By Mariette Lieferink

John Jordi wrote: “In this particular part of the globe we have subdued the land, fenced in its creatures and harnessed its wild rivers. It was a massive task at first – foolhardy almost – but now we have emerged totally victorious. And it might be our trouble: our victory was too total. In places nature has capitulated leaving behind poisoned, lifeless streams; exhausted infertile soil; and each spring becomes more silent.” (The Star, March 10 1971)

This has become the legacy of gold and uranium mining since uranium has contaminated ground and surface water. When they investigated the Wonderspruitfontein area, the Water Research Commission (WRC) made a recommendation to the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) stating that: “The measured uranium content of many of the fluvial sediments in the Wonderfonteinspruit, including those off mine properties and therefore outside the boundaries of licensed sites, exceeds the exclusion limit for regulation by the National Nuclear Regulator. A decision is therefore necessary by the NNR, regarding a regulatory response to this problem.”

But the NNR did not respond to the uranium contamination. People most at risk were identified as being from informal settlements – those whose immune systems were already compromised by poor nutrition and HIV/Aids infections. These areas included Bekkersdal, Kutsong, Kagiso, Rietvallei, Toekomsrus and the towns of Randfontein, Carletonville, Fochville, Westonaria, Potchefstroom and Welverdiend.

Clean water is not merely a human need, it is a human right. For 120 years the impacts of the gold mining industry has had a detrimental affect on people through ecological degradation, health costs, loss of agricultural potential, dewatering, contamination of the surface and groundwater, atmospheric pollution and sinkhole formation, while increasing profits for shareholders. The mining industry should be liable for these costs.

The South African government has produced great reforms, including environmental laws. According to the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) of 1998: “The participation of all interested and affected parties in environmental governance must be promoted, and all people must have the opportunity to develop the understanding, skills and capacity necessary for achieving equitable and effective participation, and participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged persons must be ensured… Decisions must take into account the interests, needs and values of all interested and affected parties, and this includes recognizing all forms of knowledge, including traditional and ordinary knowledge… Community wellbeing and empowerment must be promoted through environmental education, the raising of environmental awareness, the sharing of knowledge and experience and other appropriate means…Decisions must be taken in an open and transparent manner, and access to information must be provided in accordance with the law…The vital role of women and youth in environmental management and development must be recognized and their full participation therein must be promoted.”

The NNR, as the protector of persons, property and the environment against nuclear damage, should provide information that is as complete and clear as possible. The Nuclear Energy Act, No 46 of 1999 states that: “Any person who, by virtue of information obtained in the course of any prospecting or mining operations or carrying out any scientific investigation or chemical or metallurgical process, or otherwise, has reason to believe that any source material is present at any place, must within 30 days after having developed the belief, submit to the Minister or any person designated by the Minister for that purpose, a written report on the matter, containing full particulars of the grounds on which the belief is based and of the place where the material may be present.”
In terms of Section 40 of the National Nuclear Regulator Act, No 47 of 1999, the Regulator must on the request of any person, make a record of nuclear accidents and incidents available to that person and no person is civilly or criminally liable or may be prejudiced or harassed on account of having disclosed, any information of a health or safety risk or failure to comply with a duty to the state or to the media.

This means that the people of South Africa should have the right to access information held by the NNR to ensure the environment is not harmful to health and well-being and to protect the environment for present and future generations. The South African public should also have access to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.

It should then be reasonable to expect that the NNR do something about radioactivity in the Wonderfonteinspruit region. The NNR should enforce safety standards with compliance inspections and punitive measures against polluters discharging radioactive material. In the event of an accident, the NNR should also establish an emergency plan and ensure that any person who contaminates a site with radioactive material rehabilitates it.

The NNR Act covers ionizing radiation, the discarding of radioactive waste, that enriched uranium be declared restricted material and the management, storage and discarding of radioactive waste.

But the NNR has cast doubts on the credibility of a report conducted by the Water Research Commission (No. 1214/1/06, “An Assessment of Sources, Pathways, Mechanisms and Risks of Current and Potential Future Pollution of Water and Sediments in Gold-mining Areas of the Wonderfonteinspruit Catchment” by Coetzee, Winde and Wade). This is despite the obvious effects that current and historic pollution have had on local communities, agriculture, disruption of water systems, fauna and flora, the aquatic biota and ecology.

