PIETER BADENHORST PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CC · 24. The mining hours will be unchanged, but the kiln operates 24/7 because calcining is a contiuous process. 25. It means that the impact

1

PIETER BADENHORST PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CC

Cell: 0827763422 email: [email protected] Tel: 021 8737228 CC Owner: P Badenhorst CC Nr: 97/33840/23

PO Box 1058 Wellington 7654

DATE: REF:

Fax: 0866721916

21 January 2015 GDARD REF. 002/13-14/E0281 SDM AEL Ref No: 0001/2013 Dear I&AP

PROPOSED GLEN DOUGLAS DOLOMITE BURNING PLANT FINAL SCOPING REPORT You are herewith informed that the final Scoping Report is available for your information and comment. Comments may be submitted to the EAP from Monday 26 January 2015 until Monday 16 February 2015. The following changes were made to the draft Scoping Report: Compilation of the Comments and Response Report Included in Appendix A Finalization of the I&AP database Included in Appendix B Inclusion of the Noise Study A digital copy of the final Scoping Report is available from the following website: Website: www.pbpscon.co.za U word hiermee ingelig dat die finale Omvangsbepalingsverslag beskikbaar is vir inligting en kommentaar. Kommentaar mag aan die onderstaande adres gerig word vanaf Maandag 26 Januarie tot nie later as Maandag 16 Februarie 2015. Die volgende veranderinge is aangebring aan die konsep Omvangsbepalingsverslag: Samevoeging van Kommentare en Reaksies Appendix A Finalisering van die I&AP databasis Appendix B Invoeging van die Geraas Studie n Digitale afskrifte van die finale Omvangsbepalingsverslag is beskikbaar op die volgende webtuiste: Webtuiste: www.pbpscon.co.za

EAP Contact details: [email protected], or Fax 0866721916, or Cell 0827763422, or PO Box 1058, Wellington, 7654 Yours sincerely

Nerine Coertzen

mailto:[email protected]

2

Appendix A: Comments and Response Report The comments received were grouped under issue headings in order to identify those issues that will require further investigation in the EIA phase. All issues are listed below and those that will be further investigated in the EIA phase as specialist EIA studies are highlighted PURPLE. Those issues that will be addressed in technical report describing the process, services (including coal storage) and stormwater managements) are highlighted as GREEN in the Process and Services Report.

PREVIOUS PROCESS RAW MATERIALS AND TRANSPORT Traffic Impact Study OPERATING HOURS AIR QUALITY AND HEALTH Air Quality Study PRESENT OPERATION OF MINE NOISE BASS LAKE / WATER POLLUTION JOB CREATION / SOCIO-ECONOMIC Socio-economic Study GENERAL / EIA PROCESS OBJECTION NEED FOR KILN PLANNING / ZONING HERITAGE PROCESS LISTED ACTIVITIES FIRE MANAGEMENT VISUAL Visual Study GEO-TECH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ALTERNATIVES PROPERTY VALUES Socio-economic Study FLORA / FAUNA

ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE Draft Scoping Report grouped below:

Please note that the purpose of scoping is to identify studies to be undertaken in the EIA phase after the authority approved the scoping report. Only then can specific responses be provided to most of the comments.

Date Comments from Comments received Response from Response

PREVIOUS PROCESS Please note that these questions are, although with reference to the previous process that is not applicable anymore, still included here to ensure that all comments are captured. Some of the responses may refer, however, to information supplied during

the present scoping process.

23-10-2013 G M Neve The first point I would like to make, Why was the open meeting planned on a Wednesday between 3pm and 7pm, I leave for work in Jhb at 6am and do not leave my office until 6pm, thus for me to attend this meeting I will have to take two hours leave. WHO will compensate me for this? The meeting should have been called to run until at least 9pm. Another point to note is how do my parents get to the meeting, neither of them drive due to their age, so how can this open meeting be to all affected parties, Its simply unacceptable to many residents. I believe it is a legal requirement to insure all affected parties are able to know the facts pertaining to this application, and in this point you have failed your legal obligation. Answer: Main questions pertaining to the application. 1. Why was deviation applied for in relation to Comprehensive Environmental Impact assessment report, why only a basic

assessment process? 2. Why is there an exemption regulation 10.2.d 3. What is Notice R544 Listing notice 1 activity 2and 23 4. What is Notice R545 Listing notice 2 activity 5 5. What is Notice R546 Listing notice 3 activity 16 6. What is Activity 5 sub category 5.5 7. Who currently processes the dolomite for the metallurgical and steel making industry? 8. If answer 7 is someone who currently processes Glen Douglas product, would jobs be lost and gained? 9. Where will the coal be coming from to fuel the kiln 10. If the coal is being trucked in, what route and access point will the trucks use and will the mine undertake to service and

make good damage to the roads in the local area. 11. How is the carbon dioxide treated that is burnt of 12. Does Eskom have the capacity to supply such a large plant? 13. If Eskom is short of capacity at any given time, does the mine have a consumption cut back agreement, in other words will

they shut down if Eskom has load problems 14. Will the crushed dolomite required mean that more hours will be needed on the crushing plants 15. Where will the coal be stored, I note you say the kilns will not be that visible, what about the coal stock and the 5000 ton

PBPS 1. The regulations allow for the option to apply for

downscaling and to decide on whether sufficient information would be available to make a decision.

2. Similarly as for (1) the regulations allow for the option to apply for exemption. The regulating authority only decides on the application after completion of the process.

3. The listed activities are shown at the end of the table. 4. The listed activities are shown at the end of the table. 5. The listed activities are shown at the end of the table. 6. The listed activities are shown at the end of the table. 7. PPC and Vesuvius 8. Not processing Glen Douglas dolomite 9. Emalahleni / Delmas 10. The final investigation of the access route will be done

during the EIA phase of the project as part of the TIA study.

11. Filtered and vented to atmosphere 12. Who knows what Eskom has capacity for 13. No arrangements as yet 14. No, the required size fraction requires no extra time. 15. Details of this are supplied in the draft Scoping Report.

3


dolomite stock 16. Is there a fire or explosion risk, the fire dept. at best in our area can take over 15 mins to respond 17. The mine does not control dust now, what assurance can you give me that dust will not increase. 18. What is SO2 concentrations 19. What are NO2 concentrations 20. What are CO concentrations 21. What are PM10 concentrations 22. The dust fall out may be low, but what about the cumulative dust, that is combined with what is already a hazard 23. Are the areas where the dust monitoring buckets in the correct areas, I see some protected by the mine dumps them

selves 24. Will there be an extension to the current operating hours of the mine 25. What is meant by a low visual impact 26. How do you calculate noise disturbance 27. If property values decrease as I am sure they will, who will compensate me for my loss and if applicable the inability to sell,

could this be the full property value if I cannot find a buyer?

16. These risks are all mitigated in equipment design 17. The comment re present status should be directed to

the mine. With reference to the future approval conditions will have to be implemented because it will be a legal requirement.

18. See air quality report. 19. See air quality report. 20. See air quality report. 21. The air quality study in the EIA phase will report on dust

impacts, mitigation measures and comparision with air quality standards.

22. Addressed in air quality report 23. Subject to revision. 24. The mining hours will be unchanged, but the kiln

operates 24/7 because calcining is a contiuous process. 25. It means that the impact is fairly similar to that of the

immediate surrounds. 26. A noise baseline study was undertaken for the scoping

process and is included in the FSR. 27. The accuracy of the statement is debatable. The facility

will be on an existing mine. Change in the sense of place will be dealt with in the EIA.

BATABLE RAW MATERIALS AND TRANSPORT

23-10-2013 G M Neve Can the mine produce 600 tonnes of raw material a day, if not, how many tonnes a day will be imported by road? Is the coal coming in by rail or road, if road, how many trucks a day? The issue of traffic is of big concern, mine staff the visiting contractors and customers have little regard for the 60km speed limit down Sontnell Road, we have lost trucks that stray down our street, some often take out telephone lines and cause us to veer of the narrow road onto the muddy verge, I cannot see this reducing if this goes ahead.

All dolomite will be sourced from the mine. Details of the traffic will be assessed in the TIA in the EIA phase.

