2011 Annual SEMP Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ministry of Mines and Energy Geological Survey of Namibia Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR) Strategic Environmental Management Plan (SEMP) for the Central Namib Uranium Rush 2011 Annual Report February 2013 Prepared by Geological Survey of Namibia Financial Support: The Ministry of Mines and Energy, through the Geological Survey of Namibia (GSN) and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, through the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR) Project Management: The Division of Engineering and Environmental Geology in the Geological Survey of Namibia, Ministry of Mines and Energy Status of Data Received: April 2012 Compiled by: Kaarina Ndalulilwa (GSN), Alina Haidula (GSN), Rosina Leonard (GSN), Israel Hasheela (GSN), Mary Hikumuah (GSN), Oscar Shaningwa (GSN), Dr Rainer Ellmies (BGR-GSN), Theo Wassenaar (NERMU), Mark Gardiner (Stanford University) Edited: Dr Gabi Schneider (GSN), Theo Wassenaar, Dr Joh Henschel (NERMU – Namib Ecological Restoration and Monitoring Unit) © Geological Survey of Namibia, Ministry of Mines and Energy 2012 Citation Geological Survey of Namibia (2012). Strategic Environmental Management Plan (SEMP) for the Central Namib Uranium Rush, 2011 Annual Report. Ministry of Mines and Energy, Windhoek, Republic of Namibia. Additional Information and queries to: The SEMP Office Dr Gabi Schneider Mr Israel Hasheela Geological Survey of Namibia Geological Survey of Namibia Ministry of Mines and Energy Ministry of Mines and Energy Private Bag 13297 Private Bag 13297 Windhoek Windhoek Namibia Namibia Tel: 061-2848242 Tel: 061-2848114 [email protected] [email protected] Ms Rosina Leonard Mr Oscar Shaningwa Geological Survey of Namibia Geological Survey of Namibia Ministry of Mines and Energy Ministry of Mines and Energy Private Bag 13297 Private Bag 13297 Windhoek Windhoek Namibia Namibia Tel: 061-2848157 Tel: 061-2848113 [email protected] [email protected] Copies of this report and the Strategic Environmental Assessment report may be obtained from the Geological Survey of Namibia, Ministry of Mines and Energy. Electronic copies (pdf format) are available from the Uranium Institute website (www.namibiauraniuminstitute.com), the NERMU website (http://www.gobabebtrc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=139&Itemid =136) and the Ministry of Mines and Energy website (www.mme.gov.na). ABBREVIATIONS BGR German Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources BMR Bannerman Mining Resources EC Environmental Contract ECB Electricity Control Board EEC Employment Equity Commissioner EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMP Environmental Management Plan EPZ Export Processing Zone EPL Exclusive Prospecting License EQO Environmental Quality Objective ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment FFI Fauna and Flora International GRN Government of the Republic of Namibia GSN Geological Survey of Namibia HERSS Health, Environment, Radiation Safety and Security HR Human Resources IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection LHM Langer Heinrich Uranium Mine LLA Landscape Level Assessment LTI Loss Time Injury MC Mining Commissioner MCP Mine Closure Plan MET Ministry of Environment and Tourism ML Mining License MoE Ministries of Education MoHSS Ministry of Health and Social Services MoLSW Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare MME Ministry of Mines and Energy MPMRAC Minerals Prospecting and Mining Rights Advisory Committee MVA Motor Vehicle Accident Fund NAA Neutron Activation Analysis NACOMA Namibian Coast Conservation and Management Project NDP National Development Plans NIMT Namibia Institute of Mining Technology NRPA National Radiation Protection Authority PON Polytechnic of Namibia SANS South African National Standards SC Steering Committee of the SEMP SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Central Namib Uranium Rush SEMP Strategic Environmental Management Plan SME Small and Medium Enterprises SU Swakop Uranium RUL Rössing Uranium Limited RUN Reptile Uranium Namibia UNAM University of Namibia VTC Vocational Training Centre EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the time of completion of this report in January 2013, the uranium mining sector most closely resembles Scenario 1 (below expectations) as defined in the SEA. Rio Tinto Rössing and Langer Heinrich are the only two uranium mines in operation. Construction of Swakop Uranium’s Husab mine is expected to start in early 2013, while AREVA’s Trekkopje mine will be mothballed in June 2013 due to the low uranium price. The Bannerman, Marenica, Reptile and Valencia uranium projects have been postponed for the same reason, though Reptile’s iron ore mine may go ahead. This is the first annual report produced under the Strategic Environmental Management Plan for the Namibian Uranium Province, and covers the period up to the end of 2011. The SEMP Operational Plan (Annexure 1) currently has 12 Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs) that are a collective proxy for measuring the extent to which the