REVIEW RECORD SHEET

Project Short Title: .................................................................................................................................................... Project No: ...................................................................... Document Ref. No: ......................................................

Document Title:........................................................................................................................................................... Document Type:

Report Draft Report Letter Report Technical Memo Other (specify) ...............................................................................................................
Project Director:...........................................................

Project Manager: ............................................................

CHECKLIST YES
1. 2. 3. 4. Have you read the brief/scope/TOR ? Does the document meet the promised scope of works in the brief ? Is the purpose and scope adequately stated? Have the following been checked to the extent appropriate for this project: data analyses calculations spreadsheets field data drawings, figures, sketches tables data transfers Has analytical uncertainty been adequately addressed? Are conclusions and recommendations logical and defensible? Are all necessary references identified? Are limitations or conditions in the use of the data, recommendations, or conclusions discussed where necessary, and have appropriate disclaimers been included? Has the Project Director been consulted about this report _______ _______ _______

NO*
______ ______ ______

N/A
_______ _______ _______

_______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______

______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

_______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______

5. 6. 7. 8.

9.

COMMENTS

All checklist items have been satisfactorily addressed * Any No answers must be explained Reviewed by: ________________________________ Print Name
____________________________________________

________________________________________ Signature

Date:

Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd Reg. No. 2002/007104/07

JOHANNESBURG PO Box 6001 Halfway House 1685 South Africa Thandanani Park, Matuka Close Halfway Gardens, Midrand Tel + (27) (0)11 254-4800 Fax + (27) (0)11 315-0317 http://www.golder.com

REPORT ON

HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED HEIDELBERG OPENCAST MINE NUMERIC MODELLING OF PIT INFLOWS AND GROUNDWATER IMPACTS

Report No : 7475/8297/7/G

Submitted to: Anglo Coal Project Services Private Bag X9 Leraatsfontein

DISTRIBUTION: 2 Copies 1 Copy April 2006 Anglo Coal Project Services Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd Library 7475

Directors : P Onley (Australia), FR Sutherland, AM van Niekerk, JA Wates OFFICES IN JOHANNESBURG, DURBAN, AUSTRALIA, INDONESIA, NEW ZEALAND, PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA, PHILIPPINES, SINGAPORE OFFICES ACROSS AFRICA, ASIA, AUSTRALASIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA

April 2006

7475/8297/7/G

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Anglo Coal Projects Services (ACPS) initiated the feasibility of developing the Heidelberg opencast mine with an operational life of approximately twelve years for long-term coal supply to Eskoms Grootvlei power station, which is to be re-commissioned. Golder Associates Africa (GAA) was appointed to determine the possible impacts that the proposed opencast mine will have on the groundwater regime in the area. A key aspect of the Heidelberg in-pit water balance is the determination of groundwater inflows into the opencast workings during operation and post mine closure. Golder conducted a groundwater study to develop an understanding of the existing groundwater environment and to evaluate the changes to this environment, as a result of pit impacts. The main objectives of the groundwater modelling study are to: Construct and calibrate a numerical groundwater flow model, to accurately simulate groundwater flow through the aquifers Simulate inflow rates into the mining sections using the preliminary mine plans in conjunction with the calibrated groundwater flow model Determine the necessity of dedicated dewatering well fields around mining sections Simulate the potential influence of the Suikerbosrand River on mining Simulate the extent of the influence of mining operations on the hydrogeological regime in the study area. Determine the influence of mining on community boreholes. Simulate the effect of mine closure on groundwater levels and recommend an operational pit groundwater/surface water level elevation to prevent decant of groundwater / surface water into the Suikerbosrand River. Identify the need for any additional hydrogeological field investigations in order to reduce uncertainties identified from the hydrogeological flow modelling investigation conducted.

The results of the investigation are presented in this report and incorporate results of the hydrogeological and geochemical study into the groundwater model.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

ii

7475/8297/7/G

A numerical groundwater model using the FeFlow code was constructed for the proposed Heidelberg opencast pit. The conceptual model, model assumptions, construction, and results are presented in Sections 12 - 14 of the report. The key findings of the study can be summarised under: Alternative A: Worst Case Scenario The average influx of groundwater during operation will approximate 1 820 m3/d, reduced to 1 160 m3/d (36 % reduction on average) with active dewatering of nine (9) dewatering wells and 825 m3/d (55 % reduction on average) with active dewatering of seventeen (17) dewatering wells (see Figure S1 below). The natural filling of the pit, to an elevation of 1476 mamsl (1 m below the base of the Suikerbosrand River) will take approximately 1 980 days or more than 5 years after closure. The average flow rate will be at 841 m3/d, reducing over time as driven by the rising head conditions within the pit, to average flows of 452 m3/d. If the opencast pit is allowed to fill above the recommended waterlevel of 1476 mamsl, outflow of contaminated water to the Suikerbosrand River could approximate > 280 m3/d. There will be an increase in flows through the alluvium to the pit, as the pit development approaches the Suikerbosrand River. Average flows will approximate 171 m3/d without dewatering and roughly contribute 9 % of groundwater inflow to the pit. Active dewatering will increase the flow through the alluvium to an average of 214 m3/d and 265 m3/d, for the 9 and 17 dewatering well scenarios respectively (Scenario 2). Operation of the opencast pit will lead to the development of a dewatered cone of depression extending to the Suikerbosrand River in the East, 1 400 m North, 615 m to the South and 410 m to the West, with no active dewatering (Scenario 1). The footprint area will be influenced by the nine (9) dewatering well field, operating six (6) months prior to pit development for Scenario 2. This will result in a more extensive area of influence that could approximate 1 470m to the North, 720 m to the South and 570 m to the West. The extent of dewatering by increasing the number of dewatering wells to seventeen (17), indicate a cone of depression developing to 1 500 m North, 800 m South, 700 m West and to the Suikerbosrand River on the East. Operation of a 17 dewatering well field will ensure a more effective barrier to groundwater inflow into the opencast pit.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

iii

7475/8297/7/G

3500

3000

2500

Inflow (m3/d)

2000

Scenario 1 Scenario 2_9 Wells Scenario 2_17 Wells Pump_9 Well

1500

Pump_17 Well

1000

500

0 0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 Time (d) 2555 2920 3285 3650 4015 4380

Figure S1: Alternative A Pit Inflows

Alternative B: Best Case Scenario The average influx of groundwater during operation of the Heidelberg opencast pit will approximate 1 060 m3/d, reduced to 272 m3/d (74 % reduction on average) with active dewatering of nine (9) dewatering wells and 37 m3/d (97 % reduction on average) with active dewatering of seventeen (17) dewatering wells (see Figure S2 below). The natural filling of the pit, to an elevation of 1476 mamsl will take approximately 3 960 days, almost 11 years after closure. The average flow rate will be at 617 m3/d, reducing over time to average flows of 442 m3/d. If the opencast pit is allowed to fill above the recommended water level of 1476 mamsl, outflow of contaminated water to the Suikerbosrand River could approximate > 280 m3/d. The average alluvial flow will approximate 76 m3/d without dewatering and roughly contribute 7 % of groundwater inflow to the pit. Active dewatering will increase the flow through the alluvium to an average of 98 m3/d and 121 m3/d, for the 9 and 17 dewatering well scenarios respectively (Scenario 2).

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

iv

7475/8297/7/G

Operation of the opencast pit will lead to a similar development of a dewatered cone as for Alternative A, but extending to 710 m South and 860 m to the East of the opencast footprint. Scenario 2 indicates an approximate area of influence extending to 860 m South and 960 m east. By characterising the Suikerbosrand River as a gaining stream only, the developed dewatering cone will extend up to 980 m South and 1 125 m East, with the increase of dewatering wells to seventeen (17). There is no indication that the development of the dewatering cone, during operation of the Heidelberg opencast pit, will influence current water supply boreholes, under hydraulic continuity or no hydraulic continuity conditions (Alternative A or B).

Water quality from the deeper semi-confined aquifer is of a good quality. Most of the pumped water for mine dewatering purposes during the operational phase will be derived from this aquifer. It can therefore be safely assumed that the pumped water can be discharged into the Suikerbosrand River without any detrimental effect to the environment. In-pit management practices during the operational phase should be such that no potential contaminated surface water be allowed the time to infiltrate into the groundwater system.

3500

3000

2500

Inflow (m3/d)

2000

Scenario 1 Scenario 2_9 Wells Scenario 2_17 Wells Pump_9 Wells

1500

Pump_17 Wells

1000

500

0 0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 Time (d) 2555 2920 3285 3650 4015 4380

Figure S2: Alternative B - Pit Inflows

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

7475/8297/7/G

Key uncertainties in the study are: The extent of influence from the peat area (south-west of the proposed Heidelberg opencast pit) to flows in the groundwater environment. The hydrogeological properties of the Suikerbosrand riverbed.

