Noise and Vibration Specialist Report - ERM€¦ · The vibration during the site construction is not considered to ... Environmental noise and vibration monitoring should be

Annex G.8

Noise and Vibration Specialist Report

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the

Proposed Gamsberg Zinc Mine and Associated Infrastructure in

Northern Cape

NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Commissioned by:

ERM Consulting

Prepared by:

Demos Dracoulides

Arrey Ebot

CAPE TOWN PO Box 60034, Table View 7439

Tel: +2721 551 1836 Fax: +2721 557 1078

[email protected]

Report No GAM-NVI-R02 March 2013

Noise Impact Assessment Report for the Proposed Gamsberg Zinc Mine in Northern Cape

DDA i March 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Introduction

Black Mountain Mining (Pty) Ltd intends to establish a 10 million tons per annum (Mtpa)

open pit zinc mine (beneficiation volume) at Gamsberg Inselberg in the Northern Cape

Province. In addition to the open pit zinc mine and associated infrastructure an office

complex and a zinc concentrator will be established to process the mined ore. The total

processing capacity of the zinc concentrator plant is approximately 10 million tons per year.

DDA Environmental Engineers (DDA) has been appointed by Environmental Resources

Management (Southern Africa) Pty Ltd (ERM) for the determination of the baseline noise

levels and the noise impact assessment for the proposed Zinc Mine.

2. Study Approach

The study approach incorporated noise measurements within the areas around the project

site, as well as noise calculations for the operational phase of the proposed mine and

associated infrastructure.

The noise modelling calculations for the proposed development were utilised for the

determination of the resulting noise levels due to the mining operations, the processing plant

and the ore transportation. The resulting noise levels were then used for the impact

assessment on the surrounding areas and sensitive receptors.

3. Impact Assessment

Based on the noise measurements and the noise modelling results, the following can be

concluded:

Baseline Noise Environment

The noise environment of the area bordering the Gamsberg mining area is that of

typical Rural districts with one major road (N14) and local secondary roads. The

daytime and night-time levels away from the above mentioned roads were within the

SANS guideline for Rural districts of 45 dB(A) and 35 dB(A) respectively.


DDA ii March 2013

The current noise levels at Aggeneys were above the guidelines for Rural but within

the SANS and WHO guidelines for Urban residential districts of 55 dB(A) and 45 dB(A)

for daytime and night-time respectively.

The main noise contributors within the extended area of the project were primarily the

vehicular traffic on the N14 and local roads. During night-time, most of these sources

were still the main contributors, however at certain locations the frog and insect activity

also contributed significantly to the local noise levels.

Construction Phase

The construction activities at receptors outside a 1,000 m zone from the main working

area will be noticeable but will not constitute a disturbing noise. For receptors located

at greater distances than a 1.5 km radius, the construction noise will be barely audible.

Since the closest receptor is more than 5 km away this impact is expected to be

Insignificant.

The vibration during the site construction is not considered to have a significant impact

on the surrounding receptors, as the closest one has a more than 5 km separation

distance from the site.

Operational Phase

During operation, the 45 dB(A) daytime and 35 dB(A) night-time noise levels will be

primarily contained within the Gamsberg concession area.

The daytime and night-time guidelines will not be exceeded in any of the scattered

farm houses around the mine nor the Aggeneys community, except for farm house

R05, which is situated within 300 m from the Loop 10 road.

Along the Loop 10 road, most of the scattered farm houses are located more than 500

m from the alignment, and as such the expected level contribution due to the trucks

will be below 34 dB(A), which is considered to be of Low significance.

The operational noise impact is considered Very Low and no additional mitigation

measures would be necessary.

The vibration levels are not expected to exceed the limit for structural damage beyond

a 400 m zone around blasting area, and the limit for sensitive or historical buildings

beyond a 600 m zone.


DDA iii March 2013

Based on the modelling results for the proposed mine operation and zinc beneficiation plant,

the impacts of construction and operation are summarised in the tables below.

Table 1. Noise and Vibration Impact Rating During Construction

Table 2. Operational Noise and Vibration Impact Rating

Nature: Construction activities would result in a negative direct impact on the vibration levels and noise environment around the plant.

Sensitivity/Vulnerability/Irreplaceability of Resource/Receptor – LowSensitivity: The activity will increase the noise and vibration levels at areas in very close proximity to the plant. However, the closest receptor is situated more than 5 km away.

Impact Magnitude – Small Extent: The extent of the impact is local. Duration: The expected impact will be short term (i.e. for the duration of construction). Scale: The impact will not result in notable changes to the noise levels at any receptors around

the mining area. Frequency: The frequency of the impact will be periodic. Likelihood: The noise levels outside the concession area are unlikely to increase during the

construction period.

IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE (NO MITIGATION REQUIRED) – NEGLIGIBLE Degree of Confidence: The degree of confidence is high.

Essential Mitigation Measures: i. No specific mitigations will be required during construction.

Nature: The mining and plant operation will result in a negative direct impact on the noise environment around the mine.

Sensitivity/Vulnerability/Irreplaceability of Resource/Receptor – LowSensitivity: The activity will increase the noise and vibration levels at areas in very close proximity to the plant and mining pit. However, the closest receptor is situated more than 5 km away.

Impact Magnitude – Small Extent: The extent of the impact is local. Duration: The expected impact will be long term (i.e. the duration of the operation). Scale: The impact will not result in notable changes to the noise levels at receptors situated

more than 2 km from the plant and mining pit. Frequency: The frequency of the impact will be periodic. Likelihood: The noise and vibration levels during operation are possible to increase during the

operational period.


Essential Mitigation Measures: i. No specific mitigations will be required during operation.


DDA iv March 2013

4. Recommendations

Based on the noise and vibration study, the noise performance indicator to be adopted for

the rural area around the mine and plant should be that the noise levels at single dwellings

do not exceed 45 dB(A) and 35 dB(A) during day- and night-time respectively, due to the

mining and plant operations.

At Aggeneys the indicator should be that the noise levels should not exceed 55 dB(A) and

45 dB(A) during day- and night-time respectively.

The performance indicator for vibration should be that the ground vibration level at general

houses of proper construction do not exceed 25 mm/s and at houses of lesser proper

construction 12.5 mm/s.

The main recommendations of the noise and vibration study are:

Construction:

i. There are no specific mitigations that will be required during construction.

ii. Environmental noise monitoring should be performed by an independent specialist on

a 6-month basis at the boundaries of the site and at two selected locations at the

closest farm houses to the plant and mining pit. This monitoring should commence

prior to and during construction.

Operation:

i. There are no specific mitigations that will be required during the mining activities and

plant operation.

ii. Environmental noise and vibration monitoring should be performed by an

independent specialist on an annual basis along the site boundaries and at four

selected locations within the farm houses closest to the mine and Loop 10 road.

A public complaints and actions registry should be established, in order to capture public

perceptions and complaints with regard to noise impacts, track investigation actions and

introduce corrective measures for continuous improvement.


DDA v March 2013

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. i

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Terms of Reference .................................................................................................. 1

2 NOISE BASICS GUIDELINES AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS .......................... 4

2.1 Noise Basics ............................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Noise Standards and Guidelines .............................................................................. 5

2.3 Blasting Basics ....................................................................................................... 10

3 AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS ............................................................... 12

3.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Monitoring Equipment ............................................................................................. 13

3.3 Noise Monitoring Points .......................................................................................... 14

3.4 Ambient Noise Measurements ............................................................................... 16

3.5 Noise-sensitive Receptors ...................................................................................... 19

4 NOISE AND VIBRATION MODELLING METHODOLOGY AND INPUT ........... 21

4.1 Noise During Construction and Decommissioning ................................................. 21

4.2 Noise Modelling of the Processing Plant and Mining Activities .............................. 22

4.3 Vibration During Construction and Operation ......................................................... 26

5 PREDICTED NOISE AND VIBRATION LEVELS ............................................... 29

5.1 Construction and Decommissioning Noise Modelling Results ............................... 29

5.2 Proposed Mine and Plant Noise Levels .................................................................. 29

5.3 Noise Levels without the Plant (Year 2014) ........................................................... 33

5.4 Discrete Receptor Calculations .............................................................................. 36

5.5 Blast Vibration Modelling Results ........................................................................... 37

6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 38

6.1 Gamsberg Zinc Beneficiation Plant and Mining Activities....................................... 38

6.2 Vehicular Traffic Noise Impacts .............................................................................. 38


DDA vi March 2013

6.3 Conclusions And Recommendations ...................................................................... 42

6.4 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 43

6.5 Impacts Rating ........................................................................................................ 45

Appendix A ............................................................................................................... 48

A.1 Impact Assessment Methodology for EIAs - Instructions to Specialists ................. 48

Appendix B ............................................................................................................... 52

B.1 Noise Monitoring Record Sheets ............................................................................ 52

B.2 Noise Survey Results for Continuous Monitoring at MP07 ..................................... 58

Appendix C ............................................................................................................... 65

C.1 Sound Power Ratings ............................................................................................. 65

Appendix D ............................................................................................................... 69

D.1 Suggested Changes to the Project Layout (15/04/2013) ........................................ 69

Appendix E ............................................................................................................... 71

E.1 Declaration of Consultant’s Independence ............................................................. 71


DDA vii March 2013

List of Figures page

Figure 1-1. Locality Map ........................................................................................................ 3

Figure 2-1. Typical Sound Levels (dB(A)) ............................................................................... 5

Figure 3-1. Locations of the Noise Monitoring Positions ...................................................... 15

Figure 3-2 Noise Levels at MP07 (16/08/2012-18/08/2012) ................................................. 19

Figure 3-3. Noise-Sensitive Receptors in Study Area .......................................................... 20

Figure 4.1. Gamsberg Mine and Processing Flow Diagram ................................................ 25

Figure 4-2. Gamsberg Mine Layout ..................................................................................... 26

Figure 5-1. Future Daytime Noise Contours Around the Gamsberg Mine ........................... 31

Figure 5-2. Future Night-ime Noise Contours Around the Gamsberg Mine ......................... 32

Figure 5-3. Existing Daytime Noise Contours Around the Gamsberg Mine ......................... 34

Figure 5-4. Existing Night-ime Noise Contours Around the Gamsberg Mine ....................... 35

Figure 6-1. Noise Level Differences of Plant and Q1 minus Existing: Day-time .................. 40

Figure 6-2. Noise Level Differences of Plant and Q1 minus Existing: Night-time ................ 41

Figure B-1. MP01 Images .................................................................................................... 52







Figure D-1. Suggested Changes to the Project Layout (15/04/2013) .................................. 69


DDA viii March 2013

List of Tables page

Table 1. Noise and Vibration Impact Rating During Construction .......................................... iii

Table 2. Operational Noise and Vibration Impact Rating ....................................................... iii

Table 2-1. WHO Guidelines for Ambient Sound Levels ......................................................... 6

Table 2-2. World Bank/IFC Ambient Noise Guidelines .......................................................... 7

Table 2-3. Typical Rating Levels for Ambient Noise .............................................................. 8

Table 2-4. Response Intensity and Noise Impact for Increases of the Ambient Noise .......... 9

Table 3-1. Sound Level Measurement Instrumentation ....................................................... 14

Table 3-2. Noise Guidelines and Noise Levels per Location ................................................ 16

Table 4-1. Gamsberg Mining Heavy Equipment Based on Peak Production ....................... 23

Table 4-2. Gamsberg Beneficiation Plant Construction Source Vibration Levels ................ 27

Table 5.1: Construction Noise at Various Distances from the Gamsberg Beneficiation Plant

....................................................................................................................................... 29

Table 5.2: Calculated Noise Levels at Discrete Receptors .................................................. 36

Table 5-3. Blasting Ground Vibration at Various Distances .................................................. 37

Table 6-1. Noise and Vibration Impact Rating During Construction .................................... 45

Table 6-2. Operational Noise and Vibration Impact Rating .................................................. 46

Table B-1: Noise Measurements Results ............................................................................ 56

Table C-1: Existing Plant Sound Power Emission Levels .................................................... 65

Table C-2: Construction Equipment Sound Power Emission Levels ................................... 68


DDA ix March 2013

Terminology, Acronyms and Definitions

Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

A-weighted sound level A frequency weighting filter used to measure of sound pressure level designed to reflect the acuity of the human ear, which does not respond equally to all frequencies.

dB(A) Unit of sound level. The weighted sound pressure level by the use of the A metering characteristic and weighting.

deciBel (dB) A measure of sound. It is equal to 10 times the logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of a given sound pressure to a reference sound pressure. The reference sound pressure used is 20 micropascals, which is the lowest audible sound.

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

Equivalent A-weighted sound level (LAeq)

A-weighted sound pressure level in decibels of continuous steady sound that within a specified interval has the same sound pressure as a sound that varies with time.

Equivalent continuous day/night rating level

Equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level (LAeq,T)during a reference time interval of 24 h, including adjustments for tonal character, impulsiveness of the sound and the time of day.

GPS Global Positioning System

IEC Independent Electoral Commission

IFC International Finance Corporation

Impulse time weighting A standard time constant weighting applied by the Sound Level Meter.

ISO International Organisation Standardisation

LA10 The noise level exceeded 10% of the measurement period with 'A' frequency weighting calculated by statistical analysis.