Uranium and cadmium, known carcinogens, remain radioactive for centuries. People likely to suffer uranium contamination are mostly vulnerable and disadvantaged. The WRC Report stated that exposed populations would mainly be “residents in informal settlements with an impeded ability to cope with additional health risk, due to malnutrition and high rates of HIV/AIDS and the adverse effects on the immune system”. This is contrary to the spirit of NEMA which states: “Environmental justice must be pursued so that adverse environmental impacts shall not be distributed in such a manner as to unfairly discriminate against any person, particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged persons.”

The WRC report expressed concerns about “uranium remobilisation” – the process by which uranium would re-enter water sources. Current conditions were said to be “not environmentally desirable in the medium to long term.” The Water Research Commission also emphasized the “limitations in the budget of this project”, and the lack of data available concerning low dose and long term exposure of humans to uranium and other contaminants.

In his book “Uranium Road – Questioning South Africa’s Nuclear Direction” Dr David Fig stated: “Exposure below pne sievert will probably leave no outward signs but there is damage to internal organs with exposures as low as 0,1 sievert. Long term effects, including infertility, neurological damage, cancer and birth defects, are associated with exposures as low as 0,02 sievert…These long term effects appear to be equally associated with single dose exposure or cumulative exposure over a period of time. Most authorities now believe that any exposure to high energy radiation carries the risk of long term health consequences. They believe that a significant proportion of cancers, birth defects and genetic abnormalities are due to exposure to radiation, either from naturally occurring sources or human activity…The conclusion from this is that there is no safe level of exposure. …the safe level of exposure has been continually adjusted downwards since people became aware of the dangers of radiation. It is now about one tenth of the original figure.”

The WRC report also said there was no safe limit for carcinogens. Compared with the global mean concentration of uranium in fresh water of 0,0004mg/l the maximum concentration reported in stream water of the Wonderfonteinspruit is up to 1 000 times above natural background levels. The maximal uranium concentration advised by the DWAF in water used for irrigation is 0,01 mg/l. The carcinogenic risk-quotient estimate for the surface water of the Wonderfonteinspruit is 2,22 and the chemical risk estimate for this water is 6,67.

Wonderfonteinspruit has been identified in a number of studies as a site of significant radioactive and other pollution, due to mining and processing of uraniferous gold ores. In 1991, 12 tonnes of uranium was estimated to enter watercourses annually. More than 100 000 tons of uranium were estimated to be present in tailings deposits.

The uranium concentration of these volumes of mine-water effluent was reported to be ten times the South African guideline level for ideal drinking water – more than 70 times the South African guideline level for irrigation and more than 30 times the level for drinking water determined by regulatory limits.

Due to their uranium concentration, tailings in the Far West Rand were seen to be a major potential source of uranium water pollution. As much as 24 tonnes of dissolved uranium was released into the environment from unlined tailings deposits alone. Draining directly into underlying aquifers or dewatered dolomite, seepage from such tailings was a major cause of water contamination that was difficult and costly to control.

About ten tonnes of particle-bound uranium were found to be flushed by stormwater into watercourses each year.And with many of the over one thousand sinkholes having been filled with uraniferous slimes material, these were also sources of uranium pollution.

Downstream from mining operations, sediments found in dams, wetlands, and the streambed of the Wonderfonteinspruit showed higher uranium concentrations – sometimes even more than those in tailings deposits and other primary sources of uranium pollution.
Despite generally acting as sinks for dissolved uranium transported in stream water, such sediments might release uranium back into the water column and turn from sinks into secondary sources of uranium. The capacity of sediments to act as sinks for dissolved uranium might be exceeded and all dissolved uranium be transported downstream towards Boskop Dam – the main reservoir of the Potchefstroom Municipality.