05-09-2014 P Funke Greater economic reasoning behind the plant: As it is understood, Afrimat is the supplier of the raw dolomite for processing purposes in the steel industry. Would the building of such a kiln not result in a monopoly situation, where the supplier, Afrimat, can set the price to whatever they want? Government Notice R544: Point 2 (a) Is coal mined on the property of the Glen Douglas Mine? (b) If not, does this not mean that the coal is taken away from its primary source/mine and moved to the Glen Douglas Mine which has different ground /geological conditions to that of the origin? Alternative Site privately owned: As Glen Douglas mine has its own rail siding, has the applicant consulted Transnet on railing the dolomite to a private site situated in an appropriate heavy industrial area for further processing/burning thereof? If so who did they consult and could proof be supplied thereof. This would eliminate the argument that the economic effect of transport/traffic would be a problem to transport raw dolomite off site for processing.

No, there are competing suppliers. Coal is not mined on the property but imported as indicated in the dSR. The relevance of the ground conditions is not clear because the coal will be stored and burned. Site alternatives have been reported in the scoping report.

05-09-2014 R Bassingthwaighte What is the impact of the heavy duty vehicles as our roads are restricted to 5 tons? What is the impact of road spillage by the heavy vehicles? What are the routes the vehicles intend using?

A TIA will be undertaken in the EIA phase to report on these aspects.

04-09-2014 W Engelbrecht Coal import into Daleside: have specific suppliers and with it specific routes been identified? We need to know what routes have been planned for the movement of trucks importing coal. What is the expected impact on additional truck traffic through Daleside? (a) coal importation (b) finished product exportation.


05-09-2014 N Sutherland What infrastructure will be put in to help with the added Traffic? What route will the trucks be taking? What will happen to the spillage from the trucks as they move product?


05-09-2014 E Zeiss The increase of heavy vehicle traffic through Daleside and Henley. A TIA will be undertaken in the EIA phase to report on these aspects.

05-09-2014 A Dougherty How does Afrimat propose to: Repair the existing damage to Bokmakierie Street. Transport the bag filter dust to a licensed waste site. Keep the roads, Bokmakierie, and Henley Drive clean of product and coal seeing as they have not been able to achieve this with their current operations?


05-09-2014 R Smith The increase in traffic through Henley on Klip will cause noise pollution, road damage and destroy the tranquility of the village. A TIA will be undertaken in the EIA phase to report on these aspects.

Unknown Unknown As mentioned earlier, the extra heavy load trucks that will be moving through Henleys residential roads will not only cause added pollution, traffic and danger, they will also damage the roads and cost the council and tax payers more money in maintenance. As the taxpayers for this area we have a say in how our tax money is spent. We are not going to pay for something that we dont want and will suffer for. The roads in Henley are already very damaged from the large trucks as these roads were not built for industrial vehicles. Also there is no way to prevent the coal and dust that will enviably come off these trucks in transit. It is already an issue with the existing mine.


05-09-2014 S Wallace How will the extra road traffic and road mess be addressed whether the furnace is on site or another location? A TIA will be undertaken in the EIA phase to report on these aspects.

4


05-09-2014 M A King Traffic Impacts: We are very concerned about the increase in traffic in the local area of the mine. What are the type and maximum weights of the trucks that will be transporting to and from the mine? Will Afrimat comply with all weight bearing capacity requirements and restrictions for the roads in the area surrounding the mine? Will Afrimat contribute to the maintenance of the roads in the local community? Will there be a new wash off rack in the mine area to prevent dust from the vehicles being further transferred to our local roads and community?


OPERATING HOURS

23-10-2013 G M Neve What will be the working hours of the furnace, we already have intermittent sleep Continuous 24 hour operation

AIR QUALITY AND HEALTH

23-10-2013 G M Neve What will be the level of CO2 and other pollutants being put into the air These aspects will be investigated and addressed in the AQ study in the EIA phase.

05-09-2014 P Funke Government Notice R545: Point 5: How will the ash dumps be kept to prevent dust being blown in the air? Air quality: (a) The air quality baseline report must also be modelled on a micro climate basis with 1 meter contour intervals instead of 10m. This must be done to see the effect the kiln will have on the immediate suburban surroundings and agricultural crop farms. Residents of the valley will be able to substantiate this need as there is an obvious microclimate which does not seem to be accounted for within the current report. This microclimate means that frequently the mist (and dust) is worse within the valley than 2km away on the highway. Temperature observations will reinforce this point. (b) Would the proposed 41 meter stacks be high enough to deal with the micro climate effects? (c) If not what would the correct height be? (d) What visual effect would possible higher stacks have on the surroundings? Botanical Assessment: What potential effect will the proposed kiln emissions have with regards to ash, NO2, and CO2 based on a microclimate study on the following: (a) People (b) Fauna (c) Flora (d) Surrounding farm activities?

These aspects will be investigated and addressed in the AQ study in the EIA phase.

05-09-2014 J Zeiss The Vaal Triangle already has the highest incidence of upper respiratory tract infections. The pollution will spread further than just the areas around the mine. There will be a vast dust fall out over the farmlands, beside the acid rain that will ruin part of South Africas food basket. On a windy day the pollution be it dust or acid rain, will spread further afield. The gardens be they flower or vegetable will be destroyed. There are schools where the children in the district will be affected.Noise will interfere with their studies. The noise and dust and acid rain and traffic from both Daleside and Hendly on Klip will be horrendous. The health of the communities and farmlands should be of paramount importance.


05-09-2014 R Bassingthwaighte How is the FALLOUT from the burners going to impact on the environment and birdlife? These aspects will be investigated and addressed in the AQ study in the EIA phase.

04-09-2014 W Engelbrecht What is the potential for coal dust clouds from adverse wind conditions? Air pollution: (a) Will there be a mechanism put in place where residents (and more specifically children) can be registered in a central record facility, in which the pollution effects on their can be measured / recorded? (b) What recourse will the community have if there is filter bag failure which falls outside of the ambit of what is acceptable? (c) How is acceptable in (b) defined? Is it subjective or are there legal requirements?


07-07-2014 L Pullen The health of the residents of Henley on Klip and Daleside is going to be compromised. As it is, health bills are exorbitant already from the dust from the mine can you imagine the health risks associated with a Burner!!! And what is really disappointing, is that Daleside residents are of the lower income bracket, how on earth are they going to afford medical bills from the illnesses they will contract from breathing in the harmful air of the burner?


05-09-2014 N Sutherland The air pollution The proposed site is in a valley so any pollution will be funnelled along the river affecting the hole of Henley. What are the long term effect of children growing up next to this furnace as there are lots of families and schools in the area?


05-09-2014 E Zeiss The increase in dust in the area. The possible increase of air pollution. These aspects will be investigated and addressed in the AQ study in the EIA phase.

05-09-2014 R Smith It will lead to unacceptably high levels of air and noise pollution from the kiln and the stockpiling and burning of low grade coal; The proximity to the school in Daleside will create unacceptable conditions for the childrens health.


05-09-2014 P Meyer You can present as many reports as you like, the fact is there is no way that you can guarantee that this will not have a negative impact on the area in more ways than one. The reality is that this plant will pump unsightly and not to mention unhealthy Black soot into the air. Besides the obvious negative effects this might have on our health and the environment there is also other negative impacts such as property prices, and an increase in heavy vehicle traffic.

It is nor clear where the statement re soot is obtained from. However, these aspects will be investigated and addressed in the AQ study in the EIA phase.

Unknown Unknown This proposed site sits in a valley, therefore the pollution and dust which will be generated will get trapped in this 'bowl' and will not be able to disperse therefore ever heightening the health risks to the residents of this area and the pollution that will enter the waterways and environment. Geographically this is a very poor location and this cannot be changed - it is the lay of the land. The mine is surrounded by an established residential area and is opposite a school (with a second close by) the pollution and dust from the furnace will increase air pollution significantly and will force many people out of the area. People and wildlife would suffer from the added air pollution and whatever is in the air will also end up in the Klip River, causing further poisoning. Whether the mine was there first of not, today it is surrounded by homes and people who would suffer health-wise from this development. This is not to mention the added population from the increased number of trucks that would be travelling on, and damaging Henleys roads. Oprah Winfrey in recent years has honoured Henley by choosing it for her world-class school for Excellence. Now she faces having her school in a very undesirable and unhealthy area should the burning plant go ahead. This will create negative press and I am sure Oprah won't take this laying down as it will destroy her flagship school - this is school alone is more important than the furnace at it is creating futures for young Africa girls, the furnace does not have to be where it is being proposed - this is just convenient and profitable to a few, it is not considering the damage and


5


loss of income and livelihoods and futures of all the people that live in this area. If Henley has a burning plant people will stop visiting Henley as it will not longer be the retreat it now is. Businesses will be severely damaged such as the many guest houses, restaurants and even the mines own diving site which draws in people from across Gauteng.

