kangra coal (pty) ltd maquasa east discard dump … · within sans 241:2006 drinking water...

Kangra Coal (Pty) Ltd Maquasa East Discard Dump

13-347 9 March 2016 Page 99

30.37000°E). There are no monitoring points downstream of the proposed Discard Dump

area.

According to the monitoring reports, the samples collected from the surface water resource

around Maquasa East and West during both sampling runs were generally good, falling

within SANS 241:2006 drinking water standards.

The results for the analysis of samples from monitoring point 977 for July and September

2014 are presented in Table 4.21.

Table 4.21 Surface water chemistry (July & September 2014)

PARAMETER 977 (JULY 2014) 977 (SEPTEMBER 2014)

pH 7.56 7.15

EC mS/m 16.90 10.5

TDS mg/l 111 69

Ca mg/l 18.75 11.11

Mg mg/l 5.89 3.89

Na mg/l 7.52 5.48

K mg/l 1.27 0.86

TALK mg/l 70 42

Cl mg/l 3 6

SO4 mg/l 15.93 7.87

F mg/l 0.06 0.34

Al mg/l 0.04 0.03

Fe mg/l 0.35 0.93

Mn mg/l 0.10 0.08

SS mg/l 8 4


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 100

4.8.6 Water Users within the Catchment

The Water Authorisation Registration Management System (WARMS) data for the W51B

quaternary catchment shows that the majority of surface water abstracted within the

catchment is used for commercial forestry and irrigated agriculture, with Schedule 1 water

uses (domestic use, no authorisation required) making up a significant portion of the water

abstracted. Water for mining and urban industrial uses also make up a small proportion of

the water use in the catchment.

The summary of water users for the quaternary catchment is shown in Table 4.22.

Table 4.22 Surface water users within the quaternary catchment

SECTOR W51B (NO. OF USERS) W25B %

Clean Water Dam 2.00 6.06

Schedule 1 8.00 24.24

Mining 0.00 0.00

Commercial Afforestation 10.00 30.30

Water for Livestock 0.00 0.00

Non-Urban Industry 1.00 3.03

Urban Industry 2.00 6.06

Agriculture Irrigation 10.00 30.30

TOTAL 33 100

4.9 Groundwater

The information in this section is extracted from the Hydrogeological Investigation Report

compiled in respect of the proposed Discard Dump (refer to Appendix C-6).

4.9.1 Aquifer description

Based on review of available data, it is evident that the key aquifer host media within the

regional area can be generalised as follows:

• Unconsolidated aquifer – Alluvial material;

• Semi-confined aquifer - weathered rock; and

• Fractured rock aquifer.

Generally, the unconsolidated surface alluvium overlies the unconfined weathered aquifers

and stores water resulting from precipitation infiltration and overland flow. Due to their


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 101

spatial distribution with respect to the proposed development site, the surficial alluvial

aquifer is not considered in detail.

Unconfined aquifer - weathered rock / material:

The weathered rock aquifer hosted within the Vryheid Formation Sediments is classified as

the uppermost weathered rock/material, which possess secondary porosity associated with

weathering. Depth of weathering is generally less than ~20 metres below ground level

(mbgl), with borehole yields generally less than 2l/s. Discrete and localised variations in

hydraulic parameters may occur and are likely to be a result of characteristics of the

secondary porosity. Limited/no hydraulic parameters/characteristics are available for this

unit.

Groundwater quality indicates a bicarbonate groundwater type with elevated aluminium,

manganese and iron values.

Fractured rock aquifer

The fractured rock aquifer hosted within the Vryheid Formation Sediments is classified as a

thick sequence of sediments (i.e. sandstone, shale, siltstone, carbonaceous shale and coal).

The matrix of the Vryheid Formation Sediments has a very low primary porosity; therefore,

groundwater storage and movement is predominantly confined and is associated with

geological structures and associated fracturing throughout the unit.

Water strikes with discrete fracture zones generally range between ~20 and ~50mbgl with

moderately to high borehole yields (>3 L/s). Higher yields (~5 to >10 L/s) are largely

associated with dolerite intrusion contact zones.

Transmissivity values obtained from various aquifer testing programs, using a number of

analytical (Cooper-Jacob, Thesis) methods, range from ~0.4 to ~30 m³/d.

Groundwater quality indicates a calcium/magnesium-bicarbonate groundwater type with

elevated sulphate, aluminium, magnesium, iron, lead and cadmium values.

Groundwater levels, measured across the regional project area, when compared with

available groundwater intersection data, indicates confined groundwater flow conditions

within the fractured rock aquifer with an inferred groundwater flow towards the east (a

subdued reflection of the surface topography). However, on local scale, groundwater flow

is likely to be significantly more complex due to geological and structural controls resulting

in potential groundwater barriers and/or discrete conduits to flow.


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 102

Groundwater quality from various previous hydrogeological investigations, indicates the

prevailing groundwater quality across the regional project area is considered dominantly

bicarbonate type with no dominant cation species. This type groundwater is typically

associated with a dynamic controlled system wherein ion exchange influences the change in

water chemistry.

Recharge processes are by means of direct and indirect infiltration of precipitation. Based

on the chloride-method, the localised recharge estimate for the weathered aquifer is

between 10 and 25% of the mean annual precipitation (GCS, 2002); while 1 to 3% of the

annual precipitation is estimated for the fractured rock aquifer unit (Hodgson et al, 2007).

4.9.2 Drilling program

During July 2014, A total of three (3) hydrogeological exploration holes were drilled to a

depth of 40m, as part of the baseline characterisation program and to serve as monitoring

boreholes. The hydrogeological drilling and borehole construction logs for each of the

drilled test holes are provided in Appendix A of the Hydrogeology Report (Appendix C-6),

and their locations are shown in Figure 4.13.


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 103

Figure 4.13 Location of groundwater monitoring boreholes

[REFER TO REPORT UNDER APPENDIX C-6]


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 104

The encountered lithologies were generally similar in each hydrogeological exploration

borehole, consisting of:

• weathered sandstone and / or shale – weathering depth less than 10mbgl and

• interlayered sandstone and shale.

Anecdotal drilling characteristics showed no direct visual evidence of fracturing (e.g.

observation of fracture faces on drill chips).

4.9.3 Groundwater Strikes and Air-lift yield

No groundwater strikes and associated air-lift yields, associated with the newly drilled

hydrogeological exploration boreholes, were encountered to a depth of 40mbgl.

4.9.4 Groundwater Level and Direction

Groundwater levels, across the greater study area, range from artesian to ~64 meters below

ground level (mbgl), with an average water level of ~9.2 mbgl.

Extended depth to water levels are associated the underground mining activities (i.e.

boreholes GCS 1, GCS 2, U, V, BHM1 and BHM3).

Based on the groundwater elevations (GCS, 2014) and assuming hydraulic connectivity

across the aquifer systems, the regional groundwater is from west to east (a subdued

reflection of the surface topography). However, on a local scale the groundwater flow is

likely to be significantly more complex due to geological and structural controls (i.e.

groundwater barriers and / or discrete conduits to flow).

Artesian conditions is most likely associated with geological barriers such as topography

lows, basement highs, dykes (Hodgson et al, 2007), with flow rates between 0.1 L/s

(borehole R and AR) and 0.3 L/s (borehole K).

4.9.5 Hydrocensus

Various hydrocensus field programs were completed across the greater study area (2006,

2010 and 2012). These investigations focused on the identification of groundwater

stakeholders and usage; as well as possible sources of contamination. All hydrocensus

information extends beyond a 5km radius of the study area.

With reference to these various hydrocensus field programmes, key hydrogeological

information is summarized below:


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 105

• Hydrocensus borehole database: The hydrocensus borehole database consists of a

total of 73 geological exploration boreholes (termed: A to Z, AA to AZ, AAA to AAZ,

BHM 1 and BHM 3), 22 hydrogeological monitoring boreholes (termed: GCS 1, GCS 2

and GCS 11 to GCS 30) and four (4) springs (termed: Spring 1 to Spring 4). With

respect to the study area, none are located within the proposed footprint area as

the geological exploration boreholes are mainly deposit-specific, while the

hydrogeological monitoring boreholes is spatially distributed across the greater

study area?; and

• Groundwater use and receptors: Based on the hydrocensus field programs, the

greater study area is characteristic of low groundwater usage, with the key source

for water supply to surrounding communities and farmers in the greater study area

being surface water. During the 2012 hydrocensus conducted by GCS across the

greater study area, no groundwater receptors were identified in proximity of the

proposed development area. However, Spring 4’s discharge was located

approximately 5km west of the proposed Discard Dump and is utilised as water

supply source to a local community. No information could be obtained with regards

to usage and/or volumes.

The hydrocensus boreholes identified within the vicinity of the study area are presented on

Figure 4.15.


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 106

Figure 4.14 Location of hydrocensus boreholes

[REFER TO REPORT UNDER APPENDIX C-6]


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 107

4.9.6 Natural Springs

A total of four (4) un-named naturally occurring springs (termed: Spring 1 to Spring 4) have

previously been identified within the greater study area. Although these springs are

considered sites of cultural significance (e.g. water supply source) to selective local

communities, none are located within the immediacy of the proposed Discard Dump.

