Sandpiper Phosphate Project · 2012. 5. 8. · Name: Bertchen Kohrs Telephone: 061 2279/ 081...
Transcript of Sandpiper Phosphate Project · 2012. 5. 8. · Name: Bertchen Kohrs Telephone: 061 2279/ 081...
Please return this completed document (with all requested details) to:
Name: Amy Coetzer Telephone: 081 344 1159
Organization: Private Fax:
Designation: Cartographer Email: [email protected]
Postal address/City: P.O. Box 3060, Swakopmund
My interest in this project: I am currently busy with my BSC Information Systems and Geography
Degree. My main subjects are Environmental Impact assessments and it will be interesting to
follow the progress of this project.
Comments and matters of concern:
My concerns are if enough baseline studies & information are available to effectively determine what
the final impact will be on the environment. But I understand that specialist studies will be conducted.
I am also interested in the proposed and planned rehabilitation plan. Also I would like to see to what
National and International standards, treaties and legislation this project will comply to. I would also
like to see how this project will be different from the Saldhanna dredging project. I would also like to
see what the studies results are on how this will influence the whaling and dolphin migration routes.
I am also interested in how water as a scarce resource and water quality will be managed. I am also
interested in the whole EIA process, the scoping etc and how it will be executed. I am also interested in the
land footprint. I am also interested in the mining license awarding process and if it is dependant on the EIA
outcome as it was a prerequisite for other projects in the Erongo Area.
Signature: Electronically signed Date: 15/11/2011
Sandpiper Phosphate Project
Registration and Comments
I request to be registered as an Interested and Affected Party in respect of the proposed project. Please ensure that I
receive all updates of information and that I am invited to the meetings, as well as kept fully informed of the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.
Name: Bertchen Kohrs Telephone: 061 2279/ 081 2938085
Organization: Earthlife Namibia Fax: 061 2305213
Designation: Chair Email: [email protected]
Postal address/City: PO Box 24892 Windhoek
My interest in this project:
Environmental and social impacts through phosphate mining
Comments and matters of concern:
Although Namibia needs industrial development this should not sacrifice the balance of the environment and the
health of the workers and residents.
Sustainable development should be the driver of industrial projects
Date:
23 Nov 2011
Name: David Russell Telephone: 081-2335748
Organization: Namibian Confederation of Fishing
Associations, represented by David Russell Fisheries
Consultancy
Fax: 061-243692
Designation: Fisheries Consultant Email: [email protected]
Postal address/City: PO Box 9562, Windhoek
My interest in this project:
To ensure the Namibian fishing industry is not adversely affected by the Sandpiper Phosphate Project.
Comments and matters of concern:
The Namibian fishing industry is a renewable resource that is a significant player in the Namibian economy, providing
many jobs as well as significant foreign exchange earnings for the country. That the phosphate project does not
impact on the sustainability of individual commercial fisheries within the Namibian fishing industry. Concerns include
any impact on fish breeding grounds, and that the mining operations do not result in ecosystem degradation
negatively impacting specific fisheries. Fisheries are also becoming more accountable internationally from an
ecosystem perspective including avoiding significant impacts on benthic fauna.
As representative of the Confederation of Fishing Associations, David Russell will liaise with the chairmen of each of
the Namibian fishing associations to provide any concerns detailed by individual associations, as the EIA process
unfolds
Date:
14 September
2011
Name: Francois Friend Telephone: +27 82 5548900
Organization: SI Anlytics (Pty) Ltd Fax: +27 11 4447806
Designation: Director Email: [email protected]
Postal address/City: PO Box 141, Melrose Arch, 2076, South Africa
My interest in this project:
Environmental in general and association with Walvis Bay
Comments and matters of concern:
Water management/treatment and dust challenges
Date:
1 December 2011
Name: Heidi Skrypzeck Telephone: 064-4101000
Organization: Ministry of Fisheries & Marine Resources Fax: 064-404385
Designation: SFB Email: [email protected]
Postal address/City: PO Box 912, Swakopmund
My interest in this project:
Protecting renewable resource of Namibia for the future
Comments and matters of concern:
Pollution, destroying keystone species of the marine ecosystem, The independent reviewer should be appointed by
the GRN
Date: 24 November 2011
Name: Laurica Keis Telephone:
Organization: Min. Agriculture,Water and Forestry Fax:
Designation: Assistant Hydrologist Email:
Postal address/City: P O Box 62667,Katutura,Windhoek
My interest in this project:
Interested in what will be done with the waste water from the land-based part of the project.
