WATER RESEARCH COMMISSION

K5/1432

MINUTES OF THE 2nd PROJECT MEETING ON WRC PROJECT:

“IMPROVED METHODS FOR AQUIFER VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND PROTOCOLS (AVAP) FOR PRODUCING VULNERABILITY MAPS, TAKING INTO

ACCOUNT INFORMATION ON SOILS”

HELD AT THE CSIR, STELLENBOSCH, ON 17th JUNE 2004 FROM 08:30-16:00 PRESENT Dr Hans Beekman (beekman@adept.co.za) : Consultant Mr Ross Campbell (rcampbell@csir.co.za) : CSIR Mr Kerry Murphy (kmurphy@csir.co.za) : CSIR Mr John Weaver (jweaver@csir.co.za) : CSIR Mr Jinhui Zhang (jzhang@csir.co.za) : CSIR Mr Julian Conrad (julian@geoss.co.za) : GEOSS Dr Brent Usher (brent@igs.uovs.ac.za) : IGS, University of Free State Ms Elize Herselman (elize@arc.agric.za) : ISCW Mr Stranton Narain (stranton@arc.agric.za) : ISCW Prof Martin Fey (fey@sun.ac.za) : US Ms Ailsa Hardie (aghardie@yahoo.com) : US Ms Mireille Mwepu : US Mr Godfrey Mongwe (hgm@sun.ac.za0 : US Dr Nebo Jovanovic : UWC Dr Kevin Pietersen (kevin@wrc.org.za) : WRC Ms Ina de Villiers (idvillie@mweb.co.za) : IdV & Associates (minutes) APOLOGIES Dr Shafick Adams WELCOME & INTRODUCTION – Dr Hans Beekman Dr Beekman welcomed all present and especially Mr Ross Campbell who recently joined the CSIR as a groundwater chemist. Mr Campbell gave a brief overview of his background, followed by round-the-table introductions. Mr Pietersen apologised for not attending the previous meeting. Dr Beekman noted apologies of Dr Shafick Adams. Ms Elize Herselman will arrive at about 10:00 joined by Mr Stranton Narain. Prof Fey added that three students from the University of Stellenbosch would join the meeting at 11:00.

1

A PROJECT OVERVIEW – Dr Hans Beekman Dr Beekman proceeded to outline the aims of the meeting: • Inform project teams on outcome of I&P project and its linkages with AVAP project • Exchange findings and lessons learnt – 2003/4 deliverables • Planning 2004/05 deliverables Dr Beekman presented the programme for the meeting and gave an overview of the project in terms of its background, objectives, structure of research and research teams, and project management. BACKGROUND … National Government recognising importance protection of groundwater resources from pollution … “Protocols for assessing groundwater pollution impacts – formulation of a research strategy” (Sililo et al. 2001) Recommendations 1. Identification and prioritisation of groundwater contaminants and sources in South

Africa’s urban catchments (WRC – K4/1200). 2. Development of improved methods for aquifer vulnerability assessments and protocols

(AVAP) for producing vulnerability maps, taking into account information on soils (WRC – K5/1432).

OBJECTIVES 1. Assess pollutant attenuation capacity of soil horizons and other regolith materials; 2. Produce special purpose classification of SA soils; 3. Incorporate hydrological inference into the classification; 4. Develop improved methods for vulnerability assessments in urban catchments; and 5. Produce guidelines for development/compilation of vulnerability maps. STRUCTURE OF RESEARCH AND RESEARCH TEAMS Dr Beekman highlighted the following changes relative to last year: Unsaturated Zone:

Soil zone: Prof M Fey (US); Ms E Herselman (ISCW) Regolith: Dr S Adams (UWC); Dr N Jovanovic (UWC)

Saturated Zone: Mr R Campbell (CSIR)

Project Management: Mr J Weaver (CSIR) with Dr Hans Beekman

PROJECT MANAGEMENT Progress to Date • Workshop held successfully • Literature survey on time (3 literature reviews done) • Collection of soil samples Main findings on literature studies: • There is a need to compound the literature surveys. To date, literature studies produced

relatively in isolation. Need more cooperation between research groups. Now to share literature reviews among each other.

HR & Finances

2

Project Management & Coordination: JW: 76 hrs; HB: 72 hrs; RC: 80 hrs Each research team to get spreadsheet (up to March 2005) in before end of July 2004. 2003/2004 Available R880 000, spent 65% 2004/2005 Available R1 130 000 + 35% of 2003/2004 Project meetings Dr Beekman proposed to meet once every 3 months. The next meeting (Steering Committee Meeting) has been scheduled for 22 September 2004 (each research team will get notes and requirements in advance). B PRESENTATION ON “IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITISATION OF

GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANTS AND SOURCES IN SA’S URBAN CATCHMENTS” PROJECT BY IGS, UWC & CSIR: (RESULTS AND LINKAGES WITH AVAP PROJECT) – Dr Brent Usher

OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION • Introduction and background • Approach • Products • Results • Shortcomings • Software • Implications for aquifer vulnerability project