However, an additional un-named spring (termed: Spring 5) has been identified within the

footprint of the proposed study area. Based on available data, the following provides

background information on this spring:

• The surface expression of the spring represented by a localised, internal draining

wetland; and

• The majority of the spring flow is evaporated or used for stock watering.

According to the 1:250,000 geological Series Map, the groundwater sourcing these springs

are hosted by the Vryheid Formation sediments and is most likely a result of post-Karoo

intrusions (e.g. dykes and sills) and their hydrogeological characteristics.

Monitoring of Spring 5’s discharge (quantity and quality) has not been undertaken, due to:

• being unable to identify a distinct groundwater discharge location; and

• collection of a water sample from a stagnant water body is unlikely to be

representative of the spring discharge (e.g. evaporative signature, fouling from

livestock).

4.9.7 Groundwater Quality

Groundwater samples were collected from the monitoring boreholes shortly after they were

drilled during the July 2014 field program. The samples were analysed at Aquatico

Laboratory in Pretoria (a South African National Accreditation System (SANAS) accredited

laboratory according to ISO/IEC 17025:2005 standards No: T0374). Table 4.23 presents the

summary of the result, compared to following standards:

• DWS South African Water Quality Guidelines (SAWQG) Target Range, Volume 1,

Domestic Use (1996) and

• South African National Standards for Drinking Water (SANS 241-1:2011).

The EC of the groundwater ranges from 8.8 mS/m to 80.1 mS/m, with pH values varying

between 6 and 7 (pH unit), indicating neutral to slightly acidic conditions.


13-347 9 March 2016 8

In general, the cations and anions reported from the three sample locations were below the

SAWQG and SANS 241-1 water quality criteria, with the exception of the calcium,

magnesium and sulphate concentrations in the water sourced from borehole MONBH3. This

is reflected in elevated EC and subsequent high TDS for this borehole sample.

The prevailing groundwater quality is dominantly of sodium-bicarbonate (Na-HCO3) type,

typically associated with a dynamic controlled system wherein ion exchange influences the

change in water chemistry. However, groundwater sourced from monitoring borehole

MONBH3 is characteristic of calcium-sulphate (Ca-SO4) rich water, which is typically

associated with water influenced by weathering of naturally occurring sulphide minerals

and/or stagnant water.

This deviation in water quality can most probably be attributed to the mining activities

located up-gradient to the study area.

The water sample from MONBH3 also exceeded the SAWQG and SANS 241-1 standards in

terms of fluoride concentration. The reported 1.65mg/L concentration exceeds the quality

tolerance level of 1mg/L (DWA SAWQG) and 1.5mg/L (SANS 241-1), respectively.

Similar to the major ionic constituents; aluminium, iron and nickel concentrations sourced

from MONBH3 exceeds the DWA SAWQG and SANS 241-1 water quality criteria for

domestic/drinking water.


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 109

Table 4.23 Hydro-chemical Parameter Summary

ANALYSES

UNIT

DETECTION LIMIT

COMPARISON STANDARDS

SAMPLES STATISTICS SUMMARY

DWA SAWQG*

SANS241:1**

MONBH3

MONBH4

MONBH5

%RDP MIN MAX MEAN GEOMEAN

NUMBER OF MEASUREABLE

CONCENTRATIONS

Physio-Chemical Parameters

- pH pH pH unit na 6-9 5-9.7 6.04 6.75 6.95 <20% 6.04 7 6.69 6.67 4

- Electrical Conductivity

EC mS/m

0.1 <70 <170 80.1 8.8 10.5 <20%

8.8 80.1 27.5 16.6 4

- Total Dissolved Solids

TDS mg/L

10 <450 <1200 535 96 74 <20%

73 535 195 129 4

- Total Alkalinity T-Alk mg

CaCO3/L 2.477 NS NS 46.9 39 43.8

<20% 39 46.9 42.5 42.4 4

- Total Hardness T-Hard mg

CaCO3/L na NS NS

323 20 12 <20% 12 323 92 31 4

Inorganic and Metal Parameters

Major Ionic Constituents

- Calcium Ca mg/L 0.0259 <32 NS 73.4 4.65 2.6 <20% 2.6 73.4 20.8 6.9 4

- Magnesium Mg mg/L 0.009 <30 NS 34 2.05 1.34 <20% 1.34 34.00 9.69 3.36 4

- Potassium K mg/L 0.018 <50 NS 11.8 3.24 3.33 <20% 3.24 11.80 5.47 4.59 4

- Sodium Na mg/L 0.013 <100 <200 12.1 8.5 15.8 <20% 8.5 15.8 13.0 12.6 4

- Sulphate SO4 mg/L

0.04 <200 <500 322 0.316 0.792 <20%

0.316 322.00 81.01

0 2.945 4

- Chloride Cl

mg/L

0.423 <100 <300 4.1 3.88 4.32

<20%

3.88 4.49 4.20 4.19

4

Fluoride and Phosphorus Constituents

- Fluoride F mg/L 0.055 <1 <1.5 1.65 0.143 0.099 42% 0.065 1.650 0.489 0.197 4


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 110

ANALYSES

UNIT

DETECTION LIMIT



DWA SAWQG*

SANS241:1**

MONBH3

MONBH4

MONBH5



CONCENTRATIONS

- Orthophosphate PO4 as P mg/L 0.008 NS NS 0.016 0.04 0.04 93% 0.016 0.110 0.052 0.041 4

Metals/Metalloids Constituents

- Aluminium Al mg/L 0.003 <0.15 NS 0.261 BDL BDL na BDL 0.261 0.063 na 4

- Barium Ba mg/L 0.003 NS NS 0.114 0.096 0.108 <20% 0.096 0.115 0.108 0.108 4

- Beryllium Be mg/L 0.001 NS NS 0.03 BDL BDL na BDL 0.030 0.007 na 4

- Bismuth Bi mg/L 0.004 NS NS 0.008 0.023 BDL na BDL 0.023 0.006 na 4

- Boron B mg/L 0.003 NS NS 0.041 0.028 0.095 <20% 0.028 0.095 0.063 0.055 4

- Cadmium Cd mg/L 0.001 <0.005 <0.005 BDL BDL BDL na BDL BDL BDL BDL 4

- Cobalt Co mg/L 0.001 NS <0.5 0.298 BDL BDL na BDL 0.298 0.074 na 4

- Copper Cu mg/L 0.001 <1 <2 BDL BDL BDL na BDL BDL BDL BDL 4

- Chromium (total)

Cr mg/L 0.001 NS <0.05 BDL BDL BDL

na BDL BDL BDL BDL 4

- Gallium Ga mg/L 0.001 NS NS 0.002 0.002 0.002 40% 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002 4

- Iron Fe mg/L 0.003 <0.1 <2 23.3 0.554 BDL na BDL 23.300 5.962 na 4

- Lithium Li mg/L 0.001 NS NS 0.029 0.005 BDL na BDL 0.029 0.008 na 4

- Manganese Mn mg/L 0.001 <0.05 <0.5 1.33 0.043 0.093 <20% 0.043 1.330 0.391 0.150 4

- Molybdenum Mo mg/L 0.001 NS NS BDL 0.003 0.003 100% BDL 0.003 0.002 na 4

- Nickel Ni mg/L 0.001 NS <0.15 0.41 BDL BDL na BDL 0.410 0.102 na 4

- Lead Pb mg/L 0.004 <0.01 <0.01 BDL BDL BDL na BDL BDL BDL BDL 4

- Rubidium Rb mg/L 0.002 NS NS 0.045 0.046 0.027 63% 0.027 0.052 0.043 0.041 4

- Silver Ag mg/L 0.001 NS NS BDL BDL BDL na BDL BDL BDL BDL 4

- Strontium Sr mg/L 0.001 NS NS 2.16 0.074 0.06 <20% 0.060 2.160 0.589 0.155 4


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 111

ANALYSES

UNIT

DETECTION LIMIT



DWA SAWQG*

SANS241:1**

MONBH3

MONBH4

MONBH5



CONCENTRATIONS

- Tellurium Te mg/L 0.001 NS NS BDL BDL BDL na BDL BDL BDL BDL 4

- Thallium Tl mg/L 0.037 NS NS BDL BDL BDL na BDL BDL BDL BDL 4

- Vanadium V mg/L 0.001 <0.1 <0.2 BDL BDL BDL na BDL BDL BDL BDL 4

- Zinc Zn mg/L 0.002 <3 <5 0.556 BDL BDL na BDL 0.556 0.138 na 4

Nitrogen-Species Parameters

- Ammonia NH4 as N mg/L 0.005 <1 NS 0.624 0.157 0.153 <20% 0.151 0.624 0.271 0.218 4

- Nitrate NO3 as N mg/L 0.017 <6 <11 0.286 0.279 0.269 <20% 0.269 0.296 0.283 0.282 4

Note/s:

- mS/m - milli Siemens per metre - mg/L - milligrams per Litre - mg CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per Litre - NS - no standard - na - not applicable - BDL - below detection limit

* - Department of Water Affairs South African Water Quality Guidelines, target range, Volume 1, Domestic Use (1996)

** - South African National Standards for Drinking Water (SANS 241-1:2011)


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 112

4.9.8 Source-Pathway-Receptor Description

In order to assess the potential impacts, the pollution source of, pathway and potential

sensitive receptors were identified, as discussed below:

• Source:

The geochemical characterisation of the discard material indicated that the

proposed Discard Dump is likely to act as a source of contamination (refer to

section 2.3 of this report). However, liner systems and have been designed for the

Discard Dump and PCD (refer to section 2.3.4 of this report); as well as an

underdrainage system to collect seepage above the Discard Dump liner.

