APPENDIX 12

NOISE STUDY (2013)

ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG GOLD MINE

GOLD ONE AFRICA LTD

29/11/2012

______Digby Wells & Associates (Pty) Ltd. Co. Reg. No. 1999/05985/07. Fern Isle, Section 10, 359 Pretoria Ave Randburg Private Bag X10046, Randburg, 2125, South Africa Tel: +27 11 789 9495, Fax: +27 11 789 9498, [email protected], www.digbywells.com ______Directors: A Sing, AR Wilke, LF Koeslag, PD Tanner (British)*, AJ Reynolds (Chairman) (British)*, J Leaver*, GE Trusler (C.E.O) *Non-Executive ______

Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

This document has been prepared by Digby Wells Environmental . Report Title: Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine Project Number: GOL1675

Name Responsibility Signature Date

Lukas Sadler Report writer 28/11/12

Bradly Thornton 1st review 29/11/2012

This report is provided solely for the purposes set out in it and may not, in whole or in part, be used for any other purpose without Digby Wells Environmental prior written consent.

ii Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Gold One Africa Ltd (Gold One) has recently completed a Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) for a potential new gold mine and plant at its Ventersburg Project area. The feedback from the PFS has resulted in Gold One choosing to move into a Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS). As part of the BFS, Gold One wish to gather the required information in order to compile a variety of legal authorisation processes. Digby Wells Environmental (Digby Wells) was commissioned by Gold One to conduct an environmental noise assessment in support of the BFS. This environmental noise assessment report forms part of the BFS report and entails the following tasks: ■ Identification of noise sources and potential noise sensitive receivers; ■ Establishment of the existing noise climate at various locations in the project area and directly adjacent areas through the undertaking of baseline noise measurements; and ■ Assessment of the anticipated noise impacts associated with the project activities during the construction, operational, decommissioning and post-closure phases. In terms of the baseline conditions, it is gathered that the existing ambient noise levels in the immediate area are typical that of rural surroundings, except for the noise levels at the town of Phomolong. The town of Phomolong should be considered an urban district, thus the ambient soundscape for all receivers within Phomolong must be considered as urban when considering the rating level. The remaining receivers in the study area must be considered as rural when considering the rating level of the area. From the study it is concluded that the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine will impact on the night time ambient noise levels at receptor R1 during the operational phase. It is expected that the noise will only slightly measure above the ambient noise levels at the mentioned receptor. The impact therefore has a medium-low significance rating.

iii Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 1 3 STUDY AREA ...... 1 4 EXPERTISE OF THE SPECIALIST ...... 1 5 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ...... 1 6 METHODOLOGY...... 2 7 BASELINE RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ...... 8 8 FINDINGS ...... 16 9 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 21 10 CUMULATIVE IMPLACTS ...... 26 11 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 27 12 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 27 13 MONITORING PLAN ...... 29 14 STUDY SUMMARY ...... 30 15 CONCLUSION ...... 30 16 REFERENCES ...... 30

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 7-1: Noise time history graph for N1 ...... 11

Figure 7-2: Noise time history graph for N2 ...... 12

Figure 7-3: Noise time history graph for N3 ...... 13 Figure 7-4: Noise time history graph for N4 ...... 14

Figure 8-1: Noise dispersion from the construction phases...... 18

Figure 8-2: Noise dispersion during the operational phase ...... 20

LIST OF TABLES

Table 6-1: Acceptable rating levels for noise in districts (SANS 10103, 2008) ...... 2 Table 6-2: Categories of community/group response (SANS 10103, 2008) ...... 3

Table 6-3: Noise measurement locations ...... 4

iv Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

Table 6-4: Measurement location N1 ...... 6

Table 6-5: Measurement location N2 ...... 6 Table 6-6: Measurement location N3 ...... 7

Table 6-7: Measurement location N4 ...... 7

Table 6-8: Sound power levels from main noise causing sources...... 8 Table 7-1: Results of the baseline noise measurements ...... 10

Table 7-2: Noise sources during baseline measurements ...... 15

Table 8-1: Surrounding relevant receivers ...... 16 Table 9-1: Impact assessment parameter ratings...... 22

Table 9-2: Probability X Consequence Matrix...... 24

Table 9-3: Significance threshold limits ...... 24

Table 12-1: Information pertaining to the recommended mitigation measures for the construction phase ...... 28

Table 13-1: Monitoring plan ...... 29

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Curriculum Vitae and Declaration of Independence

LIST OF ACCOUSTIC TERMS

A-weighted A measure of sound pressure level designed to reflect the acuity sound level of the human ear.

Decibel (dB) A unit in which sound pressure is measured.

dBA Unit of sound level. The weighted sound pressure level by the use of the A metering characteristic, which allows the sound pressure level to be measured at the approximate sensitivity as the human ear

LAeq,T Is the value of the A-weighted sound pressure level of a

continuous, steady sound that, within a specified time interval T m,

v Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

has the same mean-square sound pressure as a sound under consideration whose level varies with time.

vi Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

1 INTRODUCTION Gold One Africa (Pty) Ltd. (Gold One) was granted a prospecting right to prospect for gold in an area located in the Free State Gold Fields area, close to Ventersburg, a farming town approximately 48 km from Welkom. The prospecting activities have indicated a potential geological resource and Gold One has recently completed a Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) for the proposed Ventersburg Project. The feedback from the PFS has resulted in Gold One choosing to move into a Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS). As part of the BFS, Gold One intends to gather the required information in order to compile a variety of legal authorisation processes, which includes a mining right application and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) application. Digby Wells Environmental (Digby Wells) has been appointed by Gold One to conduct the environmental noise assessment as part of the BFS. This report is intended to be included in the BFS, and not to be a standalone document. Its purpose is to provide insight into the existing soundscape of the area and subsequently what impact the project will have on the surrounding ambient noise levels of the area, especially on the surrounding noise sensitive receivers. 2 TERMS OF REFERENCE Digby Wells was commissioned by Gold One to conduct a noise assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Project in the Lejweleputswa District Municipality of the Free State province in South Africa. The purpose of the study was to assess the potential impact of the proposed mining activities on the ambient noise climate of the area, which is primarily agricultural, including cattle and sheep farming. The approach used in investigating noise impacts is based on the guidelines of South African National Standards. SANS 10103:2008 “The measurement and rating of environmental noise with respect to annoyance and to speech communication” The Environmental Noise Assessment report will include a baseline assessment and predicted noise impacts on the identified noise sensitive receivers, during the various proposed project phases as well as recommendations and mitigation measures for potential impacts. 3 STUDY AREA The Ventersburg Project will be situated just off the R70 between Ventersburg and Hennenman, approximately 10 km northwest of Ventersburg and 8km southeast of Hennenman in the jurisdiction of the Matjhabeng Local Municipality, which forms part of the Lejweleputswa District Municipality. 4 EXPERTISE OF THE SPECIALIST A curriculum vitae (CV) and declaration of independence is attached in Appendix A. 5 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The objective of the study is to assess what the current ambient noise levels are in the area as well as what the significance of the noise impact from the proposed project will be on the surrounding area. The study will comprise of baseline noise measurements to establish the soundscape of the area surrounding the proposed project as well as assess, via predictive noise dispersion modelling, the potential impact of the noise emissions from the proposed gold mining activities on the surrounding environment.

1 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

6 METHODOLOGY The approach used in investigating noise impacts is based on the noise control regulations as published under PN24 of 1998 (PG 35 of 24 April 1998) in terms of section 25 of the Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989) as well as guidelines provided by SANS 10103:2008. According to the SANS 10103:2008 “The measurement and rating of environmental noise with respect to annoyance and to speech communication”, the sound pressure level is used as the measurement unit for noise levels. The acceptable rating levels according to SANS 10103:2008 for ambient noise in different districts (residential and non- residential) are presented in Table 6-1. Table 6-1: Acceptable rating levels for noise in districts (SANS 10103, 2008)

Equivalent continuous rating level (L Reg.T ) for noise (dBA)

Outdoors Indoors, with open windows Type of District Day-night Day-time Night-time Day-night Day-time Night-time

a b b a b b LR,dn LReq,d LReq,n LR,dn LReq,d LReq,n

RESIDENTAIL DISTRICTS

a) Rural districts 45 45 35 35 35 25

b) Suburban districts 50 50 40 40 40 30 with little road traffic

c) Urban districts 55 55 45 45 45 35

NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

d) Urban districts with some workshops, with 60 60 50 50 50 40 business premises, and with main roads

e) Central business 65 65 55 55 55 45 districts

f) Industrial districts 70 70 60 60 60 50

NOTE 1 If the measurement or calculation time interval is considerably shorter than the reference time intervals, significant deviations from the values given in the table might result.

NOTE 2 If the spectrum of the sound contains significant low frequency components, or when an unbalanced spectrum towards the low frequencies is suspected, special precautions should be taken and specialist advice should be obtained. In this case the indoor sound levels might significantly differ from the values given in columns 5 to 7

NOTE 3 In districts where outdoor L R,dn exceeds 55 dBA, residential buildings (e.g. dormitories, hotel accommodation and residences) should preferably be treated acoustically to obtain indoor L Req,T values in line with those given in table 1.

2 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

NOTE 4 For industrial districts, the L R,dn concept does not necessarily hold. For industries legitimately operating in an industrial district during the entire 24 h day/night cycle, LReq,d = LReq,n =70 dBA can be considered as typical and normal.

NOTE 5 The values given in columns 2 and 5 in this table are equivalent continuous rating levels and include corrections for tonal character, impulsiveness of the noise and the time of day.

NOTE 6 The noise from individual noise sources produced, or caused to be produced, by humans within natural quiet spaces such as national parks, wilderness areas and bird sanctuaries, should not exceed a maximum Weighted sound pressure level of 50 dBA at a distance of 15 m from each individual source. a The values given in columns 2 and 5 are equivalent continuous rating levels and include corrections for tonal character and impulsiveness of the noise and the time of day. b The values given in columns 3, 4, 6 and 7 are equivalent continuous rating levels and include corrections for tonal character and impulsiveness.

The probable community/group response to levels in excess of the acceptable rating levels are presented in Table 6-2, where LReq,T is the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level, in decibels (dBA), determined over a specific time period. ‘A-weighted’ is a standard weighting of the audible frequencies designed to reflect the response of the human ear to noise. Table 6-2: Categories of community/group response (SANS 10103, 2008)

Estimated community/group response a Excess ( ∆LReq,T ) dBA Category Description

0 – 10 Little Sporadic complaints

5 – 15 Medium Widespread complaints

10 - 20 Strong Threats of action

>15 Very strong Vigorous action

NOTE Overlapping ranges for the excess values are given because a spread in the community reaction might be anticipated.

a ∆LReq,T should be calculated from the appropriate of the following:

1) ∆LReq,T = L Req,T of ambient noise under investigation MINUS LReq,T of the residual noise (determined in the absence of the specific noise under investigation);

2) ∆LReq,T = L Req,T of ambient noise under investigation MINUS the maximum rating level for the ambient noise given in table 1;

3) ∆LReq,T = L Req,T of ambient noise under investigation MINUS the typical rating level for the applicable district as determined from table 2; or

3 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

Estimated community/group response a Excess ( ∆LReq,T ) dBA Category Description

4) ∆LReq,T = Expected increase in L Req,T of ambient noise in an area because of a proposed development under investigation.

A baseline assessment was undertaken to determine the current ambient noise levels at the surrounding areas of the proposed project. The criteria that were used for the siting of the measurement locations were: ■ The locations were the nearest noise sensitive receptors surrounding the proposed Ventersburg project and subsequently the most likely to be impacted on by the proposed mining activities; and ■ That they served as suitable reference points for the measurement of ambient sound levels surrounding the proposed project area. The noise measurement locations cover rural as well as residential areas that represent a comprehensive soundscape of the area. The measurement location at Phomolong Municipality was chosen because it is located on the western edge of Phomolong,closest to the project area, but still representative of the soundscape at Phomolong. The reason that the Phomolong location is representative is because there are frequent activities surrounding the measurement location associated with residential areas. The measurements at Overwacht 342 and Klippan 77 were to assess the soundscape of the rural nature of the area surrounding the proposed Ventersburg project. The list of noise measurement locations can be seen in Table 6-3. A Cirrus, Optimus Green, precision integrating sound level meter was used for the measurements. The instrument was field calibrated with a Cirrus, sound level calibrator. The baseline locations are presented in Table 6-3 as well as on plan 1 below. Photos of the measurement locations are presented in Table 6-4 to Table 6-7.

Table 6-3: Noise measurement locations

Site Farm/location Category of receiver GPS coordinates ID

N1 Onverwacht 342 Rural 28° 2'55.41"S & 27° 1'50.35"E

N2 Municipality of Phomolong Residential 28° 1'2.00"S & 27° 4'31.15"E

N3 Ventersvlakte 740 Residential 28° 0'23.47"S & 27° 1'50.37"E

N4 Klippan 77 (portion 3) Rural 28° 2'15.40"S & 27° 3'39.26"E

4 27°0'0"E 27°2'0"E 27°4'0"E

Plan 1 28°0'0"S 28°0'0"S Ventersburg Whites N3 Gold ESIA Noise Measurement Locations

Phomolong TSF 3 Substation N2 Legend Town

TSF 1 Settlement Noise Measurement Location Project Area

R 7 Arterial / National Route 0

28°2'0"S 28°2'0"S Main Road Underground Workings N4 Mine Infrastructure Vent Shaft Shafts Main Shaft Site Layout Plant Area Power Line N1 Site Layout Plant Area TSF 2 Underground Workings Tailings Powerline Servitude Substation

28°4'0"S 28°4'0"S

www.digbywells.com

Projection: Transverse Mercator Ref #: tdm.GOL1675.201302.110 Datum: WGS 1984 Revision Number: 1 Central Meridian: 27°E Date: 25/02/2013

0 0.5 1 2

28°6'0"S 28°6'0"S Kilometres 1:45 000

27°0'0"E 27°2'0"E 27°4'0"E © Digby Wells Environmental Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

Table 6-4: Measurement location N1

Table 6-5: Measurement location N2

6 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

Table 6-6: Measurement location N3

Table 6-7: Measurement location N4

7 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

Predictive modelling was performed for the proposed mining activities through the use of the modelling software SoundPlan. The software specializes in computer simulations of noise pollution dispersion. Estimates of the cumulative mining noise levels from the study were derived from the noise emissions from all the major noise-generating components and activities of the proposed project. The following table indicates the noise power levels used in the model simulations. The sound power levels were derived from a number of previous studies. Table 6-8: Sound power levels from main noise causing sources

Noise source Sound power levels dB

Octave band frequencies, Hz 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000

Construction phase

Haul Truck 108 118 115 114 110 106 102

Excavators 113 117 107 108 106 101 95

Front end Loader 108 116 107 108 105 99 95

Drill 109 118 113 113 113 112 110

Blasting 124 126 127 125 123 120 117

Dozer 110 122 113 114 110 108 104

Operational phase

Gold processing plant 108 106 107 103 99 94 86

Mill 106 108 109 106 106 101 97

Ventilation shaft 117 114 116 110 108 107 104

The noise dispersion modelling software was used to assess whether the noise from the proposed mining activities will impact on the relevant noise sensitive receivers, by comparing the predicted propagating noise levels with the current ambient baseline noise levels. If the predicted noise levels measure above the existing baseline levels then the difference in dBA levels will be compared to the SANS guideline (Table 6-2) to establish the categories of community/group response to the . According to Brüel & Kjær.2001, an increase of about 8 -10 dBA is required before the sound subjectively appears to be significantly louder. 7 BASELINE RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The results from the noise meter recordings for all the sampled points as well as the rating limits according to the SANS 10103:2008 guidelines are presented in Table 7-1. The noise

8 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

level time history graph per noise measurement location can be seen in Figure 7-1 to Figure 7-4.

9 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

Table 7-1: Results of the baseline noise measurements

Sample SANS 10103:2008 rating limit ID

Type of district Period Acceptable rating level dBA LAreq,T dBA Maximum/Minimum dBA Date

Daytime 45 41 68 / 21 01/10/2012 N1 Rural Night time 35 33 48 / 20 01/10/2012

Daytime 55 51 65 / 35 02/10/2012 N2 Urban Night time 45 48 77 / 31 02/10/2012

Daytime 45 42 64 / 22 03/10/2012 N3 Rural Night time 35 42 67 / 21 03/10/2012

Daytime 45 47 69 / 25 04/10/2012 N4 Rural Night time 35 51 69 / 22 04/10/2012

Indicates current L Aeq,T levels above either the daytime rating limit or the night time rating limit

10 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

------Daytime ------Night time ------Daytime

Daytime limit (Rural)

Night time limit (Rural)

Figure 7-1: Noise time history graph for N1

11 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

------Daytime ------Night time ------Daytime

Daytime limit (Urban)

Night time limit (Urban)

Figure 7-2: Noise time history graph for N2

12 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

------Daytime ------Night time ------Daytime ------

Daytime limit (Rural)

Night time limit (Rural)

Figure 7-3: Noise time history graph for N3

13 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

------Daytime ------Night time ------Daytime ------

Daytime limit (Rural)

Night time limit (Rural)

Figure 7-4: Noise time history graph for N4

14 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

7.1 Daytime results Based on the daytime results measured at the rural receivers (N1, N3 and N4), the existing ambient noise levels are mostly below the SANS rating levels for the maximum allowable outdoor daytime limit for ambient noise in rural districts. The 24hour average noise level measured slightly above the SANS limit of 45dBA at N4. Overall the ambient noise levels at the rural receivers are at the level of what is expected of rural districts. The recorded baseline noise level at the urban receptor N2 taken at Phomolong measured below the daytime noise guideline for urban districts. The overall trend of the daytime sound levels indicate the levels peak between 05:00 and 06:00 in the morning and then again between 18:00 and 19:00 in the evening.

7.2 Night time results Based on the night time results measured at the rural receivers (N1, N3 and N4), the existing ambient noise levels are mostly above the SANS guidelines for the maximum allowable outdoor night time limit for ambient noise in rural districts. The recorded baseline noise level at the urban receptor N2 taken at Phomolong measured slightly above the night time noise guideline for urban districts. The overall trend of the night time sound levels indicate a steady decline in noise levels from 22:00 until 05:00 and then a sharp rise between 05:00 and 06:00. The noise sources that were audible during the baseline measurements at the time of the noise survey and that were responsible for the day/night time level are summarised in Table 7-2. Table 7-2: Noise sources during baseline measurements

Noise source description

Day Duration Night Duration

Gryllidae Birdsong Continuous Continuous (crickets)

Vehicular activity Domestic animals (dogs) Intermittent in the town of Intermittent Phomolong

Livestock (cattle and Intermittent sheep)

Vehicular activity in the Intermittent town of Phomolong

15 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

8 FINDINGS

8.1 The findings for the various phases The findings present the results of the predictive modelling, which subsequently indicates the noise attenuation from the proposed mining activities in relation to all the surrounding noise sensitive receivers. Table 8-1: Surrounding relevant receivers

Site Farm/location Category of receiver GPS coordinates ID

R1 Onverwacht 342 Farmhouse 28° 2'55.41"S & 27° 1'50.35"E

Municipal office of R2 Uitsig 723 28° 1'2.00"S & 27° 4'31.15"E Phomolong

R3 Ventersvlakte 740 Residential dwelling 28° 0'23.47"S & 27° 1'50.37"E

R4 Klippan 77 (portion 3) Farmhouse 28° 2'15.40"S & 27° 3'39.26"E

R5 Courtlands 132 Farmhouse 28° 3'56.55"S & 27° 0'8.07"E

R6 Whites Residential dwellings 28° 0'28.93"S & 26°59'39.83"E

R7 Ida 63 (portion 1) Farmhouse 28° 4'17.12"S & 27° 3'21.95"E

8.1.1 Construction phase It is assumed that the construction activities will only take place during daylight hours, therefore the noise contribution from the proposed activities will only be compared to the existing ambient daytime noise levels as well as compared to the daytime SANS guideline limits. The following proposed activities during the construction phase are identified as possible noise sources and may impact on the ambient noise level of the area: ■ Site clearing; ■ Construction of surface infrastructure (haul roads, conveyors, milling equipment, processing plant and site offices) and ■ Sinking of vertical/decline and ventilation shafts. Potential impact: The construction machinery involved with the site clearing, construction of the ground level embankments of the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) as well as the drilling activities for the sinking of the shafts will be a source of continuous noise throughout the construction phase. The grid noise map, shown in Figure 8-1, presents the noise contour lines and visually indicates the noise propagation during the construction phase. According to the noise dispersion model for the construction phase, the noise from the activities will be lower than

16 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

that of the current ambient daytime noise levels at the indicated noise sensitive receivers. The noise levels from the above mentioned activities will also not measure above the SANS daytime rural or urban rating limits at any of the indicated noise sensitive receivers.

17 27°0'0"E 27°2'0"E 27°4'0"E

Fig. 8.1 Ventersburg 2 0 Gold ESIA Construction Noise Levels 2 28°0'0"S 5 28°0'0"S Legend Whites R3 Town R6 45

50 Settlement

5 Receivers 5 Phomolong Project Area

0 0 6 7 R2 Arterial / National Route 65 Main Road Noise dBA Levels 0 4

6 5 0 5 6

5 7 10 7 0 R4 15 50 6 5 20 28°2'0"S 28°2'0"S 60 5 25 5 0 6 5 5 60 5 6 5 R 6 7 30 0 3

5 0 6 55 0 5 6 5

6 5 0 5 35 6 5 6 3 5 0 5 5 6 5 40 65 5 6 65 5 45 2 4 0 R1 5 6 50

1 3 5 2 0 55 0 6 0 50 60 65

55 70 75

3 35 R5 5

28°4'0"S 28°4'0"S 2 0 1 0 30 R7

www.digbywells.com 5 2 5 Projection: Transverse Mercator Ref #: anp.GOL1675.201211.133 Datum: WGS 1984 Revision Number: 1 5 2 Central Meridian: 27°E Date: 20/11/2012

0 0.5 1 2

Kilometres 1:42 000

27°0'0"E 27°2'0"E 27°4'0"E © Digby Wells Environmental Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

8.1.2 Operational phase The following proposed activities during the operational phase are identified as possible noise sources and may impact on the ambient noise level at the relevant noise sensitive receivers: ■ Operation and maintenance of conveyors, processing plant, milling operations and haul roads; and ■ Operation and maintenance of shafts. Potential impact: The vent shaft and conveyors will be a source of continuous noise in terms of the mining activities and the processing plant including milling activities will be a source of continuous noise in terms of the processing activities. The grid noise map, shown in Figure 8-2, presents the noise contour lines and visually indicates the noise propagation during the operational phase for the day and night time. According to the noise dispersion model for the operational phase, the noise from the proposed vent shaft and processing activities will be lower than that of the current ambient noise levels at most of the indicated noise sensitive receivers, except for the night time level of 33dBA at receiver R1. The noise levels from the above mentioned activities will also not measure above the SANS rural or urban rating limits at most of the indicated noise sensitive receivers, except for the night time rural rating limit of 35dBA at receivers R1 and R4 (refer to Table 8-1).

19 27°0'0"E 27°2'0"E 27°4'0"E

Fig. 8.2 Ventersburg Gold ESIA 25 Operational Noise Levels 28°0'0"S 28°0'0"S

1 0 5 Legend Whites 1 R3 5 2 1 R6 0 5 Town Settlement Receivers Phomolong Project Area R2 Arterial / National Route Main Road Noise dBA Levels 5 R 7 0 10 R4 15 20 28°2'0"S 28°2'0"S 5 5 5 0 25

5 30

0

7 5 35 7 0 1 65 40 60 45 R1 50

0 4 55 45 60 65 70

5 2 75

R5 35 0 3 0 2 0 28°4'0"S 3 28°4'0"S

R7 0 1

5 5 www.digbywells.com 1 1 5 Projection: Transverse Mercator Ref #: anp.GOL1675.201211.134 Datum: WGS 1984 Revision Number: 1 Central Meridian: 27°E Date: 20/11/2012

0 0.5 1 2

Kilometres 1:42 000

27°0'0"E 27°2'0"E 27°4'0"E 27°6'0"E © Digby Wells Environmental Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

8.1.3 Decommissioning phase It is assumed that the decommissioning activities will only take place during daylight hours. The following activities during the decommissioning phase are identified as possible noise sources and may impact on the ambient noise level at the relevant noise sensitive receivers: ■ Demolishing and removal of infrastructure, no blasting is deemed necessary during this phase; and ■ Rehabilitation activities (Spreading of soil, re-vegetation & profiling/contouring). Potential impact: The machinery involved with the above mentioned activities will be a source of continuous noise throughout the decommissioning phase. The impact during the decommissioning phase is expected to be lower than both that of the construction and operational phases due to the limited activities, therefore it is probable that the noise from the proposed rehabilitation activities will be lower to that of the current ambient noise levels at the indicated noise sensitive receivers. 9 IMPACT ASSESSMENT The impact rating process is designed to provide a numerical rating of the various environmental impacts identified by use of the Input-Output model.

The significance rating process follows the established impact/risk assessment formula:

Significance = Consequence (21) x Probability (7) Where: Consequence = Severity (7) + Spatial Scale (7) + Duration (7) And: Probability = Likelihood of an impact occurring (7)

The matrix calculates the significance rating out of 147, whereby Severity, Spatial Scale, duration and probability are each given a rating out of seven as indicated in Table 9-1. The weight assigned to the various parameters for positive and negative impacts in the formula. Impacts are rated prior to mitigation and again after consideration of the mitigation measure proposed in the EMP. The significance of an impact is then determined and categorised into one of four categories, as indicated in Table 9-3, which is extracted from Table 9-2.

21 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

Table 9-1: Impact assessment parameter ratings

Severity Rating Social, cultural and Spatial scale Duration Probability Environmental heritage Very significant impact on Irreparable damage to International Permanent: No Certain/ Definite. the environment. highly valued items of The effect will Mitigation The impact will occur regardless of Irreparable damage to great cultural occur across No mitigation the implementation of any 7 highly valued species, significance or international measures/ natural preventative or corrective actions. habitat or eco system. complete breakdown borders process will reduce Persistent severe damage. of social order. the impact after implementation. Significant impact on highly Irreparable damage to National Permanent: Almost certain/Highly probable valued species, habitat or highly valued items of Will affect the Mitigation It is most likely that the impact will ecosystem. cultural significance or entire country occur. 6 Mitigation breakdown of social measures of order. natural process will reduce the impact. Very serious, long-term Very serious Province/ Project Life Likely environmental impairment widespread social Region The impact will The impact may occur. 5 of ecosystem function that impacts. Irreparable Will affect the cease after the may take several years to damage to highly entire province operational life rehabilitate valued items or region span of the project. Serious medium term On-going serious Municipal Area Long term Probable environmental effects. social issues. Will affect the 6-15 years Has occurred here or elsewhere 4 Environmental damage can Significant damage to whole and could therefore occur. be reversed in less than a structures / items of municipal area year cultural significance

22 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

Severity Rating Social, cultural and Spatial scale Duration Probability Environmental heritage Moderate, short-term On-going social Local Medium term Unlikely effects but not affecting issues. Damage to Local 1-5 years Has not happened yet but could ecosystem function. items of cultural extending only happen once in the lifetime of the 3 Rehabilitation requires significance. as far as the project, therefore there is a intervention of external development possibility that the impact will specialists and can be done site area occur. in less than a month. Minor effects on biological Minor medium-term Limited Short term Rare/ improbable or physical environment. social impacts on Limited to the Less than 1 year Conceivable, but only in extreme Environmental damage can local population. site and its circumstances and/ or has not be rehabilitated internally Mostly repairable. immediate happened during lifetime of the with/ without help of Cultural functions and surroundings project but has happened 2 external consultants. processes not elsewhere. The possibility of the affected. impact materialising is very low as a result of design, historic experience or implementation of adequate mitigation measures Limited damage to minimal Low-level repairable Very limited Immediate Highly unlikely/None area of low significance that damage to Limited to Less than 1 month Expected never to happen. 1 will have no impact on the commonplace specific environment. structures. isolated parts of the site.

23 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

Table 9-2: Probability X Consequence Matrix

Significance

Consequence (severity + scale + duration)

1 3 5 7 9 11 15 18 21

1 1 3 5 7 9 11 15 18 21

2 2 6 10 14 18 22 30 36 42

3 3 9 15 21 27 33 45 54 63

4 4 12 20 28 36 44 60 72 84

5 5 15 25 35 45 55 75 90 105

6 6 18 30 42 54 66 90 108 126 Probability / Likelihood Likelihood / Probability 7 7 21 35 49 63 77 105 126 147

Table 9-3: Significance threshold limits

Significance High 108- 147

Medium-High 73 - 107

Medium-Low 36 - 72

Low 0 - 35

9.1 Construction phase Impact assessment

CRITERIA DETAILS/DISCUSSION

Activities • Site clearing; • Construction of surface infrastructure (haul roads, conveyors, milling equipment, processing plant and site offices) and • Sinking of vertical/decline and ventilation shafts.

Description of The equipment and machinery involved such as excavators, bulldozers and

24 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

CRITERIA DETAILS/DISCUSSION

Activities • Site clearing; • Construction of surface infrastructure (haul roads, conveyors, milling equipment, processing plant and site offices) and • Sinking of vertical/decline and ventilation shafts. impact haul trucks may impact on the surrounding ambient noise levels at the noise sensitive receivers near the project area

Mitigation • As far as possible keep constructions activities to daylight hours; required • Mining-related machine and vehicles must be serviced on a regular basis to ensure noise suppression mechanisms are effective e.g. installed exhaust mufflers; • Switching off equipment when not in use; and • Fixed noise producing sources such as generators, pump stations to be either housed in enclosures or barriers put up around the noise source. Parameters Severity Spatial Duration Probability Significant rating scale

Pre-Mitigation 3 3 3 3 27

Post-Mitigation 2 2 3 3 21

9.2 Operational phase Impact assessment

CRITERIA DETAILS/DISCUSSION

Activities • Operation and maintenance of conveyors, processing plant, milling operations and haul roads; and • Operation and maintenance of shafts.

Description of The vent shaft and conveyors will be a source of continuous noise in terms of impact the mining activities and the processing plant including milling activities will be a source of continuous noise in terms of the processing activities.

Mitigation • Mining-related machine and vehicles must be serviced on a regular required basis to ensure noise suppression mechanisms are effective e.g. installed exhaust mufflers; • Switching off equipment when not in use; and • Fixed noise producing sources such as generators, pump stations to be either housed in enclosures or barriers put up around the noise source.

Parameters Severity Spatial Duration Probability Significant rating scale

Pre-Mitigation 4 3 5 6 72

Post-Mitigation 3 3 5 3 33

25 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

9.3 Decommissioning phase Impact assessment

CRITERIA DETAILS/DISCUSSION

Mining phase/s • Removal of infrastructure; and • Rehabilitation activities (Spreading of soil, re-vegetation & profiling/contouring).

Description of The equipment and machinery involved such as excavators, bulldozers and impact haul trucks may impact on the surrounding ambient noise levels at the noise sensitive receivers near the project area

Mitigation • As far as possible keep decommissioning activities to daylight hours; required • Mining-related machine and vehicles must be serviced on a regular basis to ensure noise suppression mechanisms are effective e.g. installed exhaust mufflers; • Switching off equipment when not in use; and • Fixed noise producing sources such as generators, pump stations to be either housed in enclosures or barriers put up around the noise source.

Parameters Severity Spatial Duration Probability Significant rating scale

Pre-Mitigation 2 3 3 3 24

Post-Mitigation 2 2 3 3 21

I&AP concern

10 CUMULATIVE IMPLACTS Cumulative impacts should be considered for the overall improvement of ambient noise levels. The proposed project is considered a causative source of noise pollution of medium- low significance during the operational phase. Because of the lack of other major sources of noise in the immediate area of the proposed project as well as the medium to low significance of the impact, the proposed project in isolation is not considered a significant contributor to the cumulative noise impacts to the area. The nearest mining operations are 15km to the west and southwest of the proposed project, near the town of Virginia. The existing noise sources in the immediate area of the proposed project are limited to agricultural activities, vehicular movement on the R70 as well as the current exploration activities. Potential future mines starting up in the area will contribute to ambient noise levels in the area and influence the contribution of all mines in the area with regards to the cumulative impact on the ambient noise levels.

After post closure phase of the proposed project, overall ambient levels will decrease to the pre-mining baseline and the cumulative impacts in the area could improve.

26 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

11 RECOMMENDATIONS Noise levels from the proposed project must therefore be monitored to determine potential sources of noise, increases and decreases in noise levels, and determine level of mitigation required. A grievance mechanism should be introduced whereby stakeholder issues need to be managed proactively and follow a structured approach where stakeholders can raise their concerns and receive the needed feedback in a timeous manner. In essence, an identified stakeholder issue, in terms of noise nuisance, will be reported through some communication (e.g., written report, verbal communication, e-mail, telephone call, meeting), as well as registered in a Stakeholder Issue Database for tracking purposes. The issue will then be assessed and an appropriate action plan will be designed to mitigate negative issues and capitalize on positive issues. The action plan will then be implemented. Lastly, there will be a follow-up with the relevant internal and external stakeholders to gauge the success of the action plan and identify any remaining issues. The responsibility of detailed setting out of procedures to be followed in recording, responding and tracking issues on a reactive basis will fall to the client or any entity they wish to assign this to. 12 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MANAGEMENT PLAN The objectives described for the recommended mitigation and/or management measures for each identified impact associated with each activity are presented below in Table 16. Table 16 lists the relevant activities for each phase of the mining operation and provides information pertaining to the legal requirements, recommended actions plans, timing, responsible person and significance after mitigation.

27 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

Table 12-1: Information pertaining to the recommended mitigation measures for the construction phase

Activity Objectives Mitigation/Management measure Frequency of Legal Requirements Recommended Action Timing of Responsible Person mitigation Plans implementation

Construction phase

• Mining-related machine and vehicles must be serviced on a regular Infrastructure To prevent the Vehicles to be service National Environmental Noise monitoring Construction Environmental basis to ensure noise suppression mechanisms are effective e.g. construction; and noise according to service Management Air Quality Act (Act programme to be installed exhaust mufflers; Manager emanating from plan. 39 of 2004) followed. Mining development • Implement grievance mechanism; the construction area. • machinery from Switching off equipment when not in use; and • impacting on Fixed noise producing sources such as generators, pump stations Machinery to be Environmental Conservation Act Regular vehicle the sensitive and crushers to be to be either housed in enclosures or barriers put switched off when not (Act 73 of 1989) inspections.

receivers up around the noise source. The barriers should be installed in use. between the noise source and sensitive noise receptor, as close to

the noise source as possible.

Operational phase

• Mining-related machine and vehicles must be serviced on a regular Mining and process To prevent the Vehicles to be service National Environmental Noise monitoring Operational phase Environmental basis to ensure noise suppression mechanisms are effective e.g. activities noise according to service Management Air Quality Act (Act programme to be installed exhaust mufflers; Manager emanating from plan. 39 of 2004) followed. • Implement grievance mechanism; the mining • Machinery to be Environmental Conservation Act Regular vehicle machinery from Switching off equipment when not in use; and switched off when not (Act 73 of 1989) inspections. impacting on • Fixed noise producing sources such as generators, pump stations in use. the sensitive and crushers to be to be either housed in enclosures or barriers put receivers up around the noise source. The barriers should be installed

between the noise source and sensitive noise receptor, as close to

the noise source as possible. A basic rule of thumb for barrier height is: Any noise barrier should be at least as tall as the line-of- sight between the noise source and the receptor, plus 30%. So if

the line-of-sight is 10m high, then the barrier should be at least 13m tall for best performance (Sound Fighter Systems, 2007).

Decommissioning phase

• Mining-related machine and vehicles must be serviced on a regular Rehabilitation To prevent the Vehicles to be service National Environmental Noise monitoring Decommissioning Environmental basis to ensure noise suppression mechanisms are effective e.g. activities. noise according to service Management Air Quality Act (Act programme to be phase installed exhaust mufflers; Manager emanating from plan. 39 of 2004) followed. • Implement grievance mechanism; the machinery • Machinery to be Environmental Conservation Act Regular vehicle from impacting Switching off equipment when not in use; • switched off when not (Act 73 of 1989) inspections. on the sensitive Limiting transport activities to daylight hours; and • in use. receivers Limiting decommissioning activities to daylight hours where possible.

28 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

13 MONITORING PLAN It is recommended that the monitoring plan be implemented to determine potential sources of noise, increases and decreases in noise levels, and determine level of mitigation required. Components to be included in the proposed monitoring plan are discussed in Table 13-1 below: Table 13-1: Monitoring plan Method Monitoring Frequency Target Reporting locations Sampled in accordance with The noise To be conducted on a Noise levels from A report must be compiled quarterly/ the SANS 10103:2008; measurements quarterly basis throughout the the proposed bi-annual, depending on the intervals should be taken at construction phase; mining activities of the monitoring programme then Noise measurement should the measurement should not submitted to management to be taken for a period not locations N1 – N4) Once it is established that the measure above ascertain compliance with the less than 10 min at each as per the baseline mitigation measures have the SANS required standards location study decreased the specific noise 10103:2008 levels from the mining rating limit for activities, the noise rural and monitoring should be carried residential out on a bi-annual basis guidelines. thereafter throughout the life of mine

29 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

GOL1675

14 STUDY SUMMARY In terms of the baseline conditions, it is gathered that the existing ambient noise levels in the immediate area are characteristic of rural surroundings, except for the noise levels at the town of Phomolong. The town of Phomolong must be considered an urban district, thus the ambient soundscape for all receivers within Phomolong must be considered as urban when considering the rating level. The remaining receivers in the study area must be considered as rural when considering the rating level of the area. The findings have indicated by means of dispersion modelling that the noise produced by the proposed project will not measure above the SANS guidelines for rural or urban districts at the relevant noise sensitive receivers during the construction and decommissioning phases. During the operational phase however, the noise levels are expected to measure above the existing ambient night time noise levels of 33dBA as well as measure above the SANS rural night time limit of 35dBA at receptor R1. According to the model the noise would exceed 35dBA but not exceed 40dBA at receptor R1. 15 CONCLUSION It is concluded that the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine will impact on the night time ambient noise levels at receptor R1 during the operational phase. It is expected that the noise will only slightly measure above the ambient noise levels at the mentioned receptor. The impact therefore has a medium-low significance rating. With effective mitigation measures in place the impact can further be reduced to low significance. 16 REFERENCES Brüel & Kjær, Sound & Vibration Measurement A/S. Environmental Noise, 2001 Sound Fighter Systems 2007, Sound Fighter Systems USA, Shreveport, Los Angeles, viewed 22 October 2009, < http://www.soundfighter.com/content.asp?page=20 > South African National Standard - Code of practice, SANS 10103:2008, Edition Six, The measurement and rating of environmental noise with respect to annoyance and to speech communication . Available [online] http://www.sabs.co.za South African National Standard – Code of practice, SANS 101328:2008, Methods for environmental noise impact assessments . Available [online] http://www.sabs.co.za

30

Appendix A: Curriculum Vitae and Declaration of Independence

Lukas Sadler

Lukas Sadler Environmental Consultant Digby Wells and Associates

EDUCATION 2002 – 2004: BCom Environmental Management (North West University) 2009: Short course in Occupational and Environmental Noise 2010: Short course in Air Quality Management

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS The National Association for Clean Air (NACA)

EMPLOYMENT May 2006 – July 2007: West View Rail (pty) ltd (London) November 2007 - Present: Digby Wells Environmental

PAST EXPERIENCE During my two year stay in London from September 2005 – September 2007, I worked for West View Rail (pty) ltd on the London Underground Railway.

I am currently working at Digby Wells Environmental in the GIS and Air Quality Department, where I am responsible for the Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessments relating to EIA/EMP’s, as well as assisting with the compilation of reports such as environmental impact assessments. This includes experience working, with projects in accordance with the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and World Bank standards, in countries such as Namibia, Mali, Senegal, Ghana and Sierra Leone.

My core focus is working on Environmental Noise impact assessments as well as Air Quality impact assessments, which includes the assessment, remediation and management of impacts related to noise and air quality.

Further responsibilities and experience gained at Digby Wells Environmental currently include but are not limited to:

■ Assist with the compilation of EIA’s and EMP’s; ■ Dust fallout monitoring (installation and maintenance for baseline as well as continuous compliance monitoring) ; and ■ Noise monitoring (baseline as well as continuous compliance monitoring).

SPECIALIST DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 1

I, Lukas Sadler , declare that I – ■ Act as the independent specialist for the undertaking of a specialist section for the proposed Venterburg Gold Mine ; ■ Do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006; ■ Do not have nor will have a vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding; ■ Have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; ■ Undertake to disclose, to the competent authority, any information that have or may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the objectivity of any report, plan or document required in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006;

Lukas Sadler______

Name of the Specialist

Signature of the Specialist

Digby Wells and Associates (PTY)Ltd

Name of company

28/11/2012

Date

APPENDIX 13

RADIATION STUDY (2013)

RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE

GOLD ONE AFRICA LIMITED

APRIL 2013

RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

This document has been prepared by PSI RISK CONSULTANTS CC for Digby Wells Environmental.

Report Title: RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE

Project Number: GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Name Responsibility Signature Date

Radiation Protection J Slabbert 22 January 2013 Specialist

ii RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Digby Wells and Associates (Pty) Ltd appointed PSI Risk Consultants to perform a prospective radiological safety assessment of the the proposed Gold One underground gold mining development near Ventersburg in the Free State Province. Gold One plans to produce 80 000 RoM tonnes per month with 30 000 tonnes of waste anticipated over the mine’s 17-year lifetime. Tailings residue will be deposited forming a tailings storage facility (TSF) and the waste rock will go on to a waste rock dump. The report, which is intended to serve as a guide for the completion of a full Feasibility Study for the project, deals with the radiological aspects of the Ventersburg Gold Mine project (hereafter referred to as VGM) and its potential impacts on members of the public. Humans and all other living organisms on earth are continuously being exposed to natural background ionising radiation. Human activities such as the proposed mining activities could potentially add to the levels of existing background radiation. A gold mine is a producer of significant volumes of low level radioactive waste consisting mainly of the tailings material that is consolidated in a TSF. Its importance in terms of public safety and environmental impact increases following mine closure should effective mitigation not be implemented in respect of the following radiation exposure pathways: ■ The release of radioactive radon gas to the atmosphere and subsequent inhalation ■ dust containing elevated levels of naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) due to natural wind conditions ■ Ground seepage and subsequent contamination of local aquifers, which has the potential to affect the water supply ■ Liquid effluent releases on surface ■ Improper use of tailings as a building material The main health hazard results from radon gas, Radon-222. It is an inert radioactive gas that can readily diffuse to the surface of a tailings storage facilities (TSF) and rock dumps where it would be released to the atmosphere. Radon inhalation results in damage to the lung caused mainly caused by its shorter-lived radioactive decay products. Because radon- 222 has a half-life of approximately 3.8 days, it has the opportunity to travel a significant distance in the atmosphere before decaying. Dust is released and suspended in the air when the wind blows over dry portions of the tailings and other mining surface areas covered with dry processes ore material. The dust presents a hazard because of the long-lived alpha emitting radionuclides. Its inhalation and deposition on soil surfaces outside the project areas controlled by the mine can result in increased public exposure to radiation.

iii RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Liquid effluent presents special challenges to mines. South Africa is endowed with a wealth of mineral resources but in contrast, water resources are limited and are particularly vulnerable to environmental impacts from the mining industry. The extremely large volumes of tailings wastes make it impossible to isolate a TSF containing elevated levels of NORM from the environment over a prolonged period of time. There are numerous examples of radioactive contamination of surface waters that have occurred in the South African gold mining industry. It was mainly caused by direct discharges of large volumes of process water or underground mine water into surface water bodies. A discussion of the potential radiological impacts on water resources and some examples are presented in this report. These examples illustrate “what not to do” and flag the importance for proper environmental management and closure plans in terms of liquid effluent. The radiological safety assessment was performed using conservative assumptions. The results have to be compared to the regulatory annual dose constraint value of 250 micro- Sieverts per year (μSv/yr) and dose limit of 1000 μSv/yr (1 mSv/yr). This is the dose in addition to the existing background radiation in the area. The regulatory dose limit considers all sources in an area which could expose the public. The dose limit must be met when the radiation dose from all other mining activities, including old TSFs and rock dumps in the area, is added to VGM projected dose. This is the reason why the concept of a dose constraint is introduced. It applies to a single source such as VGM. The potential annual radiation dose was assessed for different groups of members of the public, also referred to as critical groups. The critical groups include locations that are currently inhabited and will potentially receive the highest radiation dose from mining activities. These are the Phomolong township and three farming areas. A further two hypothetical exposure scenarios were assessed. These two scenarios represent worst case scenarios where maximum radiation exposure will exist, one during mining and on the border of the project area and one inside the project area adjacent to the TSF, a situation that could exist in the future following mine closure. These hypothetical groups serve as reference for the degree of rehabilitation required at closure. Radiation levels on material collected during the exploration phase can provide an indication of the extent of radiological hazards during mining and following mine closure. Core samples stored in a shed at the site were surveyed for gamma radiation with a sensitive NaI spectrometer (Inspector 1000). Two core samples representative of the reef to be mined in future showed fairly high radiation associated with it. The background radiation measured in the shed (at a distance of a few meters away from the core samples) is approximately 400 cps (counts per second). The highest reading measured was 3385 cps. Bulk volumes of the ore during mining will clearly present a significantly elevated radiation levels and potentially high levels of radon in the underground working environment. The natural background readings measured along the dirt road from the main farm entrance to the core shed is approximately 130 cps. This is typical of soils not impacted by any mining activity.

iv RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

v RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Radiological assessment Critical Groups

vi RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

The results of the radiation dose calculations and the percentage contribution from each exposure pathway are shown in the following table: Critical group annual radiation dose: micro-Sievert per year (μSv/yr)

Rn-222 and Total Critical Group Inhalation Ingestion progeny μSv/yr

1 - Vogel’s Farm main residence 360 (71%) 65 (12%) 86 (17%) 511

2 - Vogel's Farm workers residences 465 (71%) 77 (12%) 114 (17%) 656

3 - Phomolong 258 (78%) 32 (10%) 42 (13%) 332

4 - Farm area located west of the 383 (78%) 45 (10%) 63 (13%) 490 mine infrastructure

5 - Hypothetical Exposure Scenario – maximum exposure at project area 584 (61%) 127 (13%) 240 (25%) 951 periphery

6 - Hypothetical exposure scenario 2 616 (47%) 245 (19%) 463 (35%) 1324 – adjacent and downwind of the TSF

The safety assessment determined that radon from the TSF is the most important source of public exposure. This result is in line with many other gold mining industry studies. The results also show that the regulatory dose constraint value could be exceeded at five critical group locations and the dose limit can be exceeded in the worst case scenario of critical group No.6. This scenario demonstrates the importance of fugitive dust and that proper dust abatement measures such as re-vegetation, will require special attention at the time of mine operation and closure. It is important to note that only a qualitative discussion is presented on the potential impacts on water resources. No design detail was available to perform a quantitative assessment. However, it was communicated to the author that the TSF will be equipped with a liner to prevent groundwater impacts and that no mine process water will be released from the project area. The discussion of the potential impacts on water resources stresses the importance of good water systems design and environmental management systems that are required to avoid severe environmental and political consequences of water pollution. Radioactive contamination of water resources can cause extremely negative public perceptions for the mine, even if the radiation dose may be low from human consumption of the contaminated water. It can be concluded that the proposed mining operations will result in additional radiation exposure pathways when compared to existing exposure to naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). Environmental management systems will have to ensure that measures

vii RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

against negative impacts include radiological aspects of the proposed mine. Measures will have to be implemented to keep the public additional dose above background as low as reasonably achievable and at a dose constraint level significantly lower than 1 mSv/yr. The projected additional radiation dose for a member of the public from the VGM project is less than the regulatory dose limit of 1000 μSv/yr but it exceeds the dose constraint value of 250 μSv/yr. The regulatory dose limit considers all sources in an area which could expose the public. The dose limit must be met when the radiation dose from all other mining activities, including old TSFs and rock dumps in the area, is added to VGM projected dose. This is the reason why the concept of a dose constraint is introduced. It applies to a single source such as VGM. The dose contribution to the public from these other sources is not known at this stage. Compliance with the regulatory dose constraint value of 250 μSv/yr would have been the preferred result of the screening safety assessment. A baseline study was not included in the terms of reference of this study. The safety assessment results in this report can therefore not be related to the existing background radiation levels at the project site. A baseline study is an important aspect of a radiological safety assessment. It describes and quantifies the location and nature of existing radioactive contamination prior to mining and the levels of radionuclide concentrations present in the environment where the project will be located. Background radiation values are used as reference values for restoration, remediation and removal of areas from regulatory control. A baseline survey to determine the existing background radiation levels is strongly recommended. The results of a baseline survey will also be required for regulatory purpose at a later stage, should the project go ahead.

viii RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

GLOSSARY

This is emission of energy from the atomic nucleus as alpha particles. Alpha particles are comparatively large, positively charged Alpha Radiation nuclei of helium and have a low penetrating power, e.g. being stopped by a few centimetres of air or a sheet of paper. It is important in terms of dust released from a mine.