Comments and matters of concern:
Phosphate is a kind of a fertilizer, what measures will be done to prevent it from polluting our ground water and
eventually our dams.
Date: 25
November 2011
Name: Willem Derks, Pieter Louw
Telephone:
081 1280508 , 081 1294641
Organization: Namibia Stevedoring Services
Fax: +264 64 206748
Designation: MD , Mngr Business Development
Email: [email protected] [email protected]
Postal address/City: P O Box 1400, Walvis Bay
My interest in this project: We are a stevedoring service provider in the Port of Walvis Bay to importers and
exporters as well as a majority of fishing companies.
Comments and matters of concern: Our concern is the impact on the environment (land) and fishing resources.
The area where the pipeline is proposed is sensitive. A Topnaar area, with Springbok and other animals and a huge,
important historical site.
Date: 19 January
2012
Name: Tim Eiman Telephone: 064 2082339
Organization: NAMPORT Fax:064 2082373
Designation: Coordinator EMS/QMS Email: [email protected]
Postal address/City: Namport Walvis bay
My interest in this project: Environmental impacts on the marine ecosystem.
The public sometimes questions Namport on these issues. I need more background information in order to respond
to these questions.
Comments and matters of concern:
The impact of Phosphate mining on the live stocks in the Benguella Current Large marine ecosystem?
Date: 23
November 2011
To: Carla Saayman Socio-Economic Practitioner at Enviro Dynamics cc
Fax: +264 61 307-437 Tel: +264 61 223-336 Email: [email protected]
Address: PO Box 4039; Windhoek; Namibia
Sent: Fri 2011/12/09 03:49 PM
Dear Carla
Re: Namibian Marine Phosphate Land Based Activities EIA Scoping Report BID document
Regarding excess water from the buffer ponds being returned to the sea, is there any risk of returning heavy
metals, radioactive elements, microbiological contaminants etc to the sea? There are juvenile fish breeding
grounds nearby, as well as oyster and mussel filter feeding aquaculture farms.
The same applies for sediment impacts of shell waste on marine life off Walvis Bay, both in terms of juvenile
fish habitat, and possible aquaculture impacts as the species farmed are primarily filter feeders.
The buffer ponds are below sea level, and flooding risks from the Kuiseb River need to be considered.
The onshore processing plant appears to be defined as light industry by the Municipality, which is surprising to
us, considering the proposal that it will process 3 million tonnes of final product annually. It is situated very
near to Walvis Bay from an environmental impact perspective, in terms of noise, dust, odours, leaching and
possible radiation risks etc.?
From an EIA perspective, consideration should also be given now to the positioning of the Processing Plant and
the future Phosphoric Acid Plant which is potentially 2-3 years away. Do these facilities need to be close
together, and from an environmental impact perspective, is the Phosphoric Acid Plant likely to be considered
light industry?
The slime tailings should be situated such that there is no risk of leaching into Walvis Bay’s limited
groundwater resource. Also, there should be no risk of health hazards from the slime tailings, both during the
lifetime of the mining operation, and after the operation closes. Consideration should be given to
rehabilitating tailings at the end of the mining operation so that they are not an eyesore to the public.
We understand the mining operation will utilize a quarter to a third of Walvis Bay’s electricity requirements –
this needs NAMPOWER giving an assurance that they will be able to cope with the added electricity demand.
