ENVIRONMENT IN FOCUS
Figure 1: Correct dimensions for a dustfall sampling collector as per ASTM D1739: 98 (reapproved 2017).
prospecting right, mining right, mining
permit or retention permit if the holder
thereof – (d) has submitted inaccurate,
incorrect, misleading or false information
in connection with any matter required to
be submitted under this Act.”
Although mining EMPs fall under
NEMA, the operation’s mining
authorisation is issued in terms of the
MPRDA and only after the minister of
mineral resources has approved the EMP,
de facto the approved EMP, where there
are dustfall reporting requirements for
submission to the authority, will fall under
section 47(1)(d). In a nutshell, in extreme
compound cases, the submission of a
nonsense report may satisfy, or contribute
to a decision to suspend or cancel the
operation’s mining authorisation.
What about other legal requirements?
Here I have limited the discussion to
NEM:AQA, where section 32 reads: “The
Minister or MEC may prescribe – (a)
measures for the control of dust in specified
places or areas, either in general …”
34_QUARRY SA| MARCH/APRIL 2019
In this regard, the minister has
prescribed ‘measures for the control of
dust’ through the publication of GN 827
National Dust Control Regulations (1
November 2013). [If all goes well, GN
827 will be replaced by GN 517 (Draft)
National Dust Control Regulations (25
May 2018) on 1 November 2019.] GN
827 specifies the ‘method to be used
for measuring dustfall rate, and the
guideline for locating sampling points
shall be ASTM D1739:1970, or equivalent
method approved by any internationally
recognised body.’ This reference to
ASTM D1739: 1970 has resulted in some
confusion among service providers, or,
as I see it, loopholes. (GN517 clearly
identifies the standard for dustfall
sampling as the ‘latest version of ’ ASTM
D1739, that is, ASTM D1739: 2017).
NEM:AQA section 51(1): “A person
is guilty of an offence if that person – (g)
supplies false or misleading information to
an air quality officer.”
In essence, the owner and/or the
person in control of the operation and
the person supplying the misleading
report to the authority, must ensure that
the information submitted is accurate,
correct, and not misleading or false.
Questionable report
Aspasa About Face and other compliance
audits conducted countrywide across
the industry, have called into question
the majority of current dustfall
sampling reports. Reasons relate to non-
compliance with ASTM D1739: 1970
as stated in the service provider report,
or, in most instances, non-compliance
with any “equivalent method approved
by any internationally recognised
body”, usually a later version of the
ASTM D1739: 98 or ASTM D1739:
98 reapproved in 2004, 2010, or 2017,
as the case may be. Service providers
are happy to state in their reports the
method used, then they simply do
not follow the required method in
practice. This is apparent when we audit
sample bucket dimensions, sample
www.quarryonline.co.za