LA90 The noise level exceeded 90% of the measurement period with 'A' frequency weighting calculated by statistical analysis. It is generally utilized for the determination of background noise, i.e. the noise levels without the influence of the main sources.

LWA Sound power level in dB(A), re 10-12 W.


DDA x March 2013

Mtpa Million tonnes per annum

NSR Noise Sensitive Receivers.

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-ordination and Development

PPE Personal Protective Equipment

PPV Peak Particle Velocity. The peak signal value of an oscillating vibration velocity waveform, usually expressed in mm/second.

PWL Power level in dB(A).

Residual noise Sound in a given situation at a given time that excludes the noise under investigation but encompasses all other sound sources, both near and far.

SA South Africa

SANS South African National Standard.

SLM Sound Level Meter

WBG World Bank Group

WHO World Health Organisation


DDA 1 March 2013

1 INTRODUCTION

Black Mountain Mining (Pty) Ltd (herein referred to as Black Mountain), which is part of the

global Vedanta mining group, intends to establish a 10 million tons per annum (Mtpa) open

pit zinc mine (beneficiation volume) at Gamsberg Inselberg in the Northern Cape Province.

In addition to the open pit zinc mine, associated infrastructure in the form of a tailings dam,

waste rock dump, water supply, laboratories, sewage works, an office complex and a zinc

concentrator will be established to process the mined ore. Due to the low grade zinc

reserve present in the region, the zinc ore would need to be concentrated before exporting to

global markets. The total processing capacity of the zinc concentrator plant is approximately

10 million tons per year.

DDA Environmental Engineers (DDA) has been appointed by Environmental Resources

Management (Southern Africa) Pty Ltd (ERM) for the determination of the baseline noise

levels and the noise impact assessment for the proposed Zinc Mine.

The present report describes the noise impact assessment, which form parts of the

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the proposed Gamsberg Zinc Mine

and associated infrastructure.

1.1 Study Area

The proposed mine and associated infrastructure is located in the Namakwa District,

between the town of Aggeneys and the town of Pofadder. It is approximately 120 km east of

Springbok, along the N14 (see Figure 1-1). The proposed site is commonly referred to as

Gamsberg, and is characterised by an oval shaped inselberg 220 meters above the

surrounding plains. The project area is situated over four properties, which are owned by

Black Mountain Mining (Pty) Ltd.

1.2 Terms of Reference

The proposed terms of reference for the baseline and noise and vibration impact

assessment study were:

Establish the baseline noise levels around the proposed site.

Determine thresholds of acceptable change and relevant noise standards to be

complied with.


DDA 2 March 2013

Identify sensitive receptors that may potentially be impacted upon by the proposed

development.

Build a 3-dimensional noise impact model, in order to predict the future noise levels

due to the construction and operation of the proposed project and generated

vehicular traffic for comparison with regulatory limits and international guidelines.

Conduct a noise assessment related to mining activities, according to applicable

standards.

Identify and predict the impacts of the proposed mine during the construction,

operation and decommissioning phases, as well as the assessment of significance

before and after mitigation.

Propose mitigation measures.

Propose a Noise Monitoring Programme and Management Plan for the proposed

mine impact.

Noi

se Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t for

the

Pro

pose

d G

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ape

DD

A 3

Mar

ch 2

013

Figu

re 1

-1.

Loca

lity

Map


DDA 4 March 2013

2 NOISE BASICS GUIDELINES AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

2.1 Noise Basics

Sound is created when an object vibrates and radiates part of that energy as acoustic

pressure or waves through a medium, such as air, water or a solid. Sound and noise are

measured in units of decibels (dB). The dB scale is not linear but logarithmic. This means,

for example, that if two identical noise sources, each producing 60 dB, operate

simultaneously they will generate 63 dB. Similarly, a 10-decibel increase in sound levels

represents ten times as much sound energy.

The human ear can accommodate a wide range of sound energy levels, including pressure

fluctuations that increase by more than a million times. The human ear is not equally

receptive to all frequencies of sound. The A-weighting of sound levels is a method used to

approximate how the human ear would perceive a sound, mostly by reducing the

contribution from lower frequencies by a specified amount. The unit for the A-weighted

sound levels is dB(A).

Small changes in ambient sound levels will not be able to be detected by the human ear.

Most people will not notice a difference in loudness of sound levels of less than 3 dB(A),

which is a two-fold change in the sound energy. A 10-dB(A) change in sound levels would

be perceived as doubling of sound loudness.

The level of ambient sound usually varies continuously with time. A human’s subjective

response to varying sounds is primarily governed by the total sound energy received. The

total sound energy is the average level of the fluctuating sound, occurring over a period of

time, multiplied by the total time period.

In order to compare the effects of different fluctuating sounds, one compares the average

sound level over the time period with the constant level of a steady, non-varying sound that

will produce the same energy during the same time period. The average of the fluctuating

noise levels over the time period is termed Leq, and it represents the constant noise level that

would produce the same sound energy over the time period as the fluctuating noise level.

Percentile parameters (Ln) are also useful descriptors of noise. The Ln value is the noise

level exceeded for “n” percent of the measurement period. The Ln value can be anywhere

between 0 and 100. The two most common ones are L10 and the L90, which are the levels

exceeded for 10 and 90 percent of the time respectively. The L90 has been adopted as a

good indicator of the “background” noise level. The L10 has been shown to give a good

indication of people’s subjective response to noise.

DDA

Sound

noise so

Lp2 = Lp

Where:

Lp1 = so

In the c

Lp2 = Lp

In simp

per dou

approxi

The atm

importa

cement

promote

In gene

depend

frequen

Typical

2.2 No

In gene

countrie

deterior

Noise Im

levels dimi

ources the

p1 – 20 log(r

Lp2 =

ound pressu

case of a lin

p1 – 10 log(r

ple terms, fo

ubling of d

mately 3 dB

mospheric c

ant role in th

t transmits s

es transmis

eral terms, t

ds upon th

ncies and le

noise level

oise Standa

eral, the sta

es. Interna

rating noise

mpact Assess

nish with d

calculated s

r2/r1)

sound pr

ure level in

e source th

r2/r1)

or point sou

distance fro

B(A).

conditions, i

he resulting

sound diffe

ssion of sou

the above e

e frequenc

ess at low fre

s for variou

Fig

ards and G

andards ap

ationally, the

e climate.

sment Repor

distance fro

sound press

ressure le

dB at distan

e sound pre

urces, the d

om the so

interference

g noise leve

rently than

und, thus pro

effects incre

cy of the s

equencies.

us environm

gure 2-1. Typ

uidelines

pplied by th

e current tre

rt for the Prop

5

om the sour

sure is:

evel in d

nce r1 in me

essure is:

istance atte

urce. For

e from othe

els. For exa

“soft” groun

roducing lou

ease with d

sound. T

ments are sh

pical Sound

he internati

ends are to

posed Gams

rce becaus

B at dis

eters

enuation wo

r line sourc

r objects an

ample, “har

nd, such as

uder sound

distance, an

he effects

hown in the

d Levels (dB

onal comm

o apply mor

sberg Zinc M

e of disper

tance r2

ould be app

ces the sa

nd ground e

rd” ground,

s grass. Th

levels farth

nd the mag

tend to b

following fig

(A))

munity are s

re stringent

Mine in Northe

Ma

rsion, and f

in meter

proximately

ame attenu

effects also

such as as

he first grou

her from the

nitude of th

be greater

gure.

similar for

t criteria du

ern Cape

rch 2013

for point

rs, and

6 dB(A)

uation is

play an

sphalt or

und type

source.

he effect

at high

different

e to the


DDA 6 March 2013

The noise impacts due to a proposed project are generally based on the difference between

the expected noise level increase and the existing noise levels in the area, as well as on

comparisons against area-specific noise guidelines.

2.2.1 International Guidelines

The available international guidelines are presented in the sections below and have taken

into consideration the following adverse effects of noise:

Annoyance.

Speech intelligibility and communication interference.

Disturbance of information extraction.

Sleep disturbance.

Hearing impairment.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) together with the Organisation for Economic Co-

ordination and Development (OECD) have developed their own guidelines based on the

effects of the exposure to environmental noise. These provide recommended noise levels

for different area types and time periods.

The World Health Organisation has recommended that a standard guideline value for

average outdoor noise levels of 55 dB(A) be applied during normal daytime, in order to

prevent significant interference with the normal activities of local communities. The relevant

night-time noise level is 45 dB(A). The WHO further recommends that, during the night, the

maximum level of any single event should not exceed 60 dB(A). This limit is to protect

against sleep disruption. In addition, ambient noise levels have been specified for various

environments. These levels are presented in the table below.

Table 2-1. WHO Guidelines for Ambient Sound Levels

Environments Ambient Sound Level LAeq (dB(A)) Daytime Night-time

Indoor Outdoor Indoor Outdoor

Dwellings 50 55 - -

Bedrooms - - 30 45

Schools 35 55 - -


DDA 7 March 2013

The WHO specifies that an environmental noise impact analysis is required before

implementing any project that would significantly increase the level of environmental noise in

a community (WHO, 1999). Significant increase is considered a noise level increase of

greater than 5 dB.

World Bank Group (WBG) International Finance Corporation (IFC) has developed a program

in pollution management so as to ensure that the projects they finance in developing

countries are environmentally sound. Noise is one of the pollutants covered by their policy.

It specifies that noise levels measured at noise receptors, located outside the project’s

property boundary, should not be 3 dB(A) greater than the background noise levels, or

exceed the noise levels depicted in Table 2-2.

The Standard also refers to the WHO Guidelines for Community Noise (WHO, 1999) for the

provision of guidance to environmental health authorities and professionals trying to protect

people from the harmful effects of noise in non-industrial environments.

Table 2-2. World Bank/IFC Ambient Noise Guidelines

Receptor

Maximum Allowable Ambient Noise Levels 1-hour LAeq (dB(A))

Daytime Night-time07:00 – 22:00 22:00 – 07:00

Residential, institutional, educational 55 45

Industrial, commercial 70 70

Note: No LAeq values are stipulated for rural areas.

2.2.2 SANS Codes of Practice and Guidelines

The SANS 10103 Code of Practice provides typical ambient noise rating levels (LReq,T) in

various districts. The outdoor ambient noise levels recommended for the districts are shown

in Table 2-3 below.

It is probable that the noise is annoying or otherwise intrusive to the community or to a group

of persons if the rating level of the ambient noise under investigation exceeds the applicable

rating level of the residual noise (determined in the absence of the specific noise under

investigation), or the typical rating level for the ambient noise for the applicable environment

given in Table 2-3 (Table 2 of SANS 10103)


DDA 8 March 2013

The expected response from the local community to the noise impact, i.e. the exceedance of

the noise over the acceptable rating level for the appropriate district, is primarily based on

Table 5 of SANS Code of Practice 10103 (SANS 10103, 2008), but expressed in terms of

the effects of impact, on a scale of NONE to VERY HIGH (see Table 2-4 below).

The noise monitoring of the baseline conditions within and around the site will provide the

rating level of the residual noise. The noise impact during construction and the noise

emission requirements will be determined by comparing:

the ambient noise under investigation with the measured rating level of the residual

noise (background noise levels); and

the ambient noise under investigation with the typical rating level for the ambient

noise for the applicable environment given in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3. Typical Rating Levels for Ambient Noise

Type of district

Equivalent continuous rating level (LReq.T) for noise (dB(A)) Outdoors Indoors, with open windows

Day-nightLR,dn

1)

Day-time

LReq,d2)

Night-time

LReq,n2)

Day-nightLR,dn

1)

Day-time

LReq,d2)

Night-time

LReq,n2)

a) Rural districts 45 45 35 35 35 25

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

c) Urban districts 55 55 45 45 45 35

d) Urban districts with one or more of the following: workshops; business premises; and main roads

60 60 50 50 50 40

e) Central business districts 65 65 55 55 55 45

f) Industrial districts 70 70 60 60 60 50


DDA 9 March 2013

Table 2-4. Response Intensity and Noise Impact for Increases of the Ambient Noise

Increase

(dB)

ResponseIntensity

Remarks NoiseImpact

0 None Change not discernible by a person None

3 None to little Change just discernible Very low

3 5 Little Change easily discernible Low

5 7 Little Sporadic complaints Moderate

7 Little Defined by South African National Noise

Regulations as being ‘disturbing’

Moderate

7 10 Little - medium Sporadic complaints High

10 15 Medium Change of 10dB perceived as ‘twice as

loud’, leading to widespread complaints

Very high

15 20 Strong Threats of community/group action Very high

2.2.3 Health and Safety

In South Africa, any operation that has the potential to generate noise should have a noise

survey done, in terms of the Noise Induced Hearing Loss Regulations of the Occupational

Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993 (SA).

The regulations require an Approved Inspection Authority to conduct the surveys in

accordance with SANS 10083 and submit a report. All people exposed to an equivalent

noise level of 85 dB(A) or more must be subjected to audiometric testing. It is required that

all records of surveys and audiometric testing must be kept for 40 years.

The sound pressure threshold limits within workshops and plants that could affect

employees’ health, quality of life and quality of work are:

Alert threshold 80 dB(A).

Danger threshold 85 dB(A).