Will NAMPORT be able to cope with the additional load of handling 3 million tonnes of final product, both in
terms of traffic congestion getting it to the port, and shipping the product out? NAMPORT is also in the middle
of Walvis Bay, so the environmental impacts of product stockpiles need to be carefully looked at.
Thank you for the opportunity to give you feedback.
Best regards
David Russell
For Confederation of Namibian Fishing Associations.
From: Herman Deysel [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 23 November 2011 02:16 PM
To: Carla
Subject: RE: Background Information Document- NMP Land-based activities
Carla,
I will not be able to attend but I would like to raise one question.
October is an off month for fishing due to the spawning of hake.
Since the dredging will be in the spawning grounds will dredging continue in October?
Regards
Herman
From: Herman Neethling [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 25 November 2011 08:45 AM
Subject: mining problems
Hi Sigi
I know you make your money from these guys and you have to protect your and their interests.
When these guys loosen the sand with dredging where do all these sand go ??? This go straight to the beach
and our trips where we drive to sandwich harbour are closing so with this disturbance these rates will increase
rapidly and we will lose business as well the Sandwich lagoon which are of importance as a Ramsar site and
place off importance.
Also the pollution factors and the dangers of other materials coming to the shore.
What about the fishing sector around Meob bay? Previous places show where to much activity start fish
moves away even place in Angola where they drill for oil use to be lots of fish now in areas where no drilling
plenty.
The area they will drill will only last for a while then they have to move to a new site closer to Walvis or even
Swakop?
This project is only for own interests and not all the facts can be prove without the real thing happening then
so much cost was put into the project that nothing will stop this . Maybe we must contact the Green Peace to
look also into this matter and hear what they have to say. What can you lose rather save than sorry or I got my
money deal with the rest.
The area the Walvis municipality gave to these guys are also in one of the biggest grave yards of the Topnaar
people and part of their history will also go with these project.
I sound negative but this is just a few factors I take in consideration and if your study prove this will be fine we
will be happy, but if not will you gave back all money you make and publicly apologise to the Namibian people
and environment.
Where the environment are damage this damage are forever ask Walvis Bay were they rerouted a river and
now we have a dune problem.
Hope you have a fine day and everything will go good at least few more people will have work and hopefully
the fishing sector will go on in the same area otherwise a few more will lose their jobs.
Greetings
Kind Regards
Herman Neethling
From: Joh Henschel [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 12 December 2011 10:15 AM
Cc: Stephanie van Zyl
Subject: NMP EIA
Dear Carla,
I realise that the deadline for comments on the NMP project scoping was on Friday. I do have one more
comment, not sure if this can be incorporated.
My comment concerns the Design and Location of Holding Pond (current location implies many different
impacts). Alternatives should be investigated, e.g., a) Holding Pond on a moored platform in the Bay; b)
Holding Pond at Processing Plant, mining ship discharges slurry from harbour anchorage and it is pumped
inland from there.
Regards,
Dr Joh Henschel
EnviroMEND
___________________________________________________-
Dear Jeremy,
The NMP project has, to my mind, a problem in that they have not demonstrated that their design is the only
possible way to go ahead. The location of the Holding Pond has huge implications, far far bigger than the
physical footprint. It puts a straightjacket around the lagoon (which is already partly in place with the road of
the salt works, but that is partial, and the kind of barrier that will come into place with the NMP. In the email
below you I copy you an additional point sent (late) to Envirodynamics this morning. This is what I first wrote
to Ecodynamics, but then did not send, as I realise they only want brief points, not tomes explaining all
background at great length:
“The fact that this industry will require a Holding Pond and a Processing Plant hugely influences the nature of
the terrestrial design, and makes the footprint enormous (far more than the actual area occupied by the
facilities). The current design locates them far apart from each other, and requires a design of a connection
between them right across the terrestrial side of the Ramsar Site, which disrupts the land-marine resource
exchange between lagoon and land (this is a fundamentally important principle). So I would like to suggest that
alternative locations and designs be considered. Perhaps the following, but not limited to my suggestions for
alternative designs and locations of the Holding Pond: Design-wise, one could perhaps think of a moored
floating platform somewhere in the Bay, where the slurry is processed before being pumped to the processing
plant onshore. An alternative location for a terrestrial holding pond: Why can the Holding Pond not be at the
Processing Plant, the mining ship comes into the harbour and all slurry is pumped to the processing plant,
where all pre- and full processing is done.”