05-09-2014 S Wallace What will the impact be of a furnace only 100 meters away from a residential area as well as within eyesight of a junior school? How will this affect learning and is having a furnace in the background making noise and pollution conducive to a learning environment. We ask for an independent study to be done using the World health Organisation data as the base line for such a report. What will happen should the furnace pollute the air? Has the Vaal Triangle been identified as an area where air pollution needs to be reduced or not, so why add to air pollution with this 100 meters away from homes?


05-09-2014 M A King Atmospheric Emissions - OWLA hereby reiterates its comments made in this regard in response to the Basic Assessment Report in May 2014 and these comments are attached for ease of reference. Will you conduct a full year study of the weather in this Micro-Climate area to include all seasons? Please provide us with your climatic-modeling research and simulations that was conducted in the immediate area and provide the name of the organisation that conducted the research. What is the appropriate stack-height required for this planned facility to ensure that the pollutants fall well beyond our community? Having 300 young girls (and more than 100 staff members) living downwind of your proposed smokestack plumes we are concerned about the amount of S02 but more importantly the amount of H2S04 that could potentially be emitted

from the proposed kiln. Will you please provide us the specialist reports on your projections? How will Afrimat mitigate the smell of the high-sulphur content in the coal that causes severe allergies and sinusitis when we have many students already battling with these issues? (Refer to the attached Response Form that we initially submitted). Will you please provide us with a copy of Afrimat's Pollutant Control Policy? What are Afrimat's Integrated Climatic Assessment Research Goals for the Midvaal Community? Will you provide drawings or a diagram of the coal storage facility for the site indicating the capacity of the site? How is Afrimat prepared to respond to any "emission events" that come from the proposed kiln? What will the impact of air emissions be on agricultural activities in the area? Will Afrimat be prepared to assist local residents in getting annual check-ups to ensure their health is not in danger with any increased pollutants that are emitted from your proposed kiln?

The project is now subject to a Scoping and EIA environmental process. These aspects will be investigated and addressed in the AQ study in the EIA phase.

13-11-2013 29-05-2014

E Campbell S Blake

The Academy's doctor, Anne Biccard, estimates that 15% of the learners suffer from asthma (underlying airway disease). Many of the learners come from rural areas where they are exposed to coal fires and high incidence of tuberculosis which in turn leads to a reduction in lung function. Many of the students have allergic rhinitis. We are advised that the medical conditions mentioned above could be aggravated by air pollution caused by the plant. We are perturbed by the fact that the plant will lead to an increase in sulphur dioxide (S02), nitrogen dioxide (N02),

carbon monoxide (CO), particles less than 1O micrometers in diameter (PM10) and dust fallout. Sulphur dioxide (S02) We understand that sulphur dioxide: has an irritating, pungent odour and we are apprehensive that this would lead to the learners being unable to concentrate on their studies and being forced to spend more time indoors to avoid the foul smell; exposure is mainly through inhalation and skin and/or eye contact. Symptoms of exposure to S02 may include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat; rhinorrhea; choking; cough; and reflex bronchoconstriction. Any rise in sulphur dioxide levels will adversely affect the health and current lifestyle of our learners. Nitrogen dioxide (002) We understand that nitrogen dioxide: causes eye, nose, and throat irritation; may cause impaired lung function and increased respiratory infections in young children; acts mainly as an irritant affecting the mucosa of the eyes, nose, throat, and respiratory tract and that continued exposure can contribute to the development of acute or chronic bronchitis, increased bronchial reactivity in some asthmatics, and increased risk of respiratory infections, especially in young children. Any rise in nitrogen dioxide levels will adversely affect the health of our students. Carbon monoxide (CO) We understand that carbon monoxide poses many dangers, short term, long term and sometimes even fatal; in smaller doses can cause carbon monoxide poisoning, which can often resemble flu; can result in brain damage, heart problems, major organ dysfunction, memory or cognitive problems, behavioural and personality changes and a range of other permanent problems. Any rise in carbon monoxide levels will adversely affect the health and welfare of our learners and could adversely affect their personalities and their academic futures. Particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) We understand that PM10 poses a health risk to our learners as it could be inhaled into and accumulate in the respiratory system. There is also a risk of lung cancer. We are concerned that our students will be exposed to higher levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, dust and fine particulate air pollution which are particularly harmful, as they tend to penetrate the


6


lungs deeply and enter the bloodstream. The plant will likely also produce noise pollution, dust pollution and visual pollution which will adversely affect the culture of teaching and learning at the Academy.

PRESENT OPERATION OF MINE These comments are included because they were received as comment in the scoping process. They, however, relate to the present operation of the mine and should be addressed directly to mine management and/or the Mine Form of which Mr Wallace

was the chairman until recently. No response is therefore provided here.

23-10-2013 G M Neve Henley is a small rural community made up of mainly residential housing and plots, very few industries exist and the law on small business is very harsh, several small, unobtrusive business have been closed down over the years for no apparent reason, yet the mine seems to be able to plough ahead regardless of past failings and promises broken. For example, you state that there are water sprays and sprinkler systems for dust, I am yet to see any of them working on a regular basis, I backwash my pool every three days to clean the filter of a white/ grey milky dust, this I never had when I lived away from the mine. The mine promised to install and operate water dust suppression. The mine promised many times to plant more vegetation, this has been slow and nowhere near what was promised, hence your environmental comments of little or no vegetation. The mine has worked with several community members, but only to silence their objections, these same people who have been helped refuse to accept that Dinsdale road and Sontnell Road are part of Henley, yet the mine seems to help the non-affected parties rather than the ones on their doorstep.

05-09-2014 J Zeiss The whole mine should be closed down.

04-09-2014 W Engelbrecht How will the additional mining operations be managed / monitored if the existing issues are so difficult to manage? Noise pollution and truck traffic issues for instance.

05-09-2014 E F Williams There is more than enough noise pollution and dust from the Glen Douglas Dolomite Mine.

Unknown Unknown We understand that at present the dust and pollution levels are already over what they should be, especially so close to residential area. The mine should not be considering adding a furnace they should be looking at reducing the pollution as it stands. They are already breaking regulations and the Government is trying to reduce pollution in the Vaal Triangle, which has some of the highest pollution levels in the whole of South Africa. If residents complaints are already ignored, the vulnerable communities that surround the mine are going to have no hope if this goes ahead.

05-09-2014 S Wallace CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO ROAD USE Iscor Ltd shall endeavour to ensure that all trucks entering roads from the quarry do not: cause spillage of stone on the road; carry mud onto the roads as a result of dirty tyres and; exceed the maximum allowable axle loading. A simple site visit will clearly show the mine with exception to axle mass is not or not capable of controlling the absolute mess they have left on the roads for decades. The present mine management is attempting to do something since the furnace issue came up, they now sweep the road once a week, only to have it polluted hours later. A better situation than previous mine managers who simply ignored the problem.

05-09-2014 S Wallace ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. The mine has three EMP's. Kindly show us in any of the below EMP where a furnace / kiln was ever part of the mine concept at Glen Douglas and how it is considered a mining activity opposed to an industrial activity. 1992/ 2002 It required the use of the access of information act to acquire what was a public document, a document they denied for many years even existed. Only after the mine made its draft 2006 document public was it proved the 1992 / 2002 document existed. It also became clear that in 2002 Peet Herps misrepresented a document he managed to convince some to sign to update the EMP in 2002 by saying the form he asked you to sign was a form was that you knew you lived next to a mine, opposed to telling the truth that it was used as so called public participation for the update, a clearly dishonest act. This EMP states: No work of a noisy nature, outside the parameters as set out in paragraph Bl, shall be performed in the quarry area between 18:00 and 06:00 on weekdays and before 06:00 and after 12:00 on Saturdays. No work shall be permitted on Sundays and public holidays. Yet the mine operates until 22h30 in the quarry area during the week, starts work at 22h00 on a Sunday, often works till 18h00 on Saturdays and in fact starts the weeks shift at 22h00 on a Sunday.