Site locations are required to meet the following levels of performance at all points

accessible by the employees on a regular basis:

For workshop circulated areas, the maximum levels must not exceed 85 dB(A).


DDA 10 March 2013

For work equipment, the maximum levels must not exceed 80 dB(A) at one meter

from the equipment and at 1.60 m high.

Exceptions may be considered for areas that should not be accessed on a regular basis.

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) will be required to access those areas, and the noise

levels outside should comply with the above-mentioned thresholds.

The employer has a legal duty under the current Occupational Health Regulations (SA) to

reduce the risk of damage to his/her employees’ hearing. The main requirements apply,

where employees’ noise exposure is likely to be at or above the danger threshold limit of 85

dB(A). It should be noted that there is an international tendency to regard 80 dB(A) as an

informal warning level.

The action level is the value of ‘daily personal exposure to noise’ (LEP,d). This depends on

the noise level in the working area and how long people are exposed to the noise. The

values take account of an 8-hour noise exposure over the whole working day or shift.

2.3 Blasting Basics

Blasting operations affect their surroundings in the form of ground vibration, air blast, fumes,

fly rock etc. Ground vibration is a natural result of blasting activities. The shock wave

energy that travels beyond the zone of rock breakage could cause damage and annoyance.

This energy is transmitted through the ground, creating vibration waves that propagate

through the various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. Once the

vibration reaches a building, it is transferred through the foundations into the structure. Any

structural resonances that may be excited will increase the effect of the vibration.

Factors influencing the ground vibration due to blasting are the charge mass per delay,

distance from the blast, the delay period and the geometry of the blast. These factors are

controlled by planned design and proper blast preparation.

The blast energy is transmitted to the ground, creating vibration waves that propagate

through the various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. Once the

vibration reaches a building, it is transferred through the foundations into the structure. Any

structural resonances that may be excited will increase the effect of the vibration.

Vibration can be described in terms of displacement, velocity or acceleration. For a vibrating

floor, the displacement is defined as the distance that a point on the floor moves away from

its static position. The velocity represents the instantaneous speed of the floor movement,

and acceleration is the rate of change of that speed.


DDA 11 March 2013

The most commonly used measures of vibration are the peak particle velocity (PPV) in

millimetres (mm), the velocity in metres per second (m/s) and acceleration in metres per

second squared (m/s2). The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or

negative peak of the vibration signal and is often used in monitoring the stresses that are

experienced by buildings.

The vibration levels can also be expressed as a logarithmic scale in decibels, similar to the

sound pressure levels for expressing noise. The relevant calculations for the velocity (Lv)

and the acceleration (La) levels are:

Lv = 20 log10(V/Vr), and

La = 20 log10(A/Ar)

where: Vr = 10-9 m/s and Ar = 10-6 m/s2 are the velocity and acceleration reference levels as

specified in ISO 1683.

In this report, when the vibration velocity levels are expressed in decibels, the reference

level defined above applies, and the unit is specified as dBV, in order to distinguish it from

dB(A), which is used for A-weighted noise levels.


DDA 12 March 2013

3 AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS

3.1 Methodology

The baseline noise monitoring was based on noise measurements obtained via the use of a

Type 1 Precision Impulse Integrating Sound Level Meter, in accordance with international

standards for sound level meter specifications IEC 61672:1999, IEC 61260:1995 and IEC

60651., as well as ISO 19961:2003 and ISO 3095:2001 for the measurement and

assessment of environmental noise.

The most common noise metric used to assess the dose-response relationship has become

the LAeq based on the A-weighted sound level, although the L10 measured against the L90 is

also used (ISO 1999, 1990). LAeq is now widely utilised in standards and legislation

throughout the world as the basis on which to develop a dose-response relationship for

community noise annoyance. It is particularly useful where the noise is relatively steady and

broadband.

Because LAeq is defined in energy rather than straight numerical terms, it is not simply

related to the level of exceedance of a guideline value, but also provides information

regarding the nature and extent of the noise source. Other noise parameters such as the

L10, L50 and L90 also provide useful information. The L10 represents the higher noise levels

during the measurement interval and together with L50 and L90 are generally utilised for traffic

noise impacts. The L90 gives an indication of the underlying noise level, or the level that is

almost always there in between intermittent noisy events. It is generally utilized for the

determination of background noise, i.e. the noise levels without the influence of the main

sources.

An assessment of the site was performed during an initial site visit, and noise measurements

were performed in order to determine the existing noise environment and the selection of

representative monitoring points.

A total of 7 monitoring points were selected for the determination of the existing background

noise levels and the noise comparisons between the modelling and the measurements. The

number of the measuring points covered the assessment of the representative background

noise levels, the project site, as well as the sensitive receptors around the site.

The noise measurements were performed over a twenty-four hour period and were

categorised in terms of daytime (07:00-22:00) and night-time (22:00-07:00), in order to

generate results suitable for comparison to international guidelines.

At each location at least two measurements were performed for both daytime and night-time

periods. In each period the continuous A-weighted equivalent sound pressure level (LAeq) of


DDA 13 March 2013

at least a 10-minute duration was taken. Abnormal disturbances, such as loud noise

generation in close proximity or sudden noise bursts that affect the measurement, were

discarded.

In addition to the Leq, L10, L50, and L90, the occurring maximum (Lmax) and minimum levels

(Lmin) during the measurement period were also recorded. These measurements were

appropriate for the determination of:

a) The noise levels with existing and future operations in progress.

b) The background noise, i.e. when no activities are contributing to the ambient noise

levels.

c) The nature and extent of the noise.

All the noise measurements were performed in compliance with the weather condition

requirements specified by the SANS and ISO codes. Therefore, measurements were not

performed when the steady wind speed exceeded 5ms-1 or wind gusts exceeded 10 ms-1.

The wind speed was measured at each location with a portable meter capable of measuring

the wind speed and gusts in meters per second.

3.2 Monitoring Equipment

The measurements were performed via two 01dB DUO, which are Type 1 Data-logging

Precision Impulse Integrating Sound Level Meters (see Table 3-1). The Sound Level Meters

was calibrated before and after the measurement session with a 01dB Type 1, 94dB, 1 kHz

field calibrator. The above-mentioned equipment, i.e. sound level meters and calibrator,

have valid calibration certificates from the testing laboratories of the De Beer Calibration

Services and the manufacturer (calibration certificates are available on request), and comply

with the following international standards:

IEC 651 & 804 – Integrating sound level meters.

IEC 942 – Sound calibrators


DDA 14 March 2013

Table 3-1. Sound Level Measurement Instrumentation

All the noise measurements complied with the weather condition requirements, as specified

by the SANS Codes and the Noise Control Regulations:

the SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL STANDARD - Code of Practice, SANS 10103:2008,

The measurement and rating of environmental noise with respect to land use, health,

annoyance and to speech communication;

The Noise Control Regulations.

The coordinates of each monitoring point were recorded with the GARMIN iQue 3600, and

the local weather parameters were measured with an AZ 8910 portable weather meter.

3.3 Noise Monitoring Points

The noise measurements were performed intermittently from the 16th to 18th of August 2012

at 6 locations around the proposed mining site and continuously for 2 days at one location

within the Aggeneys town. These locations can be seen in Figure 3-1 further below and

were chosen for the following reasons:

Representative of the current noise levels of the different areas where noise-sensitive

receptors are located.

Areas in close proximity to the Gamsberg.

Easy accessibility under the current conditions.

Safety in terms of demining operations and possible night-time measurements.

Likelihood of continuing to exist after the development of the site and therefore to be

used for future comparison purposes.

The selected monitoring points MP01 to MP06 around the mining site, and MP07 within

Aggeneys town were:

Instrument Type Serial No.

1. Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter 01dB DUO 10372

2. Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter 01dB DUO 10373

3. Field Calibrator 01dB Cal01 CAL01 11243


DDA 15 March 2013

MP01: Located in the north-eastern section of the project site and approximately 1 km

from the N14 road.

MP02: Located in the north-eastern section of the project site and approximately 2.6 km

south of the N14 road.

MP03: Located south east of the project site and approximately 5km from project

boundary.

MP04: Located south of the project site and approximately 500m away from project

boundary to the south.

MP05: Located south of the project site, in close proximity to the Loop 10 road.

MP06: Located in the western section of the project site and approximately 1 km from

the N14 road.

MP07: Located near Penge road in Aggeneys, approximately 10 km west of the project

site.

Figure 3-1. Locations of the Noise Monitoring Positions


DDA 16 March 2013

3.4 Ambient Noise Measurements

As outlined in Section 3.2, the noise measurements were performed intermittently at 6

locations (MP01 to MP06) around the proposed site and continuously at one location (MP07)

within Aggeneys town approximately 10km from the proposed site. The noise level (LAeq) for

each monitoring point and can be seen in Table 3-2. The additional parameters recorded

during the measurements, such as the Lmax, Lmin, L1, L10, L50 and L90 can be seen in Appendix

B.

Table 3-2. Noise Guidelines and Noise Levels per Location

Measurement Points Type of Area

Noise Level (dB(A)) Daytime Night-time

MP01 Rural 38.5 30.7 MP02 Rural 42.6 37.5 MP03 Rural 45.2 42.5 MP04 Rural 46.2 36.4 MP05 Rural 47.9 43.4 MP06 Rural 35.7 36.5 MP07 Residential 51.9 40.8

SANS Guidelines: Rural districts: Daytime: 45 dB(A), Night-time: 35 dB(A) Urban areas: Daytime: 55 dB(A), Night-time: 45 dB(A) Industrial areas: Daytime: 70 dB(A), Night-time: 60 dB(A) World Bank Guidelines: Residential: Daytime: 55 dB(A), Night-time: 45 dB(A) Industrial: Daytime: 70 dB(A), Night-time: 60 dB(A)

Based on the site visit observations and the measurement results, the following can be

indicated regarding the baseline noise environment at each monitoring location.


DDA 17 March 2013

1) MP01:

This point was located at the north-eastern section of the proposed mining site and

approximately 1 km from the N14. The noise sources were dominated by the traffic noise

from the N14 during the day and insert activity at night. The average noise levels during day-

and night-time were 38.5 dB(A) and 30.7 dB(A) respectively. The measured ambient noise

levels at this point were below the SANS Guidelines of 45 dB(A) and 35 dB(A) for daytime

and night time respectively

2) MP02:

This point was located at the north-eastern section of the proposed mine site and

approximately 2.6 km from the N14 and 850 m from receptor 4. The noise environment at

this point was dominated by insect activity during the night. The average noise levels during

day- and night-time were 42.6 dB(A) and 37.5 dB(A) respectively. The measured ambient

noise levels at this point was below the SANS Guidelines of 45 dB(A) during the day, and

marginally above SANS Guidelines of 35 dB(A) at night time.

3) MP03:

This point is located at the south-eastern side of the site, approximately 550 m from the

receptor 1. The noise environment at this point was dominated by the road traffic and insect

activity. The average noise levels measured during daytime and night-time were 45.2 dB(A)

and 42.5 dB(A) respectively The measured ambient noise levels at this point were

marginally above the SANS Guidelines of 45 dB(A) and 35 dB(A) for daytime and night time

respectively.

4) MP04:

This point is located at the south of the site, approximately 1.3 km from the mining pit. The

predominant noise sources at this point were the vehicular traffic from nearby road and bird

activity. The average noise levels measured during day- and night-time were 46.2 dB(A)

and 36.4 dB(A) respectively The measured ambient noise levels at this point were

marginally above the SANS Guidelines of 45 dB(A) and 35 dB(A) for daytime and night time

respectively.


DDA 18 March 2013

5) MP05:

This point is located near the southern corner of the site. It is approximately 1.3 km from the

proposed mine site, and about 2.3 km from receptor 5. The predominant noise sources

were traffic and insect activity. The average noise levels measured during daytime and

night-time were 47.9 dB(A) and 43.4 dB(A) respectively. The measured ambient noise

levels at this point were marginally above the SANS Guidelines of 45 dB(A) and 35 dB(A) for

daytime and night time respectively.

6) MP06:

This point was located west of the proposed mining site and approximately 1 km from the

N14. The noise sources were dominated by the traffic noise from the N14. The average

noise levels during daytime and night-time were 35.7 dB(A) and 36.5 dB(A) respectively. The

measured ambient noise levels at this point were below the SANS Guidelines of 45 dB(A)

and 35 dB(A) for daytime and night time respectively.

7) MP07:

This point was located at Aggeneys town about 10 km from the Gamsberg Site. The

measurement at this point was performed continuously over two days and nights. The

noise environment at this point was primarily dominated by human activities and the

vehicular traffic from nearby local roads. The average noise levels during daytime and night-

time were 51.9 dB(A) and 40.8 dB(A) respectively. The measured noise levels for the time

periods were below the SANS and the World Bank/IFC Ambient Noise Guidelines for urban

residential areas. The measured LAeq at this location averaged for each hour over the 2 days

can be seen in Figure 3-2. The additional parameters and the time series of the

measurements for each day can be found in Appendix B.