The surrounding environment which is uncontaminated by a local Background source of pollution.

The radiation in the natural environment, including cosmic and Background Radiation cosmogenic radiation and radiation from the naturally occurring radioactive elements. It is also called natural background radiation.

This is emission of energy from the atomic nucleus as beta particles. Beta Radiation Beta particles are equivalent to electrons and are able to penetrate approximately a metre of air or a centimetre of water.

The process by which contaminants in the environment are Bio-accumulation, accumulated in increasing concentrations up the food chain (e.g. from benthic organisms, to fish, to humans).

Radioactive substances on surfaces or within solids, liquids or gases (including the human body), where their presence is unintended or Contamination undesirable, or the process giving rise to their presence in such places.

Radiation of great penetrating power that comes to the earth from all Cosmic radiation directions of space.

Radiation that results from the interaction of cosmic radiation with Cosmogenic radiation the earth’s atmosphere, for example radioactive carbon, C-14, is created in the earth’s atmosphere.

A group of members of the public (in the general population) which is reasonably homogeneous with respect to its exposure for a given radiation source and given exposure pathway and is typical of Critical Group individuals receiving the highest dose by the given exposure pathway from the given source. The term Representative Person is also used to represent the average dose in a critical group.

A weighted measure of the radiation energy received or absorbed by the whole body and measured in units of Sievert (Sv) The average Dose (Effective, E) annual global dose from natural background radiation is 2.4 milli- Sievert, also written as 2,4 mSv/yr.

ix RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

A weighted measure of the radiation energy received or absorbed by the whole body and measured in units of Sievert (Sv), following Dose (Annual Effective) for uptake of a certain amount of radioactivity in a year where the dose inhalation and ingestion, age will be committed over the lifetime of the person taking into specific consideration of the sensitivity of the human body at the age when the uptake occurred.

The value of the effective dose to individuals from controlled Dose Limit practices or working activities such as uranium mining, that shall not be exceeded.

Dose rate The amount of ionising radiation received over a period of time.

Exposure The act or condition of being subject to ionising radiation.

A route by which radiation or radionuclides can reach humans and cause exposure. An exposure pathway may be very simple, e.g. Exposure pathway external exposure from airborne radionuclides, or a more complex chain, e.g. internal exposure from drinking milk from cows that ate grass contaminated with deposited radionuclides.

High energy, short-wave length electromagnetic radiation of nuclear Gamma Radiation origin. Gamma rays are the most penetrating when compared to alpha and beta radiation.

The process of taking nuclides into the body either by inhalation Intake (typically as dust with air) or by ingestion (drinking water and/or eating food).

Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material. The main contributions of human exposure to ionising radiation arise from natural sources – cosmic rays, the nuclides in the earth’s crust and the natural radioactivity of the human body. Of the natural nuclides in the earth’s crust (NORM), those which are found to be the main sources of human radiation exposure are potasium-40 (K- 40), thorium-232 (Th-232), uranium-235 (U-235) and uranium-238 NORM (U-238) and decay products from the latter three nuclides. Potassium is a common element and the radioactive isotope, K-40, constitutes 0.012% of all potassium in its natural form. The three heavy nuclides (Th-232, U-235 and U-238) decay to produce other elements, which in turn decay further through a chain which includes several elements, eventually to end in stable isotopes of lead. An example of a significant daughter nuclide in these decay chains is Radium-226 (Ra-226 in the U-238 chain).

An element or isotope that is radioactive as a result of the instability Nuclide (radionuclide) of the nucleus of its atom (e.g. radium or uranium).

x RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

A method of estimating the transfer of contaminants (e.g. radio- nuclides released in water) and subsequently accumulated up the Pathways Analysis food chain to fish, vegetation, mammals and humans and the resulting radiation dose to humans.

Exposure that is not expected to be delivered with certainty but that Potential Exposure may result from an accident at a source of radioactive material, or owing to an event or sequence of events of a probabilistic nature.

Any human activity that introduces additional sources of exposure or exposure pathways or extends exposure to additional people or Practice modifies the network of exposure pathways from existing sources, so as to increase the exposure or the likelihood of exposure of people or the number of people exposed.

The emission and propagation of energy through space or matter in Radiation the form of electromagnetic waves (gamma rays) or fast-moving particles such as alpha and beta particles.

The condition of a material exhibiting the spontaneous decay of an Radioactive unstable atomic nucleus into one or more different elements (e.g. uranium decays into various isotopes of radium, thorium and lead).

A naturally occurring radioactive gas within the decay chain of U- Radon Gas, Rn-222 238.

xi RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable

AMAD Activity Median Aerodynamic Diameter

Bq Becquerel

Bq/L Becquerels per litre

Bq/m2 Becquerels per square metre

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

LLα Long-lived alpha activity

Sv Sievert

TSF Tailings Storage Facility

VGM Ventersburg Gold Mine project mBq 10-3 Bq (one thousandth of a Becquerel) mg/m3 milligrams per cubic metre mSv 10-3 Sievert (one thousandth of a Sievert) yr year

µSv 10-6 Sievert (one millionth of a Sievert)

μg/m3 micro grams per cubic metre

10 can be expressed as 1E01 or 1×101 100 can be expressed as follows in scientific notation: 1E02 or Various notations used for 1×102 expressing quantities, results 0.1 is 1E-01 or 1×10-1 (one tenth) and parameter values 0.01 is 1E-02 or 1×10-2 etc…

xii RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 TERMS OF REFERENCE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ...... 2 3 NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND INTERNATIONAL SAFETY STANDARDS ...... 4 3.1 South African legislation...... 4 3.2 Other international radiation protection criteria ...... 6 3.3 Radioactive Waste ...... 7 3.4 Other South African radiation protection legislation ...... 9 4 A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE GENERAL ENVIRONMENT, THE SITE AND PROPOSED MINING ACTIVITIES ...... 9 5 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS ...... 21 6 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ...... 24 7 CRITICAL GROUPS ...... 26 8 RADIOACTIVE SOURCE TERMS...... 29 8.1 Aspects considered to determine the Importance of source terms ...... 29 8.2 Radioactivity concentrations ...... 30 8.3 Atmospheric pathway source terms ...... 32 8.3.1 The LLα radioactivity content of airborne dust ...... 32 8.3.2 Radon ...... 35 8.4 Aquatic pathways ...... 36 9 PUBLIC DOSE ASSESSMENT ...... 39 9.1 Dose assessment procedure...... 39 9.1.1 Atmospheric dispersion methodology ...... 39 9.2 Methodology for radiation dose calculations from dust inhalation and dust deposited on the ground ...... 40 9.2.1 Methodology for radiation dose from Rn-222 ...... 42 9.3 Radioactivity concentrations in environmental media at critical group locations .... 42 9.3.1 Airborne and deposited LLα dust ...... 42 9.3.2 Rn-222 and its progeny ...... 46 9.4 Critical groups radiation dose ...... 48

xiii RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

9.4.1 Rn-222 ...... 48 9.4.2 LLα dust ...... 48 9.5 Summary of projected annual radiation dose for the critical groups ...... 53 10 RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ...... 55 11 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 57 12 REFERENCES ...... 60

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Assessment of radiation hazards to the public ...... 3 Figure 4-1: The mine’s location relative to human settlements ...... 10 Figure 4-2: The mine’s regional setting ...... 12 Figure 4-3: Proposed VGM site layout ...... 14 Figure 5-1: Potential exposure pathways ...... 21 Figure 5-2: U-238 Decay ...... 22 Figure 7-1: Critical Groups ...... 28 Figure 8-1: Typical TSF top surface area during its life ...... 33 Figure 8-2: TSF Dust potential areas ...... 34 Figure 8-3: Example of rainfall in VGM region (white circle): July 2011 to June 2012 ...... 37 Figure 9-1: Operation TSF Example ...... 50 Figure 9-2: Inactive TSF following closure ...... 51 Figure 9-3: Adult ingestion pathways: foodstuff and radionuclide percentage contribution ...... 52 Figure 9-4: Infant ingestion pathways Infant: percentage contribution per type of foodstuff and radionuclide ...... 52 Figure 9-5: Different source terms and their contribution to public dose ...... 54 Figure 10-1: Contribution to the organism dose from the different radionuclides ...... 57

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1: Annual effective background radiation dose ...... 1 Table 3-1 Dose Limits in Planned Exposure Situations ...... 5 Table 7-1: Radiation exposure as a function of lifestyle ...... 29

xiv RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Table 8-1: Natural abundance of uranium ...... 30 Table 8-2: Ra-226 Concentrations in Tailings Dams ...... 31 Table 8-3: LLα dust source terms ...... 35 Table 8-4: R-222 source terms ...... 36 Table 8-5: Typical liquid effluent radioactivity concentrations in process water ...... 38 Table 9-1: Wind direction and speed ...... 40 Table 9-2: Foodstuff and critical consumption rates for screening purposes ...... 41 Table 9-3: Predicted Airborne LLα dust atmospheric concentrations and deposition on the ground ... 43 Table 9-4: Dust emission rate as a function of wind speed ...... 46 Table 9-5: Rn-222 atmospheric concentrations at Critical Group locations ...... 46 Table 9-6: Rn-222 concentrations measured in gold mining areas ...... 47 Table 9-7: Annual Rn-222 Dose ...... 48 Table 9-8: Dose 1 m above the ground for cumulative annual deposition of LLα dust; μSv/yr ...... 49 Table 9-9: Dose from the LLα dust exposure pathway – worst case scenario ...... 49 Table 9-10: Critical group annual dose ...... 53 Table 9-11: Contribution to public dose from different gold mine sources ...... 54 Table 10-1: Habitation factors for a generalised radioactive land area ...... 55 Table 10-2: Dose rate to different organisms as a function of soil activity ...... 56

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Mining News Magazine Article: “Wonderfonteinspruit catchment area still a concern” Appendix B: Declaration of Independence

xv RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

1 INTRODUCTION A new underground gold mine is being proposed by Gold One Africa Limited (Gold One) in the Ventersburg region in the Free State Province. Gold One plans to produce 80 000 RoM tonnes per month with 30 000 tonnes of waste rock per month anticipated over the mine’s 17-year lifetime. The beneficiation plant residue will be deposited forming a tailings dam. Natural resources that are mined, such as gold, contain various amounts of natural radioactivity. When the gold ore is extracted and processed, its natural state is modified and it results in the enhancement of the naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) available for environmental dispersion. Such enhancements can be observed in waste rock piles and tailings storage facilities (TSF). In gold mining operations involving NORM, it is possible for radioactive material to be released to the environment and affect members of the public. Radiation exposure to natural sources of radiation arising from many mining and mineral processing of ores, requires regulatory control to ensure the protection of persons and the environment. The global average annual radiation dose to humans due to natural radiation sources is approximately 2.4 milli-Sieverts (mSv) [1]. However, the global range of individual doses is wide and depends on factors such as the geology of an area, height above sea level and the habits of people. A person with a rural life style in the Ventersburg Gold Mine Project (VGM) could have a very different annual radiation dose when compared to somebody living in a town with modern amenities such as treated water supplied by a municipality and food imported from other areas. It is attributed to the difference in radiation exposure pathways that may exist. Table 1-1 shows the worldwide average annual dose and the range of values from the main exposure pathways for natural radiation [1]. Table 1-1: Annual effective background radiation dose

Worldwide average annual Source Typical range (mSv) effective dose (mSv)

External exposure: - Cosmic rays 0.4 0.3 -1.0 a - Terrestrial rays 0.5 0.3 - 0.6 b

Internal exposure: - Inhalation (mainly radon) 1.2 0.2 -10 c - Ingestion 0.3 0.2 - 0.8 d

Typically ranges from 1-10 mSv, depending on Total 2.4 circumstances at particular locations, with sizeable population also at 10-20 mSv

1 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

The proposed VGM operations will result in changes to these exposure pathways. Environmental management systems will have to ensure that negative impacts are avoided or minimised. It is therefore important to understand the potential exposure pathways of the VGM project prior to any mining activities commencing. The regulatory limit for an increase in the radiation dose to the public as a result of human activities, such as the VGM, is 1 mSv/yr above the existing natural radiation dose. VGM will also have to implement measures to keep the additional dose above background caused by mining operations as low as reasonably achievable and preferably at a constraint level much lower than 1 mSv/yr (1 milli-Sievert per year) or also expressed as 1000 μSv/yr (1000 micro- Sievert per year). Regulated facilities such as the VGM, normally has to comply with a dose constraint value much less than 1000 μSv/yr. This constraint values equals 250 μSv/yr in South Africa.

2 TERMS OF REFERENCE AND SCOPE OF STUDY The report deals with the radiological aspects of the proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine, (hereafter referred to as VGM in this report) and its potential impacts on the public. The radiological impacts will occur during mining operations but also following closure. Residual radioactivity in waste material after approximately 17 years of mine life, will reside mainly in the tailings storage facility (TSF) and to a lesser extent in waste rock dumps. Areas and structures of the process plant may also require radioactive decontamination. The assessment of radiation hazards to the public from NORM processes is prescribed by regulatory requirements of the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR). The process is illustrated in Figure 2-1 [2]. For the purpose of the bankable feasibility study for which the safety assessment in this report is required, a screening assessment is performed. A screening assessment consists of the elements framed in green in Figure 2-1. A decision that the VGM project will go ahead will require the completion of other elements illustrated in Figure 2-1 in order to obtain a regulatory authorization before mining starts.

2 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Figure 2-1: Assessment of radiation hazards to the public A screening assessment consists of the following elements: ■ Site Description - A description of where the facility or plant is located; ■ Process Description - A description of typical activities and processes at a gold mine, which could result in public exposure to radiation and radioactive material; ■ Source Term Characterisation - A description of all the relevant radionuclides in source terms that could result in public exposure, an estimate of their quantities, chemical and physical form, decay constants, dose conversion factors, absorption classes in respect of the human body, and any other relevant information for the safety assessment; ■ Exposure Pathways - Identification of all intake and radiation exposure pathways relevant to the project; ■ Critical Group Identification - Identification of all members of the public potentially receiving the highest radiation doses, their habitat, agricultural and social activities that could impact on radiation doses; ■ Assessment Criteria - The dose criteria to members of the public, contained in the national legislative and regulatory framework, that must not be exceeded as a result of activities and operations at facilities;

3 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

■ Public Dose Assessment - An ionising radiation dose assessment which take into account all the exposure pathways and scenarios which require some form of modelling based on conservative but reasonable and realistic assumptions. Uncertainties are discussed. A Screening Dose Assessment will be performed. It consists of an initial safety assessment using most likely exposure scenarios and conservative but realistic input data. The dose assessment is performed using internationally recognised impact assessment software and reference information from the South African mining industry. ■ Interpretation of results - The results from the modelling and public safety assessment are quantified and expressed in radiation dose values and compared with the regulatory and international criteria. This process indicates whether any dose reduction design changes have to be considered to comply with the assessment criteria; ■ Public Safety Assessment report - The assumptions, data, models and calculation results, validations, uncertainties and conclusions are included in a safety assessment report. A baseline study is required but was not included in the terms of reference of this study and the safety assessment results in this report will therefore not be related to the existing background radiation levels of the VGM site. It is normally an important aspect of a radiological safety assessment. It describes and quantifies the location and nature of existing radioactive contamination prior to mining and the levels of radionuclide concentrations present in the environment where the project will be located. Radiation surveys, environmental sampling and radioanalysis are normally performed to determine the concentrations of radionuclides in nature before mining operations. Baseline radiation values are used as reference values for restoration, remediation and removal from regulatory control. Generic information available from the gold mining industry is used in this safety assessment. Only the potential of radiological impacts during normal operations and the impacts of the TSF after closure are assessed. The risks associated with contaminated mine equipment (its theft or maintenance off-site), spilling of tailings materials into public areas and Illegal intrusion of the mine area, especially underground areas following mine closure, are not assessed.

3 NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND INTERNATIONAL SAFETY STANDARDS

3.1 South African legislation Regulatory controls of NORM industries such as gold, copper, heavy mineral sands and uranium mining became formalized in South Africa in the 1990’s. Regulatory control is exercised by the National Nuclear Regulator through the National Nuclear Regulator Act

4 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

(NNRA), Act 47 of 1999 [3]. The primary responsibility of the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) is to provide for the protection of persons, property and the environment against nuclear damage through the establishment of safety standards and regulatory practices. The NNR exercises regulatory control related to nuclear installations and other actions such as mining to which this Act applies. Regulations supporting the NNRA are provided in Regulations on Safety Standards and Regulatory Practices (SSRP) [4]. The SSRP contains the principal radiation protection and nuclear safety requirements. It specifically requires a prior safety assessment before operations and activities may be performed at NORM facilities. As part of a regulatory nuclear authorization process, a Certificate of Registration (COR) is issued to a mining and mineral processing industry when material has a radioactivity concentration above a certain specific radioactivity concentration and when specified radiation dose levels can be exceeded. Most gold mines operate under the conditions of a COR. A COR provides written permission for a mine to carry out activities specified in the COR. The COR is the principal mechanism connecting the legal framework of the regulatory system with the responsibilities of the principal parties; namely, the regulator and the mine operator. The conditions in a COR cover aspects of radiation protection such as the following: ■ radiation hazard assessment ■ operational limitations ■ operational radiation protection of the workforce ■ prospective and operational safety assessments to determine the impact on public health and the environment ■ radioactive waste management ■ transportations of radioactive material ■ physical security ■ occurrences and emergency planning ■ quality management The occupational exposure of any worker and a member of the public has to be controlled so that the regulatory limits are not exceeded. These limits are listed in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 Dose Limits in Planned Exposure Situations

Type of radiation dose limit Occupational Public

20 mSv/yr, averaged over Effective dose 1 mSv/yr defined periods of 5 years

Annual equivalent dose in:

5 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Type of radiation dose limit Occupational Public

Lens of the eye 150 mSv 15 mSv

Skin 500 mSv 50 mSv

Hands and feet 500 mSv -

The annual effective dose limit for a member of the public of 1 mSv per year is in addition to the existing background radiation dose. The total effective dose ET to a person, whether a member of the public or a worker, is calculated according to the following formula:

where Hp(d) is the personal dose equivalent from exposure to penetrating gamma radiation during the year; e(g)j,ing and e(g)j,inh are the committed effective dose per unit intake by ingestion and inhalation for radionuclide j by the group of age g; and Ij,ing and Ij,inh are the intakes via ingestion or inhalation of radionuclide j during the same period. An important aspect of NNR legislation pertains to release of potentially contaminated land following closure. Contaminated areas will be part of the VGM footprint and will be an important environmental aspect of mine closure activities. It implies that proper planning and operational practices optimised in respect of environmental impacts, should result in a smaller radioactive footprint at the time of mine closure and therefore less financial and environmental liabilities to a company. Eventually a prospective worker risk assessment will have to be performed as part of the regulatory requirements by the NNR. Members of the public (or critical groups in respect of radiation exposure) are identified in the report. It should be clear to the project management whether they will remain in the mining licence area when one considers the location shown in the report. Will the people of Vogel’s farm, for example, continue living at the same locations? It was assumed that they will. It must also be taken into consideration that following mine closure, and many years into the future, the elevated levels of radioactivity in the TSF will have changed very little. A situation could exist where people live very close to the TSF which is by far the most important source of public exposure. Such a hypothetical situation was investigated and reported.

3.2 Other international radiation protection criteria The NNRA and its regulations are aligned with the various recommendations and extensive publications on radiation safety produced by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA guidelines on radiological protection form the bases for regulatory control of almost all countries in the world. Radiation protection in the mining and processing of raw materials is described in

6 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

safety guides that provide recommendations and guidance on how to comply with the requirements for the establishment of occupational and public radiation protection programmes. Two important publications, for example, are: ■ The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP Publication 103. These revised Recommendations for a System of Radiological Protection formally replace the Commission’s previous, 1990, Recommendations; and update, consolidate, and develop the additional guidance on the control of exposure from radiation sources issued since 1990. They maintain the Commission’s three fundamental principles of radiological protection, namely justification, optimisation, and the application of dose limits, clarifying how they apply to radiation sources delivering exposure and to individuals receiving exposure. ■ IAEA International Basic Safety Standards (currently being reviewed) describing the principles of radiological protection, recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection [5]. A mine that can control its effluent and discharges to the environment effectively will be able to keep the dose to the public and the radiological impact on the public as low as reasonably achievable, economic and social factors being taken into account. A publication describing the general principles governing the regulatory control of discharges to the environment, are outlined in a document titled “Safety Guide on the Regulatory Control of Discharges” [6].

3.3 Radioactive Waste A gold mine is a producer of significant volumes of low level radioactive waste consisting mainly of the tailings material that is consolidated in a TSF. Its importance in terms of public safety and environmental impact increases following mine closure. The fact is that the enhanced levels of radioactivity associated with these huge TSF volumes will remain for thousands of years. Material is categorised as radioactive by the NNR if it exceeds the radioactivity level of 0.5 Bq/g per radionuclide in NORM. It is assumed for the purposes of this safety assessment that the VGM tailings can exceed 1 Bq/g, as is the case with some of the other mines in the Free State gold fields. Although the radioactivity levels in the tailings and other surface process materials are representative of the original ore bodies, it has a high environmental dispersion potential that could result in new exposure pathways. The formal radiological category of the tailings waste is likely to be NORM-L, when applying the following the definitions of the South African Radioactive Waste Management Policy [7]: ■ NORM-L (low activity): . Potential Radioactive waste containing low concentrations of NORM. . Long-lived radio nuclide concentration: < 100 Bq/g. . Unpackaged waste in a miscible waste form.

7 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

. Disposal options: . Re-use as underground backfill material in an underground (mine) area. . Extraction of any economically recoverable minerals, followed by disposal in any mine tailings dam or other sufficiently confined surface ■ NORM-E (enhanced activity) . Radioactive waste containing enhanced concentrations of NORM. . Long-lived radio nuclide concentration: > 100 Bq/g. . Packaged or unpackaged waste in a miscible or solid form with additional characteristics for a specific repository. . Disposal options: . Dilute and re-use as underground backfill material in an identified underground (mining) area. . Extraction of any economically recoverable minerals, followed by dilution and disposal in an identified mine tailings dam or other sufficiently confined surface impoundment . Regulated deep or medium depth disposal.” An IAEA guide on management of radioactive waste from mining and milling of ore [8] describes the design objectives of radioactive stockpiles. The design has to consider the following: ■ Dispersion and stabilization control to ensure confinement and long-term stability of stockpiles and TSF ■ Erosion control to minimize surface water and soil contamination to ensure long term integrity ■ Control radiation and release of radioactive dust and radon to reduce the dose to the population ■ Control surface and groundwater to prevent contamination by rain water ■ Implement options minimizing institutional control and maintenance following closure, are preferred ■ Use of passive barriers to shield against radiation and confine contaminants should it be required ■ The regulatory dose limit for potential exposure scenarios following closure has to be complied with. The annual release of radioactive and non-radioactive contaminants to the environment should be kept below the national and international limits. Radiological impacts radiation exposure must respect the ALARA radiation protection principle.

8 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

It is sometimes necessary to transport low level radioactive waste or contaminated equipment on public roads. The transport of radioactive material in the public domain will be subject to the requirements of the IAEA Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material and any applicable international convention [9].

3.4 Other South African radiation protection legislation This report deals exclusively with elevated levels of NORM associated with gold mining and therefore the NNRA is the applicable legislation in terms of environmental and public impacts. However, gold mines also use highly radioactive sealed sources, e.g. density meters on plant process pipelines. The applicable legislation for these radiation sources is the Hazardous Substances Act, Act No. 15 of 1973 [10]. The Hazardous Substances Act provides for the control of Group IV hazardous substances (radioactive material not at nuclear installations or not part of the nuclear fuel cycle, for example fabricated radioactive sources, medical isotopes) and Group III hazardous substances (involving exposure to ionising radiation emitted from equipment). Radioactive waste arising from activities authorized under this Act falls under the regulation of the Department of Health’s Directorate of Radiation Control. In practice, the Department of Health does not regulate naturally occurring radioactive material.

4 A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE GENERAL ENVIRONMENT, THE SITE AND PROPOSED MINING ACTIVITIES The following relevant information for assessing the radiological impacts was obtained from the air quality and social impact studies [11, 12]. The proposed site for VGM is located in the Free State Province in the Matjhabeng Local Municipality. The closest towns and human settlements are: ■ Phomolong - approximately 2.8 km northeast of the site; ■ Hennenman - approximately 8 km north of the site; ■ Ventersburg - approximately 8 km south east of the site; ■ Virginia - approximately 18 km south west of the site; and ■ Welkom- a city located approximately 32 km North West of the site. ■ Vogel’s Commercial Farm The property border, on which VGM is to be located, is approximately 500m south west of Phomolong Township as shown in Figure 4-1. The R70 roadway which interconnects Hennenman and Ventersburg intersects between the project area and Phomolong. VGM footprint comprises an area of approximately 2000 hectares and overlaps with several farm portions, which are mostly used for commercial agriculture and livestock breeding.

9 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Figure 4-1: The mine’s location relative to human settlements

10 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Figure 4-2 provides a large aerial view of the region. It is important to note numerous other mining activities in the region.

These include the following: ■ Matjhabeng Gold Mine ■ Erfdeel Mine ■ Free State Geduld Gold Mine ■ Jurgenshof Unisel Gold Mine ■ Loraine Mine ■ President Brand Gold Mine ■ Saaiplaas Mine ■ Virginia Mine ■ Goldfields Beatrix Mine ■ Western Holdings Gold Mine. Each of these mines is regulated by the NNR and has some radiological footprint in the environment. The pre-operational environmental background of the VGM, therefore, already contains a radiological component resulting from other industrial activities, apart from the pure natural background radiation. It will be important to determine this baseline radiological condition prior to commencing mining operations.

11 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Figure 4-2: The mine’s regional setting

12 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

The preliminary VGM plans describe the following mine infrastructure: ■ Gold processing plant; ■ Vertical access shaft; ■ Ventilation shaft; ■ Tailings storage facilities (TSF); ■ Rock dump; ■ Internal haul roads; and ■ Other surface infrastructure. VGM has a proposed lay-out as shown in Figure 4-3.

13 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Figure 4-3: Proposed VGM site layout

14 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

The run of mine ore will be received in a mill bin that feeds a semi-autogenous grinding mill which operates in a closed circuit with a “nest” of cyclones. The product from the mill circuit is the cyclone overflow, which has a typical size distribution of 70% 70 μm, and will be fed to a pre-leach thickener as slurry. Gold extraction follows the established CIL (carbon in leach) and electrowinning processes with final recovery using an electric furnace. These processes of the VGM are negligible sources in respect of off-site radiological impacts, except for one aspect. Equipment sent off-site for refurbishment or when released as scrap into the public domain, could be radioactively contaminated. A radiation protection programme which will be required by the NNR will provide safety controls for these aspects of the operations.

4.1 Radiation measurements on site Radiation levels on material collected during the exploration phase provide an indication of the extent of radiological hazards during mining and following mine closure. Core samples stored in a shed at the site were surveyed for gamma radiation with a sensitive NaI spectrometer (Inspector 1000). Two core samples representative of the reef to be mined in future showed fairly high radiation associated with it. The background radiation measured in the shed (at a distance of a few meters away from the core samples) is approximately 400 cps (counts per second). This background reading can be compared with the highest reading of 3385 cps measured on small sections of core samples. Bulk volumes of the ore during mining will clearly present a significantly elevated radiation levels and potentially high levels of radon in the underground working environment. The geologist should be able to provide the U3O8 ppm values which will provide an indication of the future TSF radioactivity content. The natural background readings measured along the dirt road from the main farm entrance to the core shed is approximately 130 cps. This is typical of soils in the area not impacted by any mining activity. Elevated levels can be measured on the Ventersburg tar road which suggests that waste rock from existing mines in the area was used as aggregate for its construction. Figures 1 to 4 illustrate the ambient radiation monitoring carried out. A more extensive baseline will be required prior to building infrastructure and commencing mining operations. Existing radioactivity concentrations in environmental media and radiation levels of the total mine area are required. Localised areas with existing high natural radiation levels may already exist. The elevated radioactivity in these areas must not be attributed to mining operations and also during rehabilitation and closure.

15 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Figure 4.1: The background radiation in the shed (at a distance of a few meters away from the core samples) is approximately 400 cps (counts per second). The highest reading measured was on sample 663.81 at a value of 3385 cps, thus approximately a

16 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

factor 8 higher. Bulk volumes of the ore during mining will clearly present a significantly elevated radiation levels and potentially high levels of radon in the underground working environment.

Figure 4.2: An illustration of the variability of the natural background radiation in the general environment of the site. This is an important aspect of a baseline study.

17 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Figure 4.3: Surveying core samples for gamma radiation with a sensitive NaI spectrometer (Inspector 1000).

18 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Figure 4.4: Two core samples representative of the reef to be mined in future and which has fairly high radiation associated with it.

19 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Figure 4.5: Two of the critical groups identified in the report and where the existing baseline radiation will have to be measured, amongst other locations. Vogel’s Farm: Critical Group 1 – people living in the main farm residence and Critical Group 2 - farm workers and their families located south-east of the main residence. The farm workers are also closest to the proposed TSF position.

20 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

5 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS One of the aims of this safety assessment is to provide insight into the potential importance of the different exposure pathways. Gold mining is regarded as a practice which is defined in terms of radiation protection as any human activity that [5]: ■ introduces additional sources of exposure, or ■ increases exposure pathways, or ■ extends exposure to additional people, or ■ modifies the network of exposure pathways from existing sources Therefore, to increase the exposure or the likelihood of exposure of people or the number of people exposed. The potential exposure pathways for humans are illustrated in Figure 5-1. The characteristics of the radioactive material being mined and the mine layout determine which of these exposure pathways are important for the radiological safety of the public and the environment. It is demonstrated in this report that the main exposure pathways at the VGM that could result in significant additional radiation dose, is radon (Rn-222) released from the TSF. The additional dose to the public during mining operations is normally relatively small but becomes more significant following mine closure, especially if proper closure measures are not implemented.

Figure 5-1: Potential exposure pathways

21 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

The additional exposure above background radiation is the result of mainly uranium (U-238) and its decay products. U-238 in the gold ores undergoes radioactive decay into a long series of 13 different radionuclides, referred to as the progeny. The decay process eventually reaches a stable state in lead (Pb-206). The radionuclides in the decay chain emit alpha, beta radiation and gamma radiation. Some of the progeny radionuclides are highly radioactive and can pose significant human health risks. The decay chain is illustrated in Figure 5-2.

Figure 5-2: U-238 Decay The behaviour of the radionuclides in the human body that potentially causes the most radiation damage is briefly described. Inhalation of radioactive dust results in radiation to the lungs from the alpha particles emitted by long-lived radionuclides listed below. When these radionuclides are they behave as follows [13]: ■ Lead, Pb-210: The greatest doses to tissues (referred to as equivalent dose) for the ingestion of Pb-210 are to bone surfaces, the kidneys and liver. The committed effective dose for a three month old infant is about 12 times greater than that for adults.

22 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

■ Polonium, Po-210: The greatest equivalent doses are to the kidneys, spleen and liver. The committed effective dose for the three month old infant is about 18 times that for an adult. ■ Radium, Ra-226: Radium absorbed to the body circulation in the same way as calcium. The committed effective dose for ingestion of Ra-226 is dominated by the contribution from the equivalent doses to bone surfaces and red bone marrow. Doses are greatest for three month old infants (17 times the adult value) and one year old children because of their lower skeletal mass and high Ra-226 uptake during rapid bone growth. Doses are lower in older children and adults, but a peak value at 15 years of age, similar to the dose for a one year old, corresponds to a renewal of rapid bone growth during adolescence. ■ Thorium, Th-230: For thorium absorbed to body fluids the main sites of deposition are the liver and skeleton. The committed effective dose from the ingestion of Th-230 is due largely to doses received by bone surfaces, red bone marrow, the liver and kidneys and gonads. The committed effective dose for the three month old infant is about 15 times greater than that for an adult. Committed effective doses for intakes by children of one year of age and older differ by less than a factor of two because greater doses due to lower skeletal mass at younger ages are counteracted by shorter retention half-times. ■ Uranium, U-238 and U-234: The principal site of retention of uranium in the body is the skeleton. Uranium tends to follow the qualitative behaviour of calcium to a large extent with regard to its behaviour in bone. The greatest committed equivalent doses for the ingestion of uranium radioisotopes are to the bone surfaces, red bone marrow, the kidneys and liver. The committed effective dose for the three month old infant is about seven times greater than that for an adult. ■ Radon (Rn-222) and its short half-live progeny Radon and its short half-live progeny require special attention since it is the most important radionuclide in terms of critical group exposure. Radon is normally the most significant component of human exposure from naturally occurring radioactivity and constitutes on average 42 per cent of total human exposure to natural radiation [1]. Most of the uranium series elements are solids; however, radon is a gas. Radon can escape from the crystalline structure of rock and diffuse towards the free atmosphere. Naturally occurring radon emanates constantly from rock in the underground mining areas. It is also dissolved in, and transported by, groundwater. The upcast ventilation shaft is therefore a source of radon. Radon is also generated from the decay of Ra-226 in the rock dumps and TSF. Radon decay products are divided into two groups: the short-lived radon progeny Po-218 (3.05 min), Pb-214 (26.8 min), Bi-214 (19.7 min), and Po-214 (164 micro-sec) with half-lives below 30 min; and the long-lived radon decay products Pb-210 (22.3 years), Bi-210 (5.01 d), and Po-210 (138.4 d).

23 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Radon emanation coefficients (the fraction of radon atoms present in a material that emanate into rock or sediment pore space) for uranium bearing ores are extremely variable. Coefficients vary with: (1) uranium mineralogy; (2) radium mineralogy; (3) host rock lithology; (4) grain size of uranium/radium minerals; (5) comminution, or fineness, of the ore; (6) estimated porosity and permeability of the ore; (7) moisture content; and (8) ore grade [14]. Rn-222 is the only isotope of radon with a sufficiently long half-life to migrate through rocks and soils to the atmosphere where it can be inhaled by people. Rn-220, another isotope of radon, is a progeny in the Th-232 decay series and has a short half-life of 55.6 seconds. Rn-219 is a progeny in the U-235 decay series and has an even shorter half-life of 3.92 seconds. Typically after 7 half-lives a radionuclide is assumed to have decayed to insignificant concentrations. These latter two isotopes of radon are therefore less important in respect of human exposure to naturally occurring radiation. Results of worldwide outdoors radon measurements indicate an average concentration of 10 Bq.m-3 [1]. There is, however, a wide range of long-term average concentrations of radon. It can range from approximately <10 Bq m-3 to more than 100 Bq m-3. The lowest value is typical of isolated small islands or coastal regions and the high value is typical of sites with high radon exhalation over large land surface areas.

6 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS No specific information on the radioactivity concentrations in the VGM ore body was available. Information on typical radioactive source terms for the South African gold mining industry was obtained from various publications of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Chamber of Mines of South Africa (COM) and Water Research Commission (WRC). A conservative safety assessment approach was followed to arrive at an estimated annual radiation dose for members of the public. A habitation study of the members of the public who form the potential critical groups (those potentially most exposed to radioactive effluent), has not yet been carried out. For the purpose of the screening assessment, conservative assumptions are made in respect of exposure pathways. A variety of foodstuffs are considered for ingestion, some of which may not be actually produced in the area impacted by VGM. Typical exposure pathways considered in the mining industry consist mainly of airborne and waterborne elements. Public exposure to direct external radiation is not considered in the screening study. The main reasons are the low specific radioactivity of the material and distance of sources to the critical groups. However, external radiation can be of concern in a worst case scenario when people construct dwellings directly on top of tailings material. This situation is a reality in some parts of the country. This is assumed to be very unlikely at VGM during it operational life. Closure plans will have to consider this scenario into consideration. The mine will also have to control the release of waste rock. Mines can only release waste rock to be used as aggregate in construction materials when the material has been checked for its radioactivity levels. This is a regulatory requirement by the NNR.

24 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

This screening assessment includes quantitative results for the atmospheric exposure pathways. A quantitative safety assessment of the liquid pathway is fraud with large uncertainties, especially for the time following mine closure. Effectiveness of institutional controls far into the future and changes in climate and demographics are just a few factors contributing to these uncertainties. South Africa is endowed with a wealth of mineral resources but in contrast, water resources are limited and are particularly vulnerable to environmental impacts from the mining industry. The extremely large volumes of tailings wastes make it impossible to isolate a TSF containing elevated levels of NORM from the environment over a prolonged period of time. There are numerous examples of radioactive contamination of surface waters that have occurred in the South African gold mining industry. It was mainly caused by direct discharges of large volumes of process water or underground mine water into surface water bodies. A discussion of the potential radiological impacts on water resources is provided in paragraph 8.4. The radiation assessment included its own atmospheric dispersion methodology that caters specifically for radioactive material (NORM) so it is not relying on the air quality study except for wind speed and atmospheric stability information. The liquid pathways can be assessed when more detail is available. The geohydrologist (L Botha) confirmed that a liner will be provided for the TSF (synthetic or natural clay) to protect the groundwater. It is assumed that the principle of “zero liquid release” to the off-site surface water resources is an important design consideration for VGM. Liquid exposure pathways such as drinking water and harvesting of aquatic species, e.g. fish, are discussed qualitatively. There are no significant surface water bodies in close proximity to VGM of a size that could support aquatic species to the extent that they can be harvested and form a significant part of the local diet. Streams in the immediate vicinity are not perennial [15]. The likelihood of drinking water that could be radioactively contaminated is assumed to be low since the infrastructure exists to deliver water to the local people. It includes reservoirs and pipelines of Sedibeng Water. However, a small percentage of people still access “informal” water resources such as boreholes and rivers/streams. It is reported that the Matjhabeng local municipality has done much in terms of reducing the level of no access to water and at the same time expanded household access to water. The assessment approaches this aspect of the mine by assuming that no release of mine water to off-site surface water will occur. Apart from the inhalation of airborne dust, deposition of airborne dust in agricultural areas is unavoidable. It could result in exposure of the public via ingestion of contaminated food. Normally food consumption rates and habitats of different age groups in the population are required in a radiation dose calculation. Currently this information is not available and conservative assumptions were made to perform these calculations. The radiological consequences of routine releases of radionuclides are determined using the framework of the radiological protection system recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The most recent recommendations of the

25 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

ICRP, issued in Publication 103 [16], are taken into account in the methodology used to calculate doses. However, the dose coefficients based on revised radiation and tissue weighting factors have yet to be published and therefore the coefficients are taken from IAEA Publication 60 [5]. The default age groups that are considered in the model used for the dose calculations are the 1 year old infant, the 10 year old child and the adult (assumed to be aged 20), as proposed in ICRP 103. In all cases committed doses from radionuclides taken into the body are integrated to the age of 70.

7 CRITICAL GROUPS A critical group is defined as a group of members of the public (in the general population) which is reasonably homogeneous with respect to its exposure for a given radiation source and given exposure pathway. They are typical of individuals receiving the highest dose from a source and associated exposure pathways. The nearest towns and settlements described in paragraph 4, have been used to identify members of the public who could receive the highest impacts from the mining activities. Further locations have been studied to determine the maximum possible dose for hypothetical situations where people live very close to the TSF. The critical groups identified for the purposes of this screening safety assessment are shown in Figure 7-1. They are: ■ Vogel’s Farm: The potential impacts at two locations on the farm are studied: . Critical Group 1 – people living in the main farm residence and . Critical Group 2 - farm workers and their families located south-east of the main residence. The farm workers are also closest to the proposed TSF position. The farm is primarily used to cultivate maize and breed cattle for commercial purposes. Farming activities provide employment for 20 to 30 individuals. Each of these employees has several dependents. There are eight farmworker dwellings, most of which have access to electricity, pit latrines, and water pumped from a borehole. ■ Phomolong Township: Critical Group 3 is located in the part of the town closest to the TSF. It is the nearest town and largest population group that might be affected by VGM. It is located across from the R70 road, 500m east of the project site boundary. ■ Farm 2: Critical Group 4 represents farming activities east of the TSF. ■ Hypothetical Scenario represented by Critical Group 5: It is a position close to the TSF but located just outside the project area. ■ Hypothetical Scenario represented by Critical Group 6: This location serves to demonstrate a hypothetical worst case exposure situation of people living within 1 km downwind of the TSF and receiving the highest atmospheric pathway impacts. This scenario can become a reality in the future when considering the fact that the TSF and its elevated radioactivity load will exist for centuries into the distant future, long

26 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

after the mine has closed. It cannot be guaranteed that institutional control will prevent this scenario from happening.

27 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Figure 7-1: Critical Groups

28 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Conservative assumptions are made in respect of members of each critical group for the purpose of this screening exercise. Actual habits and lifestyles will influence the exposure of a critical group significantly and the following serves as an example. In South Africa some old TSFs are reprocessed to recover gold or uranium. Once the TSF is removed from its original footprint the area has to be assessed because it can contain residual radioactivity. Building houses on such a footprint can then result in varying elevated levels of exposure, depending on lifestyles of the people. Table 7-1 illustrates how different lifestyles and environmental conditions can influence radiological exposure in this situation [17]. Table 7-1: Radiation exposure as a function of lifestyle

Urban/suburban temperate developed country Rural, tropical developing country

Less time at home (work away from home) Majority of time near the home, which maximises results in reduced external radiation exposure external exposure

More robust home which provides some shielding while inside the home; less air circulation, hoever, Home constructed on soil (may actually enhance so that radon can accumulate (from soil on which external exposure rather than providing shielding) the house is built)

Open air design of home, so that indoor radon concentrations originating from soils beneath the floor are not significantly enhanced. However Food purchased away from home, only a fraction exposure is potentially higher to outdoor levels of may be contaminated with NORM enhanced radon concentrations, for example from a TSF

Subsistence farmer can obtain essentially all food and milk from around the house

8 RADIOACTIVE SOURCE TERMS

8.1 Aspects considered to determine the Importance of source terms The process of developing source terms for a safety assessment makes use of the following information, provided it is available: ■ Airborne pathways: . Gaseous and particulate releases and the radionuclide content; . Physical and chemical properties of substances released; . Elevation of release; . Area and location of release; . Release velocity and mass flow rates; . Particle size distribution and radioactivity (AMAD);

29 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

. Meteorology and climatology ■ Aquatic pathways: . Source term of radionuclides released and their radiological, physical, and chemical properties; . Releases into surface water bodies; . Releases into groundwater i.e. leaching and seepage; . Migration of groundwater; . Extraction via wells or bore-holes; . Chemical and physical characteristics impacting on radionuclide transport processes; . Water body dynamics. Radioactive decay is taken into account in the safety assessment to determine the contribution of relevant progeny on the radiation doses. Build-up of radionuclides in the environment which could be a contributing factor to radiation doses due to the long half-lives of some of the radioactive nuclides, is also be included in the safety assessment [18]. Dust and radon are modelled independent of the normal atmospheric dispersion models (e.g. AIRMOD), The report describes the use of methodologies specifically designed for TSFs with elevated NORM and using a radioactivity concentration in the Ventersburg TSF material by assessing the concentrations in typical gold mines in South Africa, also in the Free State. The normal air quality models do not include radiological considerations of the source. The methodologies for dust and radon are described in the report. A radiation specific air dispersion model was used.

8.2 Radioactivity concentrations Examples of the different uranium concentrations minerals that form the earth’s soils are listed in Table 8-1 [19]. Table 8-1: Natural abundance of uranium

Range of uUranium Rock Type concentrations; μg/g

Acid (extrusives and intrusives) 0.1 – 30.0

Basic (extrusives and intrusives) 0.01 – 5.7

Ultrabasic 0 – 1.6

Alkali Feldspathoidal Intermediate Intrusives 0.3 – 720.0

30 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Range of uUranium Rock Type concentrations; μg/g

Chemical Sedimentary Rocks 0.03 – 26.7

Carbonates 0.03 – 18.0

Metamorphosed Igneous Rocks 0.1 – 148.5

Metamorphosed Sedimentary Rocks 0.1 – 53.4

This information provides perspective on the elevated uranium concentrations found in the This information provides perspective on the elevated uranium concentrations found in the ores of some mines and tailings in the South African gold mining industry. Uranium concentration levels in the Witwatersrand and Far West reefs range from 50 μg/g in the east to 200 μg/g U3O8 in the west. It reached values of 640 μg/g near Klerksdorp (the old Afrikander Lease mine) and 600 μg/g at the old Beisa mine at the southern end of the OFS gold-field. [20]. These values represent U-238 radioactivity concentrations ranging from approximately 0.5 Bq/g to 7 Bq/g and the material is therefore regarded as radioactive in accordance with the NNR regulations [4]. Uranium grades for the Southern Free State goldfields are also reported by a second source as follows [21]: ■ De Bron-Merriespruit South (DBM) project: 140 μg/g or 1.5 Bq/g ■ Hakkies, Bloemhoek, De Bron and Robijn projects: 120 μg/g or 1.3 Bq/g U-238 specific activity of 1.5 Bq/g is used in this safety assessment as representative of VGM ore and tailings. The most important radionuclide in the tailings from a radiological impact point of view, is Ra-226. The reason is that it is the precursor of Rn-222 which is released continuously from a TSF. The U-238 decay chain radionuclides are assumed to be in secular equilibrium. Ra- 226 radioactivity concentration in source terms used for VGM is therefore also 1.5 Bq/g. This value can be compared to results in numerous surveys of Ra-226 concentrations that have been carried out. One such study reports the following radioactivity concentrations for the gold mine industry of South Africa, shown in Table 8-2 [22]. Table 8-2: Ra-226 Concentrations in Tailings Dams

Mine Bq/g

Merriespruit (old) 2.67

Harmony 1.09

Welkom 0.48

Western Holdings 0.69

Average (correspond to 100 μg/g U3O8) 1.23

31 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Ordinary soil contains significantly lower concentrations; 0.04 to 0.08 Bg/g Ra-226.

8.3 Atmospheric pathway source terms Long-lived alpha (LL-α) dust and radon (Rn-222) are the important radioactive source terms from the following sources: ■ TSF: The source term is dependent on the effective surface area and the nature of the surface, whether wet during operation or covered with vegetation and soil with low levels of natural radioactivity, e.g. following closure. A TSF presents a very large potential area source. In the case of VGM the surface area is approximately 9E5 m2. A TSF can be of considerable height, up to 30m and more. Erosion of the sides can increase the effective surface area significantly. ■ Rock piles, mainly waste rock: Usually very little dust is emitted from them except when crushing, moving or dumping of material takes place. Rock piles often have uranium concentrations higher than typical soil concentrations in the area. It can grow to heights in excess of 50 m. ■ Ventilation shaft: It is mainly an Rn-222 source. Investigation by COM [23] in respect of dust in the upcast air has shown that radioactivity in fan drifts is associated with the water condensate. Very low dust loads in the environment result because of the scrubbing action of water droplets in the upcast air. ■ Surface plant e.g. the gold plant: It is a negligible source term in terms of public impact when compared to the TSF, rock dumps and ventilation shaft. Ore processing operations are conducted in solutions or slurries and particulate emissions are negligible.

8.3.1 The LLα radioactivity content of airborne dust After the non-radioactive minerals have been leached from the ore, U-238 and its long-lived progeny radioisotopes are controlling factors in the tailings material. The other naturally occurring uranium decay chain, U-235, is negligible since it represents only about 0.7% of the total natural uranium. Radionuclides from its decay chain contribute only a small fraction of the total radioactivity and they are not included in the source term estimates. The Th-232 decay chain does not occur at elevated levels above natural background concentrations. It is assumed to be a minor contributor to the natural radioactivity in the gold ore of VGM. The TSF is the most important LLα-dust source and the radionuclides U-238, U-234, Th-230, Ra-226 and Pb-210/Po-210 are considered in the dose assessment. The TSF source term depends on: ■ particle size distribution of the top surface layer and its moisture content ■ surface roughness

32 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

■ wind speed and direction. A TSF can be complex to model as a source of airborne dust. Figure 8-1 and Figure 8-2 illustrate the surface areas of a typical gold mine TSF during its operational life. It consist of a central wet area and a dry beach area on the periphery. It is mainly the beach areas and dry side walls that constitute a dust source term. The percentage of total surface area that will be a source of airborne dust following closure, will depend on the rehabilitation practice and its long term success. The TSF could potentially give rise to large un-vegetated surface areas covered with silt material, if not properly rehabilitated following mine closure. The assumption that un-vegetated dry tailings dams are the dominant dust emitters is supported by dispersion modeling results which show that rock dumps and ventilation shafts have a comparatively small impact [23].

Figure 8-1: Typical TSF top surface area during its life

33 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Figure 8-2: TSF Dust potential areas Airborne dust from a TSF can be reduced by frequent wetting, application of chemical suppressants, or other dust suppression strategies, as opposed to radon releases which are more difficult to control. The surfaces of a TSF are protected against wind erosion to some extend by the formation of a hard surface crust. An important factor in crust formation is the amount of pyrite present in tailings material [24]. A unitless radioactivity enrichment ratio is applied to the airborne dust when compared to the radioactivity concentration of the tailings material itself. It expresses the extent to which the radioactivity concentration is higher in airborne particles that in the bulk material. Measured values are reported in which the content of U-238 and its progeny in fines were found to be up to 2.5 times higher than the content in the bulk material [25]. Specific studies on LLα dust source terms have been carried in the South African gold mining industry and examples are summarised in Table 8-3 [23]. The source terms for rock dumps and the ventilation shaft are normally less important sources when compared to the TSF.

