ASH DISPOSAL FACILITY SCOPING REPORT
ESKOM ARNOT POWER STATION
This document contains information proprietary to Environmental Impact Management Services (Pty) Ltd. and
as such should be treated as confidential unless specifically identified as a public document by law. The
document may not be copied, reproduced, or used for any manner without prior written consent from EIMS.
Copyright is specifically reserved.
DOCUMENT DETAILS
EIMS REFERENCE: 1140
DOCUMENT TITLE: ARNOT ASH DISPOSAL FACILITY SCOPING REPORT
DOCUMENT CONTROL
NAME SIGNATURE DATE
COMPILED:
John von Mayer 2018/07/06
CHECKED:
Brian Whitfield 2018/07/06
AUTHORIZED:
Liam Whitlow 2018/07/06
REVISION AND AMENDMENTS
REVISION DATE: REV # DESCRIPTION
2018/07/06 ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Ash Disposal Facility Scoping Report
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 1
Table of Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 8
1.1 Project Review ........................................................................................................................ 9
1.1.1 Proposed Infrastructure .................................................................................................. 9
1.1.2 Proposed Site .................................................................................................................. 9
1.1.3 Requirement for an EIA ................................................................................................... 9
1.2 Purpose of Scoping Report.................................................................................................... 13
1.3 Details of EAP ........................................................................................................................ 13
1.3.1 Expertise of The EAP ..................................................................................................... 13
1.3.2 Summary of EAP Curriculum Vitae ................................................................................ 13
1.4 Specialist Consultants ........................................................................................................... 14
1.5 Details of the Applicant ......................................................................................................... 15
2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 16
2.1 Location ................................................................................................................................. 16
2.1.1 Regional Setting ............................................................................................................ 16
2.1.2 Property Description ..................................................................................................... 16
2.1.3 Locality Map .................................................................................................................. 17
2.2 Description of Activity ........................................................................................................... 17
2.2.1 Need and Desirability of the Project ............................................................................. 17
2.2.2 Period for Which Authorization Is Required ................................................................. 25
2.2.3 Description of Proposed Project ................................................................................... 25
2.3 Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 28
2.3.1 No Go Alternative ......................................................................................................... 28
2.3.2 Location Alternatives .................................................................................................... 29
2.3.3 Technology Alternatives ............................................................................................... 33
2.3.4 Actvity Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 33
3 Policy and Legislative Requirements ............................................................................................. 34
3.1 Applicable Environmental Legislation ................................................................................... 34
3.2 Applicable National Legislation ............................................................................................. 35
3.2.1 National Waste Act ....................................................................................................... 35
3.2.2 National Environmental Management Act ................................................................... 36
3.2.3 National Water Act ....................................................................................................... 44
3.2.4 National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act ................................................ 46
3.2.5 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act .............................................. 46
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 2
3.2.6 National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act ....................................... 47
3.2.7 National Heritage Resources Act .................................................................................. 47
3.2.8 National Conservation Act ............................................................................................ 47
3.2.9 Constitution of South Africa .......................................................................................... 48
3.2.10 Minerals And Petroleum Resources Development Act (Act No. 28 Of 2002) ............... 48
3.3 Other Applicable Acts, Policies and Programmes ................................................................. 48
3.4 Proposed Legislation ............................................................................................................. 49
4 Public Participation Process (PPP) ................................................................................................ 50
4.1 Authority Consultation .......................................................................................................... 50
4.2 Stakeholder Engagement ...................................................................................................... 50
4.3 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 52
4.3.1 Identification of I&APs .................................................................................................. 52
4.3.2 Affected Landowners .................................................................................................... 52
4.3.3 Authorities and Organs Of State ................................................................................... 52
4.3.4 Initial Notification of I&APs ........................................................................................... 53
4.3.5 Scoping Report Review ................................................................................................. 54
4.3.6 Public Meeting and Open Day....................................................................................... 55
5 Description of Receiving Environment .......................................................................................... 56
5.1 Climate .................................................................................................................................. 56
5.2 Geology and Topogrpahy ...................................................................................................... 56
5.2.1 Geology ......................................................................................................................... 56
5.2.2 Topography ................................................................................................................... 59
5.3 Land Use and Land Cover ...................................................................................................... 59
5.4 Ecology .................................................................................................................................. 61
5.4.1 Flora .............................................................................................................................. 61
5.4.2 Terrestrial Fauna ........................................................................................................... 62
5.4.3 Birds .............................................................................................................................. 64
5.4.4 Aspect Management Plans For The Area ...................................................................... 64
5.4.5 Key Sensitivities ............................................................................................................. 68
5.5 Heritage and Paleontology.................................................................................................... 71
5.5.1 Key Sensitivities ............................................................................................................. 72
5.6 Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 73
5.6.1 Key Sensitivities ............................................................................................................. 74
5.7 Rivers and wetlands .............................................................................................................. 74
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 3
5.7.1 Rivers ............................................................................................................................. 74
5.7.2 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 76
5.7.3 Key Sensitivities ............................................................................................................. 79
5.8 Groundwater ......................................................................................................................... 79
5.8.1 Key Sensitivities ............................................................................................................. 82
5.9 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 82
5.9.1 Key Sensitivities ............................................................................................................. 84
6 Environmental Impact Assessment ............................................................................................... 86
6.1 Approach and Methodology ................................................................................................. 86
6.1.1 Method of Assessing Impacts ....................................................................................... 86
6.1.2 Determination of Environmental Risk ........................................................................... 86
6.1.3 Impact Prioritisation ..................................................................................................... 89
6.2 Identification of Impacts ....................................................................................................... 91
6.3 Description and assessment of impacts................................................................................ 92
6.3.1 Preliminary Impacts on Ecology .................................................................................... 92
6.3.2 Preliminary Impacts on Geohydrology.......................................................................... 97
6.3.3 Preliminary Impacts on Hydrology ................................................................................ 98
6.3.4 Preliminary Impacts on Wetland Aquatic Ecology ...................................................... 101
6.3.5 Preliminary Impacts on Soils and Agricultural Potential ............................................. 105
6.3.6 Preliminary Impacts on Air Quality ............................................................................. 106
6.3.7 Preliminary Impacts on Archaeology and Palaentology ............................................. 108
6.3.8 Preliminary Visual Impacts .......................................................................................... 109
6.4 Consolidated Sensitivity Map .............................................................................................. 111
6.5 Assumptions, Limitations and Gaps in Knowledge ............................................................. cxiii
7 Project Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 115
7.1 Alternative Assessment ...................................................................................................... 115
8 Plan of study for EIA .................................................................................................................... 121
8.1 Alternatives to be Considered in EIA .................................................................................. 121
8.1.1 No Go Alternative ....................................................................................................... 121
8.1.2 Siting Alternative ......................................................................................................... 121
8.2 Description of Impacts to be Assessed in EIA ..................................................................... 121
8.3 Description of Specialist Studies ......................................................................................... 121
8.3.1 Ecology ........................................................................................................................ 121
8.3.2 Hydrology .................................................................................................................... 123
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 4
8.3.3 Aquatic Ecology (Wetlands) ........................................................................................ 123
8.3.4 Geohydrology .............................................................................................................. 123
8.3.5 Heritage And Fossils .................................................................................................... 124
8.3.6 Visual ........................................................................................................................... 124
8.3.7 Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 124
8.3.8 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 125
8.3.9 Traffic .......................................................................................................................... 125
8.4 Environmental Impact Assessment process ....................................................................... 125
8.4.1 Method Of Assessing Impact Significance .................................................................. 125
8.4.2 Evaluation Of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................ 130
8.4.3 Public Consultation Process in Environmental Assessment ....................................... 130
8.4.4 Consultation Process With Competent Authority ...................................................... 131
8.4.5 Description of EIA Tasks .............................................................................................. 131
9 Undertaking of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner ..................................................... 133
9.1 Undertakings regarding corrections of information ........................................................... 133
9.2 Undertaking regarding level of agreement ......................................................................... 133
10 References .................................................................................................................................. 134
List of Figures
Figure 1: Locality Map indicating two alternative sites nominated for consideration in scoping ........................ 26
Figure 2: Flow diagram of the screening process. ................................................................................................ 29
Figure 3: Illustration of GIS Mapping Methodology ............................................................................................. 30
Figure 4: Final screened 80ha alternatives ........................................................................................................... 31
Figure 5: Final screened 80ha alternatives ........................................................................................................... 32
Figure 6: Geological Map ...................................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 7: Topographical Map ................................................................................................................................ 58
Figure 8: Land cover of the study area (areas within 5km of Arnot Power Station) ............................................ 60
Figure 9: Parts of the study are in different categories of the MBCP. .................................................................. 66
Figure 10: Parts of the study area in different categories of the MBSP. .............................................................. 67
Figure 11: Location of sensitive habitats within the study area. .......................................................................... 70
Figure 12: Potential heritage resources in the study area.................................................................................... 73
Figure 13: Map indicating the study area in relation to the River NFEPAs ........................................................... 75
Figure 14: Desktop wetland extent within the primary study area (120 Ha) ....................................................... 76
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 5
Figure 15: Desktop wetland extent within the secondary study area (1km radius) ............................................. 76
Figure 16: Map indicating the study area in relation to the NFEPA wetland types .............................................. 77
Figure 17: Sensitivity map of the watercourses associated with the study area ................................................. 78
Figure 18: Hydrocensus borehole map ................................................................................................................. 81
Figure 19: Diurnal wind roses ............................................................................................................................... 83
Figure 20: Seasonal wind roses ............................................................................................................................ 83
Figure 21: Location of sensitive receptors and potential 120ha ash disposal facility sites (1 km buffer) assessed
for the scoping phase. .................................................................................................................................. 85
Figure 22: Combined sensitivity map ................................................................................................................. 112
Figure 23: Map showing position of raw water pipeline and new position for Site Alternative 2 within 1km buffer
zone............................................................................................................................................................ 119
Figure 24: Map showing proposed site (and assoicated 1km buffer zone) to be considered for detailed
assessment in the EIA phase. ..................................................................................................................... 120
List of Tables
Table 1: Content of this Scoping Report in terms of NEMA and Appendix 2 of the EIA Regulations of December
2014 ............................................................................................................................................................. 10
Table 2: List of specialists appointed to the project ............................................................................................. 14
Table 3: Applicant details ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Table 4: List of affected properties for each alternative ...................................................................................... 16
Table 5: Needs and desirability analysis for the Arnot ADF .................................................................................. 17
Table 6: Applicable legislation .............................................................................................................................. 34
Table 7: NEMWA Listed Activities......................................................................................................................... 36
Table 8: NEMA Listed Activities ............................................................................................................................ 37
Table 9: Identified water uses. ............................................................................................................................. 45
Table 10: Summary of policies and programmes ................................................................................................. 48
Table 11: Conservation status of different vegetation types occurring in the study area. .................................. 62
Table 12: Mammal species of conservation concern with a likelihood of occurring in the study area................ 63
Table 13: Amphibian species of conservation concern with a likelihood of occurring in the study area............. 63
Table 14: Reptile species of conservation concern with a likelihood of occurring in the study area. .................. 63
Table 15: Mean monthly and annual precipitation, evaporation and runoff for quaternary catchment B12B ... 74
Table 16: Criteria for determining impact consequence ...................................................................................... 86
Table 17: Probability scoring ................................................................................................................................ 87
Table 18: Determination of Environmental Risk ................................................................................................... 88
Table 19: Significance classes ............................................................................................................................... 88
Table 20: Criteria for determining prioritisation .................................................................................................. 89
Table 21: Determination of prioritisation factor .................................................................................................. 90
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 6
Table 22: Final Environmental significance rating ................................................................................................ 90
Table 23: Site Alternative Assessment................................................................................................................ 115
Table 24: Criteria for determining impact consequence .................................................................................... 125
Table 25: Probability scoring .............................................................................................................................. 127
Table 26: Determination of Environmental Risk ................................................................................................. 127
Table 27: Significance classes ............................................................................................................................. 128
Table 28: Criteria for determining prioritisation ................................................................................................ 128
Table 29: Determination of prioritisation factor ................................................................................................ 129
Table 30: Final Environmental significance rating .............................................................................................. 129
Appendices
Appendix A: EAP CV
Appendix B: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION
Appendix C: RECORDS OF AUTHORITY CONSULTATION
Appendix D: GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT
Appendix E: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Appendix F: WETLAND ASSESSMENT
Appendix G: VISUAL ASSESSMENT
Appendix H: ECOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Appendix I: HERITAGE ASSESSMENT
Appendix J: SOIL ASSESSMENT
Appendix K: AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Appendix L: SITE SELECTION STUDY
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 7
Abbreviations ADF : Ash Disposal Facility
CMA : Catchment Management Agency
DEA : Department of Environmental Affairs
DMR : Department of Mineral Resources
DWA : Department: Water Affairs
DWS : Department of Water Affairs and Sanitation
EIA : Environmental Impact Assessment
EIMS : Environmental Impact Management Services
ELWU : Existing Lawful Water Use
EMPR : Environmental Management Programme Report
ESA : Early Stone Age
GA : General Authorisation
GHG : Greenhouse Gas
GN : Government Notice
HIA : Heritage Impact Assessment
I&AP : Interested & Affected Party
IBA : Important Bird Area
MAE : Mean Annual Evaporation
mamsl : metres above mean sea level
MAP : Mean Annual Precipitation
MAR : Mean Annual Runoff
MCM : Million cubic metres
MPRDA : Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002
NEM:WA : National Environmental Management: Waste Amendment Act, 2008
NEMA : National Environmental Management Act, 2002
NEMA : National Environmental Management Act
NGDB : National Groundwater Database
NHRA : National Heritage Resources Act
NWA : National Water Act, 1998
RoM : Run of Mine
SAHRA : South African Heritage Resources Agency
WUL : Water Use Licence
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 8
1 INTRODUCTION
Arnot Power Station is a coal fired power station owned by Eskom Holdings SOC and makes use of wet process
ashing to dispose of its ash waste. Arnot Power Station’s first ash facility was commissioned in 1971. All ash
produced by Arnot Power Station is pumped, in the form of a slurry, to 3 existing ash disposal facilities.
Arnot’s ash dams are situated approximately 1.5 km to the South-East of the Power Station in the Rietkuilspruit
valley. The whole ash dam complex, including penstock 5 (the silt trap) and the low-level ash water return dams,
covers approximately 200 hectares.
Two streams were diverted to enable Arnot to ash at the current location. It was necessary to construct the
stream diversion in order to keep the toe of the ash dam above the natural ground water table, thus keeping
the toe as dry as possible and to construct the ash dam on good stable founding material. The three current ash
dams have a remaining storage of ± 33 million m3 as of 23 September 2012.
Arnot Power Station uses a wet system for the ashing of the boiler plant. The ashing is conducted in 24-hour
cycles. During the day, the plant is dusted to remove fine ash for the building of the day walls and at night the
coarse ash is sent to the ash dam for the night paddocks. The ash is pumped to the ash dam from the station.
There are four ash pipelines leaving the station to the ash dam and the deposition of the ash depends on the
day plan of the operator. The ash is left to settle and the excess water (Ash Water Return) drained to the silt
trap dam to let the finer particle settle before it is pumped back to the station.
The current Ash Disposal Facility (ADF) at Arnot Power Station has been providing disposal services since the
establishment of the station. This ash disposal facility is facing some operational challenges, which need to be
addressed. The ash complex was designed to operate until the original end of the station life, which was 2021.
This date has been revised to 2032. An ash dam capacity study was compiled, and it revealed that the rate of
rise of the ash dam complex will be more than 4m by the year 2026. The main reason that Arnot Power Station
is in need of a new ash dam is to reduce this rate of rise to an acceptable rate, thus, it was recommended that
the new ash facility be commissioned. A wet ash disposal facility with appropriate barrier systems and a slurry
system pipework and pumping systems is required. The location of the new ash disposal facility will be based on
the least cost solution, within the constraints of the environmental law and regulations. The study area was
identified based on a 5km proximity from the edge of the Arnot power station.
Arnot Power Station requires a new ash disposal facility with the capacity to store all the ash it produces as part
of its operation until the end of station life, 2032. If the end of station life is extended, the new ash complex
must be able to be expanded to provide for this. This must be done in an environmentally friendly manner. The
proposed project is for a wet ash dam and associated infrastructure. The nature and extent of Ash Disposal
Facility, as well as potential environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation and
decommissioning of a facility of this nature are assessed in this Scoping Report. This Scoping Report consists of
the following sections:
• Chapter 1 provides background to the proposed project and associated infrastructure, and the
environmental impact assessment.
• Chapter 2 describes project details as well as the site selection process for the project.
• Chapter 3 provides the legal framework
• Chapter 4 outlines the public participation process which was followed during the Scoping Phase.
• Chapter 5 describes the existing biophysical and socio-economic environment affected by the proposed
project.
• Chapter 6 provides the description of the potential environmental issues and potential impacts
identified to be associated with the project, including potential cumulative impacts.
• Chapter 7 presents the outcomes of the alternative assessment.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 9
• Chapter 8 presents the conclusions of the scoping evaluation and Plan of Study for the EIA
• Chapter 9 contains the EAP undertaken regarding the information provided in the report.
• Chapter 10 provides a list of all references used in this report.
1.1 PROJECT REVIEW
1.1.1 PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE
The aim of this proposed project is to provide Arnot Power Station with the additional capacity to dispose all of
the ash it produces as part of its operation from 2026 until the end of station life in 2032. The project will deliver
a wet ashing facility of up to 120ha in size with required liners and the required slurry system pipework and
pumping systems and supporting infrastructure.
This includes the building of:
• Access roads for operations and maintenance. Drainage channels for clean and dirty water. Ash Water
Return Dams;
• Construction of the New Ash Disposal Facility including its lining;
• Drainage channels for clean and dirty water;
• Ash Water Return Dams;
• Pipelines for transportation of wet ash and water to and from the ash disposal facility;
• Pumping capacity; and
• Sanitation services and offices.
A proposed infrastructure layout map will be included in the EIA report once the conceptual design work is
completed.
1.1.2 PROPOSED SITE
The New Ash Disposal Facility is required to be located at a suitable position which should take into consideration
the following aspects:
• The pumping constraints of the current ash plant;
• The location of the current Ash Water Return high level dams;
• Be the least cost solution within the constraints of the environmental law and regulations; and
• Be located within a 5km radius from the Arnot power station
A site selection study was completed, and the results of this assessment are included in Section 2. Several
suitable sites were identified as alternatives for assessment in the EIA. More detail on the site is included in
Section 2 of this EIA report.
1.1.3 REQUIREMENT FOR AN EIA
In terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations (2014) and the National Environmental
Management Waste Act (Act 59 of 2008), Eskom Holdings SOC Limited requires authorisation from the National
Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) for the undertaking of the proposed project. In order to obtain an
environmental authorisation and the relevant waste management license for this project, comprehensive,
independent environmental studies must be undertaken in accordance with the EIA Regulations. An EIA is a
legislative tool that is used to ensure that potential impacts that may occur due to the proposed development
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 10
are identified before execution, and can therefore either be avoided or mitigated (minimised). In South African
legislation the environment includes social, economic and bio-physical aspects and the EIA must assess these
equitably.
In terms of sections 24 and 24D of NEMA, as read with Government Notices R982, R983, R984 and R985, a
Scoping and EIA process is required for the proposed project. Certain listed activities require environmental
authorisation and a waste management license before they can proceed. In terms of Sections 24 and 24D of
NEMA, as read with Government Notices R983, R984 and R985, a Scoping and EIA process is required for the
proposed project. An integrated application for authorisation and waste licence will be submitted to DEA.
The NEMA is national legislation that provides for the authorisation of certain controlled activities known as
“listed activities”. In terms of Section 24(1) of NEMA, the potential impact on the environment associated with
these listed activities must be considered, investigated, assessed and reported on to the competent authority
(the decision-maker) charged by NEMA with the granting of the relevant environmental authorisation. The
National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) is the competent authority for this project.
The proposed ash dump facility will be a “wet ashing” facility. A Water Use Licence is therefore required to be
obtained for the project. The Water Use Licence Application (WULA) will be made in terms of Section 40 of the
National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998 (NWA). The WULA objective is to obtain the water use authorisation and
ensure that project complies with the requirements of the NWA and all other relevant water related legislation,
as well as Eskom’s Policies. The WULA process will run roughly parallel to the integrated EIA application process
and the two processes will inform one another.
Table 1: Content of this Scoping Report in terms of NEMA and Appendix 2 of the EIA Regulations of December 2014
A scoping report must contain all the information that is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of
issues identified during scoping, ad must include -
(a) details of— (i) the EAP who prepared the report; and
(ii) the expertise of the EAP to carry out scoping procedures
Section 1.3
(b) the location of the activity, including: (i) the 21-digit Surveyor General code of each cadastral land parcel; (ii) where available, the physical address and farm name; (iii) where the required information in items (i) and (ii) is not available, the coordinates of the boundary of the property or properties on which the activity is to be undertaken; (iv) coordinates of the activity on the property or properties; (v) a map at an appropriate scale of the property on which the activity is to be undertaken clearly indicating the location of the activity on the property or properties;
or, if it is— (aa) a linear activity, a description and coordinates of the route of the activity and a map at an appropriate scale clearly indicating the route of the activity; (bb) an ocean-based activity, the coordinates within which the activity is to be undertaken and a map at an appropriate scale clearly indicating the area within which the activity is to be undertaken; or
Section 2.1.2
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 11
(cc) on land where the property has not been defined, the coordinates within which the activity is to be undertaken and a map at an appropriate scale clearly indicating the area within which the activity is to be undertaken;
on condition that, where coordinates are provided, it is provided in degrees, minutes and seconds using the Hartebeesthoek 94; WGS84 co-ordinate system;
(c) a description of the proposed activity, including: (i) all listed and specified activities triggered and being applied for; (ii) the project type; (iii) a description of the activities to be undertaken and for a linear activity, a description of the route of the activity; and (iv) the sector classification of the activity as identified in the national electronic register;
Section 3
(d) the need and desirability for the proposed activity; Section 2.2
(e) The activity context and environmental factors, including: (i) an identification of all legislation, policies, plans, guidelines, spatial tools, municipal development planning frameworks and instruments that are applicable to the activity and have been considered in the preparation of the scoping report; and
(ii) how the proposed activity complies with and responds to the legislation and policy context, plans, guidelines, tools frameworks and instruments;
Section 3
(f) the process followed to reach the proposed preferred site including:
(i) details of the sites considered, including maps and coordinates; (ii) details of the public participation process undertaken at each of the sites in terms of regulation 44 of these Regulations, including copies of the supporting documents and inputs; (iii) a summary of the issues raised by interested and affected parties, and an indication of the manner in which the issues were incorporated into the scoping document, or the reasons for not including them; (iv) the environmental attributes associated with the sites identified focusing on the geographical, physical, biological, social, economic and cultural aspects; (v) the impacts identified including the significance, probability and duration of the impacts; (vi) the methodology used in determining the significance of potential environmental impacts and risks; (vii) description of the advantages and disadvantages that the proposed activity and alternatives will have on the environment and on the community that may be affected; (viii) the possible mitigation measure that could be applied and level of residual risk; (ix) the outcome of the site selection matrix;
Section 2.3
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 12
(x) if no alternatives sites were investigation, the motivation for not considering; alternative sites; and (xi) a statement motivating the preferred site;
(g) a map of the site considered for the development of the
activity and the location of the property on the site;
Figure 1
(h) the period for which the environmental authorisation is
required and the date on which the activity is concluded, and the
post construction monitoring requirements finalised;
Section 8
(i) where applicable, any specific information required by the
competent authority;
N/A
(j) a plan of study for undertaking the environmental impact assessment process to be undertaken on the preferred site, including: (i) a description of the alternatives to be considered and assessed, including the option of not proceeding with the activity; (ii) a description of the aspects to be assessed as part of the environmental impact assessment process; (iii) aspects to be assessed by specialists; (iv) a description of the proposed method of assessing the environmental aspects including a description of the proposed method of assessing alternatives including alternatives to be assessed by specialists; (v) a description of the proposed method of assessing significance; (vi) an indication of the stages at which the competent authority will be consulted; (vii) particulars of the public participation process that will be conducted during the environmental impact assessment process; and
(viii) a description of the tasks that will be undertaken as part of the environmental impact assessment process;
Section 7
(k) an undertaking under oath or affirmation by the EAP in relation to the level of agreement between the EAP and interested and affected parties on the plan of study for undertaking the environmental impact assessment; and
Chapter 8
(l) any other matter required in terms of sections 24(4)(a) and (b) of the Act.
None required at this stage
The need to comply with the requirements of the EIA Regulations ensures that decision-makers are provided
the opportunity to consider the potential environmental impacts of a project early in the project development
process, and assess if environmental impacts can be avoided, minimised or mitigated to acceptable levels.
Comprehensive, independent environmental studies are required to be undertaken in accordance with the EIA
Regulations to provide the competent authority with sufficient information in order for an informed decision to
be taken regarding the project.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 13
1.2 PURPOSE OF SCOPING REPORT
Scoping is an important part of the EIA process, as it helps to ensure that the impact assessment is appropriately
focussed. The purpose of the scoping process, through a consultative process, is to:
• Identify the policies and legislation that are relevant to the activity;
• To motivate the need and desirability of the proposed activity, including the need and desirability of
the activity in the context of the preferred location;
• To identify and confirm the preferred activity and technology alternative through an impact and risk
assessment and ranking;
• To identify and confirm the preferred site, through a detailed site selection process, which includes an
impact and risk assessment process including cumulative impacts and a ranking process of all the
identified alternatives focusing on the geographical, physical, biological, social, economic, and cultural
aspects of the environment;
• To identify the key issues to be addressed in the assessment phase;
• To engage with stakeholders at an early stage of the development so that they may contribute their
views with regards to the proposed project;
• To agree on the level of assessment to be undertaken, including the methodology to be applied, the
expertise required, as well as the extent of further consultation to be undertaken to determine the
impacts and risks the activity will impose on the preferred site through the life of the activity, including
the nature, significance, consequence, extent, duration and probability of the impacts to inform the
location of the development footprint within the preferred site;
• To identify potential impacts and suitable measures to avoid, manage, or mitigate identified impacts
and to determine the extent of the residual risks that need to be managed and monitored; and
• To describe the plan of study for the EIA.
1.3 DETAILS OF EAP
1.3.1 EXPERTISE OF THE EAP
Environmental Impact Management Services (Pty) Ltd (EIMS) has been appointed by Eskom to act as the
Independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) and to assist in preparing and submitting the EA
application, Scoping and EIA Reports, and undertaking a Public Participation Process (PPP) in support of the
application for Environmental Authorization, WUL and WML.
1.3.2 SUMMARY OF EAP CURRICULUM VITAE
EIMS is a private and independent environmental management-consulting firm that was founded in 1993. EIMS
has in excess of 20 years’ experience in conducting EIAs, including many EIA’s for mines and mining related
projects. Please refer to the EIMS website (www.eims.co.za) for examples of EIA documentation currently
available. The EAP’s responsible for preparing this Scoping Report are Mr Bongani Khupe (Project Manager) and
Mr John von Mayer (Senior Consultant). Brief details of their expertise and experience are presented below.
John von Mayer is a registered Professional Natural Scientist who holds a Bachelor of Science Honours degree
and has over 9 years’ experience in the environmental field. His main focus is on environmental impact
assessments, environmental management programmes, environmental compliance and monitoring, the
identification of environmental management solutions and mitigation/risk minimising measures as well as
providing technical input for projects in the environmental management field. He has been involved as an EAP
in a number of large-scale infrastructure projects and EIAs throughout South Africa.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 14
Mr. Bongani Khupe is a registered Professional Natural Scientist who holds a Bachelor of Science Honours
degree and has more than 10 years’ experience in the environmental field. His key focus is on environmental
impact assessments, environmental permitting, public participation, environmental management plans and
programmes, strategic environmental advice, rehabilitation advice and monitoring, environmental compliance
advice and monitoring as well as providing technical input for projects in the environmental management field.
He has been involved as an EAP in several infrastructure projects and other EIAs across the country. He is a
trained Environmental Auditor and his training included all aspects of Environmental Auditing as well as EMS
auditing in terms of ISO14001. Mr Khupe is therefore registered as an Associate Environmental Auditor with the
Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA).
1.4 SPECIALIST CONSULTANTS
A number of specialist studies were undertaken to address the key issues that required further investigation.
The specialist studies involved the gathering of data relevant to identifying and assessing environmental impacts
that may occur as a result of the proposed project. These impacts were then assessed according to pre-defined
rating scales (see Section 7 for the impact rating methodology). Specialists also recommended appropriate
mitigation/management measures to minimise potential negative impacts or enhance potential benefits,
respectively. The specialists appointed for the proposed Arnot Ash Disposal Facility project are indicated in Table
2.
Table 2: List of specialists appointed to the project
Component Company Responsible
Engineering Design BEAL
Waste Classification Specialists GCS WATER AND ENVIRONMENT
Terrestrial Ecology Specialists DAVID HOARE CONSULTING
Wetland and Aquatic Ecology ECOTONE FRESHWATER CONSULTANTS
Ground and Surface Water GCS WATER AND ENVIRONMENT
Heritage PGS HERITAGE
Air Quality AIRSHED
Visual Impact NEWTOWN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Agricultural THE BIODIVERSITY COMPANY
Noise (EIA Phase Only) ENVIRO ACOUSTIC RESEARCH
Geotechnical Study (EIA Phase only) BEAL
Traffic Impact Assessment (EIA Phase only) BEAL
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 15
1.5 DETAILS OF THE APPLICANT
The details of the applicant are given in Table 3.
Table 3: Applicant details
Project Application: Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd
Registration no: 6603060573081
Responsible Person: Ms Deidre Herbst (Eskom Environmental Manager)
Physical address: Megawatt Park, Maxwell Drive, Sunninghill, Sandton, Johannesburg, 2157
Postal address: PO Box 1091, Johannesburg, 2000
Email: [email protected]
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 16
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 LOCATION
2.1.1 REGIONAL SETTING
The two alternative sites (Site Alternative 1 and 2), are located south of Rietkruil in the Mpumalanga province.