Introduction • Focus on urbanisation and activities within the catchments and focus on the

understanding of groundwater contamination in urban catchments. • Identify principle pollutants and based on risks prioritise those pollutants. Objectives • Identify and prioritise the type of contaminants and sources, which present a threat to

groundwater. • Formulate strategies. • Establish a data information system. Approach • Literature search

o Statistics SA; Chamber of Mines; State of Environment Reports; Municipal Websites; WRC reports

• Case study examples o Archives of newspaper articles; conference and workshop proceedings; project

reports; monitoring databases • Contact with individuals at various organizations • Questionnaires • Contamination incident reports and databases Detailed information and data were only collected for the major urban areas: Gauteng, Durban, Port Elizabeth & Cape Town. Problems • Reluctance to supply data • Poor response to questionnaires

3

• Efforts directed towards groundwater resource evaluation, rather than groundwater pollution monitoring

• Inorganic analyses but few organic • More surface water data Hope to raise awareness to get catchment managers to focus on groundwater. Framework

CLASSIFY PRIORITISE RISK Source Contaminant Receptor

• Type • Release • Location/geometry • Origin

• Loading • Behaviour • Hazardousness

• Vulnerability • Impact

Prioritising Contaminants • General screenings

o General knowledge of the threat to groundwater posed by the type of source o National or regional scale

• Object specific o Site specific info for rating/ranking contaminants o Localised

Mechanisms of Contamination The contaminant introduced into the soil-rock-groundwater system will only spread if a transport mechanism is available; various processes determine its fate. Risk: A risk can be defined broadly as the probability that an adverse event will occur in specified events. Risk Assessments: Effective decision-making involves the management of risks: the identification, evaluation, selection and implementation of actions to reduce risk. Product 1: Inorganic and Organic Contaminants and Associate Sources in South African Urban Catchments • Classification • Sources (urban settlements, industrial, mining, waste disposal, etc.) • Case Studies • Contaminant Inventory (generic and urban centers) • Prioritisation (national and urban centers) Case Studies for example the Metal Plating Industry. Important was the general findings of each case study and what a quality manager take out of the case study and apply in his field. Classes of Industries • Urban settlement • Mining • Agriculture • Non-metallurgical industries • Metallurgical and metal products manufacturing • 43 types of activity

4

Product 2: Guidelines for Assessing and Evaluating Impacts of Human Activities on Groundwater Resources in Urban Catchments • Characteristics of urban contamination of groundwater • Physiochemical properties affecting migration of groundwater contaminants • Methods for prioritising groundwater contaminants and sources • Prioritisation of contaminants and sources in South African urban environments • Example case study:

1. National rating of sources based on a weighting system 2. National ranking of contaminants based on weighting system

Product 3: Excel Database • Structure and contents of database • Ranking of priority contaminants • User manual (step-by-step) • Case Study – Cape Town Data info system • Inventory of inorganic and organic contaminants • Properties • Attenuation and retardation factors of specific contaminants • Etc.

Source Prioritisation Table with activities on national scale Table based on national scale priority chemicals for attention protecting urban groundwater Conclusions Of great concern is the fact that for many of these the currently available datasets show very little attention to high concentrate chemicals. • Petroleum products, industrial thinners and mineral oils and other non-aqueous phase

liquids • Microbial contaminants • Urban need for published research into NAPL contamination in South Africa • General lack of data • Pesticides is evident • High Nitrate concentrations • Use generic approach • National vulnerability and prioritisation results to be merged Software Developed • Urban risk assessment software (UR)

o Prioritisation o Tier 0 – 2 risk assessment o Risk log o Protection zones

• Excel database Dr Usher demonstrated step-by-step the Urban Risk Assessment Software. Some thoughts for AVAP • Need for vulnerability aspects has been highlighted • Organics should be a big part of the project • Special purpose vulnerability classification is vital

5

• Data hard to come by • Most site owners are reluctant to share experiences • DWAF has not given unequivocal indication that research sites will be given leeway. Discussion/Questions: Dr Beekman commented that linkages are very relevant, form a good basis for AVAP and that the results of he project have to be scrutinised. Prof Fey asked what is meant with “special purpose vulnerability classification”? Need to focus on specific contaminant or groups of contaminants that behave generically. Look at 4 categories and look at soil properties. Acronym ‘AVAP’ = Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment Protocol. Dr Jovanovic noted the classification by source is at this stage very general, it is a very good classification but it is still very general. In order to apply any of these classifications and for rankings you still require a lot of knowledge. Dr Beekman suggested considering also looking at multi-component behaviour, interaction with a mix of contaminants. Mr Murphy asked, “How do you address aero bans?” Dr Usher responded: In real site-specific stuff, if you got data, you can enter values to get over that. Or enter upper and lower bands. The system is flexible enough to handle it. Dr Jovanovic noted they found, in literature on Groundwater Pollution Project and Vulnerability Project, that you might have different ‘half-lives’ for the same chemical. Need to compile some guidelines for user to enable to select the number to use in numerical model, etc. To pretend to estimate or recommend a number, you cannot do. Mr Conrad noted that risk was defined as a probability of a event occurring and asked whether consequences of groundwater being contaminated is being looked at all. Dr Usher replied that it is being looked at and said not brought into account, however, is site-specific use of groundwater. Dr Beekman thanked Dr Usher for his presentation. C PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS ON DELIVERABLES, LINKAGES AND

OVERLAPS BY THE 4 RESEARCH TEAMS OF CSIR, GEOSS, US/ISCW AND UWC

SOILS – Prof Martin Fey Deliverables US-ISCW team (Prof Fey & Ms Herselman) 1. The buffering capacity of soil materials for various contaminant types and the relationship

between soil morphology, chemical properties and buffering capacity: a literature review – completed.