7


We ask how can a mine which simple ignores the rules be expected to follow the rules with a furnace, a furnace whose operating hours of 24 hours a day , 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year be expected to suddenly play by the rules they have disregarded for decades. We ask where is the buffer zone mentioned in the 1992/2002 EMP as after years of the forum asking the mine still can't identify where the below is: As a result of the close proximity of the residential areas to Glen Douglas Dolomite Mine, 16 ha of Highbury was bought as a buffer zone. The above clearly indicates as far back as at least 2002 the mine acknowledged that being close to residential areas has enough negative impact that it required the purchase of a buffer zone, yet in 2014 its seen fit that they build a huge furnace operating 24/7/52 a year less than 100 meters from residential areas. We again ask the mine manager where is the buffer zone located? Can the mine indicate how they know that the areas for the furnace is not actually the buffer zone, taking into account in years they still cant answer where it is. How do we know that the furnace sites are not on a buffer zone if the mine does not know where its buffer zone is actually located? We ask why would the mine purchase a buffer zone if it did not negatively impact on people enough to warrant the purchase, then please explain how can they consider building a huge furnace bordering residential areas when it is operating every day without stopping at all? The mine for years used a false mining plan at forum meetings as it showed the authorised areas running along the outer fence line, which was proved false after we acquired the 1992 2002 EMP. Regretfully by that stage they had dumped waste dumps all along Sontnell street outside the authorised mining areas. They intentionally mislead the forum by using a false mine plan. So we sit with huge dumps blocking our sunlight. Along Bokmakierie street there are numerous residential stands owned by the mine outside the authorised mine area where the side of the quarry is directly next to the residential stands minus any buffer zone , which has been queried by the Daleside Volunteers Now we add a huge furnace to the area. We have for years been told about plans for proper dust control on the mine, yes they do tests and most likely the amounts of dust may be within limits. That is on a monthly / yearly average. But under Afrimat there is less dust control than with any of the previous owners. Exarro under Faizel Kadoos dust suppression system still stands un-used on top of the illegal dump in Sontnell street monument to the arrogance of this mine at time, it is a 5000 litre ZOZO tank, I re-write the size in case you think it is a typing mistake, FIVE THOUSAND LITRES. Quoting suggestions for the aggregate sand producers of South Africa's guidelines Provide for good dust reduction practices through operational procedures

One of the best ways to reduce dust in your operation is through the use of water. Provide spray systems for feeds and discharges on crushers, screens, transfer points for conveyers, stockpiles and non-covered trucks ready for departure. Wet down or clean roads onsite and fronting the site entrance/exit. Use wheel washer systems between the scale and the property exit, and/or spray the truck wheels and /or the entire truck with water to reduce the amount of dust that is deposited on public roadways. Where feasible, recycle and reuse processing water and make sure any water discharged meets or surpasses government, provincial and local water quality standards.

Reality is

8


9


All photos of what glen Douglas Mine says does not happen as statistics says it does not.

We ask what independent tests have been done re dust, how will coal dust be controlled and how will waste coal be controlled by a mine who considers dust control to be so important that they recently sold one of their dust control trucks. Dust control is only done at plant site and nowhere else on the mine and we openly challenge the mine to show different. How can we expect them to control coal dust when they after decades don't control the present everyday dust issues? Wind direction and velocities. The mine monitors wind directions and velocities themselves. Is there an independent study or will there be an independent study on this be done? Until recently this 1992/2002 EMP was the only approved EMP and the one which the mine operated on. 2006 During 2006 the mine held said it was writing a new EMP and distributed a Draft form for comment. It was after reading the 2006 Draft that it was proved there was a 1992/ 2002 document that the mine had for years denied existed. We as a community to date actually don't know what happened regards the 2006 application nor have we had any feedback. 2011 EMP The mine held a meeting with DMR and residents under Deon Bosman management regarding the mine operations under the 1992/2002 EMP and the fact he refused to meet with the community around the mine. At this meeting he indicated he would then re-write the EMP, the DMR representatives said he may do so but he must hold a public participation process. As no minutes were ever made available by the mine this could be argued not to have happened, but recently Andre Mare who is an employee at the mine acknowledged this fact as being true in a recorded forum meeting, the mine has the original recordings should there be need to refer back to them. The mine manager Don Bosman refused to meet with residents until the day he departed from the mine, he used a 2006 EMP public participation as his reference point. Does DMR accept 5 year old public participation for re writing an EMP? If this is so, why was a public participation process held for the 2006 process? Can the mine simply change mining conditions and operating hours minus any consultation or engagement with the community it affects? The mine manager agreed to correct the matter by adding to the EMP, something which still has to happen. To date all we have been given is the actual 2011 EMP and the only other submitted document is apparently below in form of PROOF OF DELIVERY. Surely proof of public participation should be attached, or not?

10


The 2011 EMP make reference to a noise test held in 2009 by Faizel Kadoos, this was done behind the mine forums back despite that it was agreed to that they could witness it and be present when the test were done for transparent purposes. This was not done and after a heated debate Faizel Kadoos agreed not to use the report as it was at best questionable, Andre Mare has acknowledge that this is true and it is minuted as such. We noted that despite this it was used and the scoping report says (brown) the noise in Highbury / Henley is 51.4 when mine is not operating. It also says: The mine has an on-going noise monitoring programme Kindly provide the first six months of this year's ongoing noise monitoring tests. The scoping report says (brown) that the mines hours are: The proposed project is located in an existing dolomite mine and therefore an existing ambient noise impact is experienced by the residents that live next to the mine. The mine and crushing plants currently operate between 06:00 to 18:00. The Sinter dolomite plant operates on a three shift 24 hour daily cycle until Saturday 12:00. This plant resumes at 22:00 on a Sunday night. Both the below are totally false statement as the mine has no on-going noise monitoring program and the quoted operating hours in the scoping report are incorrect as well. Refer to mine managers email highlighted in grey. Reality is the noise level is in fact around 38 decibels, see the below copied document which shows noise when the mine is not operating, one of quite a few that were done showing areas noise is clearly around 38 decibels done on various days in different weather conditions. The consultants are the same ones who did the 2009 noise tests and

11


they say that the 2009 tests were not done in a correct manner for being included in an EMP.

How can we be expected to trust complicated documents on face value when the consultant can't even get the basics correct and refuses to meet with us to explain technicalities of his scoping report? Hi Willem, Thanks for the response. So basically: 1. The Afrimat consultant is quoting totally incorrect operating times. 2. The Afrimat consultant is quoting an on-going noise monitoring program that existed with previous owners but was actually discontinued by Afrimat (Andre Mare can confirm this fact) and no information from the "ongoing noise monitoring program" is available as it does not exist, despite it being a requirement in the EMP seen below in green which was drawn up by Afrimat first manager Deon Bosman if we read the EMP correctly was assisted by Andre Mare, who we know was in charge of noise monitoring in the time span of previous owners. Afternoon Stan. The Operating hours are as follow: Mining and Primary plant: 06:00 to 22:00 Monday to Friday; 06:00 to 13:00 Saturday Plant operations: 06:00 to 06:00 Monday to Friday; 06:00 to 13:00 Saturday. Plant operations start at 22:00 on Sunday. Noise Monitoring: I understand ongoing as around the clock 24/7 monitoring. We are not doing around the clock monitoring. You did mention that previously the mine had a schedule where they would go and do a daily internal survey. This is

12


currently not on place. We use the help of an external consultant to do the boundary noise survey. I will also reply to the email regarding the progress on the enclosure of the plant to try and eliminate the noise. Should you require further info or would like to schedule a meeting to discuss the above, please advise of possible dates.(Email from W Hatting dated 21 July 2014)

Hi Willem, Could you kindly reply to the highlighted please (Email to W Hatting dated 20 July 2014)