The study aimed at developing a first order understanding of the groundwater impacts associated with the Heidelberg opencast pit operation. To narrow down the envelope of possibility, the numeric model results should be re-evaluated, once additional information is available from construction of the dewatering well field and extension of the hydrocensus.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

vi

7475/8297/7/G

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PAGE

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 1 OBJECTIVES......................................................................................... 1 METHODOLOGY................................................................................... 2 LOCATION............................................................................................. 2 TOPOGRAPHY...................................................................................... 2 DRAINAGE ............................................................................................ 4 RAINFALL ACROSS STUDY AREA....................................................... 4 EVAPORATION ..................................................................................... 4 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................. 5
9.1 9.2 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 Regional Geology .............................................................................. 5 Site Specific Geology ........................................................................ 5 Aquifers ............................................................................................. 7 Groundwater Flow Directions and Gradients ..................................... 8 Water level depth below surface and blow yields............................... 8 Aquifer test analyses and Hydraulic Parameters................................ 8

HYDROGEOLOGY ................................................................................ 7

11 12 13

GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL DEVELOPMENT .............................. 8 CONCEPTUAL MODEL ....................................................................... 10

12.1 12.2 13.1 13.2 13.3 Modelling assumptions .................................................................... 10 Software Selection (Modelling Code)............................................... 11 Finite Element Grid.......................................................................... 11 Model Boundaries............................................................................ 13 13.2.1 Model Boundary Conditions ............................................... 14 Calibration ....................................................................................... 14

CONSTRUCTION OF THE NUMERIC FLOW MODEL ........................ 11

14

UTILIZING THE GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL TO ADDRESS THE STUDY OBJECTIVES.................................................................. 18

14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 Introduction...................................................................................... 18 Operational Mining Phase ............................................................... 18 14.2.1 Mining method ................................................................... 18 Modelled Scenarios ......................................................................... 20 Scenario Discussion ........................................................................ 21 14.4.1 Operational Phase ............................................................. 21 14.4.2 Developing Cone of Depression......................................... 24 14.4.3 Closure Phase ................................................................... 31 14.4.4 Contribution from Alluvium ................................................. 34 Groundwater Quality........................................................................ 34 14.5.1 Local Background Groundwater Quality Concentrations................................................................... 34

14.5

15 16

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................... 39 REFERENCES..................................................................................... 44

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

vii

7475/8297/7/G

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: General Geographical Reference Map ................................................................................. 3 Figure 2: Monthly Rainfall Record for Heidelberg (1901 2000)....................................................... 4 Figure 3: Monthly Evaporation Record for Heidelberg (1901 2000) ................................................ 5 Figure 4: General Geological Reference Map..................................................................................... 6 Figure 5: Schematic Representation of the Heidelberg Environment................................................... 7 Figure 6: Regional Piezometric Water levels and Flow Directions...................................................... 9 Figure 7: Model Matrix (Finite Element Grid).................................................................................. 12 Figure 8: Three Dimensional Model Domain ................................................................................... 13 Figure 9: Calibrated Water levels ..................................................................................................... 15 Figure 10: Geological Representation of Modelled Area and Water Levels ...................................... 15 Figure 11: Frequency Distribution of Conductivities for Shallow Aquifer system............................. 16 Figure 12: Frequency Distribution of Conductivities for Deep Aquifer system ................................. 17 Figure 13: Transient Calibration of Borehole D................................................................................ 18 Figure 14: Proposed Heidelberg Opencast Pit Development & Dewatering Well Field ..................... 19 Figure 15: Pit Inflows and Pump Rates for Alternative A ................................................................. 22 Figure 16: Pit Inflows and Pump Rates for Alternative B ................................................................. 23 Figure 17: Cone of Depression Scenario 1 (Alternative A) ............................................................ 25 Figure 18: Cone of Depression Scenario 1 (Alternative B) ............................................................ 26 Figure 19: Cone of Depression Scenario 2 (Alternative A) [9 Well Dewatering]............................ 27 Figure 20: Cone of Depression Scenario 2 (Alternative B) [9 Well Dewatering] ............................ 28 Figure 21: Cone of Depression Scenario 2 (Alternative A) [17 Well Dewatering].......................... 29

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

viii

7475/8297/7/G

Figure 22: Cone of Depression Scenario 2 (Alternative B) [17 Well Dewatering] .......................... 30 Figure 23: Head in Pit vs. Fill Rate for Alternative A ....................................................................... 32 Figure 24: Head in Pit vs. Fill Rate for Alternative B ....................................................................... 33 Figure 25: Alluvial Inflows for Alternative A................................................................................... 35 Figure 26: Alluvial Inflows for Alternative B................................................................................... 36 Figure 27: Shallow Aquifer Chemistry............................................................................................. 38 Figure 28: Deep Aquifer Chemistry ................................................................................................. 38 Figure 29: Groundwater Flow Lines at 1476 mamsl ......................................................................... 39

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Calibrated Hydrogeological Parameters.............................................................................. 16 Table 2: Modelled Operational Timeframe....................................................................................... 20 Table 3: Pit Water Elevation & Inflow Rates at Closure ................................................................... 31 Table 4: Background Groundwater Qualities.................................................................................... 37 Table 5: Comparative Scenario Results for Pit Operation ................................................................. 43

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Groundwater Figures

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

7475/8297/7/G

INTRODUCTION

Anglo Coal Projects Services (ACPS) initiated the feasibility of developing the Heidelberg opencast mine with an operational life of approximately twelve years for long-term coal supply to Eskoms Grootvlei power station, which is to be re-commissioned. Golder Associates Africa (GAA) was appointed to determine the possible impacts that the proposed opencast mine will have on the groundwater regime in the area. A key aspect of the Heidelberg in-pit water balance is the determination of groundwater inflows into the opencast workings during operation and post mine closure. To characterise the prevailing hydrogeological conditions in the area of the proposed opencast mine, Golder launched a hydrogeological field investigation to characterise the aquifer(s) within which the proposed opencast mine will function. A conceptual hydrogeological model was subsequently developed for the study area based on results forthcoming from this field investigation (GAA Report No: 7475/8235/4/G, March 2006). GAA was appointed to construct and calibrate a numerical flow model based on the developed conceptual model (GAA Report No: 7475/8235/4/G, March 2006), to determine the impacts that the proposed mine will have on the groundwater regime of the area. The model is used to simulate the groundwater flow through the groundwater system. This report describes the modelling process and modelled impacts of the opencast mine on the groundwater regime in the area investigated.

OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of the groundwater modelling study are to: Construct and calibrate a numerical groundwater flow model, to accurately simulate groundwater flow through the aquifers Simulate inflow rates into the mining sections using the preliminary mine plans in conjunction with the calibrated groundwater flow model Determine the necessity of dedicated dewatering wellfields around mining sections Simulate the potential influence of the Suikerbosrand River on mining Simulate the extent of the influence of mining operations on the hydrogeological regime in the study area. Determine the influence of mining on community boreholes. Simulate the effect of mine closure on groundwater levels and recommend an operational pit groundwater/surface water level elevation to prevent decant of groundwater / surface water into the Suikerbosrand River.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

7475/8297/7/G

Identify the need for any additional hydrogeological field investigations in order to reduce uncertainties identified from the hydrogeological flow modelling investigation conducted.

METHODOLOGY

The approach followed in this groundwater modelling study was to focus only on the proposed Heidelberg opencast pit and its immediate environment, based on available data. The study was therefore aimed at creating a first-order understanding of groundwater impacts through numeric modelling and to develop knowledge gaps and recommendations for refinement of the model in the future. In order to achieve the objectives of the investigation the following methodology was adopted: A desk study was conducted on information made available by Anglo Coal and the previous work undertaken (WMB Report No: 3758/1713/1/W, March 1999) Development of a conceptual model for the Heidelberg opencast pit, based on the desk study and information available from Golder (GAA Report No: 7475/8235/4/G, March 2006) Selection of the most appropriate modelling code Model construction and set-up Calibration of the model for steady state groundwater flow conditions, based on average water levels measured during the hydrocensus conducted in 2005 across the study area Calibration of the model for transient state groundwater flow conditions based on historic aquifer test data collected from deep boreholes (WMB Report No: 3758/1713/1/W, March 1999) Conduct model simulations in order to evaluate the groundwater impact associated with the proposed development of the Heidelberg opencast pit over time

LOCATION

The proposed opencast is to be located on portion 6 of the farm Elandsfontein 412IR approximately 12 km south-east of Heidelberg Gauteng province in South Africa. The mine will be bound to the east by the Suikerbosrand River and to the south by the R549, Heidelberg to Deneysville road (Figure 1). Also indicated on Figure 1, is the location of the boreholes identified during the hydrocensus conducted by Golder (2005), as a general geographical reference.