The general topography of the three sites slope in a northerly direction towards the Perennial Rietkuilspruit
River. The Perennial Rietkuilspruit River flows in a westerly direction and flows within the 1km buffer zones of
Alternative 1 and 2. Several other non-perennial rivers are located within and surrounding the 1km buffer zones
as well as small isolated dams/pans.
The project is located in the Eastern Highveld Grassland vegetation unit. This vegetation unit is characterised by
lightly to moderately undulating plains which includes some low hills, pan depressions and rocky outcrops. The
vegetation is short dense grassland dominated by a highveld grass composition (Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C.
(eds), 2006). The sites are underlain by the Ecca Formation of the Karoo Supergroup. The formation consists of
shale, shaly sandstone, grit, sandstone and conglomerate. Coal occurs in places near the base and top of the
Formation.
The landuse within the region consists of farmsteads that are spread out through the site and surroundings and
a more formal residential area associated with town of Arnot / Rietkuil. The agricultural activities are a
combination of open grassland (grazing veld) and crop production (maize) and are mostly located towards the
east of the R104.
There are coal mining activities within the study area and includes the existing Eskom Arnot Power Station,
Boschmanspoort Mine, Kwagga Coal Mine Zevenfontein Coal Mine, Amstaerdam and Rietkuil Coal Mine. The
Pullenshope Coal Mine and Eskom Hendrina Power Station are located outside the study area, approximately
15km from Site Alternative 2. The mining activities are all located to the west of the R104, except for the Eskom
Arnot Power Station which is located to the north of the project site and east of the R104.
2.1.2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Two alternative sites have been identified for investigation in Scoping, one site will be taken into the EIA phase
for detailed investigation. Table 4 below lists the farm portions potentially affected by each alternative.
Table 4: List of affected properties for each alternative
Potentially Affected Farm Portions
Alternative
1
Schoonoord 164 IS: 28/164, 22/164, 6/164, 10/164, 19/164, 9/164, 5/164, 4/164, 3/164, 1/164, 11/164; and
Rietkuil 491 JS: 3/491, 27/491.
Alternative
2
Schoonoord 164 IS: 28/164, 22/164, 10/164;
Rietkuil 491 JS: 27/491, 32/491, RE/24/491;
Nooitgedacht 493 JS: 9/493, 4/493; and
Vlakfontein 166 IS: 1/166, 2/166, 5/166, 6/166, 15/166, 166.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 17
2.1.3 LOCALITY MAP
Figure 1 overleaf indicates the locality of the two 120ha alternative sites proposed for the Arnot Ash Disposal
Facility project. It is expected that minor adjustments to the site locations may still occur prior to the start of the
EIA, therefore each site also includes a 1km buffer zone area. Specialists were asked to consider the entire area
for each site, including the buffer zone, when investigating the sites.
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY
2.2.1 NEED AND DESIRABILITY OF THE PROJECT
The ash complex was designed to operate until the original end of the station life in 2021. This date has been
revised to 2032. An ashing capacity study showed that the rate of rise of the ashing complex will be more than
4m by the year 2026. Arnot is in need of a new ashing facilities in order to reduce this rate of rise to an acceptable
rate. It was recommended that the new facility should be 80ha – 120ha in size in order to provide Arnot Power
Station with the capacity to dispose all of the ash it produces as part of its operation from 2026 until the end of
station life in 2032.
If Eskom is to meet its mandate and commitment to supply the ever-increasing needs of end-users in South
Africa, one of Eskom’s options is to extend the life of its infrastructure of generation capacity and transmission
and distribution powerlines. This expansion includes not only the building new power stations but also
expanding and upgrading existing power stations to ensure that the operating life of the power stations can be
extended. Table 5 present the needs and desirability analysis undertaken for the Arnot ADF project.
Table 5: Needs and desirability analysis for the Arnot ADF
Ref # Question Answer
1 Securing ecological sustainable development and use of natural resources
1.1 How were the ecological integrity considerations considered in terms of: Threatened Ecosystems, Sensitive and vulnerable ecosystems, Critical Biodiversity Areas, Ecological Support Systems, Conservation Targets, Ecological drivers of the ecosystem, Environmental Management Framework, Spatial Development Framework (SDF) and global and international responsibilities.
The following specialist studies are being conducted:
• Biodiversity and wetland study;
• Hydrological;
• Hydrogeological study;
• Soil study;
• Traffic study (EIA only)
• Noise study (EIA only)
• Geotechnical study;
• Heritage and paleontological study.;
• Wetlands Study; and
• Visual Study.
The conclusions of these studies, and the identified impacts and mitigation measures stemming there from will be included in the EIA and EMPr. The need of the project in terms of the Nkangala District Municipal SDF will also be further considered in the EIA and EMPr.
1.2 How will this project disturb or enhance ecosystems and / or result in the loss or protection of biological diversity? What measures were explored to avoid these negative impacts, and where these negative impacts could not be avoided altogether, what measures were explored to minimise and remedy the impacts? What measures were explored to enhance positive impacts?
Refer to baseline ecological information in Section 5, and the impact assessment and mitigation measures in Section 6 of this Scoping Report. These sections will be further expanded in the EIA and EMPr, with the addition of specialist studies.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 18
1.3 How will this development pollute and / or degrade the biophysical environment? What measures were explored to either avoid these impacts, and where impacts could not be avoided altogether, what measures were explored to minimise and remedy the impacts? What measures were explored to enhance positive impacts?
1.4 What waste will be generated by this development? What measures were explored to avoid waste, and where waste could not be avoided altogether, what measures were explored to minimise, reuse and / or recycle the waste? What measures have been explored to safely treat and/or dispose of unavoidable waste?
Refer to Section 2 of this Scoping Report. This aspect will be further explored in the EIA and EMPr
1.5 How will this project disturb or enhance landscapes and / or sites that constitute the nation’s cultural heritage? What measures were explored to firstly avoid these impacts, and where impacts could not be avoided altogether, what measures were explored to minimise and remedy the impacts? What measures were explored to enhance positive impacts?
A Heritage and paleontological specialist has been appointed to conduct a Phase 1 Heritage impact assessment and a paleontological study, the results of this study will be made available in the EIA and EMPr.
1.6 How will this project use and / or impact on non-renewable natural resources? What measures were explored to ensure responsible and equitable use of the resources? How have the consequences of the depletion of the non-renewable natural resources been considered? What measures were explored to firstly avoid these impacts, and where impacts could not be avoided altogether, what measures were explored to minimise and remedy the impacts? What measures were explored to enhance positive impacts?
Refer to the impact assessment and mitigation methods in Section 6 of this Scoping Report. Apart from soil / farmlands, no non-renewable resource will be directly depleted as a result of the project.
1.7 How will this project use and / or impact on renewable natural resources and the ecosystem of which they are part? Will the use of the resources and / or impacts on the ecosystem jeopardize the integrity of the resource and / or system taking into account carrying capacity restrictions, limits of acceptable change, and thresholds? What measures were explored to firstly avoid the use of resources, or if avoidance is not possible, to minimise the use of resources? What measures were taken to ensure responsible and equitable use of the resources? What measures were explored to enhance positive impacts?
Refer to the impact assessment and mitigation methods in Section 6 of this Scoping Report.
1.7.1 Does the proposed project exacerbate the increased dependency on increased use of resources to maintain economic growth or does it reduce resource dependency (i.e. de-materialised growth)?
The power station is existing. The project will allow the power station to extend its operational lifespan.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 19
1.7.2 Does the proposed use of natural resources constitute the best use thereof? Is the use justifiable when considering intra- and intergenerational equity, and are there more important priorities for which the resources should be used?
The power station is existing. The project will allow the power station to extend its operational lifespan. There will be some impacts on natural resources. Refer to the impact assessment and mitigation methods in Section 6 of this Scoping Report.
1.7.3 Do the proposed location, type and scale of development promote a reduced dependency on resources?
The power station is existing. The project will allow the power station to extend its operational lifespan which would reduce dependency on resources associated with a new coal-fired power station however the dependency on resources associated with the existing power station would continue for at least another 15 years.
1.8 How were a risk-averse and cautious approach applied in terms of ecological impacts:
1.8.1 What are the limits of current knowledge (note: the gaps, uncertainties and assumptions must be clearly stated)?
In terms of the ecological impacts, the current knowledge gaps include:
• Detailed and site-specific background information regarding some of the environmental aspects is not yet available however, the outstanding information will be generated through the identified specialist studies identified in Section 9.
• While the expected potentially significant impacts have been preliminarily identified as part of this Scoping Process, the impacts on all environmental aspects will be explored in more detail and quantified wherever possible during the EIA Phase.
• The mitigation measures associated with the impacts need to still be determined.
1.8.2 What is the level of risk associated with the limits of current knowledge?
The level of risk is low as previous specialist studies have been conducted in the areas surrounding the proposed project location, and therefore some information is already available.
1.8.3 Based on the limits of knowledge and the level of risk, how and to what extent was a risk-averse and cautious approach applied to the development?
A prefeasibility study was conducted to take a least risk approach in selecting suitable site for consideration in the scoping and EIA process
1.9 How will the ecological impacts resulting from this development impact on people’s environmental right in terms following?
1.9.1 Negative impacts: e.g. access to resources, opportunity costs, loss of amenity (e.g. open space), air and water quality impacts, nuisance (noise, odour, etc.), health impacts, visual impacts, etc. What measures were taken to firstly avoid negative impacts, but if avoidance is not possible, to minimise, manage and remedy negative impacts?
Refer to the impact assessment and mitigation measures in Section 6 in this Scoping Report. This aspect will be further explored in the EIA and EMPr.
1.9.2 Positive impacts: e.g. improved access to resources, improved amenity, improved air or water quality, etc. What measures were taken to enhance positive impacts?
1.10 Describe the linkages and dependencies between human wellbeing, livelihoods and
Refer to the impact assessment and mitigation measures in Section 6 in this Scoping Report.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 20
ecosystem services applicable to the area in question and how the development’s ecological impacts will result in socio-economic impacts (e.g. on livelihoods, loss of heritage site, opportunity costs, etc.)?
This aspect will be further explored in the EIA and EMPr.
1.11 Based on all of the above, how will this development positively or negatively impact on ecological integrity objectives / targets / considerations of the area?
Refer to the impact assessment and mitigation measures in Section 6 in this Scoping Report. This aspect will be further explored in the EIA and EMPr.
1.12 Considering the need to secure ecological integrity and a healthy biophysical environment, describe how the alternatives identified (in terms of all the different elements of the development and all the different impacts being proposed), resulted in the selection of the “best practicable environmental option” in terms of ecological considerations?
Refer to Section 7, details of the alternatives considered, and Section 5 the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed activity, of this Scoping Report. This aspect will be further explored in the EIA and EMPr.
1.13 Describe the positive and negative cumulative ecological / biophysical impacts bearing in mind the size, scale, scope and nature of the project in relation to its location and existing and other planned developments in the area?
Refer to Section 9 of this Scoping Report. This aspect will be further explored in the EIA and EMPr
2 Promoting justifiable economic and social development
2.1 What is the socio-economic context of the area, based on, amongst other considerations, the following:
2.1.1 The IDP (and its sector plans' vision, objectives, strategies, indicators and targets) and any other strategic plans, frameworks or policies applicable to the area,
The Steve Tshwete Local Municipality Integrated Development Plan (IDP) for the period of 2017 – 2022 describes the largest employing industries in Steve Tshwete as trade (including industries such as tourism), community/government services and mining. The unemployment rate for 2015 was 21%.
The proposed ADF will extend the lifespan of the power station, thus allowing Eskom to continue supplying jobs at that power station for a longer time period. The surrounding communities will also continue to benefit through direct and indirect income; as well as the power station’s use of local contractors and suppliers.
2.1.2 Spatial priorities and desired spatial patterns (e.g. need for integrated of segregated communities, need to upgrade informal settlements, need for densification, etc.),
The power station will make use of labourers from the local community as far as possible.
2.1.3 Spatial characteristics (e.g. existing land uses, planned land uses, cultural landscapes, etc.), and
Refer to the baseline environment in Section 5 of this Scoping Report.
2.1.4 Municipal Economic Development Strategy ("LED Strategy").
The proposed project will promote and support the sustainability of existing business; and assist in increasing local beneficiation and shared economic growth, through extending the life of the power station.
2.2 Considering the socio-economic context, what will the socio-economic impacts be of the development (and its separate
Refer to the impact assessment and mitigation measures in Section 6 in this Scoping Report.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 21
elements/aspects), and specifically also on the socio-economic objectives of the area?
This aspect will be further explored in the EIA and EMPr.
2.2.1 Will the development complement the local socio-economic initiatives (such as local economic development (LED) initiatives), or skills development programs?
The proposed project will increase the lifespan of the power station - this will complement the local socio-economic initiatives identified for the area.
2.3 How will this development address the specific physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and social needs and interests of the relevant communities?
Refer to the proposed public participation process in Section 4 of this Scoping Report. This aspect will be further explored in the EIA and EMPr.
2.4 Will the development result in equitable (intra- and inter-generational) impact distribution, in the short- and long term? Will the impact be socially and economically sustainable in the short- and long-term?
Refer to the impact assessment and mitigation measures in Section 6 of this Scoping Report. This aspect will be further explored in the EIA and EMPr.
2.5 In terms of location, describe how the placement of the proposed development will:
2.5.1 Result in the creation of residential and employment opportunities in close proximity to or integrated with each other.
Refer to Section 2 and Section 7, details of alternatives considered in this Scoping Report.
2.5.2 Reduce the need for transport of people and goods.
2.5.3 Result in access to public transport or enable non-motorized and pedestrian transport (e.g. will the development result in densification and the achievement of thresholds in terms public transport),
2.5.4 Compliment other uses in the area, Refer to item 1.3 of this table (above).
2.5.5 Be in line with the planning for the area. Refer to item 2.2.1 of this table (above).
2.5.6 For urban related development, make use of underutilised land available with the urban edge.
Not applicable.
2.5.7 Optimise the use of existing resources and infrastructure,
Refer to Chapter 2 of this scoping report
2.5.8 Opportunity costs in terms of bulk infrastructure expansions in non-priority areas (e.g. not aligned with the bulk infrastructure planning for the settlement that reflects the spatial reconstruction priorities of the settlement),
2.5.9 Discourage "urban sprawl" and contribute to compaction / densification.
The proposed project will result in the continued employment of workers. Influx of additional workers to the area as a direct result of the proposed project is not anticipated.
2.5.10 Contribute to the correction of the historically distorted spatial patterns of settlements and to the optimum use of existing infrastructure in excess of current needs,
Refer to items 2.5.7 – 2.5.9 of this table (above).
2.5.11 Encourage environmentally sustainable land development practices and processes
The proposed end land use will be developed in order to be environmentally sustainable in the long term.
2.5.12 Take into account special locational factors that might favour the specific location (e.g. the location of a strategic mineral resource, access to the port, access to rail, etc.),
Refer to item 1.7.3 of this table (above).
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 22
2.5.13 The investment in the settlement or area in question will generate the highest socio-economic returns (i.e. an area with high economic potential).
The proposed project will allow the power station to continue contributing to the local, regional and national Gross Domestic Product (GDPs), and also on the local communities through continued employment of employees and local contractors, as well as other influences that the power station has on local communities in the area.
2.5.14 Impact on the sense of history, sense of place and heritage of the area and the socio-cultural and cultural-historic characteristics and sensitivities of the area, and
Refer to impact assessment and mitigation measures in Section 6 of this Scoping Report.
2.5.15 In terms of the nature, scale and location of the development promote or act as a catalyst to create a more integrated settlement?
The proposed project will ensure continued employment in the region.
2.6 How was a risk-averse and cautious approach applied in terms of socio-economic impacts?
2.6.1 What are the limits of current knowledge (note: the gaps, uncertainties and assumptions must be clearly stated)?
Refer to Section 6.2 of this scoping report
2.6.2 What is the level of risk (note: related to inequality, social fabric, livelihoods, vulnerable communities, critical resources, economic vulnerability and sustainability) associated with the limits of current knowledge?
The level of risk is low as the project is not expected to have far reaching impacts on socio-economic conditions.
2.6.3 Based on the limits of knowledge and the level of risk, how and to what extent was a risk-averse and cautious approach applied to the development?
The EIA and impact assessment methodology implements a risk averse approach to addressing and mitigating any potential impacts.
2.7 How will the socio-economic impacts resulting from this development impact on people's environmental right in terms following:
2.7.1 Negative impacts: e.g. health (e.g. HIV-Aids), safety, social ills, etc. What measures were taken to firstly avoid negative impacts, but if avoidance is not possible, to minimise, manage and remedy negative impacts?
This aspect will be further explored in the EIA and EMPr.
2.7.2 Positive impacts. What measures were taken to enhance positive impacts?
Refer to the impact assessment and mitigation measures in Section 6 of this Scoping Report. This aspect will be further explored in the EIA and EMPr.
2.8 Considering the linkages and dependencies between human wellbeing, livelihoods and ecosystem services, describe the linkages and dependencies applicable to the area in question and how the development's socioeconomic impacts will result in ecological impacts (e.g. over utilisation of natural resources, etc.)?
Refer to the impact assessment and mitigation measures in Section 6 of this Scoping Report. This aspect will be further explored in the EIA and EMPr.
2.9 What measures were taken to pursue the selection of the "best practicable environmental option" in terms of socio-economic considerations?
Refer to the impact assessment and mitigation measures in Section 6 of this Scoping Report. This aspect will be further explored in the EIA and EMPr.
2.10 What measures were taken to pursue environmental justice so that adverse environmental impacts shall not be distributed in such a manner as to unfairly discriminate against any person, particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged persons (who are the
Refer to the impact assessment and mitigation measures in Section 6 of this Scoping Report.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 23
beneficiaries and is the development located appropriately)? Considering the need for social equity and justice, do the alternatives identified, allow the "best practicable environmental option" to be selected, or is there a need for other alternatives to be considered?
2.11 What measures were taken to pursue equitable access to environmental resources, benefits and services to meet basic human needs and ensure human wellbeing, and what special measures were taken to ensure access thereto by categories of persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination?
By conducting a Scoping and EIA Process, the applicant ensures that equitable access has been considered. Refer to the impact assessment and mitigation measures in Section 6 of this Scoping Report. This aspect will be further explored in the EIA and EMPr.
2.12 What measures were taken to ensure that the responsibility for the environmental health and safety consequences of the development has been addressed throughout the development's life cycle?
Refer to the impact assessment and mitigation measures in Section 6 of this Scoping Report. The EIA and EMPr will specify timeframes within which mitigation measures must be implemented.
2.13 What measures were taken to:
2.13.1 Ensure the participation of all interested and affected parties.
Refer to Section 4 of this Scoping Report, describing the public participation process to be implemented for the proposed project.
2.13.2 Provide all people with an opportunity to develop the understanding, skills and capacity necessary for achieving equitable and effective participation,
Refer to Section 4 of this Scoping Report, describing the public participation process to be implemented for the proposed project. The advertisement and site notice will be made available in English and Afrikaans to assist in understanding of the project. Public meetings are also planned to be held in the scoping and EIA phases of the project.
2.13.3 Ensure participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged persons,
2.13.4 Promote community wellbeing and empowerment through environmental education, the raising of environmental awareness, the sharing of knowledge and experience and other appropriate means,
2.13.5 Ensure openness and transparency, and access to information in terms of the process,
2.13.6 Ensure that the interests, needs and values of all interested and affected parties were taken into account, and that adequate recognition were given to all forms of knowledge, including traditional and ordinary knowledge,
2.13.7 Ensure that the vital role of women and youth in environmental management and development were recognized and their full participation therein will be promoted?
2.14 Considering the interests, needs and values of all the interested and affected parties, describe how the development will allow for opportunities for all the segments of the community (e.g. a mixture of low-, middle-, and high-income housing opportunities) that is consistent with the priority needs of the local area (or that is proportional to the needs of an area)?
Refer to Section 4 of this Scoping Report, describing the public participation process to be implemented for the proposed project. This aspect will be further explored in the EIA and EMPr.
2.15 What measures have been taken to ensure that current and / or future workers will be
Workers will be educated on a regular basis as to the environmental risks that may occur
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 24
informed of work that potentially might be harmful to human health or the environment or of dangers associated with the work, and what measures have been taken to ensure that the right of workers to refuse such work will be respected and protected?
within their work environment, adequate measures have been taken to ensure that the appropriate personal protective equipment is issued to workers based on the areas that they work and the requirements of their job.
2.16 Describe how the development will impact on job creation in terms of, amongst other aspects:
2.16.1 The number of temporary versus permanent jobs that will be created.
It is not anticipated that any new jobs will be created during operation; rather, existing jobs will be maintained for a longer period of time. Some jobs will be created during construction – more detail will be provided in the EIA phase.
2.16.2 Whether the labour available in the area will be able to take up the job opportunities (i.e. do the required skills match the skills available in the area).
2.16.3 The distance from where labourers will have to travel.
2.16.4 The location of jobs opportunities versus the location of impacts.
It is not anticipated that any new jobs will be created during operation; rather, existing jobs will be maintained for a longer period of time. Some jobs will be created during construction – more detail will be provided in the EIA phase.
2.16.5 The opportunity costs in terms of job creation.
2.17 What measures were taken to ensure:
2.17.1 That there were intergovernmental coordination and harmonisation of policies, legislation and actions relating to the environment.
The Scoping and EIA Process requires governmental departments to communicate regarding any application. In addition, all relevant departments will be notified of the project by the EAP. 2.17.2 That actual or potential conflicts of interest
between organs of state were resolved through conflict resolution procedures.
2.18 What measures were taken to ensure that the environment will be held in public trust for the people, that the beneficial use of environmental resources will serve the public interest, and that the environment will be protected as the people's common heritage?
Refer to Section 4 of this Scoping Report, describing the public participation process to be implemented for the proposed project.
2.19 Are the mitigation measures proposed realistic and what long-term environmental legacy and managed burden will be left?
Refer to the impact assessment and mitigation measures in Section 6 of the Scoping Report. This aspect will be further explored in the EIA and EMPr.
2.20 What measures were taken to ensure that the costs of remedying pollution, environmental degradation and consequent adverse health effects and of preventing, controlling or minimising further pollution, environmental damage or adverse health effects will be paid for by those responsible for harming the environment?
The EIA EMPR will include reasonable, feasible
and achievable mitigation measures in this
regard.
2.21 Considering the need to secure ecological integrity and a healthy bio-physical environment, describe how the alternatives identified (in terms of all the different elements of the development and all the different impacts being proposed), resulted in the selection of the best practicable environmental option in terms of socio-economic considerations?
Refer to Section 2 and Section 7, description of the process followed to reach the proposed preferred site, of the Scoping Report. This aspect will be further explored in the EIA and EMPr.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 25
2.22 Describe the positive and negative cumulative socio-economic impacts bearing in mind the size, scale, scope and nature of the project in relation to its location and other planned developments in the area?
This aspect will be further explored in the EIA and EMPr.
2.2.2 PERIOD FOR WHICH AUTHORIZATION IS REQUIRED
The ash complex was designed to operate until the original end of the station life in 2021. This date has been
revised to 2032. Therefore, the authorisation will be required until 2032.
2.2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The coal-fired power generation process produces large quantities of ash, which is disposed of in ash dumps and
dams. Eskom uses coal of a low grade (called middlings coal) which produces a larger mass of ash during
combustion. The higher-grade coal in South Africa predominantly serves the export market. Eskom uses either
wet or dry methods of ash disposal. Both utilise effluent water or wastewater, which is the end product of the
cascading water re-use process. Wet ash disposal, utilized at the Arnot site, entails the hydraulic conveyance of
ash, while dry ash disposal entails the conveyance of partially moistened ash on conveyer belts. The proposed
facility will be a wet ashing facility.
The proposed Ash Disposal Facility will also have the following associated infrastructure:
• Access roads for operations and maintenance;
• Drainage channels for clean and dirty water;
• Ash Water Return Dams;
• Lining for the New Ash Disposal Facility;
• Emergency ash offloading area;
• Pipelines for transportation of wet ash and water to and from the ash disposal facility;
• Pumping capacity;
• Sanitation services and Offices;
• Storm Water Drainage and Groundwater Monitoring Boreholes; and
• Fencing and access control.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 26
Figure 1: Locality Map indicating two alternative sites nominated for consideration in scoping
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 27
2.2.3.1 INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ACCESS ROADS
Access roads will be established, initially to allow for construction vehicles, but some of these roads may be
retained, but reduced, post construction to allow for maintenance of the facility. The location of these access
roads has not yet been determined and will form part of the next phase of assessment.
2.2.3.2 CLEAN AND DIRTY WATER SYSTEM (ASH WATER RETURN DAMS AND TRENCHES / DRAINS)
A clean and dirty water separation system will be designed for the facility. Dirty storm water from the facility
will be collected and channelled to a dirty water return dam, from where it will be pumped for re-use. The
capacity requirements will be determined by an engineering investigation that will be undertaken during the EIA
phase. Clean water cut-off canals/trenches/drains will be established to divert clean water back into the natural
environment.
2.2.3.3 ASH WATER RETURN DAMS
A wet-ashing system is utilized at Arnot power station. The new ash disposal facility will utilise effluent water or
wastewater, which is the end product of the cascading water re-use process. Wet ash disposal entails the
hydraulic conveyance of ash and an ash water return dam is therefore required for this purpose. More detailed
specifications will be provided in the EIA report.
2.2.3.4 LINING FOR THE NEW ASH DISPOSAL FACILITY
Coal ash is considered a pollutant to ground water. The Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) does not
allow storage of this bi-product without ensuring the area is protected against contaminated water seepage into
the environment. A durable composite liner system will be designed that will ensure the safety of the
surrounding ground water. More detailed specifications will be provided in the EIA report. A suite of regulations
as well as norms and standards, aimed at the classification and disposal of waste, was published in Government
Notice No. R.6349, R.63510 and R.63611 under Section 63 of the NEM:WA (2008). The aforementioned
regulations as well as norms and standards informed the classification and assessment of the ash (i.e. waste) to
determine the mandatory method of disposal. In accordance with the provisions of Government Notice No.
R.635 the proposed Continuous ADF facility will include an appropriate barrier system.
2.2.3.5 EMERGENCY ASH OFFLOADING AREA
This is a concrete slab area that is used to accommodate ash that has been offloaded in case of an emergency.
The current ash disposal facility has an existing emergency ash offloading area of 900m2; this needs to be
extended by 4680m2 to a total area of 5580m2.
2.2.3.6 PIPELINES
A network of pipelines will be installed to, amongst others: transport water to and from the return water dam
and the power station; transport potable water; transport water for dust suppression; and to transport water
collected from the waste facility to the return water dam.
2.2.3.7 FENCING AND ACCESS CONTROL
It is envisaged that fencing will be required for security reasons. In order to ensure controlled access and to
prevent illegal dumping, the site will require access control through a security guard. This person will also
contribute to site safety.
2.2.3.8 STORM WATER DRAINAGE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING BOREHOLES
As part of the site design, ongoing monitoring of the site storm water drainage features will be undertaken, and
additional groundwater monitoring boreholes will be installed for monitoring. As part of the conceptual designs
a storm water management plan will be developed to ensure that storm water is adequately addressed
2.2.3.9 FOOTPRINT AND LIFESPAN
The ashing facility will cover an area of up to 120ha and is expected to allow operation of the power station for
at least another 15 years or until the power station is decommissioned.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 28
2.2.3.10 CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, REHABILITATION AND DECOMMISSIONING
Once authorized the detailed design phase will commence. This is expected to take 6 months. The construction
phase is then expected to take 2 years to complete.
The operating life of the ash disposal facility will be approximately 15 years. During operations ash will be mixed
with water, stored in dams and ultimately transported via pipelines to the approved facility. Management
activities at the facility will include dust suppression and, once a stable stack has been reached, re-vegetation of
the stable areas can commence.
During closure the proposed ash disposal facility will be capped and rehabilitated. Some re-vegetation will be
undertaken over the life of the facility. More detailed information on the capping and closure of the facility will
be generated in the EIA phase of the project. The ash dump will be rehabilitated progressively. Areas where final
shaping and levelling of the ash have been completed are topsoiled immediately and rehabilitated as soon as
possible. The ash dump will be covered daily with a layer of soil/sandy material while the final rehabilitation
cover consists of topsoil material with seeding for grass and the manual planting of trees.
Detailed specifications for the above infrastructure has not been determined at this stage because it is
dependent on the site that is finally chosen for the establishment of the ash disposal facility as well as the
conceptual design which is currently being completed. More detail will be included in the EIA phase report.
2.3 ALTERNATIVES
The identification of alternatives is a key aspect of the success of the EIA process. All reasonable and feasible
alternatives must be identified and assessed to determine the most suitable alternatives for the proposed
project. There are however some significant constraints that have to be taken into account when identifying
alternatives for a project of this scope. Such constraints include financial, social, and environment related issues.
Alternatives can typically be identified according to:
• Activity alternatives;
• Location alternatives;
• Design and layout alternatives;
• Technological alternatives;
• The No-Action alternative (No-Go).
For any alternative to be considered feasible such an alternative must meet the need and purposes of the
development proposal without presenting significantly high associated impacts. The remainder of this section
briefly describes the alternatives which were considered viable and feasible for this project as well as reasons
why some will not be assessed in the EIA Phase.
Alternatives can also be distinguished into discrete or incremental alternatives. Discrete alternatives are overall
development options, which are typically identified during the pre-feasibility, feasibility and or scoping phases
of the EIA process. Incremental alternatives typically arise during the EIA process and are usually suggested as a
means of addressing identified impacts. These alternatives are closely linked to the identification of mitigation
measures and are not specifically identified as distinct alternatives.
2.3.1 NO GO ALTERNATIVE
The National Integrated Resource Plan 2016 (IRP) developed by the Department of Energy has identified the
need for power generation from coal as part of the technology mix for power generation in the country in the
next 20 years. In order for the Arnot power station to continue to produce power, a new ashing facility is
required to provide additional capacity. The 'do nothing' option will not address this need and will result in
reduced power generation activities at the power station and a reduction in the power stations lifespan.
