FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED WATER AND EFFLUENT COLLECTION AND TREATMENT INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADE FOR THE SOUTH AFRICAN NUCLEAR ENERGY CORPORATION (NECSA)
February 2011 DEAT Ref No: 12/12/20/1294
Leaders in Environmental Management
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
DOCUMENT CONTROL FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT The Proposed Water and Effluent Collection and Treatment Infrastructure Upgrade NAME
Compiled:
GP Kriel
Checked:
Liam Whitlow
Authorized:
Liam Whitlow
SIGNATURE
DATE
DISTRIBUTION LIST
AGENCY, ORGANISATION OR PERSON
# OF COPIES
Necsa
1
Department of Water and Environmental Affairs
2
REVISION AND AMENDMENTS
DATE 17/06/2009
N O. 1
DESCRIPTION OF REVISION OR AMENDMENT Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Report for Public Review.
21/07/2009
EIMS Project no: 0725
2
Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report to DWEA.
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
i
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
SUMMARY DATA Project:
The Proposed Water and Effluent Collection and Treatment Infrastructure Upgrade
Location:
Weldaba 567-JQ, Pelindaba, Brits District (Madibeng), North West Province
CLIENT:
The South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa).
Contact:
Dr. Cairns Bain
Contact details:
Necsa c/o C A R Bain, Gate 3, P O Box 582, Pretoria, 0001 Tel:
(012) 305 3365
Fax:
(012) 305 3484
Email:
[email protected]
CONSULTANT:
Environmental Impact Management Services (Pty) Ltd (EIMS).
Contact:
GP Kriel
Contact Details:
PO Box 2083, Pinegowrie, 2123
EIMS Project no: 0725
Tel:
(011) 789 7170
Fax:
(011) 787 3059
E-mail:
[email protected]
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
ii
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The South African Nuclear Energy Corporation Limited (Necsa) requested EIMS to undertake the necessary requirements to prepare applications for environmental authorisation from the designated competent authority, the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT)1, for the proposed water and effluent collection and treatment infrastructure upgrade. The objective of the proposed project is the upgrading and renovation of water effluent collection and treatment infrastructure to limit the risk of unplanned environmental discharges and improve water use efficiency at Necsa, Pelindaba in the North West Province. A legal review determined that the following legislation would be applicable to the project: National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998), National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998), Nuclear Energy Act (Act 46 of 1999), National Nuclear Regulator Act (Act 47 of 1999), Hazardous Substances Act (Act 15 of 1973), National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999). The need for additional treatment facilities and infrastructure upgrade became apparent as a result of a number of factors including: 1) poor condition of current underground effluent piping, 2) the liability with regard to the clean-up and rehabilitation of potential environmental releases, 3) the treatment of effluent previously evaporated, and 4) the need for more effective treatment of effluent in the light of new legislative standards. The conceptual design is based on the location of effluent generating and treatment facilities at Necsa Pelindaba as well as the quantity of the effluent that is generated currently. The collection of effluent is being done locally in a dual tank system at each facility and transferred to the effluent treatment facilities. Additional locally located tanks will be installed to ensure a predetermined storage capacity at each facility. New transfer pipelines to the new/upgraded treatment facilities will be aboveground, and where current pipelines will be retained, these pipelines will be exposed and placed in covered channels to facilitate easy inspection and maintenance. The only interface with various nuclear Acts is the upgrading of pipelines for effluent of low and medium activity. No changes to treatment processes for radioactive materials will occur. Subsequent to a rating process, 3 main process alternatives were identified for the proposed project. The common elements for the three options are: •
A new chemical effluent treatment plant at Pelindaba East,
•
A new sewage screening plant at Pelindaba East,
•
A new industrial effluent treatment plant at P2400,
•
A new process water treatment plant at P2400.
These three alternatives are listed in the table below. Option “Option 1”
1
Description Sewage treatment at Pelindaba East to remain, industrial effluent and process water treatment to remain as is, new chemical effluent treatment plant at Pelindaba-East and new sewage treatment plant at Pelindaba-West at the original plant site.
On 10 May 2009 the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) and the Department of Water Affairs and
Forestry (DWAF) became one new department known as the Department of Water and Environment.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
iii
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Option
Description
“Option 7”
New common treatment plants to be built, with a new sewage treatment plant at the original plant site at Pelindaba-West for Pelindaba-East and West.
“Option 8”
New common treatment plants to be built, with a New combined industrial effluent and sewage treatment plant at P2400 at Pelindaba-West.