Gold Mines discharged 50 tonnes of uranium into nearby streams every year. The natural background level of uranium was stated to be 0,2 – 3mg/kg. The local background at Klerkskraal Dam was over1 mg/kg. Mined reefs contained elevated concentrations of uranium – up to 5.8 per cent. Sediments in slime and evaporate filled dams contained very high uranium concentrations – in Upper Wonderfonteinspruit – over 1 000 mg/kg in places. Sediments in the wetlands downstream from Kagiso contained uranium concentrations over 100 mg/kg. Sediments in the lower Wonderfonteinspruit contained uranium concentrations that were as much as 500 mg/kg or more.

Wonderfonteinspruit samples were found to exceed not only natural background concentrations, but also levels of regulatory concern for cobalt, zinc, arsenic, cadmium and uranium, with uranium and cadmium showing the highest risk coefficient. In downstream farm dams uranium concentrations were 900 mg/kg. Uranium in fluvial sediment could be remobilised and transported downstream.

The primary organ at risk from uranium chemical toxicity is the kidney, while organs at risk from chronic radiological toxicity include the lymph nodes and the bone. There is no lower limit for acceptable radiological risk and recent research suggests that there is also no clear lower threshold for chemical toxicity. (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation – UNSCEAR, 1988)

The carcinogenic risk quotient for uranium in the surface water of the Wonderfonteinspruit is 2,22. The chemical toxicity risk quotient for the uranium in the surface water of the Wonderfonteinspruit is 6,67. Both the numbers are above 1,00 meaning that there is a risk of ill-health effects by drinking water from contaminated streams in the Wonderfonteinspruit catchment.

Heavy metal contents in the catchment significantly exceed the European Union guidelines. Since some of the sources of pollution are not due to direct discharge, but rather to run-off from contaminated sites and groundwater recharge, this hazard will remain after the closure of mines. The closure of mines and cessation of pumping could result in drying out of the sediments of the Wonderfonteinspruit. Ongoing monitoring of the situation was therefore required. Samples from the Potchefstroom waterworks at times exceeded levels for the chemical toxicity of uranium.
It is surprising that the NNR has discredited a report that has caused indignation among international environmental justice groups. The findings should only be set aside if evidence to the contrary were produced. The NNR merely said they were conducting their own investigation and would make the findings available to the public. When? The people in the affected area live with this daily hazard.
During apartheid a higher premium was placed on the gold mining industry and its profits and gold mines were allowed to overexploit and pollute the surface of the land and limited water resources. The Jordaan Commission Report (1960) showed that uranium contamination was partly due to co-operation among the United States, Britain and South Africa to manufacture weapons of mass destruction.

But in post apartheid South Africa, the NNR has still failed to enforce compliance in terms of available laws and licenses through prosecution or sanctions. The NNR’s perceived protection of the gold mining companies has increased benefits to the polluters but led to the loss of resources and ill-health for affected communities.
The protection of the people and the environment – not the interests of overseas investors and shareholders in mining companies – should be the NNR’s highest priority.

Mariette Liefferink is an environmental justice activist
mariette@acmegraphics.co.za

The destructive legacy of mining that still affects the Merafong region with serious water pollutant issues was examined by Elize van Eeden in research titled: “Whose environment? Whose nature?” presented at the International Conference on Humankind held in Kruger National Park last year, .

Because they were afraid that underground water in the Wonderfontein catchment might endanger the lives of mineworkers the mining industry decided to pump out surplus water and this process destroyed local water resources. Sinkholes appeared and the flow of springs decreased, but for decades this was denied by the mining industry.

The consequences of dewatering, followed by sinkholes, were catastrophic. Not only was destruction experienced in every sphere of community life, but the impact on the environment was also felt because of the pumping of slimes into the sinkholes. Minister Haak informed newspapers in 1966 that 1 393 039 tons of cement had already been pumped into boreholes alone. The cementation process continued to assure the survival of gold mines.

Since the sixties most irrigation farmers in the Merafong area were totally dependent on the water discharged by the mines for their livelihood. The first signs of crop failure were recorded during the 1964-1965 season in the irrigated wheat crop. By the next season a dramatic and widespread decrease in yields was only experienced on fields fed by the Lower Irrigation canal that relied on the surplus water discharged by the mines. The mysterious appearance of a white efflorescence was associated with the crop failures.