34 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Table 8-3: LLα dust source terms

Source Description Source term

TFS 2.5E-04 Bq/m2.s

Rock dumps 3.2E-06 Bq/m2.s

Ventilation shaft 1.65 Bq/m3.s

8.3.2 Radon Radon release can be estimated by using a conservative radon flux factor of 1 Bq Rn-222 per m2.s per Bq/g of Ra-226 for area sources such as the TSF [26]. The TSF is by far the most important source of radon because of its size. The factors affecting the release of radon from the TSF are basically: ■ radon emanating power, ■ its diffusion coefficient, ■ moisture content of the TSF material, ■ density, and ■ tailings thickness. The beach areas of a TSF have tailings with a higher radon diffusion coefficient resulting from lower moisture contents. Radon can diffuse from a depth of a few metres to the surface because of its relatively long half-life (3.8 d). However, the majority of the surface radon flux is due to Ra-226 in the top 0.5 m thick layer of material [27].

Radon will be dispersed as a gas in air according to the prevailing meteorological conditions. A conservative approach was followed to predict an upper bound for radon concentrations by considering the maximum radon release rates that envelopes operational as well as closure conditions. The total TSF area was assumed to serve as a radon source and a radon flux value of 1.5 Bq Rn-222 per m2.s was used in an atmospheric dispersion model. This value can be compared to studies reported in the mining industry [23] which determined the radon source term for tailings dams and rock dumps at various gold mines. It was determined by measuring the radon generation rate in material collected during the dry season to calculate a conservative Rn-222 source term value. Fifteen to twenty samples of material from each tailings dam in the study were collected to determine the radon flux. Radon source terms for the ventilation shafts were also measured. Summarised results of the study are shown in Table 8-4.

35 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Table 8-4: R-222 source terms

Range of source Term; 106 Bq/s (total from various Rn-222 Source surface areas)

Tailings 0.51 – 1.62

Rock piles 0.004 – 0.018

Upcast Shaft 0.16 – 1.39

8.4 Aquatic pathways Surface water radioactivity has its origins in wastes from the milling stage. The process wastes consist mainly of [20]: ■ the solid fraction of the tailings, ■ liquid effluents from the leaching plant plus smaller volumes of other liquids, ■ decant solutions and seepage from waste retention systems ■ runoff from the plant areas. At some mines dewatering of underground mining areas may require the release of water to surface water bodies such as streams and dams, normally after some treatment e.g. settling ponds. This could be a source of enhanced radioactivity in aquatic pathways. The general practice at Free State Mines is to discharge their effluent into evaporation pans. The impact on water resources at VGM should be low if the same practice will be followed. Much depends on the management of these evaporations pans. A TSF is potentially the most significant single contributor to elevated levels of radioactivity in groundwater. Even following decommissioning and closure, seepage into the underlying soil could continue for years [28]. The quantity of seepage is dependent on seepage control measures, properties of the tailings, the nature of the groundwater in the area and whether the TSF will be lined. Other factors that could minimise the potential for radioactive liquid release include the following. A TSF consists of a large portion of material milled to a fineness < 75 μm. This results in low permeability, compared to the sand dumps used in the early days of gold mining [20]. Gold plant tailings material is typically deposited at a water-to- solids ratio of about 1:1. Pollution of ground water by seepage is unlikely when a TSF is constructed on impermeable natural clay formations or when an artificial liner is provided. The main contributors to a low seepage potential, apart from liners, are: ■ approximately 30% of the original water is returned to the gold plant ■ approximately 20% of the water in the tailings material is interstitial water that is retained ■ a large surface area and a high net evaporation rate assure high evaporation losses.

36 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

In situations where liquid effluent is released from a mine, uranium is more likely to be released when compared to Ra-226. Uranium remains in solution and can be transported in service water through the mine as well as mining effluents on the surface. The use of water in the public domain that originates from dolomitic compartments influenced by groundwater impacts, for example in the case of some gold mines in the West Rand, requires radioanalysis to determine whether it is of an acceptable radiological quality. A phenomenon that occurs in a TSF in the presence of air and moisture is oxidation of pyrite in the TSF material. It gives rise to the production of H2SO4 through the action of the bacterium Thiobacillus Ferro-oxidans. It enhances leaching of uranium as soluble (UO2)SO4. Oxidation of pyrite is normally limited to the outer 2 m of dry tailings dam areas. However, long after closure, the TSF could be a source of surface water contamination because of wash-off by rain of the products of this process. Most of the rain at the VGM region falls in the summer, when occasional torrential rain could give rise to considerable wash-off from a mine’s project area that could result in off-site contamination. The typical annual rainfall is illustrated in Figure 8-3 [29].

Figure 8-3: Example of rainfall in VGM region (white circle): July 2011 to June 2012 Ra-226 generally has a low mobility in tailings, moving much slower than the water in a TSF and resulting in low concentrations in seepage water. The radionuclides of uranium, thorium and lead/polonium, when compared to Ra-226, pose a higher radiotoxic hazard in water. Studies performed on waterborne Ra-226 radioactivity from old dry tailings deposits on the Central Rand mining areas show that Ra-226 is effectively retained. It is adsorbed on to

37 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

particulate materials such as sand, clay or sewage sludge and is thus removed from clarified water [20]. The following radionuclide concentrations in mine effluent of some mines have been reported in the past [30]. Table 8-5: Typical liquid effluent radioactivity concentrations in process water

Region Ra-226; Bq/L U-238 Bq/L

A1 0.67 7.643

A2 0.66 1.868

East Rand Mines B 0.12 0.581

C1 0.18 4.156

C2 0.6 6.666

D 0.21 2.795 West Rand Mines E 0.22 0.198

F1 0.03 0.186

F2 0.05 1.459 Far West Rand Mines G 0.31 3.772

H 0.48 4.972

I 0.03 4.972 Klerksdorp Mines J 1.23 0.557

All these mines, except for E and F1, reflected unacceptably high levels of radioactivity in mine effluent if released into public water resources. It can be concluded that the importance of the liquid exposure pathway and its contribution to public dose is very dependent on mine design and water balance management. Radiological impacts on water resources in the vicinity of a gold mine can result in major issues. This is demonstrated by the problems experienced in the Wonderfonteinspruit catchment area near Carletonville where numerous gold mines are located. Radiological and other contamination issues associated with water released from these mines have become an environmental and political hotspot. It resulted in major remediation actions to be performed, requiring significant financial and human capital. The seriousness of the situation is illustrated by an article that appeared in the Mining Weekly Magazine and attached as Appendix 1. A further discussion of these issues can also be found in a report prepared for the Department of Water Affairs [31]. These reports should serve as incentives for VGM to carry out careful design, planning and management in terms of the mine’s water aspects.

38 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

9 PUBLIC DOSE ASSESSMENT

9.1 Dose assessment procedure

9.1.1 Atmospheric dispersion methodology A screening safety assessment was performed using conservative input data in radiological dose assessment models. The atmospheric transport of emissions from sources was modelled using a sector-averaged Gaussian plume dispersion model included in the MILDOS/MILDOS-AREA computer code [32]. The code was designed as a primary licensing and evaluation tool in the uranium mining industry and provides input regulatory decisions for the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC). Mechanisms such as radioactive decay, plume depletion by deposition, ingrowth of radionuclide progeny and resuspension of deposited radionuclides are included in the code. The code has been validated in numerous studies. One of the validation studies was conducted using measured Rn-222 concentration and flux data from the Monticello, Utah uranium TSF in the USA. The results of this study demonstrated that MILDOS-AREA provided results that were generally in good agreement with measured Rn-222 concentrations. A shortcoming of the code is that the committed effective dose is calculated using earlier recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). These have since changed. The code was therefore only used in this safety assessment to predict offsite air concentrations of radon, LLα dust for the inhalation pathway and its deposition on ground surfaces. The deposited dust results in external radiation and contaminated foodstuff. The code is specifically designed to model the type of sources and radionuclides that are of concern at VGM, i.e. U-238 and its progeny. The ventilation shaft was modelled as a point source and the rock dump as an area source using a virtual point approximation method with a fixed released rate (refer paragraphs 8.3.1 and 8.3.2). The TSF, which is by far the most important potential source of radioactivity in terms of public impact, was modelled in a more complex manner to achieve better accuracy. A finite element integration method was used that calculated dust emissions as a function of wind speed and using different AMAD’s. The dust concentrations in the plumes are depleted by the mechanisms of deposition and radioactive decay. Build-up of radioactivity on soils over time as a result of continuous dust deposition, is also considered in the dose assessment. Wind data specific to the Ventersburg region was used in the dispersion model. Information was obtained from the Air Quality Baseline study [11], which provides wind rose data for the period 01 January 2009 – 31 December 2011. This data was adapted by introducing the following conservative assumptions. Atmospheric stability classes D and E which represent neutral and stable atmospheric conditions, were assigned to all wind speeds as shown in Table 9-1. It ignores stability classes that could result in improved dispersion and lower atmospheric concentrations off-site, especially during summer’s unstable atmospheric conditions. A constant atmospheric mixing height of 100 m was used thereby trapping air

39 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

pollutants in the lower atmosphere. This low mixing height occurs mainly during the winter months and results in poor dispersion of atmospheric pollutants. Table 9-1: Wind direction and speed

Wind classes (m/s) Directions 0.5 - 2.1 2.1 - 3.6 3.6 - 5.7 5.7 - 8.8 8.8 - 11.1 Total (%)

N 1.18 2.15 5.37 0.87 0.04 9.61

NNE 1.11 2.24 7.47 1.04 0.02 11.88

NE 1.39 1.99 6.76 1.06 0.02 11.22

ENE 1.51 1.64 4.33 0.73 0.01 8.21

E 1.17 1.24 1.62 0.2 0 4.23

ESE 0.86 1.27 1.26 0.08 0 3.47

SE 0.73 1.23 1.74 0.06 0 3.76

SSE 0.68 1.3 1.55 0.08 0 3.61

S 0.91 1.38 1.52 0.14 0 3.95

SSW 1.24 1.53 1.28 0.15 0 4.2

SW 1.27 1.82 1.77 0.16 0 5.02

WSW 1.05 1.49 1.73 0.41 0 4.69

W 1.08 1.26 1.26 0.64 0.02 4.24

WNW 1.07 1.23 1.15 0.34 0.02 3.81

NW 1.04 1.61 1.65 0.46 0 4.76

NNW 1.13 1.67 2.56 0.48 0.03 5.88

Sub-Total 17.41 25.04 43.02 6.91 0.18 92.55

Calms 7.45

Missing/Incomplete 0

Total 100

9.2 Methodology for radiation dose calculations from dust inhalation and dust deposited on the ground

The predicted LLα dust concentrations in air and LLα dust concentrations on soils obtained with MILDOS-AREA, were used as input data to another radiological assessment code, PC Cream [33]. PC Cream is a validated code that is used extensively in the international nuclear industry for radiological impact assessment of both atmospheric and liquid pathways. The code incorporates recent environmental transfer factors and dose coefficients

40 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

to calculate annual committed effective dose and dose from external radiation. The following exposure components from the atmospheric pathway were considered: ■ Inhalation ■ Gamma and beta radiation from the plume ■ Gamma and beta radiation from the ground ■ Re-suspension of radioactivity from the ground ■ Ingestion. It was conservatively assumed, for the purpose of the screening assessment, that critical consumption rates apply. These are shown in Table 9-2 [24]. It was also assumed that only locally produced foodstuff is consumed. The real situation should be very different and can be determined by performing a habitation study of the Vogel’s farm and Phomolong critical groups. Table 9-2: Foodstuff and critical consumption rates for screening purposes

Food type Adult Child Infant consumption; kg/yr

Cattle liver 10 5 2.75

Beef 45 30 10

Cow milk 240 240 320

Cow milk products 60 45 45

Fruit 75 50 35

Maize 100 75 30

Green vegetables 80 35 15

Root vegetables 130 95 45

Sheep liver 10 5 2.75

Sheep meat 25 10 3

41 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

9.2.1 Methodology for radiation dose from Rn-222 The annual dose associated with Rn-222 and its progeny was calculated using the atmospheric concentrations determined by MILDOS-AREA for the critical groups and applying the International Atomic Energy agency (IAEA) radon approach to derive a dose conversion factor [5]. The dose conversion factor is as follows:

3 3 Dose per unit m concentration, ERn , [(µSv/yr) per (Bq/m )] = 5.56E-03[(µJ/m3)/(Bq/m3)EEC] x F x 8760 [h/yr] x Occupancy x 1.1 [(µSv)/(µJ.h/m3)] The parameter values and assumptions normally used are: F(indoors) = 0.4 F(outdoors) = 0.8 Occupancy(fraction of time indoors) = 0.5 (IAEA default value is 0.8) Occupancy(fraction of time outdoors) = 0.5 (IAEA default value is 0.2) The following dose conversion factor is calculated:

3 ERn = 32 µSv per Bq/m It is important to note that the main commission of ICRP is in the process of reviewing their approach and developing dose coefficients for inhalation of radon isotopes. The ICRP dose coefficient may increase significantly in the future.

9.3 Radioactivity concentrations in environmental media at critical group locations

9.3.1 Airborne and deposited LLα dust The atmospheric pathway radioactivity concentrations are summarised in Table 9-3.

42 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Table 9-3: Predicted Airborne LLα dust atmospheric concentrations and deposition on the ground

Airborne concentrations Bq/m3 Ground concentrations, Bq/m2 Critical Group Particle Location size; μm Total for Po- U-238 Th-230 Ra-226 Pb-210 Po210 inhalation U-238 Th-230 Ra-226 Pb-210 210 dose calc 5 2.35E-05 2.35E-05 2.35E-05 2.35E-05 2.35E-05 4.55 4.55 4.55 4.55 4.55

10 7.89E-07 7.89E-07 7.89E-07 7.87E-07 7.87E-07 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Total for Vogel’s Farm Respirable 2.43E-05 2.43E-05 2.43E-05 2.43E-05 2.43E-05 1.21E-04 4.70 4.70 4.70 4.70 4.70 Main Residence dose 30 1.15E-06 1.15E-06 1.15E-06 1.15E-06 1.15E-06 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 54 2.14E-06 2.14E-06 2.14E-06 2.14E-06 2.14E-06 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 total 2.76E-05 2.76E-05 2.76E-05 2.76E-05 2.76E-05 5.34 5.34 5.34 5.34 5.34 5 3E-05 3E-05 3E-05 2.99E-05 2.99E-05 5.79 5.79 5.79 5.79 5.79

10 1.18E-06 1.18E-06 1.18E-06 1.17E-06 1.17E-06 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Total for Vogel's Farm Respirable 3.11E-05 3.11E-05 3.11E-05 3.11E-05 3.11E-05 1.55E-04 6.02 6.02 6.02 6.02 6.02 Workers dose Residences 30 1.77E-06 1.77E-06 1.77E-06 1.77E-06 1.77E-06 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 54 3.63E-06 3.63E-06 3.63E-06 3.62E-06 3.62E-06 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 total 3.65E-05 3.65E-05 3.65E-05 3.64E-05 3.64E-05 7.06 7.06 7.06 7.06 7.06

43 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Airborne concentrations Bq/m3 Ground concentrations, Bq/m2 Critical Group Particle Location size; μm Total for Po- U-238 Th-230 Ra-226 Pb-210 Po210 inhalation U-238 Th-230 Ra-226 Pb-210 210 dose calc

5 1.08E-05 1.08E-05 1.08E-05 1.08E-05 1.08E-05 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08

10 4.7E-07 4.7E-07 4.7E-07 4.68E-07 4.68E-07 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 Total for Phomolong Respirable 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 5.62E-05 2.17 2.17 2.17 2.17 2.17 Town dose 30 6.41E-07 6.41E-07 6.41E-07 6.39E-07 6.39E-07 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 54 9.46E-07 9.46E-07 9.46E-07 9.44E-07 9.44E-07 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 total 1.28E-05 1.28E-05 1.28E-05 1.28E-05 1.28E-05 2.48 2.48 2.48 2.48 2.48 5 1.69E-05 1.69E-05 1.69E-05 1.68E-05 1.68E-05 3.26 3.26 3.26 3.26 3.26

10 6.52E-07 6.52E-07 6.52E-07 6.5E-07 6.5E-07 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Total for Respirable 1.75E-05 1.75E-05 1.75E-05 1.75E-05 1.75E-05 8.74E-05 3.38 3.38 3.38 3.38 3.38 Farm 2 dose 30 9.3E-07 9.3E-07 9.3E-07 9.28E-07 9.28E-07 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 54 1.58E-06 1.58E-06 1.58E-06 1.57E-06 1.57E-06 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 total 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 3.87 3.87 3.87 3.87 3.87

Hypothetical 1 5 3.74E-05 3.74E-05 3.74E-05 3.73E-05 3.73E-05 7.22 7.22 7.22 7.22 7.22

44 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Airborne concentrations Bq/m3 Ground concentrations, Bq/m2 Critical Group Particle Location size; μm Total for Po- U-238 Th-230 Ra-226 Pb-210 Po210 inhalation U-238 Th-230 Ra-226 Pb-210 210 dose calc – Maximum 10 5.39E-06 5.39E-06 5.39E-06 5.37E-06 5.37E-06 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 exposure at Total for periphery of the Respirable 4.28E-05 4.28E-05 4.28E-05 4.26E-05 4.26E-05 2.14E-04 8.26 8.26 8.26 8.26 8.26 project area dose 30 8.57E-06 8.57E-06 8.57E-06 8.55E-06 8.55E-06 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 54 2.28E-05 2.28E-05 2.28E-05 2.27E-05 2.27E-05 4.40 4.40 4.40 4.40 4.40 total 7.41E-05 7.41E-05 7.41E-05 7.39E-05 7.39E-05 14.32 14.32 14.32 14.32 14.32 5 8.34E-05 8.34E-05 8.34E-05 8.33E-05 8.33E-05 16.13 16.13 16.13 16.13 16.13 10 6.22E-06 6.22E-06 6.22E-06 6.2E-06 6.2E-06 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 Total for Hypothetical 2 – Respirable 8.97E-05 8.97E-05 8.97E-05 8.95E-05 8.95E-05 4.48E-04 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 TSF downwind dose 30 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 2.17 2.17 2.17 2.17 2.17 54 4.46E-05 4.46E-05 4.46E-05 4.45E-05 4.45E-05 8.62 8.62 8.62 8.62 8.62

total 0.000145 0.000145 0.000145 0.000145 0.000145 28.12 28.12 28.12 28.12 28.12

45 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

The predicted values can be compared to measured values reported in the gold mining industry. A CSIR study reported a range LLα-dust concentrations that measured dust at three mines with multiple TSFs, shown in Table 9-4 [23]. The dust measurements were made at the edge TSFs in the prevailing downwind direction. The calculated LLα dust concentrations used in the VGM safety assessment are of the same order of magnitude as the study results. Table 9-4: Dust emission rate as a function of wind speed

Atmospheric Average wind speed; Mine Period Activity; Bq/m3 m/s

1 Jan - Feb 2.10E-04 2

Feb - March 1.30E-04 1.4

2 March - April 8.00E-05 1

April - May 1.00E-05 1

March - April 3.00E-04 2.5

April - May 5.10E-04 2.6

May - June 2.10E-04 2.9 3 June - Aug 1.70E-03 3.1

Aug - Sept 1.99E-03 3.1

Sept - Oct 2.55E-03 3.3

Median 2.55E-04

9.3.2 Rn-222 and its progeny The calculated Rn-222 and its progeny concentrations for VGM are listed in Table 9-5. Table 9-5: Rn-222 atmospheric concentrations at Critical Group locations

Critical Group Rn-222

Vogel’s Farm main residence 11.2

Vogel's Farm workers residences 14.5

Phomolong 8.1

Farm 2 12.0

Hypothetical 1 – Maximum exposure at project area periphery 18.3

Hypothetical 2 – TSF downwind location 19.3

46 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

During the early period of regulatory control by the National Nuclear Regulator in the 1990’s, then known as the Council for Nuclear Safety, extensive research work was carried out by CSIR Mining Technology and the South African Chamber of Mines. Table 9-6 is a summary of radon measurements from gold mine tailings, measured in populated areas near these tailings[34]. [The estimated Rn-222 concentrations in the VGM safety assessment are of the same order of magnitude reported in Table 9-6 although some significantly higher values are listed in the CSIR data. It should be pointed out that these results include measurements carried out in areas where multiple and very large TSFs occur. Table 9-6: Rn-222 concentrations measured in gold mining areas

Distance from centre of Locality – nearest town Measured average; Bq/m3 nearest TSF, km

3.6 68

2.7 14

4.1 39 Carletonville 2.5 21

2 38

1 17

1.9 47 Stilfontein 2.4 50

2.4 45

2.1 3

2.1 92

Virginia 1.8 17

1.8 12

0.8 65

0.8 60

Not reported 19

Perimeter 71 Randfontein ~2.5 34

~2.5 19

47 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

9.4 Critical groups radiation dose

9.4.1 Rn-222 The concentration of Rn-222 and the resultant annual dose at the various critical group positions, are listed in Table 9-7. No distinction is made in respect of different age groups when determining the dose from Rn-222 and its progeny. Table 9-7: Annual Rn-222 Dose

Rn-222 and Total Critical Group Inhalation Ingestion progeny μSv/yr

1 - Vogel’s Farm main residence 360 (71%) 65 (12%) 86 (17%) 511

2 - Vogel's Farm workers residences 465 (71%) 77 (12%) 114 (17%) 656

3 - Phomolong 258 (78%) 32 (10%) 42 (13%) 332

4 - Farm area located west of the 383 (78%) 45 (10%) 63 (13%) 490 mine infrastructure

5 - Hypothetical Exposure Scenario – maximum exposure at project area 584 (61%) 127 (13%) 240 (25%) 951 periphery

6 - Hypothetical exposure scenario 2 616 (47%) 245 (19%) 463 (35%) 1324 – adjacent and downwind of the TSF

9.4.2 LLα dust

9.4.2.1 External radiation from deposited dust The continuous deposition of LLα dust and external radiation from it is normally a minor component of the total annual dose. However, a gradual build-up of radioactivity in the soil over time can result in it becoming increasingly important. This is shown in Table 9-8. The external radiation dose components for two critical groups are listed. The radionuclide that makes the highest contribution to the external radiation dose is Ra-226. The contribution to the total annual dose from external radiation is highest for critical group No.6, as can be expected from the higher levels of deposition that occurs nearest to the SF7

48 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Table 9-8: Dose 1 m above the ground for cumulative annual deposition of LLα dust; μSv/yr

Years of continuous dust 1 2 5 10 15 20 deposition

(6) Hypothetical 1.2 3.4 9.1 16.1 21.6 26.2 scenario TSF Critical downwind Group and (3) annual dose; μSv/yr Vogel's farm – farm 0.3 0.8 2.0 3.6 4.9 5.9 workers residences

9.4.2.2 LLα dust - inhalation and ingestion pathways

The theoretical maximum dose for the critical groups from LLα dust under very conservative assumptions and when no dust abatement measures are implemented, are listed in Table 9-9. It assumes that the total TSF area is dry and acts as a source. The maximum annual inhalation dose is for an adult when comparing the inhalation dose for the three age groups considered in this safety assessment (adults, child and infant). In the case of the ingestion pathway the maximum dose is received by an infant. Table 9-9: Dose from the LLα dust exposure pathway – worst case scenario

Total annual dose as a LLα dust Ingestion dose; result LLα dust Critical Group inhalation dose; μSv/yr exposure pathway; μSv/yr μSv/yr

(1) Vogel’s Farm main 259 343 602 residence

(2) Vogel's Farm 308 456 764 workers residences

(3) Phomolong 128 168 296

(4) Farm 2 178 250 428

(5) Hypothetical scenario – Maximum exposure 509 960 1469 at project area periphery

49 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Total annual dose as a LLα dust Ingestion dose; result LLα dust Critical Group inhalation dose; μSv/yr exposure pathway; μSv/yr μSv/yr

(6) Hypothetical scenario – TSF 981 1850 2831 downwind

The LLα dust exposure pathway’s contribution to the annual dose should be weighted by considering a more realistic TSF area that constitutes the source term. This can be done by estimating the fraction of surface area of the TSF surface that is dry during its operational life and the effectiveness of TSF rehabilitation after mine closure. Figure 9-1 illustrates an operational TSF. It is clear that only a portion of its surface area can act as a dust source term since most of it is wet. For the purpose of this study 25% of the area is assumed to be dry to estimate an annual dose for the critical groups during the TSF operational life.

Figure 9-1: Operational TSF Example Figure 9-2 shows two adjacent TSFs of mines that are closed. The rehabilitation of the top is more successful when compared to the bottom TSF where large denuded areas are present. The LLα dust potential of a TSF is therefore very dependent on the success of its rehabilitation and revegetation following mine closure.

50 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Figure 9-2: Inactive TSF following closure Other factors that support the assumption of 25% of a TSF as a fugitive dust source are the following. The effective TSF surface that acts as a source is normally smaller that the complete barren surface area because of the following reasons. The length of exposed tailings along the direction of the wind (the so-called fetch) has an influence on the emission of fine particles since the dominant motion of sand particles is creeping or saltation (bouncing) [35]. This motion transfers momentum by collisions of particles originating upstream and thus supplements aerodynamic pickup from the surface. A high increase is seen for the first quarter of the exposed surface length, followed by a lower rate of release of particles. Half the length of the dry and exposed surface area contributes at most 20% to the dust emission. The effective source from dry and exposed TSF surface areas is approximated in most cases as 30%.

51 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

The potential impact area of VGM is used to cultivate maize and breed cattle for commercial purposes The ingestion pathway was investigated to determine the importance of the different radionuclides and types of foodstuff. Figure 9-3 and Figure 9-4 illustrate the relative importance of milk and animal liver products when compared to other types of food. Pb-210 and Po-210 are important radionuclides in the ingestion pathway.

Figure 9-3: Adult ingestion pathways: foodstuff and radionuclide percentage contribution

Figure 9-4: Infant ingestion pathways Infant: percentage contribution per type of foodstuff and radionuclide

52 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

9.5 Summary of projected annual radiation dose for the critical groups A summary of the estimated annual dose for each critical group is shown in Table 9-10. It also shows the percentage contribution to the annual dose from each exposure pathway. It can be concluded that the dose contribution from deposited dust is more important for critical groups located very close to the TSF because this is where most of the heavier fraction of airborne dust deposition occurs. This conclusion emphasises the importance of successful revegetation and other dust mitigation during mining and following mine closure. Table 9-10: Critical group annual dose

An upper bound of the estimated annual radiation dose; μSv/yr Critical Group Rn-222 and Inhalation Ingestion Total progeny

Voge'ls Farm main residence 360 (71%) 65 (12%) 86 (17%) 511

Vogel's Farm workers residences 465 (71%) 77 (12%) 114 (17%) 656

Phomolong 258 (78%) 32 (10%) 42 (13%) 332

Farm 2 383 (78%) 45 (10%) 63 (13%) 490

Hypothetical 1 – Maximum exposure 584 (61%) 127 (13%) 240 (25%) 951 at project area periphery

Hypothetical 2 – TSF downwind 616 (47%) 245 (19%) 463 (35%) 1324

The results in Table 9-10 can be compared to findings of other studies performed in the mining industry [23] illustrated in Table 9-11 and Figure 9-5. It shows the importance of radon. The study did not include the deposition LLα dust and the ingestion pathway.

53 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Table 9-11: Contribution to public dose from different gold mine sources

% Contribution to Public Dose Source # Source Description Mine 1 Mine 2 Mine 3

1 LLα dust (inhalation only) 5 8 6

2 Rn-222 (Ventilation shaft) 4 21 8

3 Rn-222 (Rock Piles) 3 4 4

4 Rn-222 (TSF) 88 67 82

Figure 9-5: Different source terms and their contribution to public dose

54 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

10 RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT The fundamental radiation safety objective is to protect people but also the environment from harmful effects of ionizing radiation. IAEA Safety Principle 7 states that “people and the environment, present and future, must be protected against radiation risks” [36]. The revised draft IAEA Basic Safety Standards (DS 379) states that “the aim of radiation protection of the environment is to protect ecosystems, including non-human species within that ecosystem, against radiation risks”. It further requires that legislation should provide for the protection of the human environment and the biosphere in accordance with the principle of sustainable development. On the protection of the environment the ICRP publications [37] recognise that it is necessary to consider a wider range of situations, irrespective of any human connection and to demonstrate, directly and explicitly, that the environment is being protected. The ICRP approach aims to prevent, or reduce the frequency of “deleterious radiation effects” so that they have negligible impact on: ■ Biological diversity ■ Conservation of species ■ Health and status of natural habitats, communities and ecosystems A very basic radio-ecological screening assessment was carried out using the ERICA software tool developed by the European Union [38]. The purpose of the assessment is to illustrate the potential radiation dose to a variety of organisms where the habitat consists of a large surface area with a range of radioactivity concentrations (1 to 10 Bq/g) was investigated. It illustrates the potential radio-ecological impact for the main radioisotopes in the U-238 decay chain (U-238, U-234, Th-230, Ra-226, Pb-210 and Po-210). The ERICA screening values for organism absorbed dose are 40 μGy/h for terrestrial animals and 400 μGy/h for terrestrial plants and aquatic biota. Below these values and in situations of chronic exposure, no measurable population effects would occur, as suggested in international publications quoted in ERICA. Typical habitation factors for the species selected to illustrate potential doses are shown in Table 10-1. Table 10-1: Habitation factors for a generalised radioactive land area

Soil Grasses Mammal Bird Habitat Amphibian Bird Reptile Tree Shrub Invertebrate & Herbs (Deer) egg (worm)

On-soil 1 0.2 1 0.5 1 1 1 0 1

In-soil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

The dose rates as a function of different radionuclide concentrations are listed in Table 10-2.

55 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Table 10-2: Dose rate to different organisms as a function of soil activity Radionuclide specific activity 1Bq/g:

Radionuclide specific activity 4 Bq/g:

Radionuclide specific activity 10 Bq/g:

56 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

The radionuclide that contributes the most to the absorbed dose of the different organisms, is Ra-226 and as illustrated in Figure 10-1. This fact corresponds to the earlier statement that Ra-226 also contributes the highest dose component from LLα dust deposition.

Figure 10-1: Contribution to the organism dose from the different radionuclides It is expected that the VGM tailings radioactivity will have little radiological impact on non- human species.

11 CONCLUSIONS The projected additional radiation dose for a member of the public from the VGM project is less than the regulatory dose limit of 1000 μSv/yr, but exceeds the dose constraint value of 250 μSv/yr. The regulatory dose limit considers all sources in an area which could expose the public. The dose limit must be met when the radiation dose from all other mining activities, including old TSFs and rock dumps in the area, is added to VGM projected dose. This is the reason why the concept of a dose constraint is introduced. It applies to a single source such as VGM. The dose contribution to the public from these other sources is not known at this stage. Compliance with the regulatory dose constraint value of 250 μSv/yr would have been the preferred result of the screening safety assessment. Radon (Rn-222) released from the VGM TSF, rock dump and ventilation shaft, is the most important contributor to public radiation dose. It alone can exceed the NNR dose constraint value of 250 μSv/yr. Radon from the TSF would be the major source of radiation exposure. The mine’s environmental monitoring will have to include extensive radon and LLα dust measurements. The dispersion of Rn-222 can be complex but the near ground level dilution of the Rn-222 concentrations usually proceeds very fast. A well designed monitoring

57 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

programme should be able to demonstrate lower radon concentrations than the levels predicted in this screening assessment because of the conservative assumptions that had to be included in the assessment. Radioactive contamination of water resources can cause extremely negative public perceptions for the mine, even if the radiation dose may be low from human consumption of the contaminated water. The mine is feasible in respect of its radiological impacts. The radiological impacts on members of the public were determined using conservative assumptions. These assumptions represent conditions that will exist at the end of the mine’s life when the dose to the public is the highest. Proper environmental monitoring and effluent control measures from the start of mining should ensure a dose to the public that meets regulatory requirements and less than the projected dose calculated in this study. The mine’s impacts are not dissimilar to existing gold mines in area and which are authorised to operate by the NNR. Underground and surface mine worker protection will be controlled following regulatory approved protection programmes that will ensure that worker dose limits are not exceeded.

12 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are subject to a decision to carry out an environmental impact assessment to meet South African legal requirements. The actions recommended here should be carried out together with the EIA. A baseline survey to determine the existing background radiation levels is required. . A baseline study is especially important where other mining operations are located in the same area and contributes to existing public exposure and enhanced levels of environmental radioactivity. The aims of such a study can be more formally defined as follows: ■ provide an understanding of pre-development spatial and temporal variations in radionuclide concentrations ■ establish baseline measurements in the area against which changes due to the development of the mine can be assessed ■ identify potential pathways of radionuclide movement and radiation exposure in the vicinity of the site thereby providing a basis for prediction of radiological impact for operational and post-operational phases of mine development The baseline study considers land use and habitation information and involves monitoring the following environmental media in the mine’s potential impact area:

. existing atmospheric radon concentrations on the site and at nearby human settlements off the site. . radioactivity concentrations in soils and agricultural products, . radioactivity concentration is surface water and groundwater, and . long-lived radioactivity in airborne dust.

58 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

The baseline study and safety assessment of radiation hazards to members of the public form part of a comprehensive submission to the NNR before mining can commence. The NNR grants a Certificate of Registration when a submission with the following information has been approved by them:

. Safety assessment report for workers . Radiation protection programme for workers . Integrated waste management programme . Transport procedure for radioactive material (in the case where material with elevated radioactivity levels are transported off-site) . Physical security procedure . Emergency procedure (e.g. spill of tailings material in public areas) . Safety assessment report for the public . Radiation protection programme for the public . Quality management procedure The authorisation process can be a lengthy process lasting up to a year. The baseline study, which include measuring seasonal variations of radioactivity in media, and the preparation of a submission to the NNR should therefore start well advance, allowing approximately two years before mining commences.

59 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

REFERENCES [1] UNSCEAR, 2000. Sources and Effects of ionizing Radiation United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes, Volume I: Sources [2] National Nuclear Regulator, 2012. Regulatory Guide RG-002 Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public from NORM Activities [3] Republic of South Africa (1999), The National Nuclear Regulator Act, 1999 (Act No. 47 of 1999). Government Gazette No. 20760. Pretoria [4] Regulations In Terms Of Section 36, Read with Section 47 of The National Nuclear Regulator Act, 1999 (Act No. 47 Of 1999), On Safety Standards And Regulatory Practices (SSRP) [5] Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, International Atomic Energy Agency, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, PAN American Health Organization, World Health Organization, International Basic Safety Standards for Protection Against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources, Safety Series No. 115, IAEA, Vienna (1996). [6] IAEA Safety Standards Series No. WS-G-2.3. Regulatory Control of Radioactive Discharges to the Environment, International Atomic Energy Agency Vienna 2000. [7] Department of Minerals and Energy - Radioactive Waste Management Policy and Strategy for the Republic of South Africa. 2005 [8] International Atomic Energy Agency, Safety Standards Series No. SSR-5. Disposal of Radioactive Waste – Specific Safety Requirements. VIENNA, 2011 [9] IAEA Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material 2005 Edition Safety Requirements No. TS-R-1, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2011. [10] Hazardous Substances Act, Act No. 15 of 1973 [11] Baseline Study for the Proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine Project. Digby Wells Environmental, 2012 [12] Feasibility report for the Socio-Economic Baseline Investigation for the Ventersburg Project. Digby Wells Environmental, 2012 [13] International Atomic Energy Agency Safety Report Series No.14 Assessment of Doses to the Public from Ingested Radionuclides. Vienna, 1999 [14] Yu C et al, 1993. Data Collection Handbook to Support Modelling Impacts of Radioactive Material in Soil by Environmental Assessment and Information Sciences Division Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois April 1993 [15] Surface Water Assessment for Bankable Feasibility Study Ventersburg Project. Digby Wells Environmental 2012

60 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

[16] Annals of the ICRP, Publication 103. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection [17] IAEA Technical Reports Series No.419 Extent of Environmental Contamination by Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) and Technological Options for Mitigation International Atomic Energy Agency Vienna, 2003 [18] IAEA Technical Report Series No.419. Extent of Environmental Contamination by Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) and Technological Options for Mitigation. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna 2003 [19] IAEA TECDOC 1363 Guidelines for Radioelement Mapping using Gamma Ray Spectrometry Data. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna 2003 [20] Funke, J.W.1990. The Water Requirements and Pollution Potential of South African Gold and Uranium Mines.Report KV 9/90 Water Research Commision. Pretoria [21] http://www.wise-uranium.org [22] De Jesus, A.S.M. 1987. An Assessment of the Radium-226 Concentration Levels in Tailings Dams and Environmental Waters in the Gold/Uranium Mining Areas of the Witwatersrand. Report PER-159. Pelindaba [23] CSIR Mining Technology Report GU9301: Assessment of the Radiological Impact to the Public from Surface Works on Mines, Radon and dust Exposure Pathways. February 1996 [24] A Decision Support System for Dust Assessment in Surface Mines Mineral Resources Engineering, Vol. 6, N0.1 (1997) 17-28 @ Imperial College Press [25] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1987. Guide 3.59. Methods for Estimating Radioactive and Toxic Airborne Source Terms for Uranium Milling Operations [26] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1987. Regulatory Guide 3.59. Methods for Estimating Radioactive and Toxic Airborne Source Terms for Uranium Milling Operations [27] Radon Assessment March 2011. Prepared by: Nuclear Waste Management Organization NWMO DGR-TR-2011-34 [28] Nelson, J.D. and McWhorter, D.B., 1980. Influence of Impoundment and Substraction Configuration on Seepage from Impoundments. Proc. of Int. Conf. on Uranium Mine Waste Disposal, Vancouver, May 1980 [29] http://www.weathersa.co.za [30] Metcalf, P.E. 1990. Licensing of activities involving nuclear hazard material. Paper presented at the Mine ventilation Society Conference on Dust and Radon, consideration for the future, 20 – 28 February

61 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

[31] Van Veelen, M. 2008. Wonderfonteinspruit Catchment Area Remediation Plan Radioactive Contamination Specialist Task Team: Report on Site Visits and Recommended Actions – Draft Report [32] MILDOS AREA USER’S GUIDE Environmental Assessment Division Argonne National Laboratory September 1998 [33] Health Protection Agency, Centre for Radiation, chemical and Environmental Hazards, 2009. The Methodology for Assessing the Radiological consequences for Routine Releases of Radionuclides to the Environment used in PC CREAM 08. HPA- RPD-058 [34] Chambers of Mines South Africa SCR Circular No. 6/97 – Summary of Data on Radon Levels in the Vicinity of Gold Mine Tailings [35] A Decision Support System for Dust Assessment in Surface Mines Mineral Resources Engineering, Vol. 6, N0.1 (1997) 17-28 @ Imperial College Press Dust saltation [36] IAEA Fundamental Safety Standards, SF-110. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna 2001. [37] ICRP 108, Environmental Protection - the Concept and Use of Reference Animals and Plants, ICRP, 2008 [38] Björk M and Gilek M (Eds), 2005. Overview of Ecological Risk Characterisation Methodologies. ERICA Deliverable D4b. EC project Contract N°FI6R-CT-2004- 508847

62 RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Appendix A: Mining News Magazine Article: “Wonderfonteinspruit catchment area still a concern”

RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

By: Natasha Odendaal 18th March 2011

Uranium contamination of the environment by mines is an ongoing concern for surrounding communities in the Wonderfonteinspruit catchment area (WCA), west of Gauteng. About 73 000 t of uranium has been extracted during 120 years of gold mining in the WCA, which includes the West Rand and the Far West Rand areas, resulting in uranium pollution, with elevated levels of radioactivity impacting on the area’s surface and groundwater systems, says the Federation for a Sustainable Environment (FSE) CEO Mariette Liefferink. “Since the 1980s, 450 000 t of uranium has been deposited in the 270 tailings dams of the Witwatersrand’s goldfields and a further 250 000 t of uranium has been deposited in the tailings dams of the West Rand and the Far West Rand goldfields,” she says. Studies and samples, which have been undertaken by various organisations over the past decade, have indicated that the tailings dams within the WCA currently contain 100 000 t of uranium. A report by the Water Research Commission (WRC) found that 50 t/y of uranium enters the groundwater from point sources, seepage and stormwater discharges within the West Rand and the Far West Rand goldfields. Sinkholes historically filled with uraniferous tailings could also become secondary sources of uranium contamination when mines close and premining flow patterns and volumes are restored. “The radioactive contamination of surface water bodies in the WCA are caused by long- lasting mine water discharges, seepage and runoff from slimes dams,” Liefferink says. Findings in a research report, by North West University School of Environmental Sciences and Development’s Professor Frank Winde, show that the radioactive heavy metal uranium may be more of a toxic risk than previously thought, even at comparably low concentrations. Although uranium loads emitted by larger gold mines in the Far West Rand were reduced, its levels in the water resources of the WCA have increased over the past 15 years. This is due to the contribution of highly polluted water decanting from the flooded mine void in the West Rand, Winde states in his report. Further, Winde explains that in mined-out areas, such as the West Rand and the Central Rand of the Witwatersrand basin, water flowing out of flooded mine voids may act as another significant source of uranium pollution affecting surface and groundwater. The report, which explores the impacts that mining has had over the past decade on uranium pollution of water resources in the WCA, says: “The uranium levels in the WCA are comparable to those detected in the Northern Cape, which had been geostatistically linked to abnormal haema- tological values related to increased incidences of leukaemia observed.”

RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

SPREADING OUT Airborne pathways, where radon gas and windblown dust disperse outwards from mine sites, and waterborne pathways from ground or surface water, are some of the primary ways in which the contamination of the area takes place, Liefferink says. A report titled ‘Radiological impacts of the mining activi- ties to the public in the Wonder- fontein Catchment Area’ by the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR), which observed various samplings of dust emissions from slimes dams during windy weather conditions, found that, owing to the small particle size of the slimes, particulate matter can be transported over relatively great distances to land used for agriculture. The report further noted that the deposition of radioactively contaminated dust on the leaves of vegetable and forage plants could result in radiation exposures exceeding those from the inhalation of contaminated dust. The use of contaminated mine waste material in construction on the West Rand has also been identified as a means of dispersal of radioactive material into the environment, she says. WORKING TOWARDS A SOLUTION The contaminated areas have been identified and the need for comprehensive monitoring and study as well as epidemiological studies in affected communities are recommended, says Liefferink. The FSE recommended actions to be undertaken by the NNR within the Witwatersrand gold- fields. These include informing mining communities of the risks and hazards of radioactivity in the area and regular assessments of dose contributions and dust emissions from slimes dams. It is also recommended that a structure be created to include comprehensive monitoring of groundwater, airborne dust, radioactivity and radon. “Monitoring and collection of information on waste generation are crucial to better understanding the relationship between radioactive waste management and the quality of life, as well as for the implementation of effective waste-reduction measures,” Liefferink says. She adds that, although the Chamber of Mines uses the guideline of a 500 m buffer zone surrounding the tailings deposits, where no human settlement is allowed, this has not always been adhered to in the development of new settlements. In many cases, new developments, such as low-cost housing, are constructed adjacent to tailings dams or on footprints of reprocessed tailings dams. “Unauthorised entry to mining areas must be prohibited. Contaminated areas must be fenced off and warning signs must be put in prominent places,” she says.

RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Tailings dams must be vegetated and seepage of water from tailings dams must be controlled to prevent the pollution of ground- and surface water. Contaminated soil must be removed and replaced with uncontaminated soil to remediate the footprints. TUDOR DAM DILEMMA Thousands of residents of the Tudor Shaft informal settlement, near the Tudor dam in the south-eastern portion of the WCA, near Krugersdorp, are in the process of being relocated to a site that is within a 500 m buffer zone of a tailings dam. Liefferink says that, after more than eight years of whistleblowing and lobbying as well as presenting hundreds of workshops and distributing hundreds of thousands of pamphlets relating to the contamination, she is relieved the NNR and the Mogale City municipality have acknowledged their responsibility to relocate settlements in contaminated areas to safer locations. “The soils and sediments at the site are potentially contaminated with radionuclides and there is evidence of sulphate evaporates on the surface of the sediments,” she says. Another WRC report recorded the Tudor dam’s radioactivity in the soil as between 10 000 Bq/kg and 100 000 Bq/kg. The regulatory limit is 500 Bq/kg. The Far West Rand, the Central Rand, the Klerksdorp and the East Rand goldfields, have a similar challenge and it is hoped that the relocation of residents of the Tudor Shaft informal settlement will establish a positive precedent for these goldfields, concludes Liefferink.

Edited by: Brindaveni Naidoo http://www.miningweekly.com/article/additional-mines-set-for-rehabilitation-2011-03-18

RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

Appendix B: Declaration of Independence

RADIATION SAFETY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675 / PSI-02-2013

I, Johan Slabbert , declare that I –

■ Act as the independent specialist for the undertaking of a specialist section for the project; ■ Do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006; ■ Do not have nor will have a vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding; ■ Have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; and ■ Undertake to disclose, to the competent authority, any information that have or may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the objectivity of any report, plan or document required in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006.

Johan Slabbert PSI Risk Consultants CC 20/01/2013

APPENDIX 13

RADIATION STUDY (2017)



1

Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Name Responsibility Signature Date

J Slabbert Radiation Protection January 2017 (Pr.Sci.Nat) Specialist

This document was prepared by PSI Risk Consultants CC for Prime Resource (Pty) Ltd

Project Number: PSI-01-2017

i Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A safety assessment of the radiation hazards to members of the public and the environment was carried out of the proposed Ventersburg Gold One mining development in the Free State Province (hereafter referred to as VGM). Low grades of uranium mineralization are associated with the gold deposits to be mined by VGM. When the gold ore is extracted and processed, its natural state is modified and it results in the enhancement of the environmental dispersion potential of uranium and its radioactive decay products. This report on radiological impacts supports the environmental impact assessment prepared by Prime Resources (Pty) Ltd. The proposed project site is located within the Matjhabeng Local Municipality 8 km northwest of the town of Ventersburg and 17 km northeast of the town of Virginia. A shaft will be established to access the underground mine. The ore will be blasted and drilled and conveyed to the surface where it will be processed in a gold extraction plant. Radiological safety deals with the health risks of ionising radiation. Ionising radiation is distinguished from other forms of radiation such as visible light and microwaves because of its association with radioactive material. Humans and all other living organisms on earth are continuously being exposed to ionising radiation, mainly from naturally occurring radioactive material, also referred to as NORM. The proposed mine could potentially add to the levels of existing background radiation dose of people living in the vicinity of the mine. A gold mine is a producer of significant volumes of low level radioactive waste consisting mainly of the tailings material that is consolidated in a tailings storage facility (TSF) and to a lesser degree in waste rock dumps. The mine’s operations have been assessed in respect of airborne releases, in the form of dust and radon gas (Rn-222), and liquid releases. Dust is released from ore and waste rock stockpiles but more importantly, from dry and denuded areas of the TSF. The dust presents a radiological hazard because of the long-lived alpha radiation emitting radionuclides. Its inhalation and deposition on land surfaces in the public domain result in public exposure to radiation. Rn-222 is an inert radioactive gas that can readily diffuse to the surface of a tailings storage facility (TSF) and rock dumps where it is released to the atmosphere. Radon inhalation at high concentrations results in damage to the lung caused mainly by its short-lived radioactive decay products. Liquid effluent presents special challenges to mines. South Africa is endowed with a wealth of mineral resources but in contrast, water resources are limited and are particularly vulnerable to environmental impacts from the mining industry. The extremely large volumes of tailings wastes make it impossible to isolate a TSF from the environment over a prolonged period of time, specifically after mine closure. There are numerous examples of radioactive contamination of surface waters that have occurred in the South African gold mining industry. Whereas releases to the atmosphere cannot be avoided, mine design and careful management of water systems and the TSF can avoid releases into the public domain. The radiological safety assessment was performed using conservative assumptions. The results have to be compared to the regulatory annual dose constraint value of 0.25 milli-Sieverts per year (mSv/y) and the dose limit of 1.0 mSv/y. A dose of 0.25 mSv/y is the regulatory allowable dose from a mine in addition to the existing background radiation in the mine project area. The global average of existing background radiation is 2.4 mSv/yr. The regulatory dose limit of the National Nuclear Regulator considers all mines in an area which could expose the same members of the public. At VGM, for example, the cumulative exposures that include nearby mines such as those located at Virginia, must not exceed 1.0 mSv/yr. The potential annual radiation dose was assessed for different groups of members of the public, referred to as critical groups. These are farmsteads and the Phomolong township, all in close proximity to the mine. The locations of these groups, designated as VB CG01 to VB CG09, are

ii Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment potentially the most exposed to radiological impacts from the mine. Their locations are illustrated in the figure.