Two pipeline route alternatives and two road crossing alternatives have also been identified and assessed during the EIA phase. The alternative locations of the proposed treatment facility for the preferred Option 8 have also been identified, assessed and discussed. Pelindaba is situated on the ridges of the Skurweberg. Most of the site contains natural vegetation characteristic of the surrounding areas, with transformed vegetation, which consists of disturbed vegetation and ornamental gardens near and within the built-up areas. The site has several small drainage lines that drain from the site to the Crocodile River on the south and west and the Moganwe Spruit to the north. The climate is predominantly temperate. The site is underlain by shale for the most part. The impacted site has shallow soils (i.e. less than 450 mm in depth) and has no known cultural or heritage features. Specialist investigations also revealed that no sensitive fauna or flora were present on the impacted areas. The impacted site also did not present any sensitive hydrological features. The site is underlain by predominantly shale geological features, which could lead to geotechnical instability during construction. The Pelindaba site is currently zoned for industrial purposes and is located within Ward 29 of the Madibeng Local Municipality. Public participation was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) and its regulations and included publicand focus group meetings. Taking into consideration the receiving environment as described in Section 5 below, the following specialist studies were conducted to determine the impact that the proposed infrastructure upgrade had on the environment: •
Environmental Risk Analysis
•
Heritage Impact Assessment
•
Geotechnical Investigation
•
Hydrological Assessment
•
Ecological Assessments (including faunal and floral surveys).
Impacts that are likely to occur as a result of the proposed project have been identified and assessed in this report. The key conclusions of this assessment are as follows: •
The majority of the impacts anticipated to occur during the Construction Phase will have either a MEDIUM or LOW negative significance rating that can be reduced to a LOW negative rating with the successful implementation of the suggested mitigation measures.
•
The Removal/ Spread of Alien and Invasive species and Loss of Potential Heritage Resources anticipated to occur during the Construction Phase, will have negative effects on the environment with no mitigation measures and will have positive effects on the environment with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
•
Several positive impacts (with mitigation measures) are anticipated to occur during the Operational Phase and these include: Impact on Aquatic Fauna and Flora, Downstream Water Quality, Increased Water Use Efficiency, Spread of Alien and Invasive Species and Ground and Surface Water Pollution.
•
The negative impacts anticipated to occur during the Operational Phase will all be of LOW significance with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
iv
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
•
During the Decommissioning Phase it is anticipated that all of the impacts that will occur will have a LOW negative impact on the environment after the implementation of mitigation measures.
The most suitable alternative would be a combination of the Option 8 process alternative with the preferred location (Site 1) for the combined sewage/industrial effluent treatment facility and any of the proposed pipeline route and road crossing alternatives A detailed Environmental Management Plan has been compiled and is included in Appendix I.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
v
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
TABLE OF CONTENTS DOCUMENT CONTROL ........................................................................................................ i SUMMARY DATA ...................................................................................................................ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS .........................................................................................................vi FIGURES ..............................................................................................................................ix TABLES................................................................................................................................. x APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. xii 1.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
2.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT................................................................................ 3 2.1
Site Location and Access ....................................................................................... 3
2.2
Water and Effluent Collection and Treatment Infrastructure ................................... 5
2.2.1
Basis of the Conceptual Design .......................................................................... 5
2.2.2
Effluent Collection/Storage. ................................................................................ 9
2.2.3
Pipelines........................................................................................................... 12
2.2.4
Effluent Treatment ............................................................................................ 13
2.2.5
Process Water Utilisation ................................................................................. 17
2.3 2.3.1
Construction Priorities ...................................................................................... 17
2.3.2
Construction Activities ...................................................................................... 18
2.4
3.
Project Phasing .................................................................................................... 17
Services ............................................................................................................... 19
2.4.1
Waste Disposal ................................................................................................ 19
2.4.2
Electricity .......................................................................................................... 19
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................ 20 3.1
National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998)................................. 20
3.2
National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) ..................................................................... 23
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
vi
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
3.3
Nuclear Energy Act (Act 46 of 1999) and the National Nuclear Regulator Act (Act
47 of 1999) ....................................................................................................................... 25
4.
3.4
Hazardous Substances Act (Act 15 of 1973) ........................................................ 25
3.5
National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) ............................................... 25
ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................................... 26 4.1 4.1.1
Option 1............................................................................................................ 28
4.1.2
Option 7............................................................................................................ 29
4.1.3
Option 8............................................................................................................ 31
4.2
5.
Process Alternatives............................................................................................. 26
Effluent Treatment Facility Location Alternatives .................................................. 32
4.2.1
New Combined Industrial Effluent/Sewage Treatment Plant ............................. 32
4.2.2
Chemical Effluent Treatment Plant ................................................................... 32
4.2.3
Process Water Treatment Plant ........................................................................ 33
4.3
Transfer Route Alternative.................................................................................... 33
4.4
Effluent Disposal Alternative ................................................................................. 34
4.5
Road Crossing Alternative .................................................................................... 34
4.6
No Go Alternative ................................................................................................. 34
4.7
Alternatives considered ........................................................................................ 34
DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT ................................................ 38 5.1
Location and Topography ..................................................................................... 38
5.2
Climate ................................................................................................................. 38
5.3
Hydrology ............................................................................................................. 39
5.4
Flora ..................................................................................................................... 44
5.4.1
Description of Vegetation ................................................................................. 45
5.4.2
Red Data Species ............................................................................................ 47
5.5
Fauna ................................................................................................................... 50
5.6
Geology................................................................................................................ 54
5.6.1
Regional Geology ............................................................................................. 54
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
vii
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
6.