The fact that farmers were dependent on the goodwill of the mining sector had further weakened the economic position of farmers by 1966. Mines in the region were already supplying water to more than 30 farmers whose bore-holes had dried up. After the sixties nothing remained visible of the once well-watered Wonderfontein and the Eye of Wonderfontein, once a spot of scenic beauty. A network of irrigation canals was laid on by the mines to provide for the water needs of the farmers.

Complaints from farmers that the West Driefontein mine had dumped polluted water with harmful mineral elements like boron and aluminium into the irrigation canals evoked widespread reaction. Some claimed that this affected the vegetation and animal life of the area. Examples of abnormal absence of seed during the harvest of buckwheat, maize and corn, the serious pigmentation of grass and clover planted for feeding purposes and the abnormal number of deaths, miscarriages and deformities that occurred in fish, goats and pigs were mentioned.

Despite the diversity of soil types, planted crops and management systems the common factor was a disturbance of the calcium metabolism of the plants. The calcium depletion in the irrigated area was unexpected given the components in dolomitic water. The pathology in animals was found in sheep, goats, cattle and swine. The possible influence of contagious abortion and fibrosis had to be eliminated before a link between the symptoms and water quality could be suggested. The symptoms were joint problems in adult animals, abortions and deformities at rates previously not encountered in the area. Joints were more affected than the rest of the body which manifested as a stiffness of gait. Scour in a variety of animals was commonplace and massive internal bleeding in pigs occurred occasionally. Blood did not coagulate, while milk curdled. Both these events are related to calcium metabolism. Given the knowledge that both the Blyvooruitzicht and Driefontein Mines had active Uranium Extraction Plants, “it was no great stretch of the imagination to link water quality to the problem as a generalisation and to suspect the presence of radio-isotopes in the water”. Based on scientific research it was known that “Lead, Zinc, Strontium, Barium, Boron and a variety of radio-active isotopes could have an effect on the metabolism and that high doses of calcium alleviated some of the symptoms”.

Continuous allegations between a dissatisfied farming community and the mines probably led to the Deputy Minister’s announcement in November 1967 that the concerns raised by the farmers would be investigated. Dr Nico Stutterheim of the CSIR chaired this process. During the same time the Farmers Union (FU) compiled a memorandum on the impact on animals and crops that was presented to the then Deputy Minister of Water Affairs, Mr Herman Martins. In this memorandum the presentation of “an X-ray of a pig’s hipbone was recorded: the osseous tissue had been eroded by astrochemical sarcoma, a type of cancer.” Dr Jerry Retief, a veterinarian who assisted in the compilation of the memorandum, made it clear that while “the element responsible for the … phenomena had not yet been traced” there was “some or other element present that excreted the calcium from the osseous tissue” and that there was “a possibility that radioactive isotopes could be responsible” but that “this had not been proved”. In this memorandum Retief also amplified the following phenomena:

• Massive internal bleeding in pigs
• Birth deformities, at least 50 per cent higher than before 1966
• Radioactive isotopes such as SR and U that have a severe impact on the body. It was said that the body has an affinity for these isotopes. Radioactive isotopes replace calcium in the body and calcium in the milk gets eliminated rapidly.
• One or more elements are present which replace calcium in the bone tissue.
• It is possible that a radioactive isotope could be responsible, but that this has not yet been proved.
• The above phenomena are all factors that can point to radioactive isotope contamination from the uranium ores of the Witwatersrand.

By the eighties the mines had become the prime “manager” of the agricultural areas in the Oberholzer district. Insufficient remuneration (if at all) to those individuals, farmers and local business men who experienced losses as a result of water (causing sinkholes or being polluted) became another point of the complicated debate. Despite many efforts by several concerned environmental experts and human activists to address these accusations, they, are still falling on ignorant or clever, strategic mining management ears now in 2006. The debate about water pollution by the mines, and the effects on the farming community as well as the local community in general (especially in informal settlement areas and further west to Potchefstroom) is also continuing.