TOPOGRAPHY

The studied area falls within the South Rand Coal field comprising Karoo sediments. The area is surrounded by hills of the Witwatersrand Supergroup and the Ventersdorp Group.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

7475/8297/7/G

Figure 1: General Geographical Reference Map

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

7475/8297/7/G

The Suikerbosrand River rises in the eastern portion of the Vaal River catchment near Devon and Leandra, from where it flows in a south-westerly direction, before turning to the north-west upstream of its confluence with the Blesbokspruit (GAA Report No: 7475/8290/6/W, April 2006).

DRAINAGE

The natural groundwater level is mostly controlled by the local topography, with groundwater draining towards surface stream channels. Below its confluence with the Blesbokspruit, the Suikerbosrand River flows in a south-westerly direction for about half its length before turning to a westerly course until its confluence with the Vaal River at Vereeniging. This portion of the catchment is also largely undeveloped and dominated by grassland and dry land agriculture (GAA Report No: 7475/8290/6/W, April 2006).

RAINFALL ACROSS STUDY AREA

The rainfall record for Heidelberg (1901 2000) is depicted on a monthly basis in Figure 2. The average mean annual precipitation (MAP) for Heidelberg is 687 mm/a. Rainfall is strongly seasonal with most rain occurring in the summer period (October to April) The peak rainfall months are December and January (GAA Report No: 7475/8290/6/W, April 2006).

500

450

400

350

300 Rain (mm/m)

250

MMP

200

150

100

50

0 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Date (year)

Figure 2: Monthly Rainfall Record for Heidelberg (1901 2000)

EVAPORATION

The mean annual evaporation (MAE) of Heidelberg equals 1625 mm/a. The evaporation record is depicted on a monthly basis in Figure 3. The highest Class A-pan monthly evaporation is in January (range 180 mm to 260 mm) and the lowest evaporation is in June (80 mm to 110 mm) (GAA Report No: 7475/8290/6/W, April 2006).

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

7475/8297/7/G

200

180

160

140 Evaporation (m m/m )

120

100

MME

80

60

40

20

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Month 7 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 3: Monthly Evaporation Record for Heidelberg (1901 2000)

9
9.1

GEOLOGY
Regional Geology

The studied area falls within the South Rand Coal field comprising Karoo sediments. The area is surrounded by hills of the Witwatersrand Supergroup and the Ventersdorp Group. Figure 4 shows the regional geology of the study area as obtained from the 1:250 000 map of Heidelberg (2628 East Rand). Generally the geology comprises sandstone, mudstone, shale and coal of the Vryheid formation in the Karoo Supergroup. Geological structures include the Suikerbos and Malanskraal fault to the south and east of the study area. Regionally the coal deposit at Heidelberg comprises an infilled glacial valley on the edge of the South Rand Karoo basin. The deposit itself is therefore relatively localised and elongated NW SE. It underlies the flood plain of the Suikerbosrand River and also the area to the west of the River where the topography rises. The relatively straight North - South drainage of the Suikerbosrand River, indicates the river channel to be structurally controlled. 9.2 Site Specific Geology

Locally the flood plain in the study area is characterised by a shallow soil profile, located on top of the Karoo strata. The flood plain is the product of hillwash from the surrounding hills and the alluvium associated with the Suikerbosrand River. The shallow soil profile comprises dark, soft to firm, sandy clay and clay rich silty sands.
GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

7475/8297/7/G

Figure 4: General Geological Reference Map

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

7475/8297/7/G

The modelled area is underlain by a layer of alluvium and sandy clays ( 6 m thick), overlaying shales and sandstones ( 6 m thick). The Karoo rocks are 27 m thick and contain the No. 3 coal seam with the largest economic potential. A schematic cross section of the geological environment is presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Schematic Representation of the Heidelberg Environment

10
10.1

HYDROGEOLOGY
Aquifers

A shallow aquifer system is present in the floodplain of the Suikerbosrand River and surrounding hills, comprised of alluvial material and hill-wash. These sandy clays are saturated and limited in extend, which makes it an inefficient semi-confined aquifer, as it still allows seepage through to the underlying geology, developing a perched water level at shallow depth (at the base of residual or transported soils) above the unweathered rock layers. A deeper aquifer system is associated with the fractured Karoo sandstone and coal seams and will be the main system contributing to groundwater flow into the proposed Heidelberg opencast pit. This deeper aquifer is confined to semi-confined, non-continuous and multi-layered, causing elevated piezometric heads and in some instances artesian conditions.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

7475/8297/7/G

10.2

Groundwater Flow Directions and Gradients

The natural groundwater level is mostly controlled by the local topography, with groundwater draining towards surface stream channels. The average water level distribution was estimated by the hydrocensus conducted and has been used to calibrate the model for steady state conditions as represented in Figure 6. In general groundwater in the study area flows towards the Suikerbosrand River (from the East) and the Blesbokspruit (from the North). The measured groundwater elevations, indicate that groundwater (see Figure 6) and confirms that the groundwater flow is to Blesbokspruit at a gradient of approximately 1:300. Locally no movement of groundwater away from the site, along fracture zones been identified. levels mirror the topography the Suikerbosrand River and preferential pathways for the or deep weathered zones, have

Artesian conditions are present in a peat area to the south-west of the proposed opencast pit, where groundwater flows from subsurface to the ground surface, due to confining to semi-confining conditions within the deeper aquifer system. 10.3 Water level depth below surface and blow yields

The newly drilled shallow boreholes (GAA Report No: 7475/8235/4/G, March 2006) in the study area, indicating water levels of 7 to 9 meters below ground level (mbgl) with blow yields ranging from <0.1 to 0.15 l/s, mainly within the contact zone between the alluvium and shale. The older deeper drilled boreholes indicate that the majority of water strikes in the deeper aquifer system are in the order of 30 mbgl. These water strikes occur mainly at the contact between sandstones and shale with blow yields ranging from 0.12 to 8 l/s. 10.4 Aquifer test analyses and Hydraulic Parameters

Aquifer test analyses conducted on the boreholes indicate average hydraulic conductivities for the shallow aquifer system of 2 x 10-1 m/d (a corresponding transmissivity value of 1 m2/d for a saturated thickness of 5m) and of 4 x 10-1 m/d (a corresponding transmissivity value of 12 m2/d for a saturated thickness of 30m) for the deeper fractured system. A storativity value for the whole system was estimated at 0.005, from the aquifer test results [storage compressibility (Sc) for the whole system was assigned at 1 x 10-4]. These are typical storage values for Southern African Karoo type formations.

11

GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL DEVELOPMENT

The approach that was followed in the groundwater modelling study was to develop the numerical model based on the current understanding of the conceptual hydrogeological model and supporting field data. Information was made available by Anglo Coal in the form of digital site plans for the mining area. The following information in particular was used to construct the conceptual aquifer model: .
GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

7475/8297/7/G

Figure 6: Regional Piezometric Water levels and Flow Directions

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

10

7475/8297/7/G

WMB report (now Golder Associates Africa (Pty)Ltd), 3758/1713/1/W (March 1999): Heidelberg Opencast Coal Mine Specialist Studies for Surface and Groundwater Hydrocensus, drilling and aquifer testing data (GAA Report No: 7475/8235/4/G, March 2006) Current Heidelberg pit layout data in digital format, as provided by Anglo Coal Lithological boundaries as from the geological database, distinguishing between soft (alluvium & sandy clays), hard (sandstone & shale) and base of the No. 3 coal seam (coal seams & sandstone / shale layers)

This data was used in the development of a conceptual model and finite element numerical model, simulating the impact on groundwater from the operation of the proposed Heidelberg opencast coal mine, starting in 2007 to 2018.

12

CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Groundwater flow modelling depends on the physical properties of the site. For a numerical model to be useful as an assessment tool, it is necessary to integrate the physical geometry and properties of the site into the model. Controlling factors are: The geology, as well as the hydrogeological properties of the aquifer system The topography and relief Surface hydrology and precipitation

A conceptual model reduces the actual problem and domain, to an acceptable simplification, based on a set of assumptions. 12.1 Modelling assumptions

The modelling assumptions used in the development of the conceptual model for the Heidelberg opencast pit groundwater system, included: The model boundary is represented by topographical highs (along water sheds) based on a digital terrain model constructed from the 1:50 000 topographical maps of the study area (2627 & 2628). Thickness of the modelling layers were based on an average thickness of the soft, hard and floor of the No. 3 coal seam data, provided by Anglo. These layers are underlain by pre-Karoo basement rock Alluvial zones were spatially assigned according to the 1:250 000 geological map (2628 East Rand). Exploration drilling across the footprint of the proposed opencast pit area confirmed that no paleo channel is present Operational life of the Heidelberg opencast pit is from 2007 to 2018 (12 years). After operation, the void within the pit will be allowed to naturally fill with water

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

11

7475/8297/7/G

12.2

Software Selection (Modelling Code)

FEFLOW is the software package selected for this modelling study. It provides a sophisticated threedimensional finite element modelling environment and allows interactive simulation of groundwater flow systems within the subsurface. The software is also capable of simulating cross-sectional, fluid density-coupled, thermohaline or uncoupled systems. It also handles variably saturated, transient or steady state flow, mass and heat transport systems in 3D. These systems could be simulated with or without one or more free surfaces. The main advantage of using the finite element approach (above the finite difference approach) is that the boundaries of various features can be accurately represented.