5.6.2
Local Geology .................................................................................................. 54
5.6.3
Soil Profile ........................................................................................................ 55
5.7
Areas of Historical/Cultural Significance ............................................................... 56
5.8
Land Use.............................................................................................................. 56
5.9
Social Environment .............................................................................................. 57
5.9.1
Population and Age Structure ........................................................................... 57
5.9.2
Employment Profile .......................................................................................... 57
5.9.3
Tourism ............................................................................................................ 58
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................ 59 6.1
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 59
6.2
Opportunities for Public Participation during the Scoping Phase .......................... 60
6.2.1
Placement of Site Notices ................................................................................ 60
6.2.2
Formal Opportunities for Public Participation .................................................... 61
6.3
7.
Issues Raised....................................................................................................... 62
6.3.1
Generic Issues Raised by I&APs ...................................................................... 62
6.3.2
I&AP Database ................................................................................................. 63
IMPACT IDENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT ............................... 63 7.1
Methodology......................................................................................................... 63
7.1.1
Status of the Impact.......................................................................................... 63
7.1.2
Extent of the Impact.......................................................................................... 63
7.1.3
Duration of the Impact ...................................................................................... 64
7.1.4
Magnitude of the Impact ................................................................................... 64
7.1.5
Probability of Occurrence ................................................................................. 64
7.1.6
Significance of the Impact................................................................................. 65
7.2
Impact Identification, Description and Assessment ............................................... 66
7.2.1
Planning and Design Phase Impacts ................................................................ 67
7.2.2
Construction Phase Impacts ............................................................................. 67
7.2.3
Operational Phase Impacts .............................................................................. 78
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
viii
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
7.2.4 7.3
Decommissioning Phase Impacts ..................................................................... 84 Comparative assessment of Alternatives based on overall significance ratings .... 87
8.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................. 90
9.
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................................ 90
10.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 90
11.
REFERENCE LIST .................................................................................................. 95
FIGURES Figure 1: Necsa Pelindaba Locality Map. ............................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Pelindaba West and Beva – Effluent Generators ................................................... 6 Figure 3: Pelindaba East – Effluent Generators .................................................................... 7 Figure 4:
Generic Scenarios with respect to Effluent Discharge, Storing, and Pumping
Facilities (Zitholele Consulting) ............................................................................................ 10 Figure 5:
Layout Diagram of the Effluent Collection and Transfer System (Zitholele
Consulting) .......................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 6: NEMA EIA Process (Red box indicates the current step in the process). ............. 21 Figure 7: Process Flow Diagram for Option 1 ..................................................................... 28 Figure 8: Schematic Representation of Option 1................................................................. 29 Figure 9: Process Flow Diagram for Option 7 ..................................................................... 30 Figure 10: Schematic Representation of Option 7 ............................................................... 30 Figure 11: Process Flow Diagram for Option 8 ................................................................... 31 Figure 12: Schematic Representation of Option 8 ............................................................... 32 Figure 13: Project Alternatives (Pelindaba West). ............................................................... 36 Figure 14: Project Alternatives (Pelindaba East). ................................................................ 37 Figure 15: Map showing the topography of the Necsa Pelindaba Site. ............................... 38 Figure 16: Map showing the drainage vectors of the Necsa Pelindaba site. ........................ 40 Figure 17: Borehole water level data in meters above mean sea level with ground water flow direction (m.a.m.s.l) ............................................................................................................. 41 Figure 18: Map Showing the Surface Hydrology at Necsa Pelindaba ................................. 43 EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
ix
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Figure 19: Vegetation Sensitivity Map ................................................................................. 46 Figure 20: Faunal Sensitivity Map showing the study area.................................................. 54 Figure 21: Population Age Structure for Madibeng Ward 29 ............................................... 58
TABLES Table 1: Current Effluent Generators .................................................................................... 5 Table 2: Current Total Effluent Volumes per Type of Effluent ............................................... 8 Table 3: Number of Effluent Generators Exceeding Necsa Internal WAC Requirements ...... 8 Table 4: Collection Tank Volumes and Materials of Construction........................................ 10 Table 5: NEMA Listed Activities .......................................................................................... 22 Table 6: NWA Section 21 Activities Requiring a Water Use Permit. .................................... 24 Table 7: Process Alternative Options .................................................................................. 26 Table 8: Option Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................... 27 Table 9: List of Observed Plant Species ............................................................................. 48 Table 10: Number of Farming/Small Holding Units Per Land Use Type .............................. 57 Table 11: Population distribution for Madibeng Ward 29 ..................................................... 57 Table 12: Monthly Household Income Distribution for Madibeng Ward 29. ......................... 58 Table 13: Monthly Personal Income Distribution for Madibeng Ward 29. ............................ 58 Table 14: Opportunities provided for Public Participation .................................................... 62 Table 15: Summary of Impacts Identified and Assessed During the EIA Phase .................. 66 Table 16: Impact Significance Summary Table (after mitigation)......................................... 89 Table 17: Summary of the Recommended Mitigation Measures ......................................... 93
APPENDICES Appendix A
Issues and Responses Report.
