APPENDIX A - CSIRfred.csir.co.za/project/CIP_EIA/pages/ESS_appendixA.pdf · PI confirmed that...

APPENDIX A:

MEETING NOTES

A1 Meeting with Coega Development Corporation (CDC)

A2 Meeting with the Department of Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism (DEAE&T)

A3 Meeting with SANParks

A4 Meeting with National Ports Authority (NPA)

CDC MEETING NOTES, 16 OCTOBER 2003

APPENDIX A1

COEGA INTEGRATED POWER PROJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING STUDY

MEETING WITH COEGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CDC) ON 16TH OCTOBER FROM 9:00 - 11:00 AT THE CDC OFFICES, PORT

ELIZABETH

Notes prepared by CSIR-Environmentek These notes reflect the central topics of discussion and key outcomes of this meeting. They are not intended as detailed minutes of the meeting. 1) Present

Name Organisation Contact details Tel number Peter Inman (PI) CDC [email protected]

041-507 9111

Themba Koza (TK) CDC [email protected]

041-507 9111

Nico Gewers (NG) Eskom [email protected]

011-800-2559

Paul Lochner (PL) CSIR Environmentek [email protected]

021-888 2486

Frauke Münster (FM) CSIR Environmentek [email protected]

021-888 2538

Apologies Kelly Byrne (KB), CDC John Raimondo (JR), CDC

2) Agenda for meeting

Welcome and introductions Purpose of the meeting (Paul Lochner) Update on the proposed project (Eskom) Approach to the Environmental Screening Study (Paul Lochner) Discussion on potential issues Closure and way forward.

Coega Integrated Power Project: Environmental Screening Study

Final Report, February 2004 - Confidential

page A-1

mailto:[email protected]






APPENDIX A1

3) Purpose of the meeting To discuss the proposed combined cycle gas turbine power plant (CCGT) at Coega with the CDC and identify their issues/concerns. These issues/concerns will then be included in the Environmental Screening Study (ESS) being undertaken by the CSIR on behalf of Eskom, Shell and iGas. This study is being undertaken as part of the feasibility stage planning and decision-making for the project. 4) Approach to the Environmental Screening Study PL explained that CSIR had been appointed by Eskom to undertake the ESS for the proposed Coega Integrated Power Project (CIPP). PL clarified that the scope of the ESS included identification and assessment of environmental issues related to the LNG berth and terminal, the regasification plant, the CCGT, the gas pipelines within the IDZ and the transmission line corridors linking the CCGT with the Grassridge and/or other primary sub-stations. PL explained that this screening study is a non-legislated process intended to provide environmental inputs to the financial and technical investigations that form part of the feasibility stage investigations. The overall purpose of the screening study is to: Identify any fatal flaws or showstoppers from an environmental perspective; Provide environmental guidelines for the subsequent design and planning for the project and; Identify further studies or monitoring work that may need to be undertaken as part of the design and planning process. PL explained that the ESS process included meetings with key stakeholders (National Ports Authority, CDC, SANParks and the provincial Department of Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism). PI stressed that, in future, CDC would like to have joint meetings with National Ports Authority (NPA) around this project. FM confirmed that efforts had been made to have a joint meeting. The limited timeframes within which meetings could be held, and the inability to find a date that suited both CDC and NPA meant that individual meetings had been organized. PL suggested that a joint meeting could possibly be held to provide feedback on the outcomes of the study to CDC and NPA. This would need to be confirmed and approved by the project proponents (Eskom, Shell and iGAs). TK requested that a copy of the pre-feasibility environmental assessment undertaken for the project by Mark Wood Consultants in 2002 is provided to the CDC, given that a memorandum of understanding had been signed between CDC, NPA, Eskom, Shell and iGas agreeing that project information is treated as confidential by all signatory parties. Action:

NG to send a copy of the pre-feasibility environmental assessment to TK.



page A-2


APPENDIX A1

5) Update from Eskom on the proposed project A brief overview was provided of the proposed 1600 MW Coega Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) to power project (including the different siting options) and the transmission links to the national grid. Further information on the project was provided as part of the discussion on potential issues. 6) Discussion of potential issues Update on the transmission lines from Grassridge to the Aluminium Pechiney smelter and the IDZ

PI indicated the possible new routing option for the transmission lines from Grassridge substation into the IDZ, which is under negotiation between DEAT, CDC and Eskom. He also indicated the planned corridor for transmission lines from the CIPP eastwards towards the abalone farm area and then turning inland along the planned Hougham Park distributor road.

Atmospheric emissions

PL explained that the ESS would not include atmospheric emission dispersion modelling as the project description was still largely conceptual. The atmospheric emission study would however, draw on the results of the detailed modelling study undertaken by the CSIR in 2002 for the Aluminium Pechiney Smelter.

Potential impacts associated with the intake of water from inside the port

PI questioned whether the cooling water intake would be located within the Port of Ngqura. PL confirmed that this was the current plan, with cooling water discharge planned to the east of the breakwater. PL confirmed that the “water discharges to the marine environment” specialist study was investigating the thermal footprint of the cooling water discharge, taking into account the sensitivities of abalone and the marine environment to temperature increases.