My background to this. On a postdoc for 2 years I specifically addressed the enormous effects of adjacent
water and land ecosystems. Although I was looking specifically at (European) rivers and shore ecosystems, and
how shore-based infrastructure (roads, pathways, cultivated fields, factories, housing, you name it…) placed a
straightjacket on these systems by stifling allochthonous flow of resources, it a principle with wide relevance.
Key examples come from productive marine systems and their adjacent land systems, particularly desert areas
(the best work of this nature is from islands and land-shore of Baja California). Some work along these lines
was initiated in Namibia (by Gary Polis, who drowned in Baja California before getting beyond the initial
investigation in Namibia). Land to shore allochthony is expected to be of enormous importance for the Namib
Desert, but we just don’t know how important yet (i.e. scientifically quantified, mechanisms understood etc).
The vectors include wind-blown material, some of the abundant shore flies flying inland or their predators
moving inland and dying there, birds feeding in the lagoon and pooping inland, likewise hyenas/jackals etc,
plus the cascading effects of terrestrial foodwebs thus enriched, in turn affecting yet other adjacent foodwebs
further inland etc.
My concern about placing infrastructure all the way along the Walvis lagoon along its terrestrial side is
therefore not a pipe-dream. It is important to understand the implications of possibly disrupting an important
process. This cannot be done by merely taking an inventory of what species occur where and considering them
only in their respective compartment. I would therefore suggest that in the EIA for the currently-planned
location of the Holding Pond thoroughly investigate this process by conducting field research on the specific
question of the marine-land connection (outputs best as peer-reviewed scientific publication).
Best regards,
Joh Henschel
From: Mark R. Stanton [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 23 November 2011 12:23 PM
To: 'Carla'
Subject: RE: Background Information Document- NMP Land-based activities
Hi Carla
A quick query noting this document. Is the aim to do separate EIA’s for the marine based and land based
activities?
Kind regards
Mark R. Stanton
_____________________________________________________________________________
From: Carla [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 23 November 2011 12:48 PM
To: 'Mark R. Stanton'
Subject: RE: Background Information Document- NMP Land-based activities
Good day Mark
Yes, separate EIA processes are being undertaken for the marine and land-based activities. This issue has also
been raised at the Windhoek Public Meeting. You can view the minutes of this meeting on the Enviro
Dynamics website.
Kind Regards,
Carla Saayman
______________________________________________________________________________
Sent: Thu 2011/11/24 11:26 AM
Thanks for the feedback Carla.
Unfortunately your strategic document will not be the document (or in this case 2 documents each with half
the project!) that will be reviewed and either approved or rejected by MET… The sole aim of an EIA.
Kind regards
Mark R. Stanton
Eco Aqua
40 Riverside Avenue
P.O. Box 8291
Swakopmund
Namibia
Comments and concerns regarding the proposed Sandpiper Marine Phosphate Project – Terrestrial
Component Directorate Resource Management & Aquaculture, MFMR 9 December 2011
The following document lists the concerns of the Ministry of Fisheries & Marine Resources (MFMR) regarding
the land-based operations of Namibia Marine Phosphates (NMP) and possible impacts or implications to the
marine ecosystem following the presentation of NMP’s planned activities during the scoping meetings on 29
November and 1 December 2011.