DDA

3.5 N

Potentia

These r

that are

baseline

expecte

above-m

found in

Noise Im

oise-sensi

al noise-se

receptors w

e close to

e measure

ed noise co

mentioned s

n the noise

mpact Assess

Figure 3-2

itive Recep

nsitive rece

were mainly

the project

ment points

ontribution o

sensitive re

modelling s

sment Repor

Noise Leve

ptors

eptors were

farm house

site are de

s are also

of the mine

eceptors. Th

section furth

rt for the Prop

19

ls at MP07 (

e identified

es and resid

epicted in

included in

e operations

hese recept

her below.

posed Gams

(16/08/2012-

during the

dential area

Figure 3-3

n this figure

s, discrete

tors and the

sberg Zinc M

18/08/2012)

site visit an

as of Aggen

below. Th

e. In orde

receptors w

e modelled n

Mine in Northe

Ma

nd from GIS

neys. The re

he location

er to determ

were place

noise levels

ern Cape

rch 2013

S maps.

eceptors

s of the

mine the

d at the

s can be


DDA 20 March 2013

Figure 3-3. Noise-Sensitive Receptors in Study Area


DDA 21 March 2013

4 NOISE AND VIBRATION MODELLING METHODOLOGY AND

INPUT

4.1 Noise During Construction and Decommissioning

The construction of the plant is expected to commence within 2013. The construction

activities of the proposed plant are likely to increase the local noise levels temporarily during

the construction period. The basis for the modelling methodology for construction noise was

the British Standard 5228: Part 1: 1984 “Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites Part

1: Code of Practice for Basic Information and Procedures for Noise Control”.

This standard was utilised for the calculation of noise from construction and the

determination of the sound level data from on-site equipment and site activities. The typical

sound power levels utilised in that standard were taken from measurements at various sites,

percentage on-times and power ratings for a wide range of construction plants. A typical mix

of excavators, bulldozers, front-end loaders, graders, cement mixers, compressors and

trucks were utilised for the noise modelling.

The following parameters and assumptions were used in the calculations:

Average height of noise sources: 2 m.

Construction operating hours: 24 hr.

Typical construction stretch at a time: 200 m.

No noise barriers in place.

Construction site equipment:

1 Bulldozer

1 Excavator

1 Grader

2 Trucks

1 Compressor

1 Concrete mixer (unloading)

1 Concrete mixer equipment.

It was also assumed, as a worst-case scenario, that all the equipment would be operated

simultaneously at the construction site. The sound power levels of the construction

equipment are shown in Table C-2 of Appendix C.


DDA 22 March 2013

The equipment to be used for the decommissioning of the plant is expected to be similar to

the construction equipment. As such, the noise levels during the decommissioning

operations will be the same or similar to the construction related noise levels.

4.2 Noise Modelling of the Processing Plant and Mining Activities

Noise modelling was utilised for the sound propagation calculations and the prediction of the

sound pressure levels around the processing plant and mining pit. A modelling receptor grid

was utilised for the determination of the expected noise contours, as a result of the proposed

mining operations. In addition, the noise levels were estimated at several discrete receptors

placed at scattered farm houses and the residential area of Aggeneys.

The noise modelling was performed via the CADNA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement)

noise model. The latter was selected for the following reasons:

It incorporates the ISO 9613 in conjunction with the CONCAWE noise propagation calculation methodology.

It provides an integrated environment for noise predictions under varying scenarios of operation.

The cumulative effects of line sources, such as roads and haul routes, as well as point noise sources, can be determined in a three-dimensional environment.

The ground elevations around the entire site can be entered into the model, and their screening effects taken into consideration.

The noise propagation influences of the meteorological parameters of a specific area can also be accounted for.

The main assumptions adopted in the noise modelling were:

Acoustically semi-hard ground conditions: This assumes that partial attenuation

due to absorption at the ground surface takes place. This assumption represents

a somewhat pessimistic evaluation of the potential noise impact. It should be

noted that the area over the water was assigned zero ground absorption.

Meteorological conditions: For the noise propagation in the extended area, the

temperature and humidity for daytime was set in the model to 35oC and 50%

respectively, and for night-time 25oC and 70% respectively. The effects of

frequency-dependent atmospheric absorption were taken into consideration.

Screening effect of temporary stockpiles, buildings and other barriers: The effect

of these temporary structures on the noise climate has been ignored,


DDA 23 March 2013

representing a pessimistic evaluation of the potential noise impact. However, the

ground elevations of the entire area were utilised in the modelling set-up.

Worst-case operational noise level assumption: The highest noise level of mining

and plant equipment was used as the criterion value for the noise predictions of

the proposed project, representing a pessimistic evaluation of the potential noise

impact.

Worst-case operational assumption: All mining, handling and processing

equipment was assumed to operate simultaneously, which is considered a

pessimistic evaluation of the potential noise impact.

Two modelling scenarios were generated for the noise impact assessment. The first

considered the mine and plant in full operation. An additional modelling scenario without the

plant was also utilised, in order to determine the expected noise levels due to the road traffic

on the N14 for the year 2014, which is the operational year for the Gamsberg plant. These

two modelling scenarios were:

Scenario 1: Mine and plant in full operation.

Scenario 2: No plant in operation and projected 2014 road traffic on the main roads (No-go

alternative).

Based on the provided information, at peak production, the proposed mine will produce ore

from the open pit at a rate of 10 Mtpa and will generate waste rock at a rate reaching 90

Mtpa. For the mining activities, the number of heavy equipment was based on the peak

production capacity in accordance with the following table. The Gamsberg mine engineers

indicated that the mining activities and material hauling will only take place during daytime

and night-time. As a worst-case scenario, it was assumed that all equipment within the

mining pit and waste dumps operate simultaneously.

Table 4-1. Gamsberg Mining Heavy Equipment Based on Peak Production

Equipment NumberElectric Rope Shovels (45m3 Bucket) 4 Haul Truck 32 Drill Rig (Waste Drilling) 7 Drill Rig (Ore Drilling) 2 Water Carts (40/50 Kl) 3 Trackdozers (D11, D375 etc.) 4


DDA 24 March 2013

Equipment Number Front End Loaders ( 992, WA900 etc.) 2 Motor Grader (24M,GD 825A-2 etc.) 2 Rock Breaker ( 375, PC200 etc.) 1 Rock Breaker Crusher 1 Backhoes/ Excavators (375,PC200 etc.) 2 Wheel Dozers (854/844) 2 Pre-Split Drills (115mm diameter) 3 Secondary Blasting Rig 2 Low Pad Trailors ( Lowbed 120t) 2

Based on the capacity of haul trucks to be used and the ore and waste quantities per

annum, the daily number of truck-trips to the waste dump were estimated to be 1,994 and to

the crusher 219.

The processed 1 million tons of zinc concentrate that will be produced is going to be trucked

to the Port of Saldanha via road using the N14 and N7 and via rail. The split between road

and rail will be equal and the rail portion is going to be trucked via the Loop 10 road to the

Transnet Railway siding, which is the transfer point to the Sishen-Saldanha Railway Line.

Utilising 32 ton trucks, the total trips per day were estimated to be 171.

The zinc concentrator processing plant area will consist of the following:

Crusher plant

Milling

Flotation

Filtration and concentrate storage

Bulk reagent storage

Plant bulk fuel and lubricant storage facilities

Ore stockpile pads and silos

Tailings facility (see tailings section below)

A block flow schematic diagram, for the ore extraction, processing and transportation is

shown in Figure 4.1 below.

The sound power data utilised in the noise modelling for the mining operations and

beneficiation plant can be found in Table C-1 of Appendix C. The layout and locations of the

noise sources can be seen in Figure 4-2. The plant and quarry positions were set up in the


DDA 25 March 2013

model and the noise sources positioned at the appropriate locations. In this manner, the

ground screening effects were taken into consideration.

Figure 4.1. Gamsberg Mine and Processing Flow Diagram

DDA

The fut

Gamsb

Based o

heavy v

road of

From th

per day

used in

percent

4.3 Vib

With re

predict

5228: P

Noise Im

ture traffic

erg mine op

on the traff

vehicle perc

3 %, the 20

he traffic stu

y (22 buses

n the cumu

tage of 65.4

bration Dur

spect to co

levels of v

Part 4, which

mpact Assess

on the loca

perations w

ic study, the

centage of 7

014 traffic w

udy, the min

, 16 minbus

lative scena

4% and for t

ring Const

nstruction v

vibration fro

h relates to

sment Repor

Figure 4-2.

al road netw

was estimate

e 2011 traff

7.2%. With

was estimate

ne will gene

s-taxis and

ario for N14

the Loop 10

ruction and

vibration, th

om construc

percussive

rt for the Prop

26

Gamsberg

work, as w

ed in the sp

fic along th

h an assum

ed to be 12

erate, in add

41 cars). T

4, were 14

0 road, 4 ve

d Operatio

here are no

ction activit

e or vibrator

posed Gams

Mine Layou

well as the

ecialist traff

e N14 was

ed annual a

274 vehicles

dition to the

The resultin

4 vehicles p

ehicles all of

on

standards

ies, other t

ry piling only

sberg Zinc M

ut

traffic contr

fic and trans

1166 vehic

average traf

s per day.

ore export

g combined

per hour wi

f which wer

that provide

than that co

y.

Mine in Northe

Ma

ribution due

sport impac

cles per day

ffic increase

trucks, 79

d trips for th

th a heavy

re trucks.

e a method

ontained w

ern Cape

rch 2013

e to the

ct study.

y, with a

e on this

vehicles

he mine,

y vehicle

ology to

ithin BS


DDA 27 March 2013

It is generally accepted that for the majority of people vibration levels of between 0.15 and

0.3 mm/s peak particle velocity are just perceptible. Table 4-2 below details the distances at

which certain construction and mining activities give rise to a just perceptible level of

vibration. These data are based on historical field measurements and BS 5228. The listed

activities and equipment below are the ones that typically generate the highest levels of

vibration on construction sites.

Table 4-2. Gamsberg Beneficiation Plant Construction Source Vibration Levels

Construction activity Distance from activity when vibration may just be perceptible (m)

Excavation 10 - 20 Hydraulic breaker 15 - 20 Hydraulic vibratory pile hammer 50 - 100 Hydraulic impact pile hammer 40 - 60 Auger piling 20

None of the above-mentioned activities during construction and operation are likely to take

place outside the Gamsberg Mine site or closer than 100 m to the site boundaries. The

Threshold of Perception for Human Reaction level of 0.3 mm/s is not expected to be

exceeded outside the mining site. As such, the vibration impacts from construction and

operation activities, other than the blasting, are unlikely to impact negatively any sensitive

receptors in the study area, outside the site boundaries.

During the operational period of the Gamsberg mine, the most significant vibration source

will be the blasting for the ore extraction. For the prediction of the blast vibration, the scaled

distance prediction formula was utilised:

PPV = a (D / Q0.5)b (4-1)

Where:

PPV: peak particle velocity (mm/s),

D: distance between the blast and the point of interest (m),

Q: the maximum charge per delay (kg), and

a, b: site constants. The conservative values of 534 and -1.65 were used in the

current study.

It has been estimated that around 250 holes will be drilled per day for blasting purpose.

Base on the expected blasting material usage per month as 3500 tons, approximately 685

kg of explosive will be filled in each hole.


DDA 28 March 2013

Assuming that five holes will be detonated simultaneously, the maximum charge was

calculated to be 3,425 kg.


DDA 29 March 2013

5 PREDICTED NOISE AND VIBRATION LEVELS

5.1 Construction and Decommissioning Noise Modelling Results

Table 5.1 below shows the noise levels of the typical construction activities at the Gamsberg

beneficiation plant. The noise levels further than 1 km away were found to be lower than 40

dB(A).

The plant is situated more than 5 km from the closest sensitive receptor. For receptors

located at greater distances than the 1 km radius, the construction noise will be barely

audible.

It should also be noted that the screening effects of the existing ground elevations may have

a small reduction effect on the actual noise levels generated during the construction phase.

The noise levels in Table 5.1 were estimated without any barrier effects and can thus be

considered a worst-case scenario.

Table 5.1: Construction Noise at Various Distances from the Gamsberg Beneficiation Plant

Receptor Modelled ModelledDistance Day Night

(m) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) 100 61.1 66.3200 58.3 60.2400 46.3 49.1

1000 37.1 41.0

Similar noise levels are expected to be generated by the decommissioning operations at the

plant. In addition, this impact is likely to be of short duration. As such, no significant noise

impacts are expected during the decommissioning phase of the plant.

5.2 Proposed Mine and Plant Noise Levels

Based on the noise modelling methodology and input data outlined in Section 0, the noise

contours around the mining pit, beneficiation plant and product routes were estimated for

day- and night-time conditions. For the noise modelling the worst-case scenario of 10 Mtpa

of ore throughput was utilised.

The noise impact assessment was carried out in accordance with the South African National

Standard - Code of Practice SANS 10103:2008 for rural districts, i.e. 45 dB(A) during


DDA 30 March 2013

daytime and 35 dB(A) during night-time. It should be noted that the guideline levels from the

WHO for residential areas is 55 dB(A) during daytime and 45 dB(A) during night-time.

The noise contours around the mining area, plant and roads can be seen in Figure 5-3 and

Figure 5-4 for day- and night-time respectively.

It is evident that for the daytime conditions, the 45 dB(A) contour extended approximately

1,000 m from the plant. The same contour was contained at a shorter distance around the

mining pit due to the local topography. The daytime rural daytime guideline will not be

exceeded beyond 330 m around the N14 and beyond 100 m around the Loop 10 road.