This alternative will imply that no ash dump facility is constructed, and that the environment remains unchanged
and unaltered. This alternative will be investigated further in the EIA phase.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 29
2.3.2 LOCATION ALTERNATIVES
In order to identify a potential site for the proposed facility a screening and site selection exercise was conducted
which culminated in the compilation of a site Selection Report (Appendix L). This screening study was completed
in February 2018. This site selection exercise was initially based on a GIS mapping process in order select sites
for further consideration in an EIA process. All the specialist input layers were combined into the sensitivity
analysis. Engineering and other site selection constraints are then overlaid to indicate preliminary suitable sites.
Further refinement to the potential suitable sites was done in order to determine:
• Feasible alternative sites to be investigated in more detail (5 sites)
• Preferred alternative sites for investigation in the Scoping Phase (3 sites)
Figure 2 below gives a graphic representation of the steps that we followed during the screening/site selection
process that was followed to identify the 3 preferred alternative sites being considered in this report.
Figure 2: Flow diagram of the screening process.
The sensitivity mapping approach is based on a desktop study and GIS study with numerus specialist inputs. The
GIS was tasked with identifying suitable sites of up to 120 hectares in extent. The sensitivity mapping process is
described by the flow diagram below:
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 30
Figure 3: Illustration of GIS Mapping Methodology
The following eight environmental constraints were mapped with the input from the various specialists.
• Air quality in the study area and distance from receptors;
• Aquatic sensitivity in the study area;
• Ecological sensitivity in the study area;
• Heritage and palaeontological sensitivities in the study area;
• Sensitive hydrological features in the study area;
• Surface hydrology and related formal protected areas within study area; and
• Areas preferred from a visual perspective within the study area;
Based on the environmental sensitivity mapping approximately 15 potential sites were identified. However,
after considering information on existing Eskom infrastructure this number was reduced to 6. Once information
was obtained from DMR regarding undermining in the study area, this reduced the number of least risk sites
from 6 to 5.
A site visit with the specialist team and engineers to the remaining five: “least-risk” sites was conducted on 23
November 2016. The five sites were ground-truthed by the specialist team consisting of the ecologist,
hydrologist, groundwater specialist, the engineering and design team and the geotechnical engineers as well as
two representatives from EIMS. The remaining specialist input was based on desktop assessments of the sites.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 31
Based on the space requirements, several 80ha and 120 sites were identified for screening. The combined results
from the environmental and engineering constraints mapping reduced the number of preferred 80ha sites to six
(6) and the number of preferred 120ha sites to three (3). These sites were identified as being of least risk for the
development of the ash disposal facility. Potential alternative sites were further refined based on a desktop
study in order to identify screened alternatives which are to be further assessed by specialists on-site.
Figure 4: Final screened 80ha alternatives
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 32
Figure 5: Final screened 80ha alternatives
Placement of ash waste into existing surface excavations is also not considered a viable option due to the fact
that the ash waste will most probably become water logged and saturated. The resultant mix of material will
have a very low shear strength and will be highly unstable.
These alternatives are discussed in more detail within this scoping report. Site Alternative 1 (120ha option) and
Site Alternative 2 (120ha option) were nominated as the most preferred options for consideration in a scoping
and EIA process. The main reasons for the rankings are listed below:
• Potential undermining at Alternative 4 (80ha site) and Alternative 3 (120ha site) could be a fatal flaw
and should be investigated if this option is considered further (or alternatively these sites should be
excluded going forward);
• A portion of the 1km radius for Site Alternative 3 (120ha option) and Alternative 4 (80ha option) is
situated within a Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area and a highly significant aquatic biodiversity sub-
catchment based on the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan. This alternative has the highest
extent of temporal/seasonal and seasonal/permanent wetland areas;
• Site Alternative 4 (80ha) has the highest extent of temporary / seasonal and seasonal / permeant
wetland areas. Alternative 4 has a higher landcover associated with grassland when compared to the
other alternatives. Furthermore, this alternative is situated more than 3km from the existing Arnot ash
disposal facility will require more extensive supporting infrastructure which may have a greater impact
on the surrounding wetland areas.
• Alternative 3 and 4 (both 80ha and 120ha options) is situated upstream of the Grootpan, Leeuwpan,
Rietpan, Klippan and Blinkpan. Any spillages originating from the Alternative 4 would have a negative
effect on the downstream pans;
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 33
• All sites have wetland features within the 1 km buffer zone however Site Alternative 3 (80ha) also
contains wetland features within the current proposed ash disposal facility footprint area;
• Topographical arrangements at Site Alternative 3 (80ha) indicate a single low point (valley) which can
be beneficial to drainage but due to the upstream collection of water it is not recommended as large
water diversion structures will be required to eliminate the risk of water collecting to the east of the
proposed facility;
• Site Alternative 2 is located close to the existing ash disposal facility, therefore consolidating impacts
within a single area within the broad study area; and
• A large proportion of Site Alternative 2 is already transformed by cultivation.
2.3.3 TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES
The main technology alternative that could be implemented is dry ashing as opposed to the wet ashing facility
currently proposed. Dry ash disposal entails the conveyance of partially moistened ash on conveyer belts.
However, this option is not considered feasible for the Arnot power station. The New Ash Disposal Facility must
take into consideration the pumping constraints of the current ash plant. Existing wet ashing infrastructure
already exists for the power station and there are already three existing wet ash facilities at the power station.
Wet ashing technology is therefore the only feasible alternative from a technical and financial perspective.
Several other alternatives exist for ash disposal. The two main alternative options identified are:
• Underground backfill; and
• The expansion of existing ash disposal facilities.
These were both ruled out during feasibility studies. However, the opportunity for modular design and
expansion to accommodate future technological advances for the ash dump is being considered. Further detail
will be provided in the EIA report.
Furthermore there are two operational alternatives in terms of how the ADF is operated. These include:
• Parallel operation; and
• Series operation.
The parallel option involves operating the new ADF at the same time as the existing ADF. This may allow for a
slightly smaller footprint for the new ADF. Serial operation involves decommissioning of the current ADF first
and then operating the new ADF only once the existing ADF has been decommissioned. This will require a slightly
larger site for the new ADF but is much easier to operate since only one ADF will be operational at a time. Eskom
has conducted a pre-feasibility assessment on both options and series operation was nominated as the only
feasible option for operation of the ADF from a technical feasibility perspective.
2.3.4 ACTVITY ALTERNATIVES
No activity alternatives have considered. The ashing facility is required at the existing Arnot power station. The
current Ash disposal facility at Arnot Power Station has been providing disposal services since the establishment
of the station. This ash disposal site is facing challenges, which need to be addressed. The only way these
challenges can be addressed is for a new ash disposal facility to be constructed in the vicinity of the power
station. No other reasonable and feasible activity alternatives exist.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 34
3 POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
3.1 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION
A summary of the applicable legislation guiding the requirement to conduct this Environmental Application
process is provided in Table 6 below. The sections below furthermore provide an overview of the governing
legislation identified which relate to the proposed project.
Table 6: Applicable legislation
Applicable Legislation and
Guidelines
Reference Where Applied
Relevant Authority
How does this Development Comply with and Respond to the Legislation and Policy
Context
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, Act 108 of 1996
This act is generally applied throughout the S&EIR process
All government departments
The constitution of any country is the supreme law of that country. The Bill of Rights in chapter 2 section 24 of the Constitution of South Africa Act (Act 108 of 1996) makes provisions for environmental issues and declares that: “Everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: WASTE ACT (ACT 59 of 2008)
A waste license is required for the construction of the ash disposal facility. Several Category B Listed Activities are triggered by the project.
Hazardous Waste – National DEA
Other – Provincial Government
An integrated application for Environmental Authorisation and Waste Management Licence is being applied for.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NEMA) (ACT 107 of 1998)
Various GN 983, 984 and 985 Listed Activities are triggered. This entire report is prepared as part of the Application for Environmental Authorisation under the NEMA.
National DEA In terms of the National Environmental Management Act an Application for Environmental Authorisation subject to a Scoping and EIA Process is being applied for.
THE NATIONAL WATER ACT, 1998 (ACT 36 of 1998) (NWA)
There are several potential water uses that will require licensing under the NWA.
Department of Water and Sanitation
A Water Use License Application is being applied for. This is a separate process to the EIA however some parts of the process will be integrated into the EIA.
NATIONAL HERITAGE RESOURCE ACT (ACT 25 of 1999)
Provides for the protection of all archaeological and palaeontological sites that may be affected by the project.
South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA)
A heritage assessment has been undertaken as part of the Scoping Process to identify heritage sites
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 35
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREAS ACT (ACT 57 of 2003)
Provides for the protection of Protected Areas
DEA An ecological study has been undertaken as part of the Scoping Phase.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY ACT (ACT 10 of 2004)
Under this Act, a permit would be required for any activity which is of a nature that may negatively impact on the survival of a listed protected species.
National DEA An ecological study has been undertaken as part of the Scoping Phase. As such the potentially occurrence of critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, and protected species and the potential for them to be affected has been considered.
A permit may be required should any listed plant species on site be disturbed or destroyed as a result of the proposed development.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES Act (Act No. 15 of 1973)
This Act regulates the control of substances that may cause injury, or ill health, or death due to their toxic, corrosive, irritant, strongly sensitising, or inflammable nature.
Department of Health
The use, conveyance, or storage of any hazardous substance is prohibited without an appropriate license being in force.
3.2 APPLICABLE NATIONAL LEGISLATION
The legal framework within which the proposed application operates is governed by many acts, regulations,
standards, guidelines and treaties on an international, national, provincial and local level. Legislation applicable
to the project includes the following.
3.2.1 NATIONAL WASTE ACT
On 2 June 2014 the National Environmental Management: Waste Amendment Act came into force. Waste is
accordingly no longer governed by the MPRDA but is subject to all the provisions of the National Environmental
Management: Waste Act, 2008 (NEMWA).
Section 16 of the NEMWA must also be considered which states as follows:
1. “A holder of waste must, within the holder’s power, take all reasonable measures to-
a. avoid the generation of waste and where such generation cannot be avoided, to minimise the toxicity and amounts of waste that are generated;
b. reduce, re-use, recycle and recover waste;
c. where waste must be disposed of, ensure that the waste is treated and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner;
d. manage the waste in such a manner that it does not endanger health or the environment or cause a nuisance through noise, odour, or visual impacts;
e. prevent any employee or any person under his or her supervision from contravening the Act; and
f. prevent the waste from being used for unauthorised purposes.”
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 36
These general principles of responsible waste management will be incorporated into the requirements of the
EMPR to be implemented for this project.
In July 2009 the NEM:WA was promulgated, and amongst others makes provision for licensing and management
of waste disposal facilities. The Minister of the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs, under Section
19 (1) of the NEM:WA, has published a list of waste management activities, which has or is likely to have, a
detrimental effect on the environment in GNR 718 of 3 July 2009. The schedule has listed activities in two
different categories:
For Category “A” activities: a person who wishes to commence, undertake or conduct an activity listed under
this Category, must conduct a Basic Assessment, as stipulated in the EIA regulations under section 24 (5) of the
NEMA as part of a Waste Management Licence Application.
For Category “B” activities: a person who wishes to commence, undertake or conduct an activity listed under
this Category, must conduct a S&EIR process, as stipulated in the EIA regulations under section 24(5) of the
NEMA as part of a Waste Management Licence Application.
The activities of the project that require a waste management license in terms of these regulations are listed in
Table 7. It should be noted that the activities listed for the project fall within Category B and will therefore
require a full Scoping and EIA process be undertaken for the licensing of the proposed project.
Table 7: NEMWA Listed Activities
Notice and Activity No Listed Activity Description of listed activity as per
detailed project description
GN 921, 29 August 2013, Category B, Activity 7
The disposal of any quantity of hazardous waste to land
The proposed project is an ash disposal facility. The ash produced through the power generation process is considered to be hazardous.
GN 921, 29 August 2013, Category B, Activity 10
The construction of facilities for a waste management activity listed in Category B of this schedule (not in isolation to associated activity).
The proposed project is an ash disposal facility. The ash produced through the power generation process is considered to be hazardous.
Coal ash is considered a pollutant to ground water, the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) does not
allow storage of this bi-product without ensuring the area is protected against contaminated water seepage into
the environment. A suite of regulations as well as norms and standards, aimed at the classification and disposal
of waste, was published in Government Notice No. R.6349, R.63510 and R.63611 under the Section 73 of the
NEM:WA (2008). The aforementioned regulations as well as norms and standards informed the classification
and assessment of the ash (i.e. waste) to determine the mandatory method of disposal. In accordance with the
provisions of Government Notice No. R.635 the proposed Continuous ADF facility will include an appropriate
barrier system.
3.2.2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT
The National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998) as amended (NEMA), aims to protect the
environment, and stipulates that developments must be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable,
and that disturbances and pollution of the environment must be avoided, minimised and remedied. The Act also
provides for the equitable access to environmental resources, to meet basic human needs. Decisions on the
environment must be taken in an open and transparent manner, and resources must be held in trust for the
public and protected as such. NEMA also makes provision for the cost of remedying pollution, and all such costs
shall be paid by the polluter.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 37
Section 24 (2) in NEMA (1998) provides for activities which may have a detrimental effect on the environment
and may not commence without environmental authorisation (EA) from the competent authority. In Section 24
(4 & 5) provision is made for the Regulations which stipulate the minimum procedures for the issuing of and
monitoring compliance with EA’s. Section 24 (8), states that authorisations or permits obtained under any other
law for an activity listed or specified in terms of this Act does not absolve the applicant from obtaining
authorisation under this Act.
In accordance with Section 24 of the NEMA, the Minister has published (in GN R. 983, 984, and 985) a list of
activities that require EA prior to commencement of these activities. In this regard it provides a list of the specific
activities extracted from the Regulations which the proposed project may potentially trigger, and which
consequently have been applied for in this application for EA.
A Scoping and EIA process is reserved for activities which have the potential to result in significant impacts which
are complex to assess. Scoping and EIA accordingly provides a mechanism for the comprehensive assessment of
activities that are likely to have more significant environmental impacts.
This section provides a brief overview of EIA Regulations and their application to this project. NEMA is national
legislation that provides for the authorisation of certain controlled activities known as “listed activities”. In terms
of Section 24(1) of NEMA, the potential impact on the environment associated with these listed activities must
be considered, investigated, assessed and reported on to the competent authority (the decision-maker) charged
by NEMA with granting of the relevant environmental authorisation. Eskom is the applicant and the project
requires licensing for hazardous waste activities, therefore in terms of Section 24C (2) (d) (iii) of the NEMA (1998)
and Section 43 (1) (a)(c) of the NEMWA ((2008) the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) is the
competent authority.
The Scoping and EIA for the proposed project is being undertaken in accordance with the EIA Regulations
published in Government Notice 38282 of 8 December 2014, in terms of Section 24(5) of the National
Environmental Management Act (NEMA; Act No 107 of 1998). This process is being undertaken in support of
the application for Authorisation in terms of NEMA, as well as in support of the application for a waste license
in terms of the requirements of the NEM: Waste Act (Act No. 59 of 1998).
Table 8: NEMA Listed Activities
Activity No
Aerial Extent of Activity (Ha or
m2)
Applicable Listing Notice
Listed Activity Description Description of listed activity as per detailed project description
9 Linear Activity 983 The development of infrastructure exceeding 1000 metres in length for the bulk transportation of water or storm water—
(i) with an internal diameter of 0,36 metres or more; or
(ii) with a peak throughput of 120 litres per second or more;
excluding where—
(a) such infrastructure is for bulk transportation of water or storm water or storm water drainage inside a road reserve; or
Construction of drainage channels and return water facilities.
Construction of pipelines for the transportation of the ash slurry and return water.
Length TBC in EIA phase.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 38
(b) where such development will occur within an urban area.
10 Design to be confirmed in EIA phase
983 "The development of infrastructure exceeding 1000 metres in length for the bulk transportation of water or storm water-
(i) with an internal diameter of 0,36 metres or more; or
(ii) with a peak throughput of 120 litres per second or more;
excluding where-
(a) such infrastructure is for bulk transportation of water or storm water drainage inside a road reserve; or
(b) where such development will occur within an urban area."
Construction of drainage channels and return water facilities.
Construction of pipelines for the transportation of the ash slurry and return water.
Length TBC in EIA phase.
12 Design to be confirmed in EIA phase
983 The development of—
(i) canals exceeding 100 square metres in size;
(ii) channels exceeding 100 square metres in size;
(iii) bridges exceeding 100 square metres in size;
(iv) dams, where the dam, including infrastructure and water surface area, exceeds 100 square metres in size;
(v) weirs, where the weir, including infrastructure and water surface area, exceeds 100 square metres in size;
(vi) bulk storm water outlet structures exceeding 100 square metres in size;
(vii) marinas exceeding 100 square metres in size;
(viii) jetties exceeding 100 square metres in size;
(ix) slipways exceeding 100 square metres in size;
(x) buildings exceeding 100 square metres in size;
Construction of infrastructure within 32 metres of a watercourse.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 39
(xi) boardwalks exceeding 100 square metres in size; or
(xii) infrastructure or structures with a physical footprint of 100 square metres or more;
where such development occurs—
(a) within a watercourse;
(b) in front of a development setback; or
(c) if no development setback exists, within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse; —
excluding—
(aa) the development of infrastructure or structures within existing ports or harbours that will not increase the development footprint of the port or harbour;
(bb) where such development activities are related to the development of a port or harbour, in which case activity 26 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014 applies;
(cc) activities listed in activity 14 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014 or activity 14 in Listing Notice 3 of 2014, in which case that activity applies;
(dd) where such development occurs within an urban area; or
(ee) where such development occurs within existing roads or road reserves.
13 Design to be confirmed in EIA phase
983 The development of facilities or infrastructure for the off-stream storage of water, including dams and reservoirs, with a combined capacity of 50000 cubic metres or more, unless such storage falls
An ash water return dam will be constructed as part of the project. The combined capacity of the ash water return dams will be confirmed in the EIA phase.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 40
within the ambit of activity 16 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014.
14 Design to be confirmed in EIA phase
983 The development of facilities or infrastructure, for the storage, or for the storage and handling, of a dangerous good, where such storage occurs in containers with a combined capacity of 80 cubic metres or more but not exceeding 500 cubic metres.
Potential storage of chemicals – quantities TBC in EIA phase
19 Linear Activity 983 The infilling or depositing of any material of more than 5 cubic metres into, or the dredging, excavation, removal or moving of soil, sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock of more than 5 cubic metres from—
(i) a watercourse;
(ii) the seashore; or
(iii) the littoral active zone, an estuary or a distance of 100 metres inland of the high-water mark of the sea or an estuary, whichever distance is the greater—
but excluding where such infilling, depositing, dredging, excavation, removal or moving—
(a) will occur behind a development setback;
(b) is for maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan; or
(c) falls within the ambit of activity 21 in this Notice, in which case that activity applies.
Construction of infrastructure across watercourses or wetlands may be required.
A Pollution Control Dam (PCD) will be constructed. The size will be confirmed in the EIA phase. Boundaries of the adjacent wetlands in relation to the proposed layout are unknown at this stage.
24 Linear activity.
The length of new roads required will be confirmed in EIA phase.
983 The development of—
(i) A road for which an environmental authorisation was obtained for the rote determination in terms of activity 5 in Government notice 387 of 2008 or activity 18 in
The construction of access roads for the construction and or long-term servicing of all planned infrastructure for the project will be required.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 41
Government Notice 545 of 2010; or
(ii) a road with a reserve wider than 13,5 meters, or where no reserve exists where the road is wider than 8 metres;
but excluding—
(a) roads which are identified and included in activity 27 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014; or
(b) roads where the entire road falls within an urban area.
25 Design to be confirmed in EIA phase.
983 The development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure for the treatment of effluent, wastewater or sewage with a daily throughput capacity of more than 2000 cubic metres but less than 15000 cubic metres.
Potential treatment of water in the PCD
27 TBC 983 "The clearance of an area of 1 hectares or more, but less than 20 hectares of indigenous vegetation, except where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is required for-
(i) the undertaking of a linear activity; or
(ii) maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan."
Clearance of vegetation for construction of PCD and new access road – condition of vegetation to be confirmed in EIA phase.
34 TBC 983 "The expansion or changes to existing facilities for any process or activity where such expansion or changes will result in the need for a permit or licence or an amended permit or licence in terms of national or provincial legislation governing the release of emissions or pollution, excluding-
(i.) where the facility, process or activity is included in the list of waste management activities published in terms of section 19 of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008) in which case the National Environmental
NEMWA listed activities
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 42
Management: Waste Act, 2008 applies; or
(ii.) the expansion of or changes to existing facilities for the treatment of effluent, wastewater or sewage where the capacity will be increased by less than 15 000 cubic metres per day."
56 Design to be confirmed in EIA phase
983 "The widening of a road by more than 6 metres, or the lengthening of a road by more than 1 kilometre-
(i) where the existing reserve is wider than 13,5 meters; or
(ii) where no reserve exists, where the existing road is wider than 8 metres;
excluding where widening or lengthening occur inside urban areas."
Size of road to be confirmed in EIA phase
7 Linear activity 984 The development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure for the bulk transportation of dangerous goods─
(ii) in liquid form, outside an industrial complex, using pipelines, exceeding 1000 metres in length, with a throughput capacity of more than 50 cubic metres per day;
Pipelines will be required for transportation of wet ash and water to and from the ash disposal facility
The ash and ash water may be classified as dangerous goods.
The length of the pipelines is not likely to exceed 1000m but this will be confirmed in the EIA phase.
15 The ashing facility will be approximately 70ha
984 The clearance of an area of 20 hectares or more of indigenous vegetation, excluding where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is required for—
(i) the undertaking of a linear activity; or
(ii) maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan.
Up to 120 hectares of vegetation will need to be cleared for the ash disposal facility.
16 Design to be confirmed in EIA phase
984 The development of a dam where the highest part of the dam wall, as measured from the outside toe of the wall to the highest part
A return water dam will be constructed for the project. The highest part of the dam
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 43
of the wall, is 5 metres or higher or where the high-water mark of the dam covers an area of 10 hectares or more.
wall will be confirmed in the EIA phase.
By the time the EIA phase commences it will be confirmed if the dam wall will be less than 5 m or cover less than 10 ha.
2 Exact extent of CBA areas affected to be confirmed n EIA phase.
985 The development of reservoirs for bulk water supply with a capacity of more than 250 cubic metres.
f. Mpumalanga
(dd) Critical biodiversity areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans.
Parts of site fall potentially fall within CBA areas identified in the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan.
4 Linear activity.
The length of new roads required will be confirmed in EIA phase. The extent of CBA areas affected to be confirmed n EIA phase.
985 The development of a road wider than 4 metres with a reserve less than 13,5 metres.
f. Mpumalanga
(ee) Critical biodiversity areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans.
The construction of access roads for the construction and or long-term servicing of all planned infrastructure for the project will be required. Parts of site fall potentially fall within CBA areas identified in the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan.
10 Exact extent of CBA areas affected to be confirmed n EIA phase.
985 The development of facilities or infrastructure for the storage, or storage and handling of a dangerous good, where such storage occurs in containers with a combined capacity of 30 but not exceeding 80 cubic metres.
f. Mpumalanga
(ee) Critical biodiversity areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans.
Parts of site fall potentially fall within CBA areas identified in the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan.
14 Exact extent of CBA areas affected to be confirmed n EIA phase.
985 1. The development of—
(iv) dams, where the dam, including infrastructure and water surface area exceeds 10 square metres in size;
Parts of site fall potentially fall within CBA areas identified in the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 44
where such development occurs—
(f) Mpumalanga:
ii. Outside urban areas, in:
(ff) Critical biodiversity areas or ecosystem service areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans;
18 Exact extent of CBA areas affected to be confirmed n EIA phase.
985 The widening of a road by more than 4 metres, or the lengthening of a road by more than 1 kilometre.
(a) Mpumalanga::
ii. Outside urban areas, in:
(ee) Critical biodiversity areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans.
Parts of site fall potentially fall within CBA areas identified in the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan.
3.2.3 NATIONAL WATER ACT
The National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) (NWA) makes provision for two types of application for water use
licences, namely individual applications and compulsory applications. The NWA also provides that the
responsible authority may require an assessment by the applicant of the likely effect of the proposed licence on
the resource quality, and that such assessment be subject to the EIA regulations. A person may use water, if the
use is-
• permissible as a continuation of an existing lawful water use (ELWU);
• permissible in terms of a general authorisation (GA);
• permissible under Schedule 1; or
• authorised by a licence (i.e.: a Water Use Licence (WUL).
The NWA defines 11 water uses. A water use may only be undertaken if authorised. Water users are required to
register certain water uses that actually took place on the date of registration, irrespective of whether the use
was lawful or not.
Section 21 of the National Water Act 1998 lists the following 11 water uses which can only be legally undertaken
through the water use authorisation issued by the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS):
(a) taking water from a water resource;
(b) storing water;
(c) impeding or diverting the flow of water in a watercourse;
(d) engaging in a stream flow reduction activity contemplated in section 36;
(e) engaging in a controlled activity identified as such in section 37(1) or declared under section 38(1);
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 45
(f) discharging waste or water containing waste into a water resource through a pipe, canal, sewer, sea outfall or other conduits;
(g) disposing of waste in a manner which may detrimentally impact on a water resource;
(h) disposing in any manner of water which contains waste from, or which has been heated in, any industrial or power generation process;
(i) altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse;
(j) removing, discharging or disposing of water found underground if it is necessary for the efficient continuation of an activity or for the safety of people; and
(k) using water for recreational purposes.
Table 9: Identified water uses.
Applicable Legislation and Guidelines Description of activity
Section 21 (a) Taking water from a water resource
Borehole water abstraction during construction / operation
Section 21 (b) Storing of water
To be confirmed
Section 21 (c) Impeding or diverting the flow of water in a water course.
Linear infrastructure (roads, pipelines, and conveyor belts) crossing
streams and streams associated with wetlands (culverts, causeways,
bridges).
Section 21 (d) Engaging in a stream flow reduction activity contemplated in Section 36 of the Act.
To be confirmed.
Section 21 (f) Discharging waste or water containing waste into a water resource.
To be confirmed.
Section 21 (g) Disposing of waste in a manner which may impact on a water resource.
Storage of contaminated water in a pollution control dam / balancing
dam / evaporation dam.
Section 21 (h) Disposing in any manner of water which contains waste from, or which has been heated in, any industrial or power generation process.
To be confirmed
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 46
Section 21 (i) Altering the bed, banks, course, or characteristics of a watercourse. This includes altering the course of a watercourse (previously referred to as a river diversion).
Linear infrastructure (roads, pipelines, power lines, and conveyor belts)
crossing streams and streams associated with wetlands (culverts,
causeways, bridges).
Section 21 (j) Removing, discharging or disposing of water found underground if it is necessary for the efficient continuation of an activity, or for the safety of people.
To be confirmed
3.2.4 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: AIR QUALITY ACT
The National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (NEMAQA) is the main legislative tool for the
management of air pollution and related activities. The Object of the Act is:
a) to protect the environment by providing reasonable measures for-
i. the protection and enhancement of the quality of air in the republic;
ii. the prevention of air pollution and ecological degradation; and
iii. securing ecologically sustainable development while promoting justifiable economic and social development; and
b) Generally, to give effect to Section 24(b) of the constitution in order to enhance the quality of ambient air for the sake of securing an environment that is not harmful to the health and wellbeing of people.
Section 21 of the NEMAQA allows that the Minister to publish a list of activities which may result in atmospheric
emissions and which may have a significant detrimental effect on the environment. The NEMAQA further
requires that no person may, without a provisional atmospheric emissions licence or an atmospheric emissions
licence conduct an activity which is listed in accordance with Section 21.
3.2.5 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY ACT
The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004)(NEMBA), ‘provides for: the
management and conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity within the framework of the NEMA; the protection
of species and ecosystems that warrant national protection; the sustainable use of indigenous biological
resources; the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from bio-prospecting involving indigenous biological
resources; the establishment and functions of a South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI); and for
matters conducted therewith”.
In terms of the Biodiversity Act, the applicant has a responsibility for:
• The conservation of endangered ecosystems and restriction of activities according to the categorization
of the area (not just by listed activity as specified in the EIA regulations);
• Promote the application of appropriate environmental management tools in order to ensure integrated
environmental management of activities thereby ensuring that all development within the area are in
line with ecological sustainable development and protection of biodiversity; and
• Limit further loss of biodiversity and conserve endangered ecosystems.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 47
Regulations published under the NEMBA also provide a list of protected species, according to the Act (GN R. 151
dated 23 February 2007, as amended in GN R. 1187 dated 14 December 2007). Section 57 of NEMBA identifies
restricted activities involving threatened or protected species. Restricted activities include the gathering,
collecting, cutting, uprooting, damaging or destroy a listed species.
3.2.6 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREAS ACT
The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003) serves to: “provide for the
protection and conservation of ecologically viable areas representative of South Africa’s biological biodiversity
and its natural landscapes and seascape; for the establishment of a national register of all national, provincial
and local protected areas; for the management of those areas in accordance with national norms and standards;
for intergovernmental co-operation and public consultation in matters concerning protected areas; for the
continued existence, governance and functions of South African National Parks; and for matters in connection
therewith.
The objectives of this Act are –
a) to provide, within the framework of the national legislation, including the National Environmental Management Act, for the declaration and management of protected areas;
b) to provide for co-operation governance in the declaration and management of protected areas;
c) to effect a national system of protected areas in South Africa as part of a strategy to manage and conserve its biodiversity;
d) to provide for a diverse and representative network of protected areas on state land, private land, communal land and marine water;
e) to promote sustainable utilisation of protected areas for the benefit of people, in a manner that would preserve the ecological character of such areas;
f) to promote participation of local communities in the management of protected areas, when appropriate; and
g) to provide for the continued existence of South African National Parks.