The MFMR has already submitted numerous comments following the presentation of the marine component
of the project (29 September 2011), which includes the operations right up to the dredging vessel connecting
to a moored pipeline 1.5km offshore and to the south of Walvis Bay. Concerns regarding possible spillages
during the connection to the offshore pipeline and pumping of sediment ashore have been mentioned during
the marine EIA scoping, particularly in view of the area south of Walvis Bay past Sandwich Harbour being the
main spawning and nursery area for various fish species including the kabeljou and West Coast steenbras.
However some of these points also apply to the terrestrial EIA scoping component as NMP plans to pump
some of the sediment enriched seawater back to the sea from the beach (see below).
The proposed land-based operations are in close proximity to the RAMSAR site (lagoons), Sandwich Harbour,
Saltpans and Oyster farms (Donkey Bay, Aquaparks and Patrysberg) which would be affected by effluents
through seepage, spills, or current movement into the bay area or via Donkey Bay.
Excess seawater to be pumped back to sea:
Apparently around 4.5 (first year) to 14 million cubic metres (m3) of seawater (per year from third year
onwards) will be returned to sea either via the mooring pipeline or via a pipe to the beach. This is mainly
seawater used to resuspend the sediment so as to transport it through the pipelines. Concern about the water
quality of this seawater:
It may have high microbiological contamination due to decomposition of the organic matter in the buffer
pond. Thus it may affect product quality of the local fisheries and of the mariculture industry in Walvis Bay as
well as the salt works due to possible transfer to Walvis Bay area either via Donkey Bay or via currents carrying
this seawater into the Walvis Bay area. These industries are reliant on unpolluted water!
It may have increased trace/heavy metal concentration due to release of metals from sediments in changed
redox potential, pH or salinity of seawater leading to bioaccumulation of heavy metals in the foodweb and
affect fish larval survival etc.
It would contain fine suspended sediments which may lead to increased turbidity in the area where this water
is being released into sea and consequent effects on the marine ecosystem due to reduced light, possible fish
gill clogging, etc.
It may have an increased concentration of dissolved nutrients due to the high concentration of the sediment
pore water nutrients which may lead to increased number of local phytoplankton blooms (encourage harmful
algae blooms) and consequent effects on the local marine ecosystem as well as possible transfer to Walvis Bay
area either via Donkey Bay or via currents carrying this seawater into the Walvis Bay area.
Sewage water
Some treated sewage water will be used at the concentration plant to rinse out salt from the phosphate ore.
NMP is considering returning this water with the seawater to the buffer pond and from there to the sea.
MFMR is concerned that the treated sewage water still has high microbiological contamination that may
compromise the quality of fisheries, mariculture and salt products if returned to the sea. Thus NMP should
ensure that the treated sewage water should be kept separate from the seawater and rather be returned to
the sewage works. However, this would eventually lead to salination of the sewage work ponds. Nonetheless,
this water may not be returned to the sea. Alternative disposal must be found.
Buffer pond & Tailings pond
Concern of seepage of heavy metals and salts into the groundwater as the Walvis Bay water table is very
shallow and the ground is very porous. The ponds should be properly lined. The Department of Water Affairs
should be consulted on suitability of pond sites and acceptable lining of ponds.
Seepage or breakage of the buffer pond may lead to contamination of the salt works and/or the sea. This may
be a concern especially during Kuiseb River flood periods as the area south of the salt works (and north of the
buffer pond) is the shallowest area and, thus, where the Kuiseb River water tends to accumulate.
Shell stockpile
The shell grit removed from the sediment will be stockpiled and may be spread along the beach to be washed
back to sea. It must be investigated how this may affect the intertidal ecosystem. It should also be
stated/determined how thick a layer of shells would be spread over the beach area. Sedimentation of areas
e.g. Sandwich harbour could take place due to the shell grit being deposited/released at the low mark of the
beach area and the reversible nature of the inshore currents.