Good day Willem, I am calling an early meeting to discuss statements in kiln scoping report relative to mine operations, alternatively a full response in writing could suffice, this is not a vendetta against the mine but sadly Mr Badenhorst has complicated matters by statements in his vague scoping report, statements which we have to answer, so regretfully residents have to adopt a more direct approach on the kiln issue, which is also why I separated the meetings between mine operations and kiln issue. If the mine management prefers a meeting to discuss the below can they kindly suggest a date. 1. Operating hours and how come a consultant Pieter Badenhorst states the below in blue: Did he obtain this information from the mine and has he actually consulted with the mine on matters related to the kiln. The proposed project is located in an existing dolomite mine and therefore an existing ambient noise impact is experienced by the residents that live next to the mine. The mine and crushing plants currently operate between 06:00 to 18:00. The Sinter dolomite plant operates on a three shift 24 hour daily cycle until Saturday 12:00. This plant resumes at 22:00 on a Sunday night. 2.During all the years prior to the mine being taken over by Afrimat the mine undertook to take nightly noise tests at specific points. When Afrimat took over this practice was stopped. Mr Badenhorst stated the below in yellow. The requirements of your EMP are highlighted in green. We asking the data on the on-going monitoring plan for the last 12 months. This is not the program done by some o outside company but rather the required daily monitoring done by staff on a daily basis. I am sure that the excuse will be the same as given on previous times this question has been raised at mine forum meetings " the mine does not have qualified personal to do so", which leads to the next question, since Afrimat took over, what has been done to correct this and if the situation arose that no one had a blasting qualification would this be treated in the same manner as no one being qualified to take noise readings? (Email to W Hatting dated 11 July 2014) While the present noise tests were being done we discovered that the mine said certain parts of the plant were running to allow noise tests to be done, while in fact this was false and they were turned off since 22h00 the previous night. I as chairman accepted the explanation given, but others on the forum have not, hence I am forced to include this (grey) so you can decide was it intentional or not? Good Morning. Firstly I would like to apologise for the events that occurred last night. I want to make it clear that there was no management instruction or plan to manipulate or interfere with the noise tests being done. Management seriously condemns any dishonest action. This incident is seen in a very serious light, so much so that Andries van Heerden has already been to site to discuss the incident with myself and other management. There will be a full investigation to find out if somebody willfully or under instruction tried to manipulate the process. Should details emerge that this was indeed the case, appropriate disciplinary action will be taken against the relevant parties.

13


Again I would like to apologise and state that I am also personally embarrassed about the events. We at Glen Douglas remain committed to work openly and honestly with the community in resolving issues. Thanks Willem

Good Morning Stan Has there been a response from the GDM Manager or the Afrimat CEO on the issue below? Email from S Ashwin dated 27 August 2014) What is so upsetting, on Sunday night 19h30 at the pre meeting Jonathan Cronin insisted that we send someone to check if plants is actually running while they conduct the tests. I refused stating if we can't trust the mine on face value to do what they say they doing then let's just go home now and stop wasting our time. Jonathan got annoyed with me saying openly I was wrong and I replied we WILL trust them or go home. Jonathan I publically apologise, you were correct. Sean Ashwin I owe you an apology, your comments which I took exception to that the mine sees us as fools and we should not rust them as far as we can kick them seem at this stage to have had merit, kindly accept my apologies. I hope our friendship we shared one day recovers from this mess. Stan. Email to W Hatting dated 27 August 2014)

Good morning all at 03h05 , Glen Douglas mine has wasted our time at 02h00 onwards each morning when we have been monitoring noise tests conducted by them to determine various noise levels. For three nights in a row I have had only two or three hours sleep as a result of being chairman of the mine forum. In 2009 the mine did controversial noise tests BELOW IN YELLOW that even the mine staff admitted were done in a non-transparent manner and agreed never to use them as they said the noise level without mine working was 51.4 decibels, but they used them in yellow from the mines EMP which was obtained minus public participation in direct opposition to a instruction from DMR to hold a public participation process, so they used a previous one which was 5 years old at the time. In August 2009, a boundary noise survey was undertaken to establish whether the Glen Douglas mining operation impacts on the surrounding receptors. Noise meter reading were recorded at nine (9) locations under three different operational conditions at the perimeter of the premises. Condition 1: Measurements were conducted with the mine completely off which represents the baseline Condition 2: Normal (full) production (mining and plant in operation) Condition 3: Plant production only. The time intervals of sampling were between 22:00 to 06:00. POSITION 2 Sontnell Street 51.4 decibels A WHILE BACK THEY DID TESTS BEHIND OUR BACKS DESPITE PROMISING WE WOULD BE PRESENT, THAT RESULTING IN THESE PRESENT TESTS BEING DONE FOR TRANSPARENCY PURPOSES. We have monitored non-working noise at basically the same area for three nights at different times and get readings between 34 to 38 decibels, as noise doubles every three decibels how can a difference so huge be explained? It is the very same consultants doing the noise tests now as was then. Each night we have stated the mines working noise level this week is not like what we complain about, mine says operations are identical. Consultants confirm with mine staff in our presence that plants are running fully with no problems etc before each test. Tonight was the same thing.

14


Jonathan Cronin who is a forum member phoned me and asked me to go look on site as to what is happening as the difference in noise is just too big, I went to mine and on arriving questioned security re noise if it is the same as last week, he replied no its a lot quieter, I showed him I was recording his reply. Then I went inside mine with consultant and Mr Cronin. The manager of the evening arrived and we asked to go visit the plant to see it running now as if he tries to start it we will hear the sirens go off, his reply was (also showed him we were recording the conversation27/08/2014 , 17-00.04.25 re this) he admitted it would not help us going to the plants we were testing noise of as they had not run since 22h00 the previous night, the consultant asked him if he confirmed that plants were running on radio before all the tests, (also openly recorded),to which he replied yes, consultant then asked why say they running when they not, no explanation was given. At this stage this manager was having a talk on radio to Andre Mare and forcefully rolled his window up so we could not hear what was being said as radio was loud. Andre Mare arrived and asked if plants were running, was told by manager no they have not run since 22h00. Asked him did Andre know or why did he not tell Andre this? No reply forthcoming. I asked him how can you say plant is running when it's not and waste our time for three mornings, I was at car window talking to him when he suddenly drove off with no warning bumping me out the way as my head was still inside window area. Which asks the question how can mine management be un-aware of that no product is being produced as surely someone would notice and ask why no product came out the plant for a whole night shift, or not? Or is it the norm to pay a full staff load to do nothing for a night shift? Asked Andre as to why we then testing something that is clearly not running that the mine is telling us is running when they clearly all know was shut down at 22h00 the night before just as we said to consultants each night that noise levels are not correct. I ask of you is this how things work? Is this what I have punted to residents taking huge flack that let us work with the mine opposed to fighting with them as its the right thing to do. The words of a young EFF man who warned me "the mine will rape you and screw you over" ring so loud in my ears, strange the same words the mines consultant mis- used to get out of doing the right thing. Good morning and goodbye at 04h10. Let me go enjoy my 1h45 minutes sleep for the night. (Email to W Hatting dated 27 August 2014) The mine refers to a night time noise limit of 50 decibels, but when you examine the definition in the SANS document it is clear that the definition being used, is used as it is best for the mine and the noise nuisance it creates opposed to the truth of the area itself. 10.1.4 Noise As noise has been identified as being a significant impact associated with Glen Douglas, the mines goal and objective is to ensure that off-site noise levels, resulting from the activities at the mine are below 55dB(A) during the day (06:00 22:00) and below 50dB(A) at night (22:00 06:00) in accordance with SANS 1010310 guidelines. In order to determine if the mine is meeting their objective, off-site noise monitoring will be undertaken. Mines used this definition in the 1992/2002 EMP saying the area around the mine has workshops, shopping centres, main roads, traffic etc, all these are the plural opposed to singular when the definition they chose to clothe their activities was decided upon even prior to the first and only petrol station being built in the area a few years ago. Reality is the complete opposite as there is one cafe, a petrol station, two restaurants, a work shop but also homes, small holdings, farms, open ground, a far cry from what illusion they attempt to create. The truth is we live in a border line of rural and sub urban consisting of larger sized residential stands most of which are 4000 meters plus and along Sontnell/ Dinsdale they between 9000 to 16000 with little road traffic who

15


has a maximum of 40 decibels which recent monitored tests clearly prove, the car count of four cars in four nights of noise tests proves this classification, see noise report to see how many cars came past during the test, this fits the area more accurately opposed to the convenient one the mine chose for itself and cant actually substantiate as to how they decided on this classification. Furthermore many other studies in other areas similar to our area near Rustenburg prove the same SANS classification. We have always said the base line that the mine says it was correct, that Henley etc is around 51 decibels is actually incorrect. So we have a scoping report based on a report on noise used in a 2011 EMP that even the person conducted it says it should never have been included in a EMP as the manner in which it was done was not comprehensive enough for it to have been used in a EMP. IT IS SLOWLY BECOMING CLEAR AS TO WHY THE 2011 EMP WAS DONE MINUS PUBLIC SCRUTINY. See the below emails on the noise report used in the 2011 EMP and used in this scoping report. We ask that the scoping report as well as the 2011 be withdrawn as they based on incorrect information, or is the mine allowed to base its decisions and actions of incorrect data or data used in a manner for which it was never

intended as pointed out by the consultant below, NOTE it is the same company that did the tests in 2009 and now. I have replied in blue to set the record straight Please find an additional comment from Gerrit. Regards Frederik Hi Frederik, Maybe we should add the following:

Just to be clear, The noise measurements taken for the purpose of this report were not taken in order to do a noise impact study as part of an EIA. The purpose was to look at the mine contribution to the known baseline on the mine border. Regards Gerrit Van Niekerk

05-09-2014 M A King Will you please provide us a copy of the applicable Risk Assessment report on the proposed kiln and the mine itself as it currently operates? Please provide a current Statement of Work at the mine and proposed programme so we, as an l&AP, can comment with much more clarity. Please provide us with an aerial overview of any new digging and mining that will happen at the Glen Douglas Mine for the increased production of the dolomite.