Figure: Critical Groups The results of the radiation dose calculations for different age groups at the critical group with the highest radiological exposure, VB CG01, are presented in the table. It lies in the main wind direction and therefore receives the highest airborne releases from the mine. The maximum predicted annual dose for atmospheric exposure pathways is equal to 0.179 mSv/y. It is calculated for the most sensitive age group representing infants at the end of mining operations before rehabilitation has been completed, assumed to be year 18. Provided rehabilitation of the TSF is successful, the dose will decrease with time after closure. Table 1: Maximum annual doses calculated for the critical groups at different periods in the life of the mine.

VB VB VB VB VB VB VB VB VB Years CG01 CG02 CG03 CG04 CG05 CG06 CG07 CG08 CG09

1 0.012 0.009 0.010 0.007 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.010

5 0.047 0.034 0.030 0.026 0.009 0.010 0.004 0.007 0.040

18 0.179 0.127 0.109 0.097 0.033 0.038 0.016 0.025 0.155

28 0.109 0.079 0.072 0.067 0.023 0.026 0.011 0.016 0.094

No surface process water will be released. Groundwater in the underground workings will be dewatered and pumped to surface to be treated at a water treatment facility. The treated excess water will be discharged to the Rietspruit via a pipeline. Excess water is to be treated to discharge standards (to be stipulated by the Department of Water and Sanitation) and will therefore be considered as clean water. Water treatment facilities remove a large fraction of NORM in water. Information gathered on the radioactivity concentrations in treated water indicates that in the case

iii Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment of a hypothetical situation where the treated water is the only source of drinking water, the lifetime average annual dose is unlikely to exceed 0.052 mSv/y. It is concluded that the total dose to a member of the public from atmospheric and liquid exposure pathways will comply with the regulatory dose constraint of 0.25 mSv/y. The annual dose for a member of the public based on conservative assumptions in respect of atmospheric and liquid exposure pathways as a result of the proposed Ventersburg Gold One mining development is less than the regulatory dose constraint of 0.25 mSv/y. The regulatory public dose limit of 1 mSv/y is complied with. The radiological dose to non-human species has been receiving more attention in recent years, internationally as well as nationally by the National Nuclear Regulator. The TSF is the main source of radiological risk to non-human species. A high level screening assessment indicates that tailings material with a 1.5 Bq/g radioactivity concentration of the long half-life U-238 decay chain radionuclides, does not pose an unacceptable risk to non-human species.

iv Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

GLOSSARY

The use, possession, production, storage, enrichment, processing, reprocessing, conveying or disposal of, or causing to be conveyed, radioactive material; any action, the performance of Action which may result in persons accumulating a radiation dose resulting from exposure to ionizing radiation; or any other action involving radioactive material; This is emission of energy from the atomic nucleus as alpha particles. Alpha particles are comparatively large, positively Alpha Radiation charged nuclei of helium and have a low penetrating power, e.g. being stopped by a few centimetres of air or a sheet of paper. It is important in terms of dust released from a mine. The surrounding environment which is uncontaminated by a local Background source of pollution. The radiation in the natural environment, including cosmic and cosmogenic radiation and radiation from the naturally occurring Background Radiation radioactive elements. It is also called natural background radiation. This is emission of energy from the atomic nucleus as beta Beta Radiation particles. Beta particles are equivalent to electrons and are able to penetrate approximately a metre of air or a centimetre of water. The process by which contaminants in the environment are Bio-accumulation, accumulated in increasing concentrations up the food chain (e.g. from benthic organisms, to fish, to humans). Radioactive substances on surfaces or within solids, liquids or gases (including the human body), where their presence is Contamination unintended or undesirable, or the process giving rise to their presence in such places. Radiation of great penetrating power that comes to the earth from Cosmic radiation all directions of space. Radiation that results from the interaction of cosmic radiation with Cosmogenic radiation the earth’s atmosphere, for example radioactive carbon, C-14, is created in the earth’s atmosphere. A group of members of the public (in the general population) which is reasonably homogeneous with respect to its exposure for a given radiation source and given exposure pathway and is Critical Group typical of individuals receiving the highest dose by the given exposure pathway from the given source. The term Representative Person is also used to represent the average dose in a critical group. A weighted measure of the radiation energy received or absorbed by the whole body and measured in units of Sievert (Sv) The Dose (Effective, E) average annual global dose from natural background radiation is 2.4 milli-Sievert, also written as 2,4 mSv/yr.

v Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

means a prospective and source-related restriction on the Individual dose arising from the predicted operation of the authorised action which serves exclusively as a bound on the optimisation of radiation protection and nuclear safety:  to limit the range of options considered in the optimisation process, and Dose constraint:  to restrict the doses via all exposure pathways to the average member of the critical group, in order to ensure that the sum of the doses received by that individual from all controlled sources remains within the dose limit, and which, if found retrospectively to have been exceeded, should not be regarded as an infringement of regulatory requirements but rather as a call for the reassessment of the optimisation of radiation protection. The value of the effective dose to individuals from controlled Dose Limit practices or working activities that shall not be exceeded.

Dose rate The amount of ionising radiation received over a period of time.

Exposure The act or condition of being subject to ionising radiation. A route by which radiation or radionuclides can reach humans and cause exposure. An exposure pathway may be very simple, e.g. Exposure pathway external exposure from airborne radionuclides, or a more complex chain, e.g. internal exposure from drinking milk from cows that ate grass contaminated with deposited radionuclides. High energy, short-wave length electromagnetic radiation of Gamma Radiation nuclear origin. Gamma rays are the most penetrating when compared to alpha and beta radiation. The process of taking nuclides into the body either by inhalation Intake (typically as dust with air) or by ingestion (drinking water and/or eating food). Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material. The main contributions of human exposure to ionising radiation arise from natural sources – cosmic rays, the nuclides in the earth’s crust and the natural radioactivity of the human body. Of the natural nuclides in the earth’s crust (NORM), those which are found to be the main sources of human radiation exposure are potasium-40 (K-40), thorium-232 (Th-232), uranium-235 (U-235) and uranium-238 (U-238) and decay products from the latter three NORM nuclides. Potassium is a common element and the radioactive isotope, K- 40, constitutes 0.012% of all potassium in its natural form. The three heavy nuclides (Th-232, U-235 and U-238) decay to produce other elements, which in turn decay further through a chain which includes several elements, eventually to end in stable isotopes of lead. An example of a significant daughter nuclide in these decay chains is Radium-226 (Ra-226 in the U-238 chain). An element or isotope that is radioactive as a result of the Nuclide (radionuclide) instability of the nucleus of its atom (e.g. radium or uranium).

vi Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

A method of estimating the transfer of contaminants (e.g. radio- nuclides released in water) and subsequently accumulated up the Pathways Analysis food chain to fish, vegetation, mammals and humans and the resulting radiation dose to humans. Exposure that is not expected to be delivered with certainty but that may result from an accident at a source of radioactive Potential Exposure material, or owing to an event or sequence of events of a probabilistic nature. The emission and propagation of energy through space or matter Radiation in the form of electromagnetic waves (gamma rays) or fast-moving particles such as alpha and beta particles. The condition of a material exhibiting the spontaneous decay of an unstable atomic nucleus into one or more different elements (e.g. Radioactive uranium decays into various isotopes of radium, thorium and lead). A naturally occurring radioactive gas within the decay chain of U- Radon Gas, Rn-222 238.

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable AMAD Activity Median Aerodynamic Diameter Bq Becquerel Bq/L Becquerels per litre Bq/m2 Becquerels per square metre IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Gy/h Gray per hour, radiation dose unit ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection LLα Long-lived alpha activity RoM Run of Mine Sv Sievert TSF Tailings Storage Facility VGM Ventersburg Gold Mine project mBq 10-3 Bq (one thousandth of a Becquerel) mg/m3 milligrams per cubic metre mSv 10-3 Sievert (one thousandth of a Sievert) y year µSv 10-6 Sievert (one millionth of a Sievert) μg/m3 micro grams per cubic metre 10 can be expressed as 1E01 or 1×101 Various notations used for 2 100 can be expressed as follows in scientific notation: 1E02 or 1×10 expressing quantities, results 0.1 is 1E-01 or 1×10-1 (one tenth) and parameter values 0.01 is 1E-02 or 1×10-2

vii Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... - 1 - 2 TERMS OF REFERENCE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ...... - 2 - 3 NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND INTERNATIONAL SAFETY STANDARDS FOR IONISING RADIATION ...... - 3 - 3.1 South African legislation for mining and mineral processing ...... - 3 - 3.2 International radiation protection criteria ...... - 4 - 3.3 Radioactive Waste ...... - 5 - 3.4 Other South African radiation protection legislation ...... - 6 - 4 AN OVERVIEW OF THE SITE AND PROPOSED MINING ACTIVITIES ...... - 6 - 5 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS ...... - 10 - 6 MEMBERS OF THE PULIC AND CRITICAL GROUPS ...... - 11 - 7 SOURCES OF AIRBORNE RADIOACTIVITY ...... - 12 - 7.1 Source characteristics ...... - 12 - 7.2 Radioactivity concentrations ...... - 12 - 7.3 Radioactivity release rates to the atmosphere ...... - 14 - 7.3.1 Dust ...... - 14 - 7.3.2 Radon ...... - 16 - 8 METEOROLOGICAL DATA ...... - 17 - 9 DOSE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... - 18 - 10 CRITICAL GROUPS RADIATION DOSE FROM ATMOSPHERIC EXPOSURE PATHWAYS ...... - 20 - 11 POTENTIAL PUBLIC EXPOSURE FROM AQUATIC EXPOSURE PATHWAYS ...... - 26 - 11.1 Introduction to mining related threats to water quality ...... - 26 - 11.2 Behaviour of radionuclides in natural water sources ...... - 26 - 11.3 Assessing the radiological quality of water ...... - 27 - 12 RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ...... - 30 - 13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... - 33 - 14 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RATING ...... - 33 - 15 REFERENCES ...... - 36 - 16 REFERENCES ...... - 47 -

viii Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Assessment of radiation hazards to the public ...... - 2 - Figure 4-1: VGM regional setting and major mines in the vicinity (area inside yellow ellipse) ...... - 7 - Figure 4-2: VGM project layout ...... - 9 - Figure 5-1: Potential exposure pathways ...... - 10 - Figure 6-1: Critical Groups ...... - 12 - Figure 7-1: Typical TSF top surface area during its operational phase ...... - 15 - Figure 7-2: Example of the large wet surface area of an operational TSF ...... - 15 - Figure 7-3: A comparison of the rehabilitation of two non-operational TSFs ...... - 16 - Figure 8-1: Wind rose for VGM (direction from which the wind is blowing) ...... - 17 - Figure 8-2: Wind and stability classes ...... - 18 - Figure 10-1: Critical groups annual dose – Infant age group (μSv/y) ...... - 21 - Figure 10-2: Critical groups annual dose – Child age group (μSv/y) ...... - 22 - Figure 10-3: Critical groups annual dose – Adult age group (μSv/y) ...... - 23 - Figure 12-1: Contribution to the organism dose from the different radionuclides ...... - 32 - Figure 12-2: Risk quotient for non-human species from soils containing 1.5 Bq/g radioactivity concentrations ...... - 32 -

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1: Annual effective background radiation dose ...... - 1 - Table 3-1 Annual Dose Limits in Planned Exposure Situations...... - 4 - Table 7-1: Natural abundance of uranium ...... - 13 - Table 7-2: Ra-226 Concentrations in Tailings Dams ...... - 13 - Table 7-3: Source radioactivity release rates...... - 14 - Table 9-1: A comparison of the inhalation DCFs – MILDOS-AREA and ICRP 72 ...... - 19 - Table 9-2: A comparison of the ingestion DCFs of MILDOS-AREA and ICRP 72 ...... - 19 - Table 10-1: Critical groups annual dose – Infant (μSv/y)...... - 20 - Table 10-2: Critical groups annual dose – Child age group (μSv/y) ...... - 22 - Table 10-3: Critical groups annual dose – Adult age group (μSv/y) ...... - 23 - Table 10-4 Distance and directions of critical groups relative to VGM ...... - 24 - Table 10-5: A comparison of the maximum dose determined at VB CG01 for the different age groups as a function of exposure pathways and sources (μSv/y) ...... - 25 - Table 11-1 A classification scheme for the radiological quality of water ...... - 28 - Table 11-2: Typical liquid effluent radioactivity concentrations in process water ...... - 29 - Table 11-3: Water radioactivity concentrations before and after treatment ...... - 30 - Table 12-1: Habitation factors for a generalised radioactive land area ...... - 31 -

ix Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Table 12-2: Dose rate to different organisms as a function of soil activity at 1.5 Bq/g for radionuclides considered ...... - 31 - Table 14-1:Radiological significance rating ...... - 35 -

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Background to Radioactivity and Radiation hazard Concepts Appendix 2: Meteorological Data for MILDOS-AREA Appendix 3: External radiation measurement at VGM Appendix 4: MILDOS-AREA Version 4 Input Data for Ventersburg Gold Mine and Detail Dose Results

x Radiological Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

1 INTRODUCTION A new underground gold mine is being proposed by Gold One Africa Limited (Gold One) in the Ventersburg region in the Free State Province. The life of the proposed Ventersburg mine project (hereafter referred to as VGM in this report) is expected to be 17 years including four years for construction. Planned commencement of construction is estimated to be in 2021. It is assumed that mining operations will commence in the year 2025 and will continue for 13 years, until the year 2038. Gold One plans to produce 80 000 RoM tonnes per month with 30 000 tonnes of waste rock per month anticipated over the mine’s 17-year lifetime. The beneficiation plant residue will be deposited forming a tailings storage facility (TSF) on surface. This screening safety assessment conservatively assumed that the mine will be at full production for 18 years. Natural resources that are mined, such as gold, contain various amounts of natural occurring radioactivity. When the gold ore is extracted and processed, its natural state is modified and it results in the enhancement of the naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) available for environmental dispersion. Such enhancements can be observed in waste rock piles and TSFs. In gold mining operations, it is possible for elevated levels of NORM to be released to the environment. Radiation exposure of members of the public and workers to radiation arising from mining and mineral processing of ores, is subject to regulatory control to ensure the protection of people and the environment. The average annual radiation dose to a person due to natural radiation sources when assessed globally, is approximately 2.4 milli-Sieverts (mSv) [1]. However, the range of individual doses is wide and depends on factors such as the geology of an area, height above sea level and the habits of people. Table 1-1 shows the worldwide average annual dose and the range of values from the main exposure pathways for natural radiation [1]. Table 1-1: Annual effective background radiation dose

Worldwide average annual Source Typical range (mSv/y) effective dose (mSv/y) External exposure: - Cosmic rays 0.4 0.3 -1.0 a - Terrestrial rays 0.5 0.3 - 0.6 b Internal exposure: - Inhalation (mainly radon) 1.2 0.2 -10 c - Ingestion 0.3 0.2 - 0.8 d Typically ranges from 1-10 mSv, depending on circumstances at Total 2.4 particular locations, with sizeable population also at 10-20 mSv

Appendix 1 provides background to radioactivity and radiation dose for those readers not familiar with the subject.

- 1 -

Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

2 TERMS OF REFERENCE AND SCOPE OF STUDY The report deals with the radiological aspects and potential impacts on the public and environment of the proposed VGM. Radiological impacts will occur during mining operations but also following closure. NORM in waste material generated during the operational life of the mine will reside mainly in the tailings storage facility (TSF) and to a lesser extent in waste rock dumps. A screening assessment of radiological hazards to the public and environment was performed to support the environmental impact assessment as required for a mining right application as per the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (Act 28 of 2002). The approach to the assessment of radiation hazards is illustrated in Figure 2-1 and is prescribed by regulatory requirements of the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR). A screening assessment consists of the elements framed in green [2].

Figure 2-1: Assessment of radiation hazards to the public

The elements of a safety assessment elements are:  Site Description - A description of where the facility or plant is located;  Process Description - A description of typical activities and processes at a gold mine, which could result in public exposure to external radiation and the intake of radioactive material via ingestion and inhalation;  Source Term Characterisation - A description of all the relevant radionuclides in source terms (e.g. waste rock and tailings storage facility) that could result in public exposure, an estimate of their quantities, their chemical and physical form, radioactive decay constants,

- 2 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

dose conversion factors per unit radioactivity, absorption classes in the human body, and any other relevant information for the safety assessment;  Exposure Pathways - Identification of all intake and radiation exposure pathways relevant to the VGM project;  Critical Group Identification - Identification of all members of the public potentially receiving the highest radiation doses, their habitat, agricultural and social activities that could impact on radiation doses;  Assessment Criteria - The dose criteria for members of the public, contained in the national legislative and regulatory framework, that must not be exceeded as a result of VGM;  Public Dose Assessment - An ionising radiation dose assessment which take into account all the exposure pathways and scenarios which require some form of modelling based on conservative but reasonable and realistic assumptions.  Interpretation of results - The results from the modelling and public safety assessment are quantified and expressed in radiation dose values and compared with the regulatory and international criteria. This process indicates whether any dose reduction design changes have to be considered to comply with the assessment criteria;  Public Safety Assessment report - The assumptions, data, models and calculation results, validations, uncertainties and conclusions are included in a safety assessment report. A radiological baseline study for VGM and its environment were not part of the terms of reference and has not yet been carried out. It is normally an important aspect of a radiological safety assessment. It describes and quantifies the location and nature of existing radioactive contamination prior to mining and the levels of radionuclide concentrations present in the environment in the project area. Radiation surveys, environmental sampling and radioanalysis of samples are performed to determine the concentrations of radionuclides in the project receiving environment before mining operations. Baseline radiation values are used as reference values for restoration, remediation, closure and removal of the mine areas from regulatory control.

3 NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND INTERNATIONAL SAFETY STANDARDS FOR IONISING RADIATION

3.1 South African legislation for mining and mineral processing Regulatory controls of radiological aspects of NORM industries such as gold, copper, heavy mineral sands and uranium mining became formalised in South Africa in the 1990’s. The responsible authority is the National Nuclear Regulator through the National Nuclear Regulator Act (NNRA), Act 47 of 1999 [3]. The primary responsibility of the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) is to provide for the protection of persons, property and the environment against damage associated with radioactive material through the establishment of safety standards and regulatory practices. Regulations supporting the NNRA are provided in Regulations on Safety Standards and Regulatory Practices (SSRP) [4]. The SSRP contains the principal radiation protection and nuclear safety requirements. It specifically requires a prospective safety assessment before operations and activities may be performed at NORM industries. As part of a regulatory nuclear authorization process, a Certificate of Registration (COR) is issued to a mining and mineral processing facility when process and waste materials have radioactivity concentrations above a specific radioactivity concentration. Compliance with regulatory radiation dose limits must then be demonstrated. Most gold mines operate under the conditions of a COR. A COR provides written permission for a mine to carry out activities specified in the COR. The COR is the principal mechanism connecting the legal framework of the regulatory system with the responsibilities of the principal parties; namely, the regulator and the mine operator. The conditions in a COR cover aspects of radiation protection such as the following:  radiation hazard assessments;  operational limitations;  operational radiation protection of the workforce;

- 3 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

 prospective and operational safety assessments to determine the impact on public health and the environment;  radioactive waste management;  transportations of radioactive material;  physical security;  occurrences and emergency planning; and  quality management. The occupational exposures of workers and members of the public have to be controlled so that the regulatory limits are not exceeded. These limits are listed in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 Annual Dose Limits in Planned Exposure Situations

Type of radiation dose limit per Worker Public person 20 mSv/yr, averaged over defined Effective dose 1 mSv/yr periods of 5 years Annual equivalent dose in: Lens of the eye 150 mSv 15 mSv Skin 500 mSv 50 mSv Hands and feet 500 mSv -

The annual effective dose limit for the public is in addition to the existing background radiation dose. The total effective dose, ET, to a person that falls within a certain age category is calculated according to the following formula:

where Hp(d) is the personal dose equivalent from exposure to penetrating gamma radiation during the year; e(g)j,ing and e(g)j,inh are the committed effective dose per unit intake by ingestion and inhalation for radionuclide j by the group of age g . Ij,ing and Ij,inh are the intakes via ingestion or inhalation of radionuclide j during the assessment period, normally one year. An important aspect of NNR legislation pertains to the release of potentially contaminated land following closure. Contaminated areas will be part of the VGM footprint and will be an important environmental aspect of mine closure activities.

3.2 International radiation protection criteria The NNRA and its regulations are aligned with the various recommendations and extensive publications on radiation safety produced by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA guidelines on radiological protection form the bases for regulatory control of almost all countries in the world. Radiation protection at mines is described in safety guides that provide recommendations and guidance on how to comply with the requirements for occupational and public radiation protection. Two important publications, for example, are:  The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP Publication 103 [5]. These revised Recommendations for a System of Radiological Protection formally replace the Commission’s previous, 1990, Recommendations; and update, consolidate, and develop the additional guidance on the control of exposure from radiation sources issued since 1990. They maintain the Commission’s three fundamental principles of radiological protection, namely justification, optimisation, and the application of

- 4 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

dose limits, clarifying how they apply to radiation sources delivering exposure and to individuals receiving exposure.  IAEA International Basic Safety Standards (currently being reviewed) describing the principles of radiological protection, recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection [6]. A mine that can control its effluent and discharges to the environment effectively will be able to keep the dose to the public and the radiological impact on the public as low as reasonably achievable, economic and social factors being taken into account. A publication describing the general principles governing the regulatory control of discharges to the environment, are outlined in a document titled “Safety Guide on the Regulatory Control of Discharges” [7]

3.3 Radioactive Waste Ore stockpiles and process waste material such as tailings are categorised as radioactive by the NNR if the radioactivity level of 0.5 Bq/g per radionuclide in NORM is exceeded. The VGM tailings material, for example, has a specific radioactivity of 1.5 Bq/g [4]. Although the radioactivity levels in the tailings and other surface process materials are representative of the original ore bodies, it has a high environmental dispersion potential that could result in new exposure pathways. The environmental dispersion potential also increases with mine life. The release rate of radon from a dry TSF is higher than that of an operational TSF with a large surface area covered by water. The likelihood for increased airborne dust also becomes greater after closure. The TSF will remain radioactive far into the future and the radiological hazard in terms of public safety and environmental impact may increase if at the end of the mine’s life rehabilitation and closure are not carried out in accordance with international best practice. The formal radiological category of the tailings waste is likely to be NORM-L, when applying the following definitions of the South African Radioactive Waste Management Policy [8]:  NORM-L (low activity): o Potential radioactive waste containing low concentrations of NORM. o Long-lived radionuclide concentration: < 100 Bq/g. o Unpackaged waste in a miscible waste form. o Disposal options: . Re-use as underground backfill material in an underground (mine) area. . Extraction of any economically recoverable minerals, followed by disposal in any mine tailings dam or other sufficiently confined surface  NORM-E (enhanced activity) o Radioactive waste containing enhanced concentrations of NORM. o Long-lived radio nuclide concentration: > 100 Bq/g. o Packaged or unpackaged waste in a miscible or solid form with additional characteristics for a specific repository. o Disposal options: . Dilute and re-use as underground backfill material in an identified underground (mining) area. . Extraction of any economically recoverable minerals, followed by dilution and disposal in an identified mine tailings dam or other sufficiently confined surface impoundment . Regulated deep or medium depth disposal. An IAEA guide on management of radioactive waste from mining and milling of ore [9] describes the design objectives of radioactive stockpiles. The design has to consider the following:  dispersion and stabilization control to ensure confinement and long-term stability of stockpiles and TSF;  erosion control to minimize surface water and soil contamination to ensure long term integrity;  control radiation and release of radioactive dust and radon to reduce the dose to the population;

- 5 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

 control surface and groundwater to prevent contamination by rain water;  implement options minimizing institutional control and maintenance following closure, are preferred;  use of passive barriers to shield against radiation and confine contaminants should it be required;  the regulatory dose limit for potential exposure scenarios following closure has to be complied with; and  the annual release of radioactive and non-radioactive contaminants to the environment should be kept below the national and international limits. Radiation exposure must respect the ALARA radiation protection principle. It is sometimes necessary to transport low level radioactive waste or contaminated equipment on public roads. The transport of radioactive material in the public domain will be subject to the requirements of the IAEA Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material and any applicable international convention [10].

3.4 Other South African radiation protection legislation This report deals exclusively with elevated levels of NORM associated with gold mining and therefore the NNRA is the applicable legislation in terms of environmental and public radiological impacts. However, gold mines also use highly radioactive sealed sources, e.g. density meters on process pipelines. The applicable legislation for these radiation sources is the Hazardous Substances Act, Act No. 15 of 1973 [11]. The Hazardous Substances Act provides for the control of Group IV hazardous substances (radioactive material not at nuclear installations or not part of the nuclear fuel cycle, for example fabricated radioactive sources and medical isotopes) and Group III hazardous substances (involving exposure to ionising radiation emitted from equipment). Radioactive waste arising from activities authorized under this Act falls under the regulation of the Department of Health’s Directorate of Radiation Control.

4 AN OVERVIEW OF THE SITE AND PROPOSED MINING ACTIVITIES The proposed site for VGM is located in the Free State Province in the Matjhabeng Local Municipality. The closest towns and human settlements are:  Phomolong - approximately 2.8 km northeast of the site;  Hennenman - approximately 8 km north of the site;  Ventersburg - approximately 8 km south east of the site;  Virginia - approximately 17 km south west of the site; and  Welkom- a city located approximately 32 km North West of the site. The VGM footprint overlaps with several farm portions, which are mostly used for commercial agriculture and livestock breeding. Residents of Phomolong keep cattle on public areas located between the township and the mine. Phomolong and Farmsteads in close proximity to VGM have been identified as critical groups for purposes of radiological impact assessment. There are numerous other mining activities (current and historical) in the VGM project region, for example:

 Matjhabeng Gold Mine  Erfdeel Mine  Free State Geduld Gold Mine  Jurgenshof Unisel Gold Mine  Loraine Mine  President Brand Gold Mine

- 6 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

 Saaiplaas Mine  Virginia Mine  Goldfields Beatrix Mine  Western Holdings Gold Mine. Figure 4-1 clearly shows the numerous tailings dams in the vicinity of Welkom and Virginia. Each of these mines has a radiological footprint in the environment that potentially overlaps with the future impact area of VGM. It is therefore important to determine the baseline radiological condition prior to commencing mining operations.

Figure 4-1: VGM regional setting and major mines in the vicinity (area inside yellow ellipse)

The extent of the proposed surface infrastructure associated with VGM is approximately 250 ha and comprises:  main shaft, conveyor transfer houses and conveyor systems, ventilation shaft, workshops, stores, salvage yard, waste transfer area, power lines and substations, topsoil stockpile, pipeline network, office and administrative buildings, processing plant, bulk fuel storage facility, emulsion storage silos and on site access and haul roads;  mining material and waste infrastructure to be constructed includes such an emergency/commissioning ore stockpile, waste rock dump and tailings storage facility (which will be lined as per legislative requirements and equipped with pollution control infrastructure); and  water management infrastructure includes various dams, pollution control infrastructure, water treatment facility and pipeline to discharge treated water to the Rietspruit.

- 7 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

The run of mine ore (RoM) and the waste rock will be hoisted separately at the Main Shaft. Full production will be reached in year 9 at 80,000 tonnes of RoM ore per month which will be maintained for seven years. An estimated 30,000 tonnes of waste rock will be generated per month at steady state. The ore will be fed from the shaft headgear bin, and conveyed to the processing plant, while waste rock will be conveyed to the waste rock dump. Groundwater in the underground workings will be dewatered and pumped to surface to be treated at a water treatment facility. The treated excess water will be discharged to the Rietspruit via a pipeline. Excess water is to be treated to discharge standards (to be stipulated by the Department of Water and Sanitation) and will therefore be considered as clean water. The maximum volume of treated water to be discharged is 6 Mℓ per day at steady state for 13 years, with a ramp up of between 1 and 3 Mℓ per day for the first four years during construction. The processing plant will operate continuously and involve the crushing of ore, the removal of the gold from the crushed ore through a chemical extraction process producing concentrate, the refining of the concentrate through electrolysis and the smelting of the gold in a furnace for the casting of gold bullions. Tailings from the processing plant will be disposed of on a TSF. After operations cease, decommissioning will commence. A period of 1 year has been assumed for decommissioning and rehabilitation, during which all the surface infrastructure components aside from the tailings storage facility and waste rock dump will be removed and the disturbed areas rehabilitated. The layout of VGM is illustrated in Figure 4-2 .

- 8 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Figure 4-2: VGM project layout

- 9 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

5 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS Gold mining is an action as is defined in terms of radiation protection terminology. An action may result in persons accumulating a radiation dose resulting from exposure to ionizing radiation as follows [2]:  introduces additional sources of radiation exposure;  increases the exposure pathways;  extends exposure to additional people; and/or  modifies the network of exposure pathways from existing sources. Environmental management systems will have to ensure that additional dose over and above the natural background dose to a member of the public is either avoided or minimised. It is therefore important to understand the potential exposure pathways of the VGM project prior to commencement of mining activities. The typical pathways are illustrated in Figure 5-1. Any

Figure 5-1: Potential exposure pathways

Exposure pathways from a source such as VGM, do not affect everybody to the same degree and manner. A person with a rural life style may be subject to exposure pathways that will result in a very different annual radiation dose than for a person living in a town. In a town with modern amenities such as treated water supplied by a municipality and a large fraction of food not locally produced but imported from areas outside the areas potentially impacted by the mine’s activities, the dose should be lower. The radiological characteristics of the reefs being mined, the mining method and the mine layout determine which exposure pathways are important. The additional dose to the public during early stages of mining operations is normally relatively small. However, it may become more significant towards the end of mine life as well as following mine closure. The regulatory limit for radiation dose to the public is 1 mSv/yr (1 milli-Sievert per year) in addition to the existing natural background radiation dose in the mine’s vicinity. VGM will also be required by the NNR to implement measures to keep the additional dose above background caused by mining operations as low as reasonably achievable. This involves a dose constraint value at or below 0.250 mSv/yr.

- 10 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

6 MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND CRITICAL GROUPS A critical group is defined as a group of members of the public in the general population which is reasonably homogeneous with respect to its exposure for a given radiation source such as VGM, and given exposure pathway. They are typical of individuals receiving the highest effective dose. The term critical group has been replaced by representative person and is defined as an individual receiving a dose that is representative of the more highly exposed individuals in the population. This term is the equivalent to the term Average Member of the Critical Group) [12]. The term critical group is used in this report since it is still appears in the current NNR regulations. In considering dose to the representative person a number of factors should be taken into account, for example [12]:  the dose assessment must account for all relevant pathways of exposure;  the dose assessment must consider spatial distribution of radionuclides to be assured that the group receiving the highest dose is included in the assessment;  habit data should be based on the group or population exposed and must be reasonable, sustainable, and homogeneous; and  dose coefficients have to be applied according to specific age categories. The dose assessment for VGM is based on a deterministic approach. It involves the direct multiplication of selected point values of environmental parameters and radioactivity concentrations. The simplest form of deterministic method is screening based on conservative assumptions. Data on actual habits and lifestyles of the critical groups can significantly influence the exposure and annual dose. The assumptions included in the dose assessment model for VGM make it unlikely that the annual dose to a member of the public is underestimated. The dose assessment has to consider different age groups because of the difference in sensitivity to radiation. The ICRP considers that three age groups are generally sufficient to encompass age- related exposure and dose variations hence it recommends the use of three age groups for estimating annual dose to the critical group ) [12]. The age groups are:  Infant: 0–5 years;  Child: 6–15 years;  Adult: 16–70 years. Justification for selecting only three age groups includes the following:  experience to date indicates that age categories can be combined without impacting on protection of members of the public, and  the age groups being sufficient to characterise the radiological impact of an action and to ensure consideration of younger more sensitive population. A set of critical groups have been defined consisting of farmsteads located nearest to VGM and the settlement of Phomolong. The critical groups are shown in Figure 6-1. The critical groups are located at various distances from VGM and in various wind directions. Distance and direction are both determining factors in the dose from atmospheric pathways. This approach to critical groups allows a comparison of radiological impacts from VGM as a function of distance and direction. Farmland surrounding VGM is primarily used to cultivate maize and breed cattle for commercial purposes. Farming activities provide employment and employees have several dependents. The farm Vogelvlei, for example, designated as VB CG04, accommodates workers in eight farmworker dwellings located at VB CG06, most of which have access to electricity and pit latrines. However water is pumped from a borehole. Phomolong Township, designated VB CG05 is the nearest and largest population group that might be affected by VGM. It is located across from the R70 road, 500m east of the project site boundary. The radiological dose to members of the public in large towns such as Henneman and Ventersburg, is enveloped by the results calculated for the critical groups.

- 11 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Figure 6-1: Critical Groups

7 SOURCES OF AIRBORNE RADIOACTIVITY

7.1 Source characteristics Dust containing long-lived alpha (LL-α) radioactivity and radon gas (Rn-222) are released from the following sources:  TSF: The source term is dependent on the effective surface area from which dust can be generated. A TSF presents a very large potential area source. During operation a large part of the surface area is wet, The surface dries out following closure.  Rock piles, mainly waste rock: Usually very little dust is emitted from them except when crushing, moving or dumping of material takes place. Rock piles often have uranium concentrations higher than typical soil concentrations in the area.  Ventilation shaft: It is mainly a Rn-222 source. Investigations in respect of dust in the upcast air has shown that radioactivity in fan drifts is associated with the water condensate. Very low dust loads in the environment result because of the scrubbing action of water droplets in the upcast air [13].  Surface plant e.g. the gold plant: It is a negligible source term in terms of public impact when compared to the TSF, rock dumps and ventilation shaft. Ore processing operations are conducted in liquid solutions or slurries and particulate emissions are negligible. Each of the sources of airborne radioactivity is characterised by the following factors:  particulate release rates and the radionuclide content;  elevation of release;  area and location of release;  release velocity and mass flow rates in the case of the upcast ventilation shaft; and  particle size distribution and radioactivity (AMAD); and  radon release rates

7.2 Radioactivity concentrations Elevated uranium concentrations are found in the ores of some mines and tailings in the South African gold mining industry. Uranium concentration levels in the Witwatersrand and Far West

- 12 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

reefs range from 50 μg/g in the east to 200 μg/g U3O8 in the west. It reached values of 640 μg/g near Klerksdorp (the old Afrikander Lease mine) and 600 μg/g at the Beisa mine at the southern end of the OFS gold-field [14]. These values represent U-238 radioactivity concentrations ranging from approximately 0.5 Bq/g to 7 Bq/g and the material is therefore regarded as radioactive in accordance with the NNR regulations [4]. Uranium grades for the Southern Free State goldfields are also reported by a second source as follows [15]:  De Bron-Merriespruit South project: 140 μg/g or 1.5 Bq/g  Hakkies, Bloemhoek, De Bron and Robijn projects: 120 μg/g or 1.3 Bq/g An average value equal to 130 μg/g is reported by MINTEK in results for metallurgical test work on VGM drill core samples [16]. A U-238 specific activity of 1.5 Bq/g (140 μg/g U3O8) is used in this safety assessment. The uranium concentrations in various minerals that form the earth’s soils are listed in Table 7-1 [17] and the data provide perspective on the uranium concentration assumed in the safety assessment. Table 7-1: Natural abundance of uranium

Range of Uranium concentrations; Rock Type μg/g Acid (extrusives and intrusives) 0.1 – 30.0 Basic (extrusives and intrusives) 0.01 – 5.7 Ultrabasic 0 – 1.6 Alkali Feldspathoidal Intermediate Intrusives 0.3 – 720.0 Chemical Sedimentary Rocks 0.03 – 26.7 Carbonates 0.03 – 18.0 Metamorphosed Igneous Rocks 0.1 – 148.5 Metamorphosed Sedimentary Rocks 0.1 – 53.4

The U-238 decay chain is assumed to be in equilibrium with its decay progeny (also referred to as daughter products) and that it is the only significant source of NORM radioactivity. After the gold has been leached from the ore, U-238 and its long-lived progeny radioisotopes are radiological controlling factors in the tailings material. The other naturally occurring uranium decay chain, U- 235, is negligible since it represents only about 0.7% of the total natural uranium. The Th-232 and its decay products do not occur at elevated levels above typical crustal concentrations in gold ore and it is assumed to be a minor contributor to the natural radioactivity in the gold ore of VGM. An important radionuclide in gold mine tailings is Ra-226. The reason is that it is the precursor of Rn-222, a gaseous decay product, which is released continuously from the various sources. The Radionuclides in the U-238 decay chain are assumed to be in secular equilibrium and the Ra-226 radioactivity concentrations in the TSF and waste rock source terms are therefore also 1.5 Bq/g. This value can be compared to results in numerous surveys of Ra-226 concentrations that have been carried out for gold mines. One such study reports the following radioactivity concentrations for the Free State gold mines and listed in Table 7-2 [18]. Table 7-2: Ra-226 Concentrations in Tailings Dams

Mine Bq/g Merriespruit (old) 2.67 Harmony 1.09 Welkom 0.48

- 13 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Western Holdings 0.69

Average (correspond to 100 μg/g U3O8) 1.23 Ordinary soil contains significantly lower concentrations; 0.04 to 0.08 Bq/g Ra-226. Radioactive decay is taken into account in the safety assessment to determine the contribution of relevant progeny in the calculation of the radiation doses. Build-up of radionuclides with long half- lives must also be included in the safety assessment [19].

7.3 Radioactivity release rates to the atmosphere

7.3.1 Dust The TSF is the most important dust source and the LL-α radionuclides U-238, U-234, Th-230, Ra- 226 and Pb-210/Po-210 are considered in the dose assessment. The airborne release rates used in the VGM safety assessment are listed in Table 7-3. Table 7-3: Source radioactivity release rates

Particulate release rate Source Area (m2) Rn-222 release rate (g/m2.s) Wind speed dependent TSF 483423 1.5 Bq/m2.s erosion model (MILDOS) Waste rock dump 148347 1.1E-05 g/m2.s 0.0155 Bq/m2.s Ore stockpile 21462 1.1E-05 g/m2.s 0.0155 Bq/m2.s

Upcast ventilation shaft Point source -- 4.4E13 Bq/y

Particle size for dust influences the atmospheric dispersion and the subsequent behaviour of particulates once inhaled. MILDOS-AREA is able to evaluate up to four different particle sizes associated with a single source term. A particle size distribution set for VGM is based on distribution studies for typical gold mine tailings [20] . A fixed particulate release rate was used for rock dumps based on research done for the gold mine industry by the Chambers of Mines [13]. An erosion model for particulates was used for the TSF and which calculates the release rates considering the varying wind speeds and the fraction of tailings material less than 20 μm [21]. The fractional particle size distribution used in MILDOS-AREA is as follows:  1.5 μm: 0.16  3 μm: 0.14  7.7 μm: 0.2  54 μm: 0.5 Conservative assumptions were made in respect of the surface areas that can result in airborne dust. Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2 illustrate the surface areas of a typical gold mine TSF during its operational life. It consist of a central wet area and a dry beach area on the periphery. It is mainly the beach areas and dry side walls that constitute a dust source term. It was assumed that fraction of the TSF area acting as a radioactive source term for airborne releases is a function of mine life and therefore final size of the TSF, as follows:  Year 1: 0.05  Year 5: 0.25  Year 18: 1.00  Year 28, 10 years after closure and rehabilitation: 0.5.

- 14 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Figure 7-1: Typical TSF top surface area during its operational phase

Figure 7-2: Example of the large wet surface area of an operational TSF

The percentage of total surface area that will be a source of airborne dust following closure, will depend on the rehabilitation practice and its long term success (in this study assumed to be 50 per cent successful). The TSF could potentially give rise to large un-vegetated surface areas covered with silt material, if not properly rehabilitated following mine closure. The surfaces of a TSF are protected against wind erosion to some extend by the formation of a hard surface crust. The TSF

- 15 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment construction method will dictate the way in which the beach area can be kept wet and as small as possible. Figure 7-3 shows two adjacent TSFs of mines that are closed. The rehabilitation of the top is more successful when compared to the bottom TSF where large denuded areas are present.

Figure 7-3: A comparison of the rehabilitation of two non-operational TSFs

7.3.2 Radon The TSF, apart from dust, is also by far the most important source of radon, Rn-222, because of its size. Rn-222 is generated by the decay of Ra-226. The Rn-222 concentration is a function of the Ra-226 concentration in the TSF and the short decay half-life of Rn-222, i.e. 3.8 days. Rn-222 cannot buildup in the TSF in a similar manner as a gas produced in a chemical reaction in a closed container. Because Rn-222 is a gas, it has a much greater mobility than uranium and radium, which are fixed onto the solid matter in rocks and tailings. Rn-222 can escape into fractures and openings in rocks and into the pore spaces between the grains of tailings. The mechanism and speed of Rn-222 movement through tailings are controlled by the amount of water present in the pore space (the moisture content), the percentage of pore space in the tailings (the porosity), and the “interconnectedness” of the pore spaces, which determines the tailings’ ability to transmit water and air (the permeability). Rn-222 moves more rapidly through permeable soils, for example coarse sand and gravel, than through less permeable material, such as clays. Fractures allow Rn- 222 to move more quickly. Some Rn-222 atoms remain trapped in the tailings and decay to eventually form stable lead, others escape quickly into the air. Rn-222 travels shorter distances in wet soils than in dry soils before it decays. In summary, the factors affecting the release of radon from the TSF are basically:  radon emanating power,  its diffusion coefficient,

- 16 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

 moisture content of the TSF material,  density, and  tailings thickness. The beach areas of a TSF have tailings with a higher Rn-222 diffusion coefficient resulting from lower moisture contents. Rn-222 can diffuse from a depth of a few metres to the surface compared to the majority of the surface Rn-222 flux that is due to Ra-226 in the top 0.5 m thick layer of material [22].

Radon will be dispersed as a gas in air according to the prevailing meteorological conditions. A radon flux value of 1.5 Bq Rn-222 per m2.s used in the safety assessment is based on the assumption 1 Bq Rn-222 per m2.s per 1 Bq Ra-226 per gram of material [21]. 8 METEOROLOGICAL DATA Meteorological data representative of the VGM site are critical for determining radiation hazards from atmospheric exposure pathways. Prime Resources provided site specific meteorological data consisting of hourly records for three calendar years (2013 – 2015). MM5 modelled meteorological data were obtained from Lakes Environmental Consultants in Canada. The Pennsylvania State University / National Center for Atmospheric Research (PSU/NCAR) meso-scale model (known as MM5) is a limited-area, non-hydrostatic, terrain-following sigma-coordinate model designed to simulate or predict meso-scale atmospheric circulation. This data type has been tested extensively internationally and has been found to be an accurate representation of site conditions. The data was converted to a joint frequency distribution format for use in the MILDOS4 software code used for public dose assessment and discussed in section 10. The data are included in Appendix 2. The spatial variability and atmospheric stability in the wind field for the site are illustrated in Figure 8-1 and Figure 8-2. The predominant wind directions are from the north northeast, northeast and north. The main impacts from airborne dust are therefore expected in areas located in a southern to western directions.

are Figure 8-1: Wind rose for VGM (direction from which the wind is blowing)

- 17 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Figure 8-2: Wind and stability classes

9 DOSE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The dose assessment was carried with the software code MILDOS-AREA Version 4 [21]. It is used by United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a primary licensing and evaluation tool. The code models the impacts of elevated levels of NORM radionuclides and is specifically designed to model uranium mining airborne discharges. It calculates the external radiation and internally committed doses received by individuals. The environmental dispersion of airborne source terms is predicted by using a sector-averaged Gaussian plume dispersion model. The code models mechanisms such as radioactive decay, plume depletion by deposition, ingrowth of U-238 decay progeny, and resuspension of deposited radionuclides. These mechanisms are accounted for in the site specific model developed for VGM. Changes in operation throughout a mine’s lifetime can be modelled, e.g. the increase in TSF size with time. The exposure pathways in the VGM model for different age groups are inhalation, external exposure from groundshine caused by deposited radioactivity and radioactive cloud immersion, and ingestion of foodstuff produced at the locations of the critical groups. The scientific basis for dose assessment for MILDOS-AREA is described in ICRP Publication 26 and Publication 30 [23]. The dose coefficients in these publications have since been revised and are described in ICRP Publication 72 [24]. Some further changes will be published as a result of ICRP Publication 103 [5]. These publications introduced modifications to the biological modelling used to calculate dose. In the case of some nuclides, the dose per unit radioactivity, referred to as the dose coefficient (DCF), became less, i.e. more of a specific radionuclide is now required to deliver the same dose. This implies that MILDOS-AREA calculates the dose conservatively for these radionuclides. For some other radionuclides, the opposite is true. The question therefore is whether MILDOS under-predict or over-predict public doses for VGM when considering the changes in ICRP DCFs.

