WATER USE LICENCE APPLICATION

Draft Report

Revision 00

May 2020

Compiled By: Bongani Matshazi

WATER USE LICENCE APPLICATION Primkop Airport Management (Pty) Ltd Water Use Licence Application in Terms of Section 21 of the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) for: Taking Water from a Water Resource (Section 21 (a)); Engaging in a Controlled Activity Identified as such in Section 37(1) (Section 21 (e)); and Disposing of Waste in a Manner which may Detrimentally Impact on a Water Resource (Section 21 (g)).

CIVIL INF_WS_03_REPORTS_03-WUL Application Report Rev 00.docx Page i

Executive Summary

The National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998) provides a framework to protect water resources against

over exploitation and to ensure that there is water for socio-economic development and water for the

future.

The National Water Act (NWA) achieves this by regulating water use through the registration of water

uses and through different types of authorisations, namely:

Existing Lawful Use: A water use that commenced two years prior to the enactment of the National

Water Act that does not pose a risk to a water resource. No registration is required.

Schedule 1: Small quantities of water for domestic use with minimal or no risk. No registration is

required;

General Authorisations: Limited water use, up to 40 000 m³/year or dependent on quaternary

limits. Registration is required; and

Water Use Licence: Greater water use with high risk to the resource. Registration is mandatory.

Primkop Airport Management (PAM) is currently involved in the following water uses as defined by

Clause 21 of the NWA:

Section 21 (a)-Abstraction of groundwater for potable water and agricultural purposes;

Section 21 (e)-Irrigation using effluent from the oxidation ponds; and

Section 21 (g)-Disposal of raw sewage into oxidation ponds.

The current water use certificate issued to PAM on the 1st of September 2002 recognises the

abstraction of 24 455 m³ of water per year (See Appendix A). However, the certificate does not

authorise the abstraction of groundwater. Furthermore, the volume of water recognised by this

certificate is insufficient as Kruger Mpumalanga International (KMI) Airport and its MQP Farming

project currently requires 79 728 m³ of water annually to meet demand. This demand is estimated to

increase to 182 840 m³/year within the next few years.

PAM has drilled six (6) boreholes to supply the KMI Airport and the MQP farming project. The current

available yield from the boreholes is 255 616 m³/year. A copy of the yield test results is available in

Appendix B.

Wastewater generated by KMI Airport is treated through five (5) oxidation ponds. The oxidation ponds

are located within the airside fence thereby ensuring controlled access to the site. The oxidation ponds

are lined using HDPE to prevent the seepage of contaminated water into the ground. A monitoring

borehole has been established downstream of the ponds. Water is sampled from the monitoring

borehole every three months to detect leakages from the ponds. KMI Airport follows a set

maintenance manual to ensure the efficiency of the oxidation ponds is maintained. The maintenance

includes:

Water quality tests are conducted monthly;

Cutting grass in the vicinity of the ponds twice a month;

Cleaning the screening rake at the pond inlets twice a day;

Cleaning the sludge channel once a day;

CIVIL INF_WS_03_REPORTS_03-WUL Application Report Rev 00.docx Page ii

Overflows are inspected daily for clogs; and

The irrigation pumps are maintained according to the manufacturer’s specification.

The treated effluent is discharged into the environment by irrigating the grass south of the oxidation

ponds. Records indicate an average irrigation rate of 10.5 m³/day with a peak of 36.25 m³/day.

The above information implies that KMI Airport needs to apply for a WUL. This was confirmed in a pre-

application meeting held at the Inkomati-Usuthu Catchment Agency (IUCMA) offices on the 14th of

February 2020.

A geohydrological investigation and public participation process have been completed to support this

WUL application.

The geohydrological investigation included a risk assessment focused on the disposal of wastewater

in a manner that may detrimentally impact on a water resource. The identified potential impacts

include the deterioration of water quality and pollution. KMI Airport has adopted the

recommendations made in the risk assessment.

The public participation process commenced on the 15th of May 2020 and will continue for at least 60

day. The documentation associated with the process can be found in Appendix D.

It is recommended that the WUL be granted to permit the abovementioned water uses contained in

the WULA forms.

CIVIL INF_WS_03_REPORTS_03-WUL Application Report Rev 00.docx Page iii

Table of Contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Purpose of Report ................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Report Structure ..................................................................................................................... 1

2 Status Quo ....................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2

2.2 Description of Property ........................................................................................................... 2

2.2.1 Topography ..................................................................................................................... 3

2.2.2 Hydrology and Wetlands ................................................................................................. 6

2.2.3 Geology ........................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Water Use Activities and Demands ........................................................................................ 8

2.3.1 Current KMI Airport Water Demand and Wastewater Generation ................................ 8

2.3.2 Current MQP Farm Project Water Demand .................................................................... 8

2.3.3 Future Water Demands ................................................................................................... 8

2.4 Water Supply System .............................................................................................................. 9

2.4.1 General Overview ........................................................................................................... 9

2.4.2 Boreholes ........................................................................................................................ 9

2.4.3 Maintenance ................................................................................................................. 13

2.5 Wastewater Management System ....................................................................................... 13

2.5.1 General Overview ......................................................................................................... 13

2.5.2 Oxidation Ponds ............................................................................................................ 13

2.5.3 Maintenance ................................................................................................................. 15

3 Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 17

4 Regulations and Legislation .......................................................................................................... 19

4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 19

4.2 Water uses ............................................................................................................................ 19

4.2.1 Section 21 (a) Taking water from a water source ......................................................... 19

4.2.2 Section 21 (e) Engaging in a controlled activity identified as such in section 37(1) or

declared under Section 38(1) ........................................................................................................ 19

4.2.3 Section 21 (g) Disposing of waste in a manner which may detrimentally impact on a

water resource .............................................................................................................................. 19

4.3 Section 27 Motivation ........................................................................................................... 19

4.4 Types of water use authorisations ........................................................................................ 22

4.4.1 Schedule 1 ..................................................................................................................... 22

CIVIL INF_WS_03_REPORTS_03-WUL Application Report Rev 00.docx Page iv

4.4.2 Existing Lawful Use ........................................................................................................ 22

4.4.3 General Authorisations ................................................................................................. 23

4.4.4 Water Use Licence ........................................................................................................ 23

5 Water Use Licence Application Methodology .............................................................................. 25

5.1 Pre-application Consultation ................................................................................................ 25

5.2 Information and Technical Report Collation ......................................................................... 25

5.3 Public Participation Process .................................................................................................. 25

5.4 Concerns Raised by Interested and Affected Persons .......................................................... 25

5.5 Submission of the Water Use Licence Application ............................................................... 26

6 Conclusion and Recommendation ................................................................................................ 27

Appendix A Water Use licences and general authorisations ........................................................... 28

Appendix B Geohydrological Report ................................................................................................ 29

Appendix C Hydraulic Design Calculations ....................................................................................... 30

Appendix D Public Participation Documentation ............................................................................. 31

Table of Tables

Table 2-1: Estimated current water demand .......................................................................................... 8

Table 2-2: Borehole locations ................................................................................................................. 9

Table 2-3: Borehole properties ............................................................................................................. 11

Table 2-4: KMI Airport Potable water supply boreholes quality .......................................................... 12

Table 2-5: MQP Farming project irrigation water supply boreholes quality ........................................ 12

Table 2-6: Oxidation pond properties ................................................................................................... 14

Table 2-7: Summary of oxidation pond effluent test results ................................................................ 15

Table 2-8: Summary of monitoring borehole test results..................................................................... 15

Table 3-1: Risk assessment ................................................................................................................... 18

Table 4-1: Water Use Licence Application procedure .......................................................................... 24

Table of Figures

Figure 2-1: Primkop Airport Township Layout ........................................................................................ 3

Figure 2-2: Endangered Legogote Sour Bushveld ................................................................................... 4

Figure 2-3: Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan .................................................................................. 5

Figure 2-4: Wetlands within the area ..................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2-5: Geological map of KMI Airport and its environs ................................................................... 8

Figure 2-6: Borehole layout .................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 2-7: Borehole and oxidation pond locality plan ......................................................................... 11

Figure 2-8: Oxidation pond layout ........................................................................................................ 14

Water Use Licence Application

Date: 2020/05/15 Revision Number: 00

CIVIL INF_WS_03_REPORTS_03-WUL Application Report Rev 00.docx Page 1 of 35

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Primkop Airport Management (PAM) operates the Kruger Mpumalanga International (KMI)

Airport in the Mpumalanga Province. For the airport to continue offering a safe, healthy and

environmentally friendly service to travellers, PAM has drilled four boreholes to supply potable

water to the airport. Two additional boreholes have also been drilled to supply irrigation water to

the farming operations on the PAM property as well. Wastewater generated by the airport is

treated through oxidation ponds before being disposed of by irrigating the land adjacent to the

ponds.

PAM has submitted this Water Use Licence Application (WULA) for the KMI Airport and its MQP

Farming project to comply with the requirements of the National Water Act (NWA) (Act No. 36 of

1998) and the Regulations Regarding the Procedural Requirements for Water Use Licence

Applications and Appeals, 2017.

1.2 Purpose of Report

This document aims to provide the Inkomati-Usuthu Catchment Management Agency (IUCMA)

with the necessary information associated with the operation of KMI Airport and its MQP Farming

project in order to approve the water uses in terms of the NWA related to this development.

1.3 Report Structure

This document comprises the following sections:

Status Quo;

Regulations and Legislation;

WULA Methodology;

Compliance Status; and

Conclusion and Recommendation.




2 STATUS QUO

2.1 Introduction

KMI Airport is the official international port of entry into Mpumalanga Province established on the

21st of October 2002. It is an International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) approved

international airport serving an average of 260 000 passengers per annum with the current

capacity to accommodate up to 600 000 passengers per annum and significant expansion

potential.

Parallel to the airport, PAM has established the MQP Farming project on the same property. The

project is aimed at providing much needed employment opportunities to the neighbouring

Dwaleni community. The farm produces low volume high value crops such as vegetables and

berries to supply both local and national retailers. The pilot project commenced on 5 ha of land

with the potential to expand operations to 20 ha.

This section of the document describes the KMI Airport and farming project water requirements

as well as the infrastructure that has been established to satisfy these requirements.

2.2 Description of Property

The KMI Airport and MQP Farming project are situated on farm Kruger Mpumalanga International

Airport No. 666-JU on the Primkop Airport Township. The township is approximately 364.3 ha. The

24 digit code for the farm is T0JU00000000066600000.




Figure 2-1: Primkop Airport Township Layout

2.2.1 Topography

The topography is characterised by rolling hills, dropping eastwards towards the Kruger National

Park. The study site falls within the Legogote Sour Bushveld.




Figure 2-2: Endangered Legogote Sour Bushveld

The following vegetation units are common to the area and within the vegetation unit:

Tall Trees: Pterocarpus angolensis (d), Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra (d). Small Trees: Acacia

davyi (d), A. sieberiana var. woodii (d), Combretum zeyheri (d), Erythrina latissima (d), Parinari

curatellifolia (d), Terminalia sericea (d), Trichilia emetica (d), Vernonia amygdalina (d), Acacia

caffra, Antidesma venosum, Erythroxylum emarginatum, Faurea rochetiana, F. saligna, Ficus

burkei, F. glumosa, F. ingens, F. petersii, Heteropyxis natalensis, Peltophorum africanum,

Piliostigma thonningii, Pterocarpus rotundifolius, Schotia brachy- petala.

Succulent Trees: Euphorbia ingens.

Tall Shrubs: Diospyros lycioides subsp. sericea, Erythroxylum delagoense, Olea europaea subsp.

africana, Pachystigma macrocalyx, Pseudarthria hookeri var. hookeri, Rhus pentheri.

Low Shrubs: Diospyros galpinii (d), Flemingia grahamiana (d), Agathisanthemum bojeri, Eriosema

psoraleoides, Gymnosporia heterophylla, Hemizygia punctate.

Herbs: Gerbera ambigua, G. viridifolia, Hemizygia persimilis, Hibiscus sidiformis, Ocimum

gratissimum, Waltheria indica.

Succulent Herbs: Orbea carnosa subsp. carnosa, Stapelia gigantea.

Geophytic Herbs: Gladiolus hollandii, Hypoxis rigidula.

Endemic Taxon Succulent Herb: Aloe simii.




The vegetation unit is classified as endangered. The Target is 19% and about 2% is statutorily

conserved mainly in the Bosbokrand and Barberton Nature Reserves; at least a further 2% is

conserved in private reserves including the Mbesan and Kaapsehoop Reserves and Mondi Cycad

Reserve. It has been greatly transformed (50%), mainly by plantations and also by cultivated areas

and urban development.

Scattered alien plants include Lantana camara, Psidium guajava and Solanum mauritianum.

Erosion is very low to moderate (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).

In terms of the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan, most of the KMIA falls within an area

designated as heavily or moderately modified. A drainage area from the airport is classified as a

critical biodiversity area and other natural areas. Most of the area to the east of the airport falls

within other natural areas of the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan.

Figure 2-3: Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan




2.2.2 Hydrology and Wetlands

The study site has a few NFEPA hillslope wetlands and a NFEPA river towards the west. Towards

the south, there are a few valley bottom wetlands. The study site falls within the IUCMA Water

Management Area.

Figure 2-4: Wetlands within the area

2.2.3 Geology

The greater area in underlain by intrusive rock of the Nelspruit Suite. The Nelspruit Suite in the

Environs of KMI Airport comprises white to pale brown, medium to coarse-grained porphyritic

biotite granite and granodiorite (Zne4).

On a regional scale, various other textural types are also exposed. These are:

Homogeneous to slightly porphyritic granite, which is nebulitic in places (Zne1);

Migmatites and gneisses, biotite-hornblende schleiren, some greenstone xenoliths;

In places strongly foliated with preferred regional fabric, numerous small greenstone

remnants of granodiorite gneisses and migmatites (Zne3);

Grey to white, coarse-grained biotite granite, very strongly porphyritic, and nebulitic in places

(Zne5); and

Quaternary alluvium and scree (Q8).




Numerous diabase (M1) dykes, trending roughly east west and northwest southeast, traverse the larger area. Only one of these east-west trending dolerite dykes falls within the boundaries of KMI Airport.

Two very prominent regional north-northwest – south-southeast trending linear features are recorded immediately to the west and to the east of the property on the Barberton 1:250 000 geological map. These are interpreted as sericitized and silicified shear zones. Other north-northwest – south-southeast and east-west linear features recorded in Figure 2-5 are undifferentiated.

Kruger Mpumalanga International Airport




Figure 2-5: Geological map of KMI Airport and its environs

2.3 Water Use Activities and Demands

2.3.1 Current KMI Airport Water Demand and Wastewater Generation

Table 2-1 summarises the current estimated water demand for KMI Airport. The water demand

estimate has been confirmed using historic water usage data. The average estimated and historic

demands are 129.8 kℓ/day and 127 kℓ/day, respectively. The current water consumption estimate

is attached in Appendix C. This results in an annual requirement of 34 284 m³/year.

Table 2-1: Estimated current water demand

Facility Users/Area Daily demand rate Daily demand

Airport terminal 800 p/d 20 ℓ/p 16 kℓ/day

Apron staff facility 195 m² 2.4 kℓ/100m² 4.68 kℓ/day

Hangars 4700 m² 0.6 kℓ/100m² 28.2 kℓ/day

Fire station 276 m² 2.4 kℓ/100m² 6.624 kℓ/day

Fuel farm 4400 m² 0.4 kℓ/100m² 17.6 kℓ/day

Car hire parking 9450 m² 0.6 kℓ/100m² 56.7 kℓ/day

Total 129.804 kℓ/day

Sewerage generated by KMIA is estimated at 80% of the demand, i.e. 103.8 kℓ/day.

2.3.2 Current MQP Farm Project Water Demand

Based on meter readings for the period January 2019/January 2020, the MQP farm uses 45 444

m³ of irrigation water a year.

2.3.3 Future Water Demands

Future water demands that are accounted for in the WUL application include:

A light industrial and warehouse area;

A motel area; and




Additional farming.

These additional water uses require 12 224 m³ of potable water and 90 888 m³ of irrigation water.

2.4 Water Supply System

2.4.1 General Overview

KMI Airport

Four (4) boreholes supply potable water to KMI Airport. A chlorination station has been installed

at the site of the boreholes to treat the water before it is stored in pressed steel panel emergency

storage tanks. The one 325 m³ tank has the capacity to store four hours’ worth of firewater while

the other 130 m³ tank has the capacity to store twenty-four hours’ worth of potable water.

From these storage tanks the water is reticulated through the respective potable water and

firewater pipe networks with pumps providing the necessary pressure.

MQP Farm Project

Two boreholes supply the MQP Farm project with irrigation water. The water from the boreholes

is stored in a 250 m³ ground circular steel tank. From the tank, an automated drip irrigation system

distributes irrigation water. A pressurised fertiliser system injects fertiliser into the water as it is

pumped to the fields.

2.4.2 Boreholes

Six (6) boreholes have been drilled on the PAM property:

Two (2) boreholes supplying the farming project; and

Four (4) boreholes supplying the airport.

Table 2-2 provides the coordinates of the boreholes indicated in Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7.

Table 2-2: Borehole locations

Description Location Elevation (m.a.s.l)

Water level elevation (m.a.s.l)

Supplying

X Y

Borehole 1 31.104396 -25.370623 857 810.31 Airport


Borehole 3 31.104478 -25.371553 856 812.26 Farming project Borehole 4 31.104002 -25.373143 846 813.95 Farming project






Figure 2-6: Borehole layout




Figure 2-7: Borehole and oxidation pond locality plan

The properties of the PAM boreholes are listed in Table 2-3, where m.b.g.l is meters below ground

level.

Table 2-3: Borehole properties

Description Depth (m)

Static water level (m.b.g.l)

Pump installation depth (m)

Discharge rate (ℓ/s)

Yield (ℓ/d)

Borehole 1 68 46.69 60 0.18 6 480

Borehole 2 102 47.50 78 0.54 19 440 Borehole 3 43.74 100 2.88 103 680

Borehole 4 67.19 32.05 63 5.6 362 880

Borehole 5 145 2.67 125 1.1 71 280

Borehole 6 135 7.84 105 2.1 136 080




From Table 2-3 it can be observed that the current available yield from the boreholes is 699 840

ℓ/d (255 616 m³/year). A copy of the Yield test results is available in Appendix B.