The proposed Discard Dump and associated infrastructure are therefore unlikely to

act as a significant contaminant source, provided the liner systems are not

compromised during the construction, operation and post-closure.

• Pathway:

Based on the aquifer characteristics (e.g. weathering depth, groundwater strike and

static water levels), the hydrogeological system at the study area can be

categorised into two aquifers: a shallow weathered rock/material aquifer and a

deeper fractured rock aquifer hosted within the Vryheid Formation sediments.

Shallow weathered rock/material aquifer – Vryheid Formation sediments comprise

highly weathered material and have an average thickness of between ~5 and ~12m.

Due to the limited depth extent and average depth to groundwater (between ~9

and ~12 m), it is unlikely that this system will comprise a significant groundwater

potential. However; in terms of seepage emanating contaminant transport, this

aquifer is considered significant. No site-specific aquifer hydraulic characteristics

are available for this aquifer unit.

Deeper fractured rock aquifer – Vryheid Formation sediments comprises a thick

sequence of interlayered sediments with limited primary porosity. Secondary

structures are likely to result in the development of discrete zones of high hydraulic

conductivity. Limited structural information is available due to the localised

Project extent, relative to the extent of the Vryheid Formation and available data.

Although specific differences in the lithological units of this formation are observed

(e.g. degree of weathering and alteration etc.), the lithology of this formation can

be considered to be similar across the study area. No site-specific aquifer hydraulic

characteristics are available for this aquifer unit.


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 113

Groundwater level, measured across the study area, range between ~9 and

~12mbgl, with an inferred groundwater flow towards the northwest (a reflection of

the surface topography).

Recharge processes are via direct infiltration of precipitation on the weathered

rock/material aquifer system. Based on the chloride-method, the localised recharge

estimate for the weathered rock/material aquifer is between 10 and 25% of the

mean annual precipitation (GCS, 2002). Approximately 1 to 3% of the annual

precipitation is estimated for the fractured rock aquifer unit (Hodgson et al, 2007).

Recharge within the footprint of the proposed discard storage facility is considered

insignificant due to the proposed liner system.

The ephemeral alluvial aquifer system located down-gradient of the study area is

regarded as a potential discharge zone.

• Receptor (s):

Although, there is no groundwater dependent receptors within the immediacy of

the study area, the ephemeral Egude River flow system is considered sensitive due

to its locality with respect to the proposed Discard Dump.

Provided the integrity of the liner system/s is not compromised during the

construction, operation and closure and post closure phases of the development, no

impacts on the river system are expected.

4.10 Heritage and Archaeology

Information has been extracted from the Power Station Site Selection Report (GCS, 2008)

which cited a survey of the southern part of the Discard Dump area (Pistorius, 2008) (at the

time this was part of the proposed Power Station and Ash Dump); as well as the March 2013

Phase I Heritage Impact Assessment undertaken in respect of the Maquasa East Opencast

expansion (Pistorius, 2013) (Pit D is located adjacent to the proposed Discard Dump area, as

shown in Figure 1.1). Both surveys were undertaken by Dr Julius Pistorius (archaeologist and

heritage consultant).

The Power Station project area is outlined in pink in Figure 4.15.


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 114

Figure 4.15 Location of the Power Station project area (GCS, 2008)


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 115

According to Pistorius (2013), heritage resources, which are quite common in the larger

project area include:

• Historical remains associated with farmstead complexes consisting of houses,

associated outbuildings, cattle enclosures and graveyards; and

• Abandoned graveyards left by farm workers who moved from farms to urban areas.

4.10.1 Summary of findings

During the 2013 survey, two square dwellings dating from the recent past (less than 60

years) were identified. These dwellings are of low significance.

No site of high significance (e.g. graveyards) were identified within the areas surveyed.

It is always a possibility that the assessments may have overlooked heritage resources in the

areas surveyed. This is because heritage sites may occur in tall grass or in Blue Gum lots,

while others may lie below the surface of the earth and may only be exposed once

development commences.

If any heritage resources of significance is exposed during construction, the South African

Heritage Resources Authority (SAHRA) should be notified immediately, all development

activities must be stopped and an archaeologist accredited with the Association for

Southern African Professional Archaeologist (ASAPA) should be notified in order to

determine appropriate mitigation measures for the discovered finds. This may include

obtaining the necessary authorisation (permits) from SAHRA to conduct the mitigation

measures.

4.11 Noise

During 2008, a Noise Impact Assessment was undertaken by DBAccoustics (Van der Merwe,

2008) in respect of the proposed Power Station and Ash Dump. The information in this

section is extracted from this report.

The noise survey found that the mining and mining related activities are the sources of

noise in the vicinity of the Discard Dump area, i.e. mine vehicles; conveyors; ventilation

fan noise from the Maquasa West Mining operations (clearly audible in the study area when

there is a westerly wind) and the crushing and screening plant at Maquasa East.

The prevailing noise level recorded at the gravel road (to the south of the Discard Dump

location and adjacent to a conveyor) at the time of the survey was 66.7dBA during the

daytime and 70.0dBA during the night-time.


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 116

The noise assessment established that the district cannot be classified as a rural district

according to the definition set out in the SANS 10103 of 2008. There are existing mining

activities with the result that there is more traffic (heavy-duty vehicles), which is one of

the biggest contributors to the higher prevailing ambient noise levels.

The Driefontein residential area and the residents are already exposed to a certain extent

of higher noise levels than expected in a residential area.

4.12 Air Quality

4.12.1 Regional Air Quality

The proposed Discard Dump site is located within the north-eastern portion of the Highveld

Priority Area (HPA) declared in 2007 terms of the NEMAQA.

Approximately half of the total annual emissions (279 630 tons/a) of fine particulate matter

(PM10) within the HPA, is attributed to particulate entrainment on mine haul roads. Primary

metallurgical industry and power generation account for 17% and 12% respectively. Other

substances of concern are Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) (73% from power generation) and Sulphur

Dioxide (SO2) (82% from power generation).

Other sources of emissions within the HPA include the petrochemical industry, motor

vehicles, clay brick manufacturing, household fuel burning, etc.

According to the HPA AQMP, most of the HPA experiences relatively good air quality, but

there are nine extensive areas where ambient air quality standards for SO2, NO2, PM10 and

Ozone (O3) are exceeded. There are nine such areas within the HPA, referred to as

hotspots.

The PSLM is highlighted as a hotspot, however ambient air quality complies with the

standards because the frequency of the exceedances recorded is within the tolerance

limits. The exceedances of S~ limit values occur at the Majuba monitoring site (close to the

Majuba Power Station).

4.12.2 Local Air Quality

A desktop level baseline assessment was undertaken by Bohlweki-SSI Environmental in

respect of the Power Station site selection process. The information in this section is

extracted from the Site Selection Report (GCS, 2008).


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 117

The predominant winds in the area surrounding the Discard Dump blow from the north-

westerly and north-easterly sector. The area does not on average experience have high

wind speeds. At the site, 0.1% of the time, calm conditions exist over the area. The highest

frequency of wind speeds lie between 0.5 to 2.1 m/s, which occurred for 44.7% of the time.

The second highest wind class (2.1 – 3.6 m/s) occurs 27.9% of the time.

The area is characterised by high stability levels, which inhibits the ability of inversion

layers to develop, particularly in the early hours of winter mornings. This phenomenon may

result in increasing ground level pollution concentrations.

The sensitive receptors identified in the vicinity of the study area are presented (during the

2008 site selection) are listed in Table 4.24.

Table 4.24 Sensitive Air Quality Receptors (GCS, 2008)

RECEPTOR DISTANCE FROM DISCARD

DUMP AREA

ORIENTATION IN RELATION FROM THE EXISTING MINE

Msobotsheni 5.36 North-east

Heyshope Dam 3.98 South-east

Driefontein 3.09 East

Main Access Road 2.83 South-east

Surrounding farms >2 All directions

Piet Retief 43.4 East

Amersfoort 49.1 West

Forestry 5.81 North-east

4.13 Socio-economic environment

The study area is located within the north-eastern corner of the PSLM, close to the border

between the PSLM and the Mkhondo Local Municipality (MLM), which both form part of the

GSDM of the Mpumalanga Province.

Mpumalanga, which constitutes 6.5% of South Africa's land area, lies in eastern South

Africa, north of KwaZulu-Natal and bordering Swaziland and Mozambique. In the north it

borders on Limpopo, to the west Gauteng, to the southwest the Free State and to the south

KwaZulu-Natal. The capital is Mbombela.

Mpumalanga Province is divided into three municipal districts (GSDM, Nkangala DM and

Ehlanzeni DM), which are further subdivided into 17 local municipalities. The GSDM is


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 118

divided into seven (7) LMs (Albert Luthuli LM, Msukaligwa LM, Mkhondo LM, Pixley Ka Seme

LM, Lekwa LM, Dipaleseng LM, and Govan Mbeki LM).