- 18 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

The DCFs for U-238 and its decay products were investigated and compared to the latest available information in ICRP publications. It was determined that the MILDOS-AREA DCFs provide more conservative results for the exposure scenarios associated with VGM safety assessment. The results of comparison tests are presented in Table 9-1. It shows the factor of conservatism in MILDOS-AREA results for inhalation and ingestion of the source term radionuclides. Table 9-1: A comparison of the inhalation DCFs – MILDOS-AREA and ICRP 72

Inhalation Dose Coefficient; U-238 U-234 Th-230 Ra-226 Pb-210 Sv/Bq

MILDOS 1.53E-04 1.72E-04 1.58E-04 2.78E-05 6.24E-06

ICRP 72 2.50E-05 2.90E-05 7.40E-05 9.40E-07 2.90E-06

Infant Conservatism 6.12E+00 5.94E+00 2.14E+00 2.95E+01 2.5E+00 Factor

MILDOS 3.19E-05 3.59E-05 8.80E-05 2.31E-06 2.49E-06

AMAD = 1.0 μm 1.0 = AMAD ICRP 72 8.00E-06 9.40E-06 4.30E-05 3.60E-07 9.00E-07 Adult Conservatism 3.98E+00 3.82E+00 2.05E+00 6.43E+00 2.77E+00 Factor

Table 9-2: A comparison of the ingestion DCFs of MILDOS-AREA and ICRP 72

Ingestion Dose U-238 U-234 Th-230 Ra-226 Pb-210 Coefficient; Sv/Bq

MILDOS 4.35E-06 4.83E-06 5.70E-06 8.40E-06 8.40E-06

ICRP 72 1.20E-07 1.30E-07 4.10E-07 9.60E-07 3.60E-06 Infant Conservatism 3.62E+01 3.72E+01 1.39E+01 8.75E+00 2.33E+00 Factor

MILDOS 6.89E-08 7.67E-08 3.56E-07 1.38E-06 1.38E-06

ICRP 72 4.50E-08 4.90E-08 2.10E-07 2.80E-07 6.90E-07 Adult Conservatism 1.53E+00 1.56E+00 1.70E+00 4.92E+00 2.00E+00 Factor

The dose coefficient used in MILDOS-AREA for Rn-222, including its short-lived progeny in full equilibrium, is 135 µSv/yr per Bq/m3. Without its progeny it is 1.35 µSv/yr per Bq/m3. Due to the relative short half-live of Rn-222, the downwind air concentrations are corrected for decay during transport. The concentration of radon daughters at a given downwind distance depends on their ingrowth during the transit time. It is concluded that the calculation method does not underestimate the Rn-222 dose when compared to the following and more recent methodology for a Rn-222 DCF [6]:. 3 3 Dose per unit m concentration, ERn , [(µSv/yr) per (Bq/m )] = 5.56E-03[(µJ/m3)/(Bq/m3)EEC] x F x 8760 [h/yr] x Occupancy x 1.1 [(µSv)/(µJ.h/m3)] The parameter values and assumptions normally used are:

- 19 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

F(indoors) = 0.4 F(outdoors) = 0.8 10 CRITICAL GROUPS RADIATION DOSE FROM ATMOSPHERIC EXPOSURE PATHWAYS The annual effective doses were calculated for the VGM critical groups defined in section 6. The results were calculated for the following different time periods.  1 year after start of mining operations assuming the TSF has reach 5% of its final size at mine closure.  5 years into the mines life assuming the TSF has reach 25% of its size at mine closure.  18 years and at the end of mining operations assuming the TSF has reach 100% of its size.  28 years after commencing operations and 10 years after end of operations assuming only 50 per cent rehabilitation success in respect of surface areas that can act as dust sources. The annual effective doses for the different age groups are provided in micro-Sieverts per year (μSv/y) where 1000 μSv/y equals 1 mSv/y. The maximum annual dose of 179 μSv/y (0.179 mSv/y) was calculated for VB CG01and the infant age group at the end of mine life (year 18) before the completion of TSF rehabilitation. The results for the different age groups and critical groups are presented in a series of tables and figures that follow. Table 10-1: Critical groups annual dose – Infant (μSv/y)

Years after start VB VB VB VB VB VB VB VB VB of CG01 CG02 CG03 CG04 CG05 CG06 CG07 CG08 CG09 operations

1 12 9 10 7 2 3 1 2 10

5 47 34 30 26 9 10 4 7 40

18 179 127 109 97 33 38 16 25 155

28 109 79 72 67 23 26 11 16 94

- 20 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Figure 10-1: Critical groups annual dose – Infant age group (μSv/y)

- 21 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Table 10-2: Critical groups annual dose – Child age group (μSv/y)

Years after VB VB VB VB VB VB VB VB VB start of operati CG01 CG02 CG03 CG04 CG05 CG06 CG07 CG08 CG09 ons

1 7 6 6 5 2 2 1 1 6

5 30 22 20 18 6 7 3 4 25

18 114 82 73 68 23 26 11 16 99

28 75 56 53 51 17 19 8 11 65

Figure 10-2: Critical groups annual dose – Child age group (μSv/y)

- 22 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Table 10-3: Critical groups annual dose – Adult age group (μSv/y)

Years after start VB VB VB VB VB VB VB VB VB of CG01 CG02 CG03 CG04 CG05 CG06 CG07 CG08 CG09 operations

1 6 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 5

5 24 17 16 15 5 6 2 3 20

18 91 66 61 58 20 22 9 13 79

28 63 48 46 46 15 17 7 10 54

Figure 10-3: Critical groups annual dose – Adult age group (μSv/y)

- 23 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

The coordinates, distances from the main VGM source (TSF) and directions are listed in Table 10-4 and includes a wind rose indicating the frequencies of wind directions. The maximum dose calculated at critical group location VB CG01 is located relatively close to the mine at a distance of 1.7 km and in the highest frequency of wind direction. The second highest dose is calculated for VB CG09 that is located in an area with a low frequency of wind direction but much closer to the TSF than VB CG01, i.e. 0.4 km. Table 10-4 Distance and directions of critical groups relative to VGM

UTM Coordinates, m Distance from Direction from Critical Group East South TSF (km) TSF VB CG01 505516 6894865 1.7 S - SSW VB CG02 502817 6894545 3.5 SW - WSW VB CG03 503055 6897514 2.4 W - WSW VB CG04 506340 6899230 1.8 N - NNE VB CG05 507744 6900428 3.2 NNE VB CG06 508785 6898505 2.4 ENE VB CG07 510237 6895324 3.8 ESE

VB CG08 509096 6894334 3.5 SE

VB CG09 506972 6896745 0.4 ESE

- 24 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Table 10-5 shows the relative importance of the different sources of airborne radioactivity and exposure pathways considered in the dose assessment. Inhalation of dust and radon released from the TSF contributes the most to the annual doses. Table 10-5: A comparison of the maximum dose determined at VB CG01 for the different age groups as a function of exposure pathways and sources (μSv/y)

Age Ground- Cloud- Plant Meat Milk Source Inhalation Group shine shine Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion

Vent Shaft 0.005 0.033 15.100 0.000 0.001 0.001 Waste Rock 0.003 0.000 3.010 0.000 0.147 0.101 Infant Stockpile 0.000 0.000 0.309 0.000 0.015 0.010 TSF 0.292 0.048 128.000 0.000 18.900 13.100 Total (μSv/y) 0.301 0.081 147.000 0.000 19.000 13.200 Vent Shaft 0.005 0.033 15.100 0.001 0.000 0.000 Waste Rock 0.003 0.000 1.570 0.107 0.031 0.016 Child Stockpile 0.000 0.000 0.162 0.011 0.003 0.002 TSF 0.292 0.048 76.700 13.700 3.980 2.050 Total (μSv/y) 0.301 0.081 93.600 13.900 4.020 2.070 Vent Shaft 0.005 0.033 15.100 0.001 0.000 0.000 Waste Rock 0.003 0.000 1.020 0.088 0.021 0.011 Adult Stockpile 0.000 0.000 0.105 0.009 0.002 0.001 TSF 0.292 0.048 59.000 11.300 2.660 1.380 Total(μSv/y) 0.301 0.081 75.200 11.400 2.690 1.390

150.000

100.000

50.000 Infant

Adult Child 0.000 Child Adult Infant

- 25 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

11 POTENTIAL PUBLIC EXPOSURE FROM AQUATIC EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

11.1 Introduction to mining related threats to water quality There are two major water courses flowing along the northern and southern parts of the VGM project site namely the Erasmusspruit and the Rietspruit. The Rietspruit located along the northern part of the project site flowing from the north eastern side of the project area in a south westerly direction through the Whites Dam. The Erasmusspruit drains the southern side of the project area in a south easterly direction to the Sand River. These water courses flow towards a confluence at the town of Virginia about, 10 km downstream of the project area. The combined flow eventually drains into the Vet River (a major river in the Vaal WMA) further downstream [25]. Water quality impacts of a gold mine can be divided into two primary components, i.e. aboveground features and underground features. Most South African gold mines are extracting ore and waste materials that are associated with sulphide minerals and other contaminants and there is, therefore, an inherent water quality risk associated with gold mines. Underground mine workings will fill up with water over time and this water could be contaminated with a risk that contaminated water will decant into the underground aquifers or into a surface water resource [26] Most of the Free State Mines are exposed to the inflow of extraneous saline water from a deep connate aquifer [26]. It is reported that the isolated nature of this aquifer allowed for it to be dewatered effectively and the poor quality water was disposed of in evaporation pans. Studies show that it does not seem likely that after cessation of mining and flooding of mine workings water will decant from any of the gold mine shafts in this region. However, the serious threat of contamination of the shallow, good quality water, the Karoo aquifer, through the residue deposition on surface or through the large-scale evaporation of saline water pumped from the deep Witwatersrand aquifer, needs careful consideration [26]. The reader is referred to the detailed groundwater impact assessment study that was carried for VGM [27].

11.2 Behaviour of radionuclides in natural water sources Uranium has a high mobility in water, much higher than thorium, for example. The chemical concentration of uranium in a specific water source is used as indicator of NORM concentrations that can be expected in water. In most terrestrial surface waters, the chemical concentrations of uranium ranges from less than 0.1 to 10 µg/L (2.5 to 250 mBq/L) [28]. However, in some regions of the world, where natural radioactive minerals are particularly abundant, uranium concentration in water can reach much higher values, up to several thousands of µg/L. Groundwater also tends to have higher natural radioactivity concentrations than surface water [29]. The ability of uranium to undergo cycles of inorganic dissolution and precipitation is probably the most important process in the natural environment to cause disequilibrium between the radionuclides in the U-238 decay chain. The decay products are normally less mobile than the remaining uranium in the water body. Large variations of uranium can sometimes be observed in the same aquifer. It is mainly due to complex geochemical factors (e.g. Eh-pH changes) which cause precipitation of uranium from solution along the flow direction of a stream/river [29]. Although U-234 and U-238 should be in secular equilibrium (i.e., they are expected to be present in equal radioactivity concentrations), the energetic recoil associated with the decay of U-238 in mineral material, different chemical properties of intermediate decay products (Th-234 and Pa-234) in the radioactive decay chain before U-234 is formed and differences in oxidation states between U-234 and U-238, often lead to a relative enrichment of U-234 in water. In contrast to this phenomenon, the radioactivity ratio U-235:U-238 in natural material is a constant equal to 1: 21.7. The reason is that U-235 has a fixed relative abundance of 0.72% in nature and is the first radionuclide in a decay chain separate from the U-238 decay chain. Thorium has an extremely low solubility in natural waters. There is a close correlation of thorium concentration and particulate content of water. Thorium is almost entirely transported in particulate matter. Thorium is bound in insoluble minerals or is adsorbed on the surface of clay minerals. Even when thorium (e.g.Th-230)

- 26 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment is generated in solution by radioactive decay of U-234 it rapidly hydrolyses and adsorbs on to the nearest solid surface [29]. Ra-226 and Ra-228 are important from a radiation dose point of view when these radium isotopes are present at elevated concentrations in water. Respectively produced by the decay of U-238 and Th-232, their concentration depends on the content of these “parent” nuclides and the geological characteristics of the host minerals in contact with the water. Earth has a three times higher abundance of thorium compared to uranium. An approximately three times higher decay constant for thorium (Th-232) compared to uranium (U-238) should result in global inventories of Ra-226 (member of the U-238 decay chain) and Ra-228 (member of the Th-232 decay chain) to be roughly equal. However, local specific geological structures of terrains lead to a great variability in the ratio between these two isotopes. In general, the Ra-226 radioactivity concentrations in surface waters are low (0.4 – 40 mBq/L), and less than in most ground waters. Ra-228 occurs at even lower concentrations. Groundwater, when compared to surface water, may contain high radium concentrations. Some mineral and thermal waters exhibit high Ra-226 concentration values up to several Bq/L. Radon (Rn-222), the decay product of Ra-226, forms a series of short-lived radionuclides (all solid elements) that decay within hours to Pb-210 (half-live 22 years). Radon is soluble in water, extremely volatile and is readily released from water. An important source of radon in nature is groundwater that passes through radium-bearing rocks and soils. In general, radon poses more of an inhalation health risk when compared to the health risk from drinking water in which radon is dissolved. Radioactive polonium, Po-210, which has an extremely high ingestion dose coefficient and is a member of the U-238 decay chain, is largely insoluble although exceptions have been reported. In the hydrological cycle Po-210 generally follows its precursor lead, Pb-210. Po-210 is generally more readily adsorbed than Pb-210 onto particulate matter. When apparently high levels of radioactive potassium, K-40, is reported in environmental media when compared to the other radionuclide concentrations, it has to be interpreted against the following background. Natural potassium is approximately 27g/kg of crustal rock and is present in humans at a homeostatic concentration of approximately 1.7 g/kg. K-40 natural abundance is 0,012% of all K in nature. Typical total potassium concentration in natural surface water is 10 mg/L. K-40 is therefore a naturally occurring long-lived radionuclide which is subject to metabolic control irrespective of uptake.

11.3 Assessing the radiological quality of water The radiation dose that is committed to the human body over a period of one year can be calculated as follows: Dose (Sv/yr) = Radioactivity in water (Bq/L)  Annual Consumption of water (L/yr)  Radioactivity Dose Conversion Factor (Sv/Bq) The dose from drinking water is normally less than 1 mSv/yr when unaffected by mining operations. The dose a person gets from drinking water from a particular source is dependent on the specific radionuclide concentrations in the water and the amount of water consumed from the source. Each radionuclide has a unique contribution to the overall dose. The potential dose from a particular water source can be used to classify the water in terms of its radiological quality. Such a classification scheme is shown in Table 11-1 [30].

- 27 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Table 11-1 A classification scheme for the radiological quality of water

Comments and Class/ Dose range; Health Effects and Typical Exposure Intervention Colour mSv/yr Scenarios Decisions There are no observable health effects. Drinking water This is the range of exposure from ideal quality supplied at the

water sources. supplied by

Most treated water falls in this water quality municipal water range. treatment plants

 0.10 Idealwater

Additional doses that result from human tap should be in

– quality) Class0 activities that fall within this range are difficult or this category. impossible to determine and/or to distinguish

(Blue from variations in background doses with sufficient confidence. This is the exposure range from some natural ALARA and and untreated water sources (e.g. groundwater/ intervention wells) as well as water sources that could be considerations

influenced by radiation and nuclear regulated may apply.

practices. A dose between 0.2 and 0.8 mSv/yr is the > 0.10 to 1

typical world-wide range of ingestion radiation

quality)

Class1 Acceptablewater

dose resulting from water as well as food. – A dose equal to 1 mSv/yr additional to background corresponds to the regulatory public dose limit for human activities involving (Green radioactive material. A small increase in fatal cancer risk associated Regulatory with this dose range. intervention is Only a small number of natural water sources of required for

this quality exist, usually resulting from category

exceptional geological conditions. TENORM

> 1 to 10 Abnormal/accident conditions at regulated affected waters.

Marginalwater

quality)

Class2 nuclear and radiation facilities may result in a – dose in this range when a person drinks untreated water. Intervention will most likely be required to improve the quality of water that is (Yellow (Yellow released into the public domain. Health effects are statistically detectable in very Intervention is large population groups. required and the

This range represents excessive exposure. time scales to be Poor

It is highly unlikely to find water of this poor decided by the – > 10 to 100 quality in the natural environment. regulatory

Class3 authorities on a (Red water quality) water case-by-case basis.

Health effects may be clinically detectable and a Immediate

significant increase in the fatal cancer risk. intervention is

– A dose greater than 100 mSv can only occur required > 100 during a major accident at a nuclear facility.

Class4 These facilities have to demonstrate that such

(Purple an accident has an extremely small likelihood (a water quality) water Unacceptable frequency of less than 10-6 per year).

- 28 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

The WHO guidelines for drinking water quality incorporate recommendations of the ICRP and set the reference dose level for the committed effective dose associated with drinking water consumption at 0.1 mSv/y excluding tritium, K-40 and radon and its decay products [28]. This criterion applies mainly to formal water supply systems for large population groups. The WHO guidelines recommend the determination of the total dose only when gross alpha and gross beta activity concentration levels in drinking water exceed 0.5 and 1 Bq/L, respectively. Groundwater supplied to the consumers through the centralised distribution systems undergoes in most cases appropriate treatment which tends to remove radionuclides from water. Using groundwater as a source of drinking water in the case of private wells may pose radiological quality problems, particularly in areas with elevated levels of NORM in the geological formations. Radionuclide concentrations in mine process effluent of some mines can reach high concentrations Examples of concentrations measured are listed in Table 11-2 [31]. It shows the relative low concentrations of Ra-226 when compared to U-238. Table 11-2: Typical liquid effluent radioactivity concentrations in process water

Region Ra-226; Bq/L U-238 Bq/L

A1 0.67 7.643 A2 0.66 1.868 East Rand Mines B 0.12 0.581 C1 0.18 4.156 C2 0.6 6.666 D 0.21 2.795 West Rand Mines E 0.22 0.198 F1 0.03 0.186 F2 0.05 1.459 Far West Rand Mines G 0.31 3.772 H 0.48 4.972 I 0.03 4.972 Klerksdorp Mines J 1.23 0.557

All these mines, except for E and F1, reflected unacceptably high levels of radioactivity in mine effluent if released into public water resources. In situations where liquid effluent is released from a mine, uranium is more likely to be released when compared to Ra-226. Uranium remains in solution and can be transported in service water through the mine as well as mining effluents on the surface. Studies performed on waterborne Ra-226 radioactivity from old dry tailings deposits on the Central Rand mining areas show that Ra-226 is effectively retained. It is adsorbed on to particulate materials such as sand, clay or sewage sludge and is thus removed from clarified water [14]. The methodology for assessing the radiological quality of water [30] is demonstrated using a hypothetical scenario where process water from the East Rand mine designated A1 in Table 11-2 is used as the only source of drinking water. The lifetime average dose is 1.169 mSv/y.

- 29 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

The results fall in the dose range 1 – 10 mSv/y and water class: 2 (Yellow - Marginal water quality). The dose based on water ingestion alone exceeds regulatory criteria and immediate intervention would be required. VGM design and mitigation measures should prevent water deteriorating to this low quality. These measures include the following elements. The radiological risk to water quality is normally addressed as part of the overall water quality controls. Baseline monitoring of surface water, groundwater and stream sediments will be carried out well in advance of actual mining operations commencing, as well as during mine operation. Groundwater monitoring will be by means of boreholes up- and downstream from operations. Stockpile areas will be prepared in advance to avoid infiltration of seepage into the groundwater, drains will be constructed around stockpiles to divert potential water run-off to a lined sump for evaporation or to be used for dust suppression, and all stockpiles and the TSF will be located on engineered bases to prevent contamination of the groundwater. Groundwater in the underground workings will be dewatered and pumped to surface to be treated at a water treatment facility. The treated excess water will be discharged to the Rietspruit via a pipeline. Excess water is to be treated to discharge standards (to be stipulated by the Department of Water and Sanitation) and will therefore be considered as clean water. Water treatment systems remove most of the NORM in raw water. Studies carried out in Australia, for example, reported a significant drop in radioactivity concentrations following water treatment. The results from several large water treatment systems are summarised in Table 11-3 [32]. Table 11-3: Water radioactivity concentrations before and after treatment

Radioactivity, Rn-222 Ra-226 Po-210 U-238 Th-232 mBq/L Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

Raw water 0.08 17.2 1.2 14 5 250 0.2 18 10 17

Treated 0.08 14.6 1.2 3 2 24 0.2 3.4 10 10 Water

The methodology for assessing the radiological quality of water [30] is again applied to maximum reported radionuclide concentrations in Table 11-3. The lifetime average annual dose is: 0.052 mSv/y. 12 RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT In recent years the protection of non-human species has been the subject of the development of more formal radiation risk assessment systems. The most fundamental radiation safety objective is to protect people but also the environment from harmful effects of ionising radiation. IAEA Safety Principle 7 states that “people and the environment, present and future, must be protected against radiation risks” [33]. On the protection of the environment the ICRP publications recognise that it is necessary to consider a wider range of situations, irrespective of any human connection and to demonstrate, directly and explicitly, that the environment is being protected [34]. The ICRP approach aims to prevent, or reduce the frequency of “deleterious radiation effects” so that they have negligible impact on:  Biological diversity  Conservation of species  Health and status of natural habitats, communities and ecosystems A very basic radio-ecological screening assessment was carried out using the ERICA software tool developed by the European Union [35]. The purpose of the assessment is to illustrate the potential radiation dose to a variety of organisms where the habitat consists of a large surface area with a

- 30 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment soil specific radionuclide activities of NORM equal to that of VGM tailings, i.e. 1.5 Bq/g. It illustrates the potential radio-ecological impact for the main radioisotopes in the U-238 decay chain (U-238, U-234, Th-230, Ra-226, Pb-210 and Po-210). The screening values for organism absorbed dose are 40 μGy/h for terrestrial animals and 400 μGy/h for terrestrial plants and aquatic biota. Below these values and in situations of chronic exposure, no measurable population effects would occur as suggested in international publications quoted in ERICA. Typical habitation factors for the species selected to illustrate potential doses are shown in Table 12-1. Table 12-1: Habitation factors for a generalised radioactive land area

Soil Grasses Mammal Bird Habitat Amphibian Bird Reptile Tree Shrub Invertebrate & Herbs (Deer) egg (worm) On-soil 1 0.2 1 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 In-soil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

The dose rates as a function of different radionuclide concentrations are listed in Table 12-2. The dose rates are less than then following screening values; it has been suggested that below these values of chronic exposure, no measurable population effects would occur:  40 μGy/h for terrestrial animals, birds, amphibians and reptiles  400 μGy/h for plants and other aquatic organisms.

Table 12-2: Dose rate to different organisms as a function of soil activity at 1.5 Bq/g for radionuclides considered

Total Dose Rate per Arthropod - Flying Grasses Lichen & Amphibian Annelid Bird radionuclide detritivorous insects & Herbs Bryophytes (µGy/h)

Pb-210 0.05 0.17 0.12 0.02 0.13 0.04 0.74 Po-210 4.76 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.46 13.02 119.16 Ra-226 10.30 10.21 10.21 8.28 9.37 37.31 148.02 Th-230 0.02 0.37 0.21 0.02 0.21 6.48 15.36 Th-234 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.15 U-234 0.23 1.42 0.44 0.05 0.44 5.37 37.48 U-238 0.20 1.21 0.37 0.05 0.37 4.60 32.97

Total Dose Mammal - Rate per Mammal - Mollusc - Common small- Reptile Shrub Tree radionuclide large gastropod lizard burrowing (µGy/h)

Pb-210 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.11 0.03 0.01 Po-210 4.13 4.13 0.46 5.95 15.35 3.41 5.87 Ra-226 9.52 10.25 10.28 10.20 67.98 2.84 10.15 Th-230 0.01 0.01 0.37 0.09 2.47 0.05 0.09 Th-234 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 U-234 0.23 0.23 1.42 0.22 2.56 0.28 0.21 U-238 0.20 0.20 1.21 0.19 2.20 0.24 0.19

- 31 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Figure 12-1 illustrates the dose contribution from each radionuclide. The radionuclide that has the highest contribution to the absorbed dose of the different organisms, is Ra-226.

Figure 12-1: Contribution to the organism dose from the different radionuclides

The risk quotients are illustrated in Figure 2-1. The risk quotients include an uncertainty factor equal to 3 and tests for 5 per cent probability of exceeding the dose screening value, assuming the risk quotient distribution is exponential. Non

Figure 12-2: Risk quotient for non-human species from soils containing 1.5 Bq/g radioactivity concentrations

The high level screening assessment indicates tailings material with a 1.5 Bq/g activity concentration of the long half-life U-238 decay chain radionuclides does not pose an unacceptable risk to non-human species. It is important to note that the assessment does not include the chemical toxicity of elements in the tailings.

- 32 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is concluded that VGM is feasible in respect of its radiological environmental impacts and that the annual dose to a member of the public will be less than the regulatory dose constraint value of 250 μSv/yr. The radiological impacts on members of the public from airborne released such as dust and radon, were determined using conservative assumptions representing conditions that will exist at the end of the mine’s life. Rehabilitation after mine closure will lead to a decrease in radiological impacts. It was also assumed that the mine operates at full production over 18 years, an assumption that provides margin for uncertainties that may impact the dose calculation results. The projected life of the mine is 17 years of which construction will last 4 years. The estimated additional radiation dose for a member of the public from atmospheric exposure pathways of the public from the VGM project is 0.179 m Sv/y. The dose assessment for aquatic exposure pathways was based on a hypothetical scenario of treated mine water being used as drinking water at an average annual ingestion over the lifetime of a member of the public. The expected annual dose is less than 0.052 mSv/y. Routine monitoring of treated mine water released to the Rietspruit has to ensure that the radiological quality of the treated water is the same or better than the existing water quality in the Rietspruit. Baseline radiological data will have to be collected before mining commences in respect of surface and groundwater, nearby river and stream sediments, ambient radon concentrations and the radioactivity of airborne dust. A baseline study is an important aspect of a radiological safety assessment. It describes and quantifies the location and nature of existing radioactive contamination prior to mining and the levels of radionuclide concentrations present in the environment where the project will be located. This aspect is especially important given the proximity of existing mines. Background radiation and radioactivity concentrations in environmental media are used as reference values for closure and rehabilitation. The results of a baseline survey will also be required for NNR regulatory purposes. The environmental monitoring programme during mine operation shall be required to consider hydrocensus and habit data of the critical groups identified in this report. Monitoring and effluent control measures implemented from the start of mining should provide assurances that radiation dose to the public will continue to meet regulatory requirements. The mine design has to ensure compliance with the radiation dose constraint long after closure of the mine. In order to achieve this objective the design bases of the TSF and waste rock stockpiles require consideration of some basic principles, e.g.:  dispersion and stabilization control to ensure confinement and long-term stability of stockpiles and TSF;  erosion control to minimize surface water and soil contamination to ensure long term integrity;  control radiation and release of radioactive dust and radon to reduce the dose to the population;  implement closure options minimizing institutional control and maintenance; and  use of passive barriers to confine release of contaminants to the environment. 14 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RATING No radiological impacts are expected during construction. Underground development resulting in waste rock during the early phases of the project, will pose low radiological hazards to the public. Atmospheric radiological impacts are relevant to the operational phase becoming progressively more significant as the TSF grows in size. The highest impact will occur at the end of the mine’s life and during decommissioning, prior to completion of the TSF rehabilitation.

- 33 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

The following risk assessment model was used for determination of the significance of impacts, based on the system of Prime Resources but adjusted to reflect radiological hazards and regulatory dose criteria: Significance = (magnitude + duration + scale) x probability

The maximum potential value for significance of an impact is 100 points. Environmental impacts are rated as high, medium or low significance on the following basis:  High environmental significance; public dose likely to exceed the national public dose limit of 1 mSv/y,: 71 – 100 points  Medium environmental significance; public dose exceeds the dose constraint value of 0.25 mSv/y but is less than 1 mSv/y: 46 – 70 points  Low environmental significance; the regulatory dose constraint for the public is met; i.e. dose is less than 0.25 mSv/y: 0 – 45 points The radiological significance rating results are presented in Table 14-1. Two values for each significance rating are indicated. The values without brackets indicate the rating when no mitigation and/or poor rehabilitation are carried out. The values inside brackets indicate successful mitigation and closure. The probability values equal to “5” for the operational, decommissioning and post-closure phases, are based on the fact that the radiological hazard is a permanent aspect of the TSF and it is only the risk of exposure that can be controlled. The radiological half-lives of the NORM radionuclides are long; e.g. Ra-226 has a half-live of 2.6 thousand years and for U-238 it is even longer, 4.7 billion years. A scenario that requires specific consideration when designing rehabilitation and closure measures, is direct access to the TSF, e.g. habitation immediately adjacent to or on the TSF in the future long after closure. The standard of rehabilitation of the TSF must therefore ensure limited environmental impacts that will meet regulatory dose constraint values far into the future. Poor closure and rehabilitation practices will most likely lead to environmental impacts of high significance. Compliance with recommendations made in the specialist reports for surface water and groundwater studies should assist to achieve compliance with regulatory dose criteria following closure.

- 34 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Table 14-1:Radiological significance rating

Rating element Construction Operation Decommissioning Post-closure Magnitude (M) 10 – Very high (or unknown) 8 – High 8 6 – Moderate 6 4 – Low 4 [4]

2 2 – Minor {2] [2] [2] Scale (S) 5 – International 4 – National 3 – Regional 2 2 2 2 2 – Local [2] [2] [2] [2] 1 – Site 0 – None Duration (D) 5 5 5 5 – Permanent [5] [5] [5] 4 – Long-term (ceases at the end of operation) 3 – Medium-term (6-12 years) 2 2 – Short-term (0-5 years) [2] 1 – Immediate Probability (P) 5 5 5 5 – Definite (or unknown) [5] [5] [5] 4 – High probability 3 – Medium probability 2 – Low probability 1 1 – Improbable [1] 0 – None 6 55 65 75 Environmental [6] [45] [45] [35] significance Low Medium Medium High [Low] [Low] [Low] [Low]

- 35 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

15 REFERENCES [1]. UNSCEAR, 2000. Sources and Effects of ionizing Radiation United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes, Volume I: Sources [2]. National Nuclear Regulator, 2012. Regulatory Guide RG-002 Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public from NORM Activities [3]. Republic of South Africa (1999), The National Nuclear Regulator Act, 1999 (Act No. 47 of 1999). Government Gazette No. 20760. Pretoria [4]. Regulations In Terms Of Section 36, Read with Section 47 of The National Nuclear Regulator Act, 1999 (Act No. 47 Of 1999), On Safety Standards And Regulatory Practices (SSRP) [5]. International Commission on Radiological Protection, 2008, Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 103 (Pergamon Press, Oxford)]. ICRP 2007. [6]. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, International Atomic Energy Agency, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, PAN American Health Organization, World Health Organization, International Basic Safety Standards for Protection Against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources, Safety Series No. 115, IAEA, Vienna (1996). [7]. IAEA Safety Standards Series No. WS-G-2.3. Regulatory Control of Radioactive Discharges to the Environment, International Atomic Energy Agency Vienna. 2000. [8]. Department of Minerals and Energy - Radioactive Waste Management Policy and Strategy for the Republic of South Africa. 2005. [9]. International Atomic Energy Agency, Safety Standards Series No. SSR-5. Disposal of Radioactive Waste – Specific Safety Requirements. VIENNA, 2011. [10]. IAEA Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material 2005 Edition Safety Requirements No. TS-R-1, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2011. [11]. Hazardous Substances Act, Act No. 15 of 1973. [12]. ICRP Publication 101, “Assessing Dose of the Representative Person for the Purpose of Radiation Protection of the Public. The Optimisation of Radiological Protection: Broadening the Process”, International Commission on Radiological Protection, Ann. ICRP 36(3), 2006. [13]. CSIR Mining Technology Report GU9301: Assessment of the Radiological Impact to the Public from Surface Works on Mines, Radon and dust Exposure Pathways. February 1996 [14]. Funke, J.W.1990. The Water Requirements and Pollution Potential of South African Gold and Uranium Mines.Report KV 9/90 Water Research Commision. Pretoria [15]. http://www.wise-uranium.org [16]. MINTEK External Report 6454: Metallurgical Test Work on Two Ventersburg Drill Core Samples. January 2013. [17]. IAEA TECDOC 1363. Guidelines for Radioelement Mapping using Gamma Ray Spectrometry Data. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna 2003. [18]. De Jesus, A.S.M. 1987. An Assessment of the Radium-226 Concentration Levels in Tailings Dams and Environmental Waters in the Gold/Uranium Mining Areas of the Witwatersrand. Report PER-159. Pelindaba [19]. IAEA Technical Reports Series No.419 Extent of Environmental Contamination by Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) and Technological Options for Mitigation International Atomic Energy Agency Vienna, 2003 [20]. Nengovhela A.C., Yibas B., and Ogola J.S. Characterisation of Gold Tailings Dams of the Witwatersrand Basin with reference to their Acid Mine Drainage Potential.

- 36 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

[21]. Technical Manual and User’s Guide for MILDOS-AREA Version 4. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREG/CR-7212. April 2016. [22]. Radon Assessment March 2011. Prepared by: Nuclear Waste Management Organization NWMO DGR-TR-2011-34 [23]. ICRP, 1977. Recommendations of the ICRP. ICRP Publication 26. Ann. ICRP 1 (3). [24]. International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1996, Age-Dependent Doses to Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides, Part 5: Compilation of Ingestion and Inhalation Dose Coefficients, ICRP Publication 72 (Pergamon Press, Oxford). [25]. Digby Wells, April 203. Environment: Surface Water Baseline Assessment for the Proposed Ventersburg Mine. Gold One Africa Limited [26]. The development of Appropriate Procedures towards and after closure of Underground Gold Mines from a Water Management Perspective Report to the Water Research Commission. W Pulles, S Banister and M van Biljon. WRC Report No: 1215/1/05. March 2005. [27]. Groundwater Square Consulting Groundwater Specialists. November 2012. Gold One Africa Limited – Ventersburg Mine. Groundwater Impact Assessment Study. [28]. World Health Organisation (WHO) (2011); Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, 4th Edition. [29]. Vandecasteele, C.M. 2002. Radioactive Contamination of Aquatic Ecosystems: Source, Transfer and Countermeasures SCK.CEN [30]. DWAF (2006). Guidelines for Assessing the Radiological Quality of Water. Report No N/0000/REQ0206 Resource Quality Services, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, South Africa. [31]. Metcalf, P.E. 1990. Licensing of activities involving nuclear hazard material. Paper presented at the Mine ventilation Society Conference on Dust and Radon, consideration for the future, 20 – 28 February. [32]. Kleinschmidt, R. 2011.Radioactive Residues Associated with Water Treatment, Use and Disposal in Australia. Queensland University of Technology, Faculty of Science and Technology – Physics Discipline [33]. IAEA Fundamental Safety Standards, SF-110. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna 2001. [34]. ICRP 108, Environmental Protection - the Concept and Use of Reference Animals and Plants, ICRP, 2008. [35]. Björk M and Gilek M (Eds), 2005. Overview of Ecological Risk Characterisation Methodologies. ERICA Deliverable D4b. EC project Contract N°FI6R-CT-2004-508847

- 37 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Appendix 1: Background to Radioactivity and Radiation hazard Concepts

Introduction In the following sections the radiological health risks associated with naturally occurring radioactivity (NORM) are put in perspective. The science underlying radiation protection principles applicable to mining and mineral processes is complex. The information provided here only provides a high level overview of radiation and protection against the risk associated with it. References at the end of this appendix can be consulted if more detailed information is required.

The Radioactivity of Uranium and its Decay Products The radionuclides contributing most of the ionising radiation to humans and non-human species from natural sources, apart from potassium-40, are the decay chains of uranium-238 and thorium-232. The decay chain of uranium-238 is illustrated here. Uranium is an element first discovered in 1789 by Martin Klaproth, a German chemist. A little more than 100 years later in 1896 Henri Becquerel, a French physicist, discovered that radioactivity is associated with uranium. Radioactivity is the term used to describe the disintegration of the nuclei of some atoms. The atom can be characterised by the number of protons and neutrons in its nucleus and illustrated in the figure. Some elements have isotopes with unstable nuclei, known as radionuclides. Their nuclei disintegrate or decay, thus releasing energy in the form of radiation. The term “radiation” is very broad, and includes light and radio waves. In the context of this document, radiation refers to “ionising” radiation, which means that when it passes through matter, it can cause the matter to become electrically charged or ionised. In living tissues, the electrical ions produced by radiation can affect normal biological processes. Uranium associated with gold reefs, together with its decay products shown in the figure, occur naturally in the environment. Elevated concentrations of uranium are associated with South African gold bearing ore when compared to the global average concentrations in soils. The global average concentration (measured as U3O8) is less than 10 μg/g but in some gold mine tailings it can exceed 100 μg/g and uranium is an important by-product at some gold mines. Radioactive decay is expressed in units called becquerels (Bq). One Bq equals one disintegration of a radioactive atomic nucleus per second. Each radionuclide decays at a characteristic rate that

- 38 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment remains constant regardless of external influences, such as temperature or pressure. The time that it takes for half the radionuclides to decay is called half-life. This differs for each nuclide, ranging from fractions of a second to billions of years. For example, the half-life of iodine-131, an artificial radionuclide produced in nuclear reactors, is eight days. The uranium radionuclide, uranium-238, which is naturally present in varying amounts in the earth’s crust, is 4.5 billion years. Potassium-40, a member of NORM and the main source of radioactivity in our bodies, has a half-life of 1.42 billion years. The common types of ionising radiation specifically relevant to uranium mining are the following:

 Alpha radiation: This consists of heavy, positively charged particles emitted by large atoms of elements such as uranium and radium. Alpha radiation can be stopped completely by a sheet of paper or by the thin surface layer of our skin (epidermis). However, if alpha-emitting materials are taken into the body by breathing, eating, or drinking, they can expose internal tissues directly and may cause biological damage, depending on the radiation dose that is committed to the tissues.  Beta radiation: This consists of electrons. They are more penetrating than alpha particles and can pass through a layer of water not more than 1 centimetre thick. In general, a sheet of aluminium a few millimetres thick will stop beta radiation.  Gamma radiation: This is electromagnetic radiation similar to X-rays, light, and radio waves. Gamma rays, depending on their energy, can pass right through the human body, but can be stopped by thick walls of concrete or lead.

Radiotoxicity of the principal NORM radionuclides associated with gold mining The additional exposure above background radiation is the result of mainly uranium (U-238) and its decay products. U-238 in the gold ores undergoes radioactive decay into a long series of 13 different radionuclides referred to as the progeny. The decay process eventually reaches a stable state in lead (Pb-206). The radionuclides in the decay chain emit alpha, beta radiation and gamma radiation. Some of the progeny radionuclides are highly radioactive and can pose increased human health risks when present in high environmental concentrations. The behaviour of the radionuclides in the human body that potentially causes the most radiation damage is briefly described. Inhalation of radioactive dust results in radiation to the lungs from the alpha particles emitted by long-lived radionuclides listed below. When these radionuclides are they behave as follows: Lead, Pb-210: The greatest doses to tissues (referred to as equivalent dose) for the ingestion of Pb-210 are to bone surfaces, the kidneys and liver. Polonium, Po-210: The greatest equivalent doses are to the kidneys, spleen and liver. Radium, Ra-226: Radium absorbed to the body circulation in the same way as calcium. The committed effective dose for ingestion of Ra-226 is dominated by the contribution from the equivalent doses to bone surfaces and red bone marrow.

- 39 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Thorium, Th-230: For thorium absorbed to body fluids the main sites of deposition are the liver and skeleton. The committed effective dose from the ingestion of Th-230 is due largely to doses received by bone surfaces, red bone marrow, the liver and kidneys and gonads. Uranium, U-238 and U-234: The principal site of retention of uranium in the body is the skeleton. Uranium tends to follow the qualitative behaviour of calcium to a large extent with regard to its behaviour in bone. The greatest committed equivalent doses for the ingestion of uranium radioisotopes are to the bone surfaces, red bone marrow, the kidneys and liver. Radon (Rn-222) and its short half-live progeny: Radon and its short half-live progeny require special attention since the radiation dose is delivered to lung tissue. Radon is in many instances the most significant component of human exposure from naturally occurring radioactivity and constitutes on average 42 per cent of total human exposure to natural radiation. Ionising radiation and dose The units to quantify radiation dose and used in the regulatory limits are the following:

 Absorbed dose, D, is the fundamental dose quantity describing the mean energy imparted to matter by ionising radiation. The SI unit for absorbed dose is joule per kilogram (J kg-1). Its special name is gray (Gy). The name has been chosen in memory of Louis Harold Gray (1905 to 1965) who contributed to the fundamental findings in radiation dosimetry.  The dose in a specific human tissue or organ is expressed as equivalent dose. It is the mean absorbed dose from a particular type of radiation (e.g. gamma rays, beta and alpha particles) in a particular tissue or organ. The unit for the equivalent dose is the same as for absorbed dose, J kg-1, and its special name is sievert (Sv).  When one wants to consider the dose to the whole human body, the effective dose is calculated. It is the tissue-weighted sum of the equivalent doses in all tissues and organs of the body. The unit for the effective dose is the same as for absorbed dose, i.e. Sv. It is named after Rolf Sievert (1896 to 1966), a Swedish scientist who rendered outstanding services to the establishment and further development of radiation protection. Effective dose is intended for use as a protection quantity. The main uses of effective dose are the prospective dose assessment for planning and optimisation in radiological protection, and demonstration of compliance with dose limits for regulatory purposes. Since one sievert is a large quantity, radiation doses normally encountered in uranium mining are expressed in millisievert (mSv), which is one-thousandth of a Sievert.

Scientific evidence of health risks from radiation exposure is based on biological and epidemiological studies. A proportional relationship between cancer risk and effective dose above 200 mSv has been well documented mainly based on Japanese atomic bomb survivors, while radiation-associated health effects at low dose still remain unclear. Effects of low dose radiation as is the case with NORM associated with gold mining, are generally considered stochastic effects. The effect is not certain but is described by a probability or chance of contracting a certain health effect. Stochastic effects involve the risks such as cancer and heritable disease. A deterministic effect on the other hand describes a health effect that will be observed when a relatively high dose is received by a person, a dose above a certain threshold. Studies on accidental, occupational,

- 40 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment environmental and medical exposures provide useful information of the effects of low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation. At radiation doses below around 100 mSv in a year, the increase in the incidence of stochastic effects is assumed by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) to occur with a small probability and in proportion to the increase in radiation dose over the background dose [1]. Worker dose at modern mines are managed below 20 mSv per year and less than 1 mSv per year for the public. Deterministic effects typically occur above 100 mSv in a year.

Use of the so-called linear-non-threshold (LNT) model that assumes that even at very low doses a stochastic risk exists, is considered by the ICRP to be the best practical approach to managing risk from radiation exposure and commensurate with the ‘precautionary principle’. The ICRP expresses radiation risk in terms of detriment. Detriment is a multidimensional concept and expresses the total harm to health experienced by an exposed group of people and its descendants as a result of the group’s exposure to a radiation source, e.g. high radon concentrations. Its principal components are the stochastic quantities:

 probability of attributable (to radiation) fatal cancer,  weighted probability of attributable non-fatal cancer,  weighted probability of severe heritable effects, and  length of life lost if the harm occurs. The ICRP proposed nominal probability coefficients of 5.5% per Sv (0.0055%) for detriment-adjusted cancer and 0.2% per Sv (0.0002%) for heritable risks for the whole population, using the LNT model. These values have slightly changed from earlier ICRP recommendations. The change in detriment for heritable effects in the new recommendations when compared to the 1990 recommendations, are notable, indicating a lower risk per unit radiation dose.

Detriment adjusted nominal risk coefficients for stochastic effects after exposure to radiation at low dose rates and dose less than 100 mSv.

The figure illustrates the cancer risk from ionising radiation and reported in a critical review of the BEIR VII report on estimating risk of low radiation doses [2]. In a human lifetime, approximately 42

- 41 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

(the solid black circles) of 100 people will be diagnosed with cancer. This approximation may differ from country to country. Calculations in the report suggest that approximately one cancer (the solid star in the figure) per 100 people could result from a single exposure to 100 mSv of low-linear energy transfer radiation (e.g. gamma radiation) above background.

The ICRP considers that the LNT model remains a prudent basis for radiological protection at low doses and low dose rates. However, the LNT model neglects the important facts that all living beings on the earth have been evolved and adapted to harsher natural radiation environments for billions of years. Moreover, there is a growing body of experimental and epidemiological evidence that does not support the LNT model for data to develop more sophisticated dose-response models at low dose levels. Recent reports issued by international authorities of radiation such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the ICRP, the French Academy of Sciences (FAS) analysed a great number of experimental data related to low dose radiation [3 to 8]. They commonly announced that biological responses of low dose radiation were different from those of high dose radiation with various dose-response relationships and therefore, low dose effects cannot be concluded to be harmful to human health.

Protection against radiological risks and the regulatory framework The international framework for ionising radiation protection is provided in the various recommendations and extensive international publications of the ICRP and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In CANSA’s letter reference is made to the World Health Organisation (WHO). WHO jointly sponsored the international basic safety standards for protection against ionising radiation and for the safety of radiation sources such as uranium mining.

Important publications that provide recommendations and guidance for worker and public radiation protection are:

 The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP Publication 103. These revised Recommendations for a System of Radiological Protection formally replace the Commission’s previous 1990 recommendations. The revised recommendations update, consolidate, and develop the additional guidance on the control of exposure from radiation sources issued since 1990. They maintain the Commission’s three fundamental principles of radiological protection, namely justification, optimisation, and the application of dose limits, clarifying how they apply to radiation sources delivering exposure and to individuals receiving exposure [1].  IAEA International Basic Safety Standards describing the principles of radiological protection, recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection [9]. These international safety standards form the bases for regulatory control of almost all countries in the world, including South Africa..

- 42 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

The difference between Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) that associated with gold mining and radioactive material that is defined as artificial or as nuclear material The mine includes processes that technically enhance NORM to produce uranium concentrate which still has low levels of radioactivity. One must distinguish between the high levels of radiation normally associated with irradiated nuclear material and artificial radioactive sources, and the low- level natural radioactivity and radiation levels associated with uranium mining.

Uranium is processed at specialised facilities to produce nuclear fuel material for electricity generation in reactors such as the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station. It is also be used to manufacture target plates for the small SAFARI-I nuclear reactor at the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (NECSA). Once these target plates have been irradiated in the reactor they are processed to manufacture radio-isotopes to, amongst other purposes, detect and fight cancer. The NECSA facility is illustrated in the figure below.

The nuclear facilities at NECSA and an example of a radiotherapy cancer treatment facility

NTP Radioisotopes SOC Ltd, a subsidiary of NECSA, produces a quarter of the world's medical radioisotopes used to allow for about 40 million medical diagnostic images every year, making it the third largest producer and supplier globally. The facility routinely serves customers in 60 countries on six continents with its range of nuclear radiation-based products and services [10].

- 43 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

It must therefore again be emphasised that high levels of radioactivity and radiation levels are associated with irradiated nuclear materials and artificial radiation sources, not with uranium ore and uranium concentrate. For example, the radioisotope iodine-131, which is a product of the nuclear fission process but also used in radiotherapy, has 370 000 000 000 times more radioactivity per unit mass than uranium-238 (expressed as Bq per kg).

The natural occurrence of the isotope uranium-235 in the uranium ore is only 0.72 per cent. For natural uranium to be used as a nuclear fuel at Koeberg Nuclear Power station, for example, the uranium has to be enriched at an overseas nuclear facility to a level of 4.5 per cent. But in the early history of the earth, uranium-235 comprised more than 30% of uranium. The proportion of uranium- 235 relative to uranium-238 has been changing because isotopes of uranium decay to other elements over time. However, uranium-238 decays at a much slower rate than uranium-235, so uranium-235 has become more and more depleted (relative to uranium-238) over the Earth’s 4.54 billion year history. Billions of years ago, the abundance of uranium-235 in uranium ore was high enough for a self-sustaining nuclear fission reaction to develop, similar to the controlled reactions in the Koeberg reactors. Two billion years ago, there would have been about 3.6% uranium-235 present in uranium ore, about the uranium-235 enrichment level used in some nuclear power plants. During this prehistoric time, eons before humans developed the first commercial nuclear power plants in the 1950s, seventeen natural nuclear fission reactors operated in what is today known as Gabon in Western Africa [11].

Nuclear accidents are events that are not possible at a gold mine. Disinformation regarding health risks at mines is often based on attempts to create a link between nuclear accidents and the radiation risks of mining. Although there is no link, some perspective on the health effects of nuclear accidents in the past helps to understand radiation risk better. The findings on health risks for two such accidents are briefly presented.

The Great East Japan Earthquake that struck on 11 March 2011 registered a massive magnitude 9. The earthquake gave rise to a series of large tsunami waves. When these tsunami waves reached the eastern coast of Japan, extensive damage and loss of human life occurred over a wide area. It also initiated the worst accident at a nuclear power plant, the Fukushima Daiichi plant, since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.

The Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan has been extensively monitored by the Japanese government and international organizations such as WHO, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and ICRP. Significant amounts of radioactivity were released as result of the accident, but prompt evacuation limited the radiological exposure and dose to low levels. Approximately 160 000 people were evacuated from their homes. Radiation was not expected to have any measureable effect on the health of the population and this was confirmed in 2013 by an estimation from UNSCEAR that no person in the Fukushima prefecture would be exposed through the environment or their food to more than 10 mSv in their entire lifetime. This is one tenth of the level at which health effects are known to become more likely, and

- 44 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment therefore no measureable increase in cancer rates is expected. The government continues to monitor the health of all Fukushima residents. Stress, anxiety, and the social problems associated with relocation have been repeatedly identified as the likely causes of ill health [12].

The Chernobyl accident occurred in 1986. There are numerous studies to investigate health effects from this accident. Except for the increase of thyroid cancer in children with relatively high thyroid absorbed doses, there was no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of other cancers or non-cancer diseases in the residents of the Chernobyl region [13, 14].

New generation nuclear power reactors incorporate design features in order to lower the risk of a nuclear accident significantly when compared to the earlier generation reactors that could not withstand the severe external hazards at Fukushima. Examples of natural disasters against which they are designed are illustrated in the figure; tsunami, earthquake, severe weather phenomena, aircraft crash, solar flares, and chemical explosion.

It is concluded from nuclear accidents that epidemiological data for acute radiation exposure have not provided consistent evidence of health effects in the low dose range.

Background radiation The typical components of human exposure to ionising radiation and their relative contribution to human radiation dose, are illustrated in the figure. It is evident that the contribution to human dose, on average, is dominated by natural sources [15].

The human body successfully copes with the typical background radiation from natural sources of radiation. Living organisms have innate defence systems, including antioxidant molecules against oxidative stress generated from metabolism, repair to restore damaged DNA and removal of damaged cells. These systems could be activated by low dose radiation but and are less effective when the radiation dose is high. Studies have shown that the efficacy of repair in the irradiated cells at low dose would be higher than at high dose [16].

- 45 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Elements of the existing and natural background radiation levels and radioactivity in environmental media will be measured prior to operation. and are continued to be measured in the region of the proposed mining activities. The soil surface activities and external gamma radiation levels are expected to be low. As mentioned previously, the worldwide average natural dose to human is about 2.4 mSv/year [17].

Variations can be large and the dose rate depends on location and geology. The Yangjiang in China, Karunagappally in India, Guarapari in Brazil, and Ramsar in Iran are well known for their high background radiation areas. In Ramsar the dose level can be as high as 260 mSv/yr [18]. A number of biological and epidemiological studies have been conducted to evaluate health effects in high background radiation areas. Increased chromosomal aberrations were observed in some studies [19, 20], but there was no study reporting an increase in cancer or life-shorting in the residents of these areas [21, 22].

A perspective on regulatory dose limits The public and worker dose limits can be put in perspective by the range of human dose listed in the table that follows [7].

Dose Description / Effects

The annual dose to the public below which the mine 0.25 mSv/yr activities will be constraint by the NNR

This is the typical range of annual radiation dose from lf 0.3 to 0.6 mSv/yr artificial sources of radiation, mostly medical.

This is the range of worldwide average annual radiation dose from ingestion of foodstuff and water. Variations of 0.2 to 0.8 mSv/yr the mean values by factors 5 to 10 are not unusual for many components of exposure from natural causes.

The NNR dose limit for members of the public . If, for example, there were numerous mines which could impact 1,0 mSv/yr the same members of the public, the cumulative dose must be less than this dose limit.

- 46 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Dose Description / Effects

The normal average background radiation from natural 2.4 mSv/yr (approximately) sources, including an average of 1.1 mSv/yr from radon in air.

This is typical of known high average annual dose from natural background radiation that occurs at certain 13 mSv/yr places on earth, e.g. in the Kerala and Madras states in India where a population of over 100 000 people is exposed to this dose rate.

This dose, averaged over 5 years, is the worker dose limit for regulated practices and working activities such as the 20 mSv/yr nuclear industry employees and mining/mineral processing workers.

This dose accumulated over some time, would probably cause a fatal cancer many years later in 5 of every 100 persons exposed to it (i.e. if the normal incidence of fatal cancer were 25%, this dose would increase it to 30%).

1 000 mSv The same dose received as a short-term dose from artificial radiation would probably cause (temporary) illness such as nausea and decreased white blood cell count, but not death. Above this dose the severity of illness increases with dose.

This dose from artificial radiation over a short term would Between 2 000 and 10 000 mSv cause severe radiation sickness with an increasing likelihood of a fatality.

This dose from artificial radiation in the short term would 10 000 mSv cause immediate illness and subsequent death within a few weeks.