2. Selection of soil profiles for groundwater vulnerability assessment using laboratory sorption studies – completed.

3. Sorption of selected contaminants by SA soils – in progress (completion 2005). Selection of soils The soil profiles have been selected from ARC-ISCW land type survey collection for which there is a large database on soil properties, genesis and classification.

6

It is critical to interpret laboratory work that is going to be done on these samples. Use of copper as target metal and phosphate as an organic substance. Laboratory studies of pollutant attenuation Initial trials using Cu as metal cation and P as inorganic anion. Phosphate Sorption Graph Using soils info for assessing the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination. Assumption: Most rock formations, as well as some relatively unconsolidated materials, are fractured or perforated sufficiently for preferential flow to dominate the recharge process. Proposed Research Strategy An assessment of the pollutant attenuation capacity of soil horizons and other regolith materials. Develop Special Purpose Classification of South Africa’s Soils 1. Incorporation of hydrological inferences into the soil classification 2. Case studies: GIS treatment of existing land type or other soil maps of selected key

areas to produce a spatial-statistical assessment of soil contribution to aquifer vulnerability

3. Develop a special short course on soil properties relevant to groundwater contamination. Criteria developed for different soil horizons (two tables on hydraulic attenuation and chemical attenuation characteristics) Three approaches to vulnerability assssment 1. Combination of two ratings on hydraulic and chemical attenuation 2. Selection of the safest of the two ratings 3. Hybrid approach based on A and B Slide with exceptions of vulnerability mapping • Areas dominated by sandy soils • Non-polar organic contamination may be inferred regionally from climate maps Conclusions: • Current soil info can be included quite well in groundwater vulnerability assessment • Soil classification for vulnerability assessment exploits pedogenic inferences • Mapping soil contribution to groundwater vulnerability in RSA will produce pretty wall

charts. Our attention will mostly have to be site specific. • A short course on soils for hydrologists is a must. Dr Beekman thanked Prof Fey for his overview. Discussion/Questions: Mr Weaver said the possibility of combining GIS and soil maps could be a useful product and decision-making tool. Potential soil that might develop in specific environment. Prof Fey agreed and said it is essentially done in land-type maps and an indication of probability of finding a specific quality has been done. From original info from land-type surveys there will be a % of different kinds of soils and from that you can work out probability of the soil being of a specific type. Can determine different scenarios, e.g. worse case vs. best case on kind of soil.

7

Mr Pietersen referred to progress in terms of deliverables – to reflect deliverables that have been completed. Dr Beekman indicated that a summary on the project status has already been sent to Mr Pietersen.

• Literature review - completed • 2nd Deliverable also completed. • Short course is deliverable for next year.

Mr Murphy stated that “soils generate under natural conditions”, and asked, with land-use, can you bring that into account? Prof Fey responded that it could be brought into account. Soil as part of solution. Most land-use activities – you can’t take your classification systems along and think it is still relevant. We have a form for soils that has been altered beyond recognition. Dr Beekman added that if the first line of defence is broken, we also have subsurface contamination. GROUNDWATER VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT – Dr Nebo Jovanovic Background Groundwater contamination dealt with by: • Groundwater pollution inventory project • Current project Objectives and Structure of Report • First deliverable was literature review • Framework for groundwater vulnerability assessment • Review of current knowledge Framework • Groundwater vulnerability assessment • Principal geologic and hydrologic features Current Knowledge – Unsaturated Zone • Processes and Factors

o Hydrogeological Properties of soils and geologic materials in the unsaturated zone Water and solute fluxes Topography Depth to water table, layering and layer thickness Groundwater recharge type and rate Preferential flow Other processes (capillary rise, fingering, etc.) Spatial and temporal variability Properties of subsoil often different from properties of soil

• Contaminant Specific

o Major processes Solubility Volatization Sorption Degradation

o Mixtures change properties of individual contaminants • Hydrogeological and Contaminant Specific Properties often overlap

8

Short-circuiting: Movement of water and solute through cracks. Modelling: Weighting the contribution of water and solute fluxes in micro- and macro-

pores. Funnelling: Movement of water through a layer. More difficult to model because it is

spatial, but easier to implement control measures. Classification of Unsaturated Zone for South Africa • Lack of data on unsaturated zone (subsoil) • Based on South African soil classification (Sililo et al., 2001) • Based on South African lithologies Classification of Unsaturated Zone based on Lithologies • Alluvial and colluvial formation • Consolidated sedimentary cover • Crystalline basement Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment Methods • Index and overlay method • Process-based • Statistical methods Criteria • Type of method • Scale of assessment • Reference location • Applicable environment • Cost and availability • Whether it is an intrinsic or specific assessment • Geochemistry Review • Knowledge review:

o Lack of data on physical, chemical and biological properties of the unsaturated zone (subsoil)

o Preferential flow • Model review:

o DRASTIC o MIKE SHE, VLEACH, UGPF o Detailed familiarization and operation with models is essential in order to identify

advantages and shortcomings Procedure • Identification of groundwater depths and fluctuations • Identification of unsaturated strata, based on soils, lithology and regolith data available • Groundwater recharge • Baseline of water chemistry • Identification of priority contaminants • For stratum 1 to n: (stats for different layers) • Groundwater contamination and description of plume Work programme • Approach • Time frames