Under night-time conditions, the 35 dB(A) extended to a maximum of 2500 m around the

beneficiation plant. Around the N14 the night-time guideline will not be exceeded beyond

1100 m and along Loop 10 road beyond 450 m.

The daytime and night-time guidelines will not be exceeded in any of the scattered farm

houses around the mine nor the Aggeneys community, except for farm house R05, which is

situated within 300 m from the Loop 10 road.

The 45 dB(A) daytime and 35 dB(A) night-time noise levels will be contained within the

Gamsberg concession area and as such the operational noise impact is considered Very

Low and no additional mitigation measures would be necessary.

DDD

A

Figu

re 5

-1.

No

Fut

ure

Day

time oi

se Im

pact

Ass

es

31

Noi

se C

onto

ursss

men

t Rep

ort f

or

Aro

und

the

Gamr t

he P

ropo

sed

Ga

msb

erg

Min

e

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ap

Mar

ch 2

01

pe 3

DDD

A

Figu

re 5

-2.

F

No

Futu

re N

ight

-imeoi

se Im

pact

Ass

es

32

e N

oise

Con

tour

sssm

ent R

epor

t for

s A

roun

d th

e G

ar the

Pro

pose

d G

a

msb

erg

Min

e

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ap

Mar

ch 2

01

pe 3


DDA 33 March 2013

5.3 Noise Levels without the Plant (Year 2014)

In order to compare the differences in the resulting noise environment with and without the

mine and beneficiation plant, an additional scenario was modeled. The only noise sources

for this scenario were the vehicular traffic on the N14. Since the plant will only be in full

operation in 2014, the existing traffic counts were projected for that same year as described

in the methodology section. The noise contours without the plant for the year 2014, i.e. only

due to traffic on the N14 can be seen in Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4 for day- and night-time

respectively.

It is evident that the daytime 45 dB(A) zone around the N14 will be contained within a 300

zone and the night-time guideline of 35 dB(A) within 750 m.

DDD

A

Figu

re 5

-3.

E

No

Exis

ting

Day

timeoi

se Im

pact

Ass

es

34

e N

oise

Con

tour

sssm

ent R

epor

t for

s A

roun

d th

e G

ar the

Pro

pose

d G

a

amsb

erg

Min

e

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ap

Mar

ch 2

01

pe 3

DDD

A

Figu

re 5

-4.

E

No

Exis

ting

Nig

ht-im

oise

Impa

ct A

sses

35

me

Noi

se C

onto

urssm

ent R

epor

t for

rs A

roun

d th

e G

ar the

Pro

pose

d G

a

amsb

erg

Min

e

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ap

Mar

ch 2

01

pe 3


DDA 36 March 2013

5.4 Discrete Receptor Calculations

Several discrete receptors were placed at 6 farm houses around the mine and at the closest

community of Aggeneys, in order to assess the source contribution, compare the predicted

noise levels against the measured values and identify possible mitigation measures. The

location of the receptors can be seen in Figure 3-3. These calculations were performed for

Scenario 1, as well as the no-go alternative, i.e. the situation without the plant (Scenario 2).

Table 5.2 below shows the calculated values for each receptor and scenario. It can be seen

that at all locations the night-time noise levels without the mining operations and plant were

below 25 dB(A). This indicates that the existing traffic from the N14 is not expected to have

any contribution on the night-time noise levels at these locations. During daytime most of

the levels due to the N14 traffic were below 25 dB(A) and at Aggeneys the level reached 29

dB(A).

From the same table it is evident that the cumulative contribution of the modelled sources

was also below 25 dB(A) for night-time, except for farm house R05, where the it reached 38

dB(A), which is marginally above the rural guideline.

The noise levels at Aggeneys, due to the mining-related traffic, are expected to increase by

less than 1 dB, which is considered insignificant.

The crushing and beneficiation plant noise is not expected to have any impact on the

existing noise levels at any of the receptors examined. As such, the existing background

noise level at those positions will only be affected marginally or not at all by the plant, the

haul road, the mining pit or the traffic noise sources.

Table 5.2: Calculated Noise Levels at Discrete Receptors

ID Description Plant + Mine Without Mine (Year: 2014) Daytime Night-time Daytime Night-time

dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

01 Farm house <25 <25 <25 <2502 Farm house <25 <25 <25 <2503 Farm house <25 <25 <25 <2504 Farm house 25.6 <25 25.6 <2505 Farm house 38.0 38.0 <25 <2506 Farm house <25 <25 <25 <2507 Aggeneys 30.0 25.1 29.4 <25


DDA 37 March 2013

5.5 Blast Vibration Modelling Results

From Equation (4-1) and the information on the blast design, the expected ground vibration

levels were calculated for various distances from the blast area. Table 5-3 shows the

expected ground vibration levels (PPV) for various distances calculated for the estimated

charge mass. It should be noted that the assumed number of simultaneous detonation of

blastholes was five. If this number were to change, it would influence the resulting vibration

at the various distances. If the actual number is greater, then a larger zone of vibration

impact would be expected.

From Table 5-3, it is evident that the adopted PPV limit of 12.5 mm/s for architectural and

structural damage to structures in poor condition will not be exceeded beyond a 570 m zone

around the charge. Since local sensitive receptors are located more than 4 km away from

the mining pit, the vibration impact will be minimal at these receptors.

Table 5-3. Blasting Ground Vibration at Various Distances

No Distance from Charge(m)

PPV (mm/s)

1 300 36.0 2 400 22.4 3 570 12.5 4 600 11.5 5 800 7.1 6 1000 4.9 7 1200 3.7 8 1400 2.8 9 1600 2.3

10 1800 1.9 11 2000 1.6 12 2500 1.1 13 3000 0.8 14 3500 0.6 15 4000 0.5 15 4500 0.4


DDA 38 March 2013

6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The noise impact assessment was focused on two issues related to the proposed Gamsberg

mining project. The first was the noise levels around the processing plant site, the mining pit

and the relevant overburden dumping. The second was the generated additional road traffic

due to the workers and processed zinc transportation.

6.1 Gamsberg Zinc Beneficiation Plant and Mining Activities

The proposed plant, as can be seen from Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2, generates daytime

noise levels that do not extend beyond the Gamsberg concession boundaries, i.e. the

daytime 45 dB(A) and the night-time 35 dB(A) noise contour is contained well inside the

boundaries. This is attributed primarily to the fact that the position of the plant and the

mining pit within the site is positioned at least 3 km from these boundaries, as well as the

ground formation around the pit.

The expected noise level increase above the rural district guideline of 45 dB(A) for daytime

and 35 dB(A) for night-time can be seen in the following Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2

respectively.

It is evident that during daytime the expected 3 dB(A) increase above the 45 dB(A) level will

not reach any of the concession boundaries, and is well away the farm houses around the

mine and the town of Aggeneys (see Figure 6-1).

The noise increase due to the plant’s operation beyond a 1km zone will be below 1 dB for

the daytime. During night-time a 3 dB noise increase is expected to reach 2.5 km around

the plant. There are no sensitive receptors within these zones. This impact is considered

Insignificant.

6.2 Vehicular Traffic Noise Impacts

From Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4 without the plant, it can be seen that by the year 2014 the 45

dB(A) daytime noise levels around the N14 will extend 300 m. Under night-time weather and

traffic conditions, the 35 dB(A) zone will be approximately 750 m.

The introduction of the Gamsberg beneficiation plant and mine will introduce additional

vehicles on the N14 and Loop 10 roads. The noise impact of this additional traffic will be

minor, since the daytime noise level increase from the existing situation and the 45 dB(A)

guideline will be below 1 dB(A) along the N14 road (see Figure 5-1). The night-time

increase above the 35 dB(A) guideline is expected to be approximately 1 dB(A) within a 500

m zone (see Figure 5-2).


DDA 39 March 2013

Around Loop 10 the daytime increase above 45 dB(A) will be below one beyond a 100 m

zone around the road. The night-time noise level increase above the rural guideline of 35

dB(A) will reach 3 dB within 300 m from the road. Around loop 10 there are very few

scattered farm houses, with most of them situated at more than 600 m from the road. The

noise impact there due to the additional truck on Loop 10 is expected to be Very Low.

DDD

A

Figu

re 6

-1.

No

No

oise

Lev

el D

iffer

eoise

Impa

ct A

sses

40

ence

s of

Pla

nt a

nssm

ent R

epor

t for

nd Q

1 m

inus

Exi

sr the

Pro

pose

d G

a

stin

g: D

ay-ti

meam

sber

g Zi

nc M

ine

in N

orth

ern

Cap

Mar

ch 2

01

pe 3

DDD

A

Figu

re 6

-2.

Noi

No

ise

Leve

l Diff

ereoi

se Im

pact

Ass

es

41

nces

of P

lant

anss

men

t Rep

ort f

or

d Q

1 m

inus

Exi

sr the

Pro

pose

d G

a

stin

g: N

ight

-tim

eamsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ap

Mar

ch 2

01

pe 3


DDA 42 March 2013

6.3 Conclusions And Recommendations

6.3.1 Conclusions

The main conclusions of the baseline noise measurements were:

i. The noise environment of the area bordering the Gamsberg mining area is that of typical

Rural districts with one major road (N14) and local secondary roads. The daytime and

night-time levels away from the above mentioned roads were within the SANS guideline

for Rural districts of 45 dB(A) and 35 dB(A) respectively.

ii. The current noise levels at Aggeneys were above the guidelines for Rural but within the

SANS and WHO guidelines for Urban residential districts of 55 dB(A) and 45 dB(A) for

daytime and night-time respectively.

iii. The main noise contributors within the extended area of the project were primarily the

vehicular traffic on the N14 and local roads. During night-time, most of these sources

were still the main contributors, however at certain locations the frog and insect activity

also contributed significantly to the local noise levels.

Based on the modelling of the noise and vibration levels due to the proposed mining

operations, the main findings of the noise and vibration impact study were:

Construction:

i. The construction activities at receptors outside a 1,000 m zone from the main working

area will be noticeable but will not constitute a disturbing noise. For receptors located at

greater distances than a 1.5 km radius, the construction noise will be barely audible.

Since the closest receptor is more than 5 km away this impact is expected to be

Insignificant.

ii. The vibration during the site construction is not considered to have a significant impact

on the surrounding receptors, as the closest one has a more than 5 km separation

distance from the site.


DDA 43 March 2013

Operation:

i. The 45 dB(A) daytime and 35 dB(A) night-time noise levels will be primarily contained

within the Gamsberg concession area.

ii. The daytime and night-time guidelines will not be exceeded in any of the scattered farm

houses around the mine nor the Aggeneys community, except for farm house R05,

which is situated within 300 m from the Loop 10 road.

iii. Along the Loop 10 road, most of the scattered farm houses are located more than 500

m from the alignment, and as such the expected level contribution due to the trucks will

be below 34 dB(A), which is considered to be of Low significance.

iv. The operational noise impact is considered Very Low and no additional mitigation

measures would be necessary.

v. The vibration levels are not expected to exceed the limit for structural damage beyond a

400 m zone around blasting area, and the limit for sensitive or historical buildings

beyond a 600 m zone.

Decommissioning and Residual:

i. No significant noise impacts are expected during the Decommissioning Phase of the

proposed project. This impact is expected to be Very Low and of short duration.

ii. With the termination of the mining activities, the noise levels within and around the site

are expected to revert back to those that existed prior to the operations. Therefore, no

residual or latent noise impacts are expected.

6.4 Recommendations

Based on the noise and vibration study, the noise performance indicator to be adopted for

the rural area around the mine and plant should be that the noise levels at single dwellings

do not exceed 45 dB(A) and 35 dB(A) during day- and night-time respectively, due to the

mining and plant operations.

At Aggeneys the indicator should be that the noise levels should not exceed 55 dB(A) and

45 dB(A) during day- and night-time respectively.


DDA 44 March 2013

The performance indicator for vibration should be that the ground vibration level at general

houses of proper construction do not exceed 25 mm/s and at houses of lesser proper

construction 12.5 mm/s.

The main recommendations of the noise and vibration study are outlined below. The

essential mitigation measures are included in the impact tables.

Construction:

i. There are no specific mitigations that will be required during construction.

ii. Environmental noise monitoring should be performed by an independent specialist on

a 6-month basis at the boundaries of the site and at two selected locations at the

closest farm houses to the plant and mining pit. This monitoring should commence

prior to and during construction.

Operation:

i. There are no specific mitigations that will be required during the mining activities and

plant operation.

ii. Environmental noise and vibration monitoring should be performed by an

independent specialist on an annual basis along the site boundaries and at four

selected locations within the farm houses closest to the mine and Loop 10 road.

General recommendations for noise minimization and management during construction and

operation:

a. Maintenance of equipment and operational procedures: Proper design and

maintenance of silencers on diesel-powered equipment, systematic maintenance of

all forms of equipment, training of personnel to adhere to operational procedures that

reduce the occurrence and magnitude of individual noisy events.

b. Equipment noise audits: Standardised noise measurements should be carried out on

individual equipment at the delivery to site or at commissioning, in order to construct

a reference data-base and regular checks carried out to ensure that equipment is not

deteriorating and to detect increases, which could lead to an increase in the noise

impact over time and increased complaints.

c. Public complaints and actions registry: A formal recording system should be

introduced, in order to capture public perceptions and complaints with regard to noise

impacts, track investigation actions and introduce corrective measures for continuous

improvement.