3.2.7 NATIONAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ACT
The National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) stipulates that cultural heritage resources may not be disturbed
without authorization from the relevant heritage authority. Section 34(1) of the NHRA states that, “no person
may alter or demolish any structure or part of a structure which is older than 60 years without a permit issued
by the relevant provincial heritage resources authority…”
The NEMA 23(2)(b) states that an integrated environmental management plan should, “…identify, predict and
evaluate the actual and potential impact on the environment, socio-economic conditions and cultural heritage”.
A study of subsections (23)(2)(d), (29)(1)(d), (32)(2)(d) and (34)(b) and their requirements reveals the
compulsory inclusion of the identification of cultural resources, the evaluation of the impacts of the proposed
activity on these resources, the identification of alternatives and the management procedures for such cultural
resources for each of the documents noted in the Environmental Regulations. A further important aspect to be
taken account of in the Regulations under NEMA is the Specialist Report requirements laid down in Section 33
(Fourie, 2008b).
In accordance with the legislative requirements and EIA rating criteria, the regulations of the South African
Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) and Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA)
have also been incorporated to ensure that a comprehensive and legally compatible heritage impact report is
compiled.
3.2.8 NATIONAL CONSERVATION ACT
The Environment Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989) (ECA) was, prior to the promulgation of the NEMA, the
backbone of environmental legislation in South Africa. To date the majority of the ECA has been repealed by
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 48
various other Acts, however Section 25 of the Act and the Noise Regulations (GN R. 154 of 1992) promulgated
under this section are still in effect. These regulations serve to control noise and general prohibitions relating to
noise impact and nuisance.
3.2.9 CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH AFRICA
Section 24 of the Constitution states that everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their
health or well-being; and to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations,
through reasonable legislative and other measures that:
• Prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
• Promote conservation; and
• Secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable
economic and social development.
The public’s right to be involved in decisions that may affect them is enshrined in the South African Constitution.
Section 57(1) of the new Constitution provides that: “The National Assembly may (b) make rules and orders
concerning its business, with due regard to representative and participatory democracy, accountability,
transparency and public involvement”.
This provision, along with several others gave rise to many new trends in South African legislation. In
environmental legislation, the idea of public participation (or stakeholder engagement) features strongly and
especially the National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998 - NEMA) and the recent regulations
passed under the auspices of this Act makes very strict provisions for public participation in environmental
decision-making.
Public participation can be defined as “a process leading to a joint effort by stakeholders, technical specialists,
the authorities and the proponent who work together to produce better decisions than if they had acted
independently" (Greyling, 1999, p. 20). From this definition, it can be seen that the input of the public is regarded
as very important indeed.
3.2.10 MINERALS AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT (ACT NO. 28 OF 2002)
A mining permit or mining right may be required where a mineral in question is to be mined (e.g. materials from
a borrow pit) in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Requirements for Environmental Management
Programmes and Environmental Management Plans are set out in S39 of the Act. As no borrow pits are expected
to be required for the construction of the facility, no mining permit or right is required to be obtained.
3.3 OTHER APPLICABLE ACTS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMMES
A summary of other applicable acts, policies and programmes is provided in Table 10.
Table 10: Summary of policies and programmes
Policy/Programme Objectives
WHITE PAPER ENERGY POLICY This policy aims to clarify government policy regarding the supply and consumption of energy for the next decade. It promotes the development of underdeveloped systems in certain areas and demonstrates a resolve to bring about extensive change in several areas. The White paper provides an overview of the of the energy sectors contribution to the GDP, employment, taxes and the balance of payments.
Part 3 and Part 4 of the policy contain sections involving the management of the environment.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 49
Sections 8.1, 8.3 and 8.4 focus on Integrated energy planning, energy efficiency and environment, health and safety respectively.
INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION GUIDELINE SERIES:
• GUIDELINE 4: STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.
• GUIDELINE 7: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
GUIDELINE 9: NEED AND DESIRABILITY.
Department of Environmental Affairs developed these guidelines as a tool to assist with the various environmental aspects of a development.
MUNICIPAL IDP AND SDF DOCUMENTS Integrated Development Plans and Spatial Development Frameworks of the local municipality are reviewed and presented as part of the scoping and EIA reports.
BEST PRACTISE GUIDELINE (G1) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DWS2006
Provides guidelines to the management of stormwater.
SOUTH AFRICAN WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES
Provides water quality guidelines.
SANS 10210: CALCULATING AND PREDICTING ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE
Provides guidelines for traffic noise levels.
SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL STANDARD (SANS) 69
Framework for setting and implementing national ambient air quality standards.
NATIONAL VELD AND FOREST FIRE ACT (ACT 101 OF 1998)
While no permitting or licensing requirements arise from this legislation, this act will find application during the operational phase of the project in terms of fire prevention and management.
3.4 PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Certain proposed legislation which may come into effect during of after the EIA process may have implications
for the Arnot ADF. These are described below”
Proposed Legislation Implications for project
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: WASTE ACT (ACT 59 of 2008)
Proposed regulations to exclude a waste stream or a portion of a waste stream from the definition of waste (January 2018)
List of waste stream or portion of waste stream excluded
from the definition of waste: according to the proposed
regulations ash from combustion and gasification processes
may be permitted to be used as backfill in old mine
workings. Considering the proximity to the mines in the area
it may be option to dump some of the ash in the old mine
voids (if feasible). This would affect future volumes required
to be catered for in the ADF.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 50
4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS (PPP)
This section presents a summary of the various components pertaining to the Public Participation Process (PPP)
for the project. The Scoping Phase for the proposed Ash Disposal Facility at Arnot Power Station and associated
infrastructure has been undertaken in accordance with the EIA Regulations published in Government Notice
GN38282 of December 2014, in terms of Section 24(5) of NEMA (Act No. 107 of 1998 as amended). This chapter
serves to outline the Public Participation process that was undertaken.
4.1 AUTHORITY CONSULTATION
The National DEA is the competent authority for this application. A record of all authority consultation
undertaken is included within this Scoping report. Consultation with the regulating authorities (i.e. DEA and
Mpumalanga Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism) has continued throughout the
EIA process.
The following will be undertaken as part of this EIA process:
• Notification and Consultation with Organs of State that may have jurisdiction over the project, including
provincial and local government departments, and State-Owned Enterprises; and
• Provide an opportunity for DEA and Mpumalanga DEDET representatives to visit and inspect the
proposed site and the study area.
• Preliminary 30-day review period of the draft Scoping Report prior to submission of the application to
DEA;
• Submission of second draft Scoping Report to DEA for review and comment during the public review
period (30 days);
• Submission of final Scoping report to DEA for acceptance;
• Submission of the draft EIA Report to DEA for review and comment during the public review period (30
days);
• Submission of a final EIA Report to DEA following a public review period for the draft EIA (30 days);
A pre-application meeting was held with DEA on 25 October 2016 to discuss the timing constraints related to
the EIA process with DEA. EIMS highlighted that due to the time required to complete the detailed designs there
will be challenges in meeting the 106-day requirement to submit the EIA report. DEA recommended that where
possible due to the engineering constraints highlighted, the team can consider putting the Draft Scoping Report
out for a 30-day comment period before submitting an application to DEA so that any issues can be addressed
before the report is submitted to DEA. The scoping report will then subsequently be put out for another 30-day
review period once the application has been lodged with DEA.
4.2 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The public participation process has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the EIA
Regulations of December 2014. The PPP is a requirement of several pieces of South African Legislation and aims
to ensure that all relevant Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) are consulted, involved and their comments
are taken into account, and a record of consultation included in the reports submitted to authorities. The PPP
ensures that stakeholders are provided the opportunity to be involved as part of a transparent process which
allows for a robust and comprehensive environmental study. The PPP for the proposed Arnot Ash Disposal
Facility project needs to be managed according to best practises in order to ensure and promote the following:
• Compliance with international best practice options;
• Compliance with national legislation;
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 51
• Establish and manage relationships with key stakeholder groups; and
• Encourage involvement and participation in the environmental study and authorisation/approval
process.
As such, the purpose of the PPP and stakeholder engagement process is to:
• Introduce the proposed project;
• Explain the environmental authorisations required;
• Explain the environmental studies to be undertaken (where applicable);
• Determine and record issues, concerns, suggestions, and objections to the project;
• Provide opportunity for input and gathering of local knowledge;
• Establish and formalise lines of communication between the I&AP’s and the project team;
• Identify all significant issues for the project; and
• Identify possible mitigation measures or environmental management plans to minimise and/or prevent
negative environmental impacts and maximize and/or promote positive environmental impacts
associated with the project.
EIMS intends to undertake a Stakeholder Engagement Process in order to satisfy the requirements for public
involvement in terms of the NEMA. The process that is to be followed will consist of the following key steps:
• A BID (this document) has been compiled;
• A Scoping Report will be compiled in order to provide a baseline for the receiving environment. The
Scoping Report will aim to present all information in a clear and understandable format and suitable
for easy interpretation by I&APs and authorities. The preliminary scoping report will be released for
public review for a 30-day period during the call to register. At this time there will be and initial
notification and call to register for I&AP’s through the following means: Newspaper Advertisements,
Site Notices, Registered Letters, E-mails and Faxes with an aim to inform all I&AP’s of the proposed
project and encourage comment and feedback to be incorporated into the Scoping and EIA Reports -
as well as to invite I&AP’s to register for further involvement on the process;
• The Scoping Report for public review will then be released for another 30-day review and comment
period once the EIA application has been submitted to DEA.
• The I&AP database will be updated on an ongoing basis throughout the consultation process;
• All comments received will be included in the final Scoping Report and forwarded to the DEA for
consideration;
• Upon receipt of the DEA’s acceptance of the Scoping Report, the EIA phase will commence.
• An EIA Report will then be compiled integrating all specialist studies and other relevant information
obtained during the PPP to date. The EIA Report will aim to present all information in a clear and
understandable format and suitable for easy interpretation by I&APs and authorities;
• The EIA Report (for public review) will be released for a 30-day review and comment period. All
comments received will be included in the final EIA Report and forwarded to the DEA for consideration;
• EIMS will continue with on-going consultation with I&AP’s during the entire process in order to provide
all I&AP’s with the opportunity to comment on the proposed project prior to submission of the Scoping
and EIA Reports to the Relevant Authorities and Government Departments.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 52
• Once a decision on the project has been reached all I&APs will be notified of the departments’ decision
as well given the opportunity to appeal the decision.
4.3 METHODOLOGY
The PPP for the proposed Arnot Ash Disposal Facility project has been undertaken in accordance with the
requirements of the NEMA, in line with the principles of Integrated Environmental Management (IEM). IEM
implies an open and transparent participatory process, whereby stakeholders and other I&APs are afforded an
opportunity to comment on the project.
4.3.1 IDENTIFICATION OF I&APS
An initial I&AP database has been compiled from Windeed searches as well as information from previously
conducted EIA projects, particularly those that were in the vicinity of the proposed project. The I&AP database
includes amongst others landowners, organs of state, communities, regulatory authorities, and other specialist
interest groups. Below is a summary of the various entities identified and to be consulted with during scoping
and they include the following broad groups:
• Authorities, including ward councillors, etc.
• Key stakeholders, including:
o Land owners of the properties associated with the application.
o Owners and custodians of existing infrastructure within the study area.
o Adjacent land owners and land users.
o Surrounding communities.
o Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO’s).
• Potential sensitive receptors.
• I&APs who express an interest in the project.
These I&APs have been and will continue to be consulted throughout the EIA process of the proposed project.
Furthermore, all I&APs (including new I&APs and those who have already registered) are encouraged through
advertisements (newspaper and on-site notices), written correspondence, and consultation meetings to
participate in the process.
4.3.2 AFFECTED LANDOWNERS
All the affected properties were identified and included in the project database as pre-identified I&APs. All
landowners will be notified of the EIA process by means of a letter and Background Information Document (BID).
Site notices and posters will be placed within and around the study area and in public venues to ensure that
occupiers and other community members will be notified about the project.
4.3.3 AUTHORITIES AND ORGANS OF STATE
The following Government Authorities were notified of the proposed project:
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 53
• Nkangala District Municipality;
• Steve Tshwete Municipality;
• Mpumalanga Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism
• Mpumalanga Department of Labour;
• Mpumalanga Department of Mineral Resources;
• Mpumalanga Department of Social Development;
• Mpumalanga Department of Public Works and Infrastructure;
• Mpumalanga Department of Police, Roads and Transport;
• Department of Water and Sanitation;
• South African National Road Agency Limited
• Catchment Management Agency;
• National Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries;
• National Development Agency;
• National Commission on Restitution on Land Rights
• National Department of Rural Development;
• National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA)
• Transnet.
4.3.4 INITIAL NOTIFICATION OF I&APS
The PPP commenced on the 13th July 2018 with an initial notification and call to register; and ended on the 13th
August 2018. Initial notification was given in the following manner:
4.3.4.1 REGISTERED LETTERS, FAXES AND EMAILS
Notification letters (English and Afrikaans,), faxes, and emails were distributed to all pre-identified key I&APs
including government organisations, landowners, NGOs, relevant municipalities, ward councillors, and other
organisations that might be affected.
The initial notification letter will include the following information:
• List of anticipated activities to be authorised;
• Scale and extent of activities to be authorised;
• Sufficient detail of the intended operation to enable I&APs to assess/surmise what potential impacts
the proposed activities may have on them or on the use of their land;
• The purpose of the proposed project;
• Details of the affected properties (including a locality map);
• Details of the NEMA regulations that must be adhered to;
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 54
• Date by which any request to register as an I&AP must be forwarded through to EIMS; and
• Contact details of the EAP.
In addition, a registration sheet/ questionnaire was included in the registered letters, emails and facsimiles to
landowners towards facilitating registration and soliciting input on local knowledge of the study area.
4.3.4.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT
A Background Information Document (BID) in English was prepared and distributed by post with the registered
letter and made available on the EIMS website (www.eims.co.za). The BID contains the following information:
• Project Name;
• Applicant name;
• Project location;
• Map of affected project area;
• Description of the application process;
• Information on document review;
• A detailed questionnaire;
• I&AP registration form; and
• Relevant EIMS contact person for the project.
4.3.4.3 NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS
Adverts and site notices will be placed during the scoping phase.
4.3.4.4 PRELIMINARY SCOPING REPORT
The preliminary scoping report will be released for comment along with the initial notification to I&APs.
4.3.5 SCOPING REPORT REVIEW
Notification regarding the availability of this Scoping Report for public review has been given in the following
manner:
• Registered letters with details on where the scoping report is available from, as well as the public review
comment period, were distributed to all registered I&APs (which includes key stakeholders and
landowners);
• Facsimile notifications with information similar the that in the registered letter described above, were
distributed to all registered I&APs; and
• Email notifications with a letter attachment containing the information described above were also
distributed to all registered I&APs.
The Scoping Report will be made available for public review from the 13h of July 2018 until the 13th of August
2018, for a 30-day comment period. As discussed in the pre-application meeting with DEA it was recommended
that, where possible due to the engineering constraints highlighted, the team can consider putting the Draft
Scoping Report out for a 30-day comment period along with the initial call to register, before submitting any
application to DEA so that any issues can be addressed prior to application submission. This is the current scoping
report review period. Hereafter the scoping report will be revised and a second Scoping Report (revised where
necessary) will be released along with submission of the EIA application form to the DEA. The 2nd draft scoping
report will also be released for another 30-day review period.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 55
4.3.6 PUBLIC MEETING AND OPEN DAY
Details regarding the public meeting and open day will be included in the notification regarding the availability
of the scoping report for public review. The details include the date, time and venue for the meeting and open
day. The notifications are to be distributed via registered letter, facsimile, and email, all registered I&APs.
The public meeting attendance register, as well as the minutes of the public meeting will be included in the
Scoping Report submitted to the competent authority. I&APs who attend the meeting will be registered for the
project through the attendance register which will be available at the public meeting.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 56
5 DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT
This chapter provides information about baseline environment for the proposed Ash Disposal Facility at Arnot.
Information in this section was sourced from the specialist scoping reports which are included as appendices to
this Scoping Report.
The site lies between 1 600 and 1 730 metres above sea level, with the highest point near the north-eastern
boundary. From the baseline 1:50 000 scale topo-cadastral map, the terrain falls gently to the south-west, with
slopes of between 2% and 5%. The area is drained by the Rietkuil Spruit and Bosman Spruit, which flow generally
from east to west.
5.1 CLIMATE
The climate of the study area (Koch, 1987) can be regarded as warm to mild, with rain in summer and dry winters.
The long-term average annual rainfall in this region is 720 mm, of which 610.79 mm, or 85%, falls from November
to April. The total annual evaporation is approximately 1 830 mm per year, peaking at approximately 6.4 mm
per day in December. The study area has warm summers and cold winters. Frost is a common phenomenon with
13-42 days of frost per year and the coldest periods (usually from June to August) are exacerbated by seasonal
aridity. The daily minima for the coldest months are below freezing. Rainfall is concentrated from November to
April, which constitutes the growing season for vegetation and plant species.
Temperatures vary from an average monthly maximum and minimum of 25.0ºC and 12.5ºC for January to 16.7ºC
and 0.2OC for July respectively. The extreme high temperature that has been recorded is 35.6oC and the extreme
low –11.1ºC. Frost occurs most years on around 25 days on average between mid-May and early September.
5.2 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRPAHY
5.2.1 GEOLOGY
The sites are underlain by the Ecca Formation of the Karoo Supergroup. The formation consists of shale, shaly
sandstone, grit, sandstone and conglomerate. Coal occurs in places near the base and top of the Formation
(refer to Figure 6Error! Reference source not found.).
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 57
Figure 6: Geological Map
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 58
Figure 7: Topographical Map
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 59
5.2.2 TOPOGRAPHY
The study site is generally flat to gently undulating. The Rietkuilspruit and Bosman Spruit are the main drainage
systems in the study area, along with a number of smaller tributaries of the Klein Olifants River. There are no
significant hills or ridges in the study area.
The area varies in elevation from approximately 1580 to 1750 m above sea level with the highest point being in
the north-eastern part of the study area and the lowest point on the western boundary in the Rietkuilspruit. A
topographic map is provided in Figure 7.
5.3 LAND USE AND LAND COVER
It is not possible to provide a detailed land capability map, as the specific distribution within the study area must
be established by means of a more detailed survey, which will be conducted during the EIA/EMP phase of the
environmental study. However, it can be expected that, if the soil distribution from the land type survey
(Schoeman & Fitzpatrick, 1979) is found to occur, the prevailing land capability within the study area would be
approximately:
• Arable: + 60%
• Grazing: + 25%
• Wetland: + 10%
• Wilderness: <2%
Within the Arable class, it can be also expected that the land capability will vary and that certain soils will have
a higher potential for arable cultivation than others. However, it is common practice on the highveld that in most
cases, where the soil is deep enough and has favourable enough properties to cultivate, it is generally done. In
the vicinity of the study area, it can be predicted that grazing capacity will be relatively high, around 6-8 ha per
large stock unit (Schoeman & van der Walt, 2004). This classification does not apply to game farming, where
more detailed specialized knowledge is required, mainly in terms of relating plant species composition in both
the grass layer and woody layer to the requirements of various grazing and/or browsing species of game.
Arnot Power Station can be accessed via access roads westwards from the N11 (running from Middelburg to
Hendrina), northwards from the N4 (between Middelburg and Belfast) or eastwards from the R33 (between the
N4 and Carolina). There are various other main, district and farm roads passing through various parts of the
broad study area
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 60
Figure 8: Land cover of the study area (areas within 5km of Arnot Power Station)
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 61
5.4 ECOLOGY
5.4.1 FLORA
According to the most recent vegetation map of the country (Mucina & Rutherford 2006) the study area is
dominated by Eastern Highveld Grassland, with large pans being characterised by Eastern Temperate Freshwater
Wetlands (Mucina & Rutherford 2006). An indication of the regional vegetation types in relation to the study
area is shown in Figure 5. A brief description of each regional vegetation type that is likely to occur on site is
provided below. Full descriptions can be found in Mucina et al. (2005).
Eastern Highveld Grassland
This vegetation type is found in Mpumalanga and Gauteng Provinces: Plains between Belfast in the east and the
eastern side of Johannesburg in the west and extending southwards to Bethal, Ermelo and west of Piet Retief.
Altitude 1 520–1 780 m, but also as low as 1 300 m.
The vegetation landscape is usually location in a landscape of slightly to moderately undulating plains, including
some low hills and pan depressions. The vegetation is short dense grassland dominated by the usual highveld
grass composition (Aristida, Digitaria, Eragrostis, Themeda, Tristachya, etc.) with small, scattered rocky outcrops
with wiry, sour grasses and some woody species (Acacia caffra, Celtis africana, Diospyros lycioides subsp lycioi-
des, Parinari capensis, Protea caffra, P. welwitschii and Rhus magalismontanum).
Eastern Temperate Freshwater Wetlands
This vegetation types if found in the Northern Cape, Eastern Cape, Free State, North-West, Gauteng,
Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal Provinces as well as in neighbouring Lesotho and Swaziland: Around water
bodies with stagnant water (lakes, pans, periodically flooded vleis, edges of calmly flowing rivers) and embedded
within the Grassland Biome. Altitude ranging from 750–2 000 m.
The vegetation features are flat landscapes or shallow depressions filled with (temporary) water bodies
supporting zoned systems of aquatic and hygrophilous vegetation of temporarily flooded grasslands and
ephemeral herblands.
The vegetation type is typically found on younger Pleistocene to recent sediments overlying fine-grained
sedimentary rocks of the Karoo Supergroup (on sediments of both Ecca and Beaufort Groups due to the large
extent of the area of occurrence) as well as of the much older dolomites of the Malmani Subgroup of the
Transvaal Supergroup in the northwest. Especially the areas built by Karoo Supergroup sediments are associated
with the occurrence of Jurassic Karoo dolerite dykes having a profound influence on run-off. Soils are peaty
(Champagne soil form) to vertic (Rensberg soil form). The vleis form where flow of water is impeded by
impermeable soils and/or by erosion resistant features, such as dolerite intrusions. Many vleis and pans of this
type of freshwater wetlands are inundated and/or saturated only during the summer rainfall season, and for
some months after this into the middle of the dry winter season, but they may remain saturated all year round.
Surface water inundation may be present at any point while the wetland is saturated and some plant species
will be present only under inundated conditions, or under permanently saturated conditions. The presence of
standing water should not be taken as a sign of permanent wet conditions.
Conservation status of vegetation types
Driver et al. (2005) classified regional vegetation types into ecosystem status on the basis of rates of
transformation and conservation (Table 1). The dominant vegetation types occurring in the study area (Eastern
Highveld Grassland) is classified as Endangered (Table 2). In this regional vegetation type, the amount of
transformation is relatively high, and less than 1% of the vegetation type is conserved (Table 2).
Eastern Highveld Grassland is listed as Vulnerable in the National List of Ecosystems that are Threatened and
need of protection (GN1002 of 2011), published under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity
Act (Act No. 10, 2004).
Eastern Temperate Freshwater Wetlands vegetation type is classified as Least Threatened in the scientific
literature (Driver et al. 2005, Mucina et al. 2005) (Table 2) and is not listed in the National List of Ecosystems
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 62
that are Threatened and need of protection (GN1002 of 2011), published under the National Environmental
Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10, 2004).
Table 11: Conservation status of different vegetation types occurring in the study area.
Vegetation Type Target
(%)
Conserved
(%)
Transformed
(%)
Conservation status
Driver et al. 2005 National
Environmental:
Biodiversity Act
Eastern Highveld
Grassland
24 0.3 44 Endangered Vulnerable
Eastern Temperate
Freshwater Wetlands
24 4.6 15 Least Threatened Not listed
There are four species listed as Vulnerable, two as Near Threatened and three as Declining that could occur in
the study area in habitats that may be present on site.
Gladiolus paludosus, listed as Vulnerable, is found in wetlands or marshes in high altitude grasslands from
Witbank to Lydenburg and southwards to Piet Retief and Wakkerstroom. It has been previously recorded just
north of Klippan and there is a possibility that suitable habitat may occur in other areas nearby.
Khadia carolinensis, listed as Vulnerable, is found in well-drained, sandy-loam soils among rock outcrops or at
the edge of sandstone sheets in the Carolina and Belfast region. It has been previously recorded close to Arnot
Power Station within the study area and there is a high probability of it occurring in the study area, if suitable
habitat occurs there.
Miraglossum davyi, listed as Vulnerable, is found in grassland in the area between Middelburg, Dullstroom and
Standerton. The study area is in the centre of this distribution range.
Bowiea volubilis var. volubilis, listed as Vulnerable, is found in low and medium altitudes in summer rainfall areas
and has a probability of occurring in the study area. The total distribution range of this widespread species (which
occurs throughout Africa) overlaps with the study area and suitable habitat possibly occurs on site.
Two species listed as Near Threatened could occur in the study area, one that is widely distributed (Merwilla
plumbea), and the other that occurs in habitat that is found in the study area (Gladiolus robertsoniae). These
two species also have a moderate probability of being found in the study area.
Three additional species of conservation concern, listed as Declining, have a high probability of occurring on site.
These species are Boophane disticha, Eucomis autumnalis and Hypoxis hemerocallidea, all three of which are
widespread plants.
One protected tree species could be found on site or nearby, namely Pittosporum viridiflorum.
5.4.2 TERRESTRIAL FAUNA
Mammals
A total of 118 mammal species have a geographical distribution that includes the general study area in which
the site is found (Friedmann & Daly 2004, Mills & Hes 1997). Fifteen of the species with a geographical
distribution that includes the site have been listed in the Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa
(Friedmann & Daly 2004). These species are as follows: Oribi, Cheetah, Brown Hyaena, Serval, Spotted-necked
Otter, Honey Badger, Percival's Short-eared Trident Bat, Natal long-fingered Bat, Temminck's Myotis,
Welwitsch’s Myotis, Rusty Pipistrelle, Blasius's Horseshoe Bat, Swinny's Horseshoe Bat, South African Hedgehog
and Temminck's Ground Pangolin.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 63
Of the species currently listed as threatened or protected, those listed in Table 5.2 are considered to have a
medium to high probability of occurring on site and being potentially negatively affected by proposed activities
on site.
There are a number of bats that have a geographical distribution that includes the study area, some only
marginally. All these species depend on caves for roosting. They are therefore unlikely to be found on site other
than during foraging excursions, except at specific potential roosting sites. Activities on site are therefore highly
unlikely to have any negative effect on any of these species.
Table 12: Mammal species of conservation concern with a likelihood of occurring in the study area.
Scientific name Common name Status
Hyaena brunnea Brown hyaena Near Threatened, protected
Leptailurus serval Serval Near Threatened, protected
Hydrictus (Lutra) maculicollis Spotted-necked Otter Near Threatened, protected
Aterelix frontalis South African Hedgehog Near Threatened
Miniopterus natalensis Natal Long-fingered Bat Near Threatened
Amphibians
A total of 19 frog species have a geographical distribution that includes the general study area in which the site
is found (Du Preez & Carruthers 2009). Some of these species are only marginally present in the study area due
to the fact that their distribution range ends close to the study area. Of the frog species that could potentially
occur in the study area, none are listed in a threat category, but the Giant Bullfrog, previously listed as Near
Threatened, is protected.
The site contains habitat that is suitable for various frog species, although only one species of conservation
concern is likely to occur in the study area.
Table 13: Amphibian species of conservation concern with a likelihood of occurring in the study area.
Scientific name Common name Status
Pyxicephalus adspersus Giant Bullfrog Protected
Reptiles
A total of 65 reptile species have a geographical distribution that includes the general study area in which the
site is found (Alexander & Marais 2007, Bates et al. 2014, Branch 1988, Marais 2004, Tolley & Burger 2007). Of
the reptile species that could potentially occur in the study area, Breyer's Long-tailed Seps, listed as Vulnerable,
and the Coppery Grass Lizard, Large-scaled Grass Lizard and Striped Harlequin Snake, all listed as Near
Threatened, have been listed in a threat category. The Coppery Grass Lizard (Chamaesaura aenea), listed as Near
Threatened, occurs in western Swaziland, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal (associated with the
Drakensberg), northeastern Free State.
There are therefore three reptile species of conservation concern that could potentially occur in the study area
and that may therefore be affected by the proposed project, as shown in Table 14.
Table 14: Reptile species of conservation concern with a likelihood of occurring in the study area.
Scientific name Common name Status
Chamaesaura aenea Coppery Grass Lizard Near Threatened
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 64
Tetradactylus breyeri Breyer's Long-tailed Seps Vulnerable
Homoroselaps dorsalis Striped Harlequin Snake Near Threatened
5.4.3 BIRDS
A total of 320 bird species have a geographical distribution that includes the general study area in which the site
is found (Chittenden 2007). A total of 189 of these species have been recently recorded in the grid (SABAP2).
This includes a wide variety of species from different groups (see Appendix 3) and occurring in different types of
habitats. The habitat on site is only potentially suitable for a smaller number of these species and not all would
be expected to be found there.
A total of 27 of the bird species with a geographical distribution that includes the site are listed in "The 2015
Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland" (Taylor et al. 2015) and/or on the IUCN
Red List (www.iucnredlist.org). Twelve of these are listed as Near Threatened, nine as Vulnerable and six as
Endangered. The Endangered species are Ludwig's Bustard, Martial Eagle, African Marsh Harrier, Black Harrier,
Yellow-billed Stork and Cape Vulture. The Vulnerable species are Burchell's Courser, Verreaux's Eagle, Lanner
Falcon, African Grass Owl, Great White Pelican, Pink-backed Pelican, Secretarybird, Black Stork and Caspian Tern.
It is concluded that the site contains habitat that is suitable for various bird species of conservation concern.
Those that are potentially significantly vulnerable to proposed activities in the study area are as follows:
• African Marsh Harrier (EN),
• Yellow-billed Stork (EN),
• Burchell's Courser (VU),
• African Grass Owl (VU),
• Secretarybird (VU),
• Black Stork (VU),
• Maccoa Duck (NT),
• Red-footed Falcon (NT),
• Greater Painted Snipe (NT),
• Black-winged Pratincole (NT).
Important Bird Areas
The site does not fall within any Important Bird Area, as defined by BirdLife South Africa, but is in close proximity
to two of them. The closest IBA is 4 km to the north-east, the Steenkampsberg IBA. Further south, approximately
16 km away, is the Amersfoort-Bethal-Carolina IBA. The site is therefore wedged between two large IBAs.