Water pollution concerns include: possible radiogenic impact. This can range from impaired mental capacity, through somatic changes, to genetic defects. This makes a direct linkage between cause and effect, tenuous in the extreme. In the early seventies the Committee regarding the Quality of Water in the Far West Rand issued a Final Report under the chairmanship of Dr van der Merwe Brink of the CSIR. By 2006 this still was embargoed as confidential. As member of this Committee Dr E.J. Stoch did not approve of the Final Draft and prepared a minority report which Brink did not accept. Dr Stoch eventually agreed to sign a specific part, but on condition that the part he did not agree with will appear after his signature. He remembered that:

“A final document was re-arranged over coffee and petit fours and was not signed by me. It was only recently that I managed to obtain a copy of the document and was rather dismayed at the content. Although it is stated in the Final Report that the Radium values were at the limit of the maximum allowable level, new light had been shed on the matter in terms of maximum concentration of radium in water…”

Much later, in Circular No. 26/95, the Chamber of Mines refers to the Report on Radioactivity in water sources of the Department of Water Affairs, a Phase 1 Report produced in 1995. Wymer (1995) advised the affected members “that we have little choice but to accept that some of the radioactivity levels measured may indeed be cause for some concern. It (was) recommended that the mining industry should establish a proactive and open strategy for addressing the issue. It is only a matter of time before these results become public knowledge.”

Mr Henk Coetzee of the Council for Geoscience investigated the relative radio-isotope composition of the sediment as well as the inflorescence around the Turffontein Eye in about 1996 and concluded that there was an elevated level of radioactivity and that the source was most likely the mines.

In 1965, the Chamber of Mines instituted a study on the “In situ leaching of uranium from slimes dams and dumps”. Also based on the findings of Matic and Mrost (1964) it was concluded that “pyrite-bearing slime is amenable to bacterially-assisted oxidation resulting in the production of ferric sulphate which is a lixivium for uranium”. Between 70-80 per cent uranium was recovered in laboratory tests. D. van As, the Head of the Sub-division: Radioactivity of the Atomic Energy Board, also reported to the department of Mines that in comparison with the water from the Crocodile River, with the exception of the Bank Eye water, all the water from the Oberholzer area showed levels of Alpha- and Beta- activity that were much higher. The one sample had a Ra226 activity content of 27 pCit that exceeded the recommended permissible limit.
The mining authorities were somehow seldom able to come up with clear results from their investigation into the quality of water in the process of distribution over a distance of 60 to 80 kilometres. However, they were always quick to reject assumptions, even those based on scientific research.

On 28 September 1992 at a meeting of irrigators to discuss their problems representatives of Gold Fields denied that the sediment came from the mines. According to their delegate, the source of the problem was the dust from Bekkersdal informal settlement. A meeting with the then Manager of the West Driefontein Mine, Mr Syd Caddy followed and the denial was repeated. The farmers were even warned that the Mine had “deep pockets” and would keep them in Court for “60 years”.

The discharge of the mine was not being passed through any settling ponds, with the result that the silt settled in the canals and had to be removed on a regular basis. When the farmers had convinced the Minister of Water Affairs that they were entitled to better quality water, a member of DWAF indicated that he would oppose any change in the status quo as, according to him, the water was of a suitable quality. In order to alleviate the problem, the Oberholzer Irrigation Board was obliged to construct a number of scour sluices in the canal which were used to divert the sediment into the Wonderfonteinspruit.

Dairy farmers in the Oberholzer area were the first to notice problems with the fertility of their animals, sometimes associated with birth defects that could not be linked to specific infections. Amongst others, problems were evident in the Sanrus Dairy Herd and the Rooipoort Herd of Mr Nortje. A diagnosis of blood samples indicated a deficiency of selenium. Eventually the conclusion was reached that a large sulphate content in water could induce a selenium deficiency. From a veterinarian examination of cows it was also orally exchanged that most of the cows of Mr Hennie Viljoen had enlarged livers. The same scenario played off regarding the chickens on the farm of Mr Jan Nel and the occurrence of an extensive infertility rate of Koi fish on the farm of a Mr Wiid close to the Turffontein spring (just outside Merafong’s eastern border).