16 REFERENCES 1 ICRP. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007. 2 Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2 (2006). Chapter: Public Summary & Executive Summary. 3 Calabrese EJ, O’Connor MK. Estimating risk of low radiation doses - a critical review of the BEIR VII report and its use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis. Radiat Res 2014; 182: 463-74.

- 47 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

4 National Research Council (US) Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Level of Ionizing Radiation. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2006. 5 ICRP. Low-dose extrapolation of radiation-related cancer risk. ICRP Publication 99. Ann ICRP 2005; 35: 1-141. 6 Tubiana M, Aurengo A, Averbeck D, Bonin A, Le Guen B, Masse R, Monier R, Valleron AJ, de Vathaire F. Dose-effect relationships and estimation of the carcinogenic effect of low doses of ionizing radiation. Paris: Académie des Sciences - Académie National de Médicine, 2005. 7 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Biological mechanisms of radiation actions at low doses: a white paper to guide the Scientific Committee’s future programme of work. New York, NY: United Nations, 2012. 8 Goodhead DT. Understanding and characterisation of the risks to human health from exposure to low levels of radiation. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2009; 137: 109-17. 9 IAEA BSS 10 http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ntp-radioisotopes-a-glowing-example-of-a- south-african-triumph-261203411.html 11 https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natures-nuclear-reactors-the-2-billion- year-old-natural-fission-reactors-in-gabon-western-africa. 12 IAEA Report on Preparedness and Response for a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency in the Light of the Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi NPP, International Atomic Energy Agency Vienna, 2013. 13 International Consortium for Research on the Health Effects of Radiation Writing Committee and Study Team; Davis S, Day RW, Kopecky KJ, Mahoney MC, McCarthy PL, Michalek AM, Moysich KB, Onstad LE, Stepanenko VF, et al. Childhood leukaemia in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine following the Chernobyl power station accident: results from an international collaborative population-based case-control study. Int J Epidemiol 2006; 35: 386-96. 14 Kesminiene A, Cardis E, Tenet V, Ivanov VK, Kurtinaitis J, Malakhova I, Stengrevics A, Tekkel M. Studies of cancer risk among Chernobyl liquidators: materials and methods. J Radiol Prot 2002; 22: A137-41. 15 http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/radiation-and-health/naturally- occurring-radioactive-materials-norm.aspx. 16 Dikomey E, Brammer I. Relationship between cellular radiosensitivity and non-repaired double-strand breaks studied for different growth states, dose rates and plating conditions in a normal human fibroblast line. Int J Radiat Biol 2000; 76: 773-81. 17 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Annex B. Exposures from natural radiation sources. In: UNSCEAR 2000 Report. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of

- 48 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes. Vol. I: Sources. New York, NY: United Nations, 2001. 18 Ghiassi-Nejad M, Mortazavi SM, Cameron JR, Niroomand-rad A, Karam PA. Very high background radiation areas of Ramsar, Iran: preliminary biological studies. Health Phys 2002; 82: 87-93. 19 105. Hayata I, Wang C, Zhang W, Chen D, Minamihisamatsu M, Morishima H, Wei L, Sugahara T. Effect of high-level natural radiation on chromosomes of residents in southern China. Cytogenet Genome Res 2004; 104: 237-9. 20 106. Ghiassi-Nejad M, Zakeri F, Assaei RG, Kariminia A. Long-term immune and cytogenetic effects of high level natural radiation on Ramsar inhabitants in Iran. J Environ Radioact 2004; 74: 107-16. 21 Nair RR, Rajan B, Akiba S, Jayalekshmi P, Nair MK, Gangadharan P, Koga T, Morishima H, Nakamura S, Sugahara T. Background radiation and cancer incidence in Kerala, India-Karanagappally cohort study. Health Phys 2009; 96: 55-66. 22 108. Tao Z, Akiba S, Zha Y, Sun Q, Zou J, Li J, Liu Y, Yuan Y, Tokonami S, Morishoma H, et al. Cancer and non-cancer mortality among Inhabitants in the high background radiation area of Yangjiang, China (1979-1998). Health Phys 2012; 102: 173-81.

- 49 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Appendix 2: Meteorological Data for MILDOS-AREA

Joint Frequency Distribution Data (JFD)

The JFD data describe the wind behaviour at a given location and provide information on the fraction of time the wind is blowing from a given direction, at a given wind speed, and under a given set of atmospheric conditions (stability class). MILDOS-AREA uses 16 directions, 6 wind speed categories, and 6 stability classes, resulting in a joint frequency of occurrence that constitutes 16 × 6 × 6 = 576 possible conditions; the total sum of all frequencies is equal to one. When MILDOS-AREA calculates the amount of material blown downwind of a source at a specific critical group location, it weights the downwind concentrations by the amount of time (frequency) the wind is blowing in that specific direction for each combination of stability class and wind speed.

Atmospheric stability categories

Pasquill stability categories

1 A Extremely unstable 2 B Moderately unstable 3 C Slightly unstable 4 D Neutral 5 E Slightly stable 6 F Moderately stable

Example of hourly weather data from 3-year data file: 2013 to 2015

Wind Wind Stability Year Month Day Hour Temperature Mixing heights direction speed Class 13 1 1 1 41 1.0 295.4 6 2214 2214 13 1 1 2 156 3.6 294.3 6 2214 2214 13 1 1 3 298 4.1 293.2 5 2214 2214 13 1 1 4 286 4.6 292 5 2214 2214 13 1 1 5 257 5.1 291.5 5 2214 2214 13 1 1 6 253 6.2 291.5 4 159.3 2214 13 1 1 7 241 6.7 293.2 4 416.1 2214 13 1 1 8 214 6.2 295.4 4 673 2214 13 1 1 9 182 3.6 297.6 3 929.8 2214 13 1 1 10 145 3.1 299.8 2 1186.6 2214

- 50 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Joint Frequency Distribution weather data file for VGM

Wind speed(m/s) category frequency Wind direction Stability (blowing from) class 0 to 1.3 1.3 to 3.6 3.6 to 5.3 5.3 to 8.4 8.4 to 10.7 > 10.7 N A .00236 .00179 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 NNE A .00194 .00156 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 NE A .00171 .00091 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 ENE A .00110 .00046 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 E A .00164 .00030 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 ESE A .00194 .00011 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 SE A .00175 .00034 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 SSE A .00225 .00030 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 S A .00221 .00088 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 SSW A .00213 .00118 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 SW A .00335 .00126 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 WSW A .00369 .00190 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 W A .00388 .00327 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 WNW A .00362 .00266 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 NW A .00320 .00362 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 NNW A .00301 .00221 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 N B .00240 .00754 .00228 .00000 .00000 .00000 NNE B .00167 .00617 .00240 .00000 .00000 .00000 NE B .00183 .00377 .00167 .00000 .00000 .00000 ENE B .00152 .00206 .00049 .00000 .00000 .00000 E B .00095 .00145 .00023 .00000 .00000 .00000 ESE B .00076 .00118 .00027 .00000 .00000 .00000 SE B .00076 .00118 .00030 .00000 .00000 .00000 SSE B .00126 .00198 .00057 .00000 .00000 .00000 S B .00133 .00301 .00053 .00000 .00000 .00000 SSW B .00179 .00259 .00088 .00000 .00000 .00000 SW B .00206 .00411 .00160 .00000 .00000 .00000 WSW B .00274 .00453 .00244 .00000 .00000 .00000 W B .00320 .00731 .00540 .00000 .00000 .00000 WNW B .00301 .00769 .00480 .00000 .00000 .00000 NW B .00236 .00818 .00426 .00000 .00000 .00000 NNW B .00244 .00826 .00369 .00000 .00000 .00000 N C .00141 .00499 .01043 .00209 .00015 .00008 NNE C .00107 .00506 .00963 .00141 .00000 .00000 NE C .00084 .00320 .00670 .00076 .00004 .00000 ENE C .00095 .00198 .00289 .00023 .00000 .00000 E C .00065 .00126 .00114 .00023 .00000 .00000 ESE C .00061 .00122 .00084 .00008 .00000 .00000 SE C .00069 .00103 .00213 .00008 .00000 .00000 SSE C .00072 .00084 .00209 .00034 .00000 .00000 S C .00118 .00175 .00152 .00027 .00000 .00000 SSW C .00122 .00225 .00236 .00023 .00000 .00000 SW C .00091 .00206 .00369 .00049 .00000 .00000

- 51 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Wind speed(m/s) category frequency Wind direction Stability (blowing from) class 0 to 1.3 1.3 to 3.6 3.6 to 5.3 5.3 to 8.4 8.4 to 10.7 > 10.7 WSW C .00103 .00346 .00502 .00118 .00000 .00000 W C .00164 .00400 .00792 .00316 .00019 .00000 WNW C .00095 .00403 .00628 .00183 .00008 .00004 NW C .00099 .00434 .00807 .00183 .00004 .00000 NNW C .00107 .00453 .00830 .00285 .00008 .00000 N D .00084 .00331 .00925 .00556 .00027 .00004 NNE D .00099 .00441 .01302 .00708 .00008 .00000 NE D .00072 .00392 .01115 .00765 .00011 .00000 ENE D .00049 .00274 .00837 .00620 .00004 .00000 E D .00069 .00213 .00369 .00194 .00008 .00000 ESE D .00046 .00164 .00179 .00076 .00011 .00000 SE D .00053 .00114 .00251 .00088 .00008 .00000 SSE D .00030 .00141 .00266 .00167 .00004 .00000 S D .00107 .00202 .00183 .00145 .00027 .00000 SSW D .00076 .00194 .00167 .00141 .00000 .00000 SW D .00072 .00343 .00244 .00103 .00004 .00000 WSW D .00057 .00426 .00297 .00274 .00030 .00000 W D .00129 .00335 .00202 .00392 .00061 .00004 WNW D .00057 .00186 .00118 .00179 .00015 .00004 NW D .00088 .00156 .00171 .00183 .00023 .00000 NNW D .00042 .00312 .00415 .00354 .00019 .00000 N E .00065 .00206 .03052 .00000 .00000 .00000 NNE E .00091 .00278 .03992 .00000 .00000 .00000 NE E .00099 .00289 .04719 .00019 .00000 .00000 ENE E .00069 .00164 .03440 .00019 .00000 .00000 E E .00069 .00183 .01956 .00000 .00000 .00000 ESE E .00076 .00198 .01431 .00004 .00000 .00000 SE E .00065 .00088 .01674 .00000 .00000 .00000 SSE E .00080 .00141 .01686 .00004 .00000 .00000 S E .00069 .00183 .01370 .00004 .00000 .00000 SSW E .00053 .00183 .01282 .00000 .00000 .00000 SW E .00042 .00190 .00792 .00004 .00000 .00004 WSW E .00061 .00198 .00335 .00004 .00000 .00000 W E .00057 .00186 .00323 .00008 .00000 .00000 WNW E .00053 .00099 .00213 .00000 .00000 .00000 NW E .00065 .00129 .00411 .00000 .00000 .00000 NNW E .00049 .00179 .00959 .00000 .00000 .00000 N F .00278 .00693 .00008 .00000 .00000 .00000 NNE F .00464 .00970 .00019 .00000 .00000 .00000 NE F .00731 .01469 .00042 .00000 .00000 .00000 ENE F .00677 .01161 .00053 .00000 .00000 .00000 E F .00693 .01012 .00027 .00000 .00000 .00000 ESE F .00358 .00757 .00008 .00000 .00000 .00000 SE F .00274 .00731 .00004 .00000 .00000 .00000 SSE F .00221 .00613 .00008 .00000 .00000 .00000

- 52 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Wind speed(m/s) category frequency Wind direction Stability (blowing from) class 0 to 1.3 1.3 to 3.6 3.6 to 5.3 5.3 to 8.4 8.4 to 10.7 > 10.7 S F .00217 .00594 .00004 .00000 .00000 .00000 SSW F .00175 .00582 .00008 .00000 .00000 .00000 SW F .00114 .00381 .00011 .00000 .00000 .00000 WSW F .00126 .00198 .00008 .00000 .00000 .00000 W F .00110 .00259 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 WNW F .00091 .00156 .00004 .00000 .00000 .00000 NW F .00145 .00282 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 NNW F .00202 .00388 .00011 .00000 .00000 .00000

- 53 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Appendix 3: External radiation measurement at VGM

Radiation levels on material collected during the exploration phase provide an indication of the extent of radiological hazards during mining and following mine closure. Core samples stored in a shed at the site were surveyed for gamma radiation with a sensitive NaI spectrometer (Inspector 1000). Two core samples representative of the reef to be mined in future showed fairly high radiation associated with it. The background radiation measured in the shed (at a distance of a few meters away from the core samples) is approximately 400 cps (counts per second). This background reading can be compared with the highest reading of 3385 cps measured on small sections of core samples. Bulk volumes of the ore during mining will clearly present a significantly elevated radiation levels and potentially high levels of radon in the underground working environment. The geologist should be able to provide the U3O8 ppm values which will provide an indication of the future TSF radioactivity content. The natural background readings measured along the dirt road from the main farm entrance to the core shed is approximately 130 cps. This is typical of soils in the area not impacted by any mining activity. Elevated levels can be measured on the Ventersburg tar road which suggests that waste rock from existing mines in the area was used as aggregate for its construction. Figures 1 to 4 illustrate the ambient radiation monitoring carried out. A more extensive baseline will be required prior to building infrastructure and commencing mining operations. Existing radioactivity concentrations in environmental media and radiation levels of the total mine area are required. Localised areas with existing high natural radiation levels may already exist. The elevated radioactivity in these areas must not be attributed to mining operations and also during rehabilitation and closure.

Figure 4.1: The background radiation in the shed (at a distance of a few meters away from the core samples) is approximately 400 cps (counts per second).

- 54 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

The highest reading measured was on sample 663.81 at a value of 3385 cps, thus approximately a factor 8 higher. Bulk volumes of the ore during mining will clearly present elevated radiation levels and potentially high levels of radon in the underground working environment.

Figure: An illustration of the variability of the natural background radiation in the general environment of the site. This is an important aspect of a baseline study.

Figure 4.4: Two core samples representative of the reef to be mined in future and which has fairly high radiation associated with it.

- 55 - Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Appendix 4: MILDOS-AREA Version 4 Input Data for Ventersburg Gold Mine and Detail Dose Results

- 56 - Radiological Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Ventersburg Gold Mine

Coordinate system for VGM Sources and Critical Groups

Source/Critical Group Coordinates UTM Coordinates, m MILDOS Coordinate Conversion Vent Shaft (MILDOS reference point) 1 505699 6898229 0 0 1 505413 6897987 -286 -242 2 505413 6898133 -286 -96 Storage Pile 3 505560 6898133 -139 -96 4 505560 6897987 -139 -242 1 505208 6897356 -491 -873 2 505238 6897833 -461 -396 Waste Rock 3 505519 6897841 -180 -388 4 505528 6897355 -171 -874 5 505370 6897226 -329 -1003 1 505318 6897032 -381 -1197 2 505852 6897630 153 -599 TSF 3 506323 6897627 624 -602 4 506716 6897271 1017 -958 5 506179 6896545 480 -1684 VB CG01 505516 6894865 -183 -3364 VB CG02 502817 6894545 -2882 -3684 VB CG03 503055 6897514 -2644 -715 VB CG04 506340 6899230 641 1001 VB CG05 507744 6900428 2045 2199 VB CG06 508785 6898505 3086 276 VB CG07 510237 6895324 4538 -2905 VB CG08 509096 6894334 3397 -3895 VB CG09 506972 6896745 1273 -1484

57

Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Table: Critical Group Habit Data used in the Radiological Screening Assessment

Calc. Rn- Vegetation Meat Milk Rn-222 Rn-222 Indoor Outdoor Indoor Consider Consider Consider 222 Rep. Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion Indoor Outdoor Age Group x (m) y (m) Occupancy Occupancy Shielding Vegetation Meat Milk Outdoor Person Rate Rate Rate Eq. Eq. Factor Factor Fraction Pathway? Pathway? Pathway? Equil. (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) Fraction Fraction Fraction?

5.00E- VB CG01 -183 -3364 6.00E-01 4.00E-01 8.25E-01 TRUE 4.00E+01 TRUE 3.00E+01 TRUE 4.80E+01 TRUE 7.00E-01 01 5.00E- VB CG02 -2882 -3684 6.00E-01 4.00E-01 8.25E-01 TRUE 4.00E+01 TRUE 3.00E+01 TRUE 4.80E+01 TRUE 7.00E-01 01 5.00E- VB CG03 -2644 -714 6.00E-01 4.00E-01 8.25E-01 TRUE 4.00E+01 TRUE 3.00E+01 TRUE 4.80E+01 TRUE 7.00E-01 01 Infant 5.00E- VB CG04 641 1001 6.00E-01 4.00E-01 8.25E-01 TRUE 4.00E+01 TRUE 3.00E+01 TRUE 4.80E+01 TRUE 7.00E-01 01 5.00E- VB CG05 2045 2199 6.00E-01 4.00E-01 8.25E-01 TRUE 4.00E+01 TRUE 3.00E+01 TRUE 4.80E+01 TRUE 7.00E-01 01 5.00E- VB CG06 3086 276 6.00E-01 4.00E-01 8.25E-01 TRUE 4.00E+01 TRUE 3.00E+01 TRUE 4.80E+01 TRUE 7.00E-01 01 5.00E- VB CG01 -183 -3364 6.00E-01 4.00E-01 8.25E-01 TRUE 5.00E+01 TRUE 4.50E+01 TRUE 7.20E+01 TRUE 7.00E-01 01 5.00E- VB CG02 -2882 -3684 6.00E-01 4.00E-01 8.25E-01 TRUE 5.00E+01 TRUE 4.50E+01 TRUE 7.20E+01 TRUE 7.00E-01 01 5.00E- VB CG03 -2644 -714 6.00E-01 4.00E-01 8.25E-01 TRUE 5.00E+01 TRUE 4.50E+01 TRUE 7.20E+01 TRUE 7.00E-01 01 Child 5.00E- VB CG04 641 1001 6.00E-01 4.00E-01 8.25E-01 TRUE 5.00E+01 TRUE 4.50E+01 TRUE 7.20E+01 TRUE 7.00E-01 01 5.00E- VB CG05 2045 2199 6.00E-01 4.00E-01 8.25E-01 TRUE 5.00E+01 TRUE 4.50E+01 TRUE 7.20E+01 TRUE 7.00E-01 01 5.00E- VB CG06 3086 276 6.00E-01 4.00E-01 8.25E-01 TRUE 5.00E+01 TRUE 4.50E+01 TRUE 7.20E+01 TRUE 7.00E-01 01 5.00E- VB CG01 -183 -3364 6.00E-01 4.00E-01 8.25E-01 TRUE 1.00E+02 TRUE 7.50E+01 TRUE 1.20E+02 TRUE 7.00E-01 01 5.00E- VB CG02 -2882 -3684 6.00E-01 4.00E-01 8.25E-01 TRUE 1.00E+02 TRUE 7.50E+01 TRUE 1.20E+02 TRUE 7.00E-01 01 5.00E- VB CG03 -2644 -714 6.00E-01 4.00E-01 8.25E-01 TRUE 1.00E+02 TRUE 7.50E+01 TRUE 1.20E+02 TRUE 7.00E-01 01 Adult 5.00E- VB CG04 641 1001 6.00E-01 4.00E-01 8.25E-01 TRUE 1.00E+02 TRUE 7.50E+01 TRUE 1.20E+02 TRUE 7.00E-01 01 5.00E- VB CG05 2045 2199 6.00E-01 4.00E-01 8.25E-01 TRUE 1.00E+02 TRUE 7.50E+01 TRUE 1.20E+02 TRUE 7.00E-01 01 5.00E- VB CG06 3086 276 6.00E-01 4.00E-01 8.25E-01 TRUE 1.00E+02 TRUE 7.50E+01 TRUE 1.20E+02 TRUE 7.00E-01 01

58 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Table: Infant annual effective dose for different periods in VGM life (mSv/y)

Plant Meat Milk 1 Year No. Source Groundshine Cloudshine Inhalation Total Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion VB CG01 1 Vent Shaft 2.67E-04 1.65E-03 7.57E-01 0.00E+00 6.10E-05 2.78E-05 7.59E-01 2 Waste Rock 1.96E-04 2.06E-04 3.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.36E-01 9.60E-02 3.23E+00

3 Stockpile 2.02E-05 2.86E-05 3.08E-01 0.00E+00 1.39E-02 9.85E-03 3.32E-01

4 TSF 1.42E-03 2.39E-03 6.39E+00 0.00E+00 8.87E-01 6.27E-01 7.91E+00

- Total 1.91E-03 4.27E-03 1.04E+01 0.00E+00 1.04E+00 7.33E-01 1.22E+01

VB CG02 1 Vent Shaft 2.55E-04 1.91E-03 6.84E-01 0.00E+00 6.43E-05 2.73E-05 6.86E-01 2 Waste Rock 1.69E-04 3.17E-04 2.55E+00 0.00E+00 1.15E-01 8.14E-02 2.74E+00

3 Stockpile 1.91E-05 4.42E-05 2.87E-01 0.00E+00 1.30E-02 9.17E-03 3.09E-01

4 TSF 7.33E-04 3.55E-03 4.80E+00 0.00E+00 3.77E-01 2.67E-01 5.45E+00

- Total 1.18E-03 5.82E-03 8.31E+00 0.00E+00 5.06E-01 3.58E-01 9.18E+00

VB CG03 1 Vent Shaft 3.31E-04 1.27E-03 1.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.25E-05 2.93E-05 1.00E+00 2 Waste Rock 2.27E-04 2.61E-04 3.47E+00 0.00E+00 1.57E-01 1.11E-01 3.74E+00

3 Stockpile 3.60E-05 3.96E-05 5.50E-01 0.00E+00 2.49E-02 1.76E-02 5.93E-01

4 TSF 5.78E-04 1.84E-03 3.64E+00 0.00E+00 3.19E-01 2.26E-01 4.19E+00

- Total 1.17E-03 3.42E-03 8.67E+00 0.00E+00 5.02E-01 3.55E-01 9.53E+00

VB CG04 1 Vent Shaft 3.03E-04 7.16E-04 1.23E+00 0.00E+00 4.89E-05 3.25E-05 1.23E+00 2 Waste Rock 1.30E-04 1.52E-04 1.99E+00 0.00E+00 9.01E-02 6.37E-02 2.14E+00

3 Stockpile 2.69E-05 1.98E-05 4.15E-01 0.00E+00 1.88E-02 1.33E-02 4.47E-01

4 TSF 5.14E-04 1.73E-03 2.94E+00 0.00E+00 2.90E-01 2.05E-01 3.44E+00

- Total 9.74E-04 2.62E-03 6.58E+00 0.00E+00 3.99E-01 2.82E-01 7.26E+00

VB CG05 1 Vent Shaft 1.32E-04 1.07E-03 3.73E-01 0.00E+00 3.79E-05 1.59E-05 3.74E-01 2 Waste Rock 4.34E-05 1.06E-04 6.52E-01 0.00E+00 2.95E-02 2.08E-02 7.02E-01

3 Stockpile 8.21E-06 1.66E-05 1.24E-01 0.00E+00 5.60E-03 3.96E-03 1.33E-01

4 TSF 1.84E-04 1.24E-03 1.07E+00 0.00E+00 9.60E-02 6.79E-02 1.23E+00

- Total 3.68E-04 2.44E-03 2.22E+00 0.00E+00 1.31E-01 9.27E-02 2.44E+00

59 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

VB CG06 1 Vent Shaft 1.41E-04 1.50E-03 3.92E-01 0.00E+00 5.36E-05 2.04E-05 3.94E-01 2 Waste Rock 4.60E-05 1.20E-04 6.89E-01 0.00E+00 3.12E-02 2.20E-02 7.43E-01

3 Stockpile 8.88E-06 2.24E-05 1.33E-01 0.00E+00 6.03E-03 4.27E-03 1.44E-01

4 TSF 2.37E-04 1.43E-03 1.23E+00 0.00E+00 1.30E-01 9.21E-02 1.46E+00

- Total 4.33E-04 3.08E-03 2.45E+00 0.00E+00 1.68E-01 1.18E-01 2.74E+00

VB CG07 1 Vent Shaft 4.63E-05 9.39E-04 1.21E-01 0.00E+00 5.39E-05 1.63E-05 1.22E-01 2 Waste Rock 1.89E-05 8.00E-05 2.80E-01 0.00E+00 1.26E-02 8.94E-03 3.02E-01

3 Stockpile 2.66E-06 1.14E-05 3.94E-02 0.00E+00 1.78E-03 1.26E-03 4.24E-02

4 TSF 1.18E-04 1.01E-03 5.46E-01 0.00E+00 6.49E-02 4.59E-02 6.58E-01

- Total 1.85E-04 2.04E-03 9.87E-01 0.00E+00 7.94E-02 5.61E-02 1.12E+00

VB CG08 1 Vent Shaft 6.09E-05 1.03E-03 1.60E-01 0.00E+00 5.26E-05 1.66E-05 1.61E-01 2 Waste Rock 2.91E-05 1.10E-04 4.32E-01 0.00E+00 1.95E-02 1.38E-02 4.65E-01

3 Stockpile 3.84E-06 1.54E-05 5.69E-02 0.00E+00 2.57E-03 1.81E-03 6.13E-02

4 TSF 1.73E-04 1.37E-03 8.66E-01 0.00E+00 9.37E-02 6.63E-02 1.03E+00

- Total 2.67E-04 2.53E-03 1.51E+00 0.00E+00 1.16E-01 8.19E-02 1.71E+00

VB CG09 1 Vent Shaft 2.05E-04 1.09E-03 6.35E-01 0.00E+00 3.73E-05 1.99E-05 6.37E-01 2 Waste Rock 1.19E-04 1.37E-04 1.83E+00 0.00E+00 8.27E-02 5.85E-02 1.97E+00

3 Stockpile 1.92E-05 2.29E-05 2.93E-01 0.00E+00 1.33E-02 9.38E-03 3.15E-01

4 TSF 1.40E-03 2.39E-03 5.35E+00 0.00E+00 8.94E-01 6.33E-01 6.88E+00

- Total 1.74E-03 3.64E-03 8.11E+00 0.00E+00 9.90E-01 7.00E-01 9.80E+00

Plant Meat Milk 5 Year No. Source Groundshine Cloudshine Inhalation Total Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion VB CG01 1 Vent Shaft 1.34E-03 8.23E-03 3.78E+00 0.00E+00 3.11E-04 1.41E-04 3.79E+00 2 Waste Rock 8.60E-04 2.06E-04 3.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.39E-01 9.74E-02 3.24E+00

3 Stockpile 8.84E-05 2.86E-05 3.09E-01 0.00E+00 1.42E-02 1.00E-02 3.33E-01

4 TSF 2.47E-02 1.20E-02 3.20E+01 0.00E+00 4.52E+00 3.17E+00 3.97E+01

- Total 2.70E-02 2.04E-02 3.91E+01 0.00E+00 4.67E+00 3.28E+00 4.71E+01

VB CG02 1 Vent Shaft 1.27E-03 9.57E-03 3.42E+00 0.00E+00 3.28E-04 1.39E-04 3.43E+00 2 Waste Rock 7.32E-04 3.17E-04 2.55E+00 0.00E+00 1.18E-01 8.26E-02 2.75E+00

60 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

3 Stockpile 8.26E-05 4.42E-05 2.88E-01 0.00E+00 1.33E-02 9.30E-03 3.10E-01

4 TSF 1.12E-02 1.77E-02 2.40E+01 0.00E+00 1.92E+00 1.35E+00 2.74E+01

- Total 1.32E-02 2.77E-02 3.03E+01 0.00E+00 2.05E+00 1.44E+00 3.38E+01

VB CG03 1 Vent Shaft 1.66E-03 6.37E-03 5.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.67E-04 1.49E-04 5.01E+00 2 Waste Rock 9.98E-04 2.61E-04 3.48E+00 0.00E+00 1.61E-01 1.13E-01 3.76E+00

3 Stockpile 1.58E-04 3.96E-05 5.52E-01 0.00E+00 2.55E-02 1.79E-02 5.95E-01

4 TSF 9.23E-03 9.21E-03 1.83E+01 0.00E+00 1.63E+00 1.14E+00 2.11E+01

- Total 1.20E-02 1.59E-02 2.73E+01 0.00E+00 1.81E+00 1.27E+00 3.04E+01

VB CG04 1 Vent Shaft 1.52E-03 3.58E-03 6.15E+00 0.00E+00 2.49E-04 1.65E-04 6.15E+00 2 Waste Rock 5.71E-04 1.52E-04 1.99E+00 0.00E+00 9.21E-02 6.47E-02 2.15E+00

3 Stockpile 1.19E-04 1.98E-05 4.16E-01 0.00E+00 1.92E-02 1.35E-02 4.49E-01

4 TSF 8.33E-03 8.67E-03 1.48E+01 0.00E+00 1.48E+00 1.04E+00 1.73E+01

- Total 1.05E-02 1.24E-02 2.33E+01 0.00E+00 1.59E+00 1.12E+00 2.60E+01

VB CG05 1 Vent Shaft 6.62E-04 5.36E-03 1.86E+00 0.00E+00 1.93E-04 8.06E-05 1.87E+00 2 Waste Rock 1.88E-04 1.06E-04 6.54E-01 0.00E+00 3.01E-02 2.11E-02 7.05E-01

3 Stockpile 3.57E-05 1.66E-05 1.24E-01 0.00E+00 5.73E-03 4.02E-03 1.34E-01

4 TSF 2.83E-03 6.21E-03 5.35E+00 0.00E+00 4.89E-01 3.44E-01 6.19E+00

- Total 3.71E-03 1.17E-02 7.99E+00 0.00E+00 5.25E-01 3.69E-01 8.90E+00

VB CG06 1 Vent Shaft 7.06E-04 7.52E-03 1.96E+00 0.00E+00 2.73E-04 1.04E-04 1.97E+00 2 Waste Rock 1.98E-04 1.20E-04 6.91E-01 0.00E+00 3.19E-02 2.24E-02 7.46E-01

3 Stockpile 3.84E-05 2.24E-05 1.34E-01 0.00E+00 6.17E-03 4.33E-03 1.44E-01

4 TSF 3.77E-03 7.15E-03 6.17E+00 0.00E+00 6.64E-01 4.66E-01 7.32E+00

- Total 4.71E-03 1.48E-02 8.96E+00 0.00E+00 7.02E-01 4.93E-01 1.02E+01

VB CG07 1 Vent Shaft 2.32E-04 4.70E-03 6.04E-01 0.00E+00 2.75E-04 8.32E-05 6.10E-01 2 Waste Rock 8.08E-05 8.00E-05 2.81E-01 0.00E+00 1.29E-02 9.07E-03 3.03E-01

3 Stockpile 1.14E-05 1.14E-05 3.95E-02 0.00E+00 1.82E-03 1.28E-03 4.26E-02

4 TSF 1.88E-03 5.03E-03 2.74E+00 0.00E+00 3.31E-01 2.32E-01 3.31E+00

- Total 2.20E-03 9.82E-03 3.66E+00 0.00E+00 3.46E-01 2.43E-01 4.26E+00

VB CG08 1 Vent Shaft 3.05E-04 5.17E-03 7.98E-01 0.00E+00 2.69E-04 8.44E-05 8.04E-01 2 Waste Rock 1.24E-04 1.10E-04 4.33E-01 0.00E+00 1.99E-02 1.40E-02 4.67E-01

61 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

3 Stockpile 1.64E-05 1.54E-05 5.70E-02 0.00E+00 2.62E-03 1.84E-03 6.15E-02

4 TSF 2.72E-03 6.87E-03 4.34E+00 0.00E+00 4.77E-01 3.35E-01 5.16E+00

- Total 3.17E-03 1.22E-02 5.63E+00 0.00E+00 5.00E-01 3.51E-01 6.50E+00

VB CG09 1 Vent Shaft 1.03E-03 5.44E-03 3.18E+00 0.00E+00 1.90E-04 1.01E-04 3.18E+00 2 Waste Rock 5.24E-04 1.37E-04 1.83E+00 0.00E+00 8.46E-02 5.94E-02 1.98E+00

3 Stockpile 8.41E-05 2.29E-05 2.94E-01 0.00E+00 1.36E-02 9.52E-03 3.17E-01

4 TSF 2.47E-02 1.20E-02 2.68E+01 0.00E+00 4.55E+00 3.20E+00 3.46E+01

- Total 2.64E-02 1.76E-02 3.21E+01 0.00E+00 4.65E+00 3.27E+00 4.01E+01

Plant Meat Milk 18 Years No. Source Groundshine Cloudshine Inhalation Total Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion VB CG01 1 Vent Shaft 5.35E-03 3.29E-02 1.51E+01 0.00E+00 1.30E-03 5.82E-04 1.52E+01 2 Waste Rock 2.74E-03 2.06E-04 3.01E+00 0.00E+00 1.47E-01 1.01E-01 3.26E+00

3 Stockpile 2.82E-04 2.86E-05 3.09E-01 0.00E+00 1.51E-02 1.04E-02 3.35E-01

4 TSF 2.92E-01 4.78E-02 1.28E+02 0.00E+00 1.89E+01 1.31E+01 1.61E+02

- Total 3.01E-01 8.09E-02 1.47E+02 0.00E+00 1.90E+01 1.32E+01 1.79E+02

VB CG02 1 Vent Shaft 5.10E-03 3.83E-02 1.37E+01 0.00E+00 1.37E-03 5.73E-04 1.37E+01 2 Waste Rock 2.33E-03 3.17E-04 2.56E+00 0.00E+00 1.24E-01 8.56E-02 2.77E+00

3 Stockpile 2.63E-04 4.42E-05 2.88E-01 0.00E+00 1.40E-02 9.64E-03 3.12E-01

4 TSF 1.27E-01 7.10E-02 9.63E+01 0.00E+00 8.04E+00 5.56E+00 1.10E+02

- Total 1.35E-01 1.10E-01 1.13E+02 0.00E+00 8.18E+00 5.65E+00 1.27E+02

VB CG03 1 Vent Shaft 6.63E-03 2.55E-02 2.00E+01 0.00E+00 1.12E-03 6.12E-04 2.01E+01 2 Waste Rock 3.18E-03 2.61E-04 3.49E+00 0.00E+00 1.70E-01 1.17E-01 3.78E+00

3 Stockpile 5.04E-04 3.96E-05 5.53E-01 0.00E+00 2.69E-02 1.85E-02 5.99E-01

4 TSF 1.07E-01 3.68E-02 7.32E+01 0.00E+00 6.80E+00 4.70E+00 8.48E+01

- Total 1.17E-01 6.26E-02 9.72E+01 0.00E+00 7.00E+00 4.84E+00 1.09E+02

VB CG04 1 Vent Shaft 6.08E-03 1.43E-02 2.46E+01 0.00E+00 1.04E-03 6.78E-04 2.46E+01 2 Waste Rock 1.82E-03 1.52E-04 2.00E+00 0.00E+00 9.74E-02 6.70E-02 2.17E+00

3 Stockpile 3.80E-04 1.98E-05 4.17E-01 0.00E+00 2.04E-02 1.40E-02 4.52E-01

4 TSF 9.65E-02 3.47E-02 5.91E+01 0.00E+00 6.17E+00 4.27E+00 6.97E+01

62 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

- Total 1.05E-01 4.92E-02 8.61E+01 0.00E+00 6.29E+00 4.35E+00 9.69E+01

VB CG05 1 Vent Shaft 2.65E-03 2.14E-02 7.46E+00 0.00E+00 8.06E-04 3.33E-04 7.48E+00 2 Waste Rock 5.97E-04 1.06E-04 6.55E-01 0.00E+00 3.19E-02 2.19E-02 7.09E-01

3 Stockpile 1.13E-04 1.66E-05 1.25E-01 0.00E+00 6.06E-03 4.17E-03 1.35E-01

4 TSF 3.22E-02 2.48E-02 2.14E+01 0.00E+00 2.04E+00 1.41E+00 2.49E+01

- Total 3.56E-02 4.64E-02 2.97E+01 0.00E+00 2.08E+00 1.44E+00 3.33E+01

VB CG06 1 Vent Shaft 2.83E-03 3.01E-02 7.84E+00 0.00E+00 1.14E-03 4.30E-04 7.87E+00 2 Waste Rock 6.31E-04 1.20E-04 6.93E-01 0.00E+00 3.37E-02 2.32E-02 7.50E-01

3 Stockpile 1.22E-04 2.24E-05 1.34E-01 0.00E+00 6.52E-03 4.48E-03 1.45E-01

4 TSF 4.35E-02 2.86E-02 2.47E+01 0.00E+00 2.77E+00 1.92E+00 2.95E+01

2 Total 4.71E-02 5.88E-02 3.34E+01 0.00E+00 2.82E+00 1.95E+00 3.83E+01

VB CG07 1 Vent Shaft 9.28E-04 1.88E-02 2.42E+00 0.00E+00 1.15E-03 3.46E-04 2.44E+00 2 Waste Rock 2.56E-04 8.00E-05 2.82E-01 0.00E+00 1.37E-02 9.40E-03 3.05E-01

3 Stockpile 3.60E-05 1.14E-05 3.96E-02 0.00E+00 1.92E-03 1.32E-03 4.29E-02

4 TSF 2.16E-02 2.01E-02 1.10E+01 0.00E+00 1.38E+00 9.55E-01 1.33E+01

- Total 2.29E-02 3.90E-02 1.37E+01 0.00E+00 1.40E+00 9.66E-01 1.61E+01

VB CG08 1 Vent Shaft 1.22E-03 2.07E-02 3.19E+00 0.00E+00 1.12E-03 3.51E-04 3.22E+00 2 Waste Rock 3.95E-04 1.10E-04 4.34E-01 0.00E+00 2.11E-02 1.45E-02 4.70E-01

3 Stockpile 5.20E-05 1.54E-05 5.72E-02 0.00E+00 2.77E-03 1.91E-03 6.19E-02

4 TSF 3.13E-02 2.75E-02 1.74E+01 0.00E+00 2.00E+00 1.38E+00 2.08E+01

- Total 3.30E-02 4.83E-02 2.11E+01 0.00E+00 2.02E+00 1.40E+00 2.46E+01

VB CG09 1 Vent Shaft 4.11E-03 2.18E-02 1.27E+01 0.00E+00 7.93E-04 4.16E-04 1.27E+01 2 Waste Rock 1.67E-03 1.37E-04 1.83E+00 0.00E+00 8.95E-02 6.15E-02 1.99E+00

3 Stockpile 2.68E-04 2.29E-05 2.94E-01 0.00E+00 1.43E-02 9.86E-03 3.19E-01

4 TSF 2.94E-01 4.79E-02 1.07E+02 0.00E+00 1.90E+01 1.32E+01 1.40E+02

- Total 3.00E-01 6.98E-02 1.22E+02 0.00E+00 1.91E+01 1.32E+01 1.55E+02

Plant Meat Milk 28 Years No. Source Groundshine Cloudshine Inhalation Total Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion VB CG01 1 Vent Shaft 5.35E-03 3.29E-02 1.51E+01 0.00E+00 1.07E-03 4.09E-04 1.52E+01

63 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

2 Waste Rock 3.95E-03 2.06E-04 3.01E+00 0.00E+00 1.52E-01 1.03E-01 3.27E+00

3 Stockpile 4.06E-04 2.86E-05 3.10E-01 0.00E+00 1.56E-02 1.06E-02 3.36E-01

4 TSF 3.53E-01 4.78E-02 7.25E+01 0.00E+00 1.03E+01 6.91E+00 9.02E+01

- Total 3.63E-01 8.09E-02 9.10E+01 0.00E+00 1.05E+01 7.02E+00 1.09E+02

VB CG02 1 Vent Shaft 5.10E-03 3.83E-02 1.37E+01 0.00E+00 1.17E-03 4.22E-04 1.37E+01 2 Waste Rock 3.35E-03 3.17E-04 2.56E+00 0.00E+00 1.29E-01 8.75E-02 2.78E+00

3 Stockpile 3.78E-04 4.42E-05 2.89E-01 0.00E+00 1.45E-02 9.85E-03 3.13E-01

4 TSF 1.53E-01 7.10E-02 5.49E+01 0.00E+00 4.39E+00 2.94E+00 6.25E+01

- Total 1.62E-01 1.10E-01 7.15E+01 0.00E+00 4.54E+00 3.04E+00 7.93E+01

VB CG03 1 Vent Shaft 6.63E-03 2.55E-02 2.00E+01 0.00E+00 7.94E-04 3.75E-04 2.00E+01 2 Waste Rock 4.58E-03 2.61E-04 3.50E+00 0.00E+00 1.76E-01 1.20E-01 3.80E+00

3 Stockpile 7.25E-04 3.96E-05 5.54E-01 0.00E+00 2.79E-02 1.89E-02 6.01E-01

4 TSF 1.28E-01 3.68E-02 4.14E+01 0.00E+00 3.72E+00 2.49E+00 4.77E+01

- Total 1.40E-01 6.26E-02 6.54E+01 0.00E+00 3.92E+00 2.63E+00 7.22E+01

VB CG04 1 Vent Shaft 6.08E-03 1.43E-02 2.46E+01 0.00E+00 6.18E-04 3.72E-04 2.46E+01 2 Waste Rock 2.62E-03 1.52E-04 2.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.01E-01 6.85E-02 2.17E+00

3 Stockpile 5.48E-04 1.98E-05 4.18E-01 0.00E+00 2.11E-02 1.43E-02 4.54E-01

4 TSF 1.16E-01 3.47E-02 3.35E+01 0.00E+00 3.37E+00 2.26E+00 3.93E+01

- Total 1.26E-01 4.92E-02 6.05E+01 0.00E+00 3.50E+00 2.34E+00 6.66E+01

VB CG05 1 Vent Shaft 2.65E-03 2.14E-02 7.46E+00 0.00E+00 6.96E-04 2.48E-04 7.48E+00 2 Waste Rock 8.58E-04 1.06E-04 6.56E-01 0.00E+00 3.30E-02 2.24E-02 7.12E-01

3 Stockpile 1.63E-04 1.66E-05 1.25E-01 0.00E+00 6.27E-03 4.26E-03 1.35E-01

4 TSF 3.88E-02 2.48E-02 1.23E+01 0.00E+00 1.12E+00 7.48E-01 1.42E+01

- Total 4.25E-02 4.64E-02 2.06E+01 0.00E+00 1.16E+00 7.75E-01 2.26E+01

VB CG06 1 Vent Shaft 2.83E-03 3.01E-02 7.84E+00 0.00E+00 1.03E-03 3.42E-04 7.87E+00 2 Waste Rock 9.08E-04 1.20E-04 6.94E-01 0.00E+00 3.49E-02 2.37E-02 7.53E-01

3 Stockpile 1.76E-04 2.24E-05 1.34E-01 0.00E+00 6.75E-03 4.59E-03 1.46E-01

4 TSF 5.24E-02 2.86E-02 1.42E+01 0.00E+00 1.52E+00 1.02E+00 1.68E+01

- Total 5.63E-02 5.88E-02 2.29E+01 0.00E+00 1.56E+00 1.04E+00 2.56E+01

VB CG07 1 Vent Shaft 9.29E-04 1.88E-02 2.42E+00 0.00E+00 1.13E-03 3.25E-04 2.44E+00

64 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

2 Waste Rock 3.69E-04 8.00E-05 2.82E-01 0.00E+00 1.42E-02 9.61E-03 3.06E-01

3 Stockpile 5.18E-05 1.14E-05 3.96E-02 0.00E+00 1.99E-03 1.35E-03 4.30E-02

4 TSF 2.61E-02 2.01E-02 6.37E+00 0.00E+00 7.56E-01 5.06E-01 7.67E+00

- Total 2.74E-02 3.90E-02 9.11E+00 0.00E+00 7.73E-01 5.17E-01 1.05E+01

VB CG08 1 Vent Shaft 1.22E-03 2.07E-02 3.19E+00 0.00E+00 1.09E-03 3.21E-04 3.21E+00 2 Waste Rock 5.68E-04 1.10E-04 4.34E-01 0.00E+00 2.18E-02 1.48E-02 4.72E-01

3 Stockpile 7.48E-05 1.54E-05 5.72E-02 0.00E+00 2.87E-03 1.95E-03 6.21E-02

4 TSF 3.77E-02 2.75E-02 1.01E+01 0.00E+00 1.09E+00 7.30E-01 1.19E+01

- Total 3.96E-02 4.83E-02 1.37E+01 0.00E+00 1.12E+00 7.47E-01 1.57E+01

VB CG09 1 Vent Shaft 4.11E-03 2.18E-02 1.27E+01 0.00E+00 5.85E-04 2.63E-04 1.27E+01 2 Waste Rock 2.41E-03 1.37E-04 1.84E+00 0.00E+00 9.26E-02 6.29E-02 2.00E+00

3 Stockpile 3.86E-04 2.29E-05 2.95E-01 0.00E+00 1.48E-02 1.01E-02 3.20E-01

4 TSF 3.55E-01 4.79E-02 6.09E+01 0.00E+00 1.04E+01 6.97E+00 7.87E+01

- Total 3.62E-01 6.98E-02 7.57E+01 0.00E+00 1.05E+01 7.04E+00 9.37E+01

65 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Table: Child annual effective dose for different periods in VGM life (mSv/y)

Plant Meat Milk 1 Year No. Source Groundshine Cloudshine Inhalation Total Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion VB CG01 1 Vent Shaft 2.67E-04 1.65E-03 7.56E-01 4.46E-05 1.39E-05 5.13E-06 7.58E-01 2 Waste Rock 1.96E-04 2.06E-04 1.56E+00 9.90E-02 2.85E-02 1.49E-02 1.71E+00

3 Stockpile 2.02E-05 2.86E-05 1.61E-01 1.02E-02 2.92E-03 1.53E-03 1.75E-01

4 TSF 1.42E-03 2.39E-03 3.82E+00 6.47E-01 1.86E-01 9.76E-02 4.76E+00

- Total 1.91E-03 4.27E-03 6.30E+00 7.56E-01 2.17E-01 1.14E-01 7.40E+00

VB CG02 1 Vent Shaft 2.55E-04 1.91E-03 6.84E-01 4.70E-05 1.48E-05 5.20E-06 6.86E-01 2 Waste Rock 1.69E-04 3.17E-04 1.33E+00 8.40E-02 2.42E-02 1.27E-02 1.45E+00

3 Stockpile 1.91E-05 4.42E-05 1.50E-01 9.46E-03 2.72E-03 1.43E-03 1.64E-01

4 TSF 7.33E-04 3.55E-03 2.89E+00 2.75E-01 7.92E-02 4.15E-02 3.29E+00

- Total 1.18E-03 5.82E-03 5.05E+00 3.69E-01 1.06E-01 5.56E-02 5.59E+00

VB CG03 1 Vent Shaft 3.31E-04 1.27E-03 1.00E+00 3.83E-05 1.16E-05 4.97E-06 1.00E+00 2 Waste Rock 2.27E-04 2.61E-04 1.81E+00 1.15E-01 3.30E-02 1.73E-02 1.98E+00

3 Stockpile 3.60E-05 3.96E-05 2.87E-01 1.82E-02 5.23E-03 2.74E-03 3.13E-01

4 TSF 5.78E-04 1.84E-03 2.18E+00 2.33E-01 6.70E-02 3.51E-02 2.52E+00

- Total 1.17E-03 3.42E-03 5.28E+00 3.66E-01 1.05E-01 5.52E-02 5.81E+00

VB CG04 1 Vent Shaft 3.03E-04 7.16E-04 1.23E+00 3.57E-05 1.04E-05 5.17E-06 1.23E+00 2 Waste Rock 1.30E-04 1.52E-04 1.04E+00 6.57E-02 1.89E-02 9.92E-03 1.13E+00

3 Stockpile 2.69E-05 1.98E-05 2.17E-01 1.37E-02 3.95E-03 2.07E-03 2.36E-01

4 TSF 5.14E-04 1.73E-03 1.76E+00 2.12E-01 6.08E-02 3.19E-02 2.07E+00

- Total 9.74E-04 2.62E-03 4.25E+00 2.91E-01 8.37E-02 4.39E-02 4.67E+00

VB CG05 1 Vent Shaft 1.32E-04 1.07E-03 3.73E-01 2.77E-05 8.73E-06 3.04E-06 3.74E-01 2 Waste Rock 4.34E-05 1.06E-04 3.41E-01 2.15E-02 6.18E-03 3.24E-03 3.72E-01

3 Stockpile 8.21E-06 1.66E-05 6.48E-02 4.09E-03 1.18E-03 6.17E-04 7.07E-02

4 TSF 1.84E-04 1.24E-03 6.46E-01 7.01E-02 2.01E-02 1.06E-02 7.48E-01

- Total 3.68E-04 2.44E-03 1.42E+00 9.57E-02 2.75E-02 1.44E-02 1.57E+00

VB CG06 1 Vent Shaft 1.41E-04 1.50E-03 3.92E-01 3.92E-05 1.25E-05 4.10E-06 3.94E-01