The community which is closest to the project area is the Driefontein community, which is

located approximately 2km to the west of the proposed new Discard Dump.

4.13.1 Demographic Profile

Population and household profile:

Although the population size of the PSLM and MLM decreased between 2001 and 2011, the

number of households increased over the same period.

According to the 2014 Kangra Social and Labour Plan (SLP), the population of the

Driefontein community decreased from 4 754 persons in 2001 in to 3 542 persons in 2007.

Language

The LMs and the GSDM comprise largely of Zulu speaking persons, followed by Siswati and a

small percentage of Afrikaans speaking people.

Age

The MLM the largest youth population (0-14 years) in the region (36.59%), with the PSLM

population consisting of 34.90% of youth.

The largest part of each population, however, falls among the 15 to 60 year age band. The

population starts decreasing from the age of 45 years, leaving fewer economically active

individuals.

4.13.2 Economic Profile

Employment and labour profile

The highest measured number of employed persons in the region during the Census 2011

was the GSDM, with 24.84% of the total population being employed. The PSLM had the

smallest number of unemployed persons with 9.50%.

The agriculture forestry and fishing industry for Mpumalanga has declined substantially

between 2001 and 2011. The mining and quarrying industry has grown from 6.54% of the

total economy in 2001 to 11.27% in 2011 of the total economy.


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 119

4.13.3 Neighbouring community

The Driefontein community, which is located to the east of the proposed Discard Dump,

borders the Maquasa East property (refer to Figure 1.1).

This community consists of a densely populated settlement of mostly Reconstruction and

Development Property (RDP) style housing, or low cost housing. According to the Kangra

Social and Labour Plan (SLP) (May 2014), 265 persons from the Driefontein community are

employed by Kangra.

The total population of Driefontein decreased from 4 754 in 2001 to 3 542 in 2007.

The Driefontein local area still has many dwellings without clean running water and

sanitation facilities; and a number of roads are in poor condition and pose a risk to the

safety of pedestrians and the health of the larger community by dust creation.

According to the SLP, Kangra will be undertaking the following programmes:

• Community Skills Development and Capacity Development Program; and

• Driefontein Infrastructure Projects which includes water purification and

reticulation; road repairs and sealing; and sanitation (sewage systems and

reticulation).


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 120

5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The chapter describes the public participation process (PPP) undertaken thus far. The proof

of public consultation is attached under Appendix B of this report.

The PPP forms an integral part of the environmental authorisation application in terms of

the following legislative processes:

• MPRDA: Section 48 (f) and 49(f) of the GNR527 (MPRDA Regulations);

• NEMA: Chapter 6, GNR982 (NEMA Regulations); and

• NWA: Section 41 (4) of the NWA provides that the competent authority (DWS) may,

at any stage of the application process, require the applicant to place a suitable

notice in newspapers and other media, and to take other reasonable steps as

directed by the competent authority to bring the application to the attention of

relevant organs of state, interested persons and the general public.

The public participation process (PPP) for the three (3) environmental authorisation

application processes complied with the NEMA regulations PPP, which is more

comprehensive than the MPRDA and NWA requirements. The PPP undertaken thus far is

described in this chapter.

5.1 Identification of Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs)

The existing Kangra stakeholder database (refer to the updated version under Appendix B)

was used to distribute written notifications. The following stakeholder groups are included

in this database:

• Surrounding landowners;

• Lawful occupiers of surrounding land;

• Local, provincial and national authorities; and

• Utilities (Eskom).

No communities are within, or in the immediate vicinity of the study area (it is located

within an existing MRA). The closest community to the proposed Discard Dump area is the

Driefontein community, approximately 2km to the east.


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 121

5.2 Notification of I&APs

5.2.1 Background Information Document

A Background Information Document (BID) was compiled in English and Zulu, and was

distributed to the registered I&APs (existing Kangra stakeholder database (via email, fax

and registered post). Copies of the BID was also placed at the Piet Retief Post Office,

Thusong Service Center and the Maquasa East mine security office. The proof of distribution

is provided in section B-3 of Appendix B.

The BID contained:

• A brief project description;

• A description of the project location and properties (including locality map);

• A description of the environmental authorisation application processes including

the NEMA listed activities triggered and the NWA listed water uses;

• A description of the PPP;

• An invitation to the introductory (Scoping) public meeting;

• A list of locations where the Draft ESR was available for review, as well as the

dates for public review; and

• A registration form which includes the contact details of the EAP with whom

potential I&APs can register for the project.

5.2.2 Site Notices

Copies of the site notice (English and Zulu), printed in A2 and laminated, were placed at

the following six (6) locations in the vicinity of the site (refer to the proof of placement

under section B-1 of Appendix B):

• Piet Retief Post Office (-27, 0043609198°S; 30, 8017042838°E).

• Maquasa East Mine Entrance (-27,0230294298S; 30, 4136015475°E).

• Thusong Service Station (-26, 9938231912°S; 30, 4145243112°E).

• Driefontein Community Hall (-26, 9928031974°S; 30, 4146885965°E).

• Kangra Community Park (-26, 9734803122°S; 30, 4288905580°E).

• Mkhondo Municipality Piet Retief (-27, 0080803894°S; 30, 8027010597°E).

The site notice contained:

• A brief project description;

• A description of the project location and properties (including locality map);

• A description of the environmental authorisation application processes including the

NEMA listed activities triggered and the NWA listed water uses;


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 122

• A description of the PPP; an invitation to the introductory (Scoping) public meeting;

a list of locations where the Draft ESR was available for review, as well as the dates

for public review; and

• Contact details of the EAP so that members of the public may request additional

information and register as an I&AP.

5.2.3 Newspaper Advertisement

A newspaper advertisement was compiled in English and Zulu and was placed in the

Excelsior News newspaper on Friday, 4 April 2014 (refer to the proof of placement under

section B-2 of Appendix B).

The advertisement contained the same information contained in the site notice (refer to

the description in section 5.2.2), excluding the locality map.

5.2.4 Sms notification

Sms notifications were sent on 7 April 2014 to notify registered I&APs of the project (refer

to the proof of distribution under section B-4 of Appendix B). The sms read:

“Dear Stakeholder. You are hereby notified of the environmental authorisation application

processes in respect of the proposed Kangra Coal Maquasa East Discard Dump. Please

contact Renee Francis-Steele at GCS on (031) 764 7130 or [email protected] for further

information.”

5.3 Consultation with the Authorities

The following authorities have been notified in writing and will be consulted with

throughout the application process:

• DMR;

• DWS;

• MDARDLEA;

• South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA), provincial and national;

• Department of Land Affairs: Land Claims Commissioner;

• Department of Agriculture;

• PSLM; and

• GSDM.


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 123

5.4 Consultation with I&APs

5.4.1 Public review of documents

The venues used for public review of the following reports, are listed in Table 5.1:

• Draft ESR: 23 April 2014 to 26 May 2014.

• Final ESR: 9 July 2014 to 30 July 2014.

• Draft EIR and Draft EMPr: 19 November 2015 to 18 January 2016.

• Final EIR and Final EMPr: 2 February 2016 to 23 February 2016 (All comments on the

Final EIR may be submitted to the MDARDLEA and copied to GCS).

Table 5.1 Venues for public review of reports

VENUE ADDRESS CONTACT DETAILS

Piet Retief Library 10B Retief Street, Piet Retief Zaria Valli

(017) 836 8153

Maquasa East Security Office Maquasa East Mine, Driefontein Cornelius Kgope

(017) 730 6249

Thusong Service Centre Driefontein Community Lindiwe Maseko

076 169 2736

GCS website www.gcs-sa.biz Renee Francis-Steele

(031) 764 7130

The Draft and Final ESR were also placed at the Kangra Coal office is Piet Retief. The

offices have been moved to Maquasa East, therefore the Draft and Final EIR could not be

placed there for public review.

5.4.2 Scoping Phase Public Meeting & Distribution of Minutes

The Scoping Phase public meeting (date: 5 May 2014 at 16:30pm), which was advertised in

the BID, site notice and newspaper advertisement was rescheduled to 20 May 2014 (16:30

pm) at the Mkhondo Municipal Hall.

The change of meeting date was communicated via an advertisement in the Excelsior News

on 2 May 2014 (weekly publication, distributed on Fridays), written notifications sent via

email and fax on 30 April 2014, as well as via text message sent on 30 April 2014. All these

notifications were compiled in English and Zulu (refer to the pro attached under section B-5

of Appendix B).

The minutes of the meeting were distributed via email on 17 June 2014. Smses were also

sent out on 17 June 2014 informing stakeholders of the availability of the public meeting

minutes on the GCS website (www.gcs-sa.biz) and that the minutes would be sent to them


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 124

via email or post upon request.

The meeting presentation, attendance register, minutes of the meeting and proof of

distribution of the minutes are provided under section B-6 of Appendix B.

The issues raised during the meeting, as well as the responses given are summarised in

Table 5.2.