Visual impacts

PL confirmed that visual impacts were being considered. Potential encroachment into the Open Space System

TK questioned the need for an ecological disturbance study (as part of the ESS) given that the CDC had developed the Open Space System (OSS) on the basis of ecological studies which identified sensitive areas. FM confirmed that the specialist study would not be undertaking additional fieldwork and that the assessment would be based on overlaying the project footprint on the OSS maps to identify areas where the project encroached upon the OSS. PI indicated that it would be important to take into account the routing of the transmission lines from the powerstation across the IDZ and the servitude requirements for transmission lines – both for the base case 1600 MW powerstation and the expanded powerstation (eg. 3200 MW).



page A-3


APPENDIX A1

PI mentioned that an access road may be required to allow more direct access to the CCGT power plant that would not require going through the port area. This would be particularly important as a more direct emergency access route. PI and TK confirmed that a servitude for this access road had been planned for and taken into account in developing the OSS.

PI confirmed that all major distributor roads have servitudes to allow for gas pipelines and transmission lines. These would need to be checked against the proposed CIPP requirements.

TK confirmed that the OSS was currently being reviewed by the authorities. A decision regarding its approval was expected on 4 November.

Action: PL to contact TK on 5 November to determine whether the OSS maps could be used in the

ESS. If so, TK to provide final approved version. Land ownership

PI mentioned that PPC hold the rights to mine sand in the LNG/CCGT area. This needs to be taken into account by the project proponents.

PI explained that NPA planned to buy Marine Growers and that CDC would buy the surrounding land belonging to 8CR Property Trust. This would allow transmission lines to run across this land.

Potential siting alternatives

PI mentioned that the proposed LNG berth on the breakwater may not be allowed in terms of the Port of Ngqura Record of Decision (ROD), which does not permit any activities on the breakwater.

PL explained that the project proponents had undertaken an initial assessment of six potential berthing options which resulted in the selection of two preferred alternatives (on the breakwater and on an extension to a proposed new ore berth). PI and TK mentioned that the ore berth location was unlikely to comply with the LNG exclusion/safety zone and that this option should probably not be considered further as it was unlikely to be viable or practical alternative.

TK mentioned that the ROD for the port identifies activities allowed/not allowed in the back of port area. PI therefore questioned whether the option of locating the LNG terminal next to the ore berth was acceptable to NPA. PL confirmed that no objection had been raised by Chris Matchett (CM) at the previous day’s meeting.

TK questioned whether the current alternative locations for the LNG terminal and the CCGT power plant would be accepted as alternative sites as there were neighbouring sites. The lack of true and acceptable alternatives had delayed the environmental



page A-4


APPENDIX A1

impact assessment for the regional general and hazardous waste management facility.

PI questioned whether sites to the north of the N2 highway were potential options, or whether this was constrained by the distance required to lay cryogenic pipelines. FM mentioned that an inland site would represent not only an alternative siting option, but would require consideration of different CCGT powerplant technologies for cooling.

Potential impacts associated with the discharge of water to the marine environment

PL confirmed that NPA had raised the concern about possible project impacts on the port’s sand bypass system.

Action: PI provided CSIR with a copy of the report by Dr Eckhardt Schumann on ambient seawater

temperature variability, for use in the ESS. Gas demand

PI indicated that although it was currently uncertain whether the potential gas demand from the aluminium smelter was sufficient to warrant a gas pipeline, other potential investors may be attracted to the IDZ as a result of a gas supply. Having gas available creates new business opportunities for the IDZ.

Administrative responsibilities

PI confirmed that if the LNG terminal and CCGT power plant were located on NPA land then CDC had no administrative or monitoring responsibilities.

Although the IDZ guidelines (e.g. visual and noise) and the zone labour agreement could not be enforced on NPA tenants, these guidelines could still be used as a benchmark for the ESS.

Discharge of process wastewater & sewage

PI confirmed that sewage from the project would enter the NPA sewer and be pumped to the IDZ sewerage system. TK confirmed that there was not currently a separate process wastewater system for IDZ tenants and that it was the responsibility of tenants to ensure that they treated their process wastewater to a quality which allowed it to be discharged to the IDZ sewerage or stormwater system.

Availability of water supply

PI confirmed that there would be no constraints to meeting the project’s potable water requirements and that the pipeline down Neptune Road to the Port Area had already been laid.

Legal requirements

TK confirmed that the legal register prepared for the CDC by EIMS was still valid and had not been updated in the past year. TK noted that there was joint NPA/CDC jurisdiction in respect of environmental monitoring



page A-5


APPENDIX A1

Enterprise Requirements Questionnaire (ERQ)

PI referred to the CDC’s ERQ which facilitated structured engagement with tenants. This would probably be useful later as the IDZ was the utilities service provider.