Appendix B
Zitholele Consulting Options Evaluation Workshop Report
Appendix C
Specialist Hydrological Report
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
x
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Appendix D
Specialist Geotechnical Report
Appendix E
Specialist Floral Report
Appendix F
Specialist Faunal Report
Appendix G
Specialist Heritage Report
Appendix H
Specialist Environmental Risk Assessment Report
Appendix I
Environmental Management Plan
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
xi
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CETP
Chemical Effluent Treatment Plant.
CR
Critically Endangered.
DAF
Dissolved Air Flotation.
DD
Data Deficient.
DEAT
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.
DSR
Draft Scoping Report.
DWAF
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment.
EIAR
Environmental Impact Assessment Report.
EIMS
Environmental Impact Management Services.
EMP
Environmental Management Plan.
EN
Endangered.
E-STP
Pelindaba East Sewage Treatment Plant.
EX
Extinct.
FSR
Final Scoping Report.
HAB
Harmful Algal Bloom.
HSA
Hazardous Substances Act (Act 15 of 1973).
HDPE
High Density Poly Ethylene
HF
Hydrogen Fluoride.
GN
Government Notice.
GIS
Geographic Information System.
GRP
Glass-Reinforced Polyester.
IE
Industrial Effluent.
IRR
Issues and Responses Report.
LA
Low Activity (waste).
LEMS
Liquid Effluent Management Services - Necsa.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
xii
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
MA
Medium Activity (waste).
Necsa
South African Nuclear Energy Corporation.
NEMA
National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998).
NF
Nano Filtration.
NHRA
National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999).
NNR
National Nuclear Regulator.
NT
Near Theatened.
NWA
National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998).
NWSOER
North-West State of the Environment Report.
Pel-East
Pelindaba East.
Pel-West
Pelindaba West.
PILR
Potential for Irreplaceable Loss of Resources.
PoS for EIA
Plan of Study for Environmental Impact Assessment.
PP
Polypropylene.
PPP
Public Participation Process.
PVC
Poly Vinyl Chloride
PWP
Process Water Plant at P2200.
RAS
Return Activated Sludge.
RO
Reverse Osmosis.
RoD
Record of Decision.
SCADA
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition.
SAHRA
South African Heritage Resources Agency
STD
Sexually Transmitted Disease
STP
Sewage Treatment Plant.
VU
Vulnerable.
WAC
Waste Acceptance Criteria
W-STP
Pelindaba West Sewage Treatment Plant.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
xiii
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
1.
INTRODUCTION
The South African Nuclear Energy Corporation Limited (Necsa) requested Environmental Impact Management Services (Pty) Ltd (EIMS) to undertake the necessary requirements to prepare and submit an application for environmental authorisation to the competent authority, the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), for the proposed water and effluent collection and treatment infrastructure upgrade project. The Final Scoping Report (FSR) and Plan of Study for Environmental Impact Assessment (PoS for EIA) were submitted to the DEAT during January 2009. The DEAT has subsequently approved both the FSR and the PoS for EIA and instructed the applicant to proceed with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Phase and the compilation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) in accordance with Regulation 32 of Government Notice (GN) R. 385. The aim of the EIAR is to: •
describe the proposed development;
•
source specialist input to address the issues raised during scoping and investigate the relevant identified alternatives;
•
investigate and describe the biophysical, social and economic environment surrounding the proposed development;
•
assess identified impacts and their significance;
•
recommend mitigation measures;
•
present an appropriate Environmental Management Plan (EMP)
•
comparatively assess the potential feasible alternatives for the development;
•
communicate the above information to interested and affected parties in an accessible and transparent manner; and
•
describe the public consultation process followed and to record all comments and suggestions received and all issues raised during the scoping process.
The EIA culminates in the compilation of an EIAR that summarises the findings and recommendations of the EIA Phase, as well as an Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The EIAR and the EMP will be submitted to DEAT for decision making and comment after public review of the documents has taken place. An important component of an EIA process is the undertaking of a public participation process (PPP). The PPP commenced during the Scoping Phase will be continued during the EIA Phase, and is described in detail in Section 6. EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
The objective of the proposed project is the upgrading and renovation of the water and effluent collection and treatment infrastructure to limit the risk of unplanned environmental discharges and to improve water use efficiency within the Necsa, Pelindaba site. Furthermore, this project is needed for the following reasons: •
In general the existing underground effluent piping is ageing and in poor condition and could lead to pipe bursts and leaks which would in turn result in an unnoticed environmental release of effluent and potential pollution of the surrounding environment.