13

CONSTRUCTION OF THE NUMERIC FLOW MODEL

A groundwater flow model was developed for the Heidelberg opencast pit in order to simulate operational and post closure groundwater flow conditions. The model was calibrated for pre-mining steady state conditions; these served as starting heads for the transient simulations, in which the effect of the opencast pit on the groundwater environment was considered. 13.1 Finite Element Grid

The FEFLOW pre-processing software was used to generate a 6-noded triangular prism element network across the area investigated (Figure 7). The grid mesh consists of 300 448 elements and 190 005 nodes. Refinement of the grid mesh (finer density, closer nodal spacing) was specified along the footprint area of the proposed Heidelberg opencast pit, where a more accurate solution of groundwater flow is required. The model consists of four (4) layers as schematically shown in Figure 5: The first layer with a thickness of 6 m represents alluvial and sandy clay horizons, where these are present. Elsewhere sandstone and shale formations were assigned to this layer where they outcrop according the geology map of the area The second layer represents sandstone and shale, approximately 6 m thick The third layer represents sandstone and the bottom of the No. 3 Coal Seam, approximately 5 m thick The fourth layer represents fractured sandstone , approximately 22 m thick

A three dimensional view of the modelling grid is provided in Figure 8.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

12

7475/8297/7/G

Figure 7: Model Matrix (Finite Element Grid)

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

13

7475/8297/7/G

Figure 8: Three Dimensional Model Domain

13.2

Model Boundaries

A surface catchment approach was adopted to reduce or eliminate the influence of incorrectly specified boundary conditions in the numerical model (model boundaries are selected on local watersheds, i.e., the model covers a larger area and thus the extent of potential dewatering impacts will not be constrained by the size of the modelling domain). The natural catchment boundaries were determined from an investigation of the local topography maps and subsequently assigned to the model. The model boundary includes the catchments of the Suikerbosrand River and Blesbokspruit respectively to the east and north of the proposed mine site (Figure 7). The modelled area covers 1 150 800 000 m2, with the proposed Heidelberg opencast pit covering 1 191 350 m2.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

14

7475/8297/7/G

13.2.1

Model Boundary Conditions

Groundwater flow mimics the topography towards the Suikerbosrand River and Blesbokspruit, where constant head boundaries were specified. A discharge of groundwater into the surface water is expected to occur along these areas to the east and north. Boundary conditions were assigned so that water can only be discharged from the system should a positive hydraulic gradient exist towards the constant head nodes at the Suikerbosrand River and Blesbokspruit. Where the gradient is zero or negative no water would be added into the system from surface sources. 13.3 Calibration

All available borehole water level data collected from the hydrocensus (GAA Report No: 7475/8235/4/G, March 2006) were included into the modelled Heidelberg opencast pit groundwater flow system. Measured water level heads were used to represent the undisturbed groundwater environment, prior to operation of the Heidelberg opencast pit. These measured water level elevations served as observed water levels against which simulated heads were compared for steady state conditions. The simulated steady state water level distribution is dependent on the recharge from rainfall, hydraulic conductivity, and boundary conditions specified. Calibration was conducted by altering the given hydraulic conductivity values and sets of boundary conditions. This led to a simulated head distribution across the system for a particular recharge value. Conductivities and boundary conditions were altered until the simulated head distribution obtained corresponded satisfactorily to the available measured borehole heads. The calibrated water levels are represented in Figure 9 and Figure 10. Calibration was achieved (correlation coefficient r = 0.95) using hydraulic conductivity values comparable with aquifer test analyses results and literature values for the specific lithological succession. A recharge value of approximately 2 % of the Mean Annual Precipitation (MAP = 687 mm/a) was used. This value for recharge compares favourably with values obtained for Karoo type aquifers elsewhere. Table 1 provides the calibrated hydrogeological parameters for the modelled groundwater system at Heidelberg, as based on the geological zones, represented in Figure 10. Figure 11 and Figure 12 are frequency distributions (number of times a value occurs within an interval) of hydraulic conductivities for the shallow (alluvium) and deep (sandstone and shale) aquifer systems, as determined by aquifer testing of 15 shallow and 7 deep aquifer analysis results respectively. Also indicated on Figure 11and Figure 12 are the calibrated conductivities used in the model, to show the relationship of the values used in comparison to the determined frequency distributions. It should be noted that a wide range of conductivities have been measured and this increases the uncertainty in the parameter values used.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

15

7475/8297/7/G

1580

R = 0.95

1560

1540 Calculated (mamsl)

1520

Observed Modelled R2=0.9043

1500

1480

1460 1460

1480

1500

1520 Measured (mamsl)

1540

1560

1580

Figure 9: Calibrated Water levels

-2920000

-2925000

Blesbokspruit

-2930000

-2935000

-2940000 Suikerbosrand River -2945000

Pit

-2950000

-2955000

Zone: A

-2960000

B
-2965000

-80000 -75000 -70000

-65000 -60000 -55000 -50000 -45000

Figure 10: Geological Representation of Modelled Area and Water Levels

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

16

7475/8297/7/G

A sensitivity analysis was conducted on the material underlying the alluvium, as a measure to address the uncertainty in the properties of the material underlying the Suikerbosrand River. This analysis did not have a significant impact on the calibration result of the model with regards to the water level distribution. Table 1: Calibrated Hydrogeological Parameters Thickness (m) 6 6 5 22 Hydraulic Conductivity (m/d) Zone Zone Zone A B C 0.24 0.11 0.03 0.24 0.11 0.03 0.19 0.11 0.03 0.24 0.11 0.03 0.001-0.8 0.02-1.3 >3 <2 2 Storage Compressibility (Operation) 1.28 E-4 1.28 E-4 1.28 E-4 1.28 E-4 -

Layer 1 2 3 4 Aquifer Test Recharge (% MAP)

With regards to the model calibration, it can be concluded that the steady state flow model is sufficiently well calibrated against the spatial water level distribution, as observed for the hydrocensus boreholes (r = 0.95).
10 Calculated values from aquifer tests Value used during base case scenario Value used for scenario depicting river base sensitivity 8

Frequency

0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Hydraulic Conductivity (m/d)

Figure 11: Frequency Distribution of Conductivities for Shallow Aquifer system

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

17

7475/8297/7/G

The calibrated groundwater flow model was further validated using transient abstraction and water level data obtained from the aquifer tests conducted by Wates Meiring & Barnard (1997) [now Golder Associates Africa (Pty)Ltd]. This was conducted in order to ensure that the model is sufficiently calibrated on a small scale around the proposed footprint area of the Heidelberg opencast pit.

4 Calculated values from aquifer tests Value used in model for shale Value used in model for sandstone Value used in model for sandstone Value used in model for sandstone 3

Frequency

0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3

Hydraulic Conductivity (m/d)

Figure 12: Frequency Distribution of Conductivities for Deep Aquifer system

A well-calibrated model will ensure that reliable estimates of flow rates and impacts on the groundwater regime are approximated during operation of the Heidelberg opencast pit. A storage coefficient value of 0.005 was assumed for the whole system modelled. This is reconcilable with values for storativity typically encountered for Karoo aquifers. Figure 13 shows the simulated and observed water level response for borehole D during a constant discharge aquifer test. It is clear from the results obtained, and taking into account borehole losses, that the flow model is capable of simulating the real aquifer test data sufficiently well to allow realistic simulation predictions.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

18

7475/8297/7/G

1480

1480

1479

1479 Elevation (mamsl)

1478 Test Model 1478

1477

1477

1476

1476 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Time (d) 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Figure 13: Transient Calibration of Borehole D

14

UTILIZING THE GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL TO ADDRESS THE STUDY OBJECTIVES

Introduction

14.1

The first objective of this study (see Section 2) is to develop and calibrate a numerical flow model (discussed in Section 12) that accurately simulates groundwater flow through the aquifer systems to and from the proposed Heidelberg opencast pit. The construction and calibration of the flow model were discussed in detail in Section 13. This section describes the simulated inflows and impact assessment on the groundwater environment for the operational and post closure phase of the Heidelberg opencast pit with and without a dedicated pit dewatering system. 14.2 14.2.1 Operational Mining Phase Mining method