9

Brief Summary of Approach • Classification of unsaturated zones • Measurements • Improvement of methods • Comparison of methods Improvement of Methods • Index and overlay method

DRASTIC o Inclusion of multi-layer component, based on site-specific conceptual models o Ranking based on measurements of hydraulic properties o Familiarization and selection of suitable numerical models

Discussion/Questions: Dr Pietersen asked whether Dr Jovanovic used local case studies. Dr Jovanovic responded: our best case study is a good example. Deliverable for 2003/2004 is the literature review. Dr Beekman said testing and playing around with models takes huge effort. The outcome and processes to develop and improve on has been clearly outlined. Dr Beekman suggested it would be good for literature review to add a chapter on lessons learnt for future deliverables. He thanked Dr Jovanovic for his presentation. Mr Campbell referred to chemical attenuation in unsaturated zone and said he imagines a lot of overlap in soil and unsaturated zone. Share information on laboratory tests that Dr Jovanovic could incorporate in what happens in Regolith. Prof Fey said the term “Regolith” actually includes the saturated too and asked for careful use of the term. Mr Pietersen said working together and the issue of terminology is crucial in understanding and conveying to the layperson. THE CONTAMINANT BUFFERING CAPACITY OF THE SATURATED ZONE – A COMPONENT OF AQUIFER VULNERABILITY – Mr Ross Campbell, CSIR A literature review for the WRC project K5/1432 “Improved methods for aquifer vulnerability assessment etc.” Content of Review • Groundwater contamination • Processes of contaminant buffering • Approaches to describing the buffering capacity of the saturated zone • Contaminant buffering in the saturated zone of South African urban catchments • Integrating saturated zone buffering processes into aquifer vulnerability assessment Groundwater Contaminants High priority sources and likely contaminant “cocktails” identified by recent WRC study (IGS et al., 2004) • On-site sanitation • Agricultural chemical use • Cemeteries • etc. Classification • Water-soluble

10

• Insoluble • Particulate Buffering processes • Physical processes:

Dispersion and diffusion = dilution, but also increase in volume • Water-soluble substances:

Mobility = solubility; Solubility controls Soluble complexes Sorption pH and redox state as master variables, aquifers have more or less ANC/BNC & OXC/REDC

NAPL • Relative viscosity • Adsorption, especially to organic surfaces • Volatilisation • Degradation – often microbially catalysed On-site sanitation and cemeteries is important. Groundwater can be contaminated over quite a large area. Microbial pathogens • Factors influencing transport & survival • Mechanical filtration • Predatio die-off • Adsorption • Dispersion Approaches: Semi-quantitative methods • Retardation • Borehole protection zones

o Existing source or well o Planned well or source

Source & receptor: 50 days travel apart (rule of thumb) • Minimum separation distance concept

o Characteristic space-time relationship for a contaminant in aquifer Approaches: Quantitative methods • Multi-component fate & transport modelling • PHREEQC • MODFLOW & FREEFLOW • Models: tools to help us understand complex systems Aquifer properties (Table) • Aquifer lithologies, minerals, type of fracture, estimated hydraulic conductivity Vulnerability Assessment • Aquifers vary in their buffering capacity for given contaminant or mixture of contaminants • Differences reflected in characteristic space-time relationships • Semi-quantitative fate and transport modelling to determine MSDs (minimum separation

distance).

11

Discussion/Questions: Dr Beekman thanked Mr Campbell for his presentation. The approach suggested by Mr Campbell is a combination of the saturated and unsurated zones including the soil zone in the overall vulnerability concept, which is seemingly a deviation of existing literature. There is however support in the literature to adopt such an approach, especially in data-scarce areas. Mr Pietersen questioned status of deliverables: • Literature review – 70% completed • 1-dimensional solid transport modelling – has not started (need to tie up with outcome of