•
Although every effort has been made to ensure the integrity of the existing pipelines that convey effluent from the facilities on site, the fact that pipelines are located underground, means that the likelihood still exists that leaks from these pipelines could remain undetected. Necsa would have a liability with regard to the clean-up and rehabilitation if environmental release and pollution should occur.
•
Necsa also proposes to phase out the existing evaporation ponds that are currently used at the site and it is proposed that the effluent currently being routed to the evaporation ponds be treated instead of being evaporated.
•
Aging infrastructure may, in the future, lead to failures or require a large amount of unplanned maintenance, which apart from impacting on the environment, will also impact on the production activities taking place at Pelindaba.
•
It has also been suggested that the existing effluent treatment technology is not the current best practicable means of treatment.
•
New legislative standards to be implemented in future would require that new technology be implemented in order to comply with the new standards set.
•
A separate chemical effluent treatment facility is also required, especially for the treatment of effluent generated at the Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) facility.
•
The proposed project will also lead to improved flow control, an improvement in the quality of water discharged from the site and the efficacy with which effluent and discharges are monitored.
In terms of Regulation 18 of the EIA regulations (GN. R 385), an independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP), must be appointed by the applicant (Necsa) to manage the application. EIMS is compliant with the definition of an EAP as defined in regulation 18 of the EIA regulations. This includes, inter alia, the requirement that EIMS is: 1)
Objective and Independent;
2)
Has expertise in conducting EIA’s;
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
3)
Takes into account all relevant factors relating to the application; and
4)
Provides full disclosure to the applicant and the relevant environmental authority.
2.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
2.1
Site Location and Access
The proposed site is located on the existing Necsa Pelindaba site, which is located on Portion 82 of the farm Weldaba 567-JQ in the Brits District, North West Province (Figure 1). The site has the following centre coordinates: 25o47'48.02'’S; 27o56'46.28'’E. Necsa falls within Ward 29 of the Madibeng Municipality.
Access to the site occurs through the 3
security controlled entrance gates from the R104 that runs adjacent to the northern boundary of the facility.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
3
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Figure 1: Necsa Pelindaba Locality Map. 4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
2.2
Water and Effluent Collection and Treatment Infrastructure
Zitholele Consulting was contracted by Necsa to assist in the planning and design of upgrading and renovation of the water and effluent collection and treatment infrastructure. An overview of the design specifications of the proposed infrastructure upgrade is given below, as provided by Zitholele Consulting (2007). 2.2.1 Basis of the Conceptual Design The conceptual design is based on the location of effluent generating and treatment facilities at Necsa Pelindaba as well as the quantity of the effluent that is generated currently. The list of current effluent generators at the Necsa Pelindaba site is given in Table 1 and the location of these generators and conceptual pipeline routes2 are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Table 1: Current Effluent Generators Pelindaba East
Pelindaba West and Beva
Building V-E
B-C3
Pan 7 (French Drain)
B-D1
Building V-14
B-D2
Building V-A
B-E1
Building V-H
P-1500
Building V-24 (Demineralisation Plant)
P-1600
Area V-12 (Boiler)
P-1701
Building V-16
P-1800
Area V-40(Groundwater Tanks 6021)
P-1901
Area V-74 (HF)
P-2000
Building V-B5 (PP)
P-2200
Building V-X3 (MPP)
P-2500
Building V-12 (Compressor Room)
P-2600
Area V-20 (Afrox)
P-2700
Buildings V-C & V-D
P-3000 P-3100
2
The pipeline routes shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 were conceptual pipeline routes and it should be noted that these pipeline
routes have been updated (refer to Figure 13 and Figure 14) based on detailed inspections of the routes in terms of constructability, space, access, updated information on the system requirements and the design of the pipe racks, as well as the space required for the pipelines.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
5
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Figure 2: Pelindaba West and Beva – Effluent Generators 6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Figure 3: Pelindaba East – Effluent Generators 7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Information on the effluent volumes was collected from two sources, i.e. the Liquid Effluent Management Services (LEMS – a department of Necsa) and the individual generators. The current effluent volumes are given in Table 2 and consist of the total annual volume, the average monthly volume and the peak monthly volume according to the types of effluent generated. The peak monthly flow rates were calculated by adjusting the average monthly flow rates upwards by 25% for design requirements. It should be noted that the volume of the holding tanks to be provided at each effluent generating facility will be determined by the peak monthly flow rate. Table 2: Current Total Effluent Volumes per Type of Effluent Flow Generation Type of Effluent