5.4.3 Public Feedback (EIA Phase) Meeting

A public feedback/EIA Phase public meeting was held at 11:00 on 7 December 2015 at the

Kempville Hall in Piet Retief. Registered I&APs were notified of the meeting, i.e. the date,

time and venue via email, fax and sms.

The purpose of the meeting was to present the results of the specialist studies and impact

assessment process and record any issues or comments thereto.

The minutes of the meeting (attached under Appendix B of this report) were recorded and

distributed (with the meeting presentation appended thereto) to registered I&APs via

email, fax and post. A copy of the minutes was also uploaded onto the GCS website for

download. Notifications were sent via sms to inform registered I&APs that the minutes were

available for download, or could be sent via post upon request.

5.5 Stakeholder Database

All the relevant local, provincial and national authorities, as well as parastatals,

organisations and landowners were recorded on the Kangra stakeholder database during

previous application processes and will be consulted with throughout the PPP.

All persons, groups or organisations who register as I&APs, attend public meetings or submit

questions or comments, have been added to the stakeholder database thus far, and this will

continue during the remainder of the application process. The existing stakeholder

database is attached under Appendix B.

5.6 Comments and Response Summary

The issues and response summary in Table 5.2 contains all comments received during the

PPP thus far, as well as the reference for the sections in this report which address the

issues raised.


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 125

Table 5.2 Issues and Response Summary

ISSSUE/QUESTION/COMMENT NAME/VENUE/DATE RESPONSE NAME/VENUE/DATE RELEVANT SECTION IN REPORT

The proposed dump lies within one of South Africa’s registered Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) – IBA SA020 Grasslands.

This is a particularly transformed part of the IBA however it lies upstream from Heyshope Dam and runoff from the dump may impact watercourses between the site and the dam.

The avifaunal specialist should use the EIA guidelines for the IBA and may contact BirdLife SA if they have any comments or queries.

Simon Gear, Policy and Advocacy Manager, BirdLife SA

Email (3 April 2014)

Thank you for registering and for the information provided. I have forwarded your email to the Ecologist will be undertaking the Ecological Assessment at the proposed Discard Dump site.

Renee Francis-Steele, GCS

Email (7 April 2014)

Refer to discussion of Avifauna under section 4.5.5 and Avifaunal Assessment Report under Appendix C-5.

Why is the community being informed of the Discard Dump?

Vincent Ncube, Driefontein Community Member

Telephonic conversation (8 April 2014)

The legislation requires that all potential I&APs are informed of the proposed development.



Refer to environmental process description under section 1.7 of this report.

How is this project going to help the community? Vincent Ncube, Driefontein Community Member


At this stage no direct benefits for the community are foreseen. The Discard Dump will allow for the LoM to be extended.



Refer to section 6.3 and 6.4 of this report.

Does this have anything to with the other application that they attended the public meeting for the last time?

Vincent Ncube, Driefontein Community Member


No. The previous application was for a consolidation of the mining rights and for the proposed mine expansions.



N/A


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 126


**A BID was posted to Mr Ncube on 8 April 2014. He was also informed telephonically of the availability of the draft ESR and the time, date and venue of the scoping phase public meeting.

We request Kangra to give job opportunities to the community from this project, including opportunities for small businesses and the youth of Iswepe and Driefontein.

Simeon Motha (Digital Business College and Intuthuko Business Development Centre (Pty) Ltd (Registration Form, 30 April 2014).

Kangra Coal’s procurement process provides that everyone gets the opportunity to tender and if local people have the ability and equipment they might be successful.

Furthermore, according to the Kangra Coal Social and Labour Plan (SLP) (May 2014), Kangra Coal has prioritised sourcing goods and services from Historically Disadvantaged South African (HDSA) suppliers, which are classified in terms of the definitions as defined in the mining charter and the codes of good practise in Black Economic Empowerment (BEE).


Email dated 26 May 2014

N/A

We request sponsorship for small businesses. Simeon Motha (Digital Business College and Intuthuko Business Development Centre (Pty) Ltd (Registration Form, 30 April 2014).

According the Kangra Coal SLP (May 2014), Kangra Coal will be providing capacity building programs to the local Driefontein community in line with the Mkhondo Local Municipality Integrated Development Plan (IDP) skills development initiative. This programme is aimed at supporting the local community and Small Medium and Micro-Enterprises (SMME’s) to improve their business skills.



N/A


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 127


With this program, suitable persons in the local community who show willingness and potential will be given management guidance and mentorship to establish their own enterprises that can operate profitably with the opportunity to participate in the tender process with other companies to potentially secure work with Kangra Coal.

The community skills and capacity development programme aims to contribute to the larger community and not individuals only. It is envisaged that this program can improve the lives of the broader community and create new work opportunities in the local Driefontein area. A further objective is to support the government and local municipal initiatives of creating small businesses and alleviating poverty in the local Driefontein community.

Digital Business College hereby authorise Kangra to work on the new site.

Simeon Motha (Digital Business College and Intuthuko Business Development Centre (Pty) Ltd (Registration Form, 30 April 2014).

Comment noted. Renee Francis-Steele, GCS


N/A

We authorise Kangra coal to work on the new dumping site.

Dumisani Simelane (Intuthuko Business Development cc.) (Registration Form, 29 April 2014)

Comment noted. Renee Francis-Steele, GCS


N/A


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 128


We require more information regarding security measures for the Discard Dump with regards to the safeguarding the community, e.g. trucking of discard and the safety of children who may play in the area.

Dumisani Simelane (Intuthuko Business Development cc.) (Registration Form, 29 April 2014 and telephonic communication on 14 May 2014)

The proposed Discard Dump will located within the boundaries of the Maquasa East property, to the west of the Maquasa East Pit D. Therefore the risks posed to the health a safety of the community is expected to be negligible.



Refer to the impact assessment (section 6.3 to 6.6) and the environmental management programme under Chapter 7.

Will the mine give the youth and community the opportunity to subcontract for the construction of the new dump?





N/A


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 129


We require clarity on the scope of the project and for Kangra to disclose its annual budget for social investment to the community.


The scope of the current project is limited to the construction and establishment of a proposed new Discard Dump within the Kangra Coal MRA.

Kangra’s budget for social investment is set out in the SLP and includes the following:

• Adult Basic Education and Training: R1, 620, 000 over four years.

• Bursary Program: R4, 800, 000 over four years.

• Internship Program: R 181 000 over four years.

• Community Skills and Capacity Development Program (SMME training): R 1, 021, 000 over four years.

• Driefontein Infrastructure Projects (Water purification, road repairs and sanitation): R 9, 500, 000 over four years.

• Vukabone School Adoption: R 1, 400, 000.



N/A

We authorise Kangra Coal to use the new dumping site and issue projects for (SMME’s) to the community.

Sanele Mwale (Vukuzenzele Civils Holdings (Pty) Ltd) (Registration Form, 29 April 2014 and telephonic communication on 14 May 2014)


Furthermore, according to the Kangra Coal Social and Labour Plan (SLP) (May 2014), Kangra Coal has prioritised sourcing goods and services from Historically Disadvantaged South African (HDSA) suppliers, which are classified in terms of the definitions as defined in the mining charter and the codes of good practise in Black Economic Empowerment (BEE).



N/A


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 130


We require more information regarding Kangra’s budget for social investment and donations, etc.


The budget for social investment is in line with the commitments made in the Social and Labour Plan. Other than the committed amount, Kangra responds to normal corporate social investment with the focus being on education and health.

Kangra’s budget for social investment is set out in the SLP and includes the following, over the next four years:

• Adult Basic Education and Training: R1, 620, 000;

• Bursary Program: R4, 800, 000.

• Internship Program: R 181 000.

• Community Skills and Capacity Development Program (SMME training): R 1, 021, 000.

• Driefontein Infrastructure Projects (Water purification, road repairs and sanitation): R 9, 500, 000.

• Vukabone School Adoption: R 1, 400, 000



N/A

We require more information regarding Kangra’s community projects.


Kangra’s proposed community project over the next four years are listed in the row above.



N/A

The community does have any confidence in Kangra or GCS in respect of the processes or the implementation of management measures.

Gudrin Loubser, Community Member, Scoping Phase Public Meeting on 20 May 2014

Comment noted. N/A N/A


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 131


The public meetings (including that for the Maquasa East expansion program) are a complete waste of time.


The public meeting is being held in terms of the legislative requirements for the proposed new Discard Dump. (Fridah Moatshe of Kangra, 20 May 2014)

Fridah Moatshe, Kangra

Scoping Phase Public Meeting, 20 May 2014

N/A

I don’t trust Kangra’s intentions. Gudrin Loubser, Community Member, Scoping Phase Public Meeting on 20 May 2014


Kangra has dewatered wetlands. Gudrin Loubser, Community Member, Scoping Phase Public Meeting on 20 May 2014

These comments are related to the EMP Consolidation project and were previously raised by Ms Loubser. These comments are captured in the PPP chapter of this EMP consolidation.

These comments are therefore not part of the scope of this application process.

Final ESR for public review.

N/A

We oppose anything Kangra proposes until Kangra cleans up its act. Until Kangra proves that it is acting in good faith, public consultation is a useless exercise.