DDA 45 March 2013

6.5 Impacts Rating

Based on the modelling results for the proposed mine operation and zinc beneficiation plant,

the impacts of construction and operation are summarised in the tables below.

The noise and vibration impact during construction is presented in Table 6-1 and is

considered to be NEGLIGIBLE.

For the operational phase, the noise and vibration impact can be seen in Table 6-2 further

below.

Table 6-1. Noise and Vibration Impact Rating During Construction

Nature: Construction activities would result in a negative direct impact on the vibration levels and noise environment around the plant.

Sensitivity/Vulnerability/Irreplaceability of Resource/Receptor – LowSensitivity: The activity will increase the noise and vibration levels at areas in very close proximity to the plant. However, the closest receptor is situated more than 5 km away.

Impact Magnitude – Small Extent: The extent of the impact is local. Duration: The expected impact will be short term (i.e. for the duration of construction). Scale: The impact will not result in notable changes to the noise levels at any receptors around

the mining area. Frequency: The frequency of the impact will be periodic. Likelihood: The noise levels outside the concession area are unlikely to increase during the

construction period.


Essential Mitigation Measures: i. No specific mitigations will be required during construction.


DDA 46 March 2013

Table 6-2. Operational Noise and Vibration Impact Rating

Nature: The mining and plant operation will result in a negative direct impact on the noise environment around the mine.

Sensitivity/Vulnerability/Irreplaceability of Resource/Receptor – LowSensitivity: The activity will increase the noise and vibration levels at areas in very close proximity to the plant and mining pit. However, the closest receptor is situated more than 5 km away.

Impact Magnitude – Small Extent: The extent of the impact is local. Duration: The expected impact will be long term (i.e. the duration of the operation). Scale: The impact will not result in notable changes to the noise levels at receptors situated

more than 2 km from the plant and mining pit. Frequency: The frequency of the impact will be periodic. Likelihood: The noise and vibration levels during operation are possible to increase during the

operational period.


Essential Mitigation Measures: i. No specific mitigations will be required during operation.


DDA 47 March 2013

REFERENCESBritish Standard 4142, (1997). Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential

and industrial areas.

Feasibility (FEL) Report (2010). Chapters 3 and 4: Risk analysis and affected environment;

Chapter 26: Health safety environment and communities.

IFC, (2007). General Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines.

ISO 1996-1, (2003). Acoustics – Description, assessment and measurement of

environmental noise – Part 1: Basic quantities and assessment procedures. Geneva,

Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, International Standard.

ISO 1996-2, (2000). Acoustics – Description, measurement and assessment of

environmental noise – Part 2: Determination of environmental noise levels. Geneva,

Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, International Standard.

ISO 1996-3, (1987). Acoustics – Description and measurement of environmental noise --

Part 3: Application to noise limits. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for

Standardization, International Standard.

ISO 1999, (1990). Acoustics – Determination of occupational noise exposure and estimation

of noise-induced hearing impairment. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization

for Standardization, International Standard.

OECD, (1996). Environmental Criteria for Sustainable Transport, Report on Phase 1 of the

Project on Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST), Organization for Economic

Co-Operation and Development, OCDE/GD(96)136. Paris, 1996.

South African National Standard SANS10103, (2003). The measurement and rating of

environmental noise with respect to land use, health, annoyance and to speech

communication.

WHO, (1999). Guidelines for Community Noise, Edited by Birgitta Berglund, World Heath

Organization, Thomas Lindvall, and Dietrich Schwela. Geneva, April 1999.

World Bank Group, (1998). Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook, General

Environmental Guidelines. July 1998.


DDA 48 March 2013

Appendix A

A.1 Impact Assessment Methodology for EIAs - Instructions to Specialists

A definition of each impact characteristic is provided to contextualise the requirements. The designations for each of the characteristics are defined below.

Table 1.1 Defining Impact Characteristics

The terminology and designations are provided to ensure consistency when these characteristics are described in an Impact Assessment deliverable.

An additional characteristic that pertains only to unplanned events (e.g., traffic accident, accidental release of toxic gas, community riot, etc.) is likelihood. The likelihood of an

Characteristic Definition Designation Type A descriptor indicating the

relationship of the impact to the Project (in terms of cause and effect).

Direct - Impacts that result from a direct interaction between the Project and a resource/receptor (e.g., between occupation of a plot of land and the habitats which are affected).Indirect - Impacts that follow on from the direct interactions between the Project and its environment as a result of subsequent interactions within the environment (e.g., viability of a species population resulting from loss of part of a habitat as a result of the Project occupying a plot of land).Induced - Impacts that result from other activities (which are not part of the Project) that happen as a consequence of the Project (e.g., influx of camp followers resulting from the importation of a large Project workforce).

Duration The time period over which a resource / receptor is affected.

Temporary (negligible/ pre-construction) Short term (period of less than 5 years i.e. production ramp up period) Long term (period of more than 5 years and less than 19 years i.e. life of project) Permanent (a period that exceeds the life of the project – i.e. irreversible.)

Extent The reach of the impact (i.e. physical distance an impact will extend to)

On-site – impacts that are limited to the project site.Local – impacts that are limited to the project site and adjacent properties. Regional – impacts that are experienced at a regional scale, e.g. District or Province. National – impacts that are experienced at a national scale. Trans-boundary/International – impacts that are experienced at an international scale, e.g. extinction of species resulting in global loss.

Scale The size of the impact (e.g. the size of the area damaged or impacted the fraction of a resource that is lost or affected).

1 - functions and/ or processes remain unaltered2 - functions and/ or processes are notably altered3 - functions and/ or processes are severely altered

Frequency Measure of the constancy or periodicity of the impact.

1 - Periodic 2 - Once off


DDA 49 March 2013

unplanned event occurring is designated using a qualitative (or semi-quantitative, where appropriate data are available) scale.

Table 1.3 Definitions of likelihood Likelihood DefinitionUnlikely The event is unlikely but may occur at some time during normal operating

conditions. Possible The event is likely to occur at some time during normal operating conditions. Likely/ Certain The event will occur during normal operating conditions (i.e., it is essentially

inevitable).

Likelihood is estimated on the basis of experience and/or evidence that such an outcome has previously occurred. It is important to note that likelihood is a measure of the degree to which the unplanned event is expected to occur, not the degree to which an impact or effect is expected to occur as a result of the unplanned event. The latter concept is referred to as uncertainty, and this is typically dealt with in a contextual discussion in the Impact Assessment deliverable, rather than in the impact significance assignment process.

Assessing Significance

Once the impact characteristics are understood, these characteristics are used (in a manner specific to the resource/receptor in question) to assign each impact a magnitude. Magnitude is a function of the following impact characteristics:

Extent (a)

Duration (b) Scale Frequency Likelihood

Magnitude essentially describes the degree of change that the impact is likely to impart upon the resource/receptor. The magnitude designations are as follows:

Positive Negligible Small Medium Large

The methodology incorporates likelihood into the magnitude designation (i.e., in parallel with consideration of the other impact characteristics), so that the “likelihood-factored” magnitude can then be considered with the resource/receptor sensitivity/vulnerability/irreplaceability in order to assign impact significance.

The magnitude of impacts takes into account all the various dimensions of a particular impact in order to make a determination as to where the impact falls on the spectrum from

(a) Important in defining ‘extent’ is the differentiation between the spatial extent of impact (i.e. the physical distance of the impact in terms of on-site, local, regional, national or international) and the temporal extent/ effect of an impact may have (i.e. a localised impact on restricted species may lead to its extinction and therefore the impact would have global ramifications).(b) Duration must consider irreversible impacts (i.e. permanent).


DDA 50 March 2013

negligible to large. Some impacts will result in changes to the environment that may be immeasurable, undetectable or within the range of normal natural variation. Such changes can be regarded as essentially having no impact, and should be characterised as having a negligible magnitude.

In addition to characterising the magnitude of impact, the other principal step necessary to assign significance for a given impact is to define the sensitivity/vulnerability/ irreplaceability of the resource/receptor. There are a range of factors to be taken into account when defining the sensitivity/vulnerability/ irreplaceability of the resource/receptor, which may be physical, biological, cultural or human. Where the resource is physical (for example, a water body) its quality, sensitivity to change and importance (on a local, national and international scale) are considered. Where the resource/receptor is biological or cultural (for example, the marine environment or a coral reef), its importance (for example, its local, regional, national or international importance) and its sensitivity to the specific type of impact are considered. Where the receptor is human, the vulnerability of the individual, community or wider societal group is considered.

As in the case of magnitude, the sensitivity/vulnerability/ irreplaceability designations themselves are universally consistent, but the definitions for these designations will vary on a resource/receptor basis. The universal sensitivity/vulnerability/irreplaceability (c) of resource/receptor is:

Low Medium High

Once magnitude of impact and sensitivity/vulnerability/irreplaceability of resource/receptor have been characterised, the significance can be assigned for each impact. The following provides a context for defining significance.

Table 1.4 Context for Defining Significance An impact of negligible significance is one where a resource/receptor (including people) will essentially

not be affected in any way by a particular activity or the predicted effect is deemed to be ‘imperceptible’ or is indistinguishable from natural background variations.

An impact of minor significance is one where a resource/receptor will experience a noticeable effect, but the impact magnitude is sufficiently small (with or without mitigation) and/or the resource/receptor is of low sensitivity/ vulnerability/ importance. In either case, the magnitude should be well within applicable standards.

An impact of moderate significance has an impact magnitude that is within applicable standards, but falls somewhere in the range from a threshold below which the impact is minor, up to a level that might be just short of breaching a legal limit. Clearly, to design an activity so that its effects only just avoid breaking a law and/or cause a major impact is not best practice. The emphasis for moderate impacts is therefore on demonstrating that the impact has been reduced to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). This does not necessarily mean that impacts of moderate significance have to be reduced to minor, but that moderate impacts are being managed effectively and efficiently.

(c) Irreplaceable (SANBI, 2013): “In terms of biodiversity, irreplaceable areas are those of highest biodiversity value outside the formal protected area network. They support unique biodiversity features, such as endangered species or rare habitat patches that do not occur anywhere else in the province. These features have already been so reduced by loss of natural habitat, that 100% of what remains must be protected to achieve biodiversity targets.”


DDA 51 March 2013

An impact of major significance is one where an accepted limit or standard may be exceeded, or large magnitude impacts occur to highly valued/sensitive resource/receptors. An aim of IA is to get to a position where the Project does not have any major residual impacts, certainly not ones that would endure into the long-term or extend over a large area. However, for some aspects there may be major residual impacts remaining even after all practicable mitigation options have been exhausted (i.e. ALARP has been applied). An example might be the visual impact of a facility. It is then the function of regulators and stakeholders to weigh such negative factors against the positive ones, such as employment, in coming to a decision on the Project.

Based on the context for defining significance, the impact significance rating will be determined, using the matrix below.

Table 1.5 Impact Significance Rating Matrix

Sensitivity/Vulnerability/Irreplaceability of Resource/ReceptorLow Medium High

Mag

nitu

de

of Im

pact Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Small Negligible Minor Moderate Medium Minor Moderate Major Large Moderate Major Major

Once the significance of the impact has been determined, it is important to qualify the degree of confidence in the assessment. Confidence in the prediction is associated with any uncertainties, for example, where information is insufficient to assess the impact. Degree of confidence can be expressed as low, medium or high.


DDA 52 March 2013

Appendix B

B.1 Noise Monitoring Record Sheets

Position MP01

Located northeast of the site, about 1km from the N14 road, Accessible from N14 road

GPS coordinates – S 29°16'59.30" E 19° 3'46.28"

View North towards N14 road View Southeast

Figure B-1. MP01 Images


DDA 53 March 2013

Position MP02

Located northeast of the site, about 1.5 km from MP01

GPS coordinates – S29°12'38.09" E19°1'1.90"

View North towards View South towards Gamsberg


Position MP03

Located south east of the Gamsberg site about 550m form Receptor1 (R1)

GPS coordinates – S 29°11'50.02" E 19° 0'41.45"

View West towards Gamsberg View North towards N14 road



DDA 54 March 2013

Position MP04

Located south of the Gamsberg site about 6.5km and 2.3km from MP03 and R5 respectively

GPS coordinates – S29°16'31.08" E18°59'48.19"

view North towards Gamsberg View West


Position MP05

Located south of the Gamsberg site about 3.1 km and 2.6km from MP04 and R5

respectively GPS coordinates – S29°16'50.98" E18°57'51.25"

View West View North towards Gamsberg



DDA 55 March 2013

Position MP06

Located west of the Gamsberg site, about 1km from the N14 road, Accessible from N14 road

GPS coordinates – S29°15'5.83" E 18°54'7.16"

view South View North towards N14 road


Position MP07

Located in Aggeneys, with access from the road to Black Mountain Mine and then right into

Penge Road.