Water samples from the six boreholes where collected and tested at a SANAS certified laboratory.

Table 2-4 and Table 2-5 summarises the results of the tests.

Table 2-4: KMI Airport Potable water supply boreholes quality

Parameter Unit Standard and limits: Results

Drinking water BH1 and BH2 BH5 BH6

pH @ 37°C pH Units 5-9.7 6.81 7.13 7.73

Conductivity @ 25°C mS/m ≤170 15 23 31

Chloride as Cl mg/ℓ ≤300 11.3 <0.01 9.5

Total dissolved solids mg/ℓ ≤1200 105 163 222

Dissolved Aluminium as Al mg/ℓ ≤0.30 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Dissolved Arsenic as As mg/ℓ ≤0.01 <0.002 0.04 <0.002

Dissolved Cadium as Cd mg/ℓ ≤0.003 <0.0009 <0.0009 <0.0009

Dissolved Chromium as Cr mg/ℓ ≤0.05 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

Dissolved Copper as Cu mg/ℓ ≤2.0 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Dissolved Iron as Fe mg/ℓ ≤0.3 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Dissolved Mercury as Hg mg/ℓ ≤0.006 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Dissolved Manganese as Mn mg/ℓ ≤0.4 <0.01 12 0.04

Dissolved Sodium as Na mg/ℓ ≤200 16 22 32

Dissolved Nickel as Ni mg/ℓ ≤0.07 <0.005 0.006 0.01

Dissolved Antimony as Sb mg/ℓ ≤0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Dissolved Selenium as Se mg/ℓ ≤0.04 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Dissolved Zinc an Zn mg/ℓ ≤5.0 0.118 0.223 0.33

Total Coliforms Cfu/100 mℓ

≤10 2 8 5

Table 2-5: MQP Farming project irrigation water supply boreholes quality


Irrigation water BH3 BH4

pH @ 37°C pH Units 6.5-8.4 7.27 7.17

Conductivity @ 25°C mS/m <540 15 12

Chloride as Cl mg/ℓ <700 9.8 5.4

Total dissolved solids mg/ℓ −0.5−0.5 108 85

Dissolved Aluminium as Al mg/ℓ <20 <0.05 <0.05

Dissolved Arsenic as As mg/ℓ <2.0 <0.002 <0.002

Dissolved Cadium as Cd mg/ℓ <0.05 <0.0009 <0.0009

Dissolved Copper as Cu mg/ℓ <5.0 <0.02 <0.02

Dissolved Iron as Fe mg/ℓ <20 <0.05 <0.05

Dissolved Manganese as Mn mg/ℓ <10 <0.01 <0.01

Dissolved Sodium as Na mg/ℓ <460 21 19

Dissolved Nickel as Ni mg/ℓ <2.0 0.006 0.006

Dissolved Selenium as Se mg/ℓ <0.06 <0.010 <0.01

Dissolved Zinc an Zn mg/ℓ <0.5 <0.010 <0.010





Irrigation water BH3 BH4

E.coli or Faecal Coliforms Cfu/100 mℓ 1000 <1 <1

2.4.3 Maintenance

The KMIA Maintenance Manual contains guidelines for the operation and maintenance of the

boreholes. These include:

Borehole pumps are to be maintained according to the manufacturer’s specifications;

Under no circumstances should the borehole pump rates exceed the yields stated in the

geohydrological Report (Appendix B);

Boreholes are to remain fenced off and no sanitary, fuel or chemical storage facilities are to

be located or placed upstream of them;

Water quality shall be tested monthly or at any time when contamination is suspected; and

If contamination is suspected, a sample shall be taken at the sampling point at the borehole

and at a reticulation outlet to establish locality of contamination.

2.5 Wastewater Management System

2.5.1 General Overview

Sewerage generated by KMI Airport is drained into oxidation ponds where it undergoes aerobic

treatment. The treated effluent is discharged by irrigating the grass south of the ponds.

2.5.2 Oxidation Ponds

The oxidation pond inlet works include a sludge channel, hand rake screens, a drying bed, and a

parshall flume.

A 200 mmø outfall sewer pipeline discharges sewerage into a 400 mm wide x 500 m deep concrete

sludge channel. The sludge channel diverts the sewerage into one of three routes. That is, to either

of the two hand rake screens or to the emergency overflow channel.

Sluice gates control the flow to the hand rake screens allowing for the maintenance of one screen

while the other is in operation.

The invert of the emergency overflow channel is 200 mm higher than the invert of the main

channel there by preventing the bypassing of the hand rake screens during normal operations.

A slab with weep holes draining back into the main concrete channel is located adjacent to the

hand rake screens for the collection and drying of screenings.

The screened wastewater then flows into Oxidation Pond 1 via a 3” parshall flume.

The five (5) oxidation ponds are located in a cluster south-west of the airport as indicated in Figure

2-7 and Figure 2-8. Each oxidation pond is lined using HDPE to prevent the seepage of

contaminants into the ground.




Figure 2-8: Oxidation pond layout

Sewerage generated by KMI Airport enters Oxidation Pond 1 via the inlet structure described

above. The influent is retained in this pond for at least 11 days before flowing into Oxidation Pond

2. In Oxidation Pond 2 the wastewater is retained for at least 5 days before overflowing into

Oxidation Pond 3. Oxidation Pond 3 and 4 will also retain the wastewater for 5 days each. The

properties of the KMI Airport oxidation pond are indicate in Table 2-6.

Table 2-6: Oxidation pond properties

Pond Top Bottom Depth (m) Capacity (m³)

Width (m) Length (m) Width (m) Length (m) Oxidation Pond 1 26.00 46.00 16.00 36.00 1.5 1 185

Oxidation Pond 2 16.15 46.00 5.90 35.75 1.5 579

Oxidation Pond 3 13.25 28.5 2.75 18.00 1.5 219

Oxidation Pond 4 13.35 28.5 2.60 17.75 1.5 212

Oxidation Pond 5 13.4 28.25 2.40 17.50 1.5 203

Oxidation Pond 5 has the capacity to retain wastewater for at least 5 days. At the end of this period

the contaminant and pollutant load of the effluent should be within the stipulations set out in the

Revision of General Authorisations in Terms of Section 39 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No.

36 of 1998) GN 665 (GN 665).




Meter readings recorded for the 2019/2020 period indicate an average irrigation rate of 10.5

m³/day with a peak of 36.25 m³/day. Therefore, Table 1.2 of GN 665 which is applicable to

irrigation not exceeding 500 m³/day has been used to define the effluent quality limits for the

oxidation ponds. Table 2-7 summarises the water quality test results for the oxidation pond

effluent sampled in March 2020 while Table 2-8 summarises the water quality test results for

samples collected from the monitoring borehole during the same period.

Table 2-7: Summary of oxidation pond effluent test results

Variable Unit Standard and limits: Results

Wastewater Oxidation Ponds

pH pH units 5.5-9.5 6.77

Electrical Conductivity EC mS/m < 200 48.6

Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/ℓ < 400 after removal of algae 158

E.coli or Faecal Coliforms CFU/100 mℓ 1 000 461

Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)

< 5 for biodegradable industrial wastewater

N/A

Table 2-8: Summary of monitoring borehole test results


Wastewater BH7

pH @ 37°C pH Units 5-9.5 7.28

Conductivity @ 25°C mS/m 70-150 19

Total dissolved solids mg/ℓ < 25 104

Dissolved Arsenic as As mg/ℓ 0.02 <0.002

Dissolved Cadium as Cd mg/ℓ 0.005 <0.0009

Dissolved Copper as Cu mg/ℓ 0.01 <0.002

Dissolved Iron as Fe mg/ℓ 0.3 <0.05

Dissolved Mercury as Hg mg/ℓ 0.05 <0.001

Dissolved Manganese as Mn mg/ℓ 0.1 <0.01

Dissolved Sodium as Na mg/ℓ 90 22

Dissolved Selenium as Se mg/ℓ 0.02 <0.010

Dissolved Zinc an Zn mg/ℓ 0.1 <0.010

E.coli or Faecal Coliforms Cfu/100 mℓ 1000 <1

The water quality test results indicate that the effluent from the oxidation ponds is adequately

treated before being discharged. This is supported by the results of the oxidation pond efficiency

calculations (Appendix C).

Treated effluent is released into the environment from Oxidation Pond 5 via a Jo-jo tank and pump

by irrigating the patch of land south of the ponds indicated in Figure 2-8.

2.5.3 Maintenance

The KMIA Maintenance Manual contains guidelines for the operation and maintenance of the

oxidation ponds. These include:

All grids at the oxidation ponds shall be cleaned twice daily;




The sludge channel shall be cleaned once a day;

The side slopes of the ponds shall be mowed twice monthly;

General civil maintenance shall be performed;

The ponds shall be checked daily that overflows do not become clogged;

Water quality shall be tested monthly; and

The irrigation pump at the oxidation ponds shall be maintained according to the

manufacturer’s specification.




3 RISK ASSESSMENT

A risk assessment was conducted by Acmert Consulting and Contracting on behalf of PAM. The

risk assessment is summarised in Table 3-1. The complete assessment is available in Appendix B.

The risk assessment focuses on the disposal of wastewater in a manner that may detrimentally

impact on a water resource.




Table 3-1: Risk assessment

Potential Environmental Impact

Activity

Area Applicable

Corrective Measure

Environmental Significance Before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures

Nature Extent Duration Magnitude Probability Significance

Operational

Deterioration of water quality

All activities at the KMI airport

Leakage from the ponds may occur

Yes Negative 2 4 8 4 56 Maintenance of oxidation ponds Fencing of area around the pond and limited access to the pond system

Pollution Air Odour released from the ponds

Yes Negative 2 4 4 3 30 Use of long distance circulators Routine odour monitoring Oxidation pond maintenance

Water Surface and ground water sources receiving contaminated water

yes Negative 2 5 8 4 60 Constant monitoring of water quality

Environmental risk

Addition of contaminants causing decrease in crop yield

Farming areas using treated wastewater

Yes Negative 2 3 6 3 33 Constant monitoring of water and crop quality

Health Risk Increase in crop yields and nutrients

Farming areas using treated waste water

Yes Positive 2 4 6 3 36

Pathogens associated with waste water






4 REGULATIONS AND LEGISLATION

4.1 Introduction

The Republic of South Africa is categorized as a water scarce country with an average rainfall that

is about 40% less than the annual world average rainfall of 850 mm per annum. As such, the NWA

was enacted to manage the limited water that is available in the Republic. This section of the

report gives a brief description of the water uses PAM is engaged in in terms of the NWA and

summarises the different types of water use authorisations included in the NWA:

Schedule 1;

Existing Lawful Use;

General Authorisations; and

Water Use Licence.

4.2 Water uses

PAM is currently engaged in the following water uses as defined by Clause 21 of the NWA:

4.2.1 Section 21 (a) Taking water from a water source

Abstraction of water from six (6) boreholes located on the PAM property. The boreholes are

located in the northern region of the property as indicated in Figure 2-6 and Table 2-2. The

properties of the boreholes are as shown on Table 2-3. The six boreholes have a combined yield

of 699 840 ℓ/d (255 616 m³/year).

4.2.2 Section 21 (e) Engaging in a controlled activity identified as such in section 37(1) or

declared under Section 38(1)

The irrigation of the grass south of the oxidation ponds using treated effluent from the ponds. The

irrigation rate is at an average of 10.5 m³/day.

4.2.3 Section 21 (g) Disposing of waste in a manner which may detrimentally impact on a

water resource

The discharge of raw sewage generated by KMI Airport into five (5) oxidation ponds for treatment.

The HDPE lined oxidation ponds have a combined capacity of 2 398 m³.

4.3 Section 27 Motivation

Section 27 of the NWA states that, in issuing a general authorisation or licence a responsible

authority must take into account all relevant factors, including-

(a) existing lawful water uses;

(b) the need to redress the results of past racial and gender discrimination;

(c) efficient and beneficial use of water in the public interest;

(d) the socio-economic impact -




(i) of the water use or uses if authorised; or

(ii) of the failure to authorise the water use or uses;

(e) any catchment management strategy applicable to the relevant water resource;

(f) the likely effect of the water use to be authorised on the water resource and on other water

users;

(g) the class and the resource quality objectives of the water resource;

(h) investments already made and to be made by the water user in respect of the water use in

question;

(i) the strategic importance of the water use to be authorised;

(j) the quality of water in the water resource which may be required for the Reserve and for

meeting international obligations; and

(k) the probable duration of any undertaking for which a water use is to be authorised.

PAM motivates the issuing of a WUL for activities at KMI Airport based on the factors listed in

Section 27 of the NWA. The motivation is discussed in the following sections.

Section 27 (a) Existing Lawful Water Uses

PAM was issued with a water use certificate on the 1st of September 2002. The certificate is based

on the KMI Airport property size of about 350 ha and an annual water abstraction volume of 24

455 m³. However, the lawfulness was yet to be determined. A copy of the certificate can be found

in Appendix A.

Section 27 (b) Redressing the results of past racial and gender discrimination

Over the years KMI Airport has represented a unique partnership with the 30 000 strong

neighbouring Dwaleni community, which contributed a portion of its land to the airport site, and

holds a 10% share in the airport through the Mbuyane Communal Property Association (MCPA).

The revenue earned by the MCPA from the airport has been utilized to fund development and

services for the community, such as roads, access to water and community facilities. The MCPA

acts on behalf of the inhabitants of the Dwaleni Township and the Mbuyane tribe. KMI Airport

makes a monthly royalty payment to the MCPA, calculated per departing passenger and continues

to invest its resources in various community outreach projects.

One of these projects is the MQP Farming project. The project is aimed at providing much needed

employment opportunities to the neighbouring Dwaleni community. The farm produces low-

volume high-value crops such as vegetables and berries to supply both the local and national

market. The pilot project commenced on 5 ha of land with the potential to expand operations to

20 ha. The WUL application includes two (2) boreholes dedicated to supplying irrigation water to

the farming project.

Section 27 (c) Efficient and beneficial use of water in the public interest

The KMI Airport water reticulation system ensures that a minimal volume of water is lost through

leaks by implementing an efficient leak detection system and a rapid response maintenance




regime. All wash bays and fuelling stations are fitted with oil / water separators preventing the

discharge of contaminated water into the environment.

Treated effluent from the oxidation ponds is tested on a monthly basis to ensure that its quality is

within the limits set out in the GN 665. The effluent is disposed of by irrigation of the field adjacent

to the ponds thereby recharging the groundwater.

The MQP Farming project utilises an automated drip irrigation system. This ensures that crops are

not over-irrigated thereby minimising the wastage of water.

Section 27 (d) The socio-economic impact

Recognising that aviation is essential to South Africa’s economy, and to the regional economy of

Mpumalanga province; KMI Airport serves as an important logistical node in the region, is an

anchor for tourism, and provides a livelihood for thousands of Mbombela residents and their

families. The strategic plan for KMI Airport ensures that long-term development of the airport

takes place in such a way that it continues to contribute to the economic prosperity of the region

for years to come.

Section 27 (e) Any catchment management strategy applicable to the relevant water resource

The Catchment Management Strategy for the IUCMA has been compiled and has been gazetted.

Section 27 (f) The likely effect of the water use to be authorised on the water resource and on

other water users

Acmert Consulting and Contracting compiled the Geohydrological Investigation for Kruger

Mpumalanga International Airport, Mpumalanga Province report for the WUL application. This

report can be found in Appendix B. The investigation concluded that the calculated recharge of

417 036 m³/year in the area is sufficient as KMI Airport and the MQP Farming project requires

about 182 840 m³/year.

Based on the risk analysis included in the Geohydrological Investigation for Kruger Mpumalanga

International Airport, Mpumalanga Province; it is evident that the wastewater treatment and

disposal system employed by KMI Airport has a minimal impact on surrounding water resources

and users. The risks are further mitigated though the frequent maintenance of the oxidation ponds

and testing of effluent that is discharged into the environment as outlined in the KMI Airport

Maintenance Manual.

Section 27 (g) The class and the resource quality objectives of the water resource

KMI Airport falls under catchment X22H that is managed by the IUCMA. According to Classes of

Water Resources and Resource Quality Objectives for the Catchments of the Inkomati GN 1616

(GN 1616), catchment X22H is located in a Class II Integrated Unit of Analysis (IUA); i.e. X2-8. This

class indicates moderate protection and moderate utilisation.

Catchment X22H falls within Groundwater Unit GU 2-4 as indicated in Table 19 of GN 1616. Table

19 of GN 1616 summarises the resource quality objectives for GU 2-4.




Section 27 (h) Investments already made and to be made by the water user in respect of the

water use in question

Since its establishment on the 21st of October 2002, KMI Airport has:

Drilled four (4) boreholes for the supply of potable and firewater, and two (2) boreholes for

the supply of irrigation water;

Constructed five (5) oxidation ponds in series for the disposal and treatment of sewage

generated by the airport; and

Installed an irrigation system for the release of treated effluent from the oxidation ponds into

the environment.

Section 27 (i) The strategic importance of the water use to be authorised

The authorisation of the KMI Airport water use will ensure the continued operation of

Mpumalanga province’s only international port of entry as well as secure the livelihood of the

surrounding community.

Section 27 (j) The quality of water in the water resource which may be required for the Reserve

and for meeting international obligations

The development has not resulted in the degradation of the water resource according to the

report; Geohydrological Investigation for Kruger Mpumalanga International Airport, Mpumalanga

Province compiled by Acmert Consulting and Contracting. This report can be found in Appendix B.

Water quality tests are undertaken monthly to ensure the potable water quality and the treated

effluent quality is within the limits stipulated in SANS 241-1, 2015 and the GN 665 respectively.

Section 27 (k) The probable duration of any undertaking for which a water use is to be

authorised

KMI Airport and its MQP Farming project are expected to continue operating for more than 100

years.

4.4 Types of water use authorisations

4.4.1 Schedule 1

Schedule 1 authorisation allows for the abstraction of water in limited quantities that do not pose

a risk to the resource, typically domestic use. Schedule 1 uses do not require registration.