The British Box-cut method of strip-mining using truck and shovel equipment will be used during the operational phase with a planned production life of the mine at 12 years, indicated by Figure 14. For each strip the topsoil is removed, followed by the overburden, and finally the coal. Spoils will be loaded on trucks and selectively dumped in the void left by mining, leveled and the topsoil will be replaced, leveled and re-vegetated.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

19

7475/8297/7/G

Legend
2007\Jan - 2007\Dec -71395mE -70059mE -71000 -2945000mN -2945000mN 2008\Jan - 2008\Dec 2009\Jan - 2009\Dec 2010\Jan - 2010\Dec 2011\Jan - 2011\Dec 2012\Jan - 2012\Dec 2013\Jan - 2013\Dec 2014\Jan - 2014\Dec 2015\Jan - 2015\Dec 2016\Jan - 2016\Dec 2017\Jan - 2017\Dec 2018\Jan - 2018\Dec

Dewatering Borehole Locations

-2946000

-2946000

-71395mE

-2946617mN

-2946617mN

Figure 14: Proposed Heidelberg Opencast Pit Development & Dewatering Well Field

With the British Box-cut method, rehabilitation is undertaken much sooner after the coal is extracted and the area of disturbance at any one given time is much smaller. It also allows for more flexibility during operation for materials handling. The area that will comprise the active mining area and ramps is relatively small, due to the zigzag nature of the mining operation. This proposed mining method was introduced to the model on a monthly basis, with the use of constant head conditions, as a function of the lowest block elevation and constrained as to only allow water to be removed by the heads once active mining commence in a particular block.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

-70059mE

-71000

April 2006

20

7475/8297/7/G

Operational timeframes is provided in Table 2, as proposed by Anglo Coal. Table 2: Modelled Operational Timeframe Rehabilitation Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5 Block 6 Block 7 Block 8 Block 9 Block 10 Block 11 Block 12 Start of operation date 2007/01/01 2008/01/01 2009/01/01 2010/01/01 2011/01/01 2012/01/01 2013/01/01 2014/01/01 2015/01/01 2016/01/01 2017/01/01 2018/01/01 Completion date 2007/12/31 2008/12/31 2009/12/31 2010/12/31 2011/12/31 2012/12/31 2013/12/31 2014/12/31 2015/12/31 2016/12/31 2017/12/31 2018/12/31

14.3

Modelled Scenarios

Two alternatives were modelled to simulate the groundwater inflows to the proposed Heidelberg opencast pit and the subsequent impact on the surrounding groundwater environment. These two alternatives are: Alternative A It is assumed that the constant heads specified on the Suikerbosrand River and Blesbokspruit can supply water into the modelling domain or remove water from the modelling domain depending on the hydraulic gradient present. This situation would represent a worst case scenario in terms of modelled inflow into the pit (for the set of calibrated hydraulic properties) as additional water is derived into the model through the constant head boundary conditions specified on the rivers. Alternative B It is assumed that the constant heads specified on the Suikerbosrand River and Blesbokspruit can only remove water from the modelling domain depending on the hydraulic gradient present. This situation would represent a best case scenario in terms of modelled inflow into the pit (for the set of calibrated hydraulic properties) as no additional water is derived from outside the model domain through river inflow. These two different approaches (scenarios) were adopted to address the uncertainty as to whether the Suikerbosrand River is in hydraulic continuity with the underlying strata or not. For each of the above described alternatives simulations were conducted for a Base Case scenario (Scenario 1) and a Base Case plus dewatering from dedicated dewatering boreholes scenario (Scenario 2):

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

21

7475/8297/7/G

Scenario 1 Base Case: Development of the Heidelberg opencast pit by truck and shovel method, from 2007 till 2018, excluding a dedicated dewatering well field. Scenario 2 Base Case plus Dewatering: Develop the Heidelberg opencast pit by truck and shovel method, from 2007 till 2018, including a dedicated dewatering well field consisting of 9 and 17 dewatering boreholes.

Assumptions made for Scenario 1 (Operational Phase): Operation of the Heidelberg opencast pit will initiate in 2007 and function by truck and shovel method on a monthly time step over a period of twelve years. Completion of the Heidelberg opencast pit is in 2018. Assumptions made for Scenario 2 (Operational Phase): The same assumptions have been made as for Scenario 1, with the following addition: Operation of the Heidelberg opencast pit will include a dewatering well field, represented by nine (9) and seventeen (17) fully penetrating extraction boreholes on the perimeter of the opencast footprint area, actively dewatering the system from 6 months prior to operation in 2007 at a pump rate of approximately two litres per second (2 l/s) per borehole. The initial estimation of the 9 borehole dewatering field was based on the average inflows into the pit (approximating 1 800 m3/d), estimated from Scenario 1 and also taking into account the six months of active dewatering prior to operation. This related to an approximate extraction rate of 1 555 m3/d, from the nine wells, pumping at 2 l/s. Boreholes were then added between the initial 9 dewatering wells, to more effectively overlay the dewatering interference from the well field, around the perimeter of the proposed opencast footprint. This established the 17 dewatering wells, pumping at 2 l/s (approximately 2 938 m3/d). Assumptions made for the Post closure phase: Changes in recharge conditions (15 % of MAP) and hydraulic conductivities (8.64 m/d) are assumed after 2018 over the opencast footprint, from which date the opencast pit was allowed to naturally fill with water. Natural filling of the opencast pit was without the operation of the dewatering well field, considering both alternatives over a 12 year period. 14.4 14.4.1 Scenario Discussion Operational Phase

Groundwater flows into the pit, over the operational period are represented in Figure 15 and Figure 16 for Alternative A and Alternative B respectively. A comparative evaluation of the base case scenario (Scenario 1) and the dewatering well field (Scenario 2), by interpretation of the graphical results from these figures indicate that the average influx of water into the pit will be approximately 1 820 m3/d, reduced to 1 160 m3/d (36 % reduction on average) with active dewatering of nine (9) dewatering wells and 825 m3/d (55 % reduction on average) with active dewatering of seventeen (17) dewatering wells, for Alternative A (see Table 5).

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

22

7475/8297/7/G

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

Scenario 1 Scenario 2_9 Wells Scenario 2_17 Wells Pump_9 Well Pump_17 Well

Inflow (m3/d)

1000

500

0 0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 Time (d) 2555 2920 3285 3650 4015 4380

Figure 15: Pit Inflows and Pump Rates for Alternative A

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

23

7475/8297/7/G

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

Scenario 1 Scenario 2_9 Wells Scenario 2_17 Wells Pump_9 Wells Pump_17 Wells

Inflow (m3/d)

1000

500

0 0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 Time (d) 2555 2920 3285 3650 4015 4380

Figure 16: Pit Inflows and Pump Rates for Alternative B

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

24

7475/8297/7/G

For Alternative B the average influx of water into the pit will be approximately 1 060 m3/d, reduced to 272 m3/d (74 % reduction on average) with active dewatering of nine (9) dewatering wells and 37 m3/d (97 % reduction on average) with active dewatering of seventeen (17) dewatering wells (see Table 5). The average pump rate will approximate 1 136 m3/d to 1 120 m3/d with nine (9) dewatering wells and 1 829 m3/d to 1 726 m3/d with seventeen (17) dewatering wells for Alternative A & B respectively. From the simulations conducted for the operational phase the following is evident: The difference in the inflows to the pit is significant between Alternative A (river is in hydraulic continuity to allow inflow or outflow of water from the system) and Alternative B (river is not in hydraulic continuity and only allow the outflow of water from the system). The model is therefore highly sensitive as to the uncertainty that exists whether the river is in hydraulic continuity with the underlying aquifer. Dewatering using dedicated abstraction boreholes in advance of mining will significantly reduce inflow of groundwater into the mine workings. A trend of incremental groundwater inflow increases is observed over the 12 year operational life of the pit, as a direct result of generally increases in floor elevations over time as the pit develops. Developing Cone of Depression

14.4.2

The development of the cone of depression (impact on the surrounding groundwater environment) from 2007, with the start of the Heidelberg opencast pit, to the year 2018, are presented in Appendix A [indicated on the sequential figures is the groundwater drawdown in meter(s) from the calibrated steady state water level = Cone of Dewatering]. This development of the cone of depression around the footprint of the Heidelberg opencast pit over time is indicating that the development will follow the progression of the mine, starting in the SouthWest in 2007 and extending to the North until 2018. The cone of depression will extend to the Suikerbosrand River in the East and could have a zone of influence approximating 1 400 m to the North, 615 m to the South and 410 m to the West, with no active dewatering for Alternative A, as indicated in Figure 17 (Scenario 1). Alternative B indicates that the zone of influence from dewatering could extend up to 710 m in the South and 860 m to the East of the opencast footprint (Figure 18).