The majority of inhabitants of Merafong receive water from the Rand Water Board for their daily consumption, but people from informal settlements and some farming communities don’t. They mostly rely on the water distributed by the mines into several dams. Discussion with a number of medical specialists gave rise to concern that, in time, humans could be affected in the same way as the animals. By 2006 this matter had neither been addressed on a macro scale, nor on a micro scale,. Assumptions and observations still prevailed with no funds and insufficient expertise available to scientifically follow up these accusations before the mines decided to purchase the properties. The following observations were made:

• In the Blyvooruitzicht mining area, the community were dependent on ground water for their daily needs. A teacher from the former Goudwes School in Carletonville that caters for academic under-achievers, noticed that a disproportionate number of children at the School lived at Blyvooruitzicht. Scientific references point to the fact that radioactivity in drinking water could lead to impaired intelligence in children and other haematological abnormalities. Radioactivity is not solely linked to water, but can also enter the human body through digestion or inhalation. In 1990 Funke, in another WRC report, said the extent of the exposure of miners to radioactive materials in gold and uranium mines should be measured and countermeasures taken, if necessary. The extent of the exposure to the effects of radon gas ands its radioactive daughter products of the public living near tailings dumps also warrants investigation. Findings by the Kempster Committee to investigate the background of radioactivity in South African water were never shared with the general public:
• The daughter of a farmer, Mr Hennie Viljoen, suffered from severe stomach cramps when she ate beetroot salad made from beets grown in their own garden.
• South of the Gatsrand (close to the Kloof mine) the Berry family experienced severe medical problems.
• In the late nineties Dr Veldsman of Potchefstroom expressed his concern about the incidence of pancreatic cancer in his patients, as five of the six cases came from the Carletonville-Fochville area (the latter a town a few kilometres south-west of Carletonville). Pancreatic cancer and radioactivity was positively linked by a medical specialist in Nashville, Tennessee – Professor Martin Sandler.

Because of so many historical silences on especially the part of government and the gold mining sector on water issues in the Merafong area it remains difficult to gain a balanced perspective. Community members felt that government and mining authorities had made decisions that gave an impression that they regarded themselves as being above the law. The economic advantages of exploring for gold in a very vulnerable geological environment far outweighed the well-being of the local people, many of whom had settled in the area because of possibilities offered by the gold mining activities. No ethical code was followed before and during the process of dewatering. The only tenet that was strictly observed was that of secrecy.

In 2006 rumours about polluted water were still ongoing. Secrecy resulted in a distorted view of the water status regarding an acceptable supply to farmers in the Carletonville area. It also was accompanied by occasional complaints about the effect of water on man and especially animals and the environment. In the past some members of the community who were dissatisfied did not see any other choice but to pack up and explore other options to recover financially or overcome the trauma. In 2000 water was still pumped from the dewatered compartments of Bank and Oberholzer, and by then it was estimated to consist of the natural groundwater recharge and water imported from Rand Water. With the exception of minor quantities, the mine reused the water and also supplied certain irrigation boards and individuals on a contractual basis.
From a national point of view the question of ethics and the human rights of those affected became insignificant issues. It appears that the State elected not to be accountable for the serious psychological and economic setbacks suffered by inhabitants of the area. The substantial cost that resulted from the exercise required to reverse the damage runs into millions of Rand. With regard to these events the financial drawbacks suffered by well-known gold mines, specifically as a result of damage caused to the mining infrastructure and property as well as loss of lives of employees and their families, aroused concern. Farmers and some businessmen from time to time raised serious objections to the dewatering of compartments, and to the consequences of polluted water due to mining activity.

According to Frank Winde no investigation aimed at establishing possible health implications in affected communities has been conducted in the Wonderfonteinspruit area by 2006. An effort to assess associated health risks is further complicated by a number of facts including the lack of reliable data on effects of long-term low-dose exposure of humans to uranium in drinking water and limited understanding of the complex mechanisms and dynamics of uranium pollution and uranium transport in the aquatic environment. Uranium pollution, it is said, is not exclusively caused by historical mining activities but also by current operations.