Uranium Rush is moving the Erongo Region towards or away from a desired future state. There are 38 desired outcomes, 46 targets, and 125 indicators spread across the EQOs. The EQOs each articulate a specific goal, provide a context, set standards and elaborate on a number of key indicators that need to be monitored. These collectively make up the SEMP which is the framework within which individual projects have to be planned and implemented, and within which a number of institutions have to undertake certain actions. The desired outcome is that the development and utilization of Namibia´s uranium resources will contribute significantly to the goal of sustainable development for the Erongo Region and Namibia as a whole. All indicators for the various Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs) have been assessed according to the following colour-coded system: Status: NOT MET IN PROGRESS MET EXCEEDED The focus of the report is on the assessment of compliance with the EQOs and how these were carried out. Relevant data are presented to support the assessment. Overall, indicators performed as follows: Status: 14 (11%) 41 (33%) 64 (51%) 1 (1%) Five indicators could not be assessed during this reporting period. Figure 1 shows the results for each EQO to identify sectors that did well and enable shortcomings to be brought to the attention for the responsible organisations. EQOs for which 100% of the indicators were MET are: EQO1 Socio-economic Development, EQO2 Employment and EQO6 Health, though the latter was mainly met in the private healthcare sector. Mostly MET with only one indicator IN PROGRESS were EQO8 Water and EQO12 Closure and Land Use. EQO11 Heritage and Future was mostly MET, only the ongoing research classified as IN PROGRESS brought down the overall rating. EQO10 Governance was MET or IN PROGRESS and will benefit from the matter of two impractical indicators being resolved before the next report. Of concern are those EQOs where some of the requirements were NOT MET. The highest number of six was reported for EQO3 Infrastructure and can be summarised as follows: 1) The D1984 between Swakopmund and Walvis Bay has not yet been tarred, 2) The average waiting time for a ship to berth is more than 12 hours, 3) and 4) Waste sites were not audited, 5) Hazardous waste sites did not only accept the waste classes for which they were licensed, and 6) There was no water and air quality monitoring at waste sites. The other underperforming EQOs each had one indicator NOT MET: EQO5 Air Quality and Radiation: There was no accredited weather station at Swakopmund, EQO7 Tourism: Not all EIAs included a visual impact assessment, EQO8: Ecological Integrity: Species i extinction risk was generally not addressed in EIAs, and EQO9 Education: The target of 50% of all English and science marks in Grade 10 and 12 examinations being a D or better was NOT MET. Figure 1: Summary of results for the 12 EQOs Eight indicators (6%) could not be assessed, because of lack of data or because they turned out to be impractical and/or represent duplication. This will have to be addressed before the compilation of the next report. As this report is the first of its kind, some problems inherent to first-time-attempts were experienced. As the stakeholder group is very large, submission of data was not necessarily in a standard format, and in some cases we were not able to obtain the required data. It is hoped that these problems will be ironed out with the compilation of the 2012 report. Following publication of this report it is expected that all stakeholders will take note of the results and attempt to address any shortcomings that were identified within their respective areas of influence. The aims of the SEMP to safeguard the Erongo Region while getting the most out of our natural resources can only be achieved by making every effort towards continued improvement. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to extend our gratitude to all those people who were fundamental to the SEA process, including those who deserved special mention, but were not acknowledged by name in the printing of the SEA report. We would also like to thank the SEMP Steering Committee members, who have been instrumental in the SEMP activities as well as for giving guidance through this process. Two persons deserve special mention because of their outstanding contributions, namely Sandra Müller of AREVA and Dr Wotan Swiegers of the Uranium Institute (UI). The UI in Swakopmund hosted the SEMP Steering Committee meetings. The UI working group has been in contact with the uranium industry and supplied much of the data to complete this report to the SEMP Office. ii Members of the uranium industry in Namibia have voluntarily increasingly applied the SEA/SEMP to guide their mine and exploration plans to minimize and manage potential environmental impacts. The Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (SAIEA) has laid the foundation for this report through their lead in developing the SEA and the SEMP. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 SEMP BACKGROUND 1 1.2 The SEMP 2 2. THE SEMP OPERATIONAL PLAN 4 3.