Dr Usher’s project). Mr Pietersen: Once an aquifer becomes polluted, to link the issue of remediation. There need to be awareness of the process and how outcome fits into those processes. Issue of policy implications also comes into mind. How do we start tying all research together to make policy decisions? Bear this issue in mind as project evolves. Dr Beekman said if Mr Campbell’s approach were followed, more explanation on motivation would be required. Mr Pietersen said, besides legislation, Groundwater Quality Strategy & Management Policy document need to be looked at as basis. Dr Usher highlighted the issue of DWAF introducing a Waste Discharge Cost System without including a groundwater component. The project team will have to sell the concept of aquifer natural attenuation very strongly. Dr Beekman added that it is difficult but at the same time very important to raise awareness of what groundwater and chemical transport is about. IMPROVED METHODS FOR AQUIFER VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND PROTOCOLS FOR PRODUCING VULNERABILITY MAPS – Mr Julian Conrad 2003/04 Deliverables Deliverable1.2 Literature Review 1. GIS-based vulnerability assessment methods used to date 2. Related data Three database searches 1. Waterlit 2. Geobase 3. Compendex Classified primary and secondary references. Mr Conrad indicated that he could be contacted for actual references. It will also be included on CD. Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment Methods • Index or subjective rating methods • Statistical or process based methods

o Probabilities of exceeding target concentrations o Statistical approaches o Process based methods model physical processes o (Pesticides)

• Combination of the above methods • Modelling approach Research Focus • Comparative studies – number of variables required – model formulation • Expansion of an index method • Scaling issues

12

• Expansion of GIS tools for index methods and modelling • Use of export system and fuzzy logic • GIS for validation In longer term would like to come up with vulnerability maps for quaternary catchments as well. Possibly looking at an index method, looking at multi-layering system and adding more complexity to those layers. See whether models and algorithms can be built into a GIS environment. Key issue: how do we verify what we come up? Dr Beekman thanked Mr Conrad and said GIS and Decision Support themes should not develop their tools in isolation and urged them to work closely together with the other research teams for much better integration. Discussion/Questions: Dr Pietersen referred to the issue of up-scaling and asked what an appropriate scale for decision-making would be. Mr Conrad responded: There is so much variability and the validity of the up-scaling is a reason for concern. Dr Pietersen: It should be a needs driven process, think about this question as the process evolves. Mr Murphy added that not knowing how accurate data is, affects confidence. Prof Fey: Aero bans and uncertainties. When we classify soils into different categories, there is always some kind of uncertainty to which band we classify soils. There is a certain probability that the category is wrong. Could be built into decision-making system. Could determine probability of % correctness. D KEY STUDY AREA(S) AND CROSS-CUTTING DELIVERABLE “COLLECTION,

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION AND DOCUMENTATION OF FIELD SAMPLES/DATA” – Dr Hans Beekman

Study areas for collection, analysis and interpretation and documentation of field samples/data (deliverable for this year). Selection of Field Study Area From proposal: “… where significant pollution sources have existed for some time” Purpose: Testing and cross calibration of vulnerability assessment methods

Up to 5 study areas to be considered Selection Criteria • Important industrial/urban area • High ranking based from contaminant inventory • Existing data:

o GIS o Soils o Geology o Groundwater & contaminants o Joint efforts and comparison of methods

• Close by • Representative of South African conditions • Support and co-operation of site management • Number of sites may vary, e.g. more soil sites, but there must be overlap • High and low vulnerability extremes • Future research value

13

Potential study areas • Midrand • Secunda • Durban • Port Elizabeth • Cape Flats Site Disadvantages • Midrand

o Logistics and travel costs o No contact person?

• Secunda o Logistics and travel costs

• Port Elizabeth o Minimal existing pollution sources

• Durban o Contact person – data acquisition? o Travel & logistics

• Cape Flats o Not a representative fractured rock aquifer

Have to select at least two areas out of the above five. How are we going to carry out crosscutting deliverable, which approach to follow, by whom and by when? Dr Pietersen: The initial thought was to focus on a fractured rock environment, but it is not cast in stone. Project team to decide where they will get the most results in terms of outcome. Like the term “appropriate sites”. Preferences: Secunda, Midrand and Cape Flats with Secunda and Cape Flats as priority sites/areas and Midrand as a third option. Dr Beekman added: Cape Flats and Secunda came out strongest when criteria were considered. The meeting agreed on the selection of the areas. Prof Fey added that Midrand might be very beneficial as detailed soil information at a 1:10 000 scale, is available in some areas. Could use existing information to do ‘desktop’ case study. Need to select some case studies in a case study area. Two/three case studies with good water and soil information. Could put together a vulnerability map and could use it to test scheme of vulnerability assessment. Dr Beekman: it would be helpful to have a strong linkage with previous polltion inventory project. Secunda & Cape Flats as prime targets and Midrand as an option. Dr Jovanovic: Select different sites in Cape Flats. Prof Fey said Sasol owns Secunda data and formal approval from Sasol should be obtained. Mr Pietersen offered to discuss it with Mr Martin Stegmann. Complexities need to be sorted out and a discussion with DWAF on how to take it forward is required. Need to have a Memorandum of Agreement with Sasol. WRC to request such approval. Mr Conrad: bear in mind work of WRC project “Geotechnical Components of Groundwater Vulnerability”. Dr Beekman: It would be good to get teams together, motivate what you want to do and where and share with each other a common area where we can test improved vulnerability assessment methods. This was fully supported by Dr Pietersen. Dr Beekman proposed the drafting of a methodology/approach for future work in the slected areas whch should also include a report on data availability: Prof Fey and Ms Herselman for Secunda and possibly Midrand and Dr Jovanovic, Mr. Cammpbell and Mr. Conrad for Cape