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

25

7475/8297/7/G

-2943000

Drawdown (m)
34

-2944000
S2

LB 08

32
LB0 9

30
GP 21 7

28 26 24

-2945000

L B 10 B GP 11 6 BH6 GP 114 GP 11 5 EX6 B HB GP 11 7 C GP 118 GP 119 BHC EX8 T 12 GP P5 0 D GP 12 1 GP 126 E 1 MX2 EX3 GP 12 2 EX1 BHD EX7 B HE GP 12 3 GP 124 GP 125 BH 5

BH1 0 F

LB02 MB 03 L 3A M3B M3

GP 128

22 20 18 16
S1

-2946000

BH F LB0 1 BHF

GP 12 7 EX 2 M2 EX 5 4 E

-2947000

BH 3 BH 1 BH2 BH 4

14 12 10

S3 BH 9BH1 1

-2948000

LB04 B H20 BH 1 2 BH22

BH12 B H30

8 6 4
G P15 5 BH 34 GP1 54 BH 29

L B 05 BH 8 2 B H27 LB07BH2 4 B H26 B H23 25 BH

LB 06 B H33

2 0

-2949000

BH 6 3

BH35

BH32 LB 1 1

B H31

-2950000 -72000 -71000 -70000 -69000 -68000

Figure 17: Cone of Depression Scenario 1 (Alternative A)

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

26

7475/8297/7/G

-2943000

Drawdown (m)
34

-2944000
S2

LB 08

32
LB0 9

30
GP 21 7

28 26 24

-2945000

L B 10 B GP 11 6 BH6 GP 114 GP 11 5 EX6 B HB GP 11 7 C GP 118 GP 119 BHC EX8 T 12 GP P5 0 D GP 12 1 GP 126 E 1 MX2 EX3 GP 12 2 EX1 BHD EX7 B HE GP 12 3 GP 124 GP 125 BH 5

BH1 0 F

LB02 MB 03 L 3A M3B M3

GP 128

22 20 18 16
S1

-2946000

BH F LB0 1 BHF

GP 12 7 EX 2 M2 EX 5 4 E

-2947000

BH 3 BH 1 BH2 BH 4

14 12 10

S3 BH 9BH1 1

-2948000

LB04 B H20 BH 1 2 BH22

BH12 B H30

8 6 4
G P15 5 BH 34 GP1 54 BH 29

L B 05 BH 8 2 B H27 LB07BH2 4 B H26 B H23 25 BH

LB 06 B H33

2 0

-2949000

BH 6 3

BH35

BH32 LB 1 1

B H31

-2950000 -72000 -71000 -70000 -69000 -68000

Figure 18: Cone of Depression Scenario 1 (Alternative B)

As the area will already be influenced by the nine (9) borehole dewatering well field, 6 months prior to operation for Scenario 2, the initial area of influence will be bigger in extend in 2018 and could approximate a zone of influence 1 470m from the Heidelberg opencast footprint to the North, 720 m to the South and 570 m to the West, as indicated in Figure 19. The Eastern boundary is still represented by the Suikerbosrand River, for Alternative A. Alternative B indicates an approximate area of influence extending to 860 m South and 960 m East, from the Heidelberg opencast footprint (Figure 20).

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

27

7475/8297/7/G

The extent of dewatering by increasing the number of dewatering wells to seventeen (17), indicate a cone of depression developing from the opencast footprint, for Alternative A to 1 500 m North, 800 m South and 700 m West, with the Suikerbosrand River on the East (Figure 21). Alternative B could result in a dewatering cone extending up to 980 m South and 1 125 m East, as indicated by Figure 22. There is no indication from the developing cone of depression as a result of the operation of the Heidelberg opencast pit, that any boreholes, used for water supply, will be influenced. Although borehole LB 10 falls within the extent of developed cone of depression, the influence will be no greater than 1 to 2 m drop in the local water level. This borehole is equipped with a windmill, but is not currently in use. All other boreholes (BHF, BH 1-4, BH 6, BH 10, BH 30, BH 33, S 1 & S 2) influenced by the developing cone of depression are existing boreholes, drilled by Anglo.

-2943000

Drawdown (m)
34

-2944000
S2

LB 08

32
LB0 9

30
GP 21 7

28 26 24

-2945000

L B 10 B GP 11 6 BH6 GP 114 GP 11 5 EX6 B HB GP 11 7 C GP 118 GP 119 BHC EX8 T 12 GP P5 0 D GP 12 1 GP 126 E 1 MX2 EX3 GP EX1 BHD12 2 EX7 B HE GP 12 3 GP 124 GP 125 BH 5

BH1 0 F

LB02 MB 03 L 3A M3B M3

GP 128

22 20 18 16
S1

-2946000

BH F LB0 1 BHF

GP 12 7 EX 4 M2 5 EX 2 E

-2947000

BH 3 BH 1 BH2 BH 4

14 12 10

S3 BH 9BH1 1

-2948000

LB04 B H20 BH 1 2 BH22

BH12 B H30

8 6 4
G P15 5 BH 34 GP1 54 BH 29

L B 05 BH 8 2 B H27 LB07BH2 4 B H26 B H23 25 BH

LB 06 B H33

2 0

-2949000

BH 6 3

BH35

BH32 LB 1 1

B H31

-2950000 -72000 -71000 -70000 -69000 -68000

Dewatering Wells

Figure 19: Cone of Depression Scenario 2 (Alternative A) [9 Well Dewatering]

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

28

7475/8297/7/G

-2943000

Drawdown (m)
34

-2944000
S2

LB 08

32
LB0 9

30
GP 21 7

28 26 24

-2945000

L B 10 B GP 11 6 BH6 GP 114 GP 11 5 EX6 B HB GP 11 7 C GP 118 GP 119 BHC EX8 T 12 GP P5 0 D GP 12 1 GP 126 E 1 MX2 EX3 GP 12 2 EX1 BHD EX7 B HE GP 12 3 GP 124 GP 125 BH 5

BH1 0 F

LB02 MB 03 L 3A M3B M3

GP 128

22 20 18 16
S1

-2946000

BH F LB0 1 BHF

GP 12 7 EX 2 M2 EX 5 4 E

-2947000

BH 3 BH 1 BH2 BH 4

14 12 10

S3 BH 9BH1 1

-2948000

LB04 B H20 BH 1 2 BH22

BH12 B H30

8 6 4
G P15 5 BH 34 GP1 54 BH 29

L B 05 BH 8 2 B H27 LB07BH2 4 B H26 B H23 25 BH

LB 06 B H33

2 0

-2949000

BH 6 3

BH35

BH32 LB 1 1

B H31

-2950000 -72000 -71000 -70000 -69000 -68000

Dewatering Wells

Figure 20: Cone of Depression Scenario 2 (Alternative B) [9 Well Dewatering]

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

29

7475/8297/7/G

-2943000

Drawdown (m)
34

-2944000
S2

LB 08

32
LB0 9

30
GP 21 7

28 26 24

-2945000

L B 10 B GP 11 6 BH6 GP 114 GP 11 5 EX6 B HB GP 11 7 C GP 118 GP 119 BHC EX8 T 12 GP P5 0 D GP 12 1 GP 126 E 1 MX2 EX3 GP 12 2 EX1 BHD EX7 B HE GP 12 3 GP 124 GP 125 BH 5

BH1 0 F

LB02 MB 03 L 3A M3B M3

GP 128

22 20 18 16
S1

-2946000

BH F LB0 1 BHF

GP 12 7 EX 2 M2 EX 5 4 E

-2947000

BH 3 BH 1 BH2 BH 4

14 12 10

S3 BH 9BH1 1

-2948000

LB04 B H20 BH 1 2 BH22

BH12 B H30

8 6 4
G P15 5 BH 34 GP1 54 BH 29

L B 05 BH 8 2 B H27 LB07BH2 4 B H26 B H23 25 BH

LB 06 B H33

2 0

-2949000

BH 6 3

BH35

BH32 LB 1 1

B H31

-2950000 -72000 -71000 -70000 -69000 -68000

Dewatering Wells

Figure 21: Cone of Depression Scenario 2 (Alternative A) [17 Well Dewatering]

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

30

7475/8297/7/G

-2943000

Drawdown (m)
34

-2944000
S2

LB 08

32
LB0 9

30
GP 21 7

28 26 24

-2945000

L B 10 B GP 11 6 BH6 GP 114 GP 11 5 EX6 B HB GP 11 7 C GP 118 GP 119 BHC EX8 T 12 GP P5 0 D GP 12 1 GP 126 E 1 MX2 EX3 GP 12 2 EX1 BHD EX7 B HE GP 12 3 GP 124 GP 125 BH 5