7) Closure and way forward PI requested that draft specialist reports are sent to the TK for comment. PL indicated that this would need to be agreed to by Eskom, Shell and iGas. Action: NG to confirm with project proponents how feedback on the ESS should be provided to and

shared with CDC.



page A-6

DEAE&T MEETING NOTES, 16 OCTOBER 2003

APPENDIX A2


MEETING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, ENVIRONMENT AND TOURISM (DEAE&T) ON 16TH OCTOBER FROM

14:00 - 16:00 AT THE DEAE&T OFFICES, PORT ELIZABETH

Notes prepared by CSIR-Environmentek These notes reflect the central topics of discussion and key outcomes of this meeting. They are not intended as detailed minutes of the meeting. 1) Present Name Organisation Contact details Tel number Andries Struwig (AS) DEAE&T [email protected]

041-585 1850


011-800-2559

Paul Lochner (PL) CSIR Environmentek

[email protected]

021-888 2486

Frauke Münster (FM) CSIR Environmentek

[email protected]

021-888 2538


C

Welcome and introductions Purpose of the meeting (Paul Lochner) Update on the proposed project (Eskom) Approach to the Environmental Screening Study (Paul Lochner) Discussion on potential issues

losure and way forward.



page A-7






APPENDIX A2

3) Purpose of the meeting PL explained that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the proposed Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminal and Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power plant at Coega with DEAE&T and identify their issues/concerns. These issues/concerns will then be included in the Environmental Screening Study (ESS)1 being undertaken by the CSIR on behalf of Eskom, Shell and iGas. The ESS is being undertaken as part of the feasibility stage planning and decision-making for the Coega Integrated Power Project (CIPP). 4) Approach to the Environmental Screening Study PL clarified that the scope of the ESS included identification and assessment of environmental issues related to the LNG berth and terminal, the regasification plant, the CCGT power plant, the gas pipelines within the IDZ and the transmission line corridors linking the CCGT with the Grassridge sub-station and/or other primary sub-stations. PL explained that this screening study is a non-legislated process intended to provide environmental inputs to the financial and technical investigations that form part of the feasibility stage investigations. The overall purpose of the ESS is to:

Identify any fatal flaws or showstoppers from an environmental perspective; Provide environmental guidelines for the subsequent design and planning for the project; Identify further studies or monitoring that need to be undertaken as part of the design and planning process.

PL explained that the ESS process included meetings with key stakeholders (National Ports Authority, Coega Development Corporation, SANParks and DEAE&T). A full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) including wider public participation would be undertaken if the project proponents decided that the project was feasible and proceeded with further planning. AS indicated that the national Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) may need to be consulted as well, as part of the ESS. National DEAT were present at the Environmental Liaison Committee presentation by Eskom. PL confirmed that the specialist studies would be largely qualitative and based on existing information for the area. The results would inform the EIA process.



page A-8

1 Eskom’s presentation to the Environmental Liaison Committee to introduce the proposed project had referred to this study as a “Pre-Scoping” study. In order to avoid confusion with the formal Environmental Impact Assessment process, the study is now referred to as an Environmental Screening Study.


APPENDIX A2

Action:

NG to check with project partners whether they agreed that DEAT be included in the consultation process. If so, AS would contact Mark Gordon (DEAT) to check with him

regarding any additional issues/concerns. 5) Update from Eskom on the proposed project A brief overview was provided of the proposed 1600 MW Coega Integrated Power Project (CIPP). Further information on the project was provided as part of the discussion on potential issues, as required. AS questioned whether the CCGT would require additional transmission lines over and above those planned from Poseidon to Grassridge and the single transmission line proposed from Harding (Kwa-Zulu Natal) to Grassridge along the N2 national road2. 6) Discussion on potential issues Potential siting alternatives

AS questioned whether other sites were being considered nationally. PL explained that the pre-feasibility investigations for the project had included a national site selection process which considered sites at Saldanha Bay, Mossel Bay and Coega.

PL explained that the proponent had undertaken a review of six siting options within the Port of Ngqura, which led to the identification of the two berthing locations being considered in the ESS (i.e. on the breakwater and on the potential ore berth). AS indicated that during the EIA the authorities would question why no other alternative sites within the port were being considered, in particular if the sites were in contradiction to recommendations in the Strategic Environmental Assessment and EIAs undertaken for the Coega Industrial Development Zone (IDZ) and Port of Ngqura.

Action:

CSIR to check the Coega SEA, Port EIA and IDZ Rezoning EIA to clarify whether any recommendations were made to constrain development eastwards of the Coega River or

along the shoreline eastward of the port, and if so, the reasons therefore.



page A-9

2 The meeting between SANParks, Eskom (including Transmission as well as Generation) and CSIR on Monday 20 October 2003 confirmed that one or two additional transmission lines would be required along the N2 route. SANParks requested that Eskom consider the alternative option of routing the transmission line from the CCGT power station to Beaufort West/Droeërivier.


APPENDIX A2

AS indicated that the authorities and other interested and affected parties could request that other sites and technologies are considered during the EIA process. It was understood that the financial feasibility of some alternatives would preclude these from being considered by the project proponent. However, AS stressed the need for the financial feasibility assessment to factor in the environmental costs associated with different options. The site selection process and criteria used should therefore be clearly explained and the preferred site(s) adequately motivated.

AS confirmed that the ESS should take into account the footprint of a possible future expansion of the LNG terminal and CCGT power plant.

Potential impacts associated with locating the LNG terminal and CCGT power plant on the shoreline

AS indicated that the volume of sand in the eastern reclamation area had not been anticipated in the EIAs for the Port or IDZ. The project proponents should consider the possibility of siting the LNG terminal and CCGT powerplant in this reclamation area. Possible extension of the project infrastructure onto the beach and into the sea would not be regarded favourably.