5.4.4 ASPECT MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR THE AREA
There are two biodiversity management plans for Mpumalanga Province, the earlier version called the
Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan (MBCP) and the more recent version called the Mpumalanga
Biodiversity Sector Plan.
The Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan
The Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan (MBCP) classifies the natural vegetation of the province
according to conservation value in decreasing value, as follows:
1. Protected
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 65
2. Irreplaceable
3. Highly significant
4. Important and necessary
5. Least concern
The two site options have different amounts of each conservation category within their broader borders.
According to the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan (MBCP), remaining areas of natural vegetation on
site within Alternative 1 are classified in all categories of the MBCP, except Protected, including a small area of
habitat classified as Irreplaceable (Figure 9). The areas of higher significance are scattered throughout the centre
of the Alternative 1 area and it may not be possible to avoid them by alternative placement of the infrastructure.
The remaining areas of natural vegetation on site within Alternative 2 are classified as Least Concern or No
natural habitat remaining.
Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan
The more recently compiled Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan (Mpumalanga Parks and Tourism Agency
2014) classifies the natural vegetation of the Province according to the following categories:
1. Protected Areas
2. Critical Biodiversity Areas
3. Other natural areas
4. Ecological Support Area
5. Modified.
According to this assessment, the study area contains areas within three categories, namely Modified Areas,
Other Natural Areas and Critical Biodiversity Areas (Figure 10). The most important CBA is associated with the
stream that runs across the northern parts of both site options. Another one is associated with the grasslands
around the pan that occurs in Alternative 2.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 66
Figure 9: Parts of the study are in different categories of the MBCP.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 67
Figure 10: Parts of the study area in different categories of the MBSP.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 68
5.4.5 KEY SENSITIVITIES
There are features on site that need to be taken into account in order to evaluate sensitivity of the site and its
surroundings. These include the following:
1. Wetlands areas: There is a stream running through the study area and some small pans. The stream is
associated with a significant floodplain area. The pans sometimes have areas of grassland surrounding
them that forms part of the pan environment and may constitute a seepage area. The wetlands are
protected according to the National Water Act and constitute important ecological areas in terms of
hydrological processes and as refugia for species.
2. Natural vegetation: The major vegetation type of this region is Eastern Highveld Grassland, which is
listed as Endangered in the scientific literature and as Vulnerable according to the National List of
Ecosystems that are Threatened and need of protection (GN1002 of 2011), published under the
National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10, 2004). These remaining patches of
grassland have high conservation value.
Table 5: Sensitivity ratings for features in the study area and explanations for ratings assigned.
Feature Score Reason
Transformed areas
-1 These areas are already degraded, and the proposed project will not affect this current status. Over the long-term, there is the potential to rehabilitate following termination of the project, which could potentially improve the current status or at least be neutral.
Secondary areas
0 The project will not result in removal of vegetation, although some of the vegetation is considered to be secondary. This vegetation could potentially develop into something with biodiversity value over long periods of time, but this can also be achieved through rehabilitation after termination of the project and achieve the same end result. The project will therefore not affect the inherent feature status.
Natural areas in poor condition
0 The poor state of the vegetation means that it has already lost its intrinsic biodiversity value. The vegetation in these patches would require extensive rehabilitation efforts to improve it, which can also be achieved through rehabilitation after termination of the project and achieve the same end result. The project will therefore not affect the inherent feature status.
Secondary areas with important ecological functionality
+1 This relates primarily to wetland areas that were previously cultivated, but have since developed a secondary vegetation cover. The system still functions as a wetland, but has different species composition to what would be found in a natural wetland.
Natural areas +1 Natural areas of grassland are considered to have high intrinsic biodiversity value. If there is any loss or degradation of this habitat, the natural vegetation is only replaceable over periods of time that exceed human life-spans, which means that it is essentially permanently lost if it is removed. This further highlights the high value of these area for biodiversity retention.
Wetlands and pans
+2 The wetlands and associated vegetation is ecologically sensitive and has high intrinsic biodiversity value. The system is interconnected in a way where any damage could lead to changes to the entire ecosystem and the way it functions, including to downstream areas.
Natural areas within regional vegetation types
+2 Only small fragments of these remain. Due to the listing of this regional vegetation type as Endangered, all remaining fragments are considered to have irreplaceable biodiversity value.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 69
classified as Endangered or in CBA areas
A sensitivity map based on these scores is provided below (Figure 11).
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 70
Figure 11: Location of sensitive habitats within the study area.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 71
5.5 HERITAGE AND PALEONTOLOGY
The province of Mpumalanga is known to be rich in archaeological sites that tell the story of humans and their
predecessors in the region going back some 1,7 million years (Delius & Hay, 2009). The pre-colonial period is
divided broadly into the Stone Age and the Iron Age (Refer to Figure 1 for a visual representation of the human
time line).
The Stone Age refers to the earliest people of South Africa who relied mainly on stone for their tools and were
hunter-gatherers. This period is divided into the Earlier, Middle and Later Stone Age:
• Earlier Stone Age: The period from ± 2.5 million yrs. - ± 250 000 yrs. ago. Acheulean stone tools are
dominant.
• Middle Stone Age: Various stone tool industries in SA dating from ± 250 000 yrs. – 40 000 yrs. before
present.
• Later Stone Age: The period from ± 40 000 yrs. before present to the period of contact with either Iron
Age farmers or European colonists. (Delius & Hay, 2009; Morris, 2008)
The archaeological literature does not contain much information on the Stone Age archaeology of this area,
since this period has not been researched extensively in Mpumalanga (Esterhuysen & Smith, 2007). However, it
is clear from the general archaeological record that the larger Mpumalanga region has been inhabited by
humans since Earlier Stone Age (ESA) times. Although no Stone Age sites are known from the immediate vicinity
of the study area, there are some sites recorded in the greater region (Esterhuysen & Smith, 2007). Examples of
such sites are noted below.
Stone Age Sites
An Earlier Stone Age site is located at Maleoskop near Groblersdal. Concentrations of ESA stone tools were
found in erosion gullies along the Rietspruit (Esterhuysen & Smith, 2007). Evidence for the Middle Stone Age
(MSA) period has been excavated from Bushman Rock Shelter, situated on the farm Klipfonteinhoek in the
Ohrigstad District. The MSA layers indicated that the cave was visited repeatedly over a long period, between
approximately 40 000 years ago and 27 000 Before Present (Esterhuysen & Smith, 2007). Two Later Stone Age
(LSA) sites were found at the farm Honingklip near Badplaas in the Carolina District, (Esterhuysen & Smith, 2007).
Early Iron Age
Early farming communities moved into the Mpumalanga area around AD 500. These early farmers used metal
tools and pottery and lived in fairly permanent agricultural villages. The most well-known EIA site in the area is
the Lydenburg Heads site in the Sterkstroom Valley.
Late Iron Age
Late Farmer societies developed extensive stone settlements around Lydenburg, Badfontein, Sekhukhuneland,
Roossenekal and Steelpoort (Delius & Hay, 2009). The greater Belfast area specifically, is known for its large
complexes of LIA stonewalling. Although there was some early research on the stone ruins in the general region
of the then-named eastern Transvaal, systematic investigation of the ruins only began in the last decade (Collett,
1982). Evers (1975) and Mason (1968) both undertook surveys of aerial photographs of the general area and
identified a vast number of such settlements between Lydenburg and Machadodorp. Evers noted that
settlements are not evenly distributed over the area, largely for topographical reasons (1975). These settlements
typically consisted of three interrelated elements: homesteads, with cattle kraals surrounded by enclosures for
human habitation; stone-edged paths or roadways, probably for movement of cattle; and stone terraces, for
agricultural cultivation. Most of the homesteads were built in symmetrical patterns, some of which were
reproduced in rock engravings found close to these settlements (Delius and Hay; 2009).
With regard to dating, the beginning of the Late Iron Age in this region is obscure. At the time of Evers’ article
there were no sites known that were intermediate in age between the Early Iron Age sites and the later stone-
walled sites. However, since elsewhere in the then-named Transvaal and Orange Free State, stone-walled
building appeared to start around A.D. 1450-1500, this was thought to be true in this region as well (Evers, 1975).
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 72
Rock Engravings
An article by Maggs (1995), explains that these agriculturist engravings are mainly dominated by depictions of
ground plans representing the shape of settlements people built and lived in. Virtually all known engraved sites
are in the vicinity of Late Iron Age settlements and it is now known that such engravings are much more common
than was previously thought. Fieldwork in several such regions has produced many formerly unrecorded sites
within the limited areas searched. Therefore, Maggs recommended that future fieldwork on the stone-built
settlements should incorporate an examination of neighbouring rock outcrops for possible engravings (ibid).
Maggs’ article highlights that such images may represent abstract or symbolic spatial arrangements reflecting
the cosmology of the society that made them. He uses an example taken from the Pedi, a northern Sotho group
linked geographically and culturally with the Mpumalanga engravings. Within this system, social and religious
structure was, and among many rural communities still is, clearly inseparable. Each member literally knows their
place within the homestead according to their age, sex and status (ibid).
The South African (Anglo-Boer) War
The area between Witbank and Ermelo major military activity during the latter part of the South African War.
The occupation of Pretoria on 5 June 1900, saw the retreat of Boer forces towards the eastern Transvaal
(Mpumalanga) and the intensification of the guerrilla warfare activities. Seeking to bring an end to the conflict
the British started an advance of the Boer forces from the west (Pretoria) and the south (Ermelo). In April 1901,
one of the British Columns under Major-General F.W. Kitchener started with a push from Lydenburg towards
the south over the Delagoa-Pretoria rail line in an attempt to capture the Boer forces under the command of
General Ben Viljoen. Between April and August of 1900 numerous skirmishes and engagements took place
between British forces (predominantly associated with the Western Australian 5th and 6th Contingents) and
retreating Boer commandos
5.5.1 KEY SENSITIVITIES
The data analysis has enabled the identification of possible heritage sensitive areas that included:
• Dwellings
• Clusters of dwellings (homesteads and farmsteads);
• Archaeological Sensitive areas (based on historical descriptions);
• Structures.
Cemeteries and graves
Three cemeteries could be directly impacted by the proposed construction activities of the ADF but area situated
outside the proposed footprint areas and can be conserved with the necessary management measures. The
cemeteries have high heritage significance and are given a Grade 3A significance rating in accordance with the
system described in Section 3.1 of the Heritage Impact Assessment (Appendix I).
Heritage structures
Only a single farmstead is situated inside the buffer area of Alternative 2 and should not be directly impacted by
the development. The cluster that historically functioned as a single farmstead is protected under Section 34 of
the NHRA and has a medium heritage significance and given a grading of Generally protected B.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 73
Figure 12: Potential heritage resources in the study area
5.6 SOILS
The project area is flat in relief with slopes of less than 4%. The land type data suggest that soils of the Hutton,
Glencoe, and Wasbank forms are present in the crest to midslope positions, with Longlands, Rensburg, and
Katspruit soil forms in the valley bottoms. The average land capability based on the land type data is that of a
class III (moderate cultivation). Class III land would pose moderate limitations to agriculture with some erosion
hazard and would require special conservation practice and tillage methods. The farming method for this
capability would require the rotation of crops and ley (50%).
The current land use seems to be croplands with some depressions in the areas. Alternative one shows lower
agricultural potential from the areal imagery and therefor from an agricultural perspective Alternative 1 is the
selected site. The land capability will need to be verified in the field.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 74
5.6.1 KEY SENSITIVITIES
Special care and erosion prevention measures must be taken when working in areas where naturally dispersive
soils occur.
5.7 RIVERS AND WETLANDS
5.7.1 RIVERS
The project site is located within the Olifants Water Management Area 4 (WMA 4) and within quaternary
catchment B12B. The Mean Annual Precipitation (MAP) calculated for this area is 699 mm while the Mean
Annual Evaporation (MAE) is 1552 mm and the Mean Annual Runoff (MAR) is 24.09 million m3/annum making
this a dry area. The preliminary flood plain of the tributaries surrounding the proposed ash disposal facility sites
was mapped out and is considered to be Highly Sensitive (+2) since it is prone to siltation and pollution which
could potentially arise from the proposed project. Slurry from the operations and spillages of hydrocarbons and
chemicals used by machinery and vehicles are possible sources of pollution in The Rietkuilspruit and its
tributaries, if due care is not taken. Refer to Table 15 for average climatic data for the area.
Table 15: Mean monthly and annual precipitation, evaporation and runoff for quaternary catchment B12B
A map indicating the study area in relation to the identified River National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas
(NFEPAs) in provided in Figure 13.
Month Precipitation (mm) Evaporation (mm) Runoff (MCM)
Oct 73 167 0.74
Nov 115 158 2.34
Dec 120 175 3.80
Jan 122 171 5.13
Feb 89 142 4.69
Mar 80 140 2.86
Apr 41 108 1.85
May 15 91 0.92
Jun 8 74 0.61
Jul 6 81 0.47
Aug 7 107 0.37
Sep 23 139 0.32
Annual 699 1552 24.09
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 75
Figure 13: Map indicating the study area in relation to the River NFEPAs
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 76
5.7.2 WETLANDS
The extent of wetland areas (based on the desktop delineation) within the primary (120ha) and secondary (1km
radius) study areas are shown in Figure 14. Based on the desktop delineation, a higher wetland extent within
the primary study area was recorded at Alternative 1, with approximately 29.49 % of the area demarcated as a
wetland. Alternative 2 reflected a lower wetland extent, with approximately 8.86 % of the area demarcated as
wetlands. For the secondary study area Alternative 1 reflected less wetlands. However, based on the field
observations, the wetlands situated within the secondary study area of Alternative 2, were more degraded
compared to that of Alternative 1. This will be further assessed during the EIA phase of the study. A map
indicating the location of NFEPA wetlands in the study area is provided in Figure 16.
Figure 14: Desktop wetland extent within the primary study area (120 Ha)
In addition to the desktop delineation a Wetland Index (WI) was also modelled for study area. The WI (Figure
15) reflects the propensity of an area to express wetness based on topographical variation and augmented the
sensitivity analyses. The wetness index provides a suitable proxy for the determination of likely wetland areas
within the individual study areas. Based on the WI, Alternative 2 indicted the lowest proportion of
temporary/seasonal and permanent wetland areas.
Figure 15: Desktop wetland extent within the secondary study area (1km radius)
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 77
Figure 16: Map indicating the study area in relation to the NFEPA wetland types
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 78
Figure 17: Sensitivity map of the watercourses associated with the study area
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 79
5.7.3 KEY SENSITIVITIES
The preliminary flood plain of the tributaries surrounding the two proposed ash disposal facility sites was
mapped out and is considered to be Highly Sensitive (+2) since it is prone to siltation and pollution which could
potentially arise from the proposed project (Figure 17). Slurry from the operations and spillages of hydrocarbons
and chemicals used by machinery and vehicles are possible sources of pollution in the Rietkuilspruit and its
tributaries, if due care is not taken.
The rationale applied with the aquatic/wetland sensitivity assessment is based on the premise that all
watercourses or potential watercourse areas are sensitive. The catchment size, slope and position in the
landscape predominantly determine the potential for water accumulation. Once accumulated, other factors
such as underlying geology and soil permeability also contribute towards the nature of particular wetness
expressed. The proposed activities may potentially have a significant negative influence on the current status of
the receiving instream environment if not adequately managed.
Both alternative sites fall within quaternary catchments B12B, in the Olifants Water Management Area (WMA).
The two main river systems that are associated with the proposed alternatives include the Rietkuilspruit (Alt2)
and the Klein-Olifants (Alt1). The Rietkuilspruit SQR fell within an overall E Present Ecological State (PES)
category, inferring a Seriously modified state, while the Klein-Olifants is less impacted, falling into a C PES
category, indicating a Moderately modified state. The WI was modelled for the study area. The WI reflects the
propensity of an area to express wetness based on topographical variation and formed the basis of the sensitivity
analyses. Based on the WI, Alternative indicted a lower proportion of temporary/seasonal and permanent
wetland areas when compared to Alternative 1.
Based on the desktop delineation, a higher wetland extent within the study area was recorded at Alternative 1,
while Alternative 2 indicated a higher wetland extent within the secondary study area (1 km radius). The PES of
the wetlands was not considered during the scoping assessment. The rationale applied with the aquatic/wetland
sensitivity assessment is based on the premise that all watercourses or potential watercourse areas are sensitive.
The catchment size, slope and position in the landscape determine the potential for water accumulation. Once
accumulated, other factors such as underlying geology and soil permeability also contribute towards the nature
of wetness expressed.
5.8 GROUNDWATER
According to the 1:500 000 hydrogeological map series 2526 Johannesburg (Barnard and Baran, 1999) the site
is underlain by an intergranular and fractured aquifer with an average borehole yield between 0.5 to 2l/s.
The aquifer vulnerability and classification maps of South Africa classify the underlying aquifer as a minor aquifer
which is the least vulnerable aquifer system. However, no municipal water or water supply dams are present in
the area, therefore the aquifer can be classified as a sole source aquifer system, based on the hydrocensus data
which indicated numerous production boreholes in the area investigated. According to Parsons and Conrad
(1998), a sole source aquifer system can be defined as an aquifer which is used to supply 50% or more domestic
water for a given area, and for which no alternative source is available should the aquifer be depleted.
Surface and groundwater quality monitoring was conducted by Fisuxolo Trading in June 2013. The project was
planned for three-year period incorporating surface and groundwater monitoring each quarter. The project was
interrupted in March 2014 and August 2015 for commercial reasons and resumed in May 2015 and April 2016.
The following was concluded in the quarterly report (up to July 2016): Surface and Groundwater Quality
Monitoring - Arnot Power Station: August 2016 – 3rd Quarter 2016.
• Surface water and groundwater samples were collected from: Nooitgedacht Spruit, Rietkuil Spruit,
power station area, coal stockyard area, ash water return dams, ashing area and ash dams, sewage
plant and the domestic waste site;
• Laboratory results indicated that the quality of water in the Arnot area is mixed. There are fluctuating
concentrations according to the SANS 241:2011 but all concentrations are in line with the Arnot WUL
and its amendment;
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 80
• The majority of samples are calcium dominant (Ca-HCO3 and Ca-SO4 type waters). Ca-HCO3 waters are
typical of shallow, fresh surface and groundwater typical of the Karoo aquifers, which are generally
shallow. The Ca-SO4 waters are typical of gypsum groundwater and mine drainage. Coal is associated
with small amounts of pyrite which when exposed to oxygen and water readily reacts to produce
elevated sulphate water;
• Water chemistry trends indicate fluctuating concentrations over time possibly as a result of seasonal
variations. High concentrations are observed in the dry season and lower concentrations in the wet
season;
• Water levels vary with seasons becoming shallow in the wet seasons and deeper in the dry season. Both
the chemical and water level fluctuations can be expected to persist and are considered normal;
As part of the overall monitoring done by Fisuxolo, a hydrocensus was carried out in July 2016 and the
results were submitted in August 2016. The following recommendations were made:
o The recommended remediation is cutting off the sources of the pollutants and, where ground
and water is already contaminated, neutralisation with a suitable buffer;
o Geophysics were recommended to trace the depth and lateral extent of the pollutants
followed by design of a detailed remediation plan;
o One of the reasons for pollution is the over use of water in the process. By reducing water
demand the pollution created by water leakage or spillage can be significantly reduced with
concomitant savings in water costs;
o Evaluate the objectives of the monitoring and discuss where the monitoring can be reduced
and optimised;
o Automatic monitoring is an option and can reduce costs without loss of accuracy;
o Recommendations for water management indicated by the chemistry results:
▪ Improve access to monitoring sites;
▪ Investigate reasons for contamination; and
▪ Use reasons to develop a mitigation strategy.
o Surface water and groundwater in the Arnot area has been recorded as polluted since the start
of monitoring. The last 2 monitoring phases do not indicate any improvement. Active
remediation is required.
During the hydrocensus, properties within a 2-5km radius of the site were visited. Details including water use
type, volumes, abstraction rates, water levels and co-ordinates were obtained where possible. The groundwater
abstracted from the majority of boreholes are used for domestic, garden irrigation and agricultural purposes.
The pH, EC and TDS values for all boreholes which were sampled for field parameters were compliant with the
SANS 241-1:2011 standards. In total, 12 hydrocensus boreholes were identified within the 1km radius
surrounding the two alternative sites. The groundwater abstracted from the majority of boreholes are used for
domestic, garden irrigation and agricultural stock watering purposes (cattle). The hydrocensus borehole map is
provided in Figure 18.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 81
Figure 18: Hydrocensus borehole map
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 82
5.8.1 KEY SENSITIVITIES
For Site Alternative 1 and 2 the risk of groundwater contamination due to shallow groundwater levels are
probable. For Site Alternative 1 the presence of four boreholes used for potable use increases the impact of
groundwater contamination as opposed to the two boreholes for Site Alternative 2.
5.9 AIR QUALITY
The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) operates a monitoring network over the Highveld region at the
residential areas of Hendrina (actual location in Kwazamokuhle, just northeast of Hendrina), Ermelo,
Middleburg, Secunda and eMalahleni. The closest monitoring station to the proposed operations is located at
Hendrina approximately 18 km southwest. The measured daily PM10 and PM2.5 ground level concentrations at
the DEA operated Hendrina monitoring station is within current NAAQS for the period 2016.
Eskom operates a monitoring station (Kwazamokuhle) less than 1km from the DEA operated Hendrina
monitoring station. Monitored data from this site is only available from October 2016 and measures 5
exceedances of the daily PM10 NAAQS and 2 exceedances of the daily PM2.5 NAAQS for the period October to
December 2016 (3-month period). Measured PM10 and PM2.5 thus potential exceeds daily NAAQS at this
monitoring site.
It should be noted that measured PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations at the DEA operated Hendrina and Eskom
operated Kwazamokuhle sites may be influenced by local sources of emissions and may not be representative
of ambient air quality at the proposed project site approximately 18 km to the northeast.
The period wind field and diurnal variability in the wind field are shown in Figure 19, while the seasonal variations
are shown in Figure 20. The wind regime for the area is dominated by easterly and northwesterly flow fields.
The northwesterly wind flow is more dominant during day-time conditions, with easterly wind flow more
dominant during the night. Calm conditions occurred for 11.2 % of the period summarised.
Seasonally, the wind flow pattern conforms to the period average wind flow pattern; however, some seasonal
variability in the wind fields. During summer easterly winds are more frequent than in other seasons, while winds
from the north-west occur more frequently in winter. Autumn has the highest frequency of calm periods (16%)
while spring shows an increased frequency of winds of speeds greater than 5 m/s.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 83
Figure 19: Diurnal wind roses
Figure 20: Seasonal wind roses
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 84
Air temperature is important, both for determining the effect of plume buoyancy (the larger the temperature
difference between the emission plume and the ambient air, the higher the plume is able to rise), and
determining the development of the mixing and inversion layers.
Temperatures ranged between -3.0°C and 29.5°C. During the day, temperatures increase to reach maximum at
about 15:00 in the late afternoon. Ambient air temperature decreases to reach a minimum at between 06:00
and 07:00.
Existing sources of emission
The main existing sources of particulate emissions in the area are mining activities, agricultural activities and
vehicle entrainment.
Gaseous emissions (viz. SO2, CO, carbon dioxide (CO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and hydrocarbons) will derive
from combustions sources such as vehicles and power station activity.
The main contribution from these sources can be summarised as follows:
• Power station operations near the project site (i.e. Arnot Power Station) will contribute to CO2, SO2, CO,
PM10, PM2.5 and NOx gaseous emissions. The existing ash facility at the power station will contribute to
particulate matter though windblown dust if the facility is not completely rehabilitated once the new
facility is operational.
• Numerous coal mines are located near the Arnot Power Station (particularly to the west of operations).
Particulate matter is the main pollutant of concern from mining operations deriving from materials
handling, vehicle entrainment and crushing activities.
• Agriculture (together with mining) is a dominant land-use within the surrounding area. Particulate
matter is the main pollutant of concern from agricultural activities as particulate emissions are deriving
from windblown dust, burning crop residue, and dust entrainment as a result of vehicles travelling along
dirt roads. In addition, pollen grains, mold spores and plant and insect parts from agricultural activities
all contribute to the particulate load (WHO, 2000).
• Biomass burning results in aerosols, black carbon and hydrocarbons. Biomass burning is also a
significant source of greenhouse gases, especially CO2 and methane (CH4), black carbon and
photochemical gases (NOx, CO and hydrocarbons) that lead to the production of tropospheric O3. The
extent of NOx emissions depends on combustion temperatures, with minor sulphur oxides being
released. Burning crop residue may be a significant source of atmospheric emissions within the area.
• Household fuel burning contributes to gaseous and particulate ambient concentrations. Coal burning
emits a large amount of gaseous and particulate pollutants including SO2, NO2, heavy metals, total and
respirable particulates including heavy metals and inorganic ash, carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, and benzo(a)pyrene (EPA, 1996). Polyaromatic hydrocarbons are recognised as
carcinogens. Pollutants arising due to the combustion of wood include respirable particulates, SO2, NO2,
carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, particulate benzo(a)pyrene and formaldehyde
(EPA, 1996). The main pollutants emitted from the combustion of paraffin are NO2, particulates carbon
monoxide and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (EPA, 2010).
• Vehicle tailpipe emissions can be significant sources of CO2, CO, hydrocarbons (HCs), SO2, NOx and
particulate matter.
5.9.1 KEY SENSITIVITIES
The closest residential area to the proposed project is Rietkuil, immediately north of the existing Arnot
Power Station ash facility. Individual farmsteads also surround the project area. Due to the location of
sensitive receptors to the proposed project sites, both alternatives are likely to impact on the same number
of receptors so there is no clear preferable site in terms of sensitivities in general.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 85
Figure 21: Location of sensitive receptors and potential 120ha ash disposal facility sites (1 km buffer) assessed
for the scoping phase.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 86
6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This section aims to identify and assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed
activities. This impact assessment will be used to guide the identification and selection of preferred alternatives,
and management and mitigation measures, applicable to the proposed activity. Section 6.4 discussed the
selection of preferred alternatives in more detail.
6.1 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
This section presents the proposed approach to assessing the identified potential environmental impacts with
the aim of determining the relevant environmental significance.
6.1.1 METHOD OF ASSESSING IMPACTS
The impact assessment methodology is guided by the requirements of the NEMA EIA Regulations. The broad
approach to the significance rating methodology is to determine the environmental risk (ER) by considering the
consequence (C) of each impact (comprising Nature, Extent, Duration, Magnitude, and Reversibility) and relate
this to the probability/likelihood (P) of the impact occurring. This determines the environmental risk. In addition,
other factors, including cumulative impacts, public concern, and potential for irreplaceable loss of resources, are
used to determine a prioritisation factor (PF) which is applied to the ER to determine the overall significance (S).
6.1.2 DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISK
The significance (S) of an impact is determined by applying a prioritisation factor (PF) to the environmental risk
(ER). The environmental risk is dependent on the consequence (C) of the particular impact and the probability
(P) of the impact occurring. Consequence is determined through the consideration of the Nature (N), Extent (E),
Duration (D), Magnitude (M), and reversibility (R) applicable to the specific impact.
For the purpose of this methodology the consequence of the impact is represented by:
C= (E+D+M+R) x N
4
Each individual aspect in the determination of the consequence is represented by a rating scale as defined in
Table 16.
Table 16: Criteria for determining impact consequence
Aspect Score Definition
Nature - 1 Likely to result in a negative/ detrimental impact
+1 Likely to result in a positive/ beneficial impact
Extent 1 Activity (i.e. limited to the area applicable to the specific activity)
2 Site (i.e. within the development property boundary),
3 Local (i.e. the area within 5 km of the site),
4 Regional (i.e. extends between 5 and 50 km from the site)
5 Provincial / National (i.e. extends beyond 50 km from the site)
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 87
Aspect Score Definition
Duration 1 Immediate (<1 year)
2 Short term (1-5 years),
3 Medium term (6-15 years),
4 Long term (the impact will cease after the operational life span of the
project),
5 Permanent (no mitigation measure of natural process will reduce the impact
after construction).
Magnitude/ Intensity 1 Minor (where the impact affects the environment in such a way that natural,
cultural and social functions and processes are not affected),
2 Low (where the impact affects the environment in such a way that natural,
cultural and social functions and processes are slightly affected),
3 Moderate (where the affected environment is altered but natural, cultural
and social functions and processes continue albeit in a modified way),
4 High (where natural, cultural or social functions or processes are altered to
the extent that it will temporarily cease), or
5 Very high / don’t know (where natural, cultural or social functions or
processes are altered to the extent that it will permanently cease).
Reversibility 1 Impact is reversible without any time and cost.
2 Impact is reversible without incurring significant time and cost.
3 Impact is reversible only by incurring significant time and cost.
4 Impact is reversible only by incurring prohibitively high time and cost.
5 Irreversible Impact
Once the C has been determined, the ER is determined in accordance with the standard risk assessment
relationship by multiplying the C and the P. Probability is rated/scored as per Table 17.
Table 17: Probability scoring
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 88
Pro
bab
ility
1 Improbable (the possibility of the impact materialising is very low as a result of design, historic
experience, or implementation of adequate corrective actions; <25%),
2 Low probability (there is a possibility that the impact will occur; >25% and <50%),
3 Medium probability (the impact may occur; >50% and <75%),
4 High probability (it is most likely that the impact will occur- > 75% probability), or
5 Definite (the impact will occur).
The result is a qualitative representation of relative ER associated with the impact. ER is therefore calculated as
follows:
ER= C x P
Table 18: Determination of Environmental Risk
Co
nse
qu
ence
5 5 10 15 20 25
4 4 8 12 16 20
3 3 6 9 12 15
2 2 4 6 8 10
1 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Probability
The outcome of the environmental risk assessment will result in a range of scores, ranging from 1 through to 25.
These ER scores are then grouped into respective classes as described in Table 19.
Table 19: Significance classes
Environmental Risk Score
Value Description
< 9 Low (i.e. where this impact is unlikely to be a significant environmental risk),
≥9 <17 Medium (i.e. where the impact could have a significant environmental risk),
≥ 17 High (i.e. where the impact will have a significant environmental risk).