14

Flats. These draft should be circulated among the researchers for revew and improvement. Dr Beekman suggested the following timeframe: by mid-August (summarise info available, what needs to be collected and why). Prof Fey: In case of Secunda will need one/two people to convene and meet with Secunda staff for field visit. Sasol’s effluent studies very interesting (cocktail of organics & inorganics). Information put across at a workshop, almost a ready-made case history for this project. Dr Usher added that Sasol also did major data consolidation to identify gaps. Dr Pietersen: to construct case study to be of value to Sasol, it need to have both ways. Prof Fey & Ms Herselman to motivate on Secunda and possibly Midrand field visit(s). Dr Jovanovic, Mr Conrad & Mr Campbell on Cape Flats field visit. Documents to be completed by mid August. E PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS BY THE 4 RESEARCH TEAMS ON PLAN

OF OPERATIONS AND DELIVERABLES FOR 2004/2005 Deliverables 2004/2005 – GEOSS – Mr Julian Conrad 1. Compilation of data into a GIS 2. Development of GIS-based algorithms for vulnerability assessment (31 March 2005) 3. Development of a decision support framework – I 4. Project Management Key issue: Identification of Sites Dr Pietersen: Need clarification and discussion on decision support framework at later stage. GEOSS on track regarding deliverables. Dr Usher referred to algorithms and asked whether things like protection zone are programmed in. Mr Conrad responded that it is not done at this stage, later if it develops as a tool. Dr Jovanovic said he needs feedback from Mr Conrad on what he expects as output and said he could select approach depending on GIS requirement. Dr Beekman: the idea is to integrate results from the various zones and the main question is how approaches will be combined. Prof Fey enquired whether IGS is formally involved in this project. Dr Beekman responded that they are not and said he would be keen to have IGS being involved. Dr Pietersen added it would be advantageous for all parties to come together. Dr Pietersen: Different projects – in Agriculture there are also projects that may have some implications for this project. Non-point source pollutants out to tender. Could bring all parties together at a workshop. US-ISCW – Prof Martin Fey • Soils material/samples in order to validate theories on contaminant materials and how

soils behave. Deliverable – to be done within a year. • Soil classification system – could make certain inferences • Laboratory studies could be of benefit to Dr Jovanovic

15

Key areas: The project has been running for a year – with literature reviews have not had any sharing, etc. Still not use same terminology. Once we visit key areas in field, then it will become a multi-disciplinary programme where we discuss our theories. Dr Pietersen noted the project Steering Committee Meeting would provide further opportunity for integration, which is vital. Prof Fey referred to parallel project and said with two projects to discuss, more cause to meet regularly. In terms of this, produce deliverables and to be in each other’s offices for integration. Dr Beekman proposed that he will compile information on project deliverables and presentations for a CD as a starting point for sharing information. He further recommended to set up a website (within 2 weeks), and advised to set dates for research teams to come together. The meeting agreed that a web site or repository and CD should be ready before the end of June. Dr Beekman: Literature studies are an ongoing process – he preferred that such a deliverable should be 80/90% ready. He also proposed to compile the literature reviews to take out overlaps/duplication. Messrs Campbell & Weaver and Dr Beekman to compile such a document. Mr Campbell: Should try for a combined literature review before end August. Dr Usher referred to his project and said; on an ongoing basis keep updating products with set deadlines. Structure it very clearly and end up ahead of time. Deliverables on Saturated Zone: CSIR – Mr Ross Campbell Planning for 2004/2005 WRC project K5/1432 “Improved methods for aquifer vulnerability assessment etc” R Campbell & K O’H Murphy • Literature review – due July 2004 • One-dimensional solute transport modelling with PHREEQC – Nov 2004 • Sample collection, analysis and interpretation • Flow and transport model for one key site • Develop a decision support system (Mr Murphy) 1-d solute transport modelling Purpose: Classification of buffering properties of various aquifers for various contaminants Results: e.g. characteristic attenuation rates (concentration vs. distance/time) or minimum separation distances Approach (1): Top 3 priority sources, 3 priority contaminants for source, 4 representative aquifer media for South African urban areas Approach (2): Test scenarios with ranges of contaminant concentrations, aquifer properties. Sampling at key study sites • Desk study • Sample collection • etc. Flow & transport model (saturated zone) at a key study site Purpose: To test and refine the results of the 1-d generic modelling Approach: Build a model based on as much real data as possible (new & historic), in as much detail as possible Proposed site: A site on the Cape Flats aquifer