This authorisation does not apply to the boreholes established by PAM given the high annual

water abstraction rates.

4.4.2 Existing Lawful Use

An Existing Lawful Use refers to a water use that commenced two years prior to the enactment of

the NWA in 1998. Such a water use does not require licencing or registration unless instructed to

do so by a water authority.




This authorisation does not apply to the boreholes established by PAM as they were drilled after

1998.

4.4.3 General Authorisations

General Authorisations are applicable to water uses that fall within specific parameters. The

parameters specific to the abstraction of groundwater as detailed in the NWA GN 538 include:

Water may not be abstracted within 500 m of a wetland or 100 m of a delineated riparian

edge;

No more than 40 000 m³ of water may be abstracted per year on a property; and

The volume of water abstracted from a groundwater resource for use on a single property is

limited to the quantities set out in Table 2: Groundwater Abstraction Rates of NWA GN 538,

based on the size of the property or piece of land on which the water is taken.

According to Table 2: Groundwater Abstraction Rates of the NWA GN 538, properties located in

quaternaries X22H and X24B are permitted to abstract up to 45 m³/ha of ground water a year.

As discussed in Section 2.2, the KMI Airport and MQP Farming project have been established on a

±364 ha property. Therefore, the maximum allowable water abstraction rate is 16 393.5 m³/year.

The records for the past three years, 2017-2019, indicate that on average 43 420 m³ of water is

abstracted from the boreholes per year for the airport.

Based on the limitation of 16 393.5 m³/year set by the General Authorisations, the groundwater

abstraction rates required for the KMI Airport and the MQP farming project preclude the PAM

boreholes from General Authorisations.

4.4.4 Water Use Licence

For a water use that falls outside of the two categories discussed above, authorisation for the

water use may be granted through the submission of an application for a Water Use Licence

(WUL). The steps and timelines for the processing of a WUL application are summarised in Table

4-1.




Table 4-1: Water Use Licence Application procedure

Stage Requirements Duration Cumulative duration

Pre-application

Complete DW758 form

11 days 0 days Copy of title deed

Proof of licence application fee (R114,00 - to be confirmed)

Pre-application meeting 30 days 41 days

Site inspection

Application initiation

Complete DW758, DW760, DW784, DW901, DW902 form

115 days 156 days

Copy of company registration certificate

Copy of title deed

Copy of property zoning certificate

A Topographic map of 1:50 000 /Aerial Photo of 1:10 000 indicating map name, number and property boundaries including subdivisions. Existing and proposed abstraction and discharge points, irrigation fields, boreholes must also be indicated.

Section 27 of NWA motivation

Record of Decision from DEA

B-BBEE certificate

Specialists/technical reports, e.g.:

-Water Quality Management report

-Geohydrological report

-Water and waste management plan

-Environmental Impact Assessment report

-Public participation correspondence

Processing and finalising

Assessment of technical report by DWS 139 days 295 days

Decision by DWS Acceptance / refusal of application by DWS 5 days 300 days

Implementation Issuing licence and conditions of licence

It is worth noting that during the 2020 State of the Nation Address the president of the Republic

of South Africa mentioned that the WUL Application process would be streamlined from 300 days

to 90 days.

PAM was issued with a water use certificate on the 1st of September 2002. The certificate is based

on the KMI Airport property size of about 350 ha and an annual water abstraction volume of

24 455 m³. A copy of the current water use certificate can be found in Appendix A.

As discussed in Section 2.3, the expected annual water demand for the airport alone is 182 840

m³. Furthermore, the current borehole potential yield is .raey a ³m 616 552 tuoba

PAM has to apply for a WUL in order to be compliant with the requirements of the NWA.




5 WATER USE LICENCE APPLICATION METHODOLOGY

5.1 Pre-application Consultation

A pre-application consultation meeting was held with the relevant officials of the IUCMA on the

14th of February 2020.

The pre-application consultation meeting was held to:

Determine the need to authorise the water use;

Determine the applicable water use authorisation type;

To obtain guidance from IUCMA in relation to the application process to be followed; and

To obtain relevant documentation required for the application process.

5.2 Information and Technical Report Collation

Relevant information, in accordance with guidance from the IUCMA provided at the pre-

application meeting held, was sourced from specialists commissioned as part of the WULA. The

information was collated, analysed and relevant sections included in this report as well as the

various WUL application forms required in support of the Water Use License Application.

5.3 Public Participation Process

The public participation processes (PPP) commenced during May 2020 and will continue for a

period of 60 days. The application has been advertised in a local newspaper, namely Lowvelder,

on the 22nd of May 2020. Site Notices have been placed within the vicinity and along the boundary

of the site on the 22nd of May 2020. Written notification was given to the following authorities and

interest groups have also been notified on the 22nd of May 2020:

Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS);

IUCMA;

White River irrigation Board;

Ehlanzeni District Municipality;

City of Mbombela; and

Neighbouring farmers/ businesses.

5.4 Concerns Raised by Interested and Affected Persons

No Comments have been received to date. All comments received will be consolidated, responded

to and submitted to the IUCMA for review after the completion of the 60 day comment period.

A detailed list of comments and responses will be supplied to IUCMA upon completion of the

comment period.

Please refer to Appendix D for Public Participation, including comments received, distribution of

Notification and the interested and affected persons (I&AP) register.




5.5 Submission of the Water Use Licence Application

Upon completion of the Report, all the required License Application forms, the signed final

documentation and all the required appendices will be submitted to IUCMA inclusive of the

confirmation of the paid application fee.




6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The WULA for the KMI Airport and MQP Farming project six (6) boreholes and oxidation ponds

takes into consideration all DWS and IUCMA requirements. All supporting information has been

included as appendices within the document.

PAM is committed to implementing all recommended mitigation measures as applicable identified

during the risk assessment.

It is recommended that the WUL be granted to permit the abovementioned water uses contained

in the WULA forms. Furthermore, the mitigation measures contained in the specialist studies as

appended in Appendix B be implemented and adhered to.




APPENDIX A WATER USE LICENCES AND GENERAL

AUTHORISATIONS




APPENDIX B GEOHYDROLOGICAL REPORT

i

GEOHYDROLOGICAL INVESTIGATION FOR KRUGER MPUMALANGA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, MPUMALANGA PROVINCE.

Report no.: 2020-04

CLIENT: PRIMKOP AIRPORT MANAGEMENT (PTY) LTD

Prepared by:

Tel: + 27 (0)73 640 3187

Email: [email protected]

Compiled by: Reviewed by:

MELUSI MASHEGO Pr.Sci.NatBSc (Hons)

Geology Dr EVISON KAPANGAZIWIRI (PhD), Pr. Sci.

Nat., MWISA (Senior Geohydrologist)

ii

Executive Summary

Acmert Consulting and Contracting was appointed by Primkop Airport Management (PAM)

to undertake hydrogeological assessment for the purpose of a water use license at Kruger

Mpumalanga International airport (KMIA), Mpumalanga Province.

This follows the proposed water uses in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36

of 1998) by the Department of Water and Sanitation. The PAM is on a process of application

for the following water useactivities:

• Section 21(a) – Taking water from a water resource;

• Section 21(e) – Disposing of treated effluent from oxidation ponds by irrigating;

• Section 21(g) – Disposing of waste in a manner which may detrimentally impact on a water

resource.

This report serves to assess in detail the hydrogeological characteristics in the vicinity of the

study area, paying special attention to recharge in the area, abstraction from boreholes,

water quality and guidelines used for waste water discharge for irrigation purposes.

The calculated recharge of 417 036 m3/annum in the area is sufficient because the airport

only requires ±47 000 m³ of water annually to meet its water demand, so there is an

additional 370 036 m3in excess to the volume required by KMIA.

Remedial action is recommended to improve the microbiological parameters with a

filtration and chlorination system to address the excess total coliforms found in analysed

water samples.

Monitoring of surface water to the northeast of oxidation pond is recommended to avoid

contamination by wastewater from the ponds, and ultimate health risks associated with

contamination.

iii

Contents

1. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Objectives..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Information sources ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Site description ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.4 Climate .......................................................................................................................................... 3

1.5 Land use ........................................................................................................................................ 4

1.6 Topography ................................................................................................................................... 4

1.7 Vegetation and major rivers ......................................................................................................... 6

1.8 Regional Geology .......................................................................................................................... 6

1.8.1 Lithology ................................................................................................................................. 6

1.8.2 Structural geology .................................................................................................................. 6

1.9 Regional Hydrogeology ................................................................................................................. 8

1.9.1. Catchment Area .................................................................................................................... 8

1.9.2 Aquifer Classification ............................................................................................................. 8

1.9.3 Basic Model of Groundwater ............................................................................................... 10

1.9.4 Groundwater quantity ......................................................................................................... 13

1.9.5 Groundwater Uses ............................................................................................................... 14

1.9.7 Waste Management system ................................................................................................ 14

2. GROUNDWATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABSTRACTION .................................................................. 14

2.1 Borehole yield tests .................................................................................................................... 14

2.1.1 Step Drawdown Test ............................................................................................................ 14

2.1.2 Constant Rate Test ............................................................................................................... 15

2.1.3 Long Term Sustainable Borehole Yield Estimation .............................................................. 15

3. WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................................................ 15

4. RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................. 20

4.1 Risk Assessment Criteria ............................................................................................................. 20

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 24

General remarks and precautions (WRC, 2010) ........................................................................... 26

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 28

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................... 29

Appendix 1: Step test data ................................................................................................................ 29

iv

Appendix 2: Constant test data ........................................................................................................ 41

Appendix 3: Water Quality data ....................................................................................................... 53

List of Figures

Figure 1 Locality of the KMI airport. ....................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2Histogram showing the climate of the study area (Climate-Data.org). ..................................... 3

Figure 3 Mean Annual A-Pan Equivalent Potential Evaporation (Schulze, 2007) ................................... 4

Figure 4 Elevation map covering the study area and surroundings. ...................................................... 5

Figure 5 Regional geological map covering the study area. ................................................................... 7

Figure 6 Graph showing correlation between topography and water levels. ...................................... 12

Figure 7 Flow direction from the oxidation dam. ................................................................................. 12

List of equations

Equation 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 15

Equation 2 ............................................................................................................................................. 21

List of tables

Table 1 Aquifer classification scheme (Parsons, 1995; Parsons and Conrad, 1998) ............................... 8

Table 2 Rating for the aquifer system management and second variable classification (Parson, 1995).

.............................................................................................................................................................. 10

Table 3 Aquifer System Management and Second Variable Classifications. ........................................ 10

Table 4 Hydro census data from Kruger Mpumalanga International Airport Borehole ....................... 11

Table 5 The sustainable yield of the borehole at site ........................................................................... 15

Table 6 Summary of water quality results. ........................................................................................... 17

Table 7 Scaling risk ................................................................................................................................ 20

Table 8 Significant colour code. ............................................................................................................ 22

Table 9 Risk assessment ........................................................................................................................ 23

1

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

Acmert Consulting and Contracting was appointed by Primkop Airport Management (PTY) LTD to

conduct a geohydrological assessment for the purpose of a water use license at Kruger Mpumalanga

International airport (KMIA), Mpumalanga Province.

1.2. Objectives

The scope of work for this report includes:

Assessment of the hydrogeological characteristics of the Kruger Mpumalanga International

airport and surrounding areas.

Assessment of the existing infrastructure through hydro census exercise.

Assessment of the aquifer characteristics within the areas.

Identification of the suitable groundwater exploration areas.

Calculation of average yield within the area from existing boreholes.

Estimation the groundwater levels and groundwater flow direction from existing boreholes.

Water quality and risk assessment.

Recommendations for drilling depths, drilling mechanisms and equipping methods.

By default, the following form part of this geohydrological investigation:

Geology of the site.

Potential technical restraining factors.

Mapping of existing boreholes.

Presence and proximity of groundwater.

1.3 Information sources

The following were studied prior to the investigation taking place:

• A 1:250 000 geological map sheet 2530 Barberton.

• National Groundwater Archives.

• Google Earth Satellite Imagery and online published literature with the site information.

• Hydro Census Data & Department of Water & Sanitation.

• Borehole Yield Testing Data & Water Quality.

1.4 Site description

The study area is located on farmKruger Mpumalanga International Airport No. 666-JU in Primkop

Airport Township,about 17 Km northeast of Nelspruit Town, Mpumalanga Province, South Africa.

The site is accessible via R 538 provincial road. The central coordinates of the KMIA are -25.385264°

and 31.098993°. The investigation is to also consider the surroundings of the study area as they may

also be impacted in terms of groundwater susceptibility. Figure 1 shows the location of the KMIA.

GEOHYDROLOGICAL INVESTIGATION FOR KRUGER MPUMALANGA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, MPUMALANGA PROVINCE.Report no.: 2020-04

April 2020

2

Figure 1 Locality of the KMI airport.


April 2020

3

1.4 Climate

KMIA area is characterised by warm and temperate climate. In winter, there is much less rainfall in

than in summer. The climate is considered to bewarm according to the Köppen-Geiger climate

classification. The warmest month of the year is January with an average temperature of 23.6°C,June

has the lowest temperature of the year with an average of14.6°C. The average annual precipitation

is796 mm. the most precipitation falls in January (130 mm) and the driest month is June (11

mm). The average annual A-pan evaporation for Mpumalanga is 1946 mm (Schulze, 2007). Figure 2

& 3 shows graphs of average climate and evaporation, respectively.

Figure 2Histogram showing the climate of the study area (Climate-Data.org).

4

Figure 3 Mean Annual A-Pan Equivalent Potential Evaporation (Schulze, 2007)

1.5 Land use

The study area is surrounded by residential area immediately to the northeast, and farming area

about 1.5 km from the oxidation pond to the south and southwest direction.

1.6 Topography

An extrapolation assessment of the site topography conducted with Google earth sourced elevations

indicates that the site is characterised by undulating topography with gentle to moderate slopes,

with an average gradient of 3.5%. The maximum height points are at about 880 m above mean sea

level and the minimum heights being about 740 m above mean sea level (Figure 4). According to this

topographical map, the borehole positions in the study area would be a combination of high relief

areas (i.e FR and BH 1-4) andlow relief areas(i.e BH5-7 AR and OD) within the selected boundary. The

topography is an important aspect of this report as it may be associated with groundwater flow.

5

Figure 4Elevation map covering the study area and surroundings.

6

1.7 Vegetation and major rivers

According to the 1: 1000 000 SANBI Vegetation map (2018), the site is regionally characterized by

the Sour Lowveld Bushveld vegetation. The major river in proximity to the study area is Crocodile

River which occurs about 16 km east and west of the KMIA.

1.8Regional Geology

1.8.1 Lithology

According to the published 2530Barberton1:250 000 geological series, this site falls withinIntrusive

rocks of the Archean Nelspruit Granite Suite. The main lithology in the study area is white to grey

coarse-grained porphyritic biotite granite (Figure 5).

1.8.2 Structural geology

A series of southeast-northwest trending diabase dykes are mapped as linear intrusions at a regional

scale. Shear zones are also occur to the east and west of the study area. The areas of deformation

occur across the study area creating potential groundwater flow paths.


April 2020

7

Figure 5Regional geological map covering the study area.


April 2020

8

1.9Regional Hydrogeology

1.9.1. Catchment Area

The investigation area falls under the Inkomati-Usuthu Water Management Area, in X22H

Quaternary catchment. The hydrogeology of the investigation area is influenced by attributes such

as:

• Geological structures creating preferential flow pathways i.e. along dykes, porous tension

zones,

• Types of soils, thickness of soils, infiltration rates, recharge rates and discharge rates,

• The direction of groundwater flow and the rate of flow,

• The groundwater levels, types of aquifers and the physical properties of the aquifers.

1.9.2 Aquifer Classification

Primary aquifers are not common within the investigation area, but rather the site is characterised

by secondary aquifer features related to fractures, joints, intrusions and weathering. This is a

common feature for crystalline igneous rocks underlying the site.

Rocks and all forms of geological material have the ability to transmit fluids; this property is

recorded as the hydraulic conductivity (K) property of the geological media. Brassington (1998) and

Lekete (2011) have documented the property of several geological materials and their ability to

conduct water. As discussed, the Kruger Mpumalanga International Airport is within granite igneous

rocks of the Nelspruit suite. Thus, based on Brassington (1998), we may expect hydraulic

conductivity in the range of 3x10-4 – 0.03 m/d.

According to Parsons and Conrad (1998), the study area falls within minor aquifers as it is

characterised with less permeable litholologies. A summary of classification scheme is shown in

Table 1 Aquifer classification scheme (Parsons, 1995; Parsons and Conrad, 1998)

Aquifer

System

Defined by Parsons (1995) Defined by DWAF Min

Requirements (1998)

Sole Source

Aquifer

An aquifer which is used to supply 50 % or more of

domestic water for a given area, and for which

there are no reasonably available alternative

sources should the aquifer be impacted upon or

depleted. Aquifer yields and natural water quality

are immaterial.

An aquifer, which is used to

supply 50% or more of urban

domestic water for a given area

for which there are no

reasonably available alternative

sources should this aquifer be

impacted upon or depleted.

Major Aquifer High permeable formations usually with a known

or probable presence of significant fracturing. They

High yielding aquifer (5-20 L/s)

of acceptable water quality.

9

may be highly productive and able to support large

abstractions for public supply and other purposes.

Water quality is generally very good (<150 mS/m).

Minor Aquifer These can be fractured or potentially fractured

rocks, which do not have a high primary

permeability or other formations of variable

permeability. Aquifer extent may be limited and

water quality variable. Although these aquifers

seldom produce large quantities of water, they are

important both for local supplies and in supplying

base flow for rivers.

Moderately yielding aquifer (1-5

L/s) of acceptable quality or

high yielding aquifer (5-20 L/s)

of poor-quality water.

Non-Aquifer These are formations with negligible permeability

that are generally regarded as not containing

groundwater in exploitable quantities. Water

quality may also be such that it renders the aquifer

as unusable. However, groundwater flow through

such rocks, although imperceptible, does take

place, and need to be considered when assessing

the risk associated with persistent pollutants.

Insignificantly yielding aquifer (<

1 L/s) of good quality water or

moderately yielding aquifer (1-5

L/s) of poor quality or aquifer

which will never be utilised for

water supply and which will not

contaminate other aquifers.