NOISE

23-10-2013 G M Neve The noise, as you say falls within standards, yet after the recent noise tests it would appear that things are not on the straight and narrow, I ask you to lay in my bedroom of a night time, with a window open and listen to the droning and banging and crashing every night except Saturdays, its obvious to anyone that this will increase and will depend on wind direction as to who at any given time is affected, sleep deprivation is a medical condition.

A noise specialist study will be undertaken in the EIA phase where these aspects will be investigated and reported on.

05-09-2014 P Funke Noise (a) How will the expected increased noise level be modelled with the additional plant equipment for example, blowers and coal pulverisers? (b) What is ambient noise level when the mine is not running? (c) What is the noise level when the current mine activities are fully operational? (d) What will the expected noise level be with the additional plant together with the fully operational mine? (e) What benchmark noise level will be used? (f) How and who will conduct the noise level testing? (g) Can proof, qualification and methodology of the current ongoing noise monitoring program be provided?


05-09-2014 J Zeiss Noise pollution for 24/7, 365 days a year is not acceptable. That it is even being considered is frightening. A noise specialist study will be undertaken in the EIA phase where these aspects will be investigated and reported on.

05-09-2014 R Bassingthwaighte What is the noise pollution estimated, especially at night A noise specialist study will be undertaken in the EIA phase where these aspects will be investigated and reported on.

16


04-09-2014 W Engelbrecht There should at this stage be more information available regarding the expected degree of additional noise pollution from the kiln? Can the (mechanical) noise from the kiln not be quantified yet? Surely if the type of installation has been identified, the number of warning hooters and related mechanical equipment is known and / or can be obtained from the manufacturers?

A final decision has not been made regarding the type of process to be used.

05-09-2014 E Zeiss The increase in noise. A noise specialist study will be undertaken in the EIA phase where these aspects will be investigated and reported on.

05-09-2014 A Dougherty Have Afrimat taken the following actions: Done noise simulation modelling for the furnace and ancillary equipment considering the proximity of the preferred site 1 to the houses. What is the amplitude of the noise emitted by the Roots-type blowers? (Kiln pressurizing and flow reversal)? What is the amplitude of the noise emitted by the coal pulverizing system? What is the amplitude of the noise emitted by the pulverized coal transfer system? What is the amplitude of the noise emitted by the furnace exhaust fan? How many ventilation and pressurization fans are to be employed and what are their noise levels? What is the size of the standby electrical generator and the amplitude of the noise emitted? How is the noise generated by the discharge of the surge bins mitigated? How is the noise generated by the discharge of the weigh hopper mitigated? How is the noise generated by the discharge of the skip hoist bucket into the furnace mitigated?

A noise baseline study was undertaken and included in the fSR. A noise specialist study will be undertaken in the EIA phase where these aspects will be investigated and reported on.

Unknown Unknown Sound pollution will undoubtedly be a major issue as the furnace will be going constantly. The tranquility that Henley-on-Klip is famed for, will vanish. The constant sound will disturb residents and wildlife across the whole area. Such a constant disturbance cannot be ignored. It is already an issue with the current mine and so to add a furnace that will run 24 hours a day is unacceptable.


05-09-2014 S Wallace Hi there Frederik. If memory serves me the aim of the survey at the mine were to determine the Noise levels on

pre agreed positions around the mine perimeter in order to evaluate a normal "Background"

noise if the mine are not operational, and to compare readings to the background when the

mine is operational with different operational conditions as stipulated in the report.

It must however be stated that the levels measured was representative of conditions as per

measured interval and that levels may have changed in the 5 years since the survey was done.

I also remember noise from TV's distant cars, dogs and crickets and the Highway (Please look

at point 6 of my report, sources below the table are listed).

The area has not changed enough to explain away a huge difference like what is being quoted.

Now, at other measuring positions far from the mine the levels might be significantly

different (probably lower) than the "Background levels" indicated in my report (See the

comment on point 6 of the report under the table). The time may also play a role as road

traffic usually declines early morning.

The area of recent tests in Dinsdale and your test in Sontnell are within 100 meters of each

other.

I was never asked if these levels were representative of the Henley area base line and

without any interferences.

You were asked this at the meeting, you said it represented Henley accurately, I then asked

if we can go retake tests the same night and compare, you replied that you never had your

equipment with you.

I do remember that the community was informed of the surveys conducted at that time since I

was urgently requested to join the meeting at the time.

Community was only informed after the test were done, they were conducted secretly for some

strange reason, if you have nothing to hide, then why hide it?

The time, date and conditions were discussed in the community forum meeting. If I remember

correctly a Guy called Stan Wallis were very interested in the measurements taken at the time

(Can't remember that he joined me to check my results).

No you battled to make sense at the meeting and the mine also could not explain why they were

done in secret, eventually mine manager gave the residents the blame that we never enquired

when test would be done, it became so embarrassing that the mine manager said he would

withdraw them, Andre Mare from the mine has confirmed this.

I am sure the community would not have accepted the report if they did not agree with the

results or had any queries on it...

We never accepted the report in your presence and the mine manager withdrew them, or said he

did but did not, which based on his conduct in most matters we dealt with does not shock a

single forum member.

If you look at the levels taken at the Bass lake it might be a closer representation of the

so called "Base line" level. Just an opinion as this needs to be verified in a new

assessment.

If we were there when the tests were done we could comment.

Kind regards

Gerrit van Niekerk Email to F van Niekerk from G van Niekerk dated 05 September 2014)

A noise specialist study will be undertaken in the EIA phase where these aspects will be investigated and reported on. These issues are being addressed and reported to the Mine Forum An ongoing campaign has been launched by mine personnel with a view to systematically reduce/contain noise disturbances. During the procurement phase the tenderers will be required to prove that noise levels will conform with legal requirements.

17


Thanks, After our conversation this morning, simply put, were these tests done in a manner suitable to be included in a EMP for a mine or are they to basic for that?Email to F van Niekerk dated 05 September 2014) Dear All,

Please find the comments of Gerrit to the 2009 Report. Email from F van Niekerk dated 05 September 2014) Hi there Frederik.

If memory serves me the aim of the survey at the mine were to determine the Noise levels on

pre agreed positions around the mine perimeter in order to evaluate a normal "Background"

noise if the mine are not operational, and to compare readings to the background when the

mine is operational with different operational conditions as stipulated in the report.

It must however be stated that the levels measured was representative of conditions as per

measured interval and that levels may have changed in the 5 years since the survey was done.

I also remember noise from TV's distant cars, dogs and crickets and the Highway (Please look

at point 6 of my report, sources below the table are listed).

Now, at other measuring positions far from the mine the levels might be significantly

different (probably lower) than the "Background levels" indicated in my report (See the

comment on point 6 of the report under the table). The time may also play a role as road

traffic usually declines early morning.

I was never asked if these levels were representative of the Henley area base line and

without any interferences.

I do remember that the community was informed of the surveys conducted at that time since I

was urgently requested to join the meeting at the time.

The time, date and conditions were discussed in the community forum meeting. If I remember

correctly a Guy called Stan Wallis were very interested in the measurements taken at the time

(Can't remember that he joined me to check my results).

I am sure the community would not have accepted the report if they did not agree with the

results or had any queries on it...