Annual
Average Monthly
3
(m /year)
3
Peak Monthly 3
(m /month)
(m /month)
Industrial Effluent
139 135
12 413
17 379
Chemical Effluent
5 884
493
617
20
2
2.5
9 250
634
1 577
Radiological Effluent LA Effluent
Necsa Pelindaba also initiated a sampling programme recently to obtain and analyse samples from all the effluent generators to gauge the need for upgrade of the treatment facilities. The results of the analyses of the water samples (pre-treatment) were compared to the Necsa’s internal effluent Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC). The effluent generated by the facilities has to comply with the WAC before acceptance by the LEMS for further treatment. This provides another barrier protecting the environment as it ensures that after treatment by the LEMS, the water discharged to the river complies with the discharge standards. The results showed that a number of effluent generating facilities produced effluent that contained constituents in excess of the internal WAC requirements (Table 3). This motivates the need for further and more effective treatment prior to discharge. Table 3: Number of Effluent Generators Exceeding Necsa Internal WAC Requirements Parameter
Effluent Generators Exceeding WAC Requirements Industrial Effluent
Boron
1
Chemical Oxygen Demand
4
Electrical Conductivity
4
Fluoride
3
Manganese
1
Nitrate
1
Soap/Oil/Grease
5
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
8
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Parameter
Effluent Generators Exceeding WAC Requirements
Sulphate
3
Suspended Solids
7 Chemical Effluent
Boron
1
Cadmium
1
Chemical Oxygen Demand
2
Chromium
1
Electrical Conductivity
5
Fluoride
4
Manganese
2
Phosphate
1
Soap/Oil/Grease
6
Sulphate
3
Zinc
3 LA Effluent
Ammonium
2
Chemical Oxygen Demand
4
Electrical Conductivity
4
Fluoride
1
Nitrate
3
Phosphate
5
Soap/Oil/Grease
6
Suspended Solids
4
2.2.2 Effluent Collection/Storage. It is proposed that at each of the effluent generators a dual collection tank system will be installed with a minimum time related storage capacity. The contents of each tank will be agitated to ensure that it is fully mixed. When the first tank is full, the LEMS personnel will automatically be notified for testing and sign-off of the tank contents. If effluent does not conform to WAC, the effluent generator will handle the problem internally. During the testing and transfer period the second tank will be in operation for collection of effluent from the facility. With regard to the localised collection and storage of effluent at the source, the conceptual design makes provision for at least two collection tanks and all pipework associated with collecting the effluent from a singe point at the facility and conveying it to the collection tanks. Where practically possible, collection tanks will be located at local low points to allow for the conveyance of effluent to the tanks under gravity. As mentioned previously, the collection EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
9
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
tanks will be designed to have sufficient volumetric capacity to accommodate a total of seven days (at Pel-East) or four days (Pel-West) of peak effluent production for each of the effluent types. The standard collection tank volumes and materials of construction are shown in Table 4. Table 4: Collection Tank Volumes and Materials of Construction 3
Volume of Collection Tank (m )
Materials of Construction
10
GRP/PP
20
GRP/PP
40
GRP
50
GRP
100
Coated/Lined Concrete
500
Coated/Lined Concrete
The generic collection, storage and effluent transfer facility of each generator will consist of the basic elements as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Generic Scenarios with respect to Effluent Discharge, Storing, and Pumping Facilities (Zitholele Consulting) Figure 5 provides a diagrammatic layout of the collection system that indicates how the instrumentation will be set up at each effluent collection and transfer section. Each tank will be equipped with an agitator, a level sensor and a conductivity meter. The agitator in each tank will only operate when the liquid level in the tank is above the minimum level. When a
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
tank is full, the signal from the level sensor will automatically close the inlet valve to this tank and will open the inlet valve to the second tank. The conductivity meter will give an indication of the quality of the effluent in the tank at all times for action from the facility before a sample is taken and analysed. The level sensor will also protect the pump that is running by stopping it when the minimum water level in the tank is reached. The instrumentation cables from the facilities at Pelindaba East will all be linked to form a ring and will then be conveyed to the control room at building P2400. The instrumentation cables will be installed in cable ducts inside the pipe culvert and on the pipe racks. From Figure 5 it can be observed that each of the tanks will be located within a bunded area and each will have its own pumps.
Figure 5: Layout Diagram of the Effluent Collection and Transfer System (Zitholele Consulting) During the conceptual design phase it was assumed that the geotechnical conditions at Necsa Pelindaba are suitable for the types of structures planned.