16

Rationale: Heterogeneity-related uncertainties rocket as scale falls – especially in fractured aquifers: modelling software better suited to porous aquifers at small scale Dr Pietersen asked whether the 1-d model is going to be related to case studies and how it is going to work? Mr Campbell responded it is related. Potential to gather all chemistry data and high priority chemicals and look at comparative way what is happening in those aquifers. Dr Beekman added: The idea is classifying the saturated zone including MSD concepts, etc. Dr Usher asked whether it would not be easier to work on case study sites? Mr Campbell responded: The idea is to develop methods that are generally applicable to assessing groundwater vulnerability. The next phase will be a more detailed model at a site to test the generic one. Dr Pietersen referred to study sites, primary aquifers vs. fractured rock aquifers and said if there is a focus on the Cape Flats aquifer, ensure that it is not missing the intent. Dr Beekman: In terms of developing new methods, this is only one component of the programme. To utilise PHREEQC for fractured rock environment can be done, but reliability is questionable. Dr Pietersen referred to Windhoek project and asked if it is possible to mimic fractured rock environments in the AVAP proect. Mr Zhang said that it may be difficult at smaller scales. Dr Beekman agreed with Dr Pietersen to give it more thought. Mr Weaver on the three main urban areas under consideration: one of the purposes was to look at fractured aquifers. Dr Beekman: Secunda and Cape Flats both being taken into account – not all components would all be only fractured or only primary. Dr Usher: Again we are going to be working with aero ban. If you could combine your case study sites with generic models it would be better. Dr Jovanovic, Mr Conrad & Mr Campbell to address the issue of fractured media in write-up of Cape Flats motivation. Proposed Decision Support Framework – Mr Kerry Murphy [Crosscutting, no deliverables for the last year] Background/Context • Interpreting GIS overlays • Identifying suitable methodologies and parameters for assessing aquifer vulnerability in

specific settings/context Suitable Tools • ERDAS Imagine’s Knowledge Engineer and Expert Classifier for interpreting maps /

map overlays o Produces interpreted maps o Can account for context, settings and goals o Uses confidence factors

• Use Acquire software to build decision rule networks to provide Web-based or PC based decision support to guide the user in an interactive mode (can also interact with a database)

o Contexts, settings, goals o Very powerful report generator o Can interact with a database o No licence fees

Proposed deliverables • A map-based model, algorithm and parameter identification tool, and/or • A text and table-based model, algorithm and parameter identification decision-

aid/framework

17

Dr Beekman thanked Mr Murphy for his contribution. Dr Pietersen asked whether, with resources that are put forward to developing this framework, proposed decision support system is within context and whether it ties up with the resources? Mr Murphy responded that it would depend on amount of data supplied. Not sure what type of data will be forthcoming. One of those approaches would fit into the available resources, applying both would be difficult. Propose to select the most suitable approach. Dr Pietersen said it should be part of guideline document. Dr Beekman: it should also be related to GIS deliverables. Important questions are: what is your approach to achieve this deliverable? how do you integrate it with GIS? Dr Pietersen suggested that the DS framework needs to be reconsidered. Do not want something that needs a lot of additional work. Do not start the process if it cannot be completed. Need further thought on it. Mr Murphy proposed to get together with Dr Pietersen to sort it out. Dr Jovanovic: Tiered approach to DSS. Mr Campbell: What decisions do we want to support? To assist people involved in planning for e.g. a factory. Issue has to be addressed. Dr Pietersen: Question of appropriateness of DSS and if we’re going for computer-based system to do it properly rather than superficially. Mr Campbell: It may be more appropriate to have a guideline manual. Dr Jovanovic will start using PHREEQC in future. Can serve the integrating function if someone from each department being a proficient PHREEQC user. Really important impact a project like this can have, is to have a modelling course. To develop a critical mass of PHREEQC users. Applying PHREEQC in a soils context and saturated zone context. Dr Beekman: definitely a spin-off for future contamination studies. The unsaturated zone: UWC – Dr N Jovanovic Approach • Classification of unsaturated zones (subsoils) • Measurements of properties of unsaturated zone, sampled to represent the classification • Improvement of methods for groundwater vulnerability assessment • Comparison of methods for groundwater vulnerability assessment Improvement of methods Outcome of literature review Index and overlay method • DRASTIC

o Inclusion of multi-layer component, based on site-specific conceptual models o Ranking based on measurements of hydraulic properties o Inclusion of preferential flow and ranking o Inclusion of chemical properties and ranking based on geochemistry

Solubility Volatilisation Sorption Degradation

Familiarization and selection of suitable numerical models VLEACH model (example – Leaching rate of Simazine (by S Maharaj) VLEACH model (example - Cumulative groundwater impact of Simazine (by S Maharaj)

Semi-steady state, generic contaminant model; No half-life; Detailed understanding needed

18

Options 1. Include sub-ratings to improve “I” of DRASTIC 2. Run numerical model(s) in the background to generate rating for “I” of DRASTIC 3. Run suitable numerical model(s) for best and worst case scenarios and for average

conditions or polygons Time Frames 0-3 months • Classification of unsaturated zones • Development of conceptual models for case study sites • Familiarization with models 3-6 months, etc. Dr Pietersen: There need to be project team acceptance of all models and software that is going to be used in the project. It is necessary to create synergy between groups. Dr Jovanovic will test a few of them before making a selection and then present the selection to the team. Dr Beekman: for next meeting everybody should carry out a more detailed planning of deliverables for next three months. F GENERAL ISSUES / ACTIONS • Improve communication among research teams. • Website: Mr Conrad offered to set it up. Prof Fey proposed to contract it out to a

professional for design and maintenance. Mr Weaver questioned suitability of website as means of communication. Prof Fey responded that it should not be the sole source of information. Mr Murphy asked about a repository for documents. Mr Weaver agreed it is a good place for putting documents as it is easy to access documents. Mr Conrad said it would not be a sole means of communication. Latest progress reports, emails, etc. Dr Beekman: communicate also directly. Mr Conrad offered to champion – to liase with Mr Weaver. After each project meeting to dump all info on site. No substitute to talk directly.