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 89
The impact ER will be determined for each impact without relevant management and mitigation measures (pre-
mitigation), as well as post implementation of relevant management and mitigation measures (post-mitigation).
This allows for a prediction in the degree to which the impact can be managed/mitigated.
6.1.3 IMPACT PRIORITISATION
In accordance with the requirements of Appendix 3(3)(j) of the NEMA 2014 EIA Regulations (GNR 982), and
further to the assessment criteria presented in the Section above it is necessary to assess each potentially
significant impact in terms of:
• Cumulative impacts; and
• The degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources.
In addition, it is important that the public opinion and sentiment regarding a prospective development and
consequent potential impacts is considered in the decision-making process.
In an effort to ensure that these factors are considered, an impact prioritisation factor (PF) will be applied to
each impact ER (post-mitigation). This prioritisation factor does not aim to detract from the risk ratings but
rather to focus the attention of the decision-making authority on the higher priority/significance issues and
impacts. The PF will be applied to the ER score based on the assumption that relevant suggested
management/mitigation impacts are implemented.
Table 20: Criteria for determining prioritisation
Public response
(PR)
Low (1) Issue not raised in public response.
Medium (2) Issue has received a meaningful and justifiable public response.
High (3) Issue has received an intense meaningful and justifiable public response.
Cumulative
Impact (CI)
Low (1) Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and
synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikely that the impact will result in
spatial and temporal cumulative change.
Medium (2) Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and
synergistic cumulative impacts, it is probable that the impact will result in
spatial and temporal cumulative change.
High (3) Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and
synergistic cumulative impacts, it is highly probable/definite that the
impact will result in spatial and temporal cumulative change.
Irreplaceable
loss of
resources (LR)
Low (1) Where the impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.
Medium (2) Where the impact may result in the irreplaceable loss (cannot be replaced
or substituted) of resources but the value (services and/or functions) of
these resources is limited.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 90
High (3) Where the impact may result in the irreplaceable loss of resources of high
value (services and/or functions).
The value for the final impact priority is represented as a single consolidated priority, determined as the sum of
each individual criteria represented in Table 20. The impact priority is therefore determined as follows:
Priority = PR + CI + LR
The result is a priority score which ranges from 3 to 9 and a consequent PF ranging from 1 to 2 (Refer to Table
21 ).
Table 21: Determination of prioritisation factor
Priority Ranking Prioritisation Factor
3 Low 1
4 Medium 1.17
5 Medium 1.33
6 Medium 1.5
7 Medium 1.67
8 Medium 1.83
9 High 2
In order to determine the final impact significance, the PF is multiplied by the ER of the post mitigation scoring.
The ultimate aim of the PF is to be able to increase the post mitigation environmental risk rating by a full ranking
class, if all the priority attributes are high (i.e. if an impact comes out with a medium environmental risk after
the conventional impact rating, but there is significant cumulative impact potential, significant public response,
and significant potential for irreplaceable loss of resources, then the net result would be to upscale the impact
to a high significance).
Table 22: Final Environmental significance rating
Environmental Significance Rating
Value Description
< -10 Low negative (i.e. where this impact would not have a direct influence on the decision to
develop in the area).
≥ -10 < -20 Medium negative (i.e. where the impact could influence the decision to develop in the area).
≥ -20 High negative (i.e. where the impact must have an influence on the decision process to
develop in the area).
0 No impact
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 91
< 10 Low positive (i.e. where this impact would not have a direct influence on the decision to
develop in the area).
≥ 10 < 20 Medium positive (i.e. where the impact could influence the decision to develop in the area).
≥ 20 High positive (i.e. where the impact must have an influence on the decision process to
develop in the area).
6.2 IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACTS
Potential environmental impacts were identified during the scoping process. These impacts were identified by
the EAP, the appointed specialists, as well as the public. Table 8 provides the list of potential impacts identified.
Table 8: Identified Environmental Impacts
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASPECT
POTENTIAL IMPACT
Biodiversity • Loss of habitat (Construction)
• Habitat fragmentation (Construction)
• Displacement of fauna (Construction & Operation)
• Blockage of seasonal dispersal (Construction & Operation)
• Direct Construction Impacts on flora
• Direct Construction Impacts on fauna
• Pollution of habitats (Construction and Operation)
• Blockage of seasonal dispersal (Operation)
• Introduction of alien plants (Operation)
Soils and Geology • Loss of agricultural land
• Wind erosion
• Water seepage
Geohydrology/
Groundwater
• Contamination of Groundwater (i.e. chemicals, fuel, waste, sedimentation)
Hydrology/ Surface
Water & Wetlands
• Increase sediment loads
• Spillage of oils, fuel and chemicals
• Contamination from leakage and spillage
• Impacts related to a decrease in surface water quality on wetlands and aquatic biota
• Impacts related to altered surface water hydrology on wetlands and aquatic biota
• Impacts related to erosion and sedimentation on wetlands and aquatic biota
• Aquatic habitat destruction and fragmentation.
Air Quality • Gases and particles from vehicle activity on-site (Construction and
operation)
• Wind erosion from ash disposal facility
• Particulates from rehabilitation of ash disposal facility
• Particulates from construction of progressing ash disposal facility site
Visual • Alteration of the visual quality and sense of place of the area
• Light pollution
• Improvement of the visual quality and sense of place of the area
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 92
Without proper mitigation measures and continual environmental management, most of the identified impacts
may potentially become cumulative, affecting areas outside of their originally identified zone of impact. The
potential cumulative impacts have been identified, evaluated, and mitigation measures suggested which will be
updated during the detailed EIA level investigation. The impact identification and calculation methodology
employed by all specialists incorporates cumulative impacts in a quantitative manner to determine the final
impact score and corresponding rating.
When considering cumulative impacts, it is vitally important to bear in mind the scale at which different impacts
occur. There is potential for a cumulative effect at a broad scale, such as regional deterioration of air quality, as
well as finer scale effects occurring in the area surrounding the activity. The main impacts which have a
cumulative effect on a regional scale are related to the transportation vectors that they act upon. For example,
air movement patterns result in localised air quality impacts having a cumulative effect on air quality in the
region. Similarly, water acts as a vector for distribution of impacts such as contamination across a much wider
area than the localised extent of the impacts source. At a finer scale, there are also impacts that have the
potential to result in a cumulative effect, although due to the smaller scale at which these operate, the
significance of the cumulative impact is lower in the broader context.
6.3 DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS
The following potential impacts were identified during the scoping phase assessment. As a result of the scoping
phase assessment and the sensitivity mapping exercise, a preferred layout alternative will be identified and will
be assessed further in the EIA phase assessment. These preliminary impact calculations will be subject to
amendment based on the EIA phase assessment and the results of public consultation undertaken during the
EIA phase.
6.3.1 PRELIMINARY IMPACTS ON ECOLOGY
The following preliminary impacts on the ecological resources within the study area were identified and assessed
for the various project phases (planning and design, construction, operation, decommissioning, and
rehabilitation and closure). No impacts on the ecological receiving environment have been identified that will
occur during the Planning and Design Phase, Decommissioning Phase, and the Rehabilitation and Closure Phase.
Below are the construction and operational phase preliminary impacts on ecological resources identified during
scoping, as well as their impact rating.
A) Loss/ Destruction of Natural Habitat
The proposed activities on site will lead to localised damage to an estimated 120ha area. There will also be
damage to habitats associated with linear infrastructure between the power station and the ash heap.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final Significance
Loss/ Destruction of
Natural Habitat (Alternative
1)
Construction -18,75 -13,75 -18,33
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final Significance
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 93
Loss/ Destruction of
Natural Habitat (Alternative
2)
Construction -18,75 -13,75 -16,04
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
Undertake activities in previously disturbed places and/or habitats with a lower sensitivity score.
B) Habitat Fragmentation and Edge Effects
Due to the existing fragmentation of natural habitat, limited fragmentation and edge effects are expected.
Impact Project Phase Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final Significance
Habitat Fragmentation and
Edge effects (Alternative 1)
Construction -20,00 -17,50 -20.42
Impact Project Phase Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final Significance
Habitat Fragmentation and
Edge effects (Alternative 2)
Construction -18,75 -16,25 -18,96
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Undertake activities in previously disturbed areas and/or habitats with lower sensitivity;
• Where possible locate activities on the boundaries of existing disturbance;
• Use existing access roads as much as possible; and
• Rehabilitate disturbed areas as soon as possible.
C) Displacement of Faunal Species
The proposed activities on site will lead to localised damage to habitat. There will also be damage to habitats
associated with linear infrastructure. The overall loss of habitat is, however, expected to be quite a small
proportion of the total habitat within the study area. Loss of faunal habitat will therefore be very low.
Impact Project Phase Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final Significance
Displacement of Faunal
Species (All alternatives)
Construction
Operation
-14.00 -13.00 -13.00
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 94
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Where possible undertake activities in previously disturbed places and/or habitats with a lower
sensitivity score; and
• Rehabilitate disturbed areas as soon as possible.
D) Blockage of Seasonal and Dispersal Movements
Proposed activities will result in insignificant loss of habitat, especially migration corridors. Habitat
fragmentation is also expected to be minimal.
Impact Project Phase Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Blockage of Seasonal and
Dispersal Movements (All
alternatives)
Construction
Operation
-10.50 -10.50 -10.50
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Where possible undertake activities in previously disturbed areas and/or habitats with lower sensitivity;
• Where possible locate activities on the boundaries of existing disturbance; and
• Use existing access roads as much as possible; and rehabilitate disturbed areas as soon as possible.
E) Flora Direct and Indirect Mortality
There are various plant species of concern that could potentially be affected by the proposed activities on site.
The exact location of these is unknown relative to the proposed siting of proposed activities and will be
determined in the EIA phase.
Impact Project Phase Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation Score Final
Significance
Flora Direct and Indirect
Mortality (Alternative 1)
Construction -14.00 -7.00 -10.50
Impact Project Phase Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation Score Final
Significance
Flora Direct and Indirect
Mortality (Alternative 2)
Construction -7.00 -3.50 -5.25
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Where possible, walk-through survey of local site prior to activity to be undertaken;
• Search and rescue of species of concern (if any);
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 95
• Obtain permits for any listed/protected species found on site;
• Where possible undertake activities in previously disturbed areas and/or habitats with lower sensitivity;
• Where possible locate activities on the boundaries of existing disturbance; and use existing access roads
as much as possible.
F) Fauna Direct and Indirect Mortality
There are risks to fauna, for example illegal hunting/poaching as well as threats from movement of machinery.
During construction, relatively sedentary species may suffer direct mortality. The assessment is based on a
worst-case scenario affecting species of the highest conservation status and as such the final significance is
minimal.
Impact Project Phase Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final Significance
Fauna Direct and Indirect
Mortality (Alternative 1
and 2)
Construction -6.75 -4.00 -6.00
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Where possible undertake site-specific walk-through surveys for potential species of concern;
• Where possible undertake activities in previously disturbed areas and/or habitats with lower sensitivity;
• Where possible locate activities on the boundaries of existing disturbance; and
• Use existing access roads as much as possible.
G) Pollution of Habitats
There is a possibility that activities could result in pollution being introduced into natural habitats.
Impact Project Phase Pre-Mitigation Score Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Pollution of Habitats (All
alternatives)
Construction
-9.75 -9.75 -14.63
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Manage all waste sources emanating from proposed activities in line with legal requirements;
• As far as possible maintain minimum distances from aquatic and wetland habitats.as per legal
requirements;
• Where possible undertake activities in previously disturbed areas and/or habitats with lower sensitivity;
and
• Compile a comprehensive storm-water management plan and pollution control plan.
H) Displacement of faunal species
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 96
Continued activities during operation will tend to keep sensitive fauna away.
Impact Project Phase Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Displacement of faunal
species (All Alternatives)
Operation
-8.50 -6.50 -6.50
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Wherever possible, use existing access roads and minimize creation of new tracks through natural
habitats; and
• Rehabilitate disturbed areas as soon as possible.
I) Blockage of seasonal and dispersal movements
Continued activities during operation will tend to keep sensitive fauna away, including from corridors.
Impact Project Phase Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final Significance
Blockage of seasonal and
dispersal movements (All
Alternatives)
Operation -6.50 -6.50 -8.67
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Undertake activities in previously disturbed areas and/or habitats with lower sensitivity;
• Locate activities on the boundaries of existing disturbance;
• Use existing access roads as much as possible; and
• Rehabilitate disturbed areas as soon as possible.
J) Introduction/ Invasion by Alien Species
Disturbing activities on site will favour alien plants in places. In most cases, it is in the interests of the landowner
to control infestations.
Impact Project Phase Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final Significance
Introduction/ Invasion by Alien
Species
Operation -14.00 -6.75 -10.13
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Where possible undertake activities in previously disturbed areas and/or habitats with lower sensitivity;
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 97
• Where possible locate activities on the boundaries of existing disturbance;
• Use existing access roads as much as possible;
• Rehabilitate disturbed areas as soon as possible;
• Manage alien plants within close proximity to activities;
• Compile an alien plant management plan.
6.3.2 PRELIMINARY IMPACTS ON GEOHYDROLOGY
All geohydrological impacts are restricted to the operational phase of the project. Below are the operational
phase preliminary impacts on groundwater resources identified during scoping, as well as their impact rating.
A) Contamination of Groundwater due to shallow groundwater levels
The proposed activities on site will lead to localised damage to an estimated 120ha area. There will also be
damage to habitats associated with linear infrastructure between the power station and the ash heap. The depth
to groundwater is an important factor to consider when determining the impacts to groundwater from a
contamination perspective. A site associated with shallow water levels has a higher risk of contaminating the
groundwater environment. Water contained in the ash material during deposition can leach constituents from
the ash disposal facility and transport it to the surrounding environment. Additional water that is recharged from
rainfall will supplement the interstitial water and contribute to the leaching of elements. The water that migrates
through the facility can either seep out along the edge of the ash storage facility and enter the surrounding
environment as surface water or migrate vertically to the bottom of the disposal facility and enter the underlying
soil from where it can recharge and contaminate the aquifers. Mitigation would significantly reduce the potential
impact associated with contamination of groundwater.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final Significance
Contamination of
Groundwater due to
shallow groundwater levels
(Alternative 1 and 2)
Operation -14.00 -10.50 -14.00
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• The mitigation measures would include lining the ash disposal facility (more details regarding the liner
will be provided in the EIA phase); and
• Mitigation measures would also include implementing a groundwater monitoring programme. This
would allow for the early detection of water quality deterioration associated with the site.
B) Contamination of Groundwater affecting sensitive receptors
Several boreholes are located within the 1km buffer zones for both site alternatives. There are four active
boreholes are present within the 1km buffer zone of Site Alternative 1 and two active abstraction boreholes
within the buffer zone of Site Alternative 2.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final Significance
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 98
Groundwater
Contamination Affecting
Sensitive receptors
(Alternative 1)
Operation -14.00 -10.50 -14.00
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final Significance
Groundwater
Contamination Affecting
Sensitive receptors
(Alternative 2)
Operation -10.50 -7.00 -9.33
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• The mitigation measures would include monitoring of the boreholes on a frequent basis. Monitoring
boreholes would also be required between the source (ash disposal facility) and the receptor
(borehole).
• If it is determined that the borehole has been negatively affected due to the ash disposal facility, then
abstraction from the borehole must be revised in order to allow minimal drawdown.
• Mitigation measures would also include obtaining baseline water quality conditions from the river
downgradient and implementing a surface water monitoring programme. This would allow for the early
detection of water quality deterioration associated with the site.
• All clean and dirty surface water systems must be separated according to legislation and storm water
management must be in place to avoid contaminated surface runoff.
6.3.3 PRELIMINARY IMPACTS ON HYDROLOGY
The following preliminary impacts on the hydrological resources within the study area were identified and
assessed for the various project phases (planning and design, construction, operation, decommissioning, and
rehabilitation and closure). No impacts on hydrology have been identified that will occur during the Planning
and Design Phase. Below are the preliminary impacts on hydrological resources for the construction, operation,
and rehabilitation and closure phases identified during scoping, as well as their impact rating.
A) Increase sediment loads for Construction Phase
The removal of vegetation as well as the compaction of surfaces during construction will very likely result in
increased runoff and erosion from the site if not adequately mitigated. Runoff with higher sediment loads and
the higher flood peaks could thus report to The Rietkuilspruit and its tributaries. The magnitude of this potential
impact is, however, very small since it expected to be localised to the project site and nearby watercourse.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 99
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-
Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Increase sediment loads
(Alternative 1)
Construction
-10.00 -4.00 -4.67
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-
Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Increase sediment loads
(Alternative 2)
Construction
-9.00 -3.50 -4.08
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Progressive rehabilitation of disturbed land should be carried out to minimize the amount of time that
bare soils are exposed to the erosive effects of rain and subsequent runoff;
• A starter embankment is recommended to prevent sediment runoff;
• Traffic and movement over stabilised areas should be controlled (minimised and kept to certain paths),
and damage to stabilised areas should be repaired timeously and maintained; and
• The total footprint area to be cleared for the proposed ash disposal facility should be kept to a minimum
by demarcating the construction areas and restricting removal of vegetation to these areas only.
B) Surface Water Contamination – oil, fuel or chemicals
Due poor storm water management during construction and operational phases, contamination of surface water
can occur.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Surface Water
Contamination
(Alternative 1)
Construction
-9.00 -3.75 -4.38
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 100
Surface Water
Contamination
(Alternative 2)
Construction
-8.00 -2.00 -2.33
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Oil recovered from servicing any vehicle or machinery on site should be collected, stored and disposed
of by accredited vendors for recycling.
C) Contamination from seepage, leakage and spillage
Contamination of surface water during operation of the facility due to ash seepage or oil spills.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Surface Water Contamination
(Alternative 1)
Operation -9.75 -4.00 -4.67
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Surface Water Contamination
(Alternative 2)
Operation -8.25 -3.50 -4.08
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• A detailed storm water management plan is recommended for the ash disposal facility with adherence
to the GN704;
• The engineering design team should ensure that seepage from the dump does not occur at the toe of
the dump;
• Vegetation should be planted on the Ash Disposal facility embankments to prevent erosion and silt
runoff; and
• A water quality monitoring plan should be produced and implemented to determine any changes in the
water quality.
D) Surface Water Contamination from seepage, leakage and spillage during decommissioning
Leakages/seepages and spillages can occur during the decommissioning phase of the proposed ash disposal
facility due to contaminated water seepage.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 101
Surface Water Contamination
(All Alternatives)
Decommissioning -9.75 -4.00 -4.67
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Surface Water Contamination
(All Alternatives)
Decommissioning -8.25 -3.50 -4.08
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• The proposed ash disposal facility should be monitored and checked to ensure that no
leakages/seepages of contaminated water occur when the ash disposal facility is being?
decommissioned; and
• The water quality monitoring plan should continue during decommissioning activities to monitor any
deterioration of the water quality.
6.3.4 PRELIMINARY IMPACTS ON WETLAND AQUATIC ECOLOGY
The following preliminary impacts on the wetland aquatic ecology within the study area were identified and
assessed for the project. Below are the preliminary impacts on wetland aquatic ecology during the planning,
construction, operation, rehabilitation and closure phases, as well as the impact rating.
A) Impacts Related to a Decrease in Surface Water Quality on Wetland Function during construction
The main perceived impact related to surface water quality during construction pertains mainly to potential
hydrocarbon spills from construction equipment and machinery. Construction material, hydrocarbons (oil,
diesel, etc.), solvents and other pollutants spilling/leaking from construction machinery and equipment during
the construction phase may have a severe impact on the receiving aquatic environment.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Surface Water Contamination
(Alternative 1)
Construction -12.00 -2.50 -3.33
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Surface Water Contamination
(Alternative 2)
Construction -11.00 -2.50 -2.92
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 102
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Avoid, as far as reasonably possible, the placement of infrastructure within regulated areas of
watercourses.;
• No dumping of any building rubble, soil, litter, organic matter or chemical substances should occur
within watercourses. Dumping and temporary storage of the above should only occur at predetermined
and approved locations;
• No access is permitted within watercourses;
• In the case of dewatering of a construction site, water should be treated and all suspended particles
should be removed. Water removed from a construction site should not be released directly into a
watercourse. The discharge should occur onto a well vegetated area, which will help trap sediment and
contaminants; and
• Construction equipment should not be serviced or refuelled near (<100m) watercourses.
B) Impacts Related to a Decrease in Surface Water Quality during operation
The risk scores during the operation phase are higher since the probability of water quality related impacts on
aquatic ecology will be more pronounced, as seepage/leakage and aerial deposition from the ash disposal facility
may potentially occur.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Surface Water Contamination
(Alternative 1)
Operation -15.00 -4.00 -5.33
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Surface Water Contamination
(Alternative 2)
Operation -14.00 -4.00 -4.67
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Any water with a chemical signature different to that of the receiving aquatic environment should be
considered contaminated and should be isolated; and
• Ashing processes and activities should make a clear distinction between clean and contaminated water
and systems to deal with both should be in place.
C) Impacts Related to Altered Hydrology on Wetlands and Aquatic Biota
There will be complete loss of the hydrological function of the wetlands directly affected by the proposed
footprint. The proposed ash disposal facility will result in the localised reduction in catchment yield and
potentially result in the subsequent loss in hydrological contribution to the downslope watercourses. The
hydrological regime associated with the rivers/streams in the study area are characterised by peak flows during
the summer months and lower base flows during the winter months. The continuous ashing at the proposed ash
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 103
disposal facility may possibly result in lowered base flows in the receiving aquatic systems due to the loss of the
catchment area. Base flow is important as it defines habitat availability.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Altered hydrology (Alternative 1) Construction -14.00 -4.00 -6.00
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Altered hydrology (Alternative 2) Construction -13.00 -5.50 -6.67
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Altered hydrology (Alternative 1) Operation -16.00 -5.50 -8.25
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Altered hydrology (Alternative 2) Operation -15.00 -5.50 -7.33
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• The stormwater design should consider the natural flood retention capacity provided by the soil
(including wetlands) within the footprint. The stormwater design should compensate for any loss in
natural flood retention, though carful placement of stormwater infrastructure, maximising onsite
(uncontaminated) infiltration and through the strategic placement of environmental infrastructure (i.e.
bioswales, berms, retention structures). The surface roughness of impermeable surfaces should also be
increases as much as possible to assist runoff energy dissipation.
• The extent of wetlands should be delineated prior to construction and the temporary access roads to
cross points should be designed to minimise soil compaction, thus not impeding the horizontal
movement of water through the soil;
• Reinstate hydrological functionality of affected systems after construction activity, as far as possible.
This will require rehabilitation of disturbed downslope areas where attention is paid to increase surface
roughness and energy dissipation.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 104
D) Impacts Related to Erosion and Sedimentation on Wetlands and Aquatic Biota
Vegetation removal and the compaction of soil during construction and operation will result in increased surface
runoff and subsequently increase the erosion potential of the construction site. Furthermore, this may also have
an impact on the water quality via increased turbidity if not adequately managed.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Erosion and sedimentation
(Alternative 1 and 2)
Construction
and operation
-13.00 -3.50 -4.67
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Limit any disturbances to the smallest possible footprint.
• Erosion and silt control mechanisms must be in place prior to the onset of construction within any
watercourse. This includes the reduction of surface flow through the construction site. Silt fences or
hay bales need to be placed near the base of a slope in order to limit the amount of silt entering the
watercourse;
• Similarly, the erection of silt barriers along all the drainage lines must be undertaken to curb any
sediment and silt run-off in the preparation activities. Ideally, the amount of land that will be disturbed
should be kept to an absolute minimal;
• Non-erodible materials should be used for the construction of any berms, coffer dams or any other
isolation structures to be used within a flowing watercourse;
• Spoil stockpiles should be placed above the high-water mark in distinct piles and adequate erosion
measures need to be implemented in order to minimise and reduce erosion and siltation into the
watercourse;
• It is also recommended that construction activities should make use of the dry seasonal construction
window if feasible. This will further reduce the risk associated with erosion/siltation;
• Erosion control measures should be inspected regularly during the course of construction and
necessary repairs need to be carried out if any damage has occurred;
• Place access roads and infrastructure on natural topography and avoid side hill cuts and grades. Roads
should be designed with natural reclamation in mind;
• Design runoff control features to minimize soil erosion and avoid placement of infrastructure and sites
on unstable slopes and consider conditions that can cause slope instability, such as groundwater
aquifers, precipitation and slope angles.
E) Aquatic habitat destruction and fragmentation
The direct loss of wetland areas through clearing of riparian and wetland habitat will result in a complete, but
localised, loss of aquatic / wetland habitat. Aquatic habitat fragmentation may be the result of chemical (water
quality) or physical (hydrology, erosion and sedimentation) migration barriers.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 105
Erosion and sedimentation
(Alternative 1)
Construction -20.00 -17.50 -29.17
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Erosion and sedimentation
(Alternative 2)
Construction -18.75 -14.00 -21.00
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• The footprint of the proposed facility should avoid as far as feasibly possible the placement of
infrastructure within watercourses. This will reduce the significance of the perceived impacts
substantially.
6.3.5 PRELIMINARY IMPACTS ON SOILS AND AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL
The following preliminary impact on the soils and geology within the study area was identified and assessed for
the various project phases (planning and design, construction, operation, decommissioning, and rehabilitation
and closure). No impacts on soils and geology have been identified for the operation Phase.
Below are the preliminary impacts on soils and agricultural potential during the construction, operation, closure
and rehabilitation phases as well as the impact rating.
A) Loss of land capability
Land that could be used for cultivation is no longer available due to the establishment of the ADF.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Loss of land capability (All
Alternatives)
Planning -17.50 -4.00 -6.00
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Loss of land capability (All
Alternatives)
Construction -20.00 -15.00 -27.50
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 106
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Loss of land capability (All
Alternatives)
Closure and
rehabilitation
-20.00 -8.25 -15.13
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Proper planning of project sequences;
• Topsoil stripping and stockpiling guidelines;
• Rehabilitation and monitoring plans;
• Ensure that, as far as possible, the ADF is situated on soils with low agricultural potential;
• Ensure proper storm water management designs are in place;
• Only the designated access routes are to be used to reduce any unnecessary compaction;
• If erosion occurs, corrective actions (erosion berms) must be taken to minimize any further erosion
from taking place;
• Topsoil is to be moved when the soil is dry, as to reduce compaction;
• The handling of the stripped topsoil will be minimized to ensure the soil's structure does not
deteriorate; and
• Compacted areas are to be ripped to loosen the soil structure and vegetation cover re-instated.
6.3.6 PRELIMINARY IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY
The following preliminary impacts on the air quality within the study area were identified and assessed. Below
are the preliminary impacts on air quality are expected during the construction, operation and closure phases,
as well as the impact rating. No air quality impacts are expected during the planning or rehabilitation phases.
A) Degraded Ambient Air Quality during construction
The construction phase is relevant when the ash disposal facility is established as well as during continuous ash
disposal, as this would normally comprise a series of different operations including land clearing, topsoil
removal, road grading, material loading and hauling, stockpiling, compaction, etc. Each of these operations has
a distinct duration and potential for dust generation. It is anticipated that the extent of dust emissions would
vary substantially from day to day depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and the prevailing
meteorological conditions. It is not anticipated that the various construction activities will result in higher off-
site impacts than the operational activities. The temporary nature of the construction activities, and the
likelihood that these activities will be localised and for small areas at a time, will reduce the potential for
significant off-site impacts.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Degraded air quality (All
Alternatives)
Construction -6.75 -4.00 -5.33
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 107
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Maintenance of vehicles and wet suppression or chemical treatment on unpaved road surfaces;
• Wet suppression on disturbed areas where feasible;
• Minimise extent of disturbed areas;
• Reduction of frequency of disturbance;
• Early re-vegetation; and
• Stabilisation (chemical, rock cladding or vegetative) of disturbed soil.
B) Degraded Ambient Air Quality during operation
Degraded ambient air quality during operation due to wind erosion. Dust will only be generated under conditions
of high wind speeds and from areas where the material is exposed and has dried out. A potentially significant
impacting source may be wind erosion from the ash dams during periods of high winds (>9m/s).
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Degraded air quality (All
Alternatives)
Operation -10.50 -9.75 -13.00
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• It is recommended that the sidewalls of the ash dams be vegetated. The vegetation cover should be
such to ensure at least 80% control efficiency. The top surface area should have 40% wet beach area (if
feasible and if wet deposition option is considered) and a water spraying system should be
implemented on the surface of the ash dam covering the outer perimeter of the dam, spraying water
when winds exceed 4 m/s.
C) Degraded Ambient Air Quality during closure
If rehabilitation is planned to occur continuously throughout the disposal of ash, dust may be generated from
the dried out exposed ash surfaces before it is covered with topsoil. Once vegetation is established the potential
for dust generation will reduce significantly. The tipping of topsoil and vehicle entrainment on associated
unpaved roads will also result in dust generation. It is assumed that all ash disposal activities will have ceased
during closure phase, when the power station has reached end of life. If most of the rehabilitation is undertaken
during the operations, the ash disposal facility should be almost completely rehabilitated by the closure phase.
The potential for impacts after closure will depend on the extent of continuous rehabilitation efforts on the ash
disposal facility.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Degraded air quality (All
Alternatives)
Rehabilitation
and Closure
-7.50 -4.50 -6.00
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Ensure adequate cover of self-sustaining vegetation.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 108
6.3.7 PRELIMINARY IMPACTS ON ARCHAEOLOGY AND PALAENTOLOGY
The following preliminary impacts on heritage and palaeontology within the study area were identified and
assessed. Below are the preliminary impacts. Impacts are only expected during the construction phase.
A) Destruction of Graves
Three cemeteries could be directly impacted by the proposed construction activities of the ADF but are situated
outside the proposed footprint areas and can be conserved with the necessary management measures. The
cemeteries have high heritage significance however none occur within the area proposed for Alternative 1.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Destruction of Graves (Alternative
1)
Construction -0.00 -0.00 -0.00
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Destruction of Graves (Alternative
2)
Construction -4.00 -1.25 -1.88
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Demarcate the cemeteries inside the final development buffer as a no-go area during construction and
include a 50-meter buffer around the cemeteries.