A geotechnical
investigation has since been undertaken (Appendix D), which concluded that the upper loose transported soils on site are not considered a suitable founding horizon due to the highly compressible characteristics of the soils. It was recommended that the foundations be taken down to the dense and better or stiff to very stiff residual shale or onto the very soft rock shale, where necessary, depending on the loading requirements of the proposed structures
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
11
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
2.2.3 Pipelines3 All pipelines will be designed to maintain a minimum velocity of 0.7 m/s and a maximum velocity of 2.5 m/s at a peak flow rate of 2.5 m³/s. The pipeline routes were selected using maps/drawings supplied by Necsa. These pipeline routes were inspected during site visits, and these routes will be surveyed and existing services located during detailed engineering design. Zitholele Consulting used the following criteria during the selection of practical and feasible pipeline routes: •
pipelines will be routed along existing roads where possible for ease of access;
•
culverts or overhead pipe racks will be used at road crossings4;
•
pipelines will be accommodated in a concrete channel/culvert where placed below ground level;
•
in certain areas pipelines will be routed below ground level in a concrete channel/culvert to not impede the movement of animals; and
•
pipeline routes were selected to not impede the movement of vehicles.
It is proposed that the pipelines be constructed from stainless steel, PVC or HDPE, as these materials are not susceptible to attack by the effluent that it will convey and therefore, no additional corrosion protection of the pipes is required. Since the majority of the pipelines will be routed above ground, the pipelines will be vulnerable to sunlight and occasional veld fires, which could cause UV degradation and heat damage to PVC and HDPE. In addition to these risks, above ground pipes will undergo expansion and contraction due to temperature changes. For these reasons, it is proposed that LA pipelines be constructed from Grade 304 or 316, stainless steel with provision for thermal expansion and contraction. The LA pipelines will be double pipes – a “pipe in a pipe” to protect against leaks, with instrumentation to detect leaks.
The other pipelines referred to above will have
instrumentation for leak detection and will be inspected on a regular basis in order to assess the condition of the pipelines and check for possible leakages. The use of drip trays along the pipeline gantries to intercept leaks was considered. This option was discarded due to the fact that the pipelines will be under pressure during operation and, therefore, leaks will not be
3
This project does not include any proposed changes to the existing LA or MA treatment plants located at P2400, except for the
upgrading of the existing piping system. Therefore, the changes to the LA and MA pipelines are the only activities that would require NNR approval. The changes to the LA and MA pipelines are not anticipated to increase the capacity of the pipelines or to change the nature of these existing pipelines and therefore the changes would not require a specific environmental approval. 4
These two alternatives are assessed in the alternative section of this report.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
12
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
intercepted by the drip trays. It was also anticipated that rainwater would collect in the drip trays, resulting in additional management problems. It is proposed that the pipelines will be flushed with clean water subsequent to use in order to prevent water or effluent from remaining in the lines. As a result, the pipelines will contain clean water when not in operation. The pipelines will be placed on a pipe rack that will be approximately 1.2 – 2.1 m high to provide easy access to the pipelines. It is proposed to uncover the existing Medium Activity (MA) pipelines, which are currently underground, and to construct concrete-lined channels with removable concrete covers around the pipelines, to provide access and to contain any possible spills in the unlikely event of pipe leaks or failures. The effluent pumps will be sized according to the minimum allowable velocities within the pipeline. A minimum of two pumps (duty and standby) will be provided at each effluent generator. Provision will be made in the pump layout for one additional pump to be installed, should effluent volumes increase. 2.2.4 Effluent Treatment Effluent treatment included in the proposed project can and was based upon four types of effluent, namely: Sewage; chemical effluent; industrial effluent and LA Effluent. The proposed effluent treatment facilities are described within this section, in terms of the current situation (Status Quo), followed by the proposed situation. 2.2.4.1 Sewage Effluent Treatment Plants Status Quo The Pelindaba East (Pel-East) sewage is currently collected and treated in the local East Sewage Treatment Plant (E-STP). The plant consists of a basic inlet works (manual screens and grit channels), anoxic/aerobic activated sludge system with internal and RAS recycle streams, final clarifier, chlorine contact tank and waste sludge dam for the waste sludge from the process. Treated sewage effluent is pumped to the existing Pelindaba West (Pel-West) industrial effluent treatment plant and further treated with the addition of alum in a Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) process.
Final disinfection is done on a batch tank basis before
discharge to the Crocodile River. The Pel-West sewage is collected and treated in the local West Sewage Treatment Plant (WSTP). The plant is in a poor condition and has to be replaced. Treatment at W-STP consists of basic screening and an integrated biofilter-clarifier. Treated effluent is pumped to the Pel-
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
13
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
West industrial effluent treatment plant for further treatment as mentioned above. Sludge is retained and digested in the clarifier. At both plants, rags and screenings from the manual screens are collected, dewatered and dried. The rags are then sent to the municipal waste collection bins and disposed of at a licensed disposal facility. Proposed New facility Sewage from Pelindaba East will be screened at the existing East STP and pumped to a new Combined Sewage and Industrial Effluent Treatment Plant at P2400 (refer to Section 2.2.4.2). The existing activated sludge reactor will become the balancing and emergency storage tanks. The settling tank or chlorine contact tank may be re-used as a pump sump. Sewage from Pelindaba West will be screened at the existing West STP and also pumped to the Combined Treatment Plant at P2400. An existing tank at the W-STP will be re-used as a pump sump and storage tank. Screenings from both plants will be washed, dewatered and dried for disposal at the licensed municipal waste disposal site. Design Considerations The average dry weather flow to the current sewage treatment plants (E-STP and W-STP) is based on the 95th percentile flow, recorded during recent sampling and an additional design factor of 1.25 was added for future development. Flows were based on a 5 day week, 8 hour day and include an estimated 2 % loss resulting from treatment residues.