• CD – to compile and distribute all project info and minutes. Dr Beekman will champion

this activity. • International Review Panel: Dr Pietersen proposed to bring an international panel to look

at the groundwater pollution strategy as a whole as previously proposed, confirm strategy and in a sense improve on it and also to engage in project. Need clarification – number of issues still outstanding in terms of this programme. Need to find someone to give strategic input and to benchmark within international context. Looking at a three-person delegation – possibly also use as guest speakers at conference. Recommendations to Dr Pietersen. Idea is to reconfirm what has been identified 5 years ago.

• Reports for key study areas due by mid-August. • Terminology issues should be resolved. Vulnerability of aquifers to pollution has a host

of definitions. Develop a glossary. • Schedule for field trip. Prof Fey said a lot will depend on Sasol (probably late Aug/Sept) • Collection of data.

19

• Progress meetings: once every 3 months, duration ½-day. Prof Fey proposed that for quarterly reports a written summary should be produced in advance. Dr Beekman: presentations should be brief (10 min), concentrating on major issues / bottlenecks / solutions.

• Steering Committee Meeting: 22 September 2004. Request for information will be sent

around mid-August. Dr Pietersen said, in a sense, it will be a summary of deliverables. Synthesized, integrated document including all literature reviews and summarised in one document. On all deliverables get a one-page summary on each deliverable to give an overview. Template will be supplied by Dr Pietersen. Report on 4/5 deliverables: be concise, clear and to the point.

• Mr Campbell asked Prof Fey why he had chosen copper and phosphate for lab studies.

Prof Fey: In case of metals do need to make a contrast between copper and metals like zinc, manganese or cadmium. Phosphate also important in detergents and is a good indicator anion.

• Mr Conrad asked Mr Campbell and Mr Jovanovic to coordinate on their input. • Mr Murphy noted that he needs to talk to Dr Beekman about the DS framework. • Project Management Issues

Dr Pietersen said he was initially concerned about the project, now really pleased. The project is not as behind schedule as he initially thought, can catch up in the course of time. Need to minimise rollover of funding. Finances Need to get finances up to date. Make sure all the deliverables are claimed. Mr Weaver said when a deliverable is handed in an invoice is handed in. Proposed a 50% advance or a progress payment on deliverables. Dr Pietersen: This will necessitate changing the contract. Keep communication open on that issue, if there is a problem, a special arrangement may be made. Prof Fey: Now not a problem but had to subsidise earlier activities. The new dispensation is that 20% of the first year’s budget is paid upfront. With new projects it will be funding upfront. Sub-contracts On sub-contracts Dr Pietersen needs copies of the subcontracts.

3-5 day course on SA soils Could have separate deliverable for technology transfer for such a course. Prof Fey to discuss with Dr Pietersen.

Dr Pietersen referred to concerns raise in previous meeting re balance between different components in terms of soils zone and saturated zone. Everybody is now comfortable with that. Good agenda point for next meeting to see how far we have gone with the integration of knowledge. Hope to interact more frequently.

• Date of next meeting (Steering Committee Meeting): 22 September 2004. Might meet in

field before then. Dr Beekman thanked all for attending the meeting and declared the meeting closed at 16.00 hrs.

20

Subject Task By Whom By When

HR & Finances Spreadsheets to WRC (up to March 2005) All research teams to Mr Weaver Before end July 2004

Steering Committee Meeting (SCM) All 22 September 2004

Preparation materials SCM Mr Weaver, Dr Beekman & research teams Mid-September Project Meetings

Plan for deliverables 3 months ahead Research Teams By next meeting Obtain formal approval from Sasol for Secunda.

Dr Pietersen (WRC) with Prof Fey ASAP

Memorandum of Agreement with Sasol Dr Pietersen (WRC) ASAP Schedule for field trips Prof Fey / Dr Jovanovic Mid-August 2004 Reports: Secunda & Midrand Prof Fey & Ms Herselman Mid-August 2004

Key Study Areas

Report: Cape Flats (incl. Issue on fractured rock media research)

Dr Jovanovic & Messrs, Conrad & Campbell Mid-August 2004

Web page Set up web-page and/or repository Mr Conrad & J Zhang End June 2004

CD Compile relevant project documents (proposal, presentations, minutes) & distribute Dr Beekman Before end June 2004

Combined literature review

Compile one literature review from the four reviews

Messrs Campbell & Weaver and Dr Beekman Before end August 2004

Decision Support System Additional planning and motivation Messrs Murphy & Weaver

and Dr Beekman At later stage

Constitute Review Panel Dr Pietersen International Review Panel Recommendations for panel members to Mr

Pietersen All

Sub-contracts Copies of sub-contracts to Mr Pietersen Messrs Weaver & Campbell 3-5 day course on SA soils

Could have separate deliverable for technology transfer. Discuss with Dr Pietersen. Prof Fey

21