BH1 0 F

LB02 MB 03 L 3A M3B M3

GP 128

22 20 18 16
S1

-2946000

BH F LB0 1 BHF

GP 12 7 EX 2 M2 EX 5 4 E

-2947000

BH 3 BH 1 BH2 BH 4

14 12 10

S3 BH 9BH1 1

-2948000

LB04 B H20 BH 1 2 BH22

BH12 B H30

8 6 4
G P15 5 BH 34 GP1 54 BH 29

L B 05 BH 8 2 B H27 LB07BH2 4 B H26 B H23 25 BH

LB 06 B H33

2 0

-2949000

BH 6 3

BH35

BH32 LB 1 1

B H31

-2950000 -72000 -71000 -70000 -69000 -68000

Dewatering Wells

Figure 22: Cone of Depression Scenario 2 (Alternative B) [17 Well Dewatering]

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

31

7475/8297/7/G

14.4.3

Closure Phase

Natural refilling of the opencast pit from the year 2018, to an elevation of 1476 mamsl, one metre below the base of the Suikerbosrand River (1477 mamsl), is proposed to ensure that any possible contaminated water in the opencast pit will not flow into the Suikerbosrand River and will take approximately 1 980 days or more than 5 years, for Alternative A and approximately 3 960 days, almost 11 years for Alternative B (Appendix A). The average natural filling of the pit will be relatively high at approximately 840 m3/d and 617 m3/d, reducing over time, as driven by the reduction in head differential between outside aquifer and inside pit head conditions to average flows of 452 m3/d and 442 m3/d, as represented by Figure 23 and Figure 24 for Alternatives A & B respectively. Table 3 summarises the natural refilling of the Heidelberg opencast pit under constant head and steady state conditions. It should be noted that where the flows are expressed as negative values, the flows are not into the pit, but out of the pit and into the Suikerbosrand River. Table 3: Pit Water Elevation & Inflow Rates at Closure

Pit Water Elevation (mamsl)

Alternative A (River/Aquifer Hydraulic Continuity) Average Inflow (m3/d) 841 712 582 452 323 -67 (out) -171 (out) -280 (out) Duration (Days)
1 260 1 440 1 680 1 980 2 340 2 790 3 510 -

Alternative B (No River/Aquifer Hydraulic Continuity) Average Inflow (m3/d) 617 580 523 442 317 -70 (out) -175 (out) -284 (out) Duration (Days)
2 880 3 240 3 600 3 960 4 380 -

1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

32

7475/8297/7/G

1485

5000

1480

4000

1475 Elevation (mamsl)

3000

Flux (m3/d)

1470

2000

Head Inflow

1465

1000

1460

1455 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (d) 3000 3500 4000 4500

-1000 5000

Figure 23: Head in Pit vs. Fill Rate for Alternative A

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

33

7475/8297/7/G

1485

3500

1480

3000

2500 1475 Elevation (mamsl)

Flux (m3/d)

2000 1470 1500

Head Inflow

1465 1000

1460

500

1455 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (d) 3000 3500 4000 4500

0 5000

Figure 24: Head in Pit vs. Fill Rate for Alternative B

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

34

7475/8297/7/G

14.4.4

Contribution from Alluvium

Figure 25 and Figure 26 show the simulated contribution from modelling Layer 1 (shallow aquifer) into the Heidelberg opencast pit for Alternatives A & B respectively. It is clear that the inflows increase as the pit development approaches the Suikerbosrand River, under river/aquifer hydraulic continuity conditions (Figure 25), as well as an increased flow, due to increased pumping activity from a 9 and 17 well dewatering field. Average flows from the alluvium, for Alternative A, approximates 171 m3/d without dewatering and roughly contributes 9 % of groundwater inflows to the pit. Active dewatering will increase the flow through the alluvium to an average of 214 m3/d and 265 m3/d, for the 9 and 17 well scenarios respectively. Average flows from the alluvium, for Alternative B (Figure 26), approximates 76 m3/d without dewatering and roughly contributes 7 % of groundwater inflows to the pit. Active dewatering will increase the flow through the alluvium to an average of 98 m3/d and 121 m3/d, for the 9 and 17 well scenarios respectively. A sensitivity analysis was conducted whereby the hydraulic conductivity of the zone below the alluvial material (Zone A in Figure 10) was reduced from 0,24 m/d to 0,11 m/d. This simulation was conducted for Alternative A where river/aquifer hydraulic continuity is assumed. The simulation indicates a reduction in pit inflow from 1 820 m3/d to 1 250 m3/d a reduction of approximately 31%. This result clearly emphasizes the effect that uncertainty in hydraulic parameters might have on inflow calculations (and general groundwater impact). The reader is referred again to the range in field measurements of hydraulic parameters depicted in Figure 11 and Figure 12 vs. the actual values used in the modelling exercise. 14.5 14.5.1 Groundwater Quality Local Background Groundwater Quality Concentrations

The pumped water from active dewatering during operation of the Heidelberg opencast pit is to be discharged into the Suikerbosrand River. It is therefore important to estimate the quality of the water to be discharged. Local background groundwater qualities were determined from analysis of current available data for both the shallow and deep aquifer system.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

35

7475/8297/7/G

400

350

300

250 Inflow (m3/d) Scenario 1 Scenario 2_9 Wells Scenario 2_17 Wells

200

150

100

50

0 0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 Time (d) 2555 2920 3285 3650 4015 4380

Figure 25: Alluvial Inflows for Alternative A

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

36

7475/8297/7/G

400

350

300

250 Inflow (m3/d) Scenario 1 Scenario 2_9 Wells Scenario 2_17 Wells

200

150

100

50

0 0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 Time (d) 2555 2920 3285 3650 4015 4380

Figure 26: Alluvial Inflows for Alternative B

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

37

7475/8297/7/G

It is clear from Table 4 that unacceptably high concentrations of aluminium and iron are present in the shallow aquifer system, as evaluated according to the South African Water Quality Guidelines for Domestic Use. It should also be noted that sodium and sulphate concentrations have been measured at an unacceptable level. However, the deep aquifer system indicates groundwater of a good quality. As most of the dewatering water will be derived from the deeper aquifer system during operation, it is expected that the quality of the water to be discharged should be of an acceptable quality. Statistical graphs (Box and Whisker plots) showing the chemical distribution of the shallow and deep aquifer systems is represented in Figure 27 and Figure 28 respectively. The final in pit void of the Heidelberg opencast pit will be allowed to refill during closure, to a level one (1) meter below the base of the Suikerbosrand River (1477 mamsl) at 1476 mamsl. This management strategy will reduce the risk of contaminated water flowing from the pit into the adjacent Suikerbosrand River, but also allows the pit to function as a sink to groundwater flow. Figure 29 shows the groundwater flow lines (obtained from particle tracking) for the situation where the post closure pit water level elevation is maintained at an elevation of 1476 mamsl. It is evident from this figure that all flow is contained within the pit area. Any possible contaminated in-pit water will therefore be theoretically contained within the footprint of the opencast pit, as a result of this proposed in-pit water management strategy. Table 4: Background Groundwater Qualities Shallow Aquifer System Element pH Calcium - Ca Magnesium - Mg Sodium - Na Sulphate - SO4 Aluminium - Al Nickel - Ni Manganese - Mn Iron - Fe Zinc - Zn Unit mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l Min
6.40 11.80 2.00 11.80 4.20 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

Deep Aquifer System Min

6.38 2.60 2.00 3.60 1.00 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00

Ave
7.31 28.54 17.33 190.39 73.72 5.84 0.07 0.16 3.02 0.03

Max
8.30 73.00 44.00 503.00 646.00 55.00 0.63 1.00 22.00 0.26

Ave
7.39 7.64 4.70 30.68 2.13 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.00

Max
8.82 11.80 7.10 65.00 4.00 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.39 0.00

Domestic Guideline Value

9 80 70 400 400 0.5 1 1 1 10

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

38

7475/8297/7/G

1000

100

Concentration (mg/l)

10

0.1

0.01

0.001 Ca Mg Na SO4 Al Ni Mn Fe Zn

Figure 27: Shallow Aquifer Chemistry

100

Concentration (mg/l)