Increased shipping activity
The increased shipping activity in the vicinity of the mooring buoy and to the Walvis Bay harbour is likely to
affect the fish, marine mammals, turtles and seabirds in the area. Also spillage of material during harbour
loading activities may affect the water quality in the Bay.
The submerged pipeline with mooring will restrict ski boats & fishing boats access & activities.
Vehicle access
Restrictions on land to vehicle access to beach and areas further south (e.g. Sandwich Bay) due to the buffer
pond and pipe line. Sandwich Harbour is a prime birding area and an important destination for tour operators
to this area.
Beach linefish activity
Fishing activity along the beach south of Walvis Bay may increase due to increased human activity/presence in
a nature reserve area. If people do not have a fishing permit then ‘illegal fishing’ would increase. Concern that
people will not adhere to closed fishing seasons. This is a very important shore angling area especially for
Walvis Bay residents and any infrastructure (pipes, ponds and roads) will adversely affect angling activities
from the shore.
Seabirds
The local seabird population may be affected if the water is contaminated in the buffer and or tailings ponds.
Some recommendations for the EIA study
To indicate the flocculent, its volumes, chemical structure and chemical interactions with seawater to be used
in the tailings and the effect of this on the marine environment.
To indicate the volumes and concentrations of microbiological, heavy metal and dissolved nutrients within the
excess water to be pumped into the sea and the effect of this on the marine environment
Mitigating measures to prevent seepage from all ponds, groundwater contamination and breakage of all pond
walls
Mitigation measures for potential effects of global climate change (e.g. increased sea storms, higher rain fall,
floods etc).
Mitigating measures for solid waste disposal of the ship at mooring site
Appropriate pollution contingency plans for spills during slurry transfer process and shipping
Management plan for ballast water of vessels to transport/ship final product
The corrosive effect of hydrogen sulphide, the effect of wave exposure and biofouling on the pipeline/s and
moorings (infrastructure maintenance).
Cumulative effects of harbour activities in combination with operational phases of this phosphate mining
project
Consider the international, regional and national legislative framework and documents. All ministerial
stakeholders must be consulted.
Since the environmental impact on the Lagoon/Ramsar/Sandwhich harbour/mariculture farms/Saltpans sites
cannot be excluded, the impact of contamination (heavy metals, nutrients and microbiological) and sediment
deposition need to be addressed in the EIA of which hydrodynamic modeling should be a compulsory
component
The independent/external reviewer and the specialists should ideally not be chosen by the proponent but
rather be appointed by MET.
Some Laws and regulations that should be noted and adhered to:
Set of Water and Sediment Quality Guidelines for the coastal zone of the BCLME
National Shellfish Sanitation Programme (in the process of being gazetted)
Effluent permit from the Department of Water Affairs
From: Peter Cunningham [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 23 November 2011 12:19 PM
To: Carla
Subject: Re: Background Information Document- NMP Land-based activities
Dear Carla
See below some comments:
Holding pond
- How affect access to Sandwich Harbour?
- Area is important for roosting marine birds
- Salsola hummocks in area are an important habitat to a variety of wildlife
Pipeline
- Salsola hummocks in area are an important habitat to a variety of wildlife
- Temporary pools after Kuiseb River floods are also important bird habitat
- How affect water flow during flood events?
- Pipeline and movement of ungulates in delta area - e.g. springbok frequent this site - and ostrich (See Swakop
South pipeline report with findings on animal movement I did for Norman)
Processing plant
- Sewerage works are important bird feeding/roosting site
- Sewerage works have a recently established bird hide and associated infrastructure - how affect this?
- Prevailing winds are SW - dust & noise pollution issues!?
Regards
Peter Cunningham
From: Royden Stanton [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 08 December 2011 09:37 AM
To: [email protected]; Carla
Cc: Stephan Anderson; Gregory Swartz; [email protected]
Subject: FW: Namibian Marine Phosphate - Land Based Operation Scoping
Importance: High
Dear Stephanie
We hereby wish to formally request that the following concerns, with regard to the Namibia Marine Phosphate
proposed development, be addressed to our satisfaction.