AS questioned what the volume and temperature change resulting from the discharge of cooling water to the marine environment would be; and raised the concern about the possible impacts on the marine environment.

AS enquired about what discharge options were being considered and whether cooling water discharge could be released to the port.


AS questioned what emissions were produced by the project. PL explained that emissions were mainly NOx and CO2. Emissions would be evaluated against the IDZ and World Bank guidelines. The relative contribution of the project to South Africa’s greenhouse gas emissions would be evaluated. SO2 emissions were relatively insignificant and depended on the quality of gas that was imported.

AS mentioned that spekboom has been identified as a good carbon fixer. This provides a potential opportunity to offset greenhouse gas emissions by conserving indigenous vegetation, through purchasing spekboomveld for conservation. Contact people for further information were Andrew Knight (Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit and Dr Mandy Cadman at DEAE&T).



page A-10


APPENDIX A2


AS requested that the ESS explain clearly where and how process water is used and what quantities and qualities of wastewater are produced.


AS questioned whether the 52m3/hr of potable water would be used on a continuous basis. FM indicated that this may depend on whether or not the powerstation would be used for baseload generation or peak generation.

Potential encroachment into the Open Space System

AS indicated that any transmission lines or pipelines should not cross or encroach on the Open Space System (OSS) for the Port and IDZ.

7) Closure and way forward PL enquired which of the project proponents should submit the EIA application. AS indicated that if Eskom is the applicant then the decision-making authority would be national DEAT as Eskom was a statutory body. If a joint venture company was established by Eskom, Shell and iGas and the application is submitted by this joint venture, then provincial DEAE&T could be the relevant decision-making authority. For the scenario where a joint venture was not established and the LNG terminal was run by Shell and the CCGT power plant run by Eskom, then Shell would not be able to apply for an EIA for the CCGT power plant. AS confirmed that a single application and EIA covering all components of the integrated project (LNG berth, terminal, CCGT power plant, and associated gas pipelines and transmission lines) was preferred. Action: NG to confirm with project proponents how feedback on the ESS should be provided to and

shared with DEAE&T.



page A-11

SANParks MEETING NOTES, 16 OCTOBER 2003

APPENDIX A3


MEETING WITH SANPARKS ON 20TH OCTOBER FROM 14:00 - 16:00 IN THE BOTANY DEPARTMENT BOARDROOM, UNIVERSITY OF

PORT ELIZABETH

Notes prepared by CSIR-Environmentek

These notes reflect the central topics of discussion and key outcomes of this meeting. They are not intended as detailed minutes of the meeting. 1) Present

Name Organisation Contact details Tel number Dr Michael Knight (MK) SANParks [email protected]

041-508 5412

Dr Guy Castley (GC) SANParks [email protected]

041-508 5413

Deidré Herbst (DH) Eskom [email protected]

011-800 3501

Carol Streaton (CS) Eskom [email protected]

011-800 5411


[email protected]

021-888 2486


[email protected]

021-888 2538


C

Welcome and introductions Purpose of the meeting (Paul Lochner) Update on the proposed project (Eskom) Approach to the Environmental Screening Study (Paul Lochner) Discussion on potential issues

losure and way forward.



page A-12








APPENDIX A3

3) Purpose of the meeting To discuss the proposed gas power plant at Coega with SANParks and identify their issues/concerns. These issues/concerns will then be included in the Environmental Screening Study (ESS) being undertaken by the CSIR on behalf of Eskom, Shell and iGas. This study is being undertaken as part of the feasibility stage planning and decision-making for the project. 4) Approach to the Environmental Screening Study PL explained that this screening study is intended to provide environmental inputs to the financial and technical investigations that form part of the feasibility stage investigations. The overall purpose of the screening study is to:

Identify any fatal flaws or showstoppers from an environmental perspective; Provide environmental guidelines for the subsequent design and planning for the project; Identify further studies or monitoring that need to be undertaken as part of the design and planning process.

5) Update from Eskom on the proposed project A brief overview was provided of the proposed 1600 MW Coega Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) to power project, and the additional transmission links to the national grid. Further information on the project was provided as part of the discussion on potential issues. The screening study was only entering into discussions with CDC, NPA, DEAE&T and SANParks at this stage and would not involve wider stakeholder engagement. DH explained that a decision regarding the feasibility of the proposed project was to be taken by the Board in December 2003/January 2004. Gas is not the cheapest option and an issue of key importance is the economics of the venture. If the project was considered feasible, an EIA would be commissioned in early 2004. The project was expected to be operational in 2006/2007. 6) Discussion on potential issues Transmission lines

Note added by CSIR, 8 December 2003: The transmission line configuration and requirements are being further investigated by Eskom, given the potential Coega Integrated Power Project. Consequently, the information below may have been superceded by more recent transmission line planning.



page A-13


APPENDIX A3

MK asked whether the construction of the Coega power station would result in the currently proposed 400kv line from Port Elizabeth (PE) to Kwa-Zulu Natal (KZN) no longer being required.