GPS coordinates – S 29°14'33.45" E 18°50'22.77"

View West towards Black Mountain View Southwest towards Aggeneys


Noi

se Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t for

the

Pro

pose

d G

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ape

DD

A 56

M

arch

201

3

Tabl

e B

-1:

Noi

se M

easu

rem

ents

Res

ults

Dat

e - T

ime

Mea

sure

men

t Po

sitio

nLo

catio

n W

S L A

eq,I

L Am

inL A

max

L 99

L 50

L 10

Com

men

ts

(m/s

) (d

BA

) (d

BA

) (d

BA

) (d

BA

) (d

BA

)(d

BA

)

16-0

8-12

22:

37

MP

01

Rur

al

0.2

25.6

15.7

44.5

15.7

16.0

25.8

Traf

ficno

isefr

omN

14ro

adau

dibl

e

17-0

8-12

12:

07

MP0

1R

ural

3.

939

.323

.851

.524

.836

.142

.917

-08-

12 2

0:09

M

P01

Rur

al

0.2

33.4

23.8

52.2

23.8

24.4

32.7

17-0

8-12

23:

40

MP0

1R

ural

0.

431

.115

.849

.915

.819

.331

.318

-08-

12 1

1:21

M

P01

Rur

al

4.0

47.6

29.7

60.3

31.4

44.0

51.3

18-0

8-12

16:

49

MP0

1R

ural

1.

633

.719

.645

.820

.229

.237

.718

-08-

12 2

2:12

M

P01

Rur

al

0.0

35.3

15.9

57.9

15.9

16.6

22.6

17-0

8-12

0:5

1 M

P02

Rur

al

1.7

39.2

20.4

60.8

20.4

30.2

40.7

Inse

ctac

tivity

audi

ble

17-0

8-12

1:0

4 M

P02

Rur

al

1.3

37.5

19.1

58.7

19.0

22.0

31.0

17-0

8-12

12:

46

MP0

2R

ural

4.

246

.624

.763

.427

.242

.349

.218

-08-

12 1

2:25

M

P02

Rur

al

3.2

44.1

30.7

55.2

32.5

41.6

47.4

18-0

8-12

16:

02

MP0

2R

ural

3.

237

.118

.256

.518

.322

.635

.218

-08-

12 2

2:51

M

P02

Rur

al

0.2

35.9

15.8

56.1

15.9

22.8

27.2

17-0

8-12

1:3

0 M

P03

Rur

al

5.1

45.4

34.9

57.0

36.2

43.4

48.5

Traf

ficno

isean

din

sect

activ

ityau

dibl

e

17-0

8-12

1:5

1 M

P03

Rur

al

4.2

46.1

35.5

58.2

35.8

43.7

49.5

17-0

8-12

13:

14

MP0

3R

ural

4.

054

.827

.080

.327

.539

.048

.117

-08-

12 2

1:43

M

P03

Rur

al

3.7

40.6

26.3

54.7

27.0

34.0

44.5

17-0

8-12

22:

06

MP0

3R

ural

3.

141

.325

.257

.925

.834

.444

.218

-08-

12 1

2:57

M

P03

Rur

al

3.4

40.1

22.7

54.4

23.7

34.5

43.3

18-0

8-12

23:

20

MP0

3R

ural

0.

237

.216

.556

.016

.517

.827

.317

-08-

12 0

:14

MP0

4R

ural

1.

447

.017

.472

.617

.822

.633

.8Bi

rdan

din

sect

activ

ityau

dibl

e17

-08-

12 2

:17

MP0

4R

ural

0.

034

.016

.951

.516

.918

.027

.117

-08-

12 1

3:38

M

P04

Rur

al

2.9

48.5

24.6

71.7

25.8

40.9

46.4

17-0

8-12

21:

22

MP0

4R

ural

4.

240

.626

.361

.729

.036

.142

.2

Noi

se Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t for

the

Pro

pose

d G

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ape

DD

A 57

M

arch

201

3

Dat

e - T

ime

Mea

sure

men

t Po

sitio

nLo

catio

n W

S L A

eq,I

L Am

inL A

max

L 99

L 50

L 10

Com

men

ts

(m/s

) (d

BA

) (d

BA

) (d

BA

) (d

BA

) (d

BA

)(d

BA

)

17-0

8-12

22:

29

MP0

4R

ural

2.

033

.423

.852

.223

.824

.432

.718

-08-

12 1

3:41

M

P04

Rur

al

3.2

42.0

22.8

58.0

25.3

38.1

44.9

18-0

8-12

14:

22

MP0

4R

ural

1.

753

.816

.678

.916

.722

.337

.7Bi

rdac

tivity

audi

ble

18-0

8-12

23:

44

MP0

4R

ural

0.

431

.316

.151

.416

.217

.420

.116

-08-

12 2

3:50

M

P05

Rur

al

0.8

46.9

16.4

71.5

16.5

18.5

28.0

Bird

activ

ityau

dibl

e17

-08-

12 2

:39

MP0

5R

ural

1.

140

.716

.365

.316

.317

.219

.417

-08-

12 1

3:54

M

P05

Rur

al

2.4

39.9

25.0

56.7

25.7

35.5

42.4

17-0

8-12

21:

05

MP0

5R

ural

3.

258

.725

.983

.726

.128

.143

.3Bi

rdac

tivity

and

traf

ficno

iseau

dibl

e18

-08-

12 1

3:22

M

P05

Rur

al

4.0

39.9

18.5

58.0

19.0

29.0

42.5

18-0

8-12

15:

09

MP0

5R

ural

1.

552

.916

.678

.116

.928

.240

.218

-08-

12 0

:02

MP0

5R

ural

0.

242

.516

.665

.616

.818

.123

.316

-08-

12 2

3:18

M

P06

Rur

al

1.7

37.0

19.2

82.2

19.6

24.7

30.6

Traf

ficno

isefr

omN

14au

dibl

e

17-0

8-12

3:0

9 M

P06

Rur

al

1.2

37.0

15.8

59.0

15.8

16.8

29.1

17-0

8-12

20:

43

MP0

6R

ural

0.

536

.725

.954

.727

.132

.937

.018

-08-

12 1

4:08

M

P06

Rur

al

4.0

33.4

19.1

49.4

19.4

28.8

36.4

18-0

8-12

14:

21

MP0

6R

ural

2.

836

.817

.958

.018

.028

.737

.718

-08-

12 1

5:35

M

P06

Rur

al

1.0

36.0

17.2

56.0

17.3

26.4

36.2

18-0

8-12

0:2

5 M

P06

Rur

al

0.4

35.6

20.9

56.3

21.3

24.0

26.5

Noi

se Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t for

the

Pro

pose

d G

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ape

DD

A 58

M

arch

201

3

B.2

N

oise

Sur

vey

Res

ults

for C

ontin

uous

Mon

itorin

g at

MP0

7

Day

1

Star

t20

12/0

8/16

16:0

0En

d20

12/0

8/17

00:0

0W

eigh

ting

ADa

taty

peIm

puls

Uni

tdB

Perio

dst

art

Leq

Lmin

Lmax

L99

L95

L90

L50

L10

L120

12/0

8/16

16:0

054

.529

.378

.332

.434

.936

.644

.654

.267

.220

12/0

8/16

17:0

048

.029

.966

.732

.935

.337

.043

.050

.259

.420

12/0

8/16

18:0

051

.328

.176

.531

.334

.536

.543

.751

.362

.520

12/0

8/16

19:0

046

.028

.167

.730

.633

.735

.641

.347

.355

.120

12/0

8/16

20:0

045

.628

.869

.129

.931

.332

.639

.947

.854

.820

12/0

8/16

21:0

045

.423

.968

.625

.427

.228

.736

.345

.756

.520

12/0

8/16

22:0

043

.923

.268

.824

.225

.225

.836

.843

.753

.420

12/0

8/16

23:0

042

.521

.966

.722

.624

.425

.230

.339

.652

.2O

vera

ll49

.021

.978

.324

.626

.429

.240

.048

.960

.7

Noi

se Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t for

the

Pro

pose

d G

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ape

DD

A 59

M

arch

201

3

Gam

sber

g1-D

UO

#10

372

Im

puls

1s

A

dBSE

LdB

16-0

8-12

23:

59:5

949

.78h

56m

3394

.7

Sour

ce

20253035404550556065707580

16h

17h

18h

19h

20h

21h

22h

23h

00h

Noi

se Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t for

the

Pro

pose

d G

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ape

DD

A 60

M

arch

201

3

Day

2

Star

t20

12/0

8/17

00:0

0En

d20

12/0

8/18

00:0

0W

eigh

ting

ADa

taty

peIm

puls

Uni

tdB

Perio

dst

art

Leq

Lmin

Lmax

L99

L95

L90

L50

L10

L120

12/0

8/17

00:0

036

.520

.851

.821

.222

.422

.932

.840

46.2

2012

/08/

1701

:00

33.6

20.4

50.9

21.1

21.9

22.4

25.3

37.9

41.1

2012

/08/

1702

:00

37.8

21.4

64.1

21.9

22.6

23.1

26.8

38.3

46.4

2012

/08/

1703

:00

38.6

20.9

61.5

21.5

22.5

23.3

32.7

40.9

48.5

2012

/08/

1704

:00

48.4

21.7

77.3

22.1

23.8

24.7

31.7

41.4

54.2

2012

/08/

1705

:00

46.9

24.9

69.4

27.7

29.7

31.0

39.6

49.7

56.9

2012

/08/

1706

:00

52.6

25.8

71.8

30.0

32.5

35.6

46.6

55.0

63.5

2012

/08/

1707

:00

54.0

31.8

76.3

36.4

40.3

42.1

48.1

54.0

66.9

2012

/08/

1708

:00

49.4

32.0

70.1

34.7

36.5

37.9

43.7

50.3

61.5

2012

/08/

1709

:00

50.8

36.5

71.3

38.5

39.7

40.7

44.8

51.2

63.1

2012

/08/

1710

:00

51.9

35.2

70.2

37.6

40.5

41.8

45.1

52.6

64.6

2012

/08/

1711

:00

58.3

33.7

83.6

37.0

39.4

40.6

45.5

57.7

69.7

2012

/08/

1712

:00

51.1

32.6

72.9

34.4

36.0

37.0

42.2

50.2

64.5

2012

/08/

1713

:00

50.9

34.5

71.2

35.9

37.8

39.1

43.9

51.4

63.9

2012

/08/

1714

:00

51.5

34.7

69.3

36.0

37.8

38.9

44.1

52.8

64.3

2012

/08/

1715

:00

58.3

33.1

87.2

34.3

36.2

37.6

44.5

57.2

68.5

2012

/08/

1716

:00

49.2

30.9

73.4

33.0

35.2

36.7

41.9

48.6

61.1

2012

/08/

1717

:00

50.9

28.0

73.2

31.5

33.9

35.8

43.0

51.7

63.8

2012

/08/

1718

:00

45.2

26.7

64.0

29.3

32.3

33.8

40.3

47.5

55.9

2012

/08/

1719

:00

46.0

26.1

70.6

29.6

31.5

32.7

38.3

45.8

57.2

2012

/08/

1720

:00

43.8

26.4

64.2

27.8

29.7

30.8

36.9

45.5

55.4

Noi

se Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t for

the

Pro

pose

d G

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ape

DD

A 61

M

arch

201

3

2012

/08/

1721

:00

42.1

25.3

64.9

26.6

28.6

29.3

33.8

43.2

54.1

2012

/08/

1722

:00

39.6

28.2

54.0

29.6

30.8

31.5

34.8

43.1

50.0

2012

/08/

1723

:00

34.5

25.4

51.3

26.0

26.8

27.3

29.9

36.9

45.4

Ove

rall

51.0

20.4

87.2

22.4

24.4

27.1

40.4

50.1

62.5

Noi

se Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t for

the

Pro

pose

d G

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ape

DD

A 62

M

arch

201

3

Gam

sber

g1-D

UO

#10

372

Im

puls

2s

A

dBSE

LdB

17-0

8-12

23:

59:5

830

.00h

00m

0233

.0

202530354045505560657075808590

17/0

8/12

02h

17/0

8/12

08h

17/0

8/12

14h

17/0

8/12

20h

Noi

se Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t for

the

Pro

pose

d G

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ape

DD

A 63

M

arch

201

3

Day

3

Star

t20

12/0

8/18

00:0

0En

d20

12/0

8/18

09:0

0W

eigh

ting

ADa

taty

peIm

puls

Uni

tdB

Perio

dst

art

Leq

Lmin

Lmax

L99

L95

L90

L50

L10

L120

12/0

8/18

00:0

038

.322

.759

.023

.624

.825

.529

.940

.250

.120

12/0

8/18

01:0

038

.325

.059

.926

.728

.128

.831

.336

.750

.520

12/0

8/18

02:0

041

.826

.867

.127

.428

.829

.733

.139

.851

.020

12/0

8/18

03:0

035

.725

.356

.826

.727

.427

.830

.436

.047

.720

12/0

8/18

04:0

037

.924

.965

.626

.227

.428

.131

.234

.841

.920

12/0

8/18

05:0

046

.625

.874

.527

.228

.529

.433

.444

.255

.320

12/0

8/18

06:0

043

.024

.966

.226

.728

.128

.933

.444

.554

.220

12/0

8/18

07:0

060

.531

.974

.833

.735

.937

.248

.064

.672

.320

12/0

8/18

08:0

065

.735

.381

.340

.043

.645

.455

.668

.178

.7O

vera

ll57

.422

.781

.325

.327

.328

.433

.355

.069

.9

Noi

se Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t for

the

Pro

pose

d G

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ape

DD

A 64

M

arch

201

3

Gams

berg

1-DU

O #1

0372

Im

puls

1s A

dB

SEL

dB18

-08-

12 09

:37:18

55.2

0h00

m01

55.2

Sour

ce

2030405060708090100

00h

01h

02h

03h

04h

05h

06h

07h

08h

09h

Noi

se Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t for

the

Pro

pose

d G

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ape

DD

A 65

M

arch

201

3

App

endi

x C

C.1

Soun

d Po

wer

Rat

ings

Tabl

e C

-1:

Exis

ting

Plan

t Sou

nd P

ower

Em

issi

on L

evel

s

POIN

TSO

URC

ESId

S

ourc

e Ty

pe

Sou

nd P

ower

Lev

el

Coor

dina

tes

Day

N

ight

X

Y

Z

(dB(

A))

(dB(

A))

(m)

(m)

(m)

2_H

AU

L_TR

H

aul T

ruck

in P

it 10

8.5

108.