10

0.1 Ca Mg Na SO4 Fe

Figure 28: Deep Aquifer Chemistry

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

39

7475/8297/7/G

Figure 29: Groundwater Flow Lines at 1476 mamsl

15

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It was prudent to use a conservative approach to the numeric modelling, in view of the sensitivity of the hydrogeological properties of the underlying riverbed material and location of the proposed Heidelberg opencast pit to the Suikerbosrand River. The modelled results were based on the proposed alternatives for each scenario evaluated, to determine the groundwater inflows to the proposed Heidelberg opencast pit and the impact on the surrounding groundwater environment, during operation and post closure. The proposed alternatives to the scenarios address the uncertainty in the hydraulic parameters of the material underlying the alluvium. This uncertainty relates to the hydraulic continuity (Alternative A) or no hydraulic continuity (Alternative B) of the Suikerbosrand River and Blesbokspruit to the shallow aquifer system. The proposed alternatives were based on the presence of clayey soils that could restrain water flowing from the river to the opencast pit. Boundary conditions representing the Suikerbosrand River and Blesbokspruit were assigned to either allow water to discharge or recharge the system from the constant head nodes, depending on surrounding head conditions for Alternative A (simulating a worst case scenario) or to be discharged from the system should a positive hydraulic gradient exist towards the constant head nodes and where the gradient is zero or negative no water would be added into the system for Alternative B (simulates a best case scenario).
GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

40

7475/8297/7/G

The following key conclusions can be drawn from the numerical groundwater modelling presented in this report. Alternative A: Worst Case Scenario The average influx of groundwater during operation will approximate 1 820 m3/d, reduced to 1 160 m3/d (36 % reduction on average) with active dewatering of nine (9) dewatering wells and 825 m3/d (55 % reduction on average) with active dewatering of seventeen (17) dewatering wells. The natural filling of the pit, to an elevation of 1476 mamsl (1 m below the base of the Suikerbosrand River) will take approximately 1 980 days or more than 5 years after closure. The average flow rate will be at 841 m3/d, reducing over time as driven by the rising head conditions within the pit, to average flows of 452 m3/d. If the opencast pit is allowed to fill above the recommended waterlevel of 1476 mamsl, outflow of contaminated water to the Suikerbosrand River could approximate > 280 m3/d. There will be an increase in flows through the alluvium to the pit, as the pit development approaches the Suikerbosrand River. Average flows will approximate 171 m3/d without dewatering and roughly contribute 9 % of groundwater inflow to the pit. Active dewatering will increase the flow through the alluvium to an average of 214 m3/d and 265 m3/d, for the 9 and 17 dewatering well scenarios respectively (Scenario 2). Operation of the opencast pit will lead to the development of a dewatered cone of depression extending to the Suikerbosrand River in the East, 1 400 m North, 615 m to the South and 410 m to the West, with no active dewatering (Scenario 1). The footprint area will be influenced by the nine (9) dewatering well field, operating six (6) months prior to pit development for Scenario 2. This will result in a more extensive area of influence that could approximate 1 470m to the North, 720 m to the South and 570 m to the West. The extent of dewatering by increasing the number of dewatering wells to seventeen (17), indicate a cone of depression developing to 1 500 m North, 800 m South, 700 m West and to the Suikerbosrand River on the East. Operation of a 17 dewatering well field will ensure a more effective barrier to groundwater inflow into the opencast pit.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

41

7475/8297/7/G

Alternative B: Best Case Scenario The average influx of groundwater during operation of the Heidelberg opencast pit will approximate 1 060 m3/d, reduced to 272 m3/d (74 % reduction on average) with active dewatering of nine (9) dewatering wells and 37 m3/d (97 % reduction on average) with active dewatering of seventeen (17) dewatering wells. The natural filling of the pit, to an elevation of 1476 mamsl will take approximately 3 960 days, almost 11 years after closure. The average flow rate will be at 617 m3/d, reducing over time to average flows of 442 m3/d. If the opencast pit is allowed to fill above the recommended waterlevel of 1476 mamsl, outflow of contaminated water to the Suikerbosrand River could approximate > 280 m3/d. The average alluvial flow will approximate 76 m3/d without dewatering and roughly contribute 7 % of groundwater inflow to the pit. Active dewatering will increase the flow through the alluvium to an average of 98 m3/d and 121 m3/d, for the 9 and 17 dewatering well scenarios respectively (Scenario 2). Operation of the opencast pit will lead to a similar development of a dewatered cone as for Alternative A, but extending to 710 m South and 860 m to the East of the opencast footprint. Scenario 2 indicates an approximate area of influence extending to 860 m South and 960 m East. By characterising the Suikerbosrand River as a gaining stream only, the developed dewatering cone will extend up to 980 m South and 1 125 m East, with the increase of dewatering wells to seventeen (17). There is no indication that the development of the dewatering cone, during operation of the Heidelberg opencast pit, will influence current water supply boreholes, under hydraulic continuity or no hydraulic continuity conditions (Alternative A or B).

Water quality from the deeper semi-confined aquifer is of a good quality. Most of the pumped water for mine dewatering purposes during the operational phase will be derived from this aquifer. It can therefore be safely assumed that the pumped water can be discharged into the Suikerbosrand River without any detrimental effect to the environment. In-pit management practices during the operational phase should be such that no potential contaminated surface water be allowed the time to infiltrate into the groundwater system. Key uncertainties in the study are: The extent of influence from the peat area (south-west of the proposed Heidelberg opencast pit) to flows in the groundwater environment. The hydrogeological properties of the Suikerbosrand riverbed.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

42

7475/8297/7/G

The study was aimed at developing a first order understanding of the groundwater impacts associated with the Heidelberg opencast pit operation. In order to develop more confidence in the impacts as well as evaluate suitable dewatering measures, the numeric model results should be re-evaluated, once additional information is available to recalibrate the current model. The recommended action to address the key uncertainty is: To conduct pumping tests at the identified peat area, to estimate a more accurate groundwater contribution from the area, to the Heidelberg opencast pit. The development of the dewatering well field will provide this additional information that should be used for refinement of the model. To estimate the hydrogeological properties of the Suikerbosrand riverbed by conducting a river profile investigation. Additional dewatering boreholes (8) should be allocated for and possibly positioned between the proposed 9 dewatering wells around the footprint of the proposed Heidelberg opencast pit.

A summary of the numeric modelling results is presented in Table 5 below.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

43 Table 5: Comparative Scenario Results for Pit Operation Alternative A (Worst Case) Scenario 2 Scenario 2 (9 Well (17 Well Dewatering) Dewatering) Average Inflow 452.94 500.39 587.29 637.63 770.19 847.42 1342.57 1501.52 1479.17 1808.75 1843.17 2037.41 Average Inflow 299.01 307.52 351.58 416.27 548.03 600.22 1030.16 1144.21 1100.29 1201.40 1333.68 1512.56

7475/8297/7/G

Annual Block

Units

Scenario 1 (Base Case) Average Inflow

% Inflow Reduction from using 9-17 Dewatering Wells

45-64 50-69 50-70 46-65 41-58 41-58 32-48 32-48 36-52 35-57 31-50 29-47

Scenario 1 (Base Case) Average Inflow

722.16 803.82 957.13 930.93 1017.42 1016.60 1044.88 1142.68 1180.92 1591.69 1257.54 1134.01

Alternative B (Best Case) Scenario 2 Scenario 2 (9 Well (17 Well Dewatering) Dewatering) Average Inflow
309.34 266.37 301.37 290.45 333.40 247.66 249.87 267.66 202.44 391.26 262.81 166.38

Average Inflow
100.80 46.95 77.23 90.53 85.80 34.28 9.42 5.15 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

% Inflow Reduction from using 9-17 Dewatering Wells

57-86 67-94 69-92 69-90 67-92 76-97 76-99 77-100 83-100 75-100 79-100 85-100

Block 1 (2007) Block 2 (2008) Block 3 (2009) Block 4 (2010) Block 5 (2011) Block 6 (2012) Block 7 (2013) Block 8 (2014) Block 9 (2015) Block 10 (2016) Block 11 (2017) Block 12 (2018)

m3/d m3/d m3/d m3/d m3/d m3/d m3/d m3/d m3/d m3/d m3/d m3/d

827.64 994.72 1181.72 1182.62 1302.52 1440.36 1965.90 2193.07 2299.18 2799.96 2687.91 2875.98

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

April 2006

44

7475/8297/7/G

16

REFERENCES

WMB report (now Golder Associates Africa (Pty)Ltd), (March 1999): Heidelberg Opencast Coal Mine Specialist Studies for Surface and Groundwater, Report No: 3758/1713/1/W Golder Associates Africa (Pty)Ltd Report, (March 2006): Hydrogeological Investigation for the Proposed Heidelberg Opencast Mine, Report No: 7475/8235/4/G Golder Associates Africa (Pty)Ltd Report, (April 2006): Heidelberg Surface Water Specialist Report, Report No: 7475/8290/6/W GOLDER ASSOCIATES AFRICA (PTY) LTD

H Marais

H van Rensburg

G L Hubert

G:\PROJECTS\7475 - HEIDELBERG EIA\REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS\7475-8297-7-G NUMERIC GROUNDWATER MODELLING\7475-8297-7-G GROUNDWATER NUMERIC MODELLING RPT.DOC

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

APPENDIX A Groundwater Figures

GOLDER ASSOCIATES