CS explained that this is not the case. Instead, a total of two lines linking PE and KZN may be required in order to supply power from KZN to the Coega area; as well as to provide contingency lines for power transfer from the Coega power plant into the national grid if this power is not utilised locally. A 1600MW CCGT power plant would require three 400 kV transmission lines linking the CCGT power plant to Grassridge and if the CCGT power plant is expanded to 2400 MW, a further 400 kV line is required. If the expansion is to 3200MW, a total of five 400 KV transmission lines and a further sub-station is required. The power generation station must be able to deliver 83% of the power generated under a N-2 condition (i.e. where “N” is the total number of lines that could be used as “release” lines) into the transmission grid system. The N-2 includes the loss of the proposed aluminium smelter load and hence the requirement of the additional lines.

MK asked Eskom to re-investigate why the “release” contingency power line from the Coega power station could not be towards the Western Cape (eg. via Beaufort West/Droeërivier) as this is where future growth in demand could be expected. Eskom previously didn’t consider this route viable for power supply to the IDZ because of insufficient power in the transmission system from the Highveld to Beaufort West, however, this route may be viable as a “release route” if power generation is located at Coega. CS explained that the intention of the new KZN line is also to supply the Buffalo, Pondoland and East Griqualand regions with power. MK questioned whether the transmission lines from KZN could not stop at East London (to serve the above district’s needs) if the Coega power plant would be developed to meet the IDZ’s demands.

GC raised the concern that the transmission lines are also a concern for other wildlife and eco-tourism businesses in the Colchester to Grahamstown area. A concern is that Eskom does not pay compensation for impacts of transmission lines on the “marketability” of game farms. This “marketability” is largely based on maintaining the aesthetic appeal of the areas and the “sense of place” associated with getting out into the wilderness.

MK summarised the above discussion by expressing appreciation that Eskom is considering the option of gas power generation at Coega, but asked for consideration of the alternative route for power release via Beaufort West instead of the KZN routing. SANParks is not in favour of any transmission line linking Coega and KZN and hopes that power generation within the IDZ will avoid the need to route transmission lines from East London to the Coega IDZ.



page A-14


APPENDIX A3

If the single KZN line goes ahead (as currently being assessed in an EIA process), GC enquired about the option of burying the section of transmission lines past the Colchester gate of the Greater Addo Elephant National Park (GAENP). The missed opportunity costs associated with putting the overhead line through Colchester could be equated to the costs associated with burying the line over that distance through the park to ensure that the aesthetic appeal is not compromised. CS mentioned that the funding had not been allocated to assess the full extent of the alternative routes for the proposed Neptune-Grassridge line.

CS enquired how Eskom could possibly meet SANParks in a win-win arrangement for the (overhead line) Colchester part of the route. The notion of having an overhead line through the new entrance gate area is not being entertained by SANParks.

MK requested that Eskom provide SANParks with an overview of the long-term planning for transmission lines for the Eastern Cape. CS mentioned that transmission line demand was difficult to anticipate and that lines could only be planned as demand arises.

Action:

CS to discuss re-investigation of alternative routing within Eskom and provides feedback.

Additional note from CS: Eskom has recently received the go ahead from Aluminium Pechiney for the construction of the transmission infrastructure that will include the 3rd Grassridge to Poseidon line and the Beta to Delphi power line. These power lines together with the possibility of gas fired power generation at Port Elizabeth result in the planning scenario changing and it is likely that the Grassridge-Neptune line could be deferred for up to 15 years depending on the size of the Coega power plant and load growth. The planning options that are being considered will be available for discussion around mid-November 2003.

Berth location

MK asked whether an off-shore berth was an option. DH replied that the berth requires stable sea conditions and therefore berthing locations would need to be within the Port of Ngqura.

LNG terminal and CCGT powerplant location

GC enquired whether the power plant could be moved into the area inland of the port (e.g. at the proposed tank farm location) rather than being on the coast. PL explained that this would require a change in design and technology as seawater cooling would be less efficient at an inland site. DH indicated that alternative technologies may need



page A-15


APPENDIX A3

to be considered as this query had been raised by Andries Struwig of DEAE&T as well.

GC questioned how the siting of the LNG terminal and the CCGT power plant would impact on the functioning of the sand by-pass system. PL confirmed that this issue was being considered in the ESS.

MK questioned how high above the waterline the LNG terminal and CCGT power plant would be built.

Health and safety issues

GC asked whether the power project creates an explosion or human health risk. Cooling water for CCGT

GC questioned whether the CCGT facilities would be located entirely above the high-water mark or whether they included infrastructure in the marine environment. PL explained the siting options and the seawater cooling system which would result in the discharge of heated seawater into the marine environment. PL confirmed that impacts to the marine environment were being considered in the ESS.

GC raised the concern that, if the cooling water for the CCGT was taken from the port area and discharged to the surf-zone outside the port, then this could result in pollutants from the IDZ (eg. heavy metals in storm water that is to be discharged to the port) being moved into the marine environment. This would negate the principle of containing pollutants within the port and then removing them via dredging, if the sediment becomes contaminated. GC therefore enquired why the cooling water could not flow in the opposite direction – i.e. locate intake outside the port and discharge outlet inside the port.