B) Destruction of Historic Structures
Only one structure is situated inside the buffer area of Alternative 2 and should not be directly impacted by the
development. As no historic structures occur within the footprint of Alt1 site and buffer, no impacts are foreseen
for this Alternative. Or something like this wording.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Destruction of farmstead
(Alternative 1)
Construction -0.00 -0.00 -0.00
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 109
Destruction of farmstead
(Alternative 2)
Construction -4.00 -1.25 -1.88
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Demarcate the site inside the final development buffer as a no-go area during construction and include
a 50 meter buffer around the cemetery.
• A single farmstead is situated inside the buffer area of Alternative 2 and should not be directly impacted
by the development. The cluster that historically functioned as a single farmstead is protected under
Section 34 of the NHRA and has a medium heritage significance and given a grading of Generally
protected B.
C) Destruction of Palaeontology
The palaeontological sensitivity of the area is rated as very high and will require a field assessment and finds
protocol as part of the EIA report.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Destruction of Graves (All
Alternatives)
Construction -12.00 -1.25 -1.88
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Mitigation depends on outcomes of EIA-phase field assessment but could include monitoring of
excavations during construction.
6.3.8 PRELIMINARY VISUAL IMPACTS
The proposed ADF will cause a partial loss of or alteration to key elements / features / characteristics of the
visual and landscape baseline including the introduction of project elements that may be prominent but may
not necessarily be considered to be substantially uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving
landscape. Visual impacts are only expected during construction and operation.
A) Impact on visual quality of study area during construction & decommissioning
Alteration to the visual quality of the study area due to the physical presence, scale and size of the ADF project
with a moderate impact on nearby residential / farmsteads and other public road (R104, local roads and farm
roads) view during construction and operation.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Visual Impact (All Alternatives) Construction &
closure
-11.00 -6.75 -10.13
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Earthworks should be executed in such a way that only the footprint and a small ‘construction buffer
zone’ around the proposed activities are exposed. In all other areas, the naturally occurring vegetation
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 110
and more importantly the indigenous vegetation should be retained, especially along the periphery of
the site.
• An ecological approach to rehabilitation and vegetative screening measures, as opposed to a
horticultural approach to landscaping should be adopted. For example, communities of indigenous
plants enhance biodiversity and blend well with existing vegetation. This approach can significantly
reduce long term costs as less maintenance would be required over conventional landscaping methods
as well as the introduced landscape being more sustainable.
• Should Site Alternative 2 be selected as the preferred site it is recommended that a row of trees
(vegetation screen) be planted along the R104 to screen the view from the R104 towards the ash
disposal facility. This will have a similar effect as the clump of trees located along the local road that
connects the R104 and Arnot / Rietkuil residential.
• Access and haul roads will require an effective dust suppression management programme.
• Paint any buildings and structures with colours that reflect and compliment the natural colours of the
surrounding landscape. To further reduce the potential of glare, the external surfaces of buildings and
structures should be articulated or textured to create interplay of light and shade.
B) Impact on visual quality of study area during operation
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
Visual Impact (All Alternatives) Operation -18.75 -15.00 -22.50
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• Install light fixtures that provide precisely directed illumination to reduce light “spillage” beyond the
immediate surrounds of the site.
• Avoid high pole top security lighting along the periphery of the site and use only lights that are activated
on illegal entry to the site.
• Minimise the amount of light fixtures to the bare minimum, including security lighting.
• Wherever possible, lights should always be directed downwards so as to avoid illuminating the sky.
• Dust suppression techniques should be in place at all times during all phases of the project.
• Should Site Alternative 2 be selected as the preferred site it is recommended that a row of trees
(vegetation screen) be planted along the R104 to screen the view from the R104 towards the ash
disposal facility. This will have a similar effect as the clump of trees located along the local road that
connects the R104 and Arnot / Rietkuil residential.
C) Impact on visual quality of study area during closure
At Closure, the ash disposal facility will remain and therefore the environmental risk for unmitigated impact
will remain moderate, if the site is effectively managed and rehabilitated, the mitigated environmental risk
could be low.
Impact Project
Phase
Pre-Mitigation
Score
Post-Mitigation
Score
Final
Significance
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 111
Visual Impact (All Alternatives) Closure -11.25 -6.50 -7.50
Proposed Preliminary Mitigation
• During and closure of the project, access and haul roads will require an effective dust suppression
management programme; and
• Ensure effective rehabilitation.
6.4 CONSOLIDATED SENSITIVITY MAP
Environmental sensitivity mapping provides a strategic overview of the environmental, cultural and social assets,
opportunities, and constraints in a defined spatial context. The sensitivity mapping technique integrates
numerous datasets (basemaps and shapefiles) into a single consolidated layer making use of Geographic
Information System (GIS) software and analysis tools. Environmental sensitivity mapping is a rapid and objective
method applied to identify areas which may be particularly sensitive to development based on environmental,
cultural and social sensitivity weightings – which is determined by specialists input within each respective field
based on aerial or ground-surveys. Environmental sensitivity is used to aid in decision-making during
consultation processes, forming a strategic part of Environmental Assessment processes.
A consolidated sensitivity map showing all identified sensitivities is provided in Figure 22. The only areas of very
high sensitivity identified are the wetland systems present at both sites. No absolute “no-go” areas were
identified. Several high sensitivity areas were however identified within both site alternative areas. These are
highly sensitive ecological areas as well as rivers and their associated buffer zones. Several potential heritage
sites and sensitive visual receptors were also identified within both site areas and their respective buffer zones.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 112
Figure 22: Combined sensitivity map
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project cxiii
6.5 ASSUMPTIONS, LIMITATIONS AND GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE
Certain assumptions, limitations, and uncertainties are associated with the Scoping Phase specialist studies.
These are detailed for each aspect below.
Ecology
• Red List species are, by their nature, usually very rare and difficult to locate. Compiling the list of species
that could potentially occur in an area is limited by the paucity of collection records that make it difficult
to predict whether a species may occur in an area or not. The methodology used in this assessment is
designed to reduce the risks of omitting any species, but it is always possible that a species that does
not occur on a list may be located in an area where it was not formerly known to exist.
• Lists of threatened, rare and sensitive species are dynamic in the sense that new information is
collected on a continuous basis, information does not necessarily become quickly available in the public
domain and important information is sometimes only available from obscure or restricted sources.
There is therefore the possibility that species of concern for the site have not been detected from
general literature sources. The latest available information was used for this assessment.
• Animal species, especially birds, are mostly highly mobile and often migrate seasonally. Any field
assessment of relatively short duration is therefore unlikely to record anything more than the most
common species that happen to be on site at the time of the survey. Such field surveys are generally a
poor reflection of the overall diversity of species that could potentially occur on site.
• This study excludes any assessment of invertebrates.
• This study does not constitute a formal wetland study. If any wetlands occur on site, their description
is in terms of them being unique habitats and/or containing a unique species composition, but does not
constitute a legally determined wetland boundary.
• It is difficult to accurately map secondary grasslands from aerial imagery and areas currently mapped
as natural may possibly be secondary. The only way to accurately map such degradation is through
extensive field-based surveys where plant species composition can be used to confirm whether an area
is secondary or not. The budget and timeframes associated with this assessment are inadequate for
undertaking such a detailed study. Uncertainty surrounding the location of secondary grasslands
therefore remains.
Hydrology
• The total assessment of all probable scenarios or circumstances that may exist for the study area was
not undertaken. No assumptions should be made, unless opinions are specifically indicated and
provided. Data presented may not explain all possible conditions that may exist given the nature of the
enquiry.
• The information presented only has reference to the investigated study area(s) and cannot be applied
to any other area without prior investigation.
• The risk assessment was limited to the spatial extent of wetlands on each alternative and within a 1km
radius thereof.
• The risk assessment focussed in the placement of the ash disposal facility footprint and a 1km radius
thereof. The alternative alignments of associated linear infrastructure were not considered within this
scoping assessment.
• The impact assessment was based on the desktop delineation of the study areas with a brief site
inspection, carried out in January 2017. The scoping phase field assessment focussed on landscape
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project cxiv
features, the presence of surface water and obligate and facultative wetland plant species. The soil
profile was not assessed during the scoping phase and will be assessed in the EIA phase.
Geohydrology
• No detailed, intrusive investigations were conducted, therefore the aquifer conditions have not been
verified and only desktop information has been included.
• No geophysical investigations have been conducted therefore the geological conditions have not been
confirmed and only mapped from desktop information.
• Access to certain hydrocensus boreholes were not available therefore this information was excluded in
the report.
Agricultural Potential
• Public participation comments have not yet been received, so specific responses to soil-related issues
cannot be supplied. These will be addressed in the EIA phase, as and when required.
• This scoping level assessment was conducted as a desktop study exercise only, no detailed site
inspections were completed, however detailed site inspections will be undertaken during the EIA phase.
Air Quality
• No on-site meteorological data was available. Use was therefore made of modelled MM5
meteorological data for the period 2013-2015.
• Measured ambient data is not available at the proposed project site. The closest monitoring stations
operated by DEA (Hendrina) and Eskom (Kwazamokuhle) are located approximately 18 km southwest
of the site. The measured ambient air quality at these sites may thus not be representative of ambient
air quality at the proposed project site.
Visual
• The study uses the worst-case scenario in predicting impacts (day time and night time);
• It was assumed that all residential units, as per the site visit, topographic map and aerial photographs,
were occupied.
Heritage and Palaeontology
• It is necessary to realise that the heritage resources located during the fieldwork do not necessarily
represent all the possible heritage resources present within the area. Various factors account for this,
including the subterranean nature of some archaeological sites and the current dense vegetation cover.
As such, should any heritage features and/or objects not included in the present inventory be located
or observed, a heritage specialist must immediately be contacted.
• Such observed or located heritage features and/or objects may not be disturbed or removed in any way
until such time that the heritage specialist has been able to make an assessment as to the significance
of the site (or material) in question. This applies to graves and cemeteries as well. In the event that any
graves or burial places are located during the development, the procedures and requirements
pertaining to graves and burials will apply.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 115
7 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Section 2.3 of this report focused on the various development alternatives (process, activity and location
alternatives) and describes the various alternatives considered as part of the Arnot ADF project as well as how
the two preferred location alternatives were arrived at for assessment in this Scoping report. This section
describes the pros and cons of various alternatives as well as nomination of a preferred site for detailed
assessment in the EIA phase of the project. A comparison of the various process, activity and technology
alternatives is presented in Section 2.3 of this scoping report.
7.1 ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT
Table 23: Site Alternative Assessment
Specialist
Study
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Ecology Negotiable Preferred
According to the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan (MBCP), remaining areas of natural vegetation on site within Alternative 1 are classified in all categories of the MBCP, except Protected, including a small area of habitat classified as Irreplaceable. The areas of higher significance are scattered throughout the centre of the Alternative 1 area and it may not be possible to avoid them by alternative placement of the infrastructure. Alternative 1 represents the highest direct impact on natural habitats although Alternative 1 is less likely to cause habitat fragmentation.
According to the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan (MBCP), remaining areas of natural vegetation on site within Alternative 2 are classified as Least Concern or No natural habitat remaining. Alternative 2 will have an intermediate direct impact on natural habitats and habitat fragmentation. Alternative 1 is more likely to impact on flora species of concern than Alternative 2. Alternative 2 appears to be the more favoured option from an ecological perspective.
Soils Preferred Negotiable
Alternative one shows lower agricultural potential from the areal imagery and therefore from an agricultural perspective Alternative 1 is the selected preferred site.
Alternative 2 shows lower agricultural potential from the areal imagery and is therefore less preferred.
Wetlands and Aquatic
Ecology
Restricted Preferred
A higher wetland extent within the primary study area was recorded at Alternative 1, with approximately 29.49 % of the area demarcated as a wetland. For the secondary study area (1km buffer area), Alternative 1 reflected less wetlands. However, based on the field observations, the wetlands situated within the
Alternative 2 reflected a lower wetland extent, with approximately 8.86 % of the area demarcated as wetlands. Alternative 2 represents less wetland areas within the primary study area and is therefore considered the preferred alternative in terms of wetland /aquatic ecology. Furthermore, Alternative 2 is closer to the existing infrastructure. It follows that it
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 116
secondary study area of Alternative 2, were more degraded compared to that of Alternative 1.
will require linear infrastructure over a shorter distance and will decrease the number of possible contamination pathways compared to Alternative 1.
Surface Water Negotiable Preferred
Site Alternative 1 is considered less preferred due to its proximity to two pans which slightly increases its impact significance rating over that of Site Alternative 2.
Site Alternative 2 has lower significance ratings for all assessed impacts and is, therefore, considered more suitable for the proposed Ash Disposal Facility project
Ground Water Negotiable Preferred
Shallow groundwater levels were measured ranging from 2.27 to 13.24mbgl. Seven boreholes are located within the 1km buffer zone, however three boreholes, HBH14, HBH16 and HBH24 are not currently in use. Therefore only four abstraction boreholes are present within the 1km buffer zone
Shallow groundwater levels were measured ranging from 4.62 to 6.67mbgl. Five boreholes are located within the 1km buffer zone, however three boreholes, HBH9, HBH22 and HBH23 are not currently in use. Therefore only two boreholes are present within the 1km buffer zone. Alternative 2 is marginally ranked as the more suitable option according the due to having fewer boreholes in use and groundwater users within a 1km radius of the site.
Heritage Preferred Negotiable
Alternative 1 is slightly preferred although the detailed EIA phase fieldwork will confirm this. The reason is due to the slightly lower significance of potential heritage resources located at Site Alterative 1.
Alternative 2 is less preferred although the detailed EIA phase fieldwork will confirm this. The reason is due to the slightly higher significance of potential heritage resources located at Site Alterative 2.
Visual Negotiable Negotiable
Site Alternative 1 will be located along the R104 and the visual impact will be absorbed by the existing mining activities. Although the site will be seen by viewers travelling along the R104 these viewers will only be exposed to Site Alternative 1 for a short period of time. Other sensitive viewers will include the surrounding farmsteads. Views from these locations will be fore and middle – ground views and even though the viewers are exposed to mining activities it should be noted that the mining activities were limited to background views. The new facility will now be located
Site Alternative 2 will be located between the R104 and the Wonderfontein Road. The proposed alternative is located in an agricultural area and close to the existing ash disposal facility and the Eskom Arnot Power Station. The proposed alternative will therefore be absorbed by the existing mining activities. Motorist travelling on the R104 or the Wonderfontein Rd will be exposed to the new ash disposal facility for a short period of time and will most likely have the existing mining activities as backdrop. Other sensitive viewers will include the surrounding farmsteads. Views from these locations will be fore and middle – ground views and even though the viewers are exposed to mining activities it
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 117
closer to the viewers and will be more intrusive and visible. The proposed Site Alternative 1 will have a moderate environmental risk during the construction and decommissioning phases of the project. With successful mitigation measures this can however be reduced to a low. The overall significance during this period of the project will be moderate. During the operational period the visual significance will however be high. Mitigation measures will be difficult due to the extent and height of the ash disposal facility but it should also be noted that the proposed project will be located on an elevated area.
should be noted that the mining activities were limited to background views. The new facility will now be located closer to the viewers and will be more intrusive and visible. The proposed Site Alternative 2 will have a moderate environmental risk during the construction and decommissioning phases of the project. With successful mitigation measures this can however be reduced to a low. The overall significance during this period of the project will be moderate. During the operational period the visual significance will however be high. Mitigation measures will be difficult due to the extent and height of the ash disposal facility but it should also be noted that the proposed project will be located on an elevated area. Site Alternative 1 and Site Alternative 2 are very similar when compared.
Air Quality Negotiable Negotiable
The significance ranking of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 will be similar as the impacts offsite will be comparable in magnitude and spatial distribution
The significance ranking of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 will be similar as the impacts offsite will be comparable in magnitude and spatial distribution
Engineering & Design Preferred Fatally Flawed
Relatively sparse vegetation cover and undulating topography facilitating effective drainage but not jeopardising slope stability. A 132kV power line runs through the north-western corner of the site however the site can be shifted within the 1km buffer area to avoid the power line.
There is a 132kV power line that runs through the middle of the site which will need to be relocated. The topographical arrangement has a single high point in the centre of facility which pose potential challenges with effectively draining the facility. This could either require deep excavations with high volume earthworks or two separate drainage systems which will double the implementation cost as well as maintenance costs. An existing raw water pipeline route goes through the centre of the site for the proposed ADF. The new dams cannot be positioned above the existing pipe. This is considered a fatal flaw from a design perspective.
As can be seen from Table 23, Site Alternative 2 is preferred from an Ecological, Wetlands, Groundwater and
Surface Water perspective. Site Alternative 1 is marginally preferred from a heritage as well as a soils
perspective. Site Alternative 2 is therefore nominated as the preferred site. However it was brought to the
attention of the EAP that there are four(4) raw water pipelines that run through the middle of site Alternative
2. The existence of the raw water pipelines was only brought to the attention of the EAP during the scoping
phase studies for the two sites.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 118
The location of the raw water pipelines is indicated in Error! Reference source not found. The pipeline runs in a s
ervitude that follows the existing 132kV power line route through a small section of Site Alternative 1 and
through the centre of Site Alternative 2. According to Eskom the pipeline could be relocated but at the cost of
hundreds of millions of rand. Additionally the 132kV power line that runs through the middle of the site would
need to be relocated. However the site can be relocated within the 1km buffer zone to avoid the pipeline
servitude. A specialist workshop was held on 19 June 2018 to nominate a new suitable position for the site within
the 1km buffer area of Site Alternative 2. The new position of Site Alternative 2 is indicated in Figure 23 and
Figure 24 below. It is proposed that this is the site considered for detailed assessment in the EIA phase. The
main advantages of shifting the site north to the position shown in Figure 23 and Figure 24 are listed below:
• The site avoids the raw water pipelines servitude that would otherwise fatally flaw the site;
• The site is relatively close to the Arnot power station;
• The average slope of the site is relatively low compared to other potential suitable sites within the 1km
buffer;
• Fewer contamination pathways exist from a wetlands perspective than other suitable site options
within the 1km buffer zone; and
• The site is located further from pans or wetlands than other suitable site options within the 1km buffer
zone.
• Due to the location of the raw water pipeline Site Alternative 2 is still nominated as the preferred
alternative for assessment in the EIA phase however the site should be shifted north to avoid the
pipeline servitude. The preferred site position for detailed assessment in the EIA phase is indicated in
Figure 24.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 119
Figure 23: Map showing position of raw water pipeline and new position for Site Alternative 2 within 1km buffer zone.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 120
Figure 24: Map showing proposed site (and assoicated 1km buffer zone) to be considered for detailed assessment in the EIA phase.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 121
8 PLAN OF STUDY FOR EIA
The section below outlines the proposed plan of study which will be conducted for the various environmental
aspects during the EIA Phase. The plan of study has been compiled by the specialist consultants contracted to
the project with select input from EIMS. It is also important to note that the plan of study will also be guided by
comment obtained from I&APs and other stakeholders during the PPP.
8.1 ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED IN EIA
The alternatives considered and discussed in the above chapter have culminated into the identification of two
development alternatives. These development alternatives are discussed below.
8.1.1 NO GO ALTERNATIVE
The National Integrated Resource Plan 2016 (IRP) developed by the Department of Energy has identified the
need for power generation from coal as part of the technology mix for power generation in the country in the
next 20 years. In order for the Arnot power station to continue to produce power, a new ashing facility is
required to provide additional capacity. The 'do nothing' option will not address this need and will result in
reduced power generation activities at the power station and a reduction in the power stations lifespan.
This alternative will imply that no ash dump facility is constructed, and that the environment remains unchanged
and unaltered. This alternative will be investigated further in the EIA phase.
8.1.2 SITING ALTERNATIVE
Site Alternative 2 is preferred, however, due to the location of the raw water pipelines which pass through the
centre of Site Alternative , Site Alternative has been shifted north within the assessed 1km buffer zone to
avoid the pipeline route.
8.2 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACTS TO BE ASSESSED IN EIA
The following aspects will be assessed further during the EIA phase investigation to be undertaken:
• Ecology;
• Hydrology;
• Wetlands;
• Heritage including Palaeontological Assessment
• Noise;
• Visual;
• Geohydrology; and
• Air Quality.
8.3 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIALIST STUDIES
8.3.1 ECOLOGY
The following assessments should be undertaken during the EIA phase in order to properly assess potential
impacts on the ecological receiving environment by the proposed activity:
• The study area includes a combination of natural areas, degraded areas, secondary vegetation and
transformed areas. For all areas within proximity to the proposed activities, a general habitat survey
should be undertaken to confirm the status of habitat and to characterise it in terms of condition and
species composition and cover.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 122
• The potential presence of plant species of concern must be evaluated within the footprint of proposed
activities. There are various plant species of concern that have been evaluated as having a high
probability of occurring on site, namely the Vulnerable species, Gladiolus paludosus, Khadia
carolinensis, Miroglossum davyi and Bowiea volubilis subsp. volubilis, the Near Threatened species,
Merwilla plumbea and Gladiolus robertsoniae, the Declining plant species, Boophane disticha, Eucomis
autumnalis & Hypoxis hemerocallidea, and the protected species, Merwilla plumbea and Crinum
bulbispermum.
• The potential presence of protected trees on site must be evaluated. There is one protected tree
species that could potentially occur on site, depending on the habitat that is affected. Although the
probability of this species occurring on site is considered to be low, this should be confirmed in the
field.
• The presence of species of concern or habitats that are important for particular species of concern must
be evaluated during the EIA phase. Particular attention should be paid to those species classified as
threatened (VU, EN or CR), Near Threatened or Critically Rare and which have a high probability of
occurring on site or being affected by the proposed activities. There are various animal species currently
listed as threatened or protected that are considered to have a medium to high probability of occurring
on site, based on habitat suitability, including the Brown Hyaena (NT), Serval (NT), Spotted-necked
Otter (NT), the South African Hedgehog (NT), the Giant Bullfrog (protected), the Coppery Grass Lizard
(NT), Breyer's Long-tailed Seps (VU), the Striped Harlequin Snake (NT), the African Marsh Harrier (EN),
the Yellow-billed Stork (EN), Burchell's Courser (VU), the African Grass Owl (VU), the Secretarybird (VU),
the Black Stork (VU), the Maccoa Duck (NT), the Red-footed Falcon (NT), the Greater Painted Snipe (NT)
and the Black-winged Pratincole (NT).
• The potential presence of suitable habitat should be evaluated during field surveys.
• There is an extensive system of wetlands in the study area, including a range of different wetland
habitats. The general presence of wetland habitat within any area affected by the proposed activities
must be evaluated.
The following methodology is proposed in order to obtain the information required for assessing impacts on
specific features of concern:
• Habitat condition and status can be determined on the basis of a combination of visual surveys,
vegetation structure and species composition. The relative composition of the vegetation is a powerful
source of information for providing information on the status of vegetation. A general survey should be
undertaken in areas within proximity to proposed activities, ensuring that all affected areas are
covered. Plant species composition, relative cover and vegetation structure data should be collected at
selected sites in order to characterise habitats properly. Photographs will also be taken as a visual
reference. A floristic list will be compiled. Any unknown species will be identified using published field
guides, expert knowledge or via collection of appropriate plant material.
• A targeted survey for plant species of concern must be undertaken within the footprint and nearby
areas. Habitat requirements and flowering times of all species are relatively well-known but could vary
from published information. There is also the possibility that other species of concern could occur on
site that were not on any database, but that occur on site. A general flora survey should therefore be
included to ensure that no additional species of concern occur on site. For any species that are
encountered, the exact locality and number of individuals must be recorded. Photographs must be
taken to confirm the identity of the species. The survey will be a visual survey on foot, with the purpose
of identifying the flora of the site. The timing of the survey depends on the best time for detecting these
species.
• A targeted survey for protected trees must be undertaken within the footprint and nearby areas of all
proposed activities. It is crucial for this that the footprint is known. For this survey, the exact location
of each individual must be recorded.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 123
• A habitat survey will be undertaken during mid- to late summer when the vegetation has grown
sufficiently to be able to assess habitat suitability for the various faunal species of concern that could
potentially occur on site. Attention will be paid to the suitability of habitat for foraging, roosting and
breeding. The intention is to make a more informed decision on the importance of the site for the
various faunal species of concern that could potentially occur on site. If any species of concern are seen
on site then GPS co-ordinates of individuals will be obtained, as well as observations on numbers and
behaviour.
• For any areas affected by the proposed activities, including access routes and downslope areas, a survey
must be undertaken of wetland habitats that could potentially be affected. These wetland areas should
be characterised in terms of species composition, habitat type, general condition and
sensitivity/vulnerability to damage by the proposed activities. Habitat mapping should be enhanced
during these field surveys.
• A list will be compiled of any alien plant species that occur in the general area. This includes any species
listed according to the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act and the National Environmental
Management: Biodiversity Act.
8.3.2 HYDROLOGY
Following on from this desktop surface water scoping report, a detailed surface water assessment will be
undertaken for the EIA phase of the project. This will include the calculation of 1:50- and 1:100-year flood lines,
a conceptual storm water management plan, calculation of a static water balance, a water quality analysis and
recommendations for a water quality monitoring plan, a management plan and a risk and mitigation assessment
to build on from that contained within this document.
8.3.3 AQUATIC ECOLOGY (WETLANDS)
An aquatic ecology survey will be undertaken to ascertain the Present Ecological State (PES) and Ecological
Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of the rivers and wetlands located within the preferred alternative. The Scope
of Work that will be encompassed to reach the objective is summarised and outlined below and the following
information will be generated in the form of a detailed freshwater ecology report.
• Rivers: Sites will be strategically chosen, and biomonitoring methodology will be applied to ascertain
the PES of the associated systems.
• Wetlands: Wetland delineation and mapping (1:10 000) of wetlands associated with the preferred
alternative for the proposed expansion of the Arnot Ash Disposal Facility, using DWAF (2005)
methodology. Generation of PES and EIS data for the wetlands using Wet-EcoServices (Kotze et al.,
2009) and Wet-Health (MacFarlane et al., 2009). Identification of current impacts, including point and
non-point source impacts.
Deliverables include an analysis of habitat biotopes, diatom-, macroinvertebrate- and fish community structures
and in situ water quality where applicable, an analysis of the PES and EIS of relevant wetlands, a wetland
delineation and application of relevant buffer zones to delineated wetlands, a detailed report on the status of
the surface water ecology and wetlands, Identification of current impacts on rivers and wetland systems,
including point and non-point source impacts, and an impact assessment with regards to impacts of the
proposed Arnot Ash Disposal Facility on the surrounding aquatic ecosystems.
8.3.4 GEOHYDROLOGY
The following Scope of Work applies for the detailed Phase II study:
• Geophysical investigation to site the monitoring borehole positions;
• Monitoring well drilling of four monitoring wells of a depth of 40m;
• Aquifer testing of the newly drilled monitoring wells;
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 124
• Water quality sampling of the four newly drilling monitoring wells;
• Geochemical Assessment and Waste Classification of the ash material;
o Whole rock analyses (including TC values for Waste Classification)
o Acid-rock drainage potential
o Leach tests (including LC values for Waste Classification)
• Waste Classification of the ash;
• Geochemical modelling;
• Groundwater contaminant transport modelling; and
• Risk Assessment and Reporting.
8.3.5 HERITAGE AND FOSSILS
The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) report to be compiled by PGS Heritage (PGS) for the proposed Arnot ADF
will assess the heritage resources found on site. This report will contain the applicable maps, tables and figures
as stipulated in the NHRA (no 25 of 1999), the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (no 107 of
1998) and the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) (28 of 2002). The HIA process
consists of three steps:
• Step I – Literature Review: The background information to the field survey leans greatly on the Heritage
Scoping Report completed by PGS for this site.
• Step II – Physical Survey: A physical survey was conducted on foot and by vehicle through the proposed
project area by heritage specialists, aimed at locating and documenting sites falling within and adjacent
to the proposed development footprint. – Completed during the Scoping Phase
• Step III – The final step involves the assessment of resources in terms of the heritage impact assessment
criteria and report writing, as well as mapping and constructive recommendations.
Management actions and recommended mitigation, which will result in a reduction in the impact on the sites,
will be included.
A full paleontological field survey will also be undertaken in the EIA phase.
8.3.6 VISUAL
During the Impact Assessment Phase, a detailed impact assessment will be done for the preferred Site
Alternative. This will include the viewshed analysis as well as the photo simulations. Any additional comments
received during the public participation will be addressed as well.
8.3.7 AIR QUALITY
The main aim of this investigation was to provide the basis for the air quality impact assessment plan to be
conducted for the proposed project. The following will be included in the impact assessment study:
• Compilation of an emissions inventory, comprising the identification and quantification of potential
sources of emissions due to the proposed project;
• Dispersion simulations of particulate matter from the proposed project for applicable averaging
periods;
• Evaluation of potential for human health and environmental impacts; and,
• Determination of environmental risk according to stipulated Impact Assessment methodology.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 125
8.3.8 NOISE
A detailed noise study will form part of the EIA specialist studies. Sensitive receptors around project will be
identified and evaluated in the report with regards to possible impacts by the current activities. This will be
done by evaluating the impact on both day and night time activities that impacts on these receptors. This will
indicate the possible impact at each receptor point. Suitable mitigation measures should then be proposed for
each impact on the sensitive receptors. A monitoring program will be proposed to evaluate the effectiveness of
the mitigation measures for each receptor.
8.3.9 TRAFFIC
A detailed traffic study will form part of the EIA specialist studies. The study will:
• Determine the existing traffic flows on adjacent road network in order to quantify the regional traffic
assessment;
• Identify current routes ability to handle super and abnormal loads;
• Proposed road upgrading in the area;
• Public transport and pedestrian activities; and
• Access arrangements.