534

3025

1467

6415

810

762_

HA

UL_

TR

Hau

l Tru

ck in

Pit

for W

aste

10

8.5

108.

534

3027

0767

6416

710

552_

HA

UL_

TR

Hau

l Tru

ck in

Pit

for W

aste

10

8.5

108.

534

3026

6267

6413

810

472_

HA

UL_

TR

Hau

l Tru

ck a

t Cru

sher

10

8.5

108.

534

3007

6567

6369

410

612_

HA

UL_

TR

Hau

l Tru

ck a

t Was

te D

ump

108.

510

8.5

3429

9866

6764

167

934

2_H

AU

L_TR

H

aul T

ruck

at W

aste

Dum

p 10

8.5

108.

534

2997

3467

6421

792

42_

BD

Z_P

it B

ulld

ozer

in P

it 11

1.9

111.

934

3024

7767

6413

610

722_

BD

Z_P

it B

ulld

ozer

in P

it 11

1.9

111.

934

3025

2767

6405

410

432_

BD

Z_P

it B

ulld

ozer

in P

it 11

1.9

111.

934

3027

8367

6411

610

432_

BD

Z_W

D

Bul

ldoz

er a

t WD

11

1.9

111.

934

2998

6867

6425

492

52_

BD

Z_W

D

Bul

ldoz

er a

t WD

11

1.9

111.

934

2997

0767

6415

692

92_

BD

Z_P

it B

ulld

ozer

in P

it 11

1.9

111.

934

3024

5767

6420

610

942_

BD

Z_P

it B

ulld

ozer

in P

it 11

1.9

111.

934

3026

4867

6410

410

432_

DR

L_P

it D

rill i

n P

it 10

7.5

107.

534

3021

7667

6426

711

112_

DR

L_P

it D

rill i

n P

it 10

7.5

107.

534

3021

7967

6421

011

032_

DR

L_P

it D

rill i

n P

it 10

7.5

107.

534

3021

8567

6416

710

932_

DR

L_P

it D

rill i

n P

it 10

7.5

107.

534

3021

8767

6411

410

782_

DR

L_P

it D

rill i

n P

it 10

7.5

107.

534

3020

8267

6417

110

962_

DR

L_P

it D

rill i

n P

it 10

7.5

107.

534

3020

8767

6411

610

79

Noi

se Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t for

the

Pro

pose

d G

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ape

DD

A 66

M

arch

201

3

2_D

RL_

Pit

Dril

l in

Pit

107.

510

7.5

3430

2095

6764

068

1069

2_D

RL_

Pit

Dril

l in

Pit

107.

510

7.5

3430

2456

6764

396

1119

2_D

RL_

Pit

Dril

l in

Pit

107.

510

7.5

3430

2457

6764

359

1116

2_E

XC

AV

_P

Exc

avat

or in

Pit

112.

111

2.1

3430

2327

6764

130

1081

2_E

XC

AV

_P

Exc

avat

or in

Pit

112.

111

2.1

3430

2335

6764

244

1107

2_E

XC

AV

_P

Exc

avat

or in

Pit

112.

111

2.1

3430

2703

6764

021

1074

2_E

XC

AV

_P

Exc

avat

or in

Pit

112.

111

2.1

3430

2358

6764

340

1120

2Sta

cker

-Rec

S

tack

er-R

ec

104.

710

4.7

3430

0760

6766

233

925

2Sta

cker

-Rec

S

tack

er-R

ec

104.

710

4.7

3430

0836

6766

215

925

2Sta

cker

-Rec

S

tack

er-R

ec

104.

710

4.7

3430

0871

6766

456

925

2_C

rush

er

Cru

sher

in P

it 97

.997

.934

3007

2867

6370

410

642_

SA

GM

S

AG

Mill

11

1.0

111.

034

3011

2867

6656

192

52_

SA

GM

S

AG

Mill

11

1.0

111.

034

3011

0867

6659

392

52_

SA

GM

S

AG

Mill

11

1.0

111.

034

3010

8967

6662

492

52_

SA

GM

B

all M

ill

111.

011

1.0

3430

1133

6766

571

925

2_S

AG

M

Bal

l Mill

11

1.0

111.

034

3011

1467

6660

392

52_

SA

GM

B

all M

ill

111.

011

1.0

3430

1094

6766

634

925

2_S

CR

EE

N

Scr

een

87.1

87.1

3430

1132

6766

564

923

2_S

CR

EE

N

Scr

een

87.1

87.1

3430

1112

6766

596

923

2_S

CR

EE

N

Scr

een

87.1

87.1

3430

1093

6766

627

923

2_FL

OP

LA

Flot

atio

n P

lant

10

4.4

104.

434

3009

7667

6672

092

12_

FLO

PLA

Fl

otat

ion

Pla

nt

104.

410

4.4

3430

1017

6766

742

921

2_FL

OP

LA

Flot

atio

n P

lant

10

4.4

104.

434

3010

5767

6676

792

12_

FLO

PLA

s Fl

otat

ion

Pla

nt S

mal

ler

103.

010

3.0

3430

1168

6766

742

921

2_FL

OP

LAs

Flot

atio

n P

lant

Sm

alle

r 10

3.0

103.

034

3011

8767

6671

292

12_

FLO

PLA

s Fl

otat

ion

Pla

nt S

mal

ler

103.

010

3.0

3430

1190

6766

708

921

2_FL

OP

LAs

Flot

atio

n P

lant

Sm

alle

r 10

3.0

103.

034

3010

4567

6662

092

1

Noi

se Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t for

the

Pro

pose

d G

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ape

DD

A 67

M

arch

201

3

LIN

ESO

URC

ESId

S

ourc

e Ty

pe

Sou

nd P

ower

Lev

el

Sou

nd P

ower

Lev

el

Day

N

ight

D

ay

Nig

ht

(dB

(A))

(dB

(A))

(dB

(A)/m

) (d

B(A

)/m)

2_C

ON

V_C

R_O

P

Con

veyo

r Cru

sher

to O

re P

12

2.1

122.

188

.288

.22_

CO

NV

_OP

C

onve

yor a

t Ore

Pile

10

5.5

105.

588

.288

.22_

CO

NV

_OP

C

onve

yor a

t Ore

Pile

11

2.7

112.

788

.288

.22_

CO

NV

_OP

C

onve

yor a

t Ore

Pile

11

2.1

112.

188

.288

.22_

CO

NV

_OP

C

onve

yor a

t Ore

Pile

11

2.7

112.

788

.288

.22_

CO

NV

_OP

_SR

C

onve

yor a

fter O

re P

ile

102.

410

2.4

88.2

88.2

2_C

ON

V_O

P_S

R

Con

veyo

r afte

r Ore

Pile

10

2.7

102.

788

.288

.22_

CO

NV

_OP

_SR

C

onve

yor a

fter O

re P

ile

102.

610

2.6

88.2

88.2

2_C

ON

V_M

ill

Con

veyo

r at M

ill

107.

910

7.9

88.2

88.2

2_C

ON

V_M

ill

Con

veyo

r at M

ill

108.

410

8.4

88.2

88.2

2_C

ON

V_M

ill

Con

veyo

r at M

ill

108.

310

8.3

88.2

88.2

ROAD

SOU

RCES

Id

Sou

rce

Type

S

ound

Pow

er L

evel

V

ehic

les

Num

ber

Hea

vy V

ehic

les

Max

imum

Spe

ed

Day

N

ight

D

ay

Nig

ht

Day

N

ight

A

uto

Hea

vy

(dB

(A)/m

) (d

B(A

)/m)

(veh

/hr)

(veh

/hr)

(%)

(%)

(km

/hr)

(k

m/h

r)

2RD

LOO

P

Loop

10

Roa

d 70

.570

.53.

63.

610

010

050

50

99R

d N

14W

L E

xist

ing

N14

Wes

t of L

10

77.2

70.6

7216

7.2

7.2

103

86

99R

d N

14E

L E

xist

ing

N14

Eas

t of L

10

77.2

70.6

7216

7.2

7.2

103

86

2R2W

aste

H

aul t

o W

aste

86

.386

.380

.680

.610

010

030

30

2R2C

rush

H

aul t

o C

rush

er

76.8

76.8

9.1

9.1

100

100

3030

2R

2WC

r H

aul f

rom

Pit

86.8

86.8

89.7

89.7

100

100

3030

2R

d N

14W

L Fu

ture

N14

Wes

t of L

10

68.4

68.4

10.2

10.2

5.3

5.3

103

86

2Rd

N14

EL

Futu

re N

14 E

ast o

f L10

66

.166

.113

.713

.76.

56.

530

30

Noi

se Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t for

the

Pro

pose

d G

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ape

DD

A 68

M

arch

201

3

B2.

Con

stru

ctio

n Eq

uipm

ent S

ound

Pow

er E

mis

sion

s

Tabl

e C

-2:

Con

stru

ctio

n Eq

uipm

ent S

ound

Pow

er E

mis

sion

Lev

els

Equi

pmen

tO

ctav

e B

and

(Hz)

63

12

5 25

0 50

0 10

00

2000

40

00

8000

So

und

Pow

er L

evel

(dB

), re

1 p

WB

ulld

ozer

88.0

118.

0 11

1.0

109.

0 10

7.0

103.

0 97

.0

67.0

Ex

cava

tor

82.0

112.

0 11

8.0

105.

0 10

6.0

99.0

95

.0

65.0

G

rade

r 81

.011

1.0

108.

0 10

8.0

106.

0 10

4.0

98.0

68

.0

Hau

l tru

ck

83.0

113.

2 11

6.9

114.

4 11

0.6

106.

8 10

0.2

70.0

C

oncr

ete

mix

er u

nloa

ding

71

.010

1.0

103.

1 97

.5

95.1

92

.2

87.4

57

.4

Com

pres

sor

71.1

101.

1 10

3.9

104.

1 10

3.4

112.

4 11

3.1

83.1

C

oncr

ete

mix

ing

equi

pmen

t 76

.810

6.8

100.

9 10

1.2

99.0

94

.1

87.3

57

.3

Noi

se Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t for

the

Pro

pose

d G

amsb

erg

Zinc

Min

e in

Nor

ther

n C

ape

DD

A 69

M

arch

201

3

App

endi

x D

D.1

Su

gges

ted

Cha

nges

to th

e Pr

ojec

t Lay

out (

15/0

4/20

13)

Figu

re D

-1.

Sugg

este

d C

hang

es to

the

Proj

ect L

ayou

t (15

/04/

2013

)


DDA 70 March 2013

Based on recent discussions with the Applicant and design engineers, the following changes

to the project layout have been suggested. The changes are as follows (refer to Figure D-1):

1. Relocation of the explosives magazine area from the top of the inselberg to an area

located between the N14 and inselberg. Due to the impacts to three watercourses on

the inselberg, this relocation was requested by the Specialist Team.

2. Increase in size of the waste rock dump from to 270 hectares to 490 hectares. In order

to reduce the slope angle of the waste rock dump (i.e. from 450 – 350 degree

slope) ,the footprint of the waste rock dump has increased. This design refinement was

in response to DMR requirements for a waste rock dump.

The noise impact rating due to the above-mentioned changes in the mine layout is not

expected to change, and most of its aspects will remain the same. The noise levels around

the dump are going to be the same as those estimated in the modelling section, since the

utilised equipment will remain the same. The only change will be the extension of the impact

zone around the waste dump due to the increased area for the waste dumping. This

extension, however, will not affect the noise levels along the concession boundaries, nor at

the sensitive receptors around the site.


DDA 71 March 2013

Appendix E

E.1 Declaration of Consultant’s Independence

The author of this report, Demos Dracoulides, does hereby declare that he is an

independent consultant appointed by ERM and has no business, financial, personal or other

interest in the activity, application or appeal in respect of which he was appointed other than

fair remuneration for work performed in connection with the activity, application or appeal.

There are no circumstances that compromise the objectivity of the specialist performing such

work. All opinions expressed in this report are his own.

Demos Dracoulides:

April 2013

Documents

Noise and Vibration Specialist Report - ERM€¦ · The vibration during the site construction is not considered to ... Environmental noise and vibration monitoring should be