SpecialAquifer An aquifer designated as such by the Minister of

Water Affairs, after due process.

An aquifer designated as such

by the Minister of Water Affairs,

after due process.

So in terms of groundwater vulnerability, because of the nature of the basement igneous rocks like

granite, the contaminants will reach the groundwater-table after long periods of time, making such

lithologies less vulnerable aquifers with condition that extensive fracturing / secondary structures

are minimal.

To achieve the Aquifer System Management and Second Variable Classifications, as well as the

Groundwater Quality Management Index, the waiting and rating approach has been adopted for the

area as per South African Aquifer Systems Management Classification (Parson, 1995). Variable

classification considers the three (3) generic classes (High, Medium and Low) as inTable 2; the two

ratings (Aquifer System Management and Aquifer Vulnerability) are then multiplied to yield a

groundwater management decision index.

10

Table 2 Rating for the aquifer system management and second variable classification (Parson, 1995).

Aquifer systems management classification Second variable classification

Class Points Generic Class Points

Sole Source Aquifer System 6 High 3

Major Aquifer System 4 Medium 2

Minor Aquifer System 2 Low 1

Non-Aquifer System 0 n/a n/a

Special Aquifer System 0-6 n/a n/a

Table 3 Aquifer System Management and Second Variable Classifications.

Aquifer Systems Management

Class Points Study area

Sole Source Aquifer System 6

2

Major Aquifer System 4

Minor Aquifer System 2

Non-Aquifer System 0

Special Aquifer System 0-6

Vulnerability Classification (Weathering/ Fracturing)

Class Points Study area

High 3

2 Medium 2

Low 1

1.9.3 Basic Model of Groundwater

The direction of the groundwater flow is determined by the hydraulic head i.e. high hydraulic head

to low hydraulic head. The flow direction also mimics elevation/topography and controlled by

structural boundaries which may be more/less hydraulically conductive. With regards to the site, the

static groundwater levels recorded in Table 4 correlate with elevation as indicated by R2 value close

to 1 (Figure 6). This relationship indicates that topography controls groundwater levels in the study

area and hence ground water divide can be defined as a closed boundary. This is because in areas

where topography controls groundwater levels, groundwater on each side of the divide moves away

from the divide and no flow crosses the divide. Groundwater flow system for the study area is

currently unstressed and the groundwater will flow towards the western direction, following the

surface topography towards the lower laying area.Figure6 has been plotted using once-off

11

groundwater levels data for boreholes in Table 4 obtained from hydro-census investigation.In terms

of groundwater contamination from the point of disposal, the overall flow direction is towards the

northwest direction. According to Figure 7, wastewater flows to surface water sources (including

Primkop River) to the northwest of the oxidation ponds.

Table 4Hydro census data from Kruger Mpumalanga International Airport Borehole

Name X Y Elevation

(masl)

Water level

(mgbl)

water

level

elevations

(masl)

BH:1

AB

31.104396 -25.370623 857 46.69 810.31

BH:2

AB

31.1042940 -25.3708350 858 47.50 810.5

BH:3

AB

31.104478 -25.371553 856 43.74 812.26

BH:4

AB

31.104002 -25.373143 846 32.05 813.95

BH:5

FB

31.1069980 -25.378570 841 2.67 838.33

BH:6

FB

31.106339 -25.377907 837 7.84 829.16

BH:7-

monitoring

borehole

31.09669 -25.38906 830 3.10 826.9

12

Figure 6 Graph showing correlation between topography and water levels.

Figure 7Flow direction from the oxidation dam.

R² = 0.894

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

820 830 840 850 860

Bo

reh

ole

leve

l (m

bgl

)

Elevation (masl)

Linear (Regression line)

13

Recharge is the principal vehicle for leaching and transporting solid or liquid contaminants to the

water table (Aller et al., 1987).The annual recharge in the water management area varies from 87 to

119 mm. Considering 119 mm/annum to be the effective recharge at the site and the property size

to be about 11 600 m2. The recharge into the property is calculated as follows:

Recharge into Property = RE x Area

= 0.119 m/a x 3504510 m2

= 417036 m3/a

= 417 036 000 l/a.

The Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) has categorised abstraction scales as a percentage

of groundwater recharge and grouped them into 3 namely:

• Category A - Small Scale abstraction (<60% of recharge into property).

• Category B – Medium scale abstraction (60–100 % of recharge into property).

• Category C – Large scale abstraction (>100% of recharge into property).

The KMIA requirements for groundwater abstraction falls under a small scale abstraction because

the 47 000 m3/annum the airport requires is about 11% of the calculated recharge the property.

The depth to groundwater table in the region ranges from 3 to 50 m below ground level. The yields

of the boreholes range from 0.1 l/s to 5.6 l/s, indicating uneconomic to moderate groundwater

yields (Du Toit and Sonnekus, 2014).

1.9.4 Groundwater quantity

The usage percentage is calculated against registered groundwater users. Based on DWA (2004) the

formerInkomati Water Management Area had a total of 5.9 million m3/annum registered

groundwater use. This implies that the groundwater in the area and the water management area

was underutilised.

For specifically the site under investigation, groundwater availability will consider:

I. Groundwater Recharge (m/a).

II. Size of the Property of abstraction (m2).

III. Recharge into the property (m3/a).

IV. Existing Groundwater Abstractions & Proposed Abstraction rate.

V. Scale of Abstraction.

14

1.9.5Groundwater Uses

Currently two boreholes namely (BH1-2) supplies KMIA with potable water. However, the yield from

these two boreholes is inadequate. Two additional boreholes have been drilled (BH5 and BH 6) and

will be utilised to supply KMIA with potable water on approval of the WUL.

A chlorination station has been installed to treat the water before it is stored in pressed steel panel

emergency storage tanks. The one 325 m³ tank has the capacity to store four hours’ worth of

firewater while the other 130 m³ tank has the capacity to store twenty-four hours’ worth of potable

water.

From these storage tanks the water is reticulated through the respective potable water and

firewater pipe networks with pumps providing the necessary pressure.

Two boreholes (BH3& BH4) supply the KMIA farming project with irrigation water. The water from

the boreholes is stored in a 250 m³ ground circular steel tank. From the tank, an automated drip

irrigation system distributes irrigation water. A pressurised fertiliser system injects fertiliser into the

water as it is pumped to the fields.

1.9.7Waste Management system

Sewerage generated by KMIA is drained into oxidation ponds where it undergoes aerobic treatment.

The oxidation ponds are located south-west of the airport. The sewerage generated by KMIA enters

the oxidation ponds though a hand rake screen. The waste is retained in the different ponds from

the first to the fifth pond for several days. The treated waste is released from the fifth pond through

a tank and it is pumped and used for irrigation in the patch of land south of the ponds.

2. GROUNDWATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABSTRACTION

2.1 Borehole yield tests

The pumping test of the aquifer is conducted to estimate sustainable yield in accordance to the

guidelines by Van Tonder et al. (2001a) and these guidelines include guidelines for:

• Choosing of pump size, possibly with high discharge rate,

• Calibration test,

• Determining length of Constant Rate test

• Measuring of drawdown during the pumping period,

2.1.1 Step Drawdown Test

A Step drawdown test was conducted as a calibration procedure to determine the appropriate

abstraction rate for the constant rate test. A table showing the results of the step drawdown test

can be found in Appendix 1.

15

2.1.2 Constant Rate Test

The constant rate test was conducted to fully stress the aquifer in the borehole at an average

abstraction rate that was determined from the calibration test. Drawdown was measured during the

24-hour pumping test period in intervals using a water level deep meter (See Appendix 2 for the

water levels measured during pumping period). After switching off the pump, groundwater level

recovery was monitored until at least 90% of the initial static groundwater level was reached.

2.1.3 Long Term Sustainable Borehole Yield Estimation

The sustainable yields for boreholes were calculated based on quantifying the effects of no-flow

boundaries as well as the uncertainties in the values of transmissivity, storativity and distances to

the boundaries, using the following general equation:

𝑄 𝑠𝑢𝑠𝑡 = 𝑄

𝑆 ′ × 𝑆

Equation 1

Where 𝑄𝑠ust is sustainable yield, 𝑄 is pumping yield, 𝑠′ is total drawdown and 𝑠 is available

drawdown. The calculated sustainable yield gives an idea of how much water can be abstracted from

an aquifer in a certain period of time. Sustainable yields of boreholes at KMIA are shown in table 2.

Table 5The sustainable yield of the borehole at site

Borehole No Pump Inlet Depth (m)

Sustainable yield Rate (l/s)

Abstraction Schedule (hr)

BH1 60 0.1 18

BH2 78 0.3 18

BH3 100 1.6 18

BH4 63 5.6 18

BH5 125 1.1 18

BH6 105 2.1 18

3. WATER QUALITY

Groundwater samples were extracted from the borehole during the last hour of the borehole yield

testing process. The groundwater was sample into bottles and submitted to a SANAS Certified

Laboratory within a period of 24 hours. A set of samples were taken for the borehole and the

parameters of SANS 241, 2015 potable were assessed. The summary table showing the laboratory

results for six sampled boreholes are shown in Table 6 below, the raw data is found in Appendix 2.

16

Borehole 4 contains amount of coliforms exceeding limits for drinking water in terms of SANS 241-1,

2015. Thus, remedial action is recommended to improve the microbiological parameters with a

filtration and chlorination system to address the excess total coliforms. Monitoring and assessment

in every quarteris recommended to ensure compliance in the future.


April 2020

17

Table 6 Summary of water quality results.

Parameter Unit Health risk Results Standards and limits

BH6 BH4 BH3 BH7 BH2 BH5 Drinking water

Bottled water

Waste water

Irrigation water

pH @ 37°C pH Units

Operational 7.73 7.17 7.27 7.28 6.81 7.13 5-9.7 5-9.5 5-9.5 6.5-8.4

Conductivity @ 25°C

mS/m Aesthetic 31 12 15 19 15 23 ≤170 70-150 <540

Chloride as Cl mg/l Aesthetic 9.5 5.4 9.8 8.8 11.3 <0.01 ≤300 <700

Nitrate as N¹ mg/l Acute Not requested

Not requested

Not Requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

≤11 10 15

Fluoride as F mg/l Chronic Not requested

Not requested

Not Requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

≤1.5 b 1 15

Colour mg/l Aesthetic Not requested

Not requested

Not Requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

≤15 20

Turbidity mg/l Operational Not requested

Not requested

Not Requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

≤1.0 1

Total dissolved solids

mg/l Aesthetic 222 85 108 104 105 163 ≤1200 −0.5−0.5 −0.5−0.5 −0.5−0.5

Dissolved Aluminium as Al

mg/l Operational <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ≤0.30 0.15 <20

Dissolved Arsenic as As

mg/l Chronic <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.04 ≤0.01 0.01 0.02 <2.0

18

Dissolved Cadium as Cd

mg/l Chronic <0.0009 <0.0009 <0.0009 <0.0009 <0.0009 <0.0009 ≤0.003 0.003 0.005 <0.05

Dissolved Chromium as Cr

mg/l Chronic <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 ≤0.05 0.05

Dissolved Copper as Cu

mg/l Chronic <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.002 <0.02 <0.02 ≤2.0 0.5 0.01 <5.0

Dissolved Iron as Fe

mg/l Chronic+aesthetic <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ≤0.3 0.2 0.3 <20

Dissolved Mercury as Hg

mg/l Chronic <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 ≤0.006 0.001 0.05

Dissolved Manganese as Mn

mg/l Chronic+aesthetic 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 12 ≤0.4 0.5 0.1 <10

mg/l ≤0.1 0.5 0.1 <11

Dissolved Sodium as Na

mg/l Aesthetic 32 19 21 22 16 22 ≤200 90 <460

Dissolved Nickel as Ni

mg/l Chronic 0.01 0.006 0.006 0.005 <0.005 0.006 ≤0.07 0.02 <2.0

Dissolved Lead as Pb

mg/l Chronic ≤0.01 0.01 <2.0

Dissolved Antimony as Sb

mg/l Chronic <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 ≤0.02 0.005

Dissolved Selenium as Se

mg/l Chronic <0.010 <0.01 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 ≤0.04 0.01 0.02 <0.06

19

Dissolved Zinc an Zn

mg/l Aesthetic 0.33 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.118 0.223 ≤5.0 5 0.1 <0.5

Ammonium as N

mg/l Aesthetic Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

≤1.5

Free Chlorine as Cl₂

mg/l Chronic Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

≤5.0 0.25

Free Cyanide as CN

mg/l Acute Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

≤0.2 0.02

Nitrite as NO₂ mg/l Acute Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

≤0.9

Phenols mg/l Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

≤0.01

E.coli or Feacal Coliforms

Cfu/100 ml

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Not detected

Not detected

1000 <1000

Total Coliforms

Cfu/100 ml

5 82 4 6 2 8 ≤10 Not detected

Heterotrophic plate count

Cfu/100 ml

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

Not requested

≤1000 ≤100


April 2020

20

4. RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Risk Assessment Criteria

This section contains a summary and a motivation of the potential interactions and impacts which

may be associated with the project activities. For the purpose of this study, risk assessment will

focus on disposal of wastewater in a manner which may detrimentally impact on a water resource.

The identified potential impacts are summarised as follows:

Deterioration of water quality.

Pollution.

The impacts were rated and ranked based on the system as described below:

Magnitude: is a measure of the degree of change in a measurement or analysis (e.g., the area of

pasture, or the concentration of a metal in water compared to the water quality guideline value

for the metal), and was classified as none/negligible, low, moderate or high. The categorization

of the impact magnitude may be based on a set of criteria (e.g. health risk levels, ecological

concepts and/or professional judgment) pertinent to each of the discipline areas and key

questions analysed. The specialist study must attempt to quantify the magnitude and outline the

rationale used. Appropriate, widely recognized standards were to be used as a measure of the

level of impact.

Scale/Geographic extent refers to the area that could be affected by the impact and was

classified as site, local, regional, national, or international.

Duration: refers to the length of time over which an environmental impact may occur: i.e.

transient (less than 1 year), short-term (1 to 5 years), medium term (5 to 15 years), long-term

(greater than 15 years with impact ceasing after closure of the project), or permanent.

Probability of occurrence is a description of the probability of the impact occurring as

improbable (less than 5% chance), low probability (5% to 40% chance), medium probability (40%

to 60% chance), highly probable (most likely, 60% to 90% chance) or definite (impact will occur).

Table 7 Scaling risk

Status of Impact

The impacts are assessed as either having a:

Negative effect (i.e. at a `cost' to the environment),

Positive effect (i.e. a `benefit' to the environment),

Neutral effect on the environment.

Extent of the impact Duration of the impact

21

(1) Site (site only), 1) Immediate (<1 year),

(2) Local (site boundary and immediate surrounds), (2) Short term (1-5 years),

(3) Regional, (3) Medium term (5-15 years),

(4) National, (4) Long term (ceases after the operational life

span of the project),

(5) International. (5) Permanent.

Magnitude of the Impact Probability of Occurrence

(0) None, The likelihood of the impact actually occurring is

indicated as either:

(2) Minor, (0) None (the impact will not occur),

(4) Low, (1) Improbable (probability very low due to design

or experience),

(6) Moderate (environmental functions altered but

continue),

(2) Low probability (unlikely to occur),

(8) High (environmental functions temporarily

cease),

(3) Medium probability (distinct probability that

the impact will occur),

(10) Very high / unsure (environmental functions

permanently cease.

(4) High probability (most likely to occur),

(5) Definite.

Significance of the Impact

Based on the information contained in the points above, the potential impacts are assigned a

significance rating (S). This rating is formulated by adding the sum of the numbers assigned to extent

(E), duration (D) and magnitude (M) and multiplying this sum by the probability (P) of the impact.

𝑆 = (𝐸 + 𝐷 + 𝑀) × 𝑃

Equation 2

The significance ratings are given below

(<30) low (i.e. where this impact would not have a direct influence on the decision to develop in the

area),

22

(30-60) medium (i.e. where the impact could influence the decision to develop in the area unless it is

effectively mitigated), (>60) high (i.e. where the impact must have an influence on the decision

process to develop in the area).

Table 8 Significant colour code.

Significance Environmental Significance Points Colour Code

High >60 H

Medium 30 to 60 M

Low <30 L

The significance of the different risks associated with activities is note in Table 9 below. The general

significance of the risks is generally medium with only high risk associated with wastewater storage /

treatment plant posing a risk to surface water contamination in the event of a possible leakage of

the storage facility into downstream surface water stream. Therefore, it is important to note that

the wastewater treatment facility must have a background (upgradient) monitoring borehole and a

downgradient monitoring point. The monitoring boreholes must on continuous basis monitor the

groundwater quality from the point source/nearby wastewater treatment facility and downstream

of the facility e.g. river / dam and the general recommendations for construction and maintenance

of wastewater storage facilities must be strictly followed.


April 2020

23

Table 9 Risk assessment

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ACTIVITY AREA APPLICABLE

CORRECTIVE MEASURE

ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES

Nature Extent Duration Magnitude Probability SIGNIFICANCE

OPERATIONAL

Deterioration of water quality

All activities at the KMI airport

Leakage from the ponds may occur

Yes Negative 2 4 8 4 56 Maintenance of oxidation ponds Fencing of area around the pond and limited access to the pond system

Pollution Air

Odour released from the ponds

Yes Negative 2 4 4 3 30

Use of long distance circulators Routine odour monitoring Oxidation pond maintenance

Water Surface and ground water sources receiving contaminated water

yes Negative 2 5 8 4 60

Constant monitoring of water quality

Environmental risk Addition of contaminants causing decrease in crop yield


Yes Negative 2 3 6 3 33

Constant monitoring of water and crop quality

Health Risk Increase in crop yields and nutrients


Yes Positive 2 4 6 3 36

Pathogens associated with waste water




April 2020

24

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The volume of recharge in the area is more than what the airport requires for its annual use.

However, the calculated recharge figures are for the whole catchment area. The values may

slightly change for the study area due to different structural geology characteristics.

Water quality should be monitored to eliminate health related risks. It is recommended that

another monitoring borehole is drilled downgradient from the oxidation dam in the northwest

direction as per groundwater flow and topographic gradient to capture possible contamination

in the event of a spillage or a malfunctioning or excessive leakage of the oxidation pond. Surface

water should also be sampled and analysed for quality to monitor contamination by wastewater

flowing from the oxidation dam.