13-347 9 March 2016 Page 132


GCS needs to represent both sides instead of just representing Kangra. GCS instructed Kangra to go ahead with mining which had started prior to authorisation because Kangra would receive a mining right anyway. GCS had never reported things that Kangra has done even though we reported the incidences to GCS.


GCS has followed the relevant minimum requirements for public participation set out in the NEMA regulations (GNR543) to notify the public of the proposed project. In addition, public meetings are included in the public participation process.

All comments received during the PPP will be captured in the issue and response record and submitted to the competent and commenting authorities. All written correspondence will also be attached with the submissions.

No input from I&APs has, or will be omitted from submissions made to the authorities.

Final ESR for public review.

N/A

What distance is the proposed discard dump from the Heyshope Dam?

Bheki Nkosi, Farmer’s Association and Catchment Management Forum Member, Scoping Phase Public Meeting on 20 May 2014

The distance to the nearest water resource will be a minimum of 100m in accordance with the requirements of the GN704 regulations issued by the DWS (Renee Francis-Steele, 20 May 2014).

The Heyshope Dam is just over 2km to the south-east of the proposed Discard Dump (Renee Francis-Steele, email to Bheki Nkosi, dated 22 May 2014).


Scoping Phase Public Meeting, 20 May 2014.

Refer to section 4.8.

Measures must be taken to ensure the Heyshope Dam is not contaminated.


Stormwater management measures will ensure that dirty water is contained so that it does not impact on surface water resources.

The DWS will have input into the design of the proposed new Discard Dump and the proposed measures to prevent contamination of water resources.



Refer to section 2.3.5.


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 133


A Water Use Licence (WUL) will have to be obtained from the DWS before the Discard Dump can be constructed and the application process will require that the DWS engineers and hydrologists approve the proposed Discard Dump design and stormwater management plan (SWMP) respectively (Renee Francis-Steele, 20 May 2014).

The Heyshope dam was built by the previous government to act a national reserve.


Comment noted Renee Francis-Steele, GCS


N/A

What measures will be put in place to prevent surface water from being contaminated via the groundwater.


The proposed new Discard Dump will be lined and the liner will be determined during the Discard Dump design.

The proposed liner will also have to be approved by the DWS during the WUL application process.



Refer to section 2.3.4.

What measures will be put into place to manage air quality impacts from the dump.


Those measures have not yet been determined, but that will be assessed during the impact assessment phase and the management measures will be put into the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report. The EIA report will be put out for public review at the Piet Retief Public Library, the Kangra Coal Offices,



Final ESR for public review, June 2014

Refer to the impact assessment (section 6.3 to 6.6) and the environmental management programme under Chapter 7.


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 134


the Maquasa East offices and the Thusong Service Centre.

Air quality impact management measures will include dust suppression and concurrent rehabilitation of the dump, which will be described in detail in the draft EIA report to be made available for public review in August/September 2014.

Are there a lot of farmers downstream of the proposed new Discard Dump and what type of farmers are there?



There are commercial farmers and some emerging farmers.

I am interested in finding out where the proposed Discard Dump would be located so he can give feedback to the FA. He added that he is part of the water monitoring forum and that the DWS takes samples from the water resources in the area.


N/A

Have you received a copy of the BID? Renee Francis-Steele, GCS


No, but I received the sms.


N/A

A copy of the BID will be sent to Bheki using the details supplied on the attendance register.



N/A N/A N/A

Was the time set for the meeting convenient? Renee Francis-Steele, GCS


The Tweefelhoek community found it difficult to attend because the meeting is in the evening and they find it difficult to find transport.

Mduduzi Nkala, Mkhondo Farmer’s Association, Scoping Phase Public Meeting on 20 May 2014

N/A


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 135


The municipality was reluctant book out the hall for public meetings during the day because the meeting disturbs the municipal employees.

What time would be more convenient?



GCS should try to have the meeting on the weekend.


N/A

GCS should try to have the meeting on the weekend.


During previous meetings with the community, people said that they didn’t want meetings on the weekend because they have weddings or funerals during that time.

At other times, the community did not want meetings during weekdays because people couldn’t attend during the workday.

We will have discussions regarding the meeting time during the weekly community meetings.

Nkosinathi Kunene, Community Liaison Officer for Kangra, Scoping Phase Public Meeting on 20 May 2014

N/A

Spatial information e.g. shapefiles etc. of the soil surveys which were conducted.

Jan Venter, MDARDLEA, email dated 20 November 2015

The shapefiles have been provided electronically. Refer to Appendix A of this memo and the shared Dropbox folder.

Renee Francis-Steele, response memo, 27 January 2016.

N/A

How was the soil survey conducted e.g. soil pits or ground thruthing with soil auger etc.?


Pre-determined, zigzagged transects were adopted to map the sampling points (Refer to Figure 3.1 in the Soils Report sent to you previously). The soils were classified visually using a bucket-type auger according to a free format.


Appendix C-1

What was the grid dimension used for the soil survey e.g. 150m x 150m etc.


It was undertaken according to a free format, but at roughly 300m intervals.


Appendix C-1


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 136


How were the boundaries of the various soil form associations demarcation determined, which has direct impact on the extent of the various soils forms?


The points at which soils were classified were assigned the relevant soil form classification according to the SA Soil Classification Taxonomic System of 1991 (by form only, not family) and the areas between these points were interpolated based on topography.


Appendix C-1

What is the carbon contents of the various soils?

What is the % organic and chemical content in the topsoil?


The proposed Discard Dump will be a permanent waste disposal structure, i.e. upon closure of the mining operations, the proposed Discard Dump will be capped, vegetated and managed, but will not be removed or relocated. Therefore, the land capability over the approximately 65ha will be permanently altered. Furthermore, the proposed Discard Dump is located within an existing MRA, in close proximity to existing mine operations and adjacent to a rehabilitated opencast pit, where the potential for developing the land to its full agricultural land capability is not possible during the LOM. Based on these considerations, and the fact that the end use of the rehabilitated Discard Dump is limited to wilderness or grazing land, a full soil chemistry analysis was not considered necessary.


N/A

The Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs have several farmer support programs running in the said area, such as Masibuyele, Emasimini, Esibayeni, etc. Were any community facilitations conducted in conjunction with the agriculture municipal manager from MDARDLEA?


The stakeholders consulted with included members of the nearby Driefontein community and authorities, including Mr L Shabane from the Department of Agriculture (refer to the list of stakeholders under Appendix B-9 of the Draft EIR). It is the responsibility of the MDARDLEA case officer to further determine who within MDARDLEA should be involved in the process and provide these details to the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP).


Appendix B.


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 137


Was a soil survey also conducted on the alternative sites, based on applicability?


The soils survey was only conducted over the preferred/proposed Discard Dump site. A Site Concept Study was conducted by Hatch (refer to section 3.2 of the Draft EIR and Appendix D of the Draft EIR). The study subjected five potential sites (Sites A to E) to a fatal flaw assessment ("Fatal Flaws" are those factors which eliminate the use of sites for discard disposal because they do not adhere to the environmental and/or safety objective) after which the remaining sites were ranked subjectively based on Safety Classification; Environmental Classification; Design and Operational considerations and Economical considerations.


Section 3.2 of this report.

What will the impact be on government funded programs and projects within the surrounding area?


The proposed Discard Dump is within the existing mining right area, immediately adjacent (west of) to the Maquasa East rehabilitated open cast pits, and to the east of the Maquasa West operation. The proximity to the mining operations makes the use of this land for agricultural development unfeasible during the mine's operational phase.


Section 1.2 of this report.

If the soil surveys were not done correctly, it may impact directly on the cost of rehabilitation and quality of the rehabilitation process. The rehabilitation process must allow that the capability of the soils not current land use. Rehabilitation must try to accomplish restoration of the affected area as close as possible to its original state prior mining activity at all levels.


The proposed Discard Dump will be a permanent waste disposal structure, i.e. upon closure of the mining operations, the proposed Discard Dump will be rehabilitated and managed, but will not be removed or relocated. Therefore, the loss of land capability of the proposed site will be permanent. Furthermore, the end use of the rehabilitated Discard Dump will be limited to wilderness or grazing land, as the Discard Dump will not be suitable for agricultural use.


N/A


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 138


Will there be a negative secondary impact on the bigger surrounding area and projects, e.g. water, air quality, dust etc.?


The proposed development has the potential to impact on the air quality through the creation of dust, as well as surface water (Egude River, which flows into the Heyshope Dam) due to erosion and potentially contaminated runoff. The impacts can be prevented and/or mitigated through the implementation of the proposed mitigation and management measures recommended in Chapter 7 of the EIR.


Chapter 7 of this report.

The preferred option is not necessarily the preferred option as per impact on natural resources and projects/programmes.


The preferred site will not be located close to agricultural projects or programmes within the surrounding area. It is therefore not anticipated that there will be any significant impacts on these projects.


N/A

The land capability as referred to in the “Draft-EIR-EMP_for-PUBLIC_13.347” is more a land use and not the capability of the soils.


The land capability of the proposed Discard Dump area is discussed under section 4.4.3 of the DEIR. The capability of the soils within the proposed development area were classified and Intensive Agriculture, Moderate Agriculture and Undefined use (portion of the rehabilitated opencast pit).