GC questioned what would be used to inhibit marine growth in the cooling water intake and the uptake of marine organisms into the intake pipeline. PL indicated that CSIR had requested this information from the project proponents in order for impacts related to use of antifouling agents to be assessed.

Financial dependence

MK enquired whether the Coega Integrated Power Project (CIPP) would proceed if the Coega Aluminium Smelter was not built. DH confirmed the CIP project would still proceed as there was a need to balance the national grid through power generation outside of the Mpumalanga area.

GC questioned where the gas would come from. DH explained that this would be sourced on the international market as South African reserves had a very small



page A-16


APPENDIX A3

capacity. Risks associated with potential exchange rate fluctuations were being considered in the macro-economics study which is currently being undertaken by the project proponents.



page A-17


APPENDIX A3

Visual impacts

GC indicated that he did not expect the visual impacts of the plant to be of high significance, as it is expected that the plant will be located below the dune ridge-line. Visibility from the landward side may not be high, however, visibility from the seaward side and coastline would need to be assessed.


GC questioned what emissions were produced by the project. PL and DH explained that emissions were mainly NOx and CO2 and significantly lower than the emissions from coalfired powerstations for an equivalent power output. SO2 emissions were relatively insignificant and depended on the quality of gas which was imported.

GC questioned whether cumulative impacts would be assessed taking into account expected emissions from Aluminium Pechiney. PL confirmed that the IDZ air quality guidelines would apply and that overall emissions from the smelter may reduce if the smelter replaced their use of heavy fuel oil with gas.

7) Closure and way forward In summary, from the perspective of SANParks, the only potential showstopper that emerged from this meeting is the proposed placement of additional high-voltage transmission lines through the GAENP, and the consequent opportunity costs that this could have for the Park and other ecotourism initiatives between Colchester and Grahamstown. Alternative routes with the possibility of lower negative impacts would need to be considered and assessed in more detail.. PL indicated that further communications related to the ESS and the project would need to be discussed and agreed between SANParks and Eskom. GC requested that SANParks are given feedback on the issues raised by CDC and NPA. Actions: 1. GC to email PL and FM the map of the GAENP used at the meeting. 2. Eskom to confirm the manner in which the issues raised at the meetings with DEAE&T, CDC,

NPA and SANParks are communicated amongst these lead stakeholders.



page A-18

NPA MEETING NOTES, 15 OCTOBER 2003

APPENDIX A4


MEETING WITH NATIONAL PORTS AUTHORITY (NPA) AT NPA’S

OFFICES IN PORT ELIZABETH, 15 OCTOBER 2003

Notes prepared by CSIR-Environmentek These notes reflect the central topics of discussion and key outcomes of this meeting. They are not intended as detailed minutes of the meeting. 1) Attendees Name Organisation Contact details Tel number Chris Matchett (CM) NPA [email protected]

041-507 1422

Thabo Ndlovu (TN) NPA [email protected]

041-507 1951

Dorothy Phejane (DP)

NPA [email protected]

041-507 1402

Deidré Herbst (DH) Eskom [email protected]

011-800 3501


011-800-2559

Indran Govender (IG) Eskom [email protected]

011-6295642


[email protected]

021-888 2486


[email protected]

021-888 2538

Roy van Ballegooyen (RvB)

CSIR Environmentek

[email protected]

021-888 2574



page A-19











APPENDIX A4

2) Agenda

Welcome and introductions Purpose of the meeting (CSIR) Approach to the proposed Environmental Screening Study (CSIR) Update on the proposed project (Eskom) Discussion on potential issues Closure and way forward

3) Purpose of the meeting To identify and discuss NPA’s issues and concerns with regard to the proposed Coega Integrated Power Project (CIPP), in order for these to be taken into account in the Environmental Screening Study (ESS). 4) Approach to the Environmental Screening Study PL explained the rationale for the ESS and its scheduling as part of the feasibility stage investigations for the CIPP. The main objectives of the ESS are to:

Identify potential fatal flaws, before substantial time and resources are invested in detailed engineering design. Identify recommendations to be taken into account in the engineering design and further project planning, if the decision is taken by the project proponents to proceed with the project. Provide recommendations for more detailed studies to be undertaken before/during the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.

CM questioned whether the meeting would focus on the Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power plant only. PL clarified that the scope of the ESS included the LNG berth and terminal, the re-gasification plant, the CCGT power plant, the gas pipelines within the IDZ and the transmission line corridors linking the CCGT with the Grassridge sub-station and/or other primary sub-stations. DP questioned whether the ESS would include any public participation. PL explained that the ESS process included meetings with key stakeholders (NPA, Coega Development Corporation, SANParks and the provincial Department of Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism). No wider public participation would be included at this stage as this would be undertaken during the EIA process if the proponents decided to proceed with the project. PL mentioned that the ESS would include specialist studies that would be integrated into the ESS report.



page A-20


APPENDIX A4

Thabo questioned whether a visual study would be included. PL responded that the Coega Development Corporation’s (CDC) visual guidelines would be used in the ESS. 5) Update on the proposed project DH described the site selection process that had led to the commissioning of the ESS. This included the initial workshop between Shell, Eskom and NPA in July 2003 to discuss possible berthing locations for the LNG tanker. Two potential sites were selected from an initial six sites: one on the eastern breakwater, and a second site at the potential ore berth jetty. 6) Discussion on potential issues Potential encroachment into the Open Space System

DP mentioned that she had raised the concern at the meeting between Shell, Eskom and NPA in July 2003 that if the LNG terminal and CCGT power plant is sited on the eastern dune it could encroach on the Open Space System (OSS).