The overall water quality from analysed boreholes is suitable for irrigation use. However,

attention must be paid to the guidelines below (Table 7) set for discharge of treated wastewater

from a pond system for irrigation.

Guide for re-use and discharge of treated wastewater from a pond system for irrigation (WRC 2010)

Guidelines for the utilisation of treated effluents for irrigation

Irrigation of: Oxidation pond system

Vegetables and crops consumed raw by man Lawns at swimming pools, nursery schools, children’s playgrounds

Not Permissible

Crops for human consumption which are not eaten raw (vegetables, fruit, sugarcane) Cultivation of cut flowers

Any type of irrigation permissible on its merits Effective draining and drying before harvesting is essential

Grazing for cattle excluding milk producing animals

Any type of irrigation permissible but not during grazing Grazing only permissible after effective draining and drying – no pools Not permissible as drinking water for animals

Crops not for grazing, but utilised as dry Fodder Crop cultivated for seed purposes only tree plantations Nurseries – cut flowers any park or sports field only during Development and before opening thereof

Any type of irrigation permissible

Sports fields where contact is often made with Only flood irrigation permissible sprinkler

25

the surface, e.g. rugby fields, athletics tracks, etc. School grounds Public parks – special children’s playgrounds excluded

irrigation not permissible No over-irrigation and no pool forming

The use of guidelines to identify potential impacts associated with oxidation ponds is essential to

eliminate leaching of contaminants to groundwater resources (see Table 7).

Summary of the checklist for identification of potential impacts associated with oxidation ponds (WRC, 2010)

Design

Are the ponds lined/fully covered?

What kind of lining is used?

Is the anaerobic pond depth as per the recommended depth of 3m?

Is the oxidation pond/s depth as per the recommended depth of 1m-1.5m?

Do you know the size of the ponds (volume)?

What is the size/volume of the ponds (please specify units)?

What population size is served by the pond system?

Is the pond system appropriately sized for this population?

Is the population served lower, middle or upper class?

Is there a flow meter at the inlet?

Is the flow meter at the inlet functional?

Is there space available for future upgrades/expansion?

Are there any fluctuations in input load (e.g. seasonal variations)?

Are the fluctuations frequent?

Any further comments?

Maintenance

Do the ponds appear to be well maintained (grass cut, screenings removed, ponds not

blocked/overflowing)?

Is there a responsible person assigned to cut grass/weeds around the ponds?

Are screenings regularly removed?

Are the screenings discarded appropriately?

Are there prescribed maintenance procedures for process controllers?

Is there algal growth or slime layer removal from the ponds?

Have the ponds ever been desludged?

How frequently are ponds desludged

Is any mechanical equipment used for performance enhancement (e.g. aerators)?

Is the mechanical equipment in good working condition?


Operation and Performance

Do you measure the influent flow?

What is the effluent type treated by the ponds system?

Do the ponds receive water contaminated with farm chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, etc)?

Do the ponds receive abattoir waste?

Is there any odour release on-site (i.e. the site smells poor)?

26

Is dilution water available for night soil dumping?

Is the interconnection between the ponds clear (can see flow from one pond to the next)?

Is the sludge layer at the bottom of the ponds measured from time to time to determine if

Sufficient capacity is available?

Are the ponds overflowing?

Is there population growth in the area?

Any other comments?

Safety

Is the site enclosed (fences, gates and locks)?

Are there "no trespassing" and health warning signs?

Are prescribed health and safety procedures adhered to?

Do staff have necessary safety clothing and equipment?

Do you feel that there is public awareness of safety aspects related to pond systems (i.e. do

not enter site, don't swim, etc)?

How far are the ponds located from community dwellings?

Are there regularly animals on-site (e.g. cattle grazing)?

Are there sanitary facilities on-site (e.g. toilet, wash basin)?

Is there a room on-site (shelter, storage of equipment, eating)?

Is a drinking water tap available on-site?

Have there been any cases of vandalism (e.g. fence stealing)

Any other comments?

Supervision and Management

Have responsibilities for the supervision of the site been assigned?

Is the responsible process controller appropriately trained?

Is a checklist/logbook regularly completed or updated?

Is a report highlighting issues of concern regularly produced?

Are the findings discussed at appropriate meetings?

Are required actions timeously implemented?

Any other comments?

Water Quality Monitoring

Is the quality of the influent to the ponds monitored?

Is the quality of the final effluent leaving the ponds monitored?

What happens to the final effluent from the pond system?

Are there any boreholes in use near the ponds?

If there are boreholes near the pond systems, are the boreholes regularly monitored?


General remarks and precautions (WRC, 2010)

• In order to obviate the irrigation system causing a nuisance in time, evidence must be

produced that the type of soil and the size of the surface as well as the type of crop

concerned are suitable for irrigation with the proposed quantity and quality of water.

• The piping used for effluent be markedly different from the piping used for drinking water in

respect of colour, type of material and construction. This precaution is necessary in order to

obviate accidental cross-coupling of piping.

27

• In order to prevent persons from unwittingly drinking effluent water or washing with it, the

taps, valves and sprayers of the irrigation system must be so designed that only authorised

persons can open them or bring them into operation.

• Every water point where uninformed persons could possibly drink effluent water must be

provided with a notice in clearly legible English, Afrikaans and any other appropriate official

languages, indicating that it is potentially dangerous to drink the water.

• The expression ‘after effective draining and drying” in the above-mentioned table means

that the particular act may take place only when no pools or drops of effluent are evident in

the irrigation area concerned.

• All possible precautions should be taken to ensure that no surface or underground water is

contaminated by the irrigation water, especially where the latter does not comply with the

general standard. Excessive irrigation must therefore be avoided and the irrigation area

protected against storm water by means of suitable contours and screening walls.

• Sprinkler irrigation shall be permitted only if no spray is blown over to areas where, such

irrigation is forbidden. In this connection the quality of the effluent, the use of such

adjoining area and its distance from the irrigation area must be taken into consideration

before sprinkler irrigation is permitted.

28

REFERENCES

Aller, L., Lehr, J.H., Petty, R. 1987. DRASTIC: A standardized system for evaluating ground water

pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings: NWWA/EPA Series, EPA-600/2-87-035.

De Souza, P. and Jack, U. (2010). Guide for management of waste stabilisation pond systems in South

Africa. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, RSA. Report NO. TT 471/10. Pp 1-63.

Parsons, R. and Conrad, J. (1998). Exploratory notes for the aquifer classification map of South

Africa, Water Research Commission Report No. KV 116/98.

Schulze, R.E. and Maharaj, M. 2007. A-Pan Equivalent Reference Potential Evaporation. In: Schulze,

R.E. (Ed). 2007. South African Atlas of Climatology and Agrohydrology. Water Research Commission,

Pretoria, RSA, WRC Report 1489/1/06, Section 13.2.


April 2020

29

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Step test data

STEPPED DISCHARGE TEST AND RECOVERY

BOREHOLE NO. : BH:1 STATIC WATER LEVEL (mbdl): 46.69 DEPTH OF PUMP (mbdl): 63.00

DISCHARGE RATE 1 Time Recovery

1 DISCHARGE RATE 2 Time Recovery


3

DATE: 18-Mar-20 (min) (m) DATE: 18-Mar-20 (min) (m) DATE: (min) (m)

TIME: 11H15 0 50.71 TIME: 12H15 0 TIME:

0 62.76

Time Drawdown Yield 1 Time Drawdown Yield 1 Time Drawdown Yield 1 57.53

(min) (m) (l/s) 2 (min) (m) (l/s) 2 (min) (m) (l/s) 2 54.27

0 47.23 0.44 3 0 50.71 0.90 3 0 3 52.45

1 48.35 0.44 5 1 52.94 0.90 5 1 5 51.14

2 49.49

0.44 7 2 53.87 0.90 7 2 7 49.57

3 49.66 0.44 10 3 55.46 0.90 10 3 10 48.69

5 49.75 0.44 15 5 57.13 0.90 15 5 15 48.03

7 49.84 0.44 20 7 58.75 0.90 20 7 20 47.81

10 49.97 0.44 30 10 59.38 0.90 30 9 30 47.65

15 50.08 0.44 40 15 62.76 0.90 40 15 40 47.54

20 50.13 0.44 50 20 50 20 50 47.43

30 50.26 0.44 60 30 60 30 60 47.31

40 50.37 0.44 70 40 70 35 70 47.23

50 50.60 0.44 80 50 80 50 80

60 50.71 0.44 90 60 90 60 90

70 100 70

100 70 100

80 110 80

110 80 110

90 120 90 120 90 120

100 150 100 150 100 150

110 180 110 180 110 180

120 210 120 210 120 210

Average yield (l/s): 0.44 240 Average yield: 0.90 240 Average yield:

240




30

DATE: 20-Mar-20 (min) (m) DATE: (min) (m) DATE: (min) (m)

TIME: 16H30 0 0.00 TIME:

0 0.00 TIME:

0

Time Drawdown Yield 1 Time Drawdown Yield 1 Time Drawdown Yield 1

(min) (m) (l/s) 2 (min) (m) (l/s) 2 (min) (m) (l/s) 2

0 3 0 3 0 0.00 3

1 5 1 5 1 5

2 7 2 7 2 7

3 10 3 10 3 10

4 15 5 15 5 15

5 20 7 20 7 20

10 30 10 30 10 30

15 40 15 40 15 40

20 50 20 50 20 50

30 60 30 60 30 60

40 70 40 70 40 70

50 80 50 80 50 80

60 90 60 90 60 90

70 100 70 100 70 100

80 110 80 110 80 110

90 120 90 120 90 120

100 150 100 150 100 150

110 180 110 180 110 180

120 210 120 210 120 210

150 240 150 240 150 240

180 300 180 300 180 300

210 360 210 360 210 360

240 420 240 420 240 420

300 480 300 480 300 480

360 540 360 540 360 540

420 600 420 600 420 600

480 660 480 660 480 660

Average yield:

720 Average yield:

720 Average yield:

720

31






3

DATE: 16-Mar-20 (min) (m) DATE: 16-Mar-20 (min) (m) DATE: 16-Mar-20 (min) (m)

TIME: 12H00 0 50.60 TIME: 13H00 0 TIME:

14H00 0 69.05



0 48.20 0.32 3 0 50.60 0.96 3 0 63.12 1.82 3 55.45

1 48.70 0.32 5 1 51.52 0.96 5 1 65.50 1.82 5 52.40

2 49.01

0.32 7 2 52.45 0.96 7 2 68.47 1.82 7 51.19

3 49.12 0.32 10 3 53.58 0.96 10 3 69.05 1.82 10 50.32

5 49.24 0.32 15 5 54.01 0.96 15 5 15 49.53

7 49.35 0.32 20 7 54.52 0.96 20 7 20 49.23

10 49.47 0.32 30 10 55.48 0.96 30 9 30 48.82

15 49.54 0.32 40 15 56.75 0.96 40 15 40 48.71

20 49.67 0.32 50 20 57.22 0.96 50 20 50 48.61

30 49.72 0.32 60 30 59.55 0.96 60 30 60 48.50

40 49.88 0.32 70 40 60.79 0.96 70 35 70

50 50.07 0.32 80 50 61.64 0.96 80 50 80

60 50.60 0.32 90 60 63.12 0.96 90 60 90

70 100 70

100 70 100

80 110 80

110 80 110

90 120 90 120 90 120

100 150 100 150 100 150

110 180 110 180 110 180

120 210 120 210 120 210

Average yield (l/s): 0.32 240 Average yield: 0.96 240 Average yield: 1.82 240




DATE: (min) (m) DATE: (min) (m) DATE: (min) (m)

TIME:

0 0.00 TIME:

0 0.00 TIME:

0



32

0 3 0 3 0 0.00 3

1 5 1 5 1 5

2 7 2 7 2 7

3 10 3 10 3 10

4 15 5 15 5 15

5 20 7 20 7 20

10 30 10 30 10 30

15 40 15 40 15 40

20 50 20 50 20 50

30 60 30 60 30 60

40 70 40 70 40 70

50 80 50 80 50 80

60 90 60 90 60 90

70 100 70 100 70 100

80 110 80 110 80 110

90 120 90 120 90 120

100 150 100 150 100 150

110 180 110 180 110 180

120 210 120 210 120 210

150 240 150 240 150 240

180 300 180 300 180 300

210 360 210 360 210 360

240 420 240 420 240 420

300 480 300 480 300 480

360 540 360 540 360 540

420 600 420 600 420 600

480 660 480 660 480 660

Average yield:

720 Average yield:

720 Average yield:

720

33






3


TIME: 13H30 0 44.86 TIME: 14H30 0 TIME:

15H30 0 93.26



0 43.92 0.37 3 0 44.86 0.94 3 0 47.15 2.52 3 63.63

1 44.24 0.37 5 1 45.55 0.94 5 1 48.65 2.52 5 54.24

2 44.25

0.37 7 2 45.73 0.94 7 2 49.57 2.52 7 50.92

3 44.27 0.37 10 3 45.90 0.94 10 3 50.13 2.52 10 50.13

5 44.28 0.37 15 5 46.05 0.94 15 5 51.01 2.52 15 49.10

7 44.29 0.37 20 7 46.15 0.94 20 7 51.53 2.52 20 46.40

10 44.31 0.37 30 10 46.34 0.94 30 9 52.65 2.52 30 46.11

15 44.38 0.37 40 15 46.46 0.94 40 15 53.95 2.52 40 45.78

20 44.47 0.37 50 20 46.58 0.94 50 20 54.44 2.52 50 45.25

30 44.60 0.37 60 30 46.77 0.94 60 30 56.76 2.52 60 44.88

40 44.71 0.37 70 40 46.94 0.94 70 35 58.20 2.52 70 44.56

50 44.78 0.37 80 50 47.09 0.94 80 50 60.21 2.52 80 44.22

60 44.86 0.37 90 60 47.15 0.94 90 60 62.51 2.52 90 43.95

70 100 70

100 70 100

80 110 80

110 80 110

90 120 90 120 90 120

100 150 100 150 100 150

110 180 110 180 110 180

120 210 120 210 120 210






TIME: 16H30 0 93.26 TIME:

0 0.00 TIME:

0



0 62.51 4.03 3 0 3 0 0.00 3

1 64.92 4.03 5 1 5 1 5

34

2 69.63 4.03 7 2 7 2 7

3 74.45 4.03 10 3 10 3 10

4 77.09 4.03 15 5 15 5 15

5 85.21 4.03 20 7 20 7 20

10 93.26 4.03 30 10 30 10 30

15 40 15 40 15 40

20 50 20 50 20 50

30 60 30 60 30 60

40 70 40 70 40 70

50 80 50 80 50 80

60 90 60 90 60 90

70 100 70 100 70 100

80 110 80 110 80 110

90 120 90 120 90 120

100 150 100 150 100 150

110 180 110 180 110 180

120 210 120 210 120 210

150 240 150 240 150 240

180 300 180 300 180 300

210 360 210 360 210 360

240 420 240 420 240 420

300 480 300 480 300 480

360 540 360 540 360 540

420 600 420 600 420 600

480 660 480 660 480 660

Average yield: 4.03 720 Average yield:

720 Average yield:

720

35






3


TIME: 11H00 0 33.18 TIME: 12H00 0 TIME:

13H00 0 40.27



0 32.60 0.42 3 0 33.18 0.93 3 0 34.03 2.09 3 39.87

1 32.84 0.42 5 1 33.25 0.93 5 1 34.11 2.09 5 39.63

2 32.86

0.42 7 2 33.31 0.93 7 2 34.27 2.09 7 39.38

3 32.87 0.42 10 3 33.39 0.93 10 3 34.52 2.09 10 39.01

5 32.89 0.42 15 5 33.52 0.93 15 5 34.65 2.09 15 38.40

7 32.91 0.42 20 7 33.60 0.93 20 7 34.74 2.09 20 37.88

10 32.94 0.42 30 10 33.71 0.93 30 9 34.82 2.09 30 36.60

15 33.01 0.42 40 15 33.75 0.93 40 15 34.88 2.09 40 35.41

20 33.05 0.42 50 20 33.80 0.93 50 20 34.94 2.09 50 34.23

30 33.09 0.42 60 30 33.86 0.93 60 30 35.06 2.09 60 32.90

40 33.12 0.42 70 40 33.91 0.93 70 35 35.11 2.09 70

50 33.15 0.42 80 50 33.96 0.93 80 50 35.15 2.09 80

60 33.18 0.42 90 60 34.03 0.93 90 60 35.19 2.09 90

70 100 70

100 70 100

80 110 80

110 80 110

90 120 90 120 90 120

100 150 100 150 100 150

110 180 110 180 110 180

120 210 120 210 120 210





DATE: 23-Mar-20 (min) (m) DATE: 23-Mar-20 (min) (m) DATE: (min) (m)

TIME: 14H00 0 38.27 TIME: 15H00 0 40.27 TIME:

0



0 35.19 4.5 3 0 38.27 8.00 3 0 40.27 3

1 35.72 4.5 5 1 38.32 8.00 5 1 5

36

2 36.22 4.5 7 2 38.36 8.00 7 2 7

3 36.89 4.5 10 3 38.41 8.00 10 3 10

4 37.23 4.5 15 5 38.49 8.00 15 5 15

5 37.44 4.5 20 7 38.59 8.00 20 7 20

10 37.68 4.5 30 10 38.73 8.00 30 10 30

15 37.77 4.5 40 15 38.95 8.00 40 15 40

20 37.95 4.5 50 20 39.16 8.00 50 20 50

30 38.18 4.5 60 30 39.45 8.00 60 30 60

40 38.22 4.5 70 40 39.77 8.00 70 40 70

50 38.24 4.5 80 50 39.98 8.00 80 50 80

60 38.27 4.5 90 60 40.27 8.00 90 60 90

70 100 70 100 70 100

80 110 80 110 80 110

90 120 90 120 90 120

100 150 100 150 100 150

110 180 110 180 110 180

120 210 120 210 120 210

150 240 150 240 150 240

180 300 180 300 180 300

210 360 210 360 210 360

240 420 240 420 240 420

300 480 300 480 300 480

360 540 360 540 360 540

420 600 420 600 420 600

480 660 480 660 480 660


720 Average yield:

720

37






3


TIME: 14H00 0 11.11 TIME: 15H00 0 TIME: 16H00 0 110.53



0 3.02 0.56 3 0 11.11 1.05 3 0 47.33 2.89 3 73.50

1 4.10 0.56 5 1 12.53 1.05 5 1 55.82 2.89 5 62.19

2 4.60

0.56 7 2 14.01 1.05 7 2 59.71 2.89 7 53.45

3 5.18 0.56 10 3 15.33 1.05 10 3 67.49 2.89 10 45.22

5 6.02 0.56 15 5 17.72 1.05 15 5 78.24 2.89 15 39.18

7 6.75 0.56 20 7 19.40 1.05 20 7 88.99 2.89 20 32.20

10 7.57 0.56 30 10 21.45 1.05 30 9 105.18 2.89 30 27.31

15 8.52 0.56 40 15 25.34 1.05 40 15 110.53 2.89 40 24.18

20 9.16 0.56 50 20 29.42 50 20 50 20.82

30 9.78 0.56 60 30 36.32 60 30 60 17.45

40 10.37 0.56 70 40 41.27 70 35 70 15.19

50 10.77 0.56 80 50 45.03 80 50 80 13.23

60 11.11 0.56 90 60 47.33 90 60 90 10.18

70 100 70

100 70 100 8.60

80 110 80

110 80 110 7.45

90 120 90 120 90 120 6.57

100 150 100 150 100 150 5.72

110 180 110 180 110 180 4.81

120 210 120 210 120 210 3.48





DATE: (min) (m) DATE: (min) (m) DATE: (min) (m)

TIME:

0 TIME:

0 0.00 TIME:

0



0 3 0 3 0 0.00 3

1 5 1 5 1 5

38

2 7 2 7 2 7

3 10 3 10 3 10

4 15 5 15 5 15

5 20 7 20 7 20

10 30 10 30 10 30

15 40 15 40 15 40

20 50 20 50 20 50

30 60 30 60 30 60

40 70 40 70 40 70

50 80 50 80 50 80

60 90 60 90 60 90

70 100 70 100 70 100

80 110 80 110 80 110

90 120 90 120 90 120

100 150 100 150 100 150

110 180 110 180 110 180

120 210 120 210 120 210

150 240 150 240 150 240

180 300 180 300 180 300

210 360 210 360 210 360

240 420 240 420 240 420

300 480 300 480 300 480

360 540 360 540 360 540

420 600 420 600 420 600

480 660 480 660 480 660

Average yield:

720 Average yield:

720 Average yield:

720

39






3


TIME: 15H30 0 14.94 TIME: 16H30 0 TIME: 17H30 0 109.85



0 8.69 0.23 3 0 14.94 0.53 3 0 25.97 1.07 3 71.61

1 9.51 0.23 5 1 15.50 0.53 5 1 26.30 1.07 5 59.29

2 9.89

0.23 7 2 15.87 0.53 7 2 27.63 1.07 7 53.42

3 10.46 0.23 10 3 16.30 0.53 10 3 28.81 1.07 10 48.50

5 10.97 0.23 15 5 17.15 0.53 15 5 30.79 1.07 15 40.00

7 11.50 0.23 20 7 17.84 0.53 20 7 32.37 1.07 20 33.25

10 12.03 0.23 30 10 18.86 0.53 30 9 34.32 1.07 30 28.32

15 12.72 0.23 40 15 20.25 0.53 40 15 35.25 1.07 40 25.44

20 12.98 0.23 50 20 21.54 50 20 38.15 50 23.15

30 13.47 0.23 60 30 22.95 60 30 41.25 60 20.00

40 14.09 0.23 70 40 24.14 70 35 43.62 70 17.42

50 14.56 0.23 80 50 25.01 80 50 45.48 80 13.73

60 14.94 0.23 90 60 25.97 90 60 48.73 90 10.62

70 100 70

100 70 100 9.72

80 110 80

110 80 110 9.05

90 120 90 120 90 120 8.71

100 150 100 150 100 150

110 180 110 180 110 180

120 210 120 210 120 210






TIME: 18H30 0 109.85 TIME:

0 0.00 TIME:

0



40

0 48.73 3.45 3 0 3 0 0.00 3

1 50.35 3.45 5 1 5 1 5

2 54.98 3.45 7 2 7 2 7

3 61.94 3.45 10 3 10 3 10

4 73.64 3.45 15 5 15 5 15

5 80.76 3.45 20 7 20 7 20

10 87.54 3.45 30 10 30 10 30

15 96.70 3.45 40 15 40 15 40

20 109.85 3.45 50 20 50 20 50

30 60 30 60 30 60

40 70 40 70 40 70

50 80 50 80 50 80

60 90 60 90 60 90

70 100 70 100 70 100

80 110 80 110 80 110

90 120 90 120 90 120

100 150 100 150 100 150

110 180 110 180 110 180

120 210 120 210 120 210

150 240 150 240 150 240

180 300 180 300 180 300

210 360 210 360 210 360

240 420 240 420 240 420

300 480 300 480 300 480

360 540 360 540 360 540

420 600 420 600 420 600

480 660 480 660 480 660


720 Average yield:

720

41

Appendix 2: Constant test data

CONSTANT DISCHARGE TEST AND RECOVERY DATA

BOREHOLE NO:

BH:1

OBSERVATION BOREHOLE 1 OBSERVATION BOREHOLE 2

OBSERVATION BOREHOLE 3

PUMP DEPTH (mbdl): 63.00 No. : No. :

No. :

WATER LEVEL (mbdl): 47.23 DATUM LEVEL (magl):

DATUM LEVEL (magl):

DATUM LEVEL (magl):

TEST DATE:

18-Mar-20

CASING DEPTH (mbdl):



STARTED TIME: 14H15

BOREHOLE DEPTH :

BOREHOLE DEPTH :

BOREHOLE DEPTH :

TEST DATE:

19-Mar-20

WATER LEVEL:

WATER LEVEL:

WATER LEVEL:

COMPLETED TIME: 17H15 DISTANCE (m): DISTANCE (m): DISTANCE (m):

TIME - PUMPED (min): 1440 TIME-RECOVERY(min): 840 TOTAL TEST TIME:

840.00 AVERAGE YIELD (l/s): 0.60

Time Drawdown

Yield

Recovery Time

Drawdown

Rec Time

Drawdown Rec Time

Drawdown

Rec

(min) (m) (l/s) (m) (min) (m) (m) (min) (m) (m) (min) (m)

(m)

0 47.23 0.60 57.85 0 0 0.00 0 0.00

1 47.83 0.60 55.75 1 1 1

2 49.49 0.60 53.15 2 2 2

3 49.75 0.60 51.40 3 3 3

5 49.98 0.60 49.35 5 5 5

7 50.33 0.60 48.85 7 7 7

10 51.50 0.60 48.51 10 10 10

15 51.89 0.60 48.40 15 15 15

20 52.25 0.60 48.23 20 20 20

30 52.62 0.60 48.07 30 30 30

40 52.74 0.60 47.85 40 40 40

60 52.85 0.60 47.70 60 60 60

42

90 52.90 0.60 47.57 90 90 90

120 52.96 0.60 47.43 120 120 120

150 53.24 0.60 47.53 150 150 150

180 53.33 0.60 47.27 180 180 180

210 53.45 0.60 210 210 210

240 53.66 0.60 240 240 240

300 53.74 0.60 300 300 300

360 53.92 0.60 360 360 360

420 54.15 0.60 420 420 420

480 54.37 0.60 480 480 480

540 54.52 0.60 540 540 540

600 54.63 0.60 600 600 600

720 54.74 0.60 720 720 720

840 54.81 0.60 840 840 840

960 54.93 0.60 960 960 960

1080 55.01 0.60 1080 1080 1080

1200 55.64 0.60 1200 1200 1200

1320 56.59 0.60 1320 1320 1320

1440 57.85 0.60 1440 1440 1440

1500 1500 1500 1500

43


BOREHOLE NO:

BH:2




No. :


DATUM LEVEL (magl):

DATUM LEVEL (magl):

TEST DATE:

16-Mar-20




STARTED TIME: 15H15

BOREHOLE DEPTH :

BOREHOLE DEPTH :

BOREHOLE DEPTH :

TEST DATE:

17-Mar-20

WATER LEVEL: WATER LEVEL:

WATER LEVEL:



840.00 AVERAGE YIELD (l/s):

Time Drawdown

Yield

Recovery Time

Drawdown

Rec Time

Drawdown Rec Time Drawdown


0 48.50 1.00 64.60 0 0 0.00 0 0.00

1 49.55 1.00 60.10 1 1 1

2 50.40 1.00 58.70 2 2 2

3 50.63 1.00 56.13 3 3 3

5 51.52 1.00 53.28 5 5 5

7 52.50 1.00 52.63 7 7 7

10 53.64 1.00 51.93 10 10 10

15 54.51 1.00 51.30 15 15 15

20 55.73 1.00 50.68 20 20 20

30 56.60 1.00 50.05 30 30 30

40 57.45 1.00 49.75 40 40 40

60 58.39 1.00 49.49 60 60 60

90 59.28 1.00 49.03 90 90 90

120 59.76 1.00 48.82 120 120 120

44

150 60.12 1.00 48.71 150 150 150

180 60.39 1.00 48.54 180 180 180

210 60.83 1.00 210 210 210

240 61.48 1.00 240 240 240

300 61.63 1.00 300 300 300

360 61.79 1.00 360 360 360

420 61.90 1.00 420 420 420

480 62.22 1.00 480 480 480

540 62.48 1.00 540 540 540

600 62.69 1.00 600 600 600

720 62.87 1.00 720 720 720

840 63.19 1.00 840 840 840

960 63.49 1.00 960 960 960

1080 63.77 1.00 1080 1080 1080

1200 64.03 1.00 1200 1200 1200

1320 64.28 1.00 1320 1320 1320

1440 64.60 1.00 1440 1440 1440

1500 1500 1500 1500

45


BOREHOLE NO:

BH:3




No. :


DATUM LEVEL (magl):

DATUM LEVEL (magl):

TEST DATE:

21-Mar-20




STARTED TIME: 05H00

BOREHOLE DEPTH :

BOREHOLE DEPTH :

BOREHOLE DEPTH :

TEST DATE:

22-Mar-20

WATER LEVEL:

WATER LEVEL:

WATER LEVEL:



840.00

AVERAGE YIELD (l/s): 2.40

Time Drawdown

Yield

Recovery Time

Drawdown

Rec Time

Drawdown Rec

Time

Drawdown

Rec

(min) (m) (l/s) (m) (min) (m) (m) (min) (m) (m)

(min) (m)

(m)

0 43.95 2.40 85.34 0 0 0.00 0 0.00

1 44.43 2.40 75.02 1 1 1

2 44.98 2.40 65.55 2 2 2

3 45.38 2.40 52.90 3 3 3

5 45.84 2.40 51.12 5 5 5

7 46.30 2.40 50.49 7 7 7

10 46.99 2.40 50.01 10 10 10

15 48.16 2.40 49.39 15 15 15

20 49.38 2.40 48.46 20 20 20

30 50.20 2.40 47.72 30 30 30

40 50.72 2.40 46.15 40 40 40

60 51.45 2.40 45.64 60 60 60

90 52.29 2.40 44.51 90 90 90

120 52.07 2.40 43.96 120 120 120

46

150 53.81 2.40 150 150 150

180 54.54 2.40 180 180 180

210 55.27 2.40 210 210 210

240 55.99 2.40 240 240 240

300 57.45 2.40 300 300 300

360 58.91 2.40 360 360 360

420 60.36 2.40 420 420 420

480 61.79 2.40 480 480 480

540 63.24 2.40 540 540 540

600 64.69 2.40 600 600 600

720 67.60 2.40 720 720 720

840 70.51 2.40 840 840 840

960 73.43 2.40 960 960 960

1080 76.35 2.40 1080 1080 1080

1200 79.27 2.40 1200 1200 1200

1320 82.15 2.40 1320 1320 1320

1440 85.34 2.40 1440 1440 1440

1500 1500 1500 1500

47


BOREHOLE NO:

BH:4




No. :


DATUM LEVEL (magl):

DATUM LEVEL (magl):

TEST DATE:

23-Mar-20




STARTED TIME: 17H00

BOREHOLE DEPTH :

BOREHOLE DEPTH :

BOREHOLE DEPTH :

TEST DATE:

24-Mar-20

WATER LEVEL:

WATER LEVEL:

WATER LEVEL:



840.00


Time Drawdown

Yield

Recovery Time

Drawdown

Rec Time

Drawdown Rec

Time

Drawdown

Rec


(min) (m)

(m)

0 32.90 8.00 45.72 0 0 0.00 0 0.00

1 33.05 8.00 45.20 1 1 1

2 33.19 8.00 44.73 2 2 2

3 33.32 8.00 44.22 3 3 3

5 33.61 8.00 43.18 5 5 5

7 33.91 8.00 42.14 7 7 7

10 34.15 8.00 40.61 10 10 10

15 34.32 8.00 40.23 15 15 15

20 34.57 8.00 39.84 20 20 20

30 34.99 8.00 39.05 30 30 30

40 35.42 8.00 38.25 40 40 40

60 35.81 8.00 36.63 60 60 60

48

90 37.50 8.00 34.53 90 90 90

120 37.71 8.00 34.09 120 120 120

150 38.11 8.00 33.65 150 150 150

180 38.52 8.00 32.12 180 180 180

210 38.90 8.00 210 210 210

240 39.31 8.00 240 240 240

300 40.10 8.00 300 300 300

360 40.92 8.00 360 360 360

420 41.71 8.00 420 420 420

480 42.53 8.00 480 480 480

540 43.34 8.00 540 540 540

600 44.10 8.00 600 600 600

720 45.72 8.00 720 720 720

840 840 840 840

49


BOREHOLE NO:

BH:5




No. :


DATUM LEVEL (magl):

DATUM LEVEL (magl):

TEST DATE:

14-Mar-20




STARTED TIME: 07H30

BOREHOLE DEPTH :

BOREHOLE DEPTH :

BOREHOLE DEPTH :

TEST DATE:

15-Mar-20

WATER LEVEL:

WATER LEVEL:

WATER LEVEL:



840.00


Time Drawdown

Yield

Recovery Time

Drawdown

Rec Time

Drawdown Rec

Time

Drawdown

Rec


(min) (m)

(m)

0 3.48 0.80 85.30 0 0 0.00 0 0.00

1 4.50 0.80 81.13 1 1 1

2 5.61 0.80 76.48 2 2 2

3 6.45 0.80 74.15 3 3 3

5 7.88 0.80 69.50 5 5 5

7 8.81 0.80 65.82 7 7 7

10 9.90 0.80 61.08 10 10 10

15 11.08 0.80 54.10 15 15 15

20 12.44 0.80 46.11 20 20 20

30 13.58 0.80 30.51 30 30 30

40 14.81 0.80 21.14 40 40 40

60 16.78 0.80 17.32 60 60 60

90 19.12 0.80 15.27 90 90 90

120 22.11 0.80 13.59 120 120 120

50

150 24.48 0.80 11.17 150 150 150

180 26.79 0.80 9.80 180 180 180

210 27.70 0.80 7.55 210 210 210

240 29.50 0.80 6.49 240 240 240

300 34.10 0.80 5.05 300 300 300

360 37.04 0.80 4.70 360 360 360

420 39.97 0.80 420 420 420

480 43.49 0.80 480 480 480

540 46.00 0.80 540 540 540

600 48.62 0.80 600 600 600

720 53.84 0.80 720 720 720

840 59.08 0.80 840 840 840

960 64.32 0.80 960 960 960

1080 69.56 0.80 1080 1080 1080

1200 74.81 0.80 1200 1200 1200

1320 80.05 0.80 1320 1320 1320

1440 85.30 0.80 1440 1440 1440

1500 1500 1500 1500

51


BOREHOLE NO:

BH:6




No. :


DATUM LEVEL (magl):

DATUM LEVEL (magl):

TEST DATE:

10-Mar-20




STARTED TIME: 05H00

BOREHOLE DEPTH :

BOREHOLE DEPTH :

BOREHOLE DEPTH :

TEST DATE:

11-Mar-20

WATER LEVEL:

WATER LEVEL:

WATER LEVEL:

COMPLETED TIME:

DISTANCE (m): DISTANCE (m): DISTANCE (m):


840.00 AVERAGE YIELD (l/s):

Time Drawdown

Yield

Recovery Time

Drawdown

Rec Time

Drawdown Rec Time Drawdown


0 8.71 1.40 75.85. 0 0 0.00 0 0.00

1 13.47 1.40 73.68 1 1 1

2 15.05 1.40 69.67 2 2 2

3 16.62 1.40 66.19 3 3 3

5 18.91 1.40 60.30 5 5 5

7 22.03 1.40 54.99 7 7 7

10 25.54 1.40 49.04 10 10 10

15 30.53 1.40 42.19 15 15 15

20 33.96 1.40 39.95 20 20 20

30 39.38 1.40 35.44 30 30 30

40 42.60 1.40 32.55 40 40 40

60 43.29 1.40 29.37 60 60 60

90 44.34 1.40 27.42 90 90 90

52

120 45.73 1.40 24.61 120 120 120

150 47.46 1.40 21.44 150 150 150

180 48.61 1.40 19.17 180 180 180

210 49.19 1.40 16.25 210 210 210

240 50.48 1.40 13.85 240 240 240

300 52.67 1.40 10.50 300 300 300

360 54.30 1.40 9.74 360 360 360

420 55.49 1.40 8.80 420 420 420

480 56.40 1.40 8.73 480 480 480

540 57.30 1.40 540 540 540

600 58.45 1.40 600 600 600

720 60.06 1.40 720 720 720

840 63.29 1.40 840 840 840

960 65.37 1.40 960 960 960

1080 68.16 1.40 1080 1080 1080

1200 71.54 1.40 1200 1200 1200

1320 73.72 1.40 1320 1320 1320

1440 75.85 1.40 1440 1440 1440

1500 1500 1500 1500


April 2020

53

Appendix 3: Water Quality data

Samples Received:

Sampling date:

Sampled by:

Report # :

Order #:

Acc # :

Testing Date (ICP):

Sample condition:

Sub-contractor:

C21-00539

Parameter: Unit: Results:

Dissolved Aluminium as Al mg/l <0.05

Dissolved Arsenic as As mg/l <0.002

Dissolved Boron as B mg/l <0.07

Dissolved Barium as Ba mg/l 0.006

Dissolved Calcium as Ca mg/l 7.5

Dissolved Cadmium as Cd mg/l <0.0009

Dissolved Cobalt as Co mg/l <0.003

Dissolved Chromium as Cr mg/l <0.003

Dissolved Copper as Cu mg/l <0.02

Dissolved Iron as Fe mg/l <0.05

Dissolved Mercury as Hg mg/l <0.001

Dissolved Potassium as K mg/l 0.36

Dissolved Magnesium as Mg mg/l 4.0

Dissolved Manganese as Mn mg/l <0.01

Dissolved Molybdenum as Mo mg/l <0.010

Dissolved Sodium as Na mg/l 16

Dissolved Nickel as Ni mg/l <0.005

Dissolved Phosphorous as P mg/l <0.10

Dissolved Sulphur as S mg/l <0.05

Dissolved Antimony as Sb mg/l <0.02

Dissolved Selenium as Se mg/l <0.010

Dissolved Silicon as Si mg/l 23

Dissolved Vanadium as V mg/l <0.01

Dissolved Zinc as Zn mg/l 0.118

Ca Hardness as CaCO3 mg/l 19

Mg Hardness as CaCO3 mg/l 16

Total Hardness as CaCO3 mg/l 35

Sodium Abs. Ratio 1.16

*SANAS Accredited **Not SANAS Accredited

Tests marked “Not SANAS Accredited” in this report are not included in the SANAS Schedule of Accreditation for this laboratory.