Refer to Section 4.4.3 of this report.


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 139


I would like to see that the soils are also classified based on the soil capability classes as depicted by the National Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.


The land capability classification was undertaken in accordance with the Development & application of a land capability classification system for South Africa" (Schoeman, J. et.al. 2002), published by the Agricultural Research Council. This is the standard guideline used for soils assessments and is considered sufficient for the purpose of the study. Considering the nature of the proposed development (permanent disposal) and the location of the proposed site (within a mining area, in close proximity to existing surface infrastructure), changing the land capability classification is not considered valuable.


Appendix C-1

Maybe some if these issues are address or evident in the specialist study, but the fact that only the Draft-EIR-EMP_for-PUBLIC_13.347 is downloaded regardless of which download link is selected, it is not clear.


A Dropbox folder which included the Draft EIR and all appendices has been shared for download.


N/A

As per SPLUMA, CARA and SALA Act we need to comment on any activity regarding change of land use from the primary use which is agriculture to anything else.


The rezoning will form part of the Planning Phase of the development and therefore will not be addressed during the EIA process. Should the application for environmental authorisation be approved, Kangra will appoint a rezoning specialist to determine the specific requirements for the municipal area and to apply for rezoning should this be required.


Refer to section 1.6.8 of this report.

There are a number of issues which needs to be addressed which can't be done through the public meeting. Therefore an authority meeting whereby the Department of Environment, Department of Agriculture and any other relevant authority needs to be invited for active participation is crucial.


The Environmental Manager from Kangra will arrange and facilitate the requested meeting.


N/A


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 140


The Kangra crushing, screening and washing plant is new.


The plant was established in 1993 (it is referred to Section 3.6.5 of the 2013 EMPR Consolidation and Amendment Report).


N/A

I have seen no application documents relating to these activities allowing affected parties to participate or comment on said activities.


The 2013 EMPR Consolidation and Amendment Report, as well as the Kusipongo Expansion EIA have been provided electronically (via the shared Dropbox folder).


N/A

The social and labour plan will be required as well as the storm water management plan.


Please refer to the shared Dropbox folder for the electronic copies of the requested reports.


N/A

Water erosion is clearly visible on the site. Jan Venter, MDARDLEA, email dated 24 November 2015

As clarified during the public meeting, this erosion is taking place at the parking area and not the Discard Dump site. Erosion will be managed at the proposed Discard Dump site as per the recommendations made in the DEIR.



The Kangra Opencast mining activities also raises a number of questions regarding water runoff, stockpiling, stripping, rehabilitation program etc.


Comment noted. The opencast operation is approved in terms of the 2013 EMPr and all impacts are managed according to the approved environmental management plan of this EIA. This report has also been sent to you electronically as requested.


N/A

Direct and indirect impact on emerging farming activities which is government funded.


No direct impacts on emerging farming activities are anticipated as the proposed Discard Dump will be located within a MRA which contains surface infrastructure that is currently in use. All coal discard will be transported from the existing Maquasa East washing plant, which is also located within the MRA, using the existing haul roads on the property. It is not anticipated that the use of the proposed Discard Dump site will have indirect impacts on emerging farmers or infrastructure outside of the MRA.


Refer to section 2.3 of this report.


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 141


A huge investment was made in the Donkerhoek/Driefontein area with regards to animal and crop farming as well as infrastructure, how will this be managed.


It is not anticipated that the proposed Discard Dump will have a direct impact on any land over which animal or crop farming is planned as the proposed site is located within an existing MRA within which operational activities currently take place.



The proposed development and operation of the Discard Dump will not require any additional infrastructure outside of the Discard Dump complex, as all coal will be delivered to the dump via truck from the Maquasa East washing plant located approximately 3.2km east of the proposed dump site. The existing mine haul roads will be used for the transportation of the coal discard.

Were these issues discussed during the various phases of the application process?


The potential impacts were presented in the Draft and Final Scoping Reports which were presented to the authorities and placed in the public domain for review. The assessment of the potential environmental impacts are provided in the DEIR which is currently available for public review.


N/A

Proof of rezoning application from agriculture as primary use to mining (SPLUMA).


The rezoning will form part of the Planning Phase of the development and therefore will not be addressed during the EIA process. Should the application for environmental authorisation be approved, Kangra will appoint a rezoning specialist to determine the specific requirements for the municipal area and to apply for rezoning should this be required.




13-347 9 March 2016 Page 142


Primary and Secondary impact on surrounding agricultural activities: The Department of Agriculture has made a huge investment in the area (Donkerhoek, Kwangema and Driefontein). Studies must be done to determine soil, water, air impact on grazing and crop fields.


Specialist studies were undertaken to assess the potential impacts of the proposed development on surface water, groundwater, soil, flora, fauna, avifauna.


Refer to Chapter 4 and Chapter 7 of this report.

The specialist studies show that, with the implementation of the proposed liner system (in accordance with the National Environmental Management: Waste Act) the proposed stormwater and erosion management measures, the significance of the potential impacts can be reduced to medium low. Due to the nature and location of the proposed Discard Dump, it is therefore not anticipated that grazing and crop fields beyond the MRA will be impacted on.

Information required: Stormwater management plan, Social and Labour Plan, Environmental Management Programme (EMPR) document relating to the existing mining activities of Kangra mine allowing for assessment of the level of contribution and participation by all stakeholders.




N/A

An authority meeting is required. Jan Venter, MDARDLEA, email dated 24 November 2015

The Kangra Environmental Manager will arrange and facilitate the requested meeting.


N/A


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 143


The rehabilitation should be done to return the land to the previous land use rather than land capability. Kangra must rehabilitate the land as close as possible to land capability which will allow farmers to use the soil for agricultural purposes after mine closure. If the land is only rehabilitated back to land use you will be left with about 20 to 30cm that is good only for grazing and nothing else and that grazing might not be sustainable because of insufficient water holding capacity.


The proposed Discard Dump will be a permanent waste disposal structure, i.e. upon closure of the mining operations, the proposed Discard Dump will be capped, vegetated and managed, but will not be removed or relocated. Furthermore, the end use of the rehabilitated Discard Dump is limited to wilderness or grazing land. Therefore, it is not possible to focus the rehabilitation of the proposed dump on the current land capability of the proposed site.



Would like to see the reports for the other mining activities because I have not had the opportunity to participate for those application processes.




N/A

Please provide the GPS coordinates for the water and dust monitoring points.


Please refer to the shared Dropbox folder for the electronic copy of the coordinates of the monitoring points.


N/A


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 144


Councillor TS Nkosi stated that he noted that the life expectancy of the mine is 20 years. He said that mines are selfish and focus on making profit for the life of the mine. He asked that local people are considered in terms of employment. He noted that there is an estimated 365 employees from the Driefontein community, and he would like that number to increase. He added that whenever there are opportunities, local people should be prioritised.

TS Nkosi, Ward Councillor, Public meeting, Piet Retief, 7 December 2015

Cornelius Kgope replied that Maquasa and Nooitgesien have a 2 year Life of Mine (LOM) and that the proposed Kusipongo expansion will add 20 years to the LOM. He stated that the Discard Dump (DD) is proposed to support the expansion should the Kusipongo mining right be granted in respect of the applications that have been done. He stated that people currently working will be given preference in terms of employment at the new mining area because Maquasa and Nooitgesien’s operations will be shut down. He stated that the number of mining sections might be increased at the new operation, so the possibility of employing more people existed, but that it is governed by the LOM. He added that Kangra also have to take into consideration the qualities of coal they need to produce, as well as the financing of the operation.

Cornelius Kgope, Public meeting, Piet Retief, 7 December 2015

N/A

Councillor TS Nkosi stated that although liners will be used, Kangra needs to be aware that these sometimes fail and seepage contaminates the groundwater. He stated that this is evident when boreholes are drilled to supply people with water and these boreholes are already contaminated. (TN is a councillor who works with service delivery issues). He added that surface water is also impacted by operations of this nature and asked for Kangra’s commitment to monitoring and mitigation measures.


Renee Francis-Steele replied that contaminated boreholes might be close to discard dumps constructed prior to the new regulations.

She explained that the liner for the new DD and Pollution Control Dam (PCD) have been designed in accordance with the new National Environmental Management: Waste Act Regulations.

Renee Francis-Steele, GCS, Public meeting, Piet Retief, 7 December 2015

Refer to section 2.3.4 and section 4.9 of this report.


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 145


She added that continuous monitoring will take place to detect if any seepage is/has occurred. She added that according to the Groundwater Investigation, no groundwater users were identified within a 5 km radius of the proposed site.

Cornelius Kgope stated that when construction was completed, an engineer would be appointed to provide quality assurance with regards to the liner installation and assurance that this was done in accordance with the design provided. He added that quality assurance reports will be compiled by the engineer.

Cornelius Kgope, Kangra Coal, Public meeting, Piet Retief, 7 December 2015

Refer to Chapter 8 of this report.

Councillor TS Nkosi stated that if families would need to be relocated, Kangra must ensure that there is infrastructure provided at the new location and that grazing land must be catered for. He added that if farmers are relocated, their livelihoods must be taken care of.