1) Seawater Quality:
Seawater is the raw material for our operation and as such we are obviously extremely concerned at any
possible contamination thereof. This concern is not limited to the chemical pollution but also encompasses
detrimental changes to the microorganisms as well.
Please note that this concern relates not only to the land based operation but particularly to the marine
operation as well.
2) Buffer Pond:
a) Detailed chemical analysis (including heavy metals) as well as microbial content of the product to be stored
in the buffer pond is required.
b) Anticipated radioactivity of product stored.
c) What measures are to be taken to prevent seepage from the buffer pond?
d) What measures are to be taken to prevent wall breakages of the buffer pond and what how will this be
dealt with should it occur.
e) What measures are to be taken to protect the buffer pond from flooding of the Kuiseb River.
f) How many people will be required to be transported to pond area during operations?
g) Will they stay on site or transported daily?
1. If transport required daily what route to be used?
j) Mode of transport to be used for these people?
3) Effluent / Waste Matter:
a) The volume, and chemical analysis (including heavy metals, acidity and radioactive elements) and microbial
content of any effluent and or waste material, inclusive of shell grit, returned to the sea is required.
b) Anticipated temperature of effluent returned to ocean required.
c) Details of any flocculants, biocides and any additive utilized in process is required.
d) A detailed model of the pollution plume by an appropriate specialist would also be required.
e) Anticipated radioactivity levels of effluent and any stored waste required.
4) Powerline:
How will power be supplied to the buffer pond and any booster pump stations?
5) Pipeline:
a) Routing: Please note that whilst it has been agreed in principal, that the pipeline may be routed through our
mining licence area, the exact routing thereof has yet to be agreed.
b) How will blockages in the slurry line be rectified?
c) How would effluent in the pipeline be handled during pipeline maintenance?
d) Road construction – would this entail any setting up of construction camps within our area? From where
would the road building material be sourced?
e) What effect will the pipeline have on the movement of the sand dunes? This needs to be modeled to
ascertain whether it would increase the deposition of Aeolian sand into our ponds.
f) What measures are to be taken to ensure that the pipeline will be adequately protected during a possible
flood of the Kuiseb River?
6) Port Operation:
a) Dust Control:
Assurance is required that the dust generated from the handling of the product in the port will not cause
contamination of the salt stored in the port.
What is the chemical analysis of the final product?
MSDS of the final product required.
b) It was mentioned that the product is highly reactive when applied as a fertilizer to soil. What effect will this
have on salt?
c) What storage and loading facilities are to be utilized in the port for the export of the product?
7) Environment:
a) Bird life – water attracts birds, how will this be handled at the buffer pond?
b) Will the buffer pond contain any substances that may be detrimental / toxic to the birdlife?
c) Envisaged policy towards bird life; control over employees?
Regards
Royden Stanton
Managing Director
Salt & Chemicals (Pty) Ltd
Walvis Bay Salt Refiners (Pty) Ltd
e) What effect will the pipeline have on the movement of the sand dunes? This needs to be modeled to
ascertain whether it would increase the deposition of Aeolian sand into our ponds.
f) What measures are to be taken to ensure that the pipeline will be adequately protected during a possible
flood of the Kuiseb River?
6) Port Operation:
a) Dust Control:
Assurance is required that the dust generated from the handling of the product in the port will not cause
contamination of the salt stored in the port.
What is the chemical analysis of the final product?
MSDS of the final product required.
b) It was mentioned that the product is highly reactive when applied as a fertilizer to soil. What effect will this
have on salt?
c) What storage and loading facilities are to be utilized in the port for the export of the product?
7) Environment:
a) Bird life – water attracts birds, how will this be handled at the buffer pond?
b) Will the buffer pond contain any substances that may be detrimental / toxic to the birdlife?
c) Envisaged policy towards bird life; control over employees?
Regards
Royden