TN mentioned that the ESS would need to provide specific information on the areas in which activities could take place, so as not to impact on the OSS. DP brought a copy of the OSS map and it was confirmed that the siting of the LNG terminal and the CCGT power plant would not encroach on designated open space areas.

DH mentioned that there would initially be three transmission lines from the CCGT power plant: two to the Grassridge substation and one to the N2 linking up with the proposed Harding (KZN) – Grassridge transmission line.

CM mentioned that the Record of Decision (ROD) issued for the Port of Ngqura precludes overhead distribution lines. NPA gets power from CDC via underground distribution lines. CM mentioned that the transmission lines would require further environmental assessment, in particular due to the visual impacts.

Potential impacts on Jahleel island

CM mentioned that there was a 500m reserve around Jahleel Island. Initial port planning had expected that all port expansions and activities would occur within the port or to the west of the port. Possible expansion to the east of the eastern breakwater may not be accepted by the authorities. CM raised the concern that the Port ROD precludes any development on the breakwater out of concern that rodents may gain access to the breakwater and manage to swim across to Jahleel Island. This may threaten the bird populations on the island. CM mentioned that the attention given to the protection of Jahleel Island hinged largely on the possibility that the



page A-21


APPENDIX A4

Roseate Tern breeds on the island. To date there has, however, been no evidence that this tern is present or breeds on the island.

TN suggested that CSIR provide mitigatory measures for reducing activities and the number of people on the breakwater, in order to minimize the risk of: (i) rats gaining access to the breakwater; and (ii) increased activity on the breakwater causing disturbance to birds on the island.

CM mentioned that if the LNG berth was located on the breakwater, then for safety reasons this would automatically limit access to the breakwater.

Potential risks associated with materials handling

TN suggested that mitigatory measures should be provided for protecting the cryogenic pipelines.

Potential siting alternatives

DH confirmed that both berthing options (on the breakwater as well as on the proposed ore berth jetty) were being considered by the project proponents although the breakwater berthing option was the preferred location. TN mentioned that both alternatives should be included for consideration in the EIA process due to the need to consider alternatives.

DH provided an overview of the type of alternatives considered by Eskom to date:

Type of energy (through Integrated Strategic Energy Planning - ISEP - process) Project location (Coega selected as preferred location after an initial consideration of both Saldanha Bay and Mossel Bay) Berthing locations within the Port of Ngqura (as described above)

RvB questioned whether the project proponents were considering the discharge of cooling water on the western side of the port. DH and CM both indicated that this was not being considered. CM mentioned that this was the direction in which future port expansion was envisaged.

CM mentioned that siting the LNG and CCGT plant to the west of the port was not favoured, as this could curtail the westward expansion of the port in the long-term.


TN mentioned that the ESS should consider the potential impact of stormwater discharge on the neighbouring abalone farm.



page A-22


APPENDIX A4

PL enquired whether stormwater would be discharged inside the port (via the IDZ stormwater system) or outside of the port. TN responded that the discharge would be inside the port.

RvB questioned whether PRDW was also investigating the impact of the CIPP location on the sand by-pass system. CM mentioned that he wanted PRDW to look at the option of discharging cooling water close to the breakwater and sand by-pass system in order to improve sand distribution.

PL enquired about the structure for the sand by-pass system. CM explained that it was planned to discharge sand approximately 200m offshore next to the eastern breakwater.

RvB questioned whether the sand by-pass system could be moved along the beach. CM responded that the outlet could be located just to the east of the CIPP’s warm water (i.e. cooling water) outlet.

CM identified the need for a study to optimize the layout and location of the outlets for the cooling water discharge and sand by-pass system.

TN requested clarity whether the ESS would look at impacts of water discharge on the sand by-pass system. RvB recognized the concern but would need to consider whether this was possible.

PL mentioned that cooling water was currently planned to be taken in from the port and discharged to the east of the breakwater to avoid thermal pollution.

Potential impacts of proposed ore berth on the spending beach

FM questioned whether the impacts of including the proposed ore berth jetty on the spending beach had been investigated. CM mentioned that the impacts of this proposed jetty on bay stability were currently being investigated by PRDW. The breakwater berth is considered the most sheltered mooring.

Safety considerations related to the berthing location

PL enquired whether there were any safety constraints (e.g. in terms of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, safety circles, major hazardous installations) to locating the berth on the breakwater as opposed to on the ore jetty. CM confirmed that PRDW are investigating moving the ship turning circle in order to accommodate the LNG tanker. When the LNG vessel is in port, no other vessel is allowed within 200 m of the loading arm.



page A-23


APPENDIX A4

PL questioned whether there were any constraints to the port if cryogenic pipelines were located at either berthing location. CM indicated that this was not a major constraint. Access to the breakwater would still need to be maintained. However, the pipeline could be located in a trench and a bridge could be built over the pipeline, as done at Richards Bay.