66 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

2 Waste Rock 4.60E-05 1.20E-04 3.61E-01 2.27E-02 6.54E-03 3.43E-03 3.94E-01

3 Stockpile 8.88E-06 2.24E-05 6.98E-02 4.40E-03 1.27E-03 6.64E-04 7.62E-02

4 TSF 2.37E-04 1.43E-03 7.46E-01 9.51E-02 2.73E-02 1.43E-02 8.84E-01

- Total 4.33E-04 3.08E-03 1.57E+00 1.22E-01 3.52E-02 1.84E-02 1.75E+00

VB CG07 1 Vent Shaft 4.63E-05 9.39E-04 1.21E-01 3.95E-05 1.28E-05 3.68E-06 1.22E-01 2 Waste Rock 1.89E-05 8.00E-05 1.47E-01 9.22E-03 2.65E-03 1.39E-03 1.60E-01

3 Stockpile 2.66E-06 1.14E-05 2.07E-02 1.30E-03 3.73E-04 1.95E-04 2.25E-02

4 TSF 1.18E-04 1.01E-03 3.34E-01 4.74E-02 1.36E-02 7.14E-03 4.03E-01

- Total 1.85E-04 2.04E-03 6.22E-01 5.79E-02 1.67E-02 8.73E-03 7.08E-01

VB CG08 1 Vent Shaft 6.09E-05 1.03E-03 1.60E-01 3.86E-05 1.25E-05 3.66E-06 1.61E-01 2 Waste Rock 2.91E-05 1.10E-04 2.26E-01 1.42E-02 4.09E-03 2.14E-03 2.47E-01

3 Stockpile 3.84E-06 1.54E-05 2.98E-02 1.87E-03 5.38E-04 2.82E-04 3.25E-02

4 TSF 1.73E-04 1.37E-03 5.28E-01 6.84E-02 1.97E-02 1.03E-02 6.28E-01

- Total 2.67E-04 2.53E-03 9.43E-01 8.45E-02 2.43E-02 1.27E-02 1.07E+00

VB CG09 1 Vent Shaft 2.05E-04 1.09E-03 6.35E-01 2.72E-05 8.28E-06 3.43E-06 6.36E-01 2 Waste Rock 1.19E-04 1.37E-04 9.53E-01 6.04E-02 1.74E-02 9.10E-03 1.04E+00

3 Stockpile 1.92E-05 2.29E-05 1.53E-01 9.68E-03 2.78E-03 1.46E-03 1.67E-01

4 TSF 1.40E-03 2.39E-03 3.21E+00 6.52E-01 1.88E-01 9.84E-02 4.15E+00

- Total 1.74E-03 3.64E-03 4.95E+00 7.23E-01 2.08E-01 1.09E-01 6.00E+00

Plant Meat Milk 5 Years No. Source Groundshine Cloudshine Inhalation Total Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion VB CG01 1 Vent Shaft 1.34E-03 8.23E-03 3.78E+00 2.27E-04 7.09E-05 2.61E-05 3.79E+00 2 Waste Rock 8.60E-04 2.06E-04 1.57E+00 1.01E-01 2.92E-02 1.52E-02 1.72E+00

3 Stockpile 8.84E-05 2.86E-05 1.61E-01 1.04E-02 3.00E-03 1.56E-03 1.76E-01

4 TSF 2.47E-02 1.20E-02 1.92E+01 3.29E+00 9.49E-01 4.95E-01 2.39E+01

- Total 2.70E-02 2.04E-02 2.47E+01 3.40E+00 9.81E-01 5.12E-01 2.96E+01

VB CG02 1 Vent Shaft 1.27E-03 9.57E-03 3.42E+00 2.39E-04 7.54E-05 2.65E-05 3.43E+00 2 Waste Rock 7.32E-04 3.17E-04 1.33E+00 8.58E-02 2.48E-02 1.29E-02 1.46E+00

3 Stockpile 8.26E-05 4.42E-05 1.51E-01 9.66E-03 2.79E-03 1.45E-03 1.65E-01

67 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

4 TSF 1.12E-02 1.77E-02 1.45E+01 1.40E+00 4.04E-01 2.11E-01 1.65E+01

- Total 1.32E-02 2.77E-02 1.94E+01 1.50E+00 4.32E-01 2.25E-01 2.16E+01

VB CG03 1 Vent Shaft 1.66E-03 6.37E-03 5.00E+00 1.95E-04 5.90E-05 2.52E-05 5.01E+00 2 Waste Rock 9.98E-04 2.61E-04 1.82E+00 1.17E-01 3.38E-02 1.76E-02 1.99E+00

3 Stockpile 1.58E-04 3.96E-05 2.88E-01 1.86E-02 5.36E-03 2.79E-03 3.15E-01

4 TSF 9.23E-03 9.21E-03 1.09E+01 1.19E+00 3.42E-01 1.78E-01 1.26E+01

- Total 1.20E-02 1.59E-02 1.80E+01 1.32E+00 3.81E-01 1.99E-01 2.00E+01

VB CG04 1 Vent Shaft 1.52E-03 3.58E-03 6.15E+00 1.82E-04 5.32E-05 2.62E-05 6.15E+00 2 Waste Rock 5.71E-04 1.52E-04 1.04E+00 6.72E-02 1.94E-02 1.01E-02 1.14E+00

3 Stockpile 1.19E-04 1.98E-05 2.17E-01 1.40E-02 4.05E-03 2.11E-03 2.38E-01

4 TSF 8.33E-03 8.67E-03 8.84E+00 1.08E+00 3.10E-01 1.62E-01 1.04E+01

- Total 1.05E-02 1.24E-02 1.62E+01 1.16E+00 3.34E-01 1.74E-01 1.79E+01

VB CG05 1 Vent Shaft 6.62E-04 5.36E-03 1.86E+00 1.41E-04 4.45E-05 1.55E-05 1.87E+00 2 Waste Rock 1.88E-04 1.06E-04 3.42E-01 2.20E-02 6.34E-03 3.30E-03 3.74E-01

3 Stockpile 3.57E-05 1.66E-05 6.50E-02 4.18E-03 1.21E-03 6.28E-04 7.10E-02

4 TSF 2.83E-03 6.21E-03 3.24E+00 3.57E-01 1.03E-01 5.36E-02 3.76E+00

- Total 3.71E-03 1.17E-02 5.51E+00 3.83E-01 1.10E-01 5.76E-02 6.07E+00

VB CG06 1 Vent Shaft 7.06E-04 7.52E-03 1.96E+00 1.99E-04 6.37E-05 2.09E-05 1.97E+00 2 Waste Rock 1.98E-04 1.20E-04 3.62E-01 2.32E-02 6.70E-03 3.49E-03 3.95E-01

3 Stockpile 3.84E-05 2.24E-05 7.00E-02 4.50E-03 1.30E-03 6.76E-04 7.65E-02

4 TSF 3.77E-03 7.15E-03 3.74E+00 4.84E-01 1.39E-01 7.28E-02 4.44E+00

- Total 4.71E-03 1.48E-02 6.13E+00 5.12E-01 1.48E-01 7.70E-02 6.88E+00

VB CG07 1 Vent Shaft 2.32E-04 4.70E-03 6.04E-01 2.00E-04 6.55E-05 1.88E-05 6.09E-01 2 Waste Rock 8.08E-05 8.00E-05 1.47E-01 9.42E-03 2.72E-03 1.42E-03 1.61E-01

3 Stockpile 1.14E-05 1.14E-05 2.07E-02 1.32E-03 3.82E-04 1.99E-04 2.26E-02

4 TSF 1.88E-03 5.03E-03 1.67E+00 2.41E-01 6.95E-02 3.62E-02 2.03E+00

- Total 2.20E-03 9.82E-03 2.45E+00 2.52E-01 7.27E-02 3.79E-02 2.82E+00

VB CG08 1 Vent Shaft 3.05E-04 5.17E-03 7.98E-01 1.96E-04 6.38E-05 1.87E-05 8.03E-01 2 Waste Rock 1.24E-04 1.10E-04 2.27E-01 1.45E-02 4.19E-03 2.18E-03 2.48E-01

3 Stockpile 1.64E-05 1.54E-05 2.99E-02 1.91E-03 5.52E-04 2.87E-04 3.27E-02

68 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

4 TSF 2.72E-03 6.87E-03 2.64E+00 3.48E-01 1.00E-01 5.23E-02 3.15E+00

- Total 3.17E-03 1.22E-02 3.70E+00 3.65E-01 1.05E-01 5.48E-02 4.24E+00

VB CG09 1 Vent Shaft 1.03E-03 5.44E-03 3.18E+00 1.39E-04 4.23E-05 1.75E-05 3.18E+00 2 Waste Rock 5.24E-04 1.37E-04 9.56E-01 6.17E-02 1.78E-02 9.27E-03 1.05E+00

3 Stockpile 8.41E-05 2.29E-05 1.53E-01 9.89E-03 2.85E-03 1.49E-03 1.68E-01

4 TSF 2.47E-02 1.20E-02 1.61E+01 3.32E+00 9.57E-01 5.00E-01 2.09E+01

- Total 2.64E-02 1.76E-02 2.04E+01 3.39E+00 9.78E-01 5.10E-01 2.53E+01

Plant Meat Milk 18 Years No. Source Groundshine Cloudshine Inhalation Total Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion VB CG01 1 Vent Shaft 5.35E-03 3.29E-02 1.51E+01 9.41E-04 2.96E-04 1.08E-04 1.52E+01 2 Waste Rock 2.74E-03 2.06E-04 1.57E+00 1.07E-01 3.10E-02 1.59E-02 1.73E+00

3 Stockpile 2.82E-04 2.86E-05 1.62E-01 1.10E-02 3.18E-03 1.63E-03 1.78E-01

4 TSF 2.92E-01 4.78E-02 7.67E+01 1.37E+01 3.98E+00 2.05E+00 9.68E+01

- Total 3.01E-01 8.09E-02 9.36E+01 1.39E+01 4.02E+00 2.07E+00 1.14E+02

VB CG02 1 Vent Shaft 5.10E-03 3.83E-02 1.37E+01 9.90E-04 3.15E-04 1.10E-04 1.37E+01 2 Waste Rock 2.33E-03 3.17E-04 1.34E+00 9.05E-02 2.63E-02 1.35E-02 1.47E+00

3 Stockpile 2.63E-04 4.42E-05 1.51E-01 1.02E-02 2.96E-03 1.52E-03 1.66E-01

4 TSF 1.27E-01 7.10E-02 5.79E+01 5.85E+00 1.70E+00 8.74E-01 6.65E+01

- Total 1.35E-01 1.10E-01 7.31E+01 5.95E+00 1.73E+00 8.89E-01 8.19E+01

VB CG03 1 Vent Shaft 6.63E-03 2.55E-02 2.00E+01 8.10E-04 2.47E-04 1.05E-04 2.00E+01 2 Waste Rock 3.18E-03 2.61E-04 1.82E+00 1.24E-01 3.60E-02 1.84E-02 2.00E+00

3 Stockpile 5.04E-04 3.96E-05 2.89E-01 1.96E-02 5.70E-03 2.92E-03 3.17E-01

4 TSF 1.07E-01 3.68E-02 4.37E+01 4.95E+00 1.44E+00 7.40E-01 5.10E+01

- Total 1.17E-01 6.26E-02 6.58E+01 5.09E+00 1.48E+00 7.61E-01 7.33E+01

VB CG04 1 Vent Shaft 6.08E-03 1.43E-02 2.46E+01 7.57E-04 2.23E-04 1.09E-04 2.46E+01 2 Waste Rock 1.82E-03 1.52E-04 1.04E+00 7.08E-02 2.06E-02 1.06E-02 1.15E+00

3 Stockpile 3.80E-04 1.98E-05 2.18E-01 1.48E-02 4.30E-03 2.21E-03 2.39E-01

4 TSF 9.65E-02 3.47E-02 3.54E+01 4.49E+00 1.30E+00 6.71E-01 4.20E+01

- Total 1.05E-01 4.92E-02 6.13E+01 4.58E+00 1.33E+00 6.84E-01 6.80E+01

69 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

VB CG05 1 Vent Shaft 2.65E-03 2.14E-02 7.46E+00 5.84E-04 1.86E-04 6.44E-05 7.48E+00 2 Waste Rock 5.97E-04 1.06E-04 3.43E-01 2.32E-02 6.74E-03 3.45E-03 3.77E-01

3 Stockpile 1.13E-04 1.66E-05 6.51E-02 4.41E-03 1.28E-03 6.57E-04 7.16E-02

4 TSF 3.22E-02 2.48E-02 1.30E+01 1.49E+00 4.32E-01 2.22E-01 1.52E+01

- Total 3.56E-02 4.64E-02 2.08E+01 1.52E+00 4.40E-01 2.26E-01 2.31E+01

VB CG06 1 Vent Shaft 2.83E-03 3.01E-02 7.84E+00 8.25E-04 2.66E-04 8.68E-05 7.87E+00 2 Waste Rock 6.31E-04 1.20E-04 3.62E-01 2.45E-02 7.12E-03 3.65E-03 3.98E-01

3 Stockpile 1.22E-04 2.24E-05 7.01E-02 4.74E-03 1.38E-03 7.07E-04 7.71E-02

4 TSF 4.35E-02 2.86E-02 1.50E+01 2.02E+00 5.86E-01 3.02E-01 1.79E+01

2 Total 4.71E-02 5.88E-02 2.32E+01 2.05E+00 5.94E-01 3.06E-01 2.63E+01

VB CG07 1 Vent Shaft 9.28E-04 1.88E-02 2.42E+00 8.27E-04 2.73E-04 7.82E-05 2.44E+00 2 Waste Rock 2.56E-04 8.00E-05 1.48E-01 9.94E-03 2.89E-03 1.48E-03 1.62E-01

3 Stockpile 3.60E-05 1.14E-05 2.08E-02 1.40E-03 4.06E-04 2.08E-04 2.28E-02

4 TSF 2.16E-02 2.01E-02 6.70E+00 1.01E+00 2.92E-01 1.50E-01 8.19E+00

- Total 2.29E-02 3.90E-02 9.28E+00 1.02E+00 2.95E-01 1.52E-01 1.08E+01

VB CG08 1 Vent Shaft 1.22E-03 2.07E-02 3.19E+00 8.09E-04 2.66E-04 7.78E-05 3.21E+00 2 Waste Rock 3.95E-04 1.10E-04 2.27E-01 1.53E-02 4.45E-03 2.28E-03 2.50E-01

3 Stockpile 5.20E-05 1.54E-05 3.00E-02 2.02E-03 5.87E-04 3.01E-04 3.29E-02

4 TSF 3.13E-02 2.75E-02 1.06E+01 1.45E+00 4.21E-01 2.17E-01 1.27E+01

- Total 3.30E-02 4.83E-02 1.40E+01 1.47E+00 4.27E-01 2.20E-01 1.62E+01

VB CG09 1 Vent Shaft 4.11E-03 2.18E-02 1.27E+01 5.75E-04 1.77E-04 7.25E-05 1.27E+01 2 Waste Rock 1.67E-03 1.37E-04 9.58E-01 6.50E-02 1.89E-02 9.70E-03 1.05E+00

3 Stockpile 2.68E-04 2.29E-05 1.54E-01 1.04E-02 3.03E-03 1.55E-03 1.69E-01

4 TSF 2.94E-01 4.79E-02 6.44E+01 1.39E+01 4.02E+00 2.07E+00 8.47E+01

- Total 3.00E-01 6.98E-02 7.82E+01 1.39E+01 4.04E+00 2.08E+00 9.87E+01

Plant Meat Milk 28 Years No. Source Groundshine Cloudshine Inhalation Total Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion VB CG01 1 Vent Shaft 5.35E-03 3.29E-02 1.51E+01 7.69E-04 2.49E-04 8.21E-05 1.52E+01 2 Waste Rock 3.95E-03 2.06E-04 1.57E+00 1.10E-01 3.22E-02 1.64E-02 1.74E+00

70 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

3 Stockpile 4.06E-04 2.86E-05 1.62E-01 1.13E-02 3.31E-03 1.68E-03 1.78E-01

4 TSF 3.53E-01 4.78E-02 4.67E+01 7.47E+00 2.20E+00 1.10E+00 5.78E+01

- Total 3.63E-01 8.09E-02 6.35E+01 7.60E+00 2.23E+00 1.12E+00 7.49E+01

VB CG02 1 Vent Shaft 5.10E-03 3.83E-02 1.37E+01 8.43E-04 2.75E-04 8.73E-05 1.37E+01 2 Waste Rock 3.35E-03 3.17E-04 1.34E+00 9.35E-02 2.73E-02 1.39E-02 1.48E+00

3 Stockpile 3.78E-04 4.42E-05 1.51E-01 1.05E-02 3.08E-03 1.56E-03 1.67E-01

4 TSF 1.53E-01 7.10E-02 3.57E+01 3.18E+00 9.35E-01 4.70E-01 4.05E+01

- Total 1.62E-01 1.10E-01 5.08E+01 3.29E+00 9.65E-01 4.85E-01 5.58E+01

VB CG03 1 Vent Shaft 6.63E-03 2.55E-02 2.00E+01 5.72E-04 1.80E-04 6.85E-05 2.00E+01 2 Waste Rock 4.58E-03 2.61E-04 1.83E+00 1.28E-01 3.74E-02 1.90E-02 2.01E+00

3 Stockpile 7.25E-04 3.96E-05 2.89E-01 2.02E-02 5.92E-03 3.00E-03 3.19E-01

4 TSF 1.28E-01 3.68E-02 2.66E+01 2.69E+00 7.91E-01 3.97E-01 3.06E+01

- Total 1.40E-01 6.26E-02 4.87E+01 2.84E+00 8.34E-01 4.20E-01 5.30E+01

VB CG04 1 Vent Shaft 6.08E-03 1.43E-02 2.46E+01 4.47E-04 1.35E-04 6.17E-05 2.46E+01 2 Waste Rock 2.62E-03 1.52E-04 1.05E+00 7.32E-02 2.14E-02 1.09E-02 1.15E+00

3 Stockpile 5.48E-04 1.98E-05 2.18E-01 1.53E-02 4.47E-03 2.27E-03 2.41E-01

4 TSF 1.16E-01 3.47E-02 2.17E+01 2.44E+00 7.18E-01 3.61E-01 2.53E+01

- Total 1.26E-01 4.92E-02 4.75E+01 2.53E+00 7.44E-01 3.74E-01 5.13E+01

VB CG05 1 Vent Shaft 2.65E-03 2.14E-02 7.45E+00 5.01E-04 1.63E-04 5.16E-05 7.48E+00 2 Waste Rock 8.58E-04 1.06E-04 3.43E-01 2.39E-02 6.99E-03 3.55E-03 3.79E-01

3 Stockpile 1.63E-04 1.66E-05 6.52E-02 4.55E-03 1.33E-03 6.76E-04 7.19E-02

4 TSF 3.88E-02 2.48E-02 8.07E+00 8.10E-01 2.38E-01 1.19E-01 9.30E+00

- Total 4.25E-02 4.64E-02 1.59E+01 8.39E-01 2.46E-01 1.24E-01 1.72E+01

VB CG06 1 Vent Shaft 2.83E-03 3.01E-02 7.84E+00 7.41E-04 2.44E-04 7.37E-05 7.87E+00 2 Waste Rock 9.08E-04 1.20E-04 3.63E-01 2.53E-02 7.40E-03 3.76E-03 4.00E-01

3 Stockpile 1.76E-04 2.24E-05 7.02E-02 4.90E-03 1.43E-03 7.27E-04 7.75E-02

4 TSF 5.24E-02 2.86E-02 9.29E+00 1.10E+00 3.23E-01 1.62E-01 1.10E+01

- Total 5.63E-02 5.88E-02 1.76E+01 1.13E+00 3.32E-01 1.67E-01 1.93E+01

VB CG07 1 Vent Shaft 9.29E-04 1.88E-02 2.42E+00 8.14E-04 2.71E-04 7.57E-05 2.44E+00 2 Waste Rock 3.69E-04 8.00E-05 1.48E-01 1.03E-02 3.00E-03 1.52E-03 1.63E-01

71 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

3 Stockpile 5.18E-05 1.14E-05 2.08E-02 1.44E-03 4.22E-04 2.14E-04 2.29E-02

4 TSF 2.61E-02 2.01E-02 4.23E+00 5.48E-01 1.61E-01 8.08E-02 5.06E+00

- Total 2.74E-02 3.90E-02 6.81E+00 5.60E-01 1.65E-01 8.26E-02 7.68E+00

VB CG08 1 Vent Shaft 1.22E-03 2.07E-02 3.19E+00 7.86E-04 2.62E-04 7.38E-05 3.21E+00 2 Waste Rock 5.68E-04 1.10E-04 2.28E-01 1.58E-02 4.62E-03 2.35E-03 2.51E-01

3 Stockpile 7.48E-05 1.54E-05 3.00E-02 2.08E-03 6.09E-04 3.09E-04 3.31E-02

4 TSF 3.77E-02 2.75E-02 6.65E+00 7.90E-01 2.32E-01 1.17E-01 7.86E+00

- Total 3.96E-02 4.83E-02 1.01E+01 8.09E-01 2.38E-01 1.19E-01 1.14E+01

VB CG09 1 Vent Shaft 4.11E-03 2.18E-02 1.27E+01 4.22E-04 1.34E-04 4.90E-05 1.27E+01 2 Waste Rock 2.41E-03 1.37E-04 9.59E-01 6.72E-02 1.96E-02 9.97E-03 1.06E+00

3 Stockpile 3.86E-04 2.29E-05 1.54E-01 1.08E-02 3.15E-03 1.60E-03 1.70E-01

4 TSF 3.55E-01 4.79E-02 3.93E+01 7.54E+00 2.21E+00 1.11E+00 5.06E+01

- Total 3.62E-01 6.98E-02 5.31E+01 7.62E+00 2.24E+00 1.12E+00 6.45E+01

72 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Table: Adult annual effective dose for different periods in VGM life (mSv/y)

Plant Meat Milk 1 Year No. Source Groundshine Cloudshine Inhalation Total Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion VB CG01 1 Vent Shaft 2.67E-04 1.65E-03 7.56E-01 3.69E-05 9.22E-06 3.42E-06 7.58E-01 Waste 2 1.96E-04 2.06E-04 1.01E+00 8.17E-02 1.90E-02 1.00E-02 1.12E+00 Rock 3 Stockpile 2.02E-05 2.86E-05 1.04E-01 8.39E-03 1.95E-03 1.03E-03 1.16E-01 4 TSF 1.42E-03 2.39E-03 2.94E+00 5.34E-01 1.24E-01 6.54E-02 3.67E+00 - Total 1.91E-03 4.27E-03 4.81E+00 6.24E-01 1.45E-01 7.64E-02 5.66E+00 VB CG02 1 Vent Shaft 2.55E-04 1.91E-03 6.84E-01 3.88E-05 9.79E-06 3.46E-06 6.86E-01 Waste 2 1.69E-04 3.17E-04 8.64E-01 6.93E-02 1.61E-02 8.49E-03 9.58E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 1.91E-05 4.42E-05 9.75E-02 7.81E-03 1.82E-03 9.56E-04 1.08E-01 4 TSF 7.33E-04 3.55E-03 2.22E+00 2.27E-01 5.29E-02 2.78E-02 2.53E+00 - Total 1.18E-03 5.82E-03 3.87E+00 3.04E-01 7.09E-02 3.73E-02 4.29E+00 VB CG03 1 Vent Shaft 3.31E-04 1.27E-03 1.00E+00 3.17E-05 7.70E-06 3.32E-06 1.00E+00 Waste 2 2.27E-04 2.61E-04 1.17E+00 9.48E-02 2.21E-02 1.16E-02 1.30E+00 Rock 3 Stockpile 3.60E-05 3.96E-05 1.86E-01 1.50E-02 3.49E-03 1.84E-03 2.06E-01 4 TSF 5.78E-04 1.84E-03 1.67E+00 1.92E-01 4.48E-02 2.36E-02 1.93E+00 - Total 1.17E-03 3.42E-03 4.03E+00 3.02E-01 7.04E-02 3.70E-02 4.45E+00 VB CG04 1 Vent Shaft 3.03E-04 7.16E-04 1.23E+00 2.95E-05 6.95E-06 3.46E-06 1.23E+00 Waste 2 1.30E-04 1.52E-04 6.73E-01 5.43E-02 1.26E-02 6.65E-03 7.46E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 2.69E-05 1.98E-05 1.40E-01 1.13E-02 2.64E-03 1.39E-03 1.56E-01 4 TSF 5.14E-04 1.73E-03 1.36E+00 1.75E-01 4.07E-02 2.14E-02 1.60E+00 - Total 9.74E-04 2.62E-03 3.40E+00 2.40E-01 5.59E-02 2.94E-02 3.73E+00 VB CG05 1 Vent Shaft 1.32E-04 1.07E-03 3.73E-01 2.29E-05 5.78E-06 2.02E-06 3.74E-01 Waste 2 4.34E-05 1.06E-04 2.21E-01 1.77E-02 4.13E-03 2.17E-03 2.46E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 8.21E-06 1.66E-05 4.20E-02 3.38E-03 7.86E-04 4.13E-04 4.66E-02 4 TSF 1.84E-04 1.24E-03 5.00E-01 5.78E-02 1.35E-02 7.08E-03 5.80E-01

73 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

- Total 3.68E-04 2.44E-03 1.14E+00 7.90E-02 1.84E-02 9.67E-03 1.25E+00 VB CG06 1 Vent Shaft 1.41E-04 1.50E-03 3.92E-01 3.24E-05 8.26E-06 2.72E-06 3.93E-01 Waste 2 4.60E-05 1.20E-04 2.34E-01 1.88E-02 4.37E-03 2.30E-03 2.60E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 8.88E-06 2.24E-05 4.53E-02 3.63E-03 8.46E-04 4.45E-04 5.02E-02 4 TSF 2.37E-04 1.43E-03 5.77E-01 7.85E-02 1.83E-02 9.61E-03 6.85E-01 - Total 4.33E-04 3.08E-03 1.25E+00 1.01E-01 2.35E-02 1.24E-02 1.39E+00 VB CG07 1 Vent Shaft 4.63E-05 9.39E-04 1.21E-01 3.26E-05 8.48E-06 2.44E-06 1.22E-01 Waste 2 1.89E-05 8.00E-05 9.56E-02 7.61E-03 1.77E-03 9.32E-04 1.06E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 2.66E-06 1.14E-05 1.34E-02 1.07E-03 2.49E-04 1.31E-04 1.49E-02 4 TSF 1.18E-04 1.01E-03 2.60E-01 3.91E-02 9.10E-03 4.79E-03 3.14E-01 - Total 1.85E-04 2.04E-03 4.90E-01 4.78E-02 1.11E-02 5.85E-03 5.57E-01 VB CG08 1 Vent Shaft 6.09E-05 1.03E-03 1.60E-01 3.18E-05 8.26E-06 2.42E-06 1.61E-01 Waste 2 2.91E-05 1.10E-04 1.47E-01 1.17E-02 2.73E-03 1.44E-03 1.63E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 3.84E-06 1.54E-05 1.94E-02 1.54E-03 3.60E-04 1.89E-04 2.15E-02 4 TSF 1.73E-04 1.37E-03 4.10E-01 5.64E-02 1.31E-02 6.91E-03 4.88E-01 - Total 2.67E-04 2.53E-03 7.36E-01 6.97E-02 1.62E-02 8.54E-03 8.34E-01 VB CG09 1 Vent Shaft 2.05E-04 1.09E-03 6.35E-01 2.25E-05 5.51E-06 2.29E-06 6.36E-01 Waste 2 1.19E-04 1.37E-04 6.17E-01 4.98E-02 1.16E-02 6.10E-03 6.85E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 1.92E-05 2.29E-05 9.90E-02 7.99E-03 1.86E-03 9.78E-04 1.10E-01 4 TSF 1.40E-03 2.39E-03 2.47E+00 5.39E-01 1.25E-01 6.60E-02 3.21E+00 - Total 1.74E-03 3.64E-03 3.83E+00 5.96E-01 1.39E-01 7.30E-02 4.64E+00

Plant Meat Milk 5 Years No. Source Groundshine Cloudshine Inhalation Total Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion VB CG01 1 Vent Shaft 1.34E-03 8.23E-03 3.78E+00 1.87E-04 4.70E-05 1.74E-05 3.79E+00 Waste 2 8.60E-04 2.06E-04 1.02E+00 8.35E-02 1.95E-02 1.02E-02 1.13E+00 Rock 3 Stockpile 8.84E-05 2.86E-05 1.04E-01 8.57E-03 2.00E-03 1.05E-03 1.16E-01

74 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

4 TSF 2.47E-02 1.20E-02 1.47E+01 2.72E+00 6.34E-01 3.32E-01 1.84E+01 - Total 2.70E-02 2.04E-02 1.96E+01 2.81E+00 6.56E-01 3.44E-01 2.35E+01 VB CG02 1 Vent Shaft 1.27E-03 9.57E-03 3.42E+00 1.97E-04 5.00E-05 1.76E-05 3.43E+00 Waste 2 7.32E-04 3.17E-04 8.66E-01 7.08E-02 1.65E-02 8.66E-03 9.63E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 8.26E-05 4.42E-05 9.78E-02 7.98E-03 1.86E-03 9.75E-04 1.09E-01 4 TSF 1.12E-02 1.77E-02 1.11E+01 1.16E+00 2.70E-01 1.41E-01 1.27E+01 - Total 1.32E-02 2.77E-02 1.55E+01 1.24E+00 2.88E-01 1.51E-01 1.72E+01 VB CG03 1 Vent Shaft 1.66E-03 6.37E-03 5.00E+00 1.61E-04 3.93E-05 1.69E-05 5.01E+00 Waste 2 9.98E-04 2.61E-04 1.18E+00 9.68E-02 2.26E-02 1.18E-02 1.31E+00 Rock 3 Stockpile 1.58E-04 3.96E-05 1.87E-01 1.53E-02 3.58E-03 1.87E-03 2.08E-01 4 TSF 9.23E-03 9.21E-03 8.37E+00 9.79E-01 2.29E-01 1.20E-01 9.72E+00 - Total 1.20E-02 1.59E-02 1.47E+01 1.09E+00 2.55E-01 1.33E-01 1.62E+01 VB CG04 1 Vent Shaft 1.52E-03 3.58E-03 6.15E+00 1.50E-04 3.55E-05 1.76E-05 6.15E+00 Waste 2 5.71E-04 1.52E-04 6.74E-01 5.54E-02 1.29E-02 6.78E-03 7.50E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 1.19E-04 1.98E-05 1.41E-01 1.16E-02 2.70E-03 1.42E-03 1.56E-01 4 TSF 8.33E-03 8.67E-03 6.80E+00 8.89E-01 2.07E-01 1.09E-01 8.02E+00 - Total 1.05E-02 1.24E-02 1.38E+01 9.56E-01 2.23E-01 1.17E-01 1.51E+01 VB CG05 1 Vent Shaft 6.62E-04 5.36E-03 1.86E+00 1.16E-04 2.95E-05 1.03E-05 1.87E+00 Waste 2 1.88E-04 1.06E-04 2.22E-01 1.81E-02 4.23E-03 2.22E-03 2.47E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 3.57E-05 1.66E-05 4.21E-02 3.45E-03 8.05E-04 4.22E-04 4.69E-02 4 TSF 2.83E-03 6.21E-03 2.50E+00 2.94E-01 6.87E-02 3.60E-02 2.91E+00 - Total 3.71E-03 1.17E-02 4.63E+00 3.16E-01 7.38E-02 3.86E-02 5.08E+00 VB CG06 1 Vent Shaft 7.06E-04 7.52E-03 1.96E+00 1.65E-04 4.22E-05 1.39E-05 1.97E+00 Waste 2 1.98E-04 1.20E-04 2.35E-01 1.92E-02 4.48E-03 2.34E-03 2.61E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 3.84E-05 2.24E-05 4.54E-02 3.71E-03 8.67E-04 4.54E-04 5.05E-02 4 TSF 3.77E-03 7.15E-03 2.89E+00 3.99E-01 9.32E-02 4.88E-02 3.44E+00 - Total 4.71E-03 1.48E-02 5.13E+00 4.22E-01 9.86E-02 5.16E-02 5.72E+00

75 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

VB CG07 1 Vent Shaft 2.32E-04 4.70E-03 6.04E-01 1.65E-04 4.33E-05 1.24E-05 6.09E-01 Waste 2 8.08E-05 8.00E-05 9.58E-02 7.78E-03 1.82E-03 9.51E-04 1.07E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 1.14E-05 1.14E-05 1.35E-02 1.09E-03 2.55E-04 1.34E-04 1.50E-02 4 TSF 1.88E-03 5.03E-03 1.30E+00 1.99E-01 4.64E-02 2.43E-02 1.58E+00 - Total 2.20E-03 9.82E-03 2.02E+00 2.08E-01 4.86E-02 2.54E-02 2.31E+00 VB CG08 1 Vent Shaft 3.05E-04 5.17E-03 7.98E-01 1.62E-04 4.22E-05 1.24E-05 8.03E-01 Waste 2 1.24E-04 1.10E-04 1.48E-01 1.20E-02 2.80E-03 1.46E-03 1.64E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 1.64E-05 1.54E-05 1.95E-02 1.58E-03 3.69E-04 1.93E-04 2.16E-02 4 TSF 2.72E-03 6.87E-03 2.06E+00 2.87E-01 6.70E-02 3.51E-02 2.45E+00 - Total 3.17E-03 1.22E-02 3.02E+00 3.01E-01 7.03E-02 3.68E-02 3.44E+00 VB CG09 1 Vent Shaft 1.03E-03 5.44E-03 3.18E+00 1.14E-04 2.81E-05 1.17E-05 3.18E+00 Waste 2 5.24E-04 1.37E-04 6.19E-01 5.09E-02 1.19E-02 6.22E-03 6.89E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 8.41E-05 2.29E-05 9.93E-02 8.16E-03 1.91E-03 9.98E-04 1.10E-01 4 TSF 2.47E-02 1.20E-02 1.24E+01 2.74E+00 6.40E-01 3.35E-01 1.62E+01 - Total 2.64E-02 1.76E-02 1.63E+01 2.80E+00 6.54E-01 3.42E-01 2.01E+01

18 Years No. Source VB CG01 1 Vent Shaft 5.35E-03 3.29E-02 1.51E+01 7.76E-04 1.97E-04 7.24E-05 1.52E+01 Waste 2 2.74E-03 2.06E-04 1.02E+00 8.81E-02 2.07E-02 1.07E-02 1.14E+00 Rock 3 Stockpile 2.82E-04 2.86E-05 1.05E-01 9.04E-03 2.13E-03 1.10E-03 1.17E-01 4 TSF 2.92E-01 4.78E-02 5.90E+01 1.13E+01 2.66E+00 1.38E+00 7.47E+01 - Total 3.01E-01 8.09E-02 7.52E+01 1.14E+01 2.69E+00 1.39E+00 9.11E+01 VB CG02 1 Vent Shaft 5.10E-03 3.83E-02 1.37E+01 8.17E-04 2.09E-04 7.33E-05 1.37E+01 Waste 2 2.33E-03 3.17E-04 8.68E-01 7.47E-02 1.76E-02 9.09E-03 9.72E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 2.63E-04 4.42E-05 9.80E-02 8.41E-03 1.98E-03 1.02E-03 1.10E-01 4 TSF 1.27E-01 7.10E-02 4.46E+01 4.83E+00 1.13E+00 5.88E-01 5.13E+01 - Total 1.35E-01 1.10E-01 5.92E+01 4.91E+00 1.15E+00 5.98E-01 6.61E+01

76 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

VB CG03 1 Vent Shaft 6.63E-03 2.55E-02 2.00E+01 6.69E-04 1.65E-04 7.02E-05 2.00E+01 Waste 2 3.18E-03 2.61E-04 1.18E+00 1.02E-01 2.41E-02 1.24E-02 1.32E+00 Rock 3 Stockpile 5.04E-04 3.96E-05 1.87E-01 1.62E-02 3.81E-03 1.97E-03 2.09E-01 4 TSF 1.07E-01 3.68E-02 3.35E+01 4.08E+00 9.60E-01 4.98E-01 3.92E+01 - Total 1.17E-01 6.26E-02 5.49E+01 4.20E+00 9.88E-01 5.12E-01 6.08E+01 VB CG04 1 Vent Shaft 6.08E-03 1.43E-02 2.46E+01 6.25E-04 1.49E-04 7.31E-05 2.46E+01 Waste 2 1.82E-03 1.52E-04 6.76E-01 5.85E-02 1.38E-02 7.11E-03 7.57E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 3.80E-04 1.98E-05 1.41E-01 1.22E-02 2.88E-03 1.49E-03 1.58E-01 4 TSF 9.65E-02 3.47E-02 2.72E+01 3.71E+00 8.71E-01 4.52E-01 3.24E+01 - Total 1.05E-01 4.92E-02 5.26E+01 3.78E+00 8.88E-01 4.60E-01 5.79E+01 VB CG05 1 Vent Shaft 2.65E-03 2.14E-02 7.45E+00 4.81E-04 1.23E-04 4.29E-05 7.48E+00 Waste 2 5.97E-04 1.06E-04 2.22E-01 1.91E-02 4.50E-03 2.33E-03 2.49E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 1.13E-04 1.66E-05 4.22E-02 3.64E-03 8.57E-04 4.42E-04 4.73E-02 4 TSF 3.22E-02 2.48E-02 1.00E+01 1.23E+00 2.89E-01 1.50E-01 1.18E+01 - Total 3.56E-02 4.64E-02 1.77E+01 1.25E+00 2.94E-01 1.52E-01 1.95E+01 VB CG06 1 Vent Shaft 2.83E-03 3.01E-02 7.84E+00 6.80E-04 1.76E-04 5.77E-05 7.87E+00 Waste 2 6.31E-04 1.20E-04 2.35E-01 2.02E-02 4.76E-03 2.46E-03 2.63E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 1.22E-04 2.24E-05 4.55E-02 3.92E-03 9.22E-04 4.76E-04 5.10E-02 4 TSF 4.35E-02 2.86E-02 1.16E+01 1.67E+00 3.92E-01 2.03E-01 1.39E+01 2 Total 4.71E-02 5.88E-02 1.97E+01 1.69E+00 3.97E-01 2.06E-01 2.21E+01 VB CG07 1 Vent Shaft 9.28E-04 1.88E-02 2.42E+00 6.82E-04 1.80E-04 5.18E-05 2.44E+00 Waste 2 2.56E-04 8.00E-05 9.60E-02 8.21E-03 1.93E-03 9.98E-04 1.08E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 3.60E-05 1.14E-05 1.35E-02 1.15E-03 2.72E-04 1.40E-04 1.51E-02 4 TSF 2.16E-02 2.01E-02 5.22E+00 8.30E-01 1.95E-01 1.01E-01 6.39E+00 - Total 2.29E-02 3.90E-02 7.75E+00 8.40E-01 1.97E-01 1.02E-01 8.95E+00 VB CG08 1 Vent Shaft 1.22E-03 2.07E-02 3.19E+00 6.67E-04 1.76E-04 5.15E-05 3.21E+00 2 Waste 3.95E-04 1.10E-04 1.48E-01 1.26E-02 2.98E-03 1.54E-03 1.66E-01

77 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Rock 3 Stockpile 5.20E-05 1.54E-05 1.95E-02 1.67E-03 3.92E-04 2.03E-04 2.18E-02 4 TSF 3.13E-02 2.75E-02 8.23E+00 1.20E+00 2.82E-01 1.46E-01 9.92E+00 - Total 3.30E-02 4.83E-02 1.16E+01 1.21E+00 2.85E-01 1.48E-01 1.33E+01 VB CG09 1 Vent Shaft 4.11E-03 2.18E-02 1.27E+01 4.75E-04 1.18E-04 4.85E-05 1.27E+01 Waste 2 1.67E-03 1.37E-04 6.20E-01 5.37E-02 1.26E-02 6.53E-03 6.95E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 2.68E-04 2.29E-05 9.95E-02 8.61E-03 2.03E-03 1.05E-03 1.11E-01 4 TSF 2.94E-01 4.79E-02 4.97E+01 1.14E+01 2.69E+00 1.39E+00 6.55E+01 - Total 3.00E-01 6.98E-02 6.31E+01 1.15E+01 2.70E+00 1.40E+00 7.90E+01

Plant Meat Milk 28 Years No. Source Groundshine Cloudshine Inhalation Total Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion VB CG01 1 Vent Shaft 5.35E-03 3.29E-02 1.51E+01 6.34E-04 1.65E-04 5.48E-05 1.52E+01 Waste 2 3.95E-03 2.06E-04 1.02E+00 9.10E-02 2.15E-02 1.10E-02 1.15E+00 Rock 3 Stockpile 4.06E-04 2.86E-05 1.05E-01 9.35E-03 2.21E-03 1.13E-03 1.18E-01 4 TSF 3.53E-01 4.78E-02 3.78E+01 6.17E+00 1.47E+00 7.46E-01 4.65E+01 - Total 3.63E-01 8.09E-02 5.40E+01 6.27E+00 1.49E+00 7.58E-01 6.30E+01 VB CG02 1 Vent Shaft 5.10E-03 3.83E-02 1.37E+01 6.95E-04 1.82E-04 5.81E-05 1.37E+01 Waste 2 3.35E-03 3.17E-04 8.69E-01 7.72E-02 1.83E-02 9.37E-03 9.77E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 3.78E-04 4.42E-05 9.81E-02 8.70E-03 2.06E-03 1.05E-03 1.10E-01 4 TSF 1.53E-01 7.10E-02 2.90E+01 2.63E+00 6.25E-01 3.18E-01 3.28E+01 - Total 1.62E-01 1.10E-01 4.36E+01 2.71E+00 6.46E-01 3.28E-01 4.76E+01 VB CG03 1 Vent Shaft 6.63E-03 2.55E-02 2.00E+01 4.72E-04 1.19E-04 4.59E-05 2.00E+01 Waste 2 4.58E-03 2.61E-04 1.18E+00 1.06E-01 2.50E-02 1.28E-02 1.33E+00 Rock 3 Stockpile 7.25E-04 3.96E-05 1.87E-01 1.67E-02 3.96E-03 2.03E-03 2.11E-01 4 TSF 1.28E-01 3.68E-02 2.15E+01 2.22E+00 5.29E-01 2.69E-01 2.47E+01 - Total 1.40E-01 6.26E-02 4.28E+01 2.35E+00 5.58E-01 2.84E-01 4.62E+01 VB CG04 1 Vent Shaft 6.08E-03 1.43E-02 2.46E+01 3.69E-04 8.98E-05 4.17E-05 2.46E+01

78 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

Waste 2 2.62E-03 1.52E-04 6.77E-01 6.05E-02 1.43E-02 7.33E-03 7.62E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 5.48E-04 1.98E-05 1.41E-01 1.26E-02 2.99E-03 1.53E-03 1.59E-01 4 TSF 1.16E-01 3.47E-02 1.75E+01 2.02E+00 4.80E-01 2.44E-01 2.04E+01 - Total 1.26E-01 4.92E-02 4.29E+01 2.09E+00 4.98E-01 2.53E-01 4.60E+01 VB CG05 1 Vent Shaft 2.65E-03 2.14E-02 7.45E+00 4.13E-04 1.08E-04 3.43E-05 7.48E+00 Waste 2 8.58E-04 1.06E-04 2.23E-01 1.98E-02 4.68E-03 2.40E-03 2.50E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 1.63E-04 1.66E-05 4.23E-02 3.76E-03 8.90E-04 4.56E-04 4.76E-02 4 TSF 3.88E-02 2.48E-02 6.60E+00 6.69E-01 1.59E-01 8.08E-02 7.57E+00 - Total 4.25E-02 4.64E-02 1.43E+01 6.93E-01 1.65E-01 8.37E-02 1.53E+01 VB CG06 1 Vent Shaft 2.83E-03 3.01E-02 7.83E+00 6.11E-04 1.61E-04 4.89E-05 7.87E+00 Waste 2 9.08E-04 1.20E-04 2.36E-01 2.09E-02 4.95E-03 2.54E-03 2.65E-01 Rock 3 Stockpile 1.76E-04 2.24E-05 4.56E-02 4.05E-03 9.58E-04 4.91E-04 5.13E-02 4 TSF 5.24E-02 2.86E-02 7.60E+00 9.07E-01 2.16E-01 1.10E-01 8.91E+00 - Total 5.63E-02 5.88E-02 1.57E+01 9.33E-01 2.22E-01 1.13E-01 1.71E+01 VB CG07 1 Vent Shaft 0.000929 0.0188 2.42 0.00067 0.000179 0.0000501 2.44 Waste 2 0.000369 0.00008 0.0962 0.00848 0.00201 0.00103 0.108 Rock 3 Stockpile 0.0000518 0.0000114 0.0135 0.00119 0.000282 0.000145 0.0152 4 TSF 0.0261 0.0201 3.48 0.452 0.108 0.0546 4.14 - Total 0.0274 0.039 6.01 0.463 0.11 0.0559 6.7 VB CG08 1 Vent Shaft 0.00122 0.0207 3.19 0.000647 0.000173 0.0000488 3.21 Waste 2 0.000568 0.00011 0.148 0.0131 0.00309 0.00158 0.166 Rock 3 Stockpile 0.0000748 0.0000154 0.0195 0.00172 0.000407 0.000209 0.022 4 TSF 0.0377 0.0275 5.47 0.653 0.155 0.0789 6.42 - Total 0.0396 0.0483 8.83 0.668 0.159 0.0807 9.82 VB CG09 1 Vent Shaft 0.00411 0.0218 12.7 0.000348 0.0000887 0.0000328 12.7 Waste 2 0.00241 0.000137 0.621 0.0555 0.0131 0.00673 0.699 Rock

79 Safety Assessment of Radiation Hazards to Members of the Public and the Environment

3 Stockpile 0.000386 0.0000229 0.0996 0.0089 0.00211 0.00108 0.112 4 TSF 0.355 0.0479 31.9 6.22 1.48 0.753 40.7 - Total 0.362 0.0698 45.3 6.29 1.5 0.761 54.3

80

Declaration of Independence

I, Johan Slabbert , declare that I –

 Act as the independent specialist for the undertaking of a specialist section for the project;  Do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006;  Do not have nor will have a vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding;  Have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; and  Undertake to disclose, to the competent authority, any information that have or may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the objectivity of any report, plan or document required in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006.

Johan Slabbert (Pr.Sci.Nat) Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Specialist PSI Risk Consultants CC

81

SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

5.1.4 Labour force skills The most dominant education level in both wards is secondary schooling. The second highest is some primary school education. Ward 3 has a higher occurrence of higher level education when compared to Ward 2, scoring more in the secondary schooling, Grade 12 and higher education categories (Table 9). Table 9: Education levels of individuals over 20 years per ward

Education levels Ward 2 Ward 3 No schooling 18.7% 10.6%

Some primary 26.4% 20.5%

Complete primary 8.9% 8.1%

Secondary 32.7% 38.2%

Grade 12 11% 17.9%

Higher 2.3% 4.6%

Total 100% 100%

Source: StatsSA 2001

The dominant occupation in both wards is that of the elementary occupation category. Elementary occupations comprise low-skilled jobs such as cleaners and helpers, labourers, food preparation assistants, street sales and service workers, refuse workers and other elementary work5. The second highest is that of plant/machine operators (Table 10). Table 10: Occupations6 per ward

Occupations Ward 2 Ward 3 Elementary 41.% 37.2%

Plant/Machine operators 12.9% 14.4%

Craft/Trade 13.3% 11%

Undetermined 10.6% 6.9%

Agricultural/Fishery 2.3% 6.4%

Clerks 4.8% 6.4%

Technicians 5.2% 5.9%

5 International Labour Organization. Resolution Concerning Updating the International Standard Classification of Occupations. Adopted at the Tripartite Meeting of Experts on Labour Statistics, 6 December 2007. 6 Statistics South Africa defines all occupations according to the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) system of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

25 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

Occupations Ward 2 Ward 3 Service workers 6.5% 5.4%

Legislators/Senior officials 0.7% 3.3%

Professionals 2.3% 3.2%

Total 100% 100%

Source: StatsSA 2001

5.1.5 Health

5.1.5.1 Respiratory issues TB management remains a challenge in South Africa; especially its co-morbidity with HIV/AIDS. South Africa has one of the highest incidence rates of TB in the world. In 2010, the incidence rate for all types of TB was 805 per 100,000. The Free State Province is one of the provinces that has reported the least improvement in TB cure rates, with only a four percentage point improvement in the last four years. However, the TB cure rate was 71.4% in 2009, which was close to the national average of 71.1%. The TB cure rate in Lejweleputswa District was 71.2% in 2009. The sputum smear conversion rate7 in the district improved marginally in 2009 from 74.9% to 77.8% in 2010. Both are still below the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended rates (>85%). There were 963.7 cases per 100 000 of TB in Lejweleputswa District Municipality in 2011, which was the highest in the province. In 2011, the new HIV positive patients who had a confirmed TB rate was 8% (Day et al., 2009).