Cornelius Kgope replied that the site chosen for the new DD is located where the old opencast operations were, therefore no one was living close to it and no relocations would be required. He added that this is one of the reasons why the area was selected. He stated that the land is disturbed, which is preferred to using an undisturbed area.



Councillor TS Nkosi stated that the monitoring and mitigation measures should be strictly adhered to. He added that there should be strict control to make sure Kangra adheres to the Environmental Management Programme (EMP). He asked how it will be ensured that Kangra adheres to the monitoring measures.


Cornelius Kgope replied that Kangra does quarterly groundwater monitoring and monthly surface water monitoring and that they monitor boreholes used by some families close to the mine. He added that all results are submitted to the Nkomati-Usutu Water Management Agency. He stated that Kangra currently has 13 dust monitoring stations




13-347 9 March 2016 Page 146


around Maquasa West, East and Nooitgesien which are monitored for dust fallout on a monthly basis and that quarterly reports are submitted to the DMR. He added that ambient noise monitoring is done at certain areas to determine the impact on people living around the mine and that this was done once a year.

Renee Francis-Steele stated that 3 authorisations are required before construction can be initiated. She stated that the three competent authorities will review the mitigation measures proposed and add their own conditions before issuing the authorisations with which Kangra will be required to comply. She added that an Environmental Control Officer (ECO) will have to be on site during construction, and that the ECO will compile reports highlighting any non-compliances. She added that after construction, audits will have to done once a year to record any non-compliances and that these will be submitted to the relevant Departments.


Refer to Chapter 8 of this report.

Councillor TS Nkosi stated that they would be happy to have experts at these meetings, for example tourism and agricultural experts who would be able to advise them so they can take this information back to the community. He added that experts should be invited to the meetings because the community does not have background knowledge in respect of the impacts.


Renee Francis-Steele replied that all Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) listed on the stakeholder database were invited to the meeting. She added that the database includes all registered I&APs and local and provincial authorities and that it was up to those invited to attend if they wished.


Refer to Appendix B of this report.


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 147


Councillor TS Nkosi stated that he has noted spontaneous combustion of coal taking place in Nooitgesien and asked if that does not cause air pollution and if livestock around the area would be affected. He asked if Kangra is doing anything about it.


Cornelius Kgope replied that the plant was shut down for about 2 weeks for maintenance but they didn’t stop producing coal. He added that with the high temperatures being experienced, the rainfall which lands on the stockpile automatically forms heat and the coal starts burning.

He stated that they took remedial action by cutting down production from the opencast and compacting the coal to prevent air from getting in and making it burn further. He added that they started to relocate the coal stockpile that was mined before, using a first in, first out schedule at the plant.

He added that the burning does produce carbon monoxide which may cause harm, but that the contamination was minimal and Kangra managed to tackle the problem quickly. He stated that at the moment production from the opencast is cut down to the minimum.

Kangra will soon stop one contractor that is working there to control spontaneous combustion. [Additional note: According to the Design Report: The coal discard will be compacted mechanically. The discard will be placed in horizontal layers (bottom-up) following an approved performance compaction specification.]


N/A


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 148


Councillor TS Nkosi stated that when there is an establishment of this nature, access roads are often affected, i.e. they are either closed or changed. He stated that if this will be the case, Kangra needs to provide alternative access roads because people’s lives need to continue as normal.


Renee Francis-Steele replied that the access roads will not be affected because the discard will be transferred from the washing plant to the proposed new Discard Dump, which are both within the mining area.

Renee Francis-Steele, GCS, Public meeting, Piet Retief, 7 December 2015.


Peace Simelane stated that although Kangra states that the access roads won’t be affected, during operation, fences might be erected, causing people to walk around the fence and be delayed. He stated that people who reside on the farm use the farm freely because they are used to the area. He stated that Kangra must consult and talk to the people properly before installing a fence that will affect them. He added that Kangra also has the tendency to, after putting up fencing, deploying security so people have to deal with security guards.

Peace Simelane, Driefontein Community Forum Chairperson, Public meeting, Piet Retief, 7 December 2015

Cornelius Kgope replied that a fence will be put around the new DD to ensure the safety of people and that the area must be secured. He added that based on the location in a mining area, there wouldn’t be people that will be affected by the fencing.

Cornelius Kgope, Kangra Coal, Public meeting, Piet Retief, 7 December 2015.

N/A

Jan Venter stated the documents provided indicate that the rehabilitation will be done to return the land to the previous land use rather than land capability. He stated that he would like to see that rehabilitation focusses on the land capability on not land use, for example the land use might be grazing but the land capability can be much higher. He stated that Kangra must rehabilitate the land as close as possible to land capability which will allow farmers to use the soil for agricultural purposes after mine closure. He stated that if only rehabilitated back to land use you will be left with about 20 – 30 cm of soil which is good only for grazing and nothing else and that grazing might not be sustainable because of insufficient water holding capacity.

Jan Venter, MDARDLEA, Public meeting, Piet Retief, 7 December 2015

Comment noted. This issues was responded to in the response memo (refer to the response above)

N/A N/A


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 149


Renee Francis-Steele asked whether he was referring to the new DD or the mining area as a whole.


Jan Venter replied that most of his questions are related to the new DD and the mining area. He added that he would like to see the reports for the other mining activities because he has not had the opportunity to participate for those application processes.


N/A

Jan Venter stated that the Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs (MDARDLEA) has a two tiered function: Environmental Affairs looks at the environmental impact and the agricultural department looks at the land capability, land use and zoning. He added that although the Record of Decision (ROD) will be from the same department, the agriculture section will also need to comment.


Comment noted. An official from the Department of Agriculture was consulted with and no previous correspondence was received in respect of the application process.


N/A

Jan Venter stated that the studies and the paper exercise takes time, but the impact on the farmers in the community is direct and immediate.



Jan Venter stated that he was informed that promises made during previous activities by Kangra to fix houses which were cracked were not fulfilled. He added that he is not sure of the details.


Nkosinathi Kunene replied that he is not sure if any commitment was made in terms of cracking houses. He stated that Kangra representatives went to Kransbank and talked to people who said that their houses were cracking. He stated that it becomes complicated to determine the cause. He added they took photographs of the houses to set up a database and agreed to return 3 months later to take more photographs and make a comparison to see if it is because of blasting. He added that they are due to go back and tell people what they have established.

Nkosinathi Kunene, Kangra Coal, Public meeting, Piet Retief, 7 December 2015

N/A


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 150


Jan Venter stated that although blasting takes place at a specific location, the geology runs far and there may be an impact on an area where you don’t expect it to occur. He stated that they must also think of the community who have limited cash flow and don’t have much money to make those small repairs.


Cornelius Kgope -replied that during blasting, seismic monitoring is undertaken and to assess if there might be mine related structural damage.


N/A

Jan Venter stated that the report states that stockpiles should not be higher than 6 m, but he has seen some stockpiles that are higher.


Renee Francis-Steele replied that construction has not begun yet.


N/A

Jan Venter replied that there is some construction taking place, but it could be part of the existing activities.


Cornelius Kgope replied that this is probably the Nooitgesien mining area where roll over mining is employed with material being temporarily stockpile then put back into the pit.


N/A

Jan Venter replied that the stockpiles are after T-junction and the school.


Cornelius Kgope replied that the area being referred to is Nooitgesien where rollover mining takes place.


N/A

Jan Venter stated that he noted a lot of erosion at the parking area on site. He added that if this is taking place over such a small area then it places a question mark on the bigger picture and that the stormwater management on site needs to be looked at.


Commented noted. The Stormwater Management Plan for Maquasa West and East was sent to Jan with the response memo on 27 January 2016.

N/A N/A

Jan Venter asked if Kangra has an existing Water Use Licence (WUL). He added that he saw dust suppression taking place and was not sure if the water comes from an existing allocation.


Cornelius Kgope replied that they are busy liaising with the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) regarding the Integrated Water Use Licence (IWUL) for the whole complex. He added that the expansion area will be integrated into the IWUL.


N/A


13-347 9 March 2016 Page 151


Jan Venter stated that he read in the document that labour should be sourced from the local community as far as possible. He stated that this is a bit vague. He said Kangra needs to be cognisant of poverty alleviation, job creation, knowledge transfer, capacity creation. He said that he would like to see job creation and capacity building for community members in terms of the mining charter.


Nkosinathi Kunene replied that Kangra works closely with the community in terms of ensuring that locals are brought in whenever there are opportunities. He added that they have advertised opportunities within the local community to take locals who meet the requirements to train as miners. He added that proof of this community involvement can be provided.

Nkosinathi Kunene, Kangra Coal, Public meeting, Piet Retief, 7 December 2015

N/A

Jan Venter stated that food should be made available for the miners. He said that the mine could invest in some agricultural activities in the form of tunnels where locals can produce vegetables and the offset can be a school nutritional programme. He stated that there are a lot of possibilities if we think outside the box. He added that they would hate to lose farmers because of mining but it is acceptable if it is better for the farmer.



Jan Venter asked if there are GPS coordinates for the water and dust monitoring points and if these could be made available.


Cornelius Kgope replied that the list of coordinates would be sent to Jan.

N/A N/A

kangra coal (pty) ltd maquasa east discard dump … · within sans 241:2006 drinking water...

Documents