
48920
QF-PM 3.1.2 v11Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced
All solid results are expressed on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. 4 of 10
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
17/15229 1 4-6 EC, Mercury, pH Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 4-6 Nitrate, Nitrite, TDS Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt
17/15229 1 7-9 EC, Mercury, pH Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 7-9 Nitrate, Nitrite, TDS Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt
17/15229 1 10-12 EC, Mercury, pH Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 10-12 Nitrate, Nitrite, TDS Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt
17/15229 1 13-15 EC, Mercury, pH Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 13-15 Nitrate, Nitrite, TDS Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt
17/15229 1 16-18 EC, Mercury, pH Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 16-18 Nitrate, Nitrite, TDS Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt
17/15229 1 19-21 EC, Mercury, pH Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 19-21 Nitrate, Nitrite, TDS Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt
17/15229 1 22-24 EC, Mercury, pH Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 22-24 Nitrate, Nitrite, TDS Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt
17/15229 1 25-27 EC, Mercury, pH Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 25-27 Nitrate, Nitrite, TDS Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt
17/15229 1 28-30 EC, Mercury, pH Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 28-30 Nitrate, Nitrite, TDS Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt
17/15229 1 31-33 EC, Mercury, pH Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 31-33 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
Exova Jones Environmental
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 34-36 EC, Mercury, pH Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 34-36 Nitrate, Nitrite, TDS Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt
17/15229 1 37-39 EC, Mercury, pH Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 37-39 Nitrate, Nitrite, TDS Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt
17/15229 1 40-42 Chloride, Cyanide, EC, Mercury, pH, Sulphate Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 40-42 Nitrate, Nitrite, TDS Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt
17/15229 1 43-45 Chloride, Cyanide, EC, Mercury, pH, Sulphate Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 43-45 Nitrate, Nitrite, TDS Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt
17/15229 1 46-48 EC, Mercury, pH Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 46-48 Nitrate, Nitrite, TDS Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt
17/15229 1 49-51 EC, Mercury, pH Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 49-51 Nitrate, Nitrite, TDS Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt
17/15229 1 52-54 EC, Mercury, pH Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 52-54 Nitrate, Nitrite, TDS Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt
17/15229 1 55-57 EC, Mercury, pH Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 55-57 Nitrate, Nitrite, TDS Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt
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
17/15229 1 72-74 EC, pH, TDS Sample holding time exceeded
17/15229 1 75-77 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
Exova Jones Environmental
Client Name: WSP Environmental & Energy Africa
QF-PM 3.1.11 v3 Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced 6 of 10
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.
QF-PM 3.1.9 v34Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced
All solid results are expressed on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. 7 of 10
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
QF-PM 3.1.9 v34Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced
All solid results are expressed on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. 8 of 10
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
QF-PM 3.1.10 v14 Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced 9 of 10
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
QF-PM 3.1.10 v14 Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced 10 of 10