If you look at the levels taken at the Bass lake it might be a closer representation of the

so called "Base line" level. Just an opinion as this needs to be verified in a new

assessment. Email from G van Niekerk to F van Niekerk dated 05 September 2014)

Hi, I have copied Andre and Willem purely because they mentioned and I say things to a person face, the mail is intended for ourselves. As per our conversation this morning where you state in your personal opinion( to be clarified later) that the tests done were not for a EMP and should have never been used in one, reality is as you personally heard Andre Mare agree Sunday evening at the pre meeting for noise tests that Faizel Kadoos agreed the tests would never be used for an official use, Willem Hattingh also at the mine forum noise meeting confirmed this fact, plus it was digitally recorded at least three times, should any party need a memory refreshment at any stage of their lives. I attached a few extracts but they distort when copied, so I have emailed you the 2011 EMP (using a 2006 public participation), which was done and submitted in secrecy behind everyone's backs during a period when we repeatedly enquired was the mine operating under 2001 EMP or a new one, alternatively were they drawing up a

18


new one, Andre Mare is quoted and accredited for input in the 2011 EMP, yet never divulged the existence of a new one, Willem re-submitted documents for the new one, yet only informed us after it was approved. All of this is also acknowledged and digitally recorded at least three times or so. If it does not come through I can send it to you via DROPBOX. So believe me it does not surprise us that the 2009 noise tests were used incorrectly and not for the purposes they were done for, firstly as the mine said they withdrew them, yet used them. Along with all the other non-transparent ( a politically correct word for dishonesty) things mentioned above we are no longer even shocked by such conduct, we sort of at times wonder when things appear to becoming more transparent what gears are grinding in the back ground. Excuse my frankness but at times its needed. As I explained we need a reply as a matter of urgency as I do not want to incorrectly label your company in the response to the scoping report which have to be in by tomorrow, but regretfully the figures talk for themselves and may paint an incorrect picture without a response from yourselves. 1. Was it made known in 2009 that mine forum requested to be present at Nosie tests? 2. Was it made it made known that in the first batch of tests you did a few weeks ago that the mine forum was asked to be present? 3. Was it made known that the 2009 tests were to be used for a new EMP and were they intensive enough for an accurate conclusion for such a use? 4. Was it made known the 2014 test could be later used in a scoping or EIA study for a furnace at the mine? 5. Were you ever informed that the 2006 tests were withdrawn by Faizel Kadoos? 6. Were you present at the pre noise meeting for the most recent test where we accompanied yourselves and that Andre Mare acknowledged the fact that Faizel Kadoos stated to the forum that the 2009 test were withdrawn.(Email to F van Niekerk dated 04 September 2014)

How much more noise will kiln / furnace produce, surely we can't be expected to comment on something that's not known? What will happen should the noise levels from the mine increase, are we just expected to adapt to it? We ask for a full report on noise and its affect's on people using the World Health Organisation

05-09-2014 M A King Noise. The detailed Noise Impact Assessment will be reviewed in detail by OWLA once it is made available. A noise specialist study will be undertaken in the EIA phase where these aspects will be investigated and reported on.

13-11-2013 29-05-2014

E Campbell S Blake

The plant will likely also produce noise pollution, dust pollution and visual pollution which will adversely affect the culture of teaching and learning at the Academy.


BASS LAKE / WATER POLLUTION

23-10-2013 G M Neve Your reference to Bass Lake does not really paint the full picture, it is rated as a top 5 4x4 trail in South Africa, has a wonderful camp facility and also has been training scuba diving for many many years, it is far more than just a public facility.

Comment noted.

05-09-2014 P Funke Government Notice R545: Point 5: How will the coal dumps be handled not to create any further contamination to subterranean water, surface water and the Klip River? Water Please refer back to Point 9 (IV): (a) What possible leaching effect will the coal/waste ash/burnt dolomite have on both ground and surface water? (b) If the water is contaminated what effect can the polluted water have on people/ fauna and flora?

Details of the coal storage area and stormwater management will be reported on in the EIA phase.

19


(c) Does the current Water usage license cover both current and future proposed project with regards to the Kiln? (d) Why have water studies not been proposed, especially as there are wetlands within the zone of impact?

05-09-2014 J Zeiss The Klip River will be polluted, the fish will die. The pollution will drain into the Vaal Dam and River which will further pollute other areas.


05-09-2014 R Bassingthwaighte What is the impact of the underground water/water table No drilling will be undertaken for construction of the dolomite burners and mining is an existing activity. Mitigation measures will be reported in the EIA phase.

04-09-2014 W Engelbrecht Stockpiling of coal: (a) Acid run-off water impact on the immediate surrounds. (b) What is the expected effect on Bass Lake? Details of the coal storage area and stormwater management will be reported on in the EIA phase.

05-09-2014 N Sutherland How will it affect the River will pollution travel down the river will it affect the ecosystem what about the fish and birds? Details of the coal storage area and stormwater management will be reported on in the EIA phase.

05-09-2014 E F Williams We already have a problem with the ground water in the area with all the dust and soot and chemicals from other factories floating down the Klip river.

This comment seems to refer to present operations. Details of the coal storage area and stormwater management will be reported on in the EIA phase.

05-09-2014 A Dougherty How does Afrimat propose to: Keep the underground coal storage area watertight from the ingress and leakage of acid water through the walls considering blasting tremors? Neutralize the acid water runoff & seepage from coal offloading and storage area?


05-09-2014 S Wallace Coal How will groundwater be protected? Will residents be compensated should ground water be polluted? Will tests be done to determine ground water quality before coal is stored?

Waste from coal How will groundwater be protected? Will residents be compensated should ground water be polluted? Will tests be done to determine ground water quality before waste coal is stored?


05-09-2014 M A King Water resources. Will you please provide a detailed Specialist report concerning the waste water in the mine area and all other water uses including abstraction and consumption of water? Are you planning any evaporation or storage dams on the site for the proposed kiln? Will you please provide a detailed Specialist report concerning the water seepage/leaching plan in the immediate area of your mine and impacts on surrounding groundwater? Can you assure us that Bass Lake, the Klip River, and our drinking water will not be affected by your operation? How will stormwater be managed?

There will be no evaporation dams required for the proposed burner. The comments re seepage seems to refer to the present operation of the mine and should be addressed to mine management and/or the Mine Forum. No water will be used in the process application is made for.

JOB CREATION / SOCIO-ECONOMIC

23-10-2013 G M Neve If the argument of job creation is put forward, how many long term jobs, 5 perhaps, but would these furnaces not take jobs away from other places, as I am sure the dolomite is burnt elsewhere currently, this is just a way for the mine to increase its bottom line as per their current online document statements.

These aspects will be investigated and reported on in the Socio-Economic specialist study in the EIA phase.

05-09-2014 P Funke Socio-Economic study - The socio-economic specialist study must include in addition the following: (a) Impact on the property value of the immediate surroundings Henley-on-Klip, Highbury and Daleside when the kiln is built. (b) The effect of the social impact on the communities during the building phase of the proposed kiln. (c) The impact on the tourism industry, especially in light of divers and 4x4 drivers.


05-09-2014 J Zeiss There will be no benefit to the communities. Job creation is minimum and should not even be considered. The only people who will benefit is the mine and the shareholders and the municipality.


05-09-2014 R Bassingthwaighte What will the impact be on local labour utilization? These aspects will be investigated and reported on in the Socio-Economic specialist study in the EIA phase.

05-09-2014 A Dougherty What are the financial benefits to the Province, District and local communities as noted on page xix of the document? These aspects will be investigated and reported on in the Socio-Economic specialist study in the EIA phase.

05-09-2014 P Meyer If you had to propose to build something like this in Fourways, Bryanston or any other residential suburb it would be a total non-issue as it would simply NOT happen. What makes the suburb of Henley on Klip and Daleside so different, do people who live in rural communities have less rights than those who live in the big cities? This mine unlike most finds itself in the precarious position of being situated in very close proximity to two residential suburbs and even the stretch of agricultural land directly adjacent to the Eastern side of the mine is highly populated with about 6 farm houses on the stretch directly adjacent to the mine. You might argue that people chose to live here knowing full well that they have a mine as a neighbour. And I will argue that the rights of the communities residing in these area should take precedence over that of a company. I believe that the only party who stand to gain from this is the mine. The only people who stand to pay a price for this is the residence of Daleside, Henley and surrounds.

Comment noted.

05-09-2014 S Wallace What long term benefits does this project hold for residents? These aspects will be investigated and reported on in the Socio-Economic specialist study in the EIA phase.