Signed at end of report.

This report relates only to the sample/s tested by LABSERVE. Results and advice are subject to correct sampling procedure being followed. Labserve does not accept

responsibility for any matters arising from the further use of these results. This report is confidential and is only intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is

addressed. This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without the prior written approval of the Technical Manager. Opinions & interpretations are not accredited.

Uncertainty values available on www.labserve.net.

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Calculation**

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

ICP-OES**

ICP-OES**

Calculation**

ICP-OES**

LAB-001*

ICP-OES**

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Page 1 of 3

Calculation**

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

M99-925

2020-03-23

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Method Reference

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Norms

Test Report - Water Analysis

Acmert Trading 2020-03-17

P.O. Box 19390 2020-03-17

Drinkin

g

wate

r

Bott

led

wate

r

Irrigation

wate

r

Waste

-

wate

r

Good- Supplied Container/s

None

LAB No.

Your ReferenceK.M.I Airport B/H2;

Time: 10:30

1200 C21-00539

None

For the use of:

Nelspruit Unknown

Calculation**

Samples Received:

Sampling date:

Sampled by:

Report # :

Order #:

Acc # :

Sample condition:

Sub-contractor:

C21-00539


pH @ 37°C pH units 6.81

Conductivity @ 25°C mS/m 15

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/l 50

Chloride as Cl mg/l 11.3

Nitrate as N mg/l NR

Ammonium as N mg/l NR

Fluoride as F mg/l NR

Colour mg/l NR

Turbidity mg/l NR

Nitrite as NO2 mg/l NR

Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 105

pHs @ 20°C 8.91

Langelier Index @ 20°C*** -2.10

Alkalinity Hazard mg/l 1.00

Irrigation Class C1-S1








2020-03-17

P.O. Box 19390 2020-03-17

Page 2 of 3

Nelspruit Unknown

2020-03-19


None

LAB No.


Time: 10:30

Bott

led

wate

r


Acmert Trading

Waste

-

wate

r

Irrigation

wate

r

For the use of:

Testing Date (Gallery):

1200 C21-00539

None

M99-925

Drinkin

g

wate

r

Gallery**

Norms

Gallery**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Calculation**

Calculation**

Calculation**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Method Reference

Gallery**

Calculation**

Gallery**

Samples Received:

Sampling date:

Sampled by:

Report # :

Order #:

Acc # :

Testing Date (Micro):

Sample condition:

Sub-contractor:

C21-00539


Total Coliform cfu/100 ml 2

E. coli cfu/100 ml <1

Total Coliform cfu/100 ml NR

E. coli cfu/100 ml NR

Heterotrophic plate count cfu/ml NR

Faecal Coliforms cfu/100ml NR


**** SANAS Accedited when reported in conjunction with Total coliforms.


Date:




Uncertainty values available on www.labserve.net. Page 3 of 3


LAB No.


Time: 10:30

None

M99-925

2020-03-17

Nelspruit Unknown

2020-03-26

Method Reference

Lab-002*

Lab-002* / ****

EC/TC Count Plates**


None

1200 C21-00539

Aerobic Count Plate**

Colilert**


For the use of:

Norms

Acmert Trading

2020-03-17

2020-03-17

P.O. Box 19390

Drinkin

g

wate

r

Bott

led

wate

r

Waste

-

wate

r

Irrigation

wate

r

Additional information:

*Sample counts are in cfu (colony forming units, assumed to be individual bacterial cells), thus <1 is effectively ND (Non Detected).

***The water may form scale in operating systems.

***The water may corrode unprotected metal & concrete surfaces in the system.

Drinking water

Bottled water

Wastewater

Irrigation water

For further information, please visit our website at www.labserve.net. or contact [email protected].

SANS 241-1:2015 Ed. 2

Norms sources:

SANS 1657:2007 Ed.2

Water Act No. 36 of 1998: General limits for

wastewater discharge into a water source.

DWAF Irrigation Water Quality Guidelines

ND = None Detected*

Not Compliant

Not Requested = NR

Compliant / No limit

SANS 241-1:2015

Ed. 2 :

SANS 1657:2007

Ed.2 :

Water Act No. 36 of

1998

SANS 241 /

Drinking WaterBottled Water

Wastewater for

discharge into a

water source.

Upper limit for

Class 4 (Marginal)

Irrigation water

Physical Determinands Unit

pH @ 37°C pH Units 5 to 9.7 5.0 to 9.5 5.0 to 9.5 6.5 to 8.4

Conductivity @ 25°C mS/m ≤ 170 - 70 to 150 ª <540

Total Alkalinity as CaCO₃ mg/l - - - -

Chloride as Cl mg/l ≤ 300 - - <700

Nitrate as N¹ mg/l ≤ 11 10 15 -

Fluoride as F mg/l ≤ 1.5 ᵇ 1.0 15

Colour mg/l ≤15 20 - -

≤ 1.0****

≤ 5.0

Total Dissolved Solids mg/l ≤ 1200 - - -

Langelier Index @ 20°C ² -0.5 to 0.5 -0.5 to 0.5 -0.5 to 0.5 -0.5 to 0.5

Ca Hardness as CaCO₃ mg/l - - - -

Mg Hardness as CaCO₃ mg/l - - - -

Total Hardness as CaCO₃ mg/l - - - -

Dissolved Aluminium as Al mg/l ≤ 0.30 0.15 - < 20

Dissolved Arsenic as As mg/l ≤ 0.01 0.01 0.02 < 2.0

Dissolved Boron as B ² mg/l ≤ 0.30 5.0 1.0 < 15

Dissolved Barium as Ba mg/l - 0.7 - -

Dissolved Calcium as Ca mg/l - - - -

Dissolved Cadium as Cd mg/l ≤ 0.003 0.003 0.005 < 0.05

Dissolved Cobalt as Co mg/l - - - < 5.0

Dissolved Chromium as Cr mg/l ≤ 0.05 0.05 - -

Dissolved Copper as Cu mg/l ≤ 2.0 0.5 0.01 < 5.0

mg/l ≤ 2.0

≤ 0.3

Dissolved Mercury as Hg mg/l ≤ 0.006 0.001 0.005 -

Dissolved Potassium as K mg/l - - - -

Dissolved Magnesium as Mg mg/l - - - -

≤ 0.4

≤ 0.1

Dissolved Molybdenum as Mo ² mg/l < 0.07 0.07 - < 0.05

Dissolved Sodium as Na mg/l ≤ 200 - <90ª < 460

Dissolved Nickel as Ni mg/l ≤ 0.07 0.02 - < 2.0

Dissolved Phosphorous as P ² mg/l ≤ 5.0 - - -

Dissolved Lead as Pb mg/l ≤ 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 2.0

Dissolved Sulpher as S mg/l - - - -

Dissolved Antimony as Sb mg/l ≤ 0.02 0.005 - -

Dissolved Selenium as Se mg/l ≤ 0.04 0.01 0.02 < 0.05

Dissolved Silicon as Si mg/l - - - -

Dissolved Vanadium as V mg/l - - - < 1.0

Dissolved Zinc an Zn mg/l ≤ 5.0 5.0 0.1 < 5.0

Chromium as Cr⁶⁺ mg/l - - 0.05 -

Alkalinity Hazard - - - 1.25 to 2.5

Ammonium as N mg/l ≤1.5 - - -

COD as O₂ ³ mg/l - - 75 -

Free Chlorine as Cl₂ mg/l ≤ 5.0 - 0.25 -

Total Chlorine as Cl₂ mg/l - - - -

Free Cyanide as CN mg/l ≤ 0.2 - 0.02 -

Nitrite as NO₂ ¹ ⁴ mg/l ≤ 0.9 - - -

Nitrogen as N mg/l - - - < 30

Ortho-Phosphate as P mg/l - - 10 -

Oxygen Absorbed - 4 hrs mg/l - - <10 ᶜ -

Phenols mg/l ≤ 0.01 - - -

Soap, Oil and Grease mg/l - - 2.5 -

Sodium Abs. Ratio - - - < 15

E.coli or Feacal Coliforms count/100ml Not detected Not detected 1000 < 1000

Total Coliforms count/100ml ≤ 10 Not detected - -

Heterotrophic plate count count/100ml ≤ 1000 ≤100 - -

1.0 - -

Dissolved Iron as Fe 0.2 0.3 < 20

Dissolved Manganese as Mn mg/l 0.5 0.1 < 10

Compliance Requirements

General / Standard Limit

Turbidity mg/l

Irrigation Class Notes:

planted.

C4-S3 : Very high salinity water. Normally unsuitable for irrigation, can be used in exceptional conditions if soil permeability &

drainage is very good. Sodium is high & could cause sodicity problems on most soils if calcium levels are low. Irrigate with

sufficient water to ensure leaching of salts occurs. Apply gypsum if soil calcium is low. Only salt resistant crops should be

C2-S3 : Medium salinity water with a high Sodium content, this could cause a problem on most soils. Special irrigation practices

are required to facilitate leaching of sodium salts. Soil drainage must be good & gypsum must be added if soil calcium levels are low.

C2-S2 : Medium salinity water suitable for irrigation on most soils & crops provided drainage is good. The sodium content is

also fairly high & this could cause problems on badly drained soils or soils low in available calcium.

must be taken to prevent build-up of soil salinity. The sodium is also high and could cause problems if there is not sufficient

calcium in the soil to ensure Na is leached.

C4-S2 : Very high salinity water - should not normally be used for irrigation except under exceptional conditions. Soil must be

penetrable and well drained and well supplied with calcium. Excess water must be used. Only salt resistant crops should be

planted.

C4-S4 : Very high salinity water - should not normally be used for irrigation except under exceptional conditions. Soil

must be penetrable & well drained. Sodium content is also very high & sodium brak conditions will arise unless soil is very well

drained, if there are sufficient calcium reserves & excess water is applied with each application, leaching of salts will occur. Only

salt resistant crops should be planted.

C1-S1 : Low salinity water suitable for irrigation on most soils without danger of salinity or sodium problems developing.

C2-S1 : Medium salinity water suitable for irrigation on most soils and crops provided drainage is good.

C3-S1 : High salinity water - cannot be used on soils with restricted drainage. Even with good drainage, special precautions

must be taken to prevent build-up of salinity in the soil.

C4-S1 : Very high salinity water not suitable for irrigation under normal conditions. If used, soil drainage must be very good and

excess water must be applied to ensure leaching. Only salt resistant crops can be grown.


Aesthetic - determinand that taints water with respect to taste, odour or colour and that does not pose an unacceptable health risk if present

at concentration values exceeding the numerical limits specified.

**** Values in excess of those given may negatively impact disinfection.

Operational - determinand that is essential for assessing the efficient operation of treatment systems and risks to infrastructure.

¹ This is equivalent to nitrate af 50 mg NO₃⁻/L and nitrite at 3 mg NO₂⁻/L. See annex C of SANS 241-2:2014 for an example of the sum of

Nitrate plus Nitrite ratio; the sum of the ratios of the concentrations of each (as detected in the sample) to its guideline value should not

exceed 1.

² Norm form source other than SANS 241-1:2015 Ed. 2. and SANS 1657:2007 Ed. 2.

³ After removal of algea

⁴ Due to the dynamic nature of nitrite-nitrate conversion in distribution networks and the potential health impact on bottle-fed infants, the

standard is applicable at the point of consumption.

ª Above intake

ᵇ Bottled water that contains fluoride >1 mg/L, shall have the expression "contains fluoride" affixed in close proximity to the name of the water

or in a prominent place on the label. Bottled water that contains fluoride >1.5 mg/L shall have the expression "this product is not suitable for

infants or children under the age of 7 years" in close proximity to the name or in a prominent place on the label.

ᶜ Norm from Government Notice No. R991

Acute Health - determinand that poses an immediate unacceptable health risk if present at concentration values exceeding the numerical

limits specified in this part of SANS 241.

Chronic Health - determinand that poses an unacceptable health risk if ingested over an extended period if present at concentration values

exceeding the numerical limits specified in this part of SANS 241.

Samples Received:

Sampling date:

Sampled by:

Report # :

Order #:

Acc # :

Testing Date (ICP):

Sample condition:

Sub-contractor:

C21-00583


















Dissolved Nickel as Ni mg/l 0.006







Dissolved Zinc as Zn mg/l <0.010












Calculation**



P.O. Box 19390 2020-03-19

Drinkin

g

wate

r

Bott

led

wate

r

Irrigation

wate

r

Waste

-

wate

r


None

LAB No.

Your Reference K.M.I Airport BH3

1200 C21-00583

None

For the use of:

Nelspruit Unknown

M99-925

2020-03-23

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Method Reference

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Norms

ICP-OES**

LAB-001*

ICP-OES**

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Page 1 of 3

Calculation**

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Calculation**

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

ICP-OES**

ICP-OES**

Calculation**

Samples Received:

Sampling date:

Sampled by:

Report # :

Order #:

Acc # :

Sample condition:

Sub-contractor:

C21-00583









Colour mg/l NR

Turbidity mg/l NR



pHs @ 20°C 9.04











M99-925

Drinkin

g

wate

r

Gallery**

Norms

Gallery**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Calculation**

Calculation**

Calculation**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Method Reference

Gallery**

Calculation**

Gallery**

Irrigation

wate

r

For the use of:


1200 C21-00583

None


Acmert Trading

Waste

-

wate

r

2020-03-19

P.O. Box 19390 2020-03-19

Page 2 of 3

Nelspruit Unknown

2020-03-23


None

LAB No.


Bott

led

wate

r

Samples Received:

Sampling date:

Sampled by:

Report # :

Order #:

Acc # :


Sample condition:

Sub-contractor:

C21-00583











Date:





2020-03-19

2020-03-19

P.O. Box 19390

Drinkin

g

wate

r

Bott

led

wate

r

Waste

-

wate

r

Irrigation

wate

r

For the use of:

Norms

Acmert Trading

2020-03-19

Nelspruit Unknown

2020-03-26

Method Reference

Lab-002*

Lab-002* / ****



None

1200 C21-00583


Colilert**


Page 3 of 3


LAB No.


None

M99-925





Drinking water

Bottled water

Wastewater

Irrigation water


Not Compliant

Not Requested = NR


ND = None Detected*

SANS 241-1:2015 Ed. 2

Norms sources:

SANS 1657:2007 Ed.2




SANS 241-1:2015

Ed. 2 :

SANS 1657:2007

Ed.2 :

Water Act No. 36 of

1998

SANS 241 /


Wastewater for

discharge into a

water source.

Upper limit for

Class 4 (Marginal)

Irrigation water









≤ 1.0****

≤ 5.0















mg/l ≤ 2.0

≤ 0.3




≤ 0.4

≤ 0.1















COD as O₂ ³ mg/l - - 75 -
















Turbidity mg/l


1.0 - -



planted.

ª Above intake












exceed 1.


























planted.





Samples Received:

Sampling date:

Sampled by:

Report # :

Order #:

Acc # :

Testing Date (ICP):

Sample condition:

Sub-contractor:

C21-00584



















Dissolved Phosphorous as P mg/l 0.17






Dissolved Zinc as Zn mg/l <0.010












Calculation**



P.O. Box 19390 2020-03-19

Drinkin

g

wate

r

Bott

led

wate

r

Irrigation

wate

r

Waste

-

wate

r


None

LAB No.


1200 C21-00584

None

For the use of:

Nelspruit Unknown

M99-925

2020-03-23

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Method Reference

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Norms

ICP-OES**

LAB-001*

ICP-OES**

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Page 1 of 3

Calculation**

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Calculation**

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

ICP-OES**

ICP-OES**

Calculation**

Samples Received:

Sampling date:

Sampled by:

Report # :

Order #:

Acc # :

Sample condition:

Sub-contractor:

C21-00584









Colour mg/l NR

Turbidity mg/l NR



pHs @ 20°C 9.16











M99-925

Drinkin

g

wate

r

Gallery**

Norms

Gallery**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Calculation**

Calculation**

Calculation**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Method Reference

Gallery**

Calculation**

Gallery**

Irrigation

wate

r

For the use of:


1200 C21-00584

None


Acmert Trading

Waste

-

wate

r

2020-03-19

P.O. Box 19390 2020-03-19

Page 2 of 3

Nelspruit Unknown

2020-03-23


None

LAB No.