8.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS
8.4.1 METHOD OF ASSESSING IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE
Method of Assessing Impacts:
The impact assessment methodology is guided by the requirements of the NEMA EIA Regulations (2014). The
broad approach to the significance rating methodology is to determine the environmental risk (ER) by
considering the consequence (C) of each impact (comprising Nature, Extent, Duration, Magnitude, and
Reversibility) and relate this to the probability/likelihood (P) of the impact occurring. This determines the
environmental risk. In addition, other factors, including cumulative impacts, public concern, and potential for
irreplaceable loss of resources, are used to determine a prioritisation factor (PF) which is applied to the ER to
determine the overall significance (S).
Determination of Environmental Risk:
The significance (S) of an impact is determined by applying a prioritisation factor (PF) to the environmental risk
(ER).
The environmental risk is dependent on the consequence (C) of the particular impact and the probability (P) of
the impact occurring. Consequence is determined through the consideration of the Nature (N), Extent (E),
Duration (D), Magnitude (M), and reversibility (R) applicable to the specific impact.
For the purpose of this methodology the consequence of the impact is represented by:
C= (E+D+M+R) x N
4
Each individual aspect in the determination of the consequence is represented by a rating scale as defined in
Table 24.
Table 24: Criteria for determining impact consequence
Aspect Score Definition
Nature - 1 Likely to result in a negative/ detrimental impact
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 126
Aspect Score Definition
+1 Likely to result in a positive/ beneficial impact
Extent 1 Activity (i.e. limited to the area applicable to the specific activity)
2 Site (i.e. within the development property boundary),
3 Local (i.e. the area within 5 km of the site),
4 Regional (i.e. extends between 5 and 50 km from the site)
5 Provincial / National (i.e. extends beyond 50 km from the site)
Duration 1 Immediate (<1 year)
2 Short term (1-5 years),
3 Medium term (6-15 years),
4 Long term (the impact will cease after the operational life span of the project),
5 Permanent (no mitigation measure of natural process will reduce the impact after
construction).
Magnitude/
Intensity
1 Minor (where the impact affects the environment in such a way that natural, cultural
and social functions and processes are not affected),
2 Low (where the impact affects the environment in such a way that natural, cultural
and social functions and processes are slightly affected),
3 Moderate (where the affected environment is altered but natural, cultural and social
functions and processes continue albeit in a modified way),
4 High (where natural, cultural or social functions or processes are altered to the
extent that it will temporarily cease), or
5 Very high / don’t know (where natural, cultural or social functions or processes are
altered to the extent that it will permanently cease).
Reversibility 1 Impact is reversible without any time and cost.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 127
Aspect Score Definition
2 Impact is reversible without incurring significant time and cost.
3 Impact is reversible only by incurring significant time and cost.
4 Impact is reversible only by incurring prohibitively high time and cost.
5 Irreversible Impact
Once the C has been determined, the ER is determined in accordance with the standard risk assessment
relationship by multiplying the C and the P. Probability is rated/scored as per Table 25.
Table 25: Probability scoring
Pro
bab
ility
1 Improbable (the possibility of the impact materialising is very low as a result of design, historic
experience, or implementation of adequate corrective actions; <25%),
2 Low probability (there is a possibility that the impact will occur; >25% and <50%),
3 Medium probability (the impact may occur; >50% and <75%),
4 High probability (it is most likely that the impact will occur- > 75% probability), or
5 Definite (the impact will occur).
The result is a qualitative representation of relative ER associated with the impact. ER is therefore calculated as
follows:
ER= C x P
Table 26: Determination of Environmental Risk
Co
nse
qu
ence
5 5 10 15 20 25
4 4 8 12 16 20
3 3 6 9 12 15
2 2 4 6 8 10
1 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Probability
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 128
The outcome of the environmental risk assessment will result in a range of scores, ranging from 1 through to 25.
These ER scores are then grouped into respective classes as described in Table 27.
Table 27: Significance classes
Environmental Risk Score
Value Description
< 9 Low (i.e. where this impact is unlikely to be a significant environmental risk),
≥9 <17 Medium (i.e. where the impact could have a significant environmental risk),
≥ 17 High (i.e. where the impact will have a significant environmental risk).
The impact ER will be determined for each impact without relevant management and mitigation measures (pre-
mitigation), as well as post implementation of relevant management and mitigation measures (post-mitigation).
This allows for a prediction in the degree to which the impact can be managed/mitigated.
Impact Prioritisation:
In accordance with the requirements of Appendix 3(3)(j) of the NEMA 2014 EIA Regulations (GNR 982), and
further to the assessment criteria presented in the Section above it is necessary to assess each potentially
significant impact in terms of:
• Cumulative impacts; and
• The degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources.
In addition, it is important that the public opinion and sentiment regarding a prospective development and
consequent potential impacts is considered in the decision-making process.
In an effort to ensure that these factors are considered, an impact prioritisation factor (PF) will be applied to
each impact ER (post-mitigation). This prioritisation factor does not aim to detract from the risk ratings but
rather to focus the attention of the decision-making authority on the higher priority/significance issues and
impacts. The PF will be applied to the ER score based on the assumption that relevant suggested
management/mitigation impacts are implemented.
Table 28: Criteria for determining prioritisation
Public response
(PR)
Low (1) Issue not raised in public response.
Medium (2) Issue has received a meaningful and justifiable public response.
High (3) Issue has received an intense meaningful and justifiable public response.
Cumulative
Impact (CI)
Low (1) Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and
synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikely that the impact will result in
spatial and temporal cumulative change.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 129
Medium (2) Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and
synergistic cumulative impacts, it is probable that the impact will result in
spatial and temporal cumulative change.
High (3) Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and
synergistic cumulative impacts, it is highly probable/definite that the
impact will result in spatial and temporal cumulative change.
Irreplaceable
loss of
resources (LR)
Low (1) Where the impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.
Medium (2) Where the impact may result in the irreplaceable loss (cannot be replaced
or substituted) of resources but the value (services and/or functions) of
these resources is limited.
High (3) Where the impact may result in the irreplaceable loss of resources of high
value (services and/or functions).
The value for the final impact priority is represented as a single consolidated priority, determined as the sum of
each individual criteria The impact priority is therefore determined as follows:
Priority = PR + CI + LR
The result is a priority score which ranges from 3 to 9 and a consequent PF ranging from 1 to 2 (Refer to Table
29).
Table 29: Determination of prioritisation factor
Priority Ranking Prioritisation Factor
3 Low 1
4 Medium 1.17
5 Medium 1.33
6 Medium 1.5
7 Medium 1.67
8 Medium 1.83
9 High 2
In order to determine the final impact significance, the PF is multiplied by the ER of the post mitigation scoring.
The ultimate aim of the PF is to be able to increase the post mitigation environmental risk rating by a full ranking
class, if all the priority attributes are high (i.e. if an impact comes out with a medium environmental risk after
the conventional impact rating, but there is significant cumulative impact potential, significant public response,
and significant potential for irreplaceable loss of resources, then the net result would be to upscale the impact
to a high significance).
Table 30: Final Environmental significance rating
Environmental Significance Rating
Value Description
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 130
Environmental Significance Rating
< -10 Low negative (i.e. where this impact would not have a direct influence on the decision to
develop in the area).
≥ -10 < -20 Medium negative (i.e. where the impact could influence the decision to develop in the area).
≥ -20 High negative (i.e. where the impact must have an influence on the decision process to
develop in the area).
0 No impact
< 10 Low positive (i.e. where this impact would not have a direct influence on the decision to
develop in the area).
≥ 10 < 20 Medium positive (i.e. where the impact could influence the decision to develop in the area).
≥ 20 High positive (i.e. where the impact must have an influence on the decision process to
develop in the area).
8.4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The significance of environmental impacts will be rated before and after the implementation of mitigation
measures. These mitigation measures may be existing measures or additional measures that may arise from the
impact assessment and specialist input. The impact rating system considers the confidence level that can be
placed on the successful implementation of the mitigation. The impact assessment methodology enables the
assessment of environmental issues including: the severity of impacts (including the nature of impacts and the
degree to which impacts may cause irreplaceable loss of resources), the extent of the impacts, the duration and
reversibility of impacts, the probability of the impact occurring, and the degree to which the impacts can be
mitigated.
The specialist studies will recommend practicable mitigation measures or management actions that effectively
minimise or eliminate negative impacts, enhance beneficial impacts, and assist project design. If appropriate,
the studies will differentiate between essential mitigation measures, which must be implemented and optional
mitigation measures, which are recommended (“nice-to-haves”).
8.4.3 PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS IN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An overview of the proposed public participation process to be followed for the EIA phase is provided below.
Forecast dates provided below may change as the project progresses but authority submission deadlines will be
strictly adhered to. The commenting periods that will be provided to an I&APs will be thirty (30) days long. Two
commenting periods will be provided during the project for the:
• One for the Scoping Report; and
• One for the EIA Report and EMPr.
Feedback from I&APs has been and will be solicited through the following means:
• Public meetings /Open Days;
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 131
• Advertisements;
• Site Notices and Posters;
• Registered Letters;
• Faxes and e-mails;
• Completion of the comment sheet/ questionnaires provided; and
• Any other communication with EIMS.
The public participation process was initiated on the 13th of July 2018 with an initial notification and call to
register. The initial 30 day commenting and review period of the Scoping Report will take place between the 13th
July 2018 and the 13th August 2018. Following this initial comment period a second scoping report will be made
available for public review for another 30 day period. All comments received during the initial call to register
and both Scoping Report comment periods will be included in the final Scoping Report submission to the
authorities.
The dates of the review and commenting period for the draft EIA report and associated EMPr will be determined
at a later date and communicated to all registered I&APs.
8.4.4 CONSULTATION PROCESS WITH COMPETENT AUTHORITY
The conditions of the scoping approval from the competent authority (if any) will be implemented through the
EIA process. A site visit and meeting with the competent authority shall be held, if requested. DEA will be invited
to all public-feedback meetings/ open days to be held. The EIA Report and EMPr will be submitted to DEA in
both draft and final formats.
8.4.5 DESCRIPTION OF EIA TASKS
The plan of study in terms of certain aspects is detailed in the above sections and is summarised below. The
following tasks will be undertaken as part of the EIA phase of the project:
• Specialist studies:
o Ecology;
o Hydrology;
o Geohydrology;
o Wetlands;
o Heritage (including Palaeontological Assessment);
o Noise;
o Visual;
o Traffic; and
o Air Quality.
• Public consultation:
o Notification regarding availability of EIA Report and EMPr.
o Public meeting or open day (EIA Phase).
• Authority consultation:
o Consultation with commenting authorities.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 132
o Authorities meeting to provide authorities with project related information and obtain their
feedback (if requested).
• Document compilation:
o The EIA Report and EMPr will be compiled in line with the requirements of Appendix 3 and 4
of the EIA Regulations (2014).
o The EIA Report and EMPr will be made available for public comment for a period of 30 days.
The EIA Report and EMPr will be finalised and submitted to the competent authority.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 133
9 UNDERTAKING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PRACTITIONER
9.1 UNDERTAKINGS REGARDING CORRECTIONS OF INFORMATION
I _________________________ herewith undertake that the information provided in the foregoing report is
correct, and that the comments and inputs from stakeholders and Interested and Affected Parties have been
correctly recorded in the report.
Signature of the EAP
Date: 5 July 2018
9.2 UNDERTAKING REGARDING LEVEL OF AGREEMENT
I ___________________________________ herewith undertake that the information provided in the foregoing
report is correct, and that the level of agreement with Interested and Affected Parties and stakeholders has
been correctly recorded and reported herein.
Signature of the EAP
Date: 5 July 2018
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 134
10 REFERENCES
ABBEY, D., Ostro, B., & F, P. (1995). Chronic respiratory symptoms associated with estimated long-term ambient
concentrations of fine particulates less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5) and other air
pollutants. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 5, 137–159.
AEPA South Australia. (2007). Guidelines for Seperation Distances. AEPA South Australia.
AGIS, 2007. Agricultural Geo-Referenced Information System, accessed from www.agis.agric.za on 2 December
2014.
Alade, O. L. (2009). Characteristics of particulate matter over the South African industrialised Highveld. MSc
dissertation. Faculty of Science, University of the Witwatersrand.
ALEXANDER, G. & MARAIS, J. 2007. A guide to the reptiles of southern Africa. Struik, Cape Town.
Barnard, H. C. and Baran, E. (1999). 2526 Johannesburg 1:500 000 Hydrogeological map series of the Republic
of South Africa
BARNES, K.N. (ed.) (2000) The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Birdlife
South Africa, Johannesburg.
BATES, M.F., BRANCH, W.R., BAUER, A.M., BURGER, M., MARAIS, J., ALEXANDER, G.J. & DE VILLIERS, M.S. (eds).
2014 (reprint 2014). Atlas and Red List of the Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Suricata 1. South
African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
BRANCH, W.R. (1988) South African Red Data Book—Reptiles and Amphibians. South African National Scientific
Programmes Report No. 151.
BROMILOW, C. 2010. Problem plants and alien weeds of South Africa. Briza, Pretoria.
CAMPBELL, PETA. date unknown. Rehabilitation recommendations after alien plant control and Wattle Control.
ARC-PPRI publication.
CEPA/FPAC Working Group. (1998). National Ambient Air Quality Objectives for Particulate Matter. Part 1:
Science Assessment Document. A Report by the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) Federal-
Provincial Advisory Committee (FPAC)on Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines.
CERC. (2004). ADMS Urban Training. Version 2. Unit A.
CHITTENDEN, H. 2007. Roberts bird guide: a comprehensive field guide to over 950 bird species in southern
Africa. John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town.
CILLIERS, J.P. 2010. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Enpact Environmental Consultants concerning
the proposed Elandshoek township development on portions 2 and 6 of the farm Lindenau 303 JT and portion 2
of Berlin 466 JT, Mpumalanga Province. Kudzala Antiquity.
COLLETT, D.P. 1982. Excavations of Stone-Walled Ruin Types in the Badfontein Valley, Eastern Transvaal, South
Africa. The South African Archaeological Bulletin Vol. 37, No. 135 (Jun., 1982), pp. 34-43 Published by: South
African Archaeological Society. Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3888578
CONANT, S. (1988). Saving Endangered Species by Translocation. Are we tinkering with evolution? BioScience,
38, 254-257.
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY INSTITUTE (2000). Review of potential edge effects on the San Fernando Valley
Spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina). Prepared for Ahmanson Land Company, West Covina,
California & Beveridge & Diamond, LLP, San Francisco, California.
Council for Geoscience (1986). 2528 Pretoria Geological map, 1:250 000.
Council for Geoscience (1986). 2628 East rand Geological map, 1:250 000.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 135
Davidson, C. I., Phalen, R. F., & Solomon, P. A. (2005). Airborne Particulate Matter and Human Health: A Review.
Aerosol Science and Technology , Volume 39, Issue 8.
DEA. (2014). Regulations regarding Air Dispersion Modelling. Department of Environmental Affairs, Government
Gazette No. 37804, 11 July 2014.
DELIUS, P and Hay, M. 2009. Mpumalanga: An Illustrated History. The Highveld Press
DELIUS, Peter (ed). 2007. Mpumalanga: History and Heritage. University of Kwa-Zulu Natal Press.
DENT, M.C., LYNCH, S.D. & SCHULZE, R.E. 1989. Mapping mean annual and other rainfall statistics in southern
Africa. Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Natal. ACRU Report No. 27. Massachusetts: Clark
University.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS. DEA National Landcover (TIFF) [Raster] 2015. Available from the
Biodiversity GIS website, downloaded on 23 May 2016.
Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) (2012). Aquifer Classification Map of South Africa.
Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) (2013). Aquifer Vulnerability Map of South Africa.
Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) (2013). Groundwater Resource Directed Measures (GRDM). Version
2.3.2.
Dockery, D. W., & Pope, C. A. (1994). Acute Respiratory Effects of Particulate Air Pollution. Annual Review of
Public Health, 15, 107 - 132.
DRIVER, A., MAZE, K., ROUGET, M., LOMBARD, A.T., NEL, J., TURPIE, J.K., COWLING, R.M., DESMET, P.,
GOODMAN, P., HARRIS, J., JONAS, Z., REYERS, B., SINK, K and STRAUSS, T. 2005. National Spatial Biodiversity
Assessment 2004: priorities for biodiversity conservation in South Africa. Strelitzia 17. South African National
Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
DU PREEZ, L. & CARRUTHERS, V. 2009. A complete guide to the frogs of southern Africa. Random House Struik,
Cape Town.
Ernst, W. (1981). Monitoring of particulate pollutants. In L. Steubing, & H.-J. Jager, Monitoring of Air Pollutants
by Plants: Methods and Problems. The Hague: Dr W Junk Publishers.
ESTERHUYSEN, A and Smith, J. 2007. Stories in Stone. Chapter 2 in Mpumalanga: History and Heritage. Evers,
T.M. 1975. Recent Iron Age Research In The Eastern Transvaal, South Africa. In The South African Archaeological
Bulletin, Vol. 30, No. 119/120 (Dec., 1975), pp. 71-83. South African Archaeological Society Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3888096 Accessed: 03/05/2012 08:54
FAIRBANKS, D.H.K., THOMPSON, M.W., VINK, D.E., NEWBY, T.S., VAN DEN BERG, H.M & EVERARD, D.A. 2000.
The South African Land-Cover Characteristics Database: a synopsis of the landscape. S.Afr.J.Science 96: 69-
82.Fourie, W. 2008a. Archaeological Impact Assessment: Northern Coal Portion 15 and 16 of the farm
Weltevreden 381 JT, Belfast, Mpumalanga. PGS.
FOURIE, W. 2008b. Archaeological Impact Assessments within South African Legislation. South African
Archaeological Bulletin 63 (187): 77–85, 2008
FOURIE, W. 2009. Arnot Colliery Mine Project of Exxaro On Portions 4 and 5 of the farm Mooifontein 448 JS and
Portions 3 And 4 of the farm Tweefontein 458 JS , District Middelburg, Mpumalanga
Fourie, W. 2016. Heritage Assessment - The Kwagga North Project, Optimum Coal, Arnot, Mpumalanga.
FRIEDMANN, Y. & DALY, B. (eds.) 2004. The Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A Conservation
Assessment: CBSG Southern Africa, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN), Endangered Wildlife
Trust, South Africa.
GELBARD, J.L. & BELNAP, J. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape.
Conservation Biology, 17(2), 420-432.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 136
GERMISHUIZEN, G., MEYER, N.L., STEENKAMP, Y and KEITH, M. (eds.) (2006). A checklist of South African plants.
Southern African Botanical Diversity Network Report No. 41, SABONET, Pretoria.
Goldreich, Y., & Tyson, P. (1988). Diurnal and Inter-Diurnal Variations in Large-Scale Atmospheric Turbulence
over Southern Africa. South African Geographical Journal, 48-56.
Google Earth (2005). http://earth.google.com/. Google
Grantz, D. A., Garner, J. H., & Johnson, D. W. (2003). Ecological effects of particulate matter. Env. Int, 29 pp 213-
239.
GRIFFITH, B., SCOTT, J.M., CARPENTER, J.W. & REED, C. (1989). Translocation as a species conservation tool:
Status and strategy. Science, 245, 477 - 480.
HANSEN, M.J. & CLEVENGER, A.P. 2005. THE INFLUENCE OF DISTURBANCE AND HABITAT ON THE PRESENCE OF
NON-NATIVE PLANT SPECIES ALONG TRANSPORT CORRIDORS. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 125, 249-259.
Harmens, H., Mills, G., Hayes, F., Williams, P., & De Temmerman, L. (2005). Air Pollution and Vegetation. The
International Cooperative Programme on Effects of Air Pollution on Natural Vegetation and Crops Annual Report
2004/2005.
HENDERSON, L. 2001. Alien weeds and invasive plants. Agricultural Research Council.
HENNING, G.A., TERBLANCHE, R.F. and BALL, J.B. 2009. South African Red Data Book: butterflies. SANBI
Biodiversity Series 13. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
HENNING, S.F. & HENNING, G.A. 1989. South African Red Data Book - Butterflies. South African National Scientific
Programmes No. 158, Foundation for Research Development, CSIR, Pretoria.
Hirano, T., Kiyota, M., & Aiga, I. (1995). Physical effects of dust on leaf physiology of cucumber and kidney bean
plants. Environmental Pollution, 255–261.
HPA. (2011). Highveld Priority Area Air Quality Management Plan. Pretoria: Department of Environmental
Affairs, Chief Directorate: Air Quality Management.
HRUBA, F., Fabianova, E., Koppova, K., & Vandenberg, J. (2001). Childhood respiratory symptoms,hospital
admissions,and long-term exposure to airborne particulate matter. Journal of Exposure Analysis and
Environmental Epidemiology 11, 33–40.
IUCN (2001). IUCN Red Data List categories and criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission: Gland,
Switzerland.
IUCN 2014. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <http://www.iucnredlist.org>.
Downloaded on 02 December 2014. [for details of threatened Mpumalanga invertebrates as at 2 December
2014 see http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/link/547d71ff-63b06a82]
JOOSTE, C.P. 2002. Anglo-Boer War Battles: The Battle Of Bergendal - The Last Pitched Battle Of The Anglo-Boer
War. Military History Journal Vol 12 No 4 - December
JOOSTE, C.P. 2008. Machadodorp tot en met dorpstigting in 1904 (Afrikaans), MA dissertation, University of
Pretoria, Pretoria, viewed 120501 http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-11132008-124230
KITTO, J. 2012. Exxaro Paardeplaats Project Heritage Impact Assessment Report
KITTO, J. 2015. Proposed expansion of existing mining area into portion re of the farm Roetz 210 IS, Jagtlust
Colliery, near Carolina, Albert Luthuli Local Municipality, Gert Sibande District Municipality, Mpumalanga
Province .
MACVICAR, C. N., SCOTNEY, D. M. SKINNER, T. E. NIEHAUS, H. S. & LOUBSER, J. H., 1974. A classification of land
(climate, terrain form, soil) primarily for rainfed agriculture. S. Afr. J. Agric. Extension, 3(3): 1-4.
MAGGS, T. 1995. Neglected Rock Art: The Rock Engravings of Agriculturist Communities in South Africa Reviewed
work(s): Source: The South African Archaeological Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 162 (Dec.), pp. 132-142 Published by:
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 137
South African Archaeological Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3889062. Accessed: 01/05/2012
01:40
MARAIS, J. 2004. A complete guide to the snakes of southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.
Mason, R.J. 1968. Transvaal and Natal Iron Age settlement revealed by aerial photography and excavation.
African Studies 27: 167-179.
MECENERO S., BALL J.B., EDGE D.A., HAMER M.L., HENNING G.A., KRÜGER M.A., PRINGLE E.L., TERBLANCHE R.F.
& WILLIAMS M.C. (eds) 2013. Conservation Assessment of Butterflies of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland:
Red List and Atlas. Saftronics (Pty) Ltd., Johannesburg & Animal Demography Unit, Cape Town. 676 pp.
MILLS, G. & HES, L. 1997. The complete book of southern African mammals. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.
MINTER, L.R., BURGER, M., HARRISON, J.A., BRAACK, H.H., BISHOP, P.J. and KLOEPFER, D. (eds.) 2004. Atlas and
Red Data Bookof the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SI/MAB Series #9. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, DC.
MONADJEM, A., TAYLOR, P.J., COTTERILL, E.P.D. & SCHOEMAN, M.C. 2010. Bats of southern and central Africa.
Wits University Press, Johannesburg.
Morris, D. 2008. Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment on Remainder of Carter Block 458, near Lime
Acres, Northern Cape. McGregor Museum.
MPUMALANGA TOURISM AND PARKS AGENCY. MBSP Terrestrial Assessment 2014 [Vector] 2014. Available from
the Biodiversity GIS website, downloaded on 06 February 2017.
MUCINA, L. AND RUTHERFORD, M.C. (editors) 2006. Vegetation map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland: an
illustrated guide. Strelitzia 19, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
MUCINA, L., HOARE, D.B., Lotter, M.C., du Preez, J., Rutherford, M.C., Scott-Shaw, R., Bredenkamp, G.J., Powrie,
L.W., Scott, L., Camp, K.G.T., Cilliers, S.S., Bezuidenhous, H., Mostert. T.H., Siebert, S.S., Winter, P.J.D., Burrows,
J.E., Dobson, L., Ward, R.A., Stalmans, M., Oliver, E.G.H., Siebert, F., Schmidt, E., Kobisi, K. & Kose, K. 2006b.
Grassland Biome. In: MUCINA, L. & RUTHERFORD, M.C. (editors). The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and
Swaziland. Strelitzia 19, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
MUCINA, L., RUTHERFORD, M.C. AND POWRIE, I.W. (editors) 2005. Vegetation map of South Africa, Lesotho and
Swaziland, 1:1 000 000 SCALE SHEET MAPS South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
NAIDOO, G., & Chirkoot, D. (2004). The effects of coal dust on photosynthetic performance of the mangrove,
Avicennia marina in Richards Bay, South Africa. Environmental Pollution, 359–366.
PAKENHAM, T. 1979. The Boer War. Jonathan Ball Paperbacks. Johannesburg
PASSMORE, N.I. & CARRUTHERS, V.C. (1995) South African Frogs; a complete guide. Southern Book Publishers
and Witwatersrand University Press. Johannesburg.
PELSER, A. 2012. A report on a heritage assessment for the proposed Arnot-Gumeni 400 kv powerline project,
in the Middelburg/Belfast area, Mpumalanga Province
PISTORIUS, J. C. C. 2004. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) study for the proposed New Optimum Colliery on
the farm Schoonoord 164IS in the Mpumalanga Province of South Africa
PISTORIUS, J. C. C. 2014. A phase I Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) study for the consolidated Environmental
Management Programme report (consolidated EMPR) for Arnot Coal on the eastern highveld in the Mpumalanga
Province .
PISTORIUS, J. C. C. 2014. A revised phase I Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) study for the proposed Rietvlei
open cast coal mining operation between Middelburg, Belfast and Stofberg in the Mpumalanga province of
South Africa.
Pope, C. (2000). Epidemiology of fine particulate air pollution and human health: biologic mechanisms and who’s
at risk? Environmental Health Perspectives, 713-723.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 138
Pope, C., Burnett, R., Thun, M., Calle, E., Krewski, D., Ito, K., & Thurston, G. (2002). Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary
mortality, and long term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. . Journal of the American Medical Association,
1132-1141.
Republic of South Africa. National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008).
Ricks, G., & Williams, R. (1974). Effects of atmospheric pollution on deciduous woodland part 2: effects of
particulate matter upon stomatal diffusion resistance in leaves of Quercus petraes (Mattuschka) Leibl.
Environmental Pollution, 87–109.
ROYAL DE L’AFRIQUE CENTRALE, Ser. IN-8o 221: 1-472.
RSA National Geospatial Institute. 2529DC, DD, 2629BA, BB, 1:50 000 Topographical series.
RUTHERFORD, M.C. & WESTFALL, R.H. (1994). Biomes of southern Africa: an objective categorization. Memoirs
of the Botanical Survey of South Africa No. 63.
SAMWAYS, M.J. 2006. National Red List of South African Odonata. Odonatologica35(4): 341-368.
SAMWAYS, M.J. and TAYLOR, S. 2004. Impacts of alien invasive plants on Red-Listed South African dragonflies
(Odonata). South African Journal of Science 100: 78-80.
SHAO, Y. (2008). Physics ad Modelling of Wind Erosion. Atmospheric and Oceanographic Science Library, 2nd
Revised and Expanded Edition. Springer Science.
SNEERINGER, S. (2009). Does Animal Feeding Operation Pollution Hurt Public Health? A National Longitudinal
Study of Health Externalities Identified by Geographic Shifts in Livestock Production. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, Vol. 91, No. 1, pp. 124-137.
South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) (2015). South African National Standard: Drinking Water Part 1:
Microbiological, physical, aesthetic and chemical determinants: SANS 241-1:2015 2nd Ed. ISBN 978-0-626-
29841-8
SPENCEr, S. (2001). Effects of coal dust on species composition of mosses and lichens in an arid environment.
Arid Environments 49, 843-853.
TARBOTON, W. and TARBOTON, M. 2002. A Fieldguide to the Dragonflies of South Africa. Published by the
authors, 95pp.
TARBOTON, W. and TARBOTON, M. 2005. A Fieldguide to the Damselflies of South Africa. Published by the
authors, 95pp.
TIWARY, A., & Colls, J. (2010). Air Pollution: Measurement, Modelling and Mitigation.
TOLLEY, K. & BURGER, M. 2007. Chameleons of southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.
US EPA. (2006). AP 42, 5th Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources, 13.2.4 Aggregate Handling and
Storage Piles.
VAN SCHALKWYK, J 2007. Heritage Impact Scoping Report for the Planned Hendrina-Marathon Power line,
Mpumalanga Province
VAN WYK, A.E. & SMITH, G.F. 2001. REGIONS OF FLORISTIC ENDEMISM IN SOUTHERN AFRICA. UMDAUS PRESS,
HATFIELD.
VEGTER. J. R. (1995). Groundwater Resources of the Republic of South Africa. Water Research Commission.
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Printpak Transvaal. South Africa.
VICTOR, J.E. & KEITH, M. 2004. THE ORANGE LIST: A SAFETY NET FOR BIODIVERSITY IN SOUTH AFRICA. SOUTH
AFRICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 100: 139–141.
VICTOR, J.E. 2006. DATA DEFICIENT FLAGS FOR USE IN THE RED LIST OF SOUTH AFRICAN PLANTS. BOTHALIA 36,1:
85–86.
WERNER, K. 2000. The Tiger Beetles of Africa, Volumes 1 and 2, Taita Publishers.
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 139
WHISENANT, S.G. (1999). Repairing Damaged Wildlands: A process-orientated, landscape-scale approach.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge
ZAR, J.H. 1996, Biostatistical Analysis, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Google Earth
GOOGLE EARTH. 6.0.12032 Beta.
Aerial depictions the Heritage Scoping Report are from Google Earth.
World Wide Web References:
www.angloboerwar.com
www.dwaf.gov.za/wfw/Control/docs/controltables.doc: The Working for Water Programme's website.
www.sahistory.org.za
www.sahra.org.za
www.wikipedia.org
http://www2.lib.uct.ac.za/mss/bccd/)
1140 Arnot Ash Disposal Facility Project 140