Potential impacts associated with locating the LNG terminal and CCGT power plant on the shoreline

The terrace on which the dolos manufacturing yard is located is at approximately 10 m above mean sea level (msl) and is approximately 200m wide. The CIPP requires a terrace of about 350 m width. CM mentioned that there was insufficient space between the high-water mark and the base of the dunes (i.e. sand stockpile) to build the facilities. This would mean that either the site would need to cut into the eastern reclamation area (i.e. sand stockpile) or infill out to sea. CM mentioned that it would probably be most cost-effective to undertake any major earth-moving operations while the port was under construction and earthworks equipment is on-site.

RvB enquired about erosion issues arising from the creation of a permanent structure on the beach. CM confirmed that this is likely and that permanent shoreline protection would probably be required.

CM mentioned that the Port ROD specifies that from a point 2km east of the eastern breakwater, the beach must not be disturbed in order to minimize potential impacts on beach ecosystems. TN mentioned that the relocation of the sand by-pass system may have an influence on the beach beyond the 2km sacrificial zone.

RvB questioned what structure was envisaged for the discharge of cooling water. DH mentioned that they were considering various options. RvB should contact John Jenkins for further information.

Land ownership issues

CM confirmed that the CIPP (including the possible extension) could be accommodated within the existing port boundary. TN mentioned that NPA was planning to buy out the neighbouring Marine Growers abalone farm and then sell/run the business.

DH questioned whether there were any other development options in the area potentially earmarked for the LNG terminal (behind the spending beach). CM mentioned that they were considering various options, however, this was generally a quiet area of the port.



page A-24


APPENDIX A4

Potential impacts associated with the intake of water from inside the port

CM confirmed that the port basin would provide a stable intake point. RvB questioned whether there were any expected impacts associated with having the cooling water intake (100 000 m3/hour) inside the port. CM did not expect this to be a problem unless there was disturbance from ships. The intake should not be located in the vicinity of sandy/highly turbid areas. Locating the intake point near the LNG berth would ensure that there was less frequent ship motion disturbance.

FM questioned where the IDZ stormwater would be discharged and whether this would be far enough away from the intake area to avoid potentially contaminated stormwater from being taken up by the cooling water intake. CM did not expect this to be a problem.

Stormwater management

PL questioned whether the CIPP stormwater would be discharged to the port stormwater system and then discharged into the port. DH mentioned that stormwater would probably be allowed to run directly from the site into the sea.

TN mentioned that in terms of the Port ROD, NPA is required to have an approved stormwater management plan.

Visual impacts

PL enquired whether any aspects of the project raise concerns for NPA about visual impacts e.g. blocking the view from the harbour control tower. CM indicated that this would not be a problem unless the buildings extend above the skyline of the dune. CM believed that it would be possible to modify the height of the dolos yard terrace in order to ensure that the plant would not extend above the skyline.

TN raised the possible impact of lighting on birds nesting on Jahleel Island. CM however did not think that the additional lighting created by the project would be significantly different to the port lighting.

Noise impacts

PL questioned whether there was a concern that noise from the project would impact on the port administration offices. DH did not think noise generated by the project would be more significant than normal port activities. TN, however, mentioned that the cumulative noise impacts of the project and the port should be taken into account.



page A-25


APPENDIX A4



page A-26


PL asked from where the CIPP would obtain potable water. CM responded that this has not been determined. NPA would need to be informed of the CIPP water requirements in order to ensure that they set up the port reticulation system to cater for these water needs. NPA is receiving water from the CDC via a pipeline which has already been laid from the quarry down Neptune Road to St Georges. NPA would need to put in a reticulation system to the port and the CIPP.

PL questioned whether there was enough water to supply both NPA and the CIPP’s needs. CM thought so, however, this would need to be checked with Peter Inman from the CDC.

DH raised the concern that Port Elizabeth was probably subject to water restrictions. CM indicated that water would probably be received from the Orange-Fish River Scheme and would therefore need to be treated before it could be used.

Potential impacts on the eastern breakwater

PL enquired whether the toe of the breakwater could potentially be undermined by locating the LNG berth on the breakwater. CM confirmed that this was not a concern as the breakwater would be adequately protected by rocks.


FM asked about the approach to sewage disposal. CM mentioned that this would need to be pumped to the N2 and then the Fish Water Flats sewage treatment works.

FM questioned how process wastewater would be disposed of, if it exceeded the water quality guidelines required for it to be disposed of to the sewer. CM did not expect any contaminated process wastewater at the port. CM questioned whether CIPP would generate contaminated process wastewater which would not be able to be discharged to the sewer. PL mentioned that this would be investigated by the ESS.

Power supply for project start-up

FM questioned how start-up power would be supplied to the smelter. DH explained that power would need to be supplied via distribution lines from the port. Once operational, the project would run on the power it generated.

7) Closure and way forward DH confirmed that the project proponents would circulate the ESS report to NPA for their comments. DH would work through TN.

APPENDIX A - CSIRfred.csir.co.za/project/CIP_EIA/pages/ESS_appendixA.pdf · PI confirmed that...

Documents

Transcript of APPENDIX A - CSIRfred.csir.co.za/project/CIP_EIA/pages/ESS_appendixA.pdf · PI confirmed that...