20


How many will be employed long term from the immediate area in this project? 05-09-2014 M A King Socio-economic impacts. Did Afrimat conduct a Socio-Economic Survey in the immediate area before deciding to undertake

this project? If so, will you please provide a copy of the report to us? If not, will you please conduct one for the immediate area before finalising your Scoping Report? Particularly in regards to the devaluation of our property and the potential for ghost towns to eventuate as a result of the burning plant. Such a report will need to cover the impacts on local economic development, including on agricultural activities. A Community Health Risk Assessment will need to be conducted as part of the EIA process. Is the proposed plant a Major Hazard Installation? What safety measures will be introduced in the event of an incident which may impact on the community? Will a buffer zone be maintained around the proposed plant?


GENERAL / EIA PROCESS

23-10-2013 G M Neve We in Highbury are probably not in the position to afford legal representation, but please do not under estimate the power of people.

Noted

04-09-2014 W Engelbrecht The absence of a comprehensive Environmental Impact Study is of concern. Why was only a basic impact study conducted and not a comprehensive study? We demand that a full Environmental Impact Study be conducted by a professional entity. There is no indication that a Social Impact Study was ever conducted. We demand that a Social Impact Study be conducted by a recognized entity in this field. Is there any legal mechanism in place where the community may appeal for a review of permits granted should Afrimat not comply with the letter of the law once the kiln is in operation? Or will we be subject to the structure now known as the Mine Forum? Will the community have to become its own watch dog? Is it possible to compel Afrimat to carry the cost of having an independent authority such as a university study the Final Scoping Document when it becomes available?

A comprehensive EIA study is being undertaken. The draft Scoping Report forms part of the study. The Social Study will be undertaken in the EIA phase. The comment re the Mine Forum seems to be related to present mine operations and should be addressed to mine management.

05-09-2014 N Sutherland What about the micro climate affect? Why are people currently living in Henley (I as a resident of Henley for over 20 years live here to be away from the hustle and bustle of the city to be in a quiet country village where I know my neighbour this furnace will defiantly affect the lifestyle of people living in Henley at the moment). What will happen to the schools will they lose income due to families not wanting to live in the area?

The mine is an existing operation in the town for the past 60 years.

05-09-2014 E F Williams What is the risk of Environmental hazards with the other Proposed Air Product Acetylene Gas Production Facility as Gas is highly explosive and any Gas plant runs the risk of ruptures should the Dolomite shift, which it does from time to time?

This application is not related to the Gas Production facility.

05-09-2014 P Meyer Re this matter, I am glad to see from the report that this proposal complies to all the standard as set out in your document. However, as these types of reports go it is probably based on the absolute minimum requirement and does not necessarily constitute an acceptable standard when it comes to the affect it will have on Henley on Klip, Daleside and the surrounding areas.

The study is undertaken as required by the regulatons and will be assessed by the controlling authority.

Unknown Unknown The map on the scoping report is very poor it does not show the large residential areas that surround the mine, all of which will be severely and negatively affected by the proposed furnace. The mine did not follow a legal procedure through the initiation of this proposed project, that alone should be stopping it in its tracks. What Henley will loose from this burning plant is priceless. Once the damage is done it can never be repaired. Henley and everything it stands for past and present will be destroyed because of a few people and a few pockets. It used to be a place people went on holiday to escape the noise and pollution, please do not destroy that forever, for everyone.

It is not possible to comment on the general statements. Specific issues were identified and those studies will be undertaken in the EIA phase. The comment re not following the legal process is not clear because the comment is made in the legal process that is being followed.

05-09-2014 S Wallace The Glen Douglas Mine Residents Forum has been in existence for roughly twenty years. It represents residents living within 3.2 km from the mine boundary, including myself so consider this separately as my personal comment as well separately as that of the forums. We understand why Afrimat wants a furnace, we just can't grasp the logic of putting it in a residential area opposed to an industrial area. Some of these residents registered as affected parties and most rely on us to look after their interest, especially that zero public participation has taken place with the second application and the consultant shows no interest in actually informing people of what is going on. So we have a few worrying issues with the whole furnace saga. Sadly we have to base most statements on assumption as information is minimal and we are everyday simple folk with limited insight to such matters, a fact the consultant chose to abuse from day one. Mr Badenhorst is supposed to be independent, yet a senior Afrimat staff member emailed on 13 Oct 2013, at 8:40 PM to him derogatory remarks about me saying I should be ignored, sadly he mailed them to me by mistake, no bad blood on his remarks as he apologised and I accepted, but this brings into question as to how independent is the independent consultant. Copy of this was sent to Mr Badenhorst and should be included in the report, alternatively I can make copy available. First application. First application was for a 90 ton unit. Afrimat says they only recently decided to go for a larger unit, but see attached A1 which shows they were from outset looking at a bigger than 90 ton unit. First application was withdrawn. Second application This was for a 600 ton a day unit, considerably larger than the first application.

Comments noted. All documentation submitted by Mr Wallace is included in the Scoping Report. All responses to him , as well as others, are also included (see Appendix A.8.3 of the Scoping Report).

21


Afrimat says this resulted after our original protest and an article in Beeld that they were approached by numerous people asking for the same product and decided to enlarge the furnace. Yet an email from Afrimat to fer-min-ore.co.za dated 03 August 2010 at 10.23 shows the opposite as they were already then looking at 300 ton units as mentioned in the scoping reports.

What recourse will residents have for compensation regarding noise and dust? If the noise, air pollution and dust go out of the parameters that Afrimat / Glen Douglas agree to, will they be willing to stop production and close the furnace? Or will we be expected to adapt to their impact on the area?

05-09-2014 M A King When Oprah Winfrey visited with Nelson Mandela in December 2000, she pledged to build a world-class school for girls in South Africa. Two years later, on 6 December 2002, Mr. Mandela and the then Minister of Education, Professor Kader Asmal, joined Ms. Winfrey to break ground on the site of the Academy located in Henley on Klip in Gauteng province. In January 2007, we officially opened with 7th and 8th Grade girls. The Academy grew by one Grade each year until it reached full capacity in 2011, with approximately 380 students in Grades 7 through 12. We support the development of a new generation of dynamic women leaders. By virtue of their unique education, this generation will lead the enduring transformation of their communities and country. We strive to provide a nurturing educational environment for academically gifted girls who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Our educational programmes are designed for girls in Grades 8 to 12 who have demonstrated academic talent and leadership potential. We equip students with the intellectual and social skills necessary to assume positions of leadership in South Africa and abroad. Our approach is to integrate the Academic and Leadership curriculums so that students experience the school day as a balanced journey of personal development. We promote pedagogical practices that provide students with an education that is critical and not assimilative. The theme of leadership and leadership development is integrated throughout the Academy in both its academic and social activities. This emphasis is rooted in the South African principle of Ubuntu/Botho which encompasses the ideals of humanity, compassion and service to others The expansion of the mine and its impacts. In your Draft Scoping Report, you have many references to Specialist reports and surveys that you have reviewed. Please provide the OWLA with copies of all of these reports and include footnotes and references to specific reports (to include the dates of the reports and who conducted them) prior to releasing your Final Scoping Report. Kindly provide copies of all existing Baseline Reports for the mine and the proposed Burning Plant. Furthermore, the OWLA is concerned that the Draft Scoping Report does not clearly indicate what assessment work will be done in the EIA phase and by whom . Please include a detailed Scope of Work for the EIA in the Final Scoping Report including details of the specialist studies to be conducted, the specialists to be involved and their qualifications and Terms of Reference. Please ensure that a comprehensive assessment of cumulative impacts is included in all of the specialist reports. The OWLA requires that you inform it of all other authorization application processes at the inception of these processes, such as the application for the Air Emissions Licence as the OWLA will participate in these processes as an affected party. The OWLA furthermore requests an additional opportunity to comment on changes made to the Final Scoping Report since there are a few issues which still need to be addressed or expanded on in the Final Scoping Report. Furthermore, we request another Public Forum Meeting at a time that allows more of the Community to attend. A Saturday mid-morning or mid-afternoon would be better as many of the workers in the Community cannot make it on a weekday and were not able to attend previous public meetings for the proposed development.

Comment noted. Please also note that the mine was then already in existence for

Documents

PIETER BADENHORST PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CC · 24. The mining hours will be unchanged, but the kiln operates 24/7 because calcining is a contiuous process. 25. It means that the impact