Bott

led

wate

r

Samples Received:

Sampling date:

Sampled by:

Report # :

Order #:

Acc # :


Sample condition:

Sub-contractor:

C21-00584











Date:





2020-03-19

2020-03-19

P.O. Box 19390

Drinkin

g

wate

r

Bott

led

wate

r

Waste

-

wate

r

Irrigation

wate

r

For the use of:

Norms

Acmert Trading

2020-03-19

Nelspruit Unknown

2020-03-26

Method Reference

Lab-002*

Lab-002* / ****



None

1200 C21-00584


Colilert**


Page 3 of 3


LAB No.


None

M99-925





Drinking water

Bottled water

Wastewater

Irrigation water


Not Compliant

Not Requested = NR


ND = None Detected*

SANS 241-1:2015 Ed. 2

Norms sources:

SANS 1657:2007 Ed.2




SANS 241-1:2015

Ed. 2 :

SANS 1657:2007

Ed.2 :

Water Act No. 36 of

1998

SANS 241 /


Wastewater for

discharge into a

water source.

Upper limit for

Class 4 (Marginal)

Irrigation water









≤ 1.0****

≤ 5.0















mg/l ≤ 2.0

≤ 0.3




≤ 0.4

≤ 0.1















COD as O₂ ³ mg/l - - 75 -
















Turbidity mg/l


1.0 - -



planted.

ª Above intake












exceed 1.


























planted.





Samples Received:

Sampling date:

Sampled by:

Report # :

Order #:

Acc # :

Testing Date (ICP):

Sample condition:

Sub-contractor:

C21-00412



Dissolved Arsenic as As mg/l 0.004



Dissolved Calcium as Ca mg/l 12








Dissolved Magnesium as Mg mg/l 12

Dissolved Manganese as Mn mg/l 0.07






















LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Calculation**

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

ICP-OES**

ICP-OES**

Calculation**

ICP-OES**

LAB-001*

ICP-OES**

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Page 1 of 3

Calculation**

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

M99-925

2020-03-13

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Method Reference

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Norms



P.O. Box 19390 2020-03-10

Drinkin

g

wate

r

Bott

led

wate

r

Irrigation

wate

r

Waste

-

wate

r


None

LAB No.

Your Reference KMI Airport

1200 C21-00412

None

For the use of:

Nelspruit Unknown

Calculation**

Samples Received:

Sampling date:

Sampled by:

Report # :

Order #:

Acc # :

Sample condition:

Sub-contractor:

C21-00412





Chloride as Cl mg/l <0.01




Colour mg/l NR

Turbidity mg/l NR



pHs @ 20°C 8.39











2020-03-11

P.O. Box 19390 2020-03-10

Page 2 of 3

Nelspruit Unknown


None

LAB No.


Bott

led

wate

r


Acmert Trading

Waste

-

wate

r

Irrigation

wate

r

For the use of:


1200 C21-00412

None

M99-925

Drinkin

g

wate

r

Gallery**

Norms

Gallery**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Calculation**

Calculation**

Calculation**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Method Reference

Gallery**

Calculation**

Gallery**

Samples Received:

Sampling date:

Sampled by:

Report # :

Order #:

Acc # :


Sample condition:

Sub-contractor:

C21-00412











Date:






LAB No.


None

M99-925

2020-03-10

Nelspruit Unknown

2020-03-18

Method Reference

Lab-002*

Lab-002* / ****



None

1200 C21-00412


Colilert**


For the use of:

Norms

Acmert Trading

2020-03-11

2020-03-11

P.O. Box 19390

Drinkin

g

wate

r

Bott

led

wate

r

Waste

-

wate

r

Irrigation

wate

r





Drinking water

Bottled water

Wastewater

Irrigation water


SANS 241-1:2015 Ed. 2

Norms sources:

SANS 1657:2007 Ed.2




ND = None Detected*

Not Compliant

Not Requested = NR


SANS 241-1:2015

Ed. 2 :

SANS 1657:2007

Ed.2 :

Water Act No. 36 of

1998

SANS 241 /


Wastewater for

discharge into a

water source.

Upper limit for

Class 4 (Marginal)

Irrigation water









≤ 1.0****

≤ 5.0















mg/l ≤ 2.0

≤ 0.3




≤ 0.4

≤ 0.1















COD as O₂ ³ mg/l - - 75 -














1.0 - -





Turbidity mg/l


planted.












planted.


















exceed 1.





ª Above intake









Samples Received:

Sampling date:

Sampled by:

Report # :

Order #:

Acc # :

Testing Date (ICP):

Sample condition:

Sub-contractor:

C21-00519






Dissolved Calcium as Ca mg/l 14








Dissolved Magnesium as Mg mg/l 17

Dissolved Manganese as Mn mg/l 0.04





Dissolved Sulphur as S mg/l 0.49

















LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Calculation**

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

ICP-OES**

ICP-OES**

Calculation**

ICP-OES**

LAB-001*

ICP-OES**

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Page 1 of 3

Calculation**

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

M99-925

2020-03-23

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Method Reference

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

LAB-001*

Norms



P.O. Box 19390 2020-03-15

Drinkin

g

wate

r

Bott

led

wate

r

Irrigation

wate

r

Waste

-

wate

r


None

LAB No.

Your ReferenceKMIA Airport B/HS;

Time: 13:00

1200 C21-00519

None

For the use of:

Nelspruit Unknown

Calculation**

Samples Received:

Sampling date:

Sampled by:

Report # :

Order #:

Acc # :

Sample condition:

Sub-contractor:

C21-00519









Colour mg/l NR

Turbidity mg/l NR



pHs @ 20°C 8.20











2020-03-16

P.O. Box 19390 2020-03-15

Page 2 of 3

Nelspruit Unknown

2020-03-19


None

LAB No.


Time: 13:00

Bott

led

wate

r


Acmert Trading

Waste

-

wate

r

Irrigation

wate

r

For the use of:


1200 C21-00519

None

M99-925

Drinkin

g

wate

r

Gallery**

Norms

Gallery**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Calculation**

Calculation**

Calculation**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Gallery**

Method Reference

Gallery**

Calculation**

Gallery**

Samples Received:

Sampling date:

Sampled by:

Report # :

Order #:

Acc # :


Sample condition:

Sub-contractor:

C21-00519











Date:






LAB No.


Time: 13:00

None

M99-925

2020-03-15

Nelspruit Unknown

2020-03-26

Method Reference

Lab-002*

Lab-002* / ****



None

1200 C21-00519


Colilert**


For the use of:

Norms

Acmert Trading

2020-03-16

2020-03-16

P.O. Box 19390

Drinkin

g

wate

r

Bott

led

wate

r

Waste

-

wate

r

Irrigation

wate

r





Drinking water

Bottled water

Wastewater

Irrigation water


SANS 241-1:2015 Ed. 2

Norms sources:

SANS 1657:2007 Ed.2




ND = None Detected*

Not Compliant

Not Requested = NR


SANS 241-1:2015

Ed. 2 :

SANS 1657:2007

Ed.2 :

Water Act No. 36 of

1998

SANS 241 /


Wastewater for

discharge into a

water source.

Upper limit for

Class 4 (Marginal)

Irrigation water









≤ 1.0****

≤ 5.0















mg/l ≤ 2.0

≤ 0.3




≤ 0.4

≤ 0.1















COD as O₂ ³ mg/l - - 75 -














1.0 - -





Turbidity mg/l


planted.












planted.


















exceed 1.





ª Above intake









Acmert Trading

P.O. Box 19390

Nelspruit

1200


Samples Received:

Sampling date:

Sampled by:

Report # :

Order #:

Acc # :

Testing Date (ICP):

2020-03-19

2020-03-19

Unknown

C21-00587

None

M99-925

2020-03-23

Sample condition:

Sub-contractor:


None

For the use of:

LAB No. C21-00587

Drin

kin

g

wa

ter

Bo

ttle

d

wa

ter

Wa

ste

-

wa

ter

Irri

ga

tio

n

wa

ter

Your Reference

K.M.I Airport BH7

Parameter: Unit: Results: Norms Method Reference

Dissolved Aluminium as Al mg/l <0.05 LAB-001*

Dissolved Arsenic as As mg/l <0.002 LAB-001*

Dissolved Boron as B mg/l <0.07 LAB-001*

Dissolved Barium as Ba mg/l 0.014 LAB-001*

Dissolved Calcium as Ca mg/l 9.5 LAB-001*

Dissolved Cadmium as Cd mg/l <0.0009 LAB-001*

Dissolved Cobalt as Co mg/l <0.003 LAB-001*

Dissolved Chromium as Cr mg/l <0.003 LAB-001*

Dissolved Copper as Cu mg/l <0.02 LAB-001*

Dissolved Iron as Fe mg/l <0.05 LAB-001*

Dissolved Mercury as Hg mg/l <0.001 ICP-OES**

Dissolved Potassium as K mg/l 0.41 ICP-OES**

Dissolved Magnesium as Mg mg/l 3.7 LAB-001*

Dissolved Manganese as Mn mg/l <0.01 LAB-001*

Dissolved Molybdenum as Mo mg/l <0.010 LAB-001*

Dissolved Sodium as Na mg/l 22 LAB-001*

Dissolved Nickel as Ni mg/l 0.005 LAB-001*

Dissolved Phosphorous as P mg/l <0.10 ICP-OES**

Dissolved Sulphur as S mg/l <0.05 LAB-001*

Dissolved Antimony as Sb mg/l <0.02 ICP-OES**

Dissolved Selenium as Se mg/l <0.010 LAB-001*

Dissolved Silicon as Si mg/l 26 LAB-001*

Dissolved Vanadium as V mg/l <0.01 LAB-001*

Dissolved Zinc as Zn mg/l <0.010 LAB-001*

Ca Hardness as CaCO3 mg/l 23 Calculation**

Mg Hardness as CaCO3 mg/l 14 Calculation**

Total Hardness as CaCO3 mg/l 32 Calculation**

Sodium Abs. Ratio 1.56 Calculation**








http://www.labserve.net/


Acmert Trading

P.O. Box 19390

Nelspruit

1200

Samples Received:

Sampling date:

Sampled by:

Report # :

Order #:

Acc # :


2020-03-19

2020-03-19

Unknown

C21-00587

None

M99-925

2020-03-23

Sample condition:

Sub-contractor:


None

For the use of:

LAB No. C21-00587

Drin

kin

g

wa

ter

Bo

ttle

d

wa

ter

Wa

ste

-

wa

ter

Irri

ga

tio

n

wa

ter

Your Reference

K.M.I Airport BH7


pH @ 37°C pH units 7.28 Gallery**

Conductivity @ 25°C mS/m 19 Gallery**

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/l 39 Gallery**

Chloride as Cl mg/l 8.8 Gallery**

Nitrate as N mg/l NR Gallery**

Ammonium as N mg/l NR Gallery**

Fluoride as F mg/l NR Gallery**

Colour mg/l NR Gallery**

Turbidity mg/l NR Gallery**

Nitrite as NO2 mg/l NR Gallery**

Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 104 Calculation**

pHs @ 20°C 9.04 Calculation**

Langelier Index @ 20°C*** -1.77 Calculation**

Alkalinity Hazard mg/l 0.78 Calculation**











Acmert Trading

P.O. Box 19390

Nelspruit

1200

Samples Received:

Sampling date:

Sampled by:

Report # :

Order #:

Acc # :


2020-03-19

2020-03-19

Unknown

C21-00587

None

M99-925

2020-03-19

Sample condition:

Sub-contractor:


None

For the use of:

LAB No. C21-00587

Drin

kin

g

wa

ter

Bo

ttle

d

wa

ter

Wa

ste

-

wa

ter

Irri

ga

tio

n

wa

ter

Your Reference

K.M.I Airport BH7


Total Coliform cfu/100 ml 6 Lab-002*

E. coli cfu/100 ml <1 Lab-002* / ****

Total Coliform cfu/100 ml NR EC/TC Count Plates**

E. coli cfu/100 ml NR EC/TC Count Plates**

Heterotrophic plate count cfu/ml NR Aerobic Count Plate**

Faecal Coliforms cfu/100ml NR Colilert**




Date: 2020-03-26





Digitally signed by Tariena Nel Date: 2020.03.26 14:41:29 +02'00'



Not Requested = NR


Not Compliant

ND = None Detected*




Norms sources:

Drinking water SANS 241-1:2015 Ed. 2

Bottled water SANS 1657:2007 Ed.2

Wastewater Water Act No. 36 of 1998: General limits for


Irrigation water DWAF Irrigation Water Quality Guidelines



mailto:[email protected]


SANS 241-1:2015

Ed. 2 :

SANS 1657:2007

Ed.2 :

Water Act No. 36 of

1998

SANS 241 /

Drinking Water

Bottled Water

Wastewater for

discharge into a

water source.

Upper limit for

Class 4 (Marginal)

Irrigation water

Physical Determinands Unit General / Standard Limit








Turbidity mg/l ≤ 1.0****

1.0 - - ≤ 5.0















Dissolved Iron as Fe mg/l ≤ 2.0

0.2 0.3 < 20 ≤ 0.3




Dissolved Manganese as Mn mg/l ≤ 0.4

0.5 0.1 < 10 ≤ 0.1












Chromium as Cr⁶ ⁺ mg/l - - 0.05 -



COD as O₂ ³ mg/l - - 75 -
















exceed 1.






ª Above intake
























planted.








planted.








APPENDIX C HYDRAULIC DESIGN CALCULATIONS

Design water demand

800 p/d 20 16.00 kL/day195 m² 2.4 4.68 kL/day

4 700 m² 0.6 28.20 kL/day276 m² 2.4 6.62 kL/day

4 400 m² 0.4 17.60 kL/day9 450 m² 0.6 56.70 kL/day

129.80 kL/day129.80 kL

34 167.01 kL/year

2 350 m² 0.6 5.64 kL/day13 250 m² 0.6 31.80 kL/day

30 Units 300 9.00 kL/day46.44 kL/day46.44 kL

12 223.94 kL/year

176.24 kL/day176.24 kL

24hr storage requirement

24hr storage requirementTotal (Existing + Proposed Facilities)

Subtotal

Proposed

Annual

kL/100m²kL/100m²

L/single room

24hr storage requirementSubtotal

Fuel farm

Balance of Industrial Zone kL/250m²

Annual

Numbi Express kL/250m²

Car hire parking

Sleepover Motels

kL/100m²kL/100m²

Airport terminal

HangarsFire station

L/p

kL/100m²

Apron staff facility

Users/AreaFacilityExisting

Daily demandDaily demand rate

Historic water useMonth

Jan-19 898 kL/month 29 kL/dayFeb-19 1 866 kL/month 67 kL/dayMar-19 2 519 kL/month 81 kL/dayApr-19 2 494 kL/month 83 kL/day

May-19 2 080 kL/month 67 kL/dayJun-19 2 149 kL/month 72 kL/dayJul-19 2 206 kL/month 71 kL/day

Aug-19 3 261 kL/month 105 kL/daySep-19 3 823 kL/month 127 kL/dayOct-19 3 214 kL/month 104 kL/dayNov-19 3 406 kL/month 110 kL/dayDec-19 3 930 kL/month 127 kL/dayJan-20 1 697 kL/month 55 kL/day

Average 2 580 kL/month 84 kL/dayPeak 3 930 kL/month 127 kL/dayAnnual 33 543 kL/year

MonthJan-19 1 592 kL/month 106 kL/dayFeb-19 3 474 kL/month 124 kL/dayMar-19 3 606 kL/month 116 kL/dayApr-19 2 628 kL/month 88 kL/day

May-19 4 787 kL/month 154 kL/dayJun-19 3 861 kL/month 129 kL/dayJul-19 4 959 kL/month 160 kL/day

Aug-19 4 490 kL/month 145 kL/daySep-19 5 448 kL/month 182 kL/dayOct-19 4 132 kL/month 133 kL/dayNov-19 3 886 kL/month 130 kL/dayDec-19 821 kL/month 26 kL/dayJan-20 1 760 kL/month 57 kL/day

Average 3 496 kL/month 119 kL/dayPeak 5 448 kL/month 182 kL/dayAnnual 45 444 kL/year

Total supplyAirport boreholes

Farming project Total supply

DESIGN OF FACULTATIVE PONDS

Sewage load

Population 800 People

Water consumption 129.80 kl/d

Design volume 96.57 kl/d

Average Temperature 14.60oC

BOD Loading 65.00 g/cap.d

Design BOD load 52.000 kg/d

BOD concentration 538.46 mg/l

Pond Sizing

Pond depth 1.50 m

Loading 160.57 kg/ha.d

0.32 Ha Pond A Pond B

3 238.41 m2789.75 385.86 m2

Pond volume 4 857.62 m31 184.63 578.79 m3

Retention 50.30 days 12.27 5.99 days

DESIGN OF MATURATION PONDS

Sewage load

Population 800 People

Water consumption 129.80 L/c/d

Design volume 103.84 kl/d

Pond Retetion Time 5.00 days

Pond depth 1.5 m

Pond volume 519.20 m3

Pond Area 346.13 m2

Calculation of bacterial die-off in winter

Winter Temperature 14.60oC

Kb 1.016 d-1

Load 40 000 000 FC/100 ml 40 000 000 FC/100 ml

E Coli after first pond 6 577 352 FC/100 ml 2 970 280 FC/100 ml

E Coli after second pond 1 081 539 FC/100 ml 418 874 FC/100 ml

After third pond 177 842 FC/100 ml 68 877 FC/100 ml

After fourth pond 29 243 FC/100 ml 11 326 FC/100 ml

After fifth pond 4 809 FC/100 ml 1 862 FC/100 ml

After sixth pond 791 FC/100 ml

Calculation of bacterial die-off in summer

Summer Temperature 23.60oC

Kb 4.863 d-1

Design load 40 000 000 FC/100 ml 40 000 000 FC/100 ml

E Coli after first pond 1 579 958 FC/100 ml 659 424 FC/100 ml

E Coli after second pond 62 407 FC/100 ml 21 872 FC/100 ml

After third pond 2 465 FC/100 ml 864 FC/100 ml

After fourth pond 97 FC/100 ml 34 FC/100 ml

Design Of Waste Stabilization Pond For Sewage Treatment

Pond area

Design Actual

ActualDesign




APPENDIX D PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DOCUMENTATION

WATER USE LICENCE APPLICATION

Documents

Transcript of WATER USE LICENCE APPLICATION