5.1.5.2 Sexually transmitted infection (including HIV/AIDS) South Africa is experiencing a severe generalised HIV epidemic which is affecting the social and economic fabric of the country. The causes are multifactorial, but poverty, lack of education and vulnerability in certain sectors are important contributing factors. According to the National HIV and Syphilis Prevalence Survey 2009, it is estimated that the prevalence of HIV in South Africa (in all age groups) is 10.6%, which is about 5.2 million people of the total population. Free State Province had the third highest HIV prevalence in the country at 12.6% (Shishana et al., 2009). The antenatal HIV prevalence for Lejweleputswa District Municipality was 33.4% (Day et al., 2009). In 2008, Matjhabeng Local Municipality was estimated to have the second highest HIV infection rate in the country. Infection rates of as high as 50% had been detected in some parts of the region (Shishana et al., 2009).

7 This is the percentage of new smear-positive TB cases registered in a specific period that convert to smear- negative at the end of the initial phase of treatment.

26 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

5.1.5.3 Food- and nutrition- related issues In 2010/2011, the incidence of diarrhoea in children under the age of 5 in Lejweleputswa District Municipality was 62 per 100 000 (Day et al., 2006). Recent data on the prevalence of stunting (low height-for-age indicating chronic malnutrition), underweight (low weight-for-age- indicating food availability and use concerns) and wasting (low weight-for-height indicating acute malnutrition) for children under the age of 5 in the Lejweleputswa District Municipality was not immediately available. However, the incidence of severe malnutrition in children under 5 years was estimated to be 3.9 per 1000 in 2010 (Day et al., 2006).

5.1.5.4 Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) Non-communicable diseases (NCD) play an important role in the overall burden of disease in the Free State Province. Strokes, chronic lung disease, heart disease, hypertension and diabetes are all mentioned in the top 20 disease burdens in the province. There is very little information in the public domain related to NCD at the district level. The diabetes mellitus and hypertension detection rate in 2010 was estimated to be 0.1% (Day et al., 2006).

5.1.5.5 Health services infrastructure and capacity Of the population of Lejweleputswa, 14.6% had access to a medical scheme in 2007. The district is socio-economically above average, but the amount spent per capita on non- hospital primary health care in 2009/10 at R378, is the fourth-lowest in South Africa, and inadequate to provide a comprehensive, good quality of primary health care (Day et al., 2006). The number of health facilities and beds in Lejweleputswa District Municipality is shown in Table 11 below (Day et al., 2009). A large majority (86.6%) of children under the age of one had been immunised. Moreover, just under three-quarters (72.3%) of women in the district delivered their last child in a health facility. In urban areas the number of clinics and hospitals are inadequate and mostly overcrowded. Emergency medical services are not readily available during emergencies and the response time is slow. The availability of medicine in clinics is problematic due to inadequate control and poor distribution. Table 11: Health facility infrastructure in Lejweleputswa DM

Health Facility/Infrastructure Number

Beds (private sector) 1 017

Beds (public sector) 735

Clinics 49

Mobile Health Services 20

District Hospitals 5

Private Hospitals 3

Regional Hospital 1

27 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

Health Facility/Infrastructure Number

Community Health Centres 1

Specialised Hospitals 0

Provincial Tertiary Hospital 0

5.1.6 Infrastructure and services The Matjhabeng LM IDP (2012) stresses the need to take into account the large number of mine workers that have been retrenched due to the restructuring of the mining sector when predicting future service delivery demands.

5.1.6.1 Water Water infrastructure consists mostly of reservoirs and pipelines of Sedibeng Water. The Goldfields region and the mines are supplied with water from the Vaal River near Bothaville and from the Sand River. The main water reservoirs are east of Allanridge, in Welkom, north and south of Virginia. Pump stations are present in the east of Allanridge and at Virginia where a purification plant also exists. Other water infrastructure was constructed by the then- Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (now re-named the Department of Water Affairs) and includes dams in Allemanskraal and canals serving the Sand – Vet irrigation scheme (Matjhabeng LM IDP 2011/2012). Table 12 shows that the Matjhabeng LM has done much to reduce the level of no access to water and to expand household access to water at both the RDP standard and inside dwellings and yards. Table 12: Access to piped water in Matjhabeng LM

Type of piped water source Census 2001 Community Survey 2007 Piped water inside the dwelling 24.9% 60.2%

Piped water inside the yard 44.8% 30.7%

Piped (tap) water to community stand: distance < 200m from dwelling 10.6%

Piped (tap) water to community stand: distance > 200m from dwelling 14.8%

Piped water from access point outside the yard 7%

Total piped water 95.1% 97.9%

Source: StatsSA

28 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

Table 13 compares Wards 2 and 3 in terms of access to piped water. The large majority of households in Ward 2 had access to piped water inside their yards, with only 10.1% having had piped water inside their dwellings. Ward 3 represents a slightly better scenario with just over half having had access to piped water inside their yards and 29% having had piped water inside their homes. Table 13: Access to piped water per ward

Type of piped water source Ward 2 Ward 3

Dwelling 10.1% 29%

Inside yard 83.8% 54.3%

Community stand 0.6% 7.3%

Community stand over 200m 0.4% 5%

Total piped water 94.9% 95.6%

Source: StatsSA 2001

5.1.6.2 Toilet facilities The Matjhabeng LM has seen an increase in flush toilets connected to the sewerage system from 2001 (60.1%) to 2007 (78.4%). There has also been an increase in flush toilets connected to a septic tank and a decrease in all other toilet categories. The most notable change has been the decrease in the proportion of households who relied on chemical toilets. In 2007, no chemical toilets were recorded (Table 14). Table 14: Access to toilet facilities in the Matjhabeng LM

Community Survey Toilet facilities Census 2001 2007 Flush toilet (connected to sewerage system) 60.1% 78.4%

Flush toilet (with septic tank) 0.8% 1.3%

Bucket latrine 17.3% 11.1%

Pit latrine without ventilation 10.9% 6.9%

None 9.7% 2.1%

Pit latrine with ventilation (VIP) 0.9% 0.2%

Chemical toilet 0.5% 0%

Total 100% 100%

Source: Matjhabeng LM IDP 2011/2012

29 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

Table 15: Access to toilet facilities within the district municipality

Pit latrine Bucket toilet No toilet Administrative area Census CS 2007 Census CS 2007 Census CS 2007 2001 2001 2001 Lejweleputswa DM 12.5% 7.7% 29.9% 20% 10.1% 2.8%

Masilonyana LM 9.2% 2.5% 55.8% 30.2% 11.6% 1.9%

Tokologo LM 13.2% 28.2% 46.5% 34.0% 22.% 16.8%

Tswelopele LM 19.1% 10.9% 52.7% 22.5% 12.2% 2.4%

Matjhabeng LM 11.7% 7.0% 17.2% 11.1% 9.7% 2.1%

Nala LM 14.9% 9.8% 54.7% 52.6% 5.6% 3.1%

Source: StatsSA 2008

As shown in Table 16, Ward 2 has more households that make use of the bucket latrine system (80.4%) when compared to Ward 3 (21%). Ward 3 has a higher proportion of households that have access to flush toilets (47.5%) than that of Ward 2 (17.5%). The Matjhabeng LM has put a project in place to eradicate the bucket system toilets. The project estimated cost was over R133 million (Matjhabeng LM IDP 2011/2012). Table 16: Access to toilet facilities per ward

Toilet facilities Ward 2 Ward 3

Flush toilet 17.5% 47.5%

Bucket latrine 80.4% 21%

Pit latrine 0.5% 12.1%

None 1% 11.8%

VIP 0.2% 4.8%

Flush septic tank 0.3% 2.6%

Chemical toilet 0% 0.2%

Total 100% 100%

Source: StatsSA 2001

5.1.6.3 Refuse removal There has been an increase in the number of residents in the Matjhabeng LM that have access to a refuse removal service. The number of residents with no basic refuse disposal has reduced by 3.9% and the number of people with access to communal refuse is slowly reducing (Table 17). The number of households that have weekly refuse removal has

30 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

increased significantly. The Matjhabeng LM has out-performed all other local municipalities in its district, including the district itself (see Table 18). Table 17: Refuse removal service within the Matjhabeng LM

Refuse service Census 2001 Community Survey 2007 Removed by local authority/private 77.2% 89.1% company at least once a week

Own refuse dump 12.1% 7.8%

No rubbish disposal 5.6% 1.7%

Communal refuse dump 3.8% 1.3%

Removed by local authority/private 1.3% 0.1% company less often

Total 100% 100%

Source: Matjhabeng LM IDP 2011/2012

Table 18: Refuse removal services in Lejweleputswa DM and its local municipalities

Removed by local authority/ No refuse disposal Administrative private company area Census 2001 CS 2007 Census 2001 CS 2007 Lejweleputswa DM 72% 82.8% 6.8% 2.5%

Masilonyana LM 62.8% 60.5% 10.2% 1.7%

Tokologo LM 49.9% 49.3% 6.8% 22.1%

Tswelopele LM 32.6% 80.3% 9.8% 1.4%

Matjhabeng LM 78.5% 89.2% 5.6% 1.7%

Nala LM 74.7% 84.6% 8.9% 2%

Source: StatsSA 2008

Ward 2 has a higher occurrence of weekly municipal refuse removal than that of Ward 3. Ward 3 has a higher number of households that make use of private waste dumps (Table 19). Table 19: Access to refuse removal service per ward

Refuse service Ward 2 Ward 3 Municipal weekly 99% 72.3%

Municipal other 0.3% 0.6%

31 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

Refuse service Ward 2 Ward 3 Communal dump 0% 0.8%

Own dump 0.1% 17.4%

No disposal 0.6% 8.9%

Total 100% 100%

Source: StatsSA 2001

5.1.6.4 Electricity for lighting, cooking and heating There is a well-established electrical network within the Matjhabeng LM. Eskom is the service provider for the mines and townships in the municipal area, thus sufficient bulk infrastructure is available to serve the whole area. The main challenge within the municipality is the aging electrical infrastructure in some towns. It has become very expensive to electrify the rural areas as well as farms and farming communities. Government’s plan is to electrify all areas by the end of 2014. Table 20 and Table 21 below show that the Matjhabeng LM is highly dependent on electricity as a source of energy for lighting, cooking and heating. This shows the lack of or a decrease in alternative sources of energy to help relieve the pressure on the electricity grid. Table 20: Access to power sources within the Matjhabeng LM

Power source Census 2001 Community Survey 2007 Electricity 54.3% 77.1%

Gas 2.1% 1.6%

Paraffin 39.8% 20.5%

Coal 0.8% 0.2%

Wood 2.1% 0.6%

Solar 0.3% 0%

Animal dung 0.7% 0.1%

Total 100% 100%

Source: Matjhabeng LM IDP 2011/2012

Both wards have relatively equal access to electricity, with ward 2 being more dependent on candles for lighting purposes.

32 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

Table 21: Access to power sources per ward

Power source Ward 2 Ward 3 Electricity 76.1% 81.8%

Gas 0.1% 0.2%

Paraffin 3% 4.1%

Candles 20.5% 12.7%

Solar 0.1% 0.9%

Other 0.3% 0.3%

Total 100% 100%

Source: StatsSA 2001

5.1.6.5 Roads and transport The municipality has well established road and transportation infrastructure. The main challenge has been the cost of maintaining such infrastructure as it ages over time. This has major implications for the budget of the municipality. The main public transport system operating in Matjhabeng is privately owned taxis. The rail network that passes through Hennenman and Virginia is a mainline service linking the Municipality with Gauteng, KwaZulu Natal, Eastern Cape and the Western Cape. However there is no local rail network or bus service operating in Matjhabeng Municipality

5.1.6.6 Education facilities Tertiary education facilities are available in Welkom and include the following:

■ Welkom Technical College; ■ Welkom Technological Institute; ■ FET College Goldfields - geared towards employment opportunities; and ■ Central University of Technology, Free State (CUT) satellite campus (CUT’s core competencies are in science, engineering and technology).

5.1.7 Housing The Matjhabeng LM has seen a steady increase in the number of households moving towards formal housing (4.4% increase) and a decrease in informal housing (13.1% decrease) between the years of 2001 and 2007 (Table 22).

33 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

Table 22: Housing within the Matjhabeng LM

Administrative Formal Housing Informal Housing area Census 2001 CS 2007 Census 2001 CS 2007 Free State Province 66.5% 71% 26.1% 18.4%

Lejweleputswa DM 56.8% 67.8% 40.6% 22.6%

Matjhabeng LM 60.1% 64.5% 36.8% 23.7%

Source: StatsSA 2008

As shown in Table 23, Ward 3 has a larger number of households that have formal housing (84.3%) compared to ward 2 (43.8%). Ward 3 also has a larger number of traditional households (5%) than Ward 2 (0.6%).

Table 23: Type of dwelling per ward

Type of dwelling Ward 2 Ward 3 Formal 43.8% 84.3%

Informal 55.3% 10.6%

Traditional 0.6% 5%

Other 0.3% 0.2%

Total 100% 100%

Source: StatsSA 2001

5.1.8 Crime

Table 24 below is a representation of crime within the Free State province. Categories of crime that have recorded an increase in occurrence include housebreaking and violence against women and children. Contributing factors to this rise in specific crimes include: ■ High unemployment rate and migration from rural to urban areas. ■ Lack of resources within the police service (transport, manpower). ■ Ineffective functioning of neighbourhood watch organization and community police forums. ■ Lack of visible policing. ■ Lack of accessibility to police stations

34 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

Table 24: Crime categories

Types of crimes Incidence All theft not specified 19.8%

Common assault 15.5%

Assault with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm 11.2%

Burglary at residential premises 11.1%

Malicious damage to property 5.5%

Crimen injuria 4.7%

Theft from vehicles 4.5%

Common robbery 3%

Stock theft 2.9%

Robbery with aggravating circumstances 2.8%

Attempted murder 2.8%

Rape 2.5%

Burglary at business premises 2.5%

Drug-related crimes 2.5%

Shoplifting 2%

Theft of motor vehicle or motor cycle 2%

Commercial crime 1.5%

Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs 0.7%

Murder 0.5%

All Other (at least 10 other crimes such as highjacking, house 0.3% each robbery, illegal arms, etc.)

Source: Matjhabeng LM IDP 2011/2012

5.1.9 Employment Table 25 shows an upward trend amongst the employed in the municipality in that there was an increase in employment of 9.5% between 2001 and 2007. Employment in Ward 3 is higher than in the local municipality and Ward 2. Ward 2 has the largest proportion of Not economically active individuals (Table 26).

35 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

Table 25: Employment within the Matjhabeng LM

Economic Status Census 2001 Community Survey 2007 Employed 34.3% 43.8%

Unemployed 29.8% 23.7%

Not economically active 35.9% 32.5%

Total 100% 100%

Source: Matjhabeng LM IDP 2011/2012

Table 26: Employment distribution per ward

Persons Ward 2 Ward 3 Employed 19.1% 36.4%

Unemployed 33.5% 21.8%

Not economically active 47.4% 41.8%

Total 100% 100%

Source: StatsSA 2001

Between 2001 and 2007, there were increases in the number of individuals employed in the majority of industries, namely Wholesale and trade, Manufacturing, Finance and Construction, while Mining (currently the largest industry in the municipality), Agriculture and Transport were in decline. If the growing industries can continue to grow in the shadow of declining mining and agricultural industries, it will demonstrate a resilient and transformed economy that can be sustained without the presence of primary industries such as mining and agriculture (Table 27). However, the decline of these industries will and are having a negative impact on employment, and the decline of agriculture will likely affect food security and food prices. Table 27: Industries within the Matjhabeng LM

Industry type 2001 2007

Mining and Quarrying 39.6% 31%

Community, social and personal service 18.6% 18.5%

Wholesale and trade, repairs, hotels and 15.3% 18.3% restaurants

Manufacturing 5.4% 9.8%

Financial intermediation, insurance, real estate 6.2% 7.5% and business service

36 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

Industry type 2001 2007 Construction 3.6% 5.4%

Agriculture , Hunting , forestry and fishing 6.5% 5.1%

Transport storage and communication 4.2% 3.7%

Electricity , gas and water supply 0.6% 0.6%

Total 100% 100%

Source: Matjhabeng LM IDP 2011/2012

5.1.10 Income Levels As shown in Table 28, The Matjhabeng LM displayed a positive shift in the number of individuals from low income levels to middle income levels. The No income category dropped by just over 10% from 2001 and 2007. This can be viewed as an indication of socio- economic development within the municipal area. Table 28: Individual monthly income in the Matjhabeng LM

Income categories 2001 2007 No income 59.9% 48.7%

R 1-R 400 7.7% 6.4%

R 401-R 800 8.5% 8.3%

R 801-R 1 600 9.6% 13%

R 1601-R 3 200 7.4% 10.1%

R 3 201-R 6 400 4.1% 7.4%

R 6 401-R 12 800 2.0% 4.1%

R 12 801-R 25 600 0.5% 1.6%

R 25 601-R 51 200 0.1% 0.3%

R 51 201- R 102 400 0.1% 0.1%

R 102 401-R 204 800 0% 0%

R 204 801 or more 0% 0%

Total 100% 100%

Source: StatsSA The majority of individuals in both wards reported having no monthly income. Ward 2 has the largest number of individuals who do not earn an income, while Ward 3 recorded a higher percentage of income earners within most income categories than Ward 2 (Table 29).

37 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

Table 29: Individual monthly income in Wards 2 and 3

Income categories Ward 2 Ward 3 None 82.6% 67.3%

R 1 – R 400 4.9% 9.7%

R 401 – R 800 7.5% 8.3%

R 801 – R 1600 2.6% 4.5% R 1 601 – R 3 200 1.8% 5.6%

R 3 201 – R 6400 0.4% 2.8%

R 6 401 – R 12 800 0.2% 1.2%

R 12 801 – R 25 600 0% 0.3%

R 25 601 – R 51 200 0% 0.1%

R 51 201 – R 102 400 0% 0.1%

R 102 401 – R 204 800 0% 0%

Over R 204 801 0% 0%

Total 100% 100%

Source: StatsSA 2001

5.1.11 Spatial distribution of economic activities The economy of Matjhabeng can be divided into three main categories i.e. primary, secondary and tertiary sectors. Research shows that the economies of Welkom (53%), Odendalsrus (38%) and Virginia (78%) are controlled by the mining operations within that area, whilst Hennenman is dominated by manufacturing (41%), agriculture (17%), trade (10%) and financial operations (10%). When looking at the contribution of each municipality to the district economy (see Table 30 below, Matjhabeng LM outperforms the other municipalities in all sectors, except Agriculture. Manufacturing, Finance and Trade in the Matjhabeng LM are the largest contributors to the district economy.

38 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

Table 30: Contribution of each municipality in the Lejweleputswa District per sector, 2004

Local

Municipality Agriculture Mining Manufacturing Electricity Construction Trade Transport Finance Community Services

Tokologo 6.3% 0.2% 1.4% 1.5% 1.9% 0.9% 1% 1.2% 2.1%

Tswelopele 39.9% 0% 3.7% 4.6% 1.4% 3.7% 3.7% 4.2% 5.2%

Nala 25.7% 1.3% 6.6% 8.1% 11.8% 8.8% 11.4% 5.2% 9.3%

Matjhabeng 17.6% 79.6% 84.8% 77.1% 75.9% 81.7% 79.2% 84.7% 76.1%

Masilonyana 10.5% 18.9% 3.5% 8.7% 9% 4.8% 4.7% 4.7% 7.3%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: Matjhabeng LM IDP 2011/2012

According to the Matjhabeng LM IDP, about 72% of the Lejweleputswa district’s economic output is generated within the Matjhabeng LM. The relative contributions from Matjhabeng LM and Masilonyana have decreased since 1996 as the two municipal areas have seen an overall decline in the mining industry and operations within their respective areas. In contrast, the remaining three municipalities’ contributions to the district increased between 1996 and 2004 due to a decline in the mining operations in the other local municipalities.

5.1.11.1 Mining There are a number of mines within the Matjhabeng LM. These include

■ Matjhabeng Gold Mine ■ Erfdeel Mine ■ Free State Geduld Gold Mine ■ Jurgenshof Unisel Gold Mine ■ Loraine Mine ■ President Brand Gold Mine ■ Saaiplaas Mine ■ Virginia Mine ■ Goldfields Beatrix Mine ■ Western Holdings Gold Mine

39 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

Mining dominates the local economy, contributing 58% of GDP to the area and 19% to the province. Strategies are being developed by the FGF Development Centre, an economic development arm of the Matjhabeng Council, to reduce the dependence of the municipalities on the mining industry.

5.2 Site-specific study area The figure below depicts the location of the proposed project site relative to Phomolong Township. The site-specific project area can be subdivided into the following areas: ■ Vogel’s commercial farm (see Section 5.2.1); ■ Phomolong township (see Section 5.2.2); and ■ Hennenman and White’s communities (see Section 5.2.3).

40 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

5.2.1 Vogel’s commercial farm The proposed project is situated on a commercial agricultural and livestock farm (Vogelsrand). The farm is owned by the Vogel family, which is the fifth generation to farm on this land. The farm is primarily used to cultivate maize and breed cattle for commercial purposes.

Figure 8: Primary farm residence Mr. Vogel relies on specific sections of his land for the cultivation of maize, as these areas are more fertile than others. The chaff and other crop remains left on the fields after harvesting provide valuable feed for his cattle. If this source of food is to be lost as a result of mining activities, he would have to purchase substitute feed and this will not be cost- effective. In other words losing access to parts of the croplands might make the entire farming operation non-profitable. Mr Vogel therefore emphasized that if mining is to go ahead on the property, he will not be willing to sell only part of the property.

Figure 9: Maize and cattle production Farming activities provide employment for 20 to 30 individuals, although this number varies, depending on the season. Each of these employees has several dependents, which

42 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

substantially increases the number of people dependent on the incomes earned by his farmworkers. Several families of farmworkers reside in dwellings on Mr. Vogel’s property, while others reside in the neighbouring township. The inhabitants of these dwellings do not own the property, but have a longstanding housing arrangement with Mr Vogel. There are eight farmworker dwellings, most of which have access to electricity, pit latrines, and water pumped from a borehole.

Figure 10: Residence for farm employees

5.2.2 Phomolong The majority of the population that might be affected by the proposed development resides in Phomolong, which is a formal township located across from the R70 road, 500m east of the project site; it is situated within municipal wards 2 and 3, which were described earlier (see Section 5.1). The Phomolong community originally resided on a farm called Venter’s Vlugt which is situated close to Hennenman. In 1948 they were forced to move to their current location, where it has grown to an estimated 5 000 dwellings. This section provides a brief description of the socio-economic characteristics of the Phomolong community.

5.2.2.1 Demographics Although the largest segment of the town is formalized, recent population growth, combined with a housing shortage, has resulted in the informal expansion of the township towards its south-western outskirts. This expansion is headed directly towards the north eastern edge of the proposed project footprint. It is estimated that the informal section of Phomolong provides shelter to just over 1 000 people. The informal extension does not align with local spatial planning, which aims to integrate Hennenman and Phomolong by directing housing and business development on the north- eastern side of the R70 to eventually connect the two towns. It should be noted that this development is hampered by several physical restrictions that include a river, sewerage

43 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

works and a dumping site. Current development plans indicate that 2 000 housing units will be built for this stretch of land.

5.2.2.2 Culture, language and migration The community is mostly Sesotho-speaking and as such follows the cultural traditions associated with this group. The community is not under the jurisdiction of a Traditional Authority. Phomolong has experienced little in-migration into the area in recent years, however, some inhabitants originate from foreign countries. Community members affirmed that foreign families are mostly from Lesotho, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, China and Malawi. These groups reportedly engage mostly in small businesses. There has in the past been protest action against foreign residents. Currently there is no marked tension between the local inhabitants and foreigners.

5.2.2.3 Economic Overview There is very little economic development or diversification within Phomolong, and economic activity in the township is limited to mining, agriculture and micro and small enterprises involved in general trading. The minority that is employed work mostly in the agricultural and mining sectors. Major employers in these sectors include Tiger Mills, Oranje Mynbou en Vervoer, and Serfontein and Seuns. Other business opportunities in the community are limited to micro and small enterprises such as spaza shops, taverns, tuck shops and general dealers. Most of these businesses are well established, have been trading for more than five years, and depend on multiple trading activities to survive. A considerable proportion of these enterprises have in recent years been bought out by foreigners.

Figure 11: Agricultural based livelihoods A decline in economic activity is primarily attributed to several mine closures in the surrounding area. Employment opportunities within in the core economic sectors are extremely scarce.

44 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

Among the town’s residents, unemployment is high, and many households have little or no income. Consequently, large proportions of households survive on government grants and suffer from poverty.

5.2.2.4 Service Delivery In general, the type and integrity of Phomolong’s physical infrastructure is sound enough for the town to be integrated into the wider economy. However, without considerable repair and on-going maintenance, the long term sustainability of a significant part of the township’s service infrastructure is at risk. The Municipality’s financial situation is precarious, largely due to the inability of its poverty-stricken rates base to pay for services.

5.2.2.4.1 Access to water, sanitation and electricity The majority of households in the formal township have access to piped water and flush toilets. However, access to sanitation is a problem, as a considerable number of households still rely on the bucket system (e.g. Phomolong Extension 1). Service delivery is a major problem in the informal part of the Township. Currently these residents rely on a small number of community standpipes for water. They use pit latrines or revert to open defecation practices, which has several community health risks. Most households in the formalized part of the township have access to electricity, which they use for lighting, heating and cooking. However the decreasing affordability of this energy source is reducing the community’s reliance on electricity and increasing their dependence on sources such as paraffin, wood and coal. The informal extension area has no electricity and relies on floodlights for lighting, while carbon fuel sources are used for heating and cooking.

Figure 12: Resident collecting water from communal water point

5.2.2.4.2 Development and housing Phomolong is experiencing a significant lack of affordable and available housing, as is evidenced by the large informal extension on its south-western edge. The housing problem

45 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

is exacerbated by the poor quality of existing houses, which are reportedly starting to deteriorate and collapse. Housing problems increase environmental health risks to which the community is exposed. A severe shortage of housing, which leads to overcrowding, may contribute to the spread of diseases such as Tuberculosis, especially among populations made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS. Government’s ability to address the problem is hampered by the large number of applicants for RDP houses throughout the rest of the Municipality.

Figure 13: Informal extension of Phomolong

5.2.2.4.3 Education Access to basic education in Phomolong is relatively good. There are approximately 20 crèches that cater for the vast number of young children. The community also has access to four primary schools and two secondary schools. Most teachers are formally trained through colleges situated in Welkom and permanently employed by government. With regards to enrolment rates, girls tend to outnumber boys in both primary and secondary schools. Although a large proportion of Phomolong’s high school graduates continue their studies at higher education institutions, most of them seek employment elsewhere as there is a lack of opportunities in the area. As is the case in many rural schools, education infrastructure and facilities are limited. Most schools experience a shortage of space for learners, and several schools have a shortage of sporting facilities and equipment. Apart from infrastructure, schools are also plagued with high HIV/ AIDS rates, teen pregnancies and alcohol abuse amongst their learners.

46 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

Figure 14: Kheteleng secondary school

5.2.2.4.4 Health Phomolong has access to one clinic, which provides general consultation services to the township and neighboring communities. The clinic employs five professional nurses; however, they are not enough to service the entire community. The clinic is exceeding its maximum service delivery capacity on a monthly basis as it attends to an average of 6 000 patients per month. Apart from a shortage of staff and diagnostic equipment, the clinic does not have any vehicles to provide mobile service to the community. Community health is a serious concern in Phomolong, with HIV/ AIDS and TB being the most devastating diseases. Other major diseases include high blood pressure and diabetes. A large number of vulnerable child-headed households are found in Phomolong, as a result of their parents dying from HIV/AIDS. Recent estimates from Phomolong clinic shows that 30% of males who test for HIV show up as positive, while 60% of females test positive. The rate for females is higher due to the fact that more females are tested during pregnancy. The prevalence rate among secondary school learners is alarming with several estimates putting it at almost 10%. The high HIV/ AIDS prevalence is partially ascribed to previous mining activities, which is associated with sexual promiscuity and prostitution. A doctor visits the clinic on a weekly basis to attend to patients with HIV/ AIDS. The clinic also provides free Anti-retro viral treatment to those affected in Hennenman, Phomolong, Ventersburg and Mamahabane.

47 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

Figure 15: Phomolong clinic

5.2.2.4.5 Crime Phomolong community is serviced by Hennenman police station, which has a satellite station in the township. The station is short of staff and under equipped, especially if one takes into consideration the population residing in their service area. Despite this, the station is working closely with community policing forums that assist the police, especially during weekends when crimes related to substance abuse are high. Alcohol abuse and related crimes such as assault, domestic violence and petty theft is a major concern in the area. Most of these incidents take place from Thursday to Sunday when people are inclined to consume alcohol in local taverns. Apart from alcohol related incidents, livestock theft is also a common occurrence.

5.2.2.4.6 Road infrastructure and transportation Phomolong has access to a poor internal transport system, with no centralized taxi rank. The primary access road to the township is the R70 road which connects Hennenman and Ventersburg. This road is scattered with potholes and will deteriorate rapidly if not maintained. Most roads within the township are un-surfaced gravel roads, and the few tar roads within township are severely deteriorated. Community members expressed the need for surfacing gravel roads and building speed bumps to slow down vehicles that speed.

5.2.3 Hennenman and Whites Hennenman is situated just less than 7km north of the proposed project. The town came into being as a railway siding known as Ventersburg Road, serving the town of Ventersburg. The settlement developed around the station and was originally known as Havengaville. The town’s population is estimated at around 25 000. Situated close to Hennenman is a small formal settlement called Whites, which also originated as a result of railway activities.

48 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

5.3 Summary of baseline conditions The major socio-economic trends in the study area are reflected in the following statements: ■ In terms of the regional and local study areas: . The key economic sectors in the area are mining, manufacturing and agriculture. These three sectors are also major employers in the surrounding towns. Despite recent mine closures, mining is still a substantial employer in the district, and its service and goods requirements, together with the consumer needs of employees, stimulate secondary industries and further job creation; . The relative affluence of urban areas such as Welkom, Virginia and Ventersburg masks the poverty and underdevelopment of rural areas in the study area. Access to social services and resources is also skewed in favour of urban areas; . Unemployment, high incidences of HIV/AIDS and TB, and a lack of housing are also major problems affecting the district as well as the site-specific study area; and . Access to household services is generally good and reflects that of the district, with most households having access to safe drinking water, 85% having access to toilet facilities and roughly three quarters having electricity for lighting. However this picture is skewed towards formal areas. ■ In terms of the site-specific study area: . It comprises Phomolong Township, Vogel’s commercial farm, and the Hennenman and Whites communities; . Phomolong is a formal township located across from the R70 road, 500m east of the project site. It comprises about 5 000 dwellings, including about 1 000 in an expanding informal section; . The farm owned by the Vogel family is primarily used to cultivate maize and breed cattle for commercial purposes. Several families of farmworkers reside on Mr. Vogel’s property; . Hennenman is situated just less than 7km north of the proposed project. The town came into being as a railway siding known as Ventersburg Road, serving the town of Ventersburg. The settlement developed around the station and was originally known as Havengaville. The town’s population is estimated at around 25 000; and . Whites is a small formal settlement situated close to Hennenman.

49 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND RISKS The objective of this section is to identify aspects of the receiving socio-economic environment that could be vulnerable to impacts associated with the proposed development, or could have significant implications for the planning or implementation of the development. These may constitute impacts that would require appropriate management and mitigation, or risks and constraints that would have to be accommodated in project design.

6.1 Potential socio-economic impacts Anticipated socio-economic impacts of the proposed project are discussed below. The likelihood of cumulative impacts is also discussed.

6.1.1 Positive impacts Although positive impacts do not have obvious risk implications for development projects, neglecting the opportunity to enhance these impacts can shape the context in which possible future negative impacts are perceived. By proactively embracing positive impacts it is possible to grow support from local populations and decrease risks related to community resistance. It is envisaged that the proposed development might have several positive impacts; these are discussed in turn below:

6.1.1.1 Impact on the local economy The proposed project might result in several economic benefits for local communities through direct and multiplier effects that result from capital expenditure and construction activities. It is expected that construction activities will stimulate the local manufacturing and service sectors. This provides new business opportunities for micro and small businesses in communities such as Phomolong, provided they are formalized and able to meet the procurement requirements of the mine. Local employment will also increase disposable income, which can stimulate other economic activities in areas such as Phomolong and Hennenman were small businesses are struggling. The proposed project might contribute to diversifying the economy in the immediate study area, which is currently heavily dependent on agriculture and livestock farming.

6.1.1.2 Employment opportunities Unemployment in the local municipality is high (24%), resulting in a large proportion of the population having little to no income. This figure is likely to be much higher in rural areas such Phomolong. As mentioned in Section 3.1.4 above, it is anticipated that the project will create 300-400 employment opportunities during its construction phase as well as 1700- 2000 employment opportunities during its operational phase. During both phases almost all unskilled tasks may be taken up by members of the local population. Any employment opportunities created by the proposed operation will therefore have significant positive

50 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

implications for local communities. Whether the unemployed and under-employed (defined as persons with intermittent or irregular employment) will be able to take up employment opportunities at the mine depends largely on their level of skills and work experience as only one third has secondary education. With mining and quarrying being a major industry in the region, it is expected that at least some of the unemployed will have relevant skills to qualify them for employment at the mine. Those that are less skilled may be more suited to manual labour such as earthworks and road construction. Data collected in the study area revealed that several people have skills to execute elementary occupations and operate industrial machines. During the construction process potential candidates can also be identified to receive skills training for future opportunities. The proposed operation will consider employing miners who were retrenched after recent mine closures in nearby areas such as Welkom.

6.1.1.3 Local socio-economic development The proposed project has the potential to contribute to local socio-economic development, both through job creation and social investment, with particular reference to vulnerable communities and households (e.g. child-headed households) residing in the vicinity of the project. Socio-economic development initiatives can also be aligned to development initiatives listed in Matjhabeng LMs IDP as part of the mine’s corporate social investment program. The following opportunities are listed in the IDP: ■ Construction and/or upgrading of municipal sport and recreation facilities; ■ Construction of a new swimming pool in Phomolong; ■ Establishment of public parks in Phomolong; ■ Road construction and maintenance; ■ Establishment of health infrastructure; and ■ Other social infrastructure development

6.1.2 Negative impacts As mentioned earlier, negative project impacts can elicit resistance from local populations and government, which can ultimately hamper the progress and success of a project. The proposed project can have several impacts on the socio-economic environment, which can in turn have significant negative spin-offs for the local population, if proactive identification and mitigation is not undertaken. Several such aspects were identified and are discussed in turn below.

6.1.2.1 Disruption of movement patterns The proposed project might disrupt the daily movement patterns and lives of people due to increased traffic on local roads, especially on the R70 road which connects Hennenman and

51 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

Phomolong to other major urban centres in the area. This road is currently in bad condition and deteriorating. Additional heavy traffic caused by construction vehicles might increase the number of road accidents and cause further deterioration of the roads.

6.1.2.2 Nuisance effects related to blasting, noise and dust The development of the proposed project will entail extensive construction and operational activities (see Section 3.1.4). The impacts of these activities on surrounding communities such as Phomolong might include: ■ Noise and dust generated by vehicles, machinery and blasting activities; ■ Safety impacts (not only because of increased traffic, but also due to the risk of community members and animals wandering onto the construction site); and ■ Visual intrusion caused by construction activities and structures, which may impact negatively on the aesthetic character of the agricultural landscape. It is likely that these impacts will be most pronounced for the Phomolong community, given their close proximity to the project site. Although these impacts should be assessed in separate specialist studies, it is important that they also be considered from a social perspective. The developments planned between Phomolong and Hennenman and the current expansion of informal settlements towards the project site should be considered during the mine planning and the establishment of ancillary infrastructure.

6.1.2.3 Influx related impacts Large development projects offer people the opportunity to be employed. As news regarding the proposed project spreads, expectations regarding possible employment opportunities will take root. Consequently, the areas surrounding the proposed project might experience an additional influx of job seekers. Job seekers are likely to travel from neighbouring towns such as Welkom, Ventersburg and informal settlements near these urban centres. The pull factor for job-seekers to the area will be intensified by the high unemployment rate. As was mentioned in Section 5.1 and 5.2 poverty and unemployment are major challenges within the district and local study area. Influx from other informal settlements to Phomolong can also be anticipated as this community offers low living and housing costs and it is close to the proposed project site. Large numbers of people that have been retrenched in the mining sector in other nearby communities might contribute to the influx of people to the study area. Furthermore, since part of the construction workforce will probably originate from outside the local area (due to the short supply of appropriately skilled workers locally and construction contractors preferring to use their existing staff), their presence will constitute an additional influx of people. The influx of job-seekers and construction workers can have a variety of social consequences on the local population:

52 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

■ Firstly it is possible that conflict might arise between the newcomers and local residents. One reason for such conflict would be the perception among locals that the outsiders are taking up jobs that could have gone to unemployed members of the local communities such as Phomolong or Hennenman. Some of Phomolong’s population consists of migrants from other countries (see Section 5.2.2.2). Since there has in the past been violence between locals and foreigners, it may take root again when the Ventersburg project starts. However, it is not likely to be substantial since most foreigners appear to own their own businesses and are therefore likely to employ their family members. ■ Substantial population influx might place significant pressure on local infrastructure and services, such as sanitation and road infrastructure, which is already taking strain. The increase in migrants may result in an increased demand for shelter and probably exacerbate the existing housing shortages in areas such as Phomolong. An increase in housing demand might accelerate the growth of the informal section of the township. ■ Escalating demands might also be placed on limited health services with the predicted influx of people to the area. ■ An influx of job-seekers may also lead to an increase in various social pathologies, such as drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). As indicated in Section 0 and 5.2.2.4, HIV/AIDS has already attained worrying proportions in the study area, especially within Phomolong. This impact may be aggravated by the presence of a temporary construction workforce.

6.1.2.4 Impacts relating to construction camps As mentioned in Section 3, it is expected that a considerable proportion of the construction workforce of the proposed project will be housed in construction camps that may be established in a dedicated area near the proposed project footprint. As was discussed earlier in this section, construction camps can have several negative social impacts on surrounding communities, and also pose security-related risks. In addition to the social pathologies discussed in the preceding section, specific potential impacts in this regard include the following: ■ Construction camps are predominately inhabited by single men who can often create social disturbances, usually as a result of drinking and or being away from their wives or girlfriends; ■ Negligent behaviour, such as littering cigarette butts, causing veld fires; ■ Loss of livestock due to poaching by construction workers; ■ Littering by construction workers; and

53 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

■ Once construction is complete and the camp is vacated, it may be illegally occupied by squatters. This risk is especially acute given the housing shortage in Phomolong. If a construction camp is to be erected, potential sites for the construction camp should be investigated so as to maximise integration with existing services, ease of access for construction workers to the site, safety of workers while travelling between site and the camp, as well as to avoid intrusion or nuisance impacts on nearby households. The appropriate location of the construction camp should be considered by engineers. If the construction camp requires significant servicing from the local municipalities, this should be discussed with them in advance.

6.1.2.5 Land use – physical and economic displacement The proposed mine will be situated on an existing commercial farm. Several land uses on this farm and on adjoining properties will be affected by the proposed development. This includes the displacement of persons residing on or making use of the land. Displacement- related impacts encompass both physical displacement (the loss of a home and the necessity of moving elsewhere) and/or economic displacement (the loss of productive assets such as cultivated fields or business stands as well as loss of employment due to the loss of these assets). The proposed development will likely result in the Vogel household being physically and economically displaced as the construction of the mine on the property will force the family to move, which will also mean that they cannot practise their livelihood activity at its current location anymore. Selling and moving away from family land, which in this case has been kept within the Vogel family for several generations, can be traumatic if one considers the sentiment towards these types of family farms in general. Apart from the family residing in the primary residence on the property, several farm employees will also lose their jobs and homesteads if the main farming operation is discontinued. This will result in the physical and economic displacement of the landowners’ workers too.

6.1.3 Cumulative impacts Cumulative impacts are defined as impacts arising from the combined effects of two or more projects or actions. The importance of identifying and assessing cumulative impacts is that the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts – implying that the total effect of multiple stressors or change processes acting simultaneously on a system may be greater than the sum of their effects when acting in isolation. Cumulative impacts usually relate to large-scale rather than site-specific impacts and have a tendency to increase the intensity of impacts already predicted for the proposed project. Given the nature of the proposed project and the absence of other major developments in relative proximity to the immediate socio-economic environment, no cumulative socio- economic impacts are foreseen at this stage. More in-depth investigations would, however, need to be conducted during the impact assessment phase to consolidate this assumption.

54 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

6.2 Risk and constraints Apart from the impacts described in the previous section the following aspects constitute constraints that might pose more immediate risks to the progress of the project. These risks should be incorporated into the project design and receive appropriate management and mitigation.

6.2.1 Community opposition and expectations Community expectations regarding the proposed project are most frequently related to employment and corporate social investment projects. When such hopes are not met with interventions or addressed with appropriate communication, it may lead to potential stakeholder opposition and public mobilization against the project.

6.2.1.1 Social unrest Phomolong community has in the past mobilized into protest action regarding service delivery and other aspects. This indicates that volatile elements exist in the township. Currently access to basic sanitation and health services is limited; if this situation deteriorates it might eventually reignite hostility in Phomolong. This potential for local instability should be taken into account together with the recent nationwide mining strikes, particularly in the gold mining sector, which have also spilled over to mines near the study area. Community members may have a negative attitude towards the gold mining sector as they may have spouses, friends or relatives that have been retrenched or treated unjustly by other gold mining operations in areas such as Welkom and Virginia, particularly in light of the recent mine closures. When combining these dynamics it can be argued that affected communities might become resistant or hostile towards the proposed project, if not treated in a socially justifiable manner.

6.2.1.2 Employment, procurement and CSI initiatives Gold One intends to source a large proportion of their manual and semi-skilled labour force from the local areas (see Section 3.1.4). This is a considerable positive spin-off of the project because employment will provide opportunities for local people to be trained and gain exposure. It is important that the mine achieve its local employment targets, as failure to do so may result in political instability amongst communities. The mine should caution against employing the majority of their local employment quota from other areas near Welkom, Virginia and Ventersburg. Communities such as Phomolong who are closer to the project site will feel that they are entitled to more opportunities, as they will be directly affected by many of the project impacts. The high unemployment rate in the Phomolong will contribute to any such sentiments. Communities living around mines are generally well acquainted with the obligations that mining companies have to develop those and other labour sending communities through

55 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

corporate social investment and social and labour plans (SLP). Gold One should from the onset involve community structures and the local municipality in the development of local economic development programmes. Gold One should also consider conducting a needs assessment to determine the types of investments it can make to local development. Oftentimes there are already initiatives underway, in need of some financial or technical support that the mine could provide.

6.2.2 Displacement related compensation The project footprint will cause both physical and economic displacement of several households. It is likely that at least some of the households located on the proposed project site will have to be physically displaced. The exact extent of such displacement can however, only be assessed once the infrastructure layout has been determined. Decisions regarding infrastructure placement should be made in consultation with the Social Assessment team, so as to avoid resettlement wherever possible. The project is likely to involve economic displacement due to the loss of arable land and the loss of employment of farm workers. The loss of employment and land will necessitate the provision of livelihood restoration for farmworkers. Several issues might complicate the resettlement process. First, farmworkers residing on the property are not legal owners of the land, which is owned by the Vogel family. Secondly, Mr Vogel might be unwilling to part only with a section of his land, and can demand that he be compensated for the entire property. Compensation and resettlement should be finalised before the project is implemented. This will require that a resettlement action plan (RAP) be developed.

7 WAY FORWARD The objectives of this concluding section are to summarize potential socio-economic impacts and risks associated with the proposed project and to identify additional studies that would have to be undertaken during future phases of the project. Table 31 summarises the potential impacts and risks identified in Section 6 of this report.

56 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

Table 31: Summary of potential impacts and risks

Positive impacts Impact on the local economy

Employment opportunities

Local socio-economic opportunities

Negative impacts

Disruption of daily movement patterns

Nuisance effects related to blasting, noise and dust

Influx related impacts: . Social conflict/ unrest . Pressure on infrastructure/ services . Social pathologies (crime, drug/ alcohol abuse, HIV, etc.)

Impacts related to construction camps

Land use – physical and economic displacement

Risk and constraints Risks related to community opposition and expectations

Displacement-related compensation

It was pointed out in Section 1 that, should the feasibility phase of the project be successful, the project will proceed to a stage where applications for a variety of legal authorization processes will be submitted. During this phase, it is likely that a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would also have to be submitted. The EIA will include a social impact assessment (SIA) that will assess the anticipated impacts of the project on the human environment and to formulate appropriate mitigation measures to avoid or ameliorate negative socio-economic impacts and enhance positive ones. The assessment of several of the anticipated social impacts will be informed by the findings of biophysical and other specialist studies. For example construction traffic volumes and associated safety impacts will be informed by the traffic specialist study; dust generation by the air quality study; and safety issues in the risk assessment. Given that the project will probably involve physical and economic displacement (see Section 6.2.1.1 above), it is also likely that a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) would be required to define measures to manage and mitigate displacement-related impacts. The risks listed in Table 31 above constitute constraints that would have to be considered in project design, and/or require appropriate management and mitigation before the proposed project is implemented. Risks associated with community expectations and compensation

57 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED VENTERSBURG MINE GOL1675

should be resolved during future stakeholder consultation and community engagement and, if possible, included in the risk assessment.

8 REFERENCES Day, C., et al. The District Health Barometer 2007/08. 2009.

Day, C., et al. The District Health Barometer 2008/09. 2010.

Day, C., et al., District Health Barometer 2010/11, 2012, Health Systems Trust: Durban. http://www.lejwe.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/1-Final-IDP-2012-171.pdf http://www.statssa.gov.za/community_new/content.asp?link=interactivedata.asp

IFC. (2003). Good Practice Note: Addressing the Social Dimensions of Private Sector Projects. Environmental and Social Department. Retrieved from the Worldwide Web on 13 May 2012, URL: http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/p_socialGPN/$FILE/SocialGPN.pdf

International Finance Corporation. (2006). Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability. International Finance Corporation.

Lejweleputswa District Municipality, Lejweleputswa Growth and Development Strategy, 2008, Lejweleputswa District Municipality.

Lejweleputswa District Municipality. (2012). Integrated Development Plan for the Lejweleputswa District Municipality 2012-2017 (draft). Retrieved September 29, 2012, from Matjhabeng Local Municipality. (2011). Integrated Development Plan for Matjhabeng Local Municipality 2012-2017 (draft). http://www.rsa-overseas.com/about-sa/matjhabeng.htm

Shisana, O., et al., South African National HIV prevalence, incidence, behaviour and communication survey 2008: A turning tide among teenagers?, 2009, HSRC Press: Cape Town.

Statistics South Africa. (2001). Census 2001: Interactive data. Retrieved September 12, 2012, from URL: http://www.statssa.gov.za.

Statistics South Africa. (2008). Community Survey 2007: Interactive data. Retrieved September 10, 2012, from URL: http://www.statssa.gov.za/community_new/content.asp?link=interactivedata.asp

58

Appendix A: Expertise of Specialist

JURIE ERWEE

Mr. Jurie Johannes Jacobus Erwee Social Sciences Consultant Social Sciences Department Digby Wells Environmental

1 EDUCATION

2007 BA (Specialisation is Psychology), University of Pretoria, South Africa

2008 BSoc Sci (Honours) (Psychology) Cum Laude, University of Pretoria, South Africa

2009 MA (Research Psychology 1) Cum Laude, University of Pretoria, South Africa

2 LANGUAGE SKILLS

Language Reading Speaking Writing

English Excellent Excellent Excellent

Afrikaans Excellent Excellent Excellent

3 EMPLOYMENT

2012 – Date Digby Wells Environmental, Social Science Consultant

2009 – 2012 Aurecon, Junior Social Scientist

______Digby Wells & Associates (Pty) Ltd. Co. Reg. No. 1999/05985/07. Fern Isle, Section 10, 359 Pretoria Ave Randburg Private Bag X10046, Randburg, 2125, South Africa Tel: +27 11 789 9495, Fax: +27 11 789 9498, [email protected], www.digbywells.com ______Directors: A Sing*, AR Wilke, LF Koeslag, PD Tanner (British)*, AJ Reynolds (Chairman) (British)*, J Leaver*, GE Trusler (C.E.O) *Non-Executive ______

c:\users\shartzer\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\content.outlook\vjnpqccv\jerweecv13march13je.docx

2008 – 2008 AURUM (Health Research Institute), Field researcher

2008 – 2008 University of Pretoria, Project manager

4 EXPERIENCE I am a social scientist with 5 years of experience ranging over several aspects of social research, including the planning and execution of social surveys, participatory rural appraisal, sustainable livelihoods assessments, data management and statistical analysis, capturing and management of spatial data, stakeholder identification and community facilitation. Most of my work has been in the field of social impact assessment, resettlement planning and stakeholder engagement. I have been involved in projects in South Africa and elsewhere in Africa, including Namibia and Malawi. I have attained a BA and honours degree in psychology at the University of Pretoria and I am registered as a student research psychologist at the Health Professions Council of South Africa. I have also completed my first academic year of Master studies in Research Psychology. Currently I am completing my Master's dissertation in the field of Cross-Cultural personality assessment in South Africa.

2