A peak wet
weather flow factor of 2 was added to account for the infiltration/inflow of rain water into the drainage system during rainy periods. 2.2.4.2 Industrial Effluent Treatment Plant Status Quo There are a number of different manufacturing processes that produce industrial effluent at Necsa Pelindaba. The cooling towers at SAFARI 1 discharge directly to industrial effluent. All industrial effluent from both Pel-East and Pel-West is currently collected and pumped to the industrial effluent treatment plant at P2400 at Pel-West.
All treated sewage is also
pumped to the plant and treated together with the industrial effluent (refer to section 2.2.4.1). The industrial effluent is treated by the addition of alum, with separation of solids occurring at the DAF plant. The final effluent is disinfected in batches prior to discharge to the Crocodile River.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
14
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Proposed New Facility A combined sewage and effluent treatment plant is proposed, with the purpose of removing phosphate by means of precipitation with alum. Future requirements in terms of process water reclamation and re-use will require the additional removal of total dissolved solids (TDS) to a level suitable for re-use in cooling facilities. The process anticipated for future treatment will entail lime and/or alum addition, sedimentation and sludge dewatering. The treated water will then be desalinated in a new process water treatment plant utilising reverse osmosis membrane (RO) desalination. The final treated water will be stabilised with sodaash and lime and disinfected with hypochlorite. The desalination process will be piloted to determine whether RO or nano-filtration (NF) will be required and to confirm the best chemicals to use in order to minimise waste sludge and brine production. The waste sludge will be dewatered and, based on the hazard rating, placed on a suitable licensed landfill site. The brine resulting from the membrane treatment process will be evaporated at the new chemical treatment facility. It is also proposed that water from other cooling towers will in future be redirected to discharge to industrial effluent, rather than to stormwater as is currently the case. Groundwater abstraction and stormwater runoff (“first flush” – the runoff generated by a rainstorm after a period of dry weather) from HF contaminated areas may also be included in the industrial effluent. Design Considerations The flow to the industrial treatment plant was based on the 95th percentile flow, based on recorded treated flows. A 2 % treatment loss was factored into the estimated treated effluent flows and an additional design factor of 1.25 for future flows, has been applied to the calculated flows. Flows were based on a 5 day operational week. 2.2.4.3 Chemical Effluent Treatment Plant Status Quo The chemical effluent results mainly from production activities of the HF manufacturing plant, producing HF, CaSO4, Na2SiF6, etc. from CaF2, H2SO4 and NaOH.
Acidic gasses are
scrubbed using a KOH solution (the majority of which is recovered) that is neutralised with lime prior to discharge to the chemical effluent tanks. Contaminated surface runoff from the paved surface surrounding the HF manufacturing plant during the first flush of every rainfall event is collected in a local Pan (Pan 8) and pumped to Pan 9 for evaporation. Some uranium contaminated drainage from the HF manufacturing plant area is collected in Pan 7. Downstream of both Pan 7 and 8, the cut-off trench (French EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
15
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
drain) is located that collects contaminated groundwater from the HF facility. This water is pumped to Pan 9 or to industrial effluent depending on the quality of the water. Boreholes were drilled in the area around the HF facility and are used to monitor and dewater contaminated groundwater. This water is also pumped to Pan 9. Limited other sources of chemical effluent on the Pel-West and Pel-East site are tankered to Pan 9. It is proposed that in future there will be a central collection and treatment point. Pan 9 will be decommissioned. The decommissioning of Pan 9 is not part of the scope of this assessment and will be dealt with under a separate application. Proposed New Facility A new chemical effluent treatment plant is proposed, for the purpose of removing fluoride and other concentrated chemicals from the effluent, using high lime addition and sedimentation. The treated effluent will then be suitable for further treatment in the industrial effluent plant. Where effluent is of very high strength, the effluent will be evaporated in a mechanical type evaporator/crystalliser. The volume of high strength effluent is anticipated to be small.
Concentrated brine from the new RO process water treatment plant (a
component of the proposed Industrial Effluent Treatment Plant) will also be evaporated in this plant. The water recovered from the treatment process can be re-used as process water on site. Design Considerations The flows from the various sources were based on the 95th percentile flow, based on recorded flows.
A peak flow factor of 1.25 is applied to the calculated flow for design
purposes. 2.2.4.4 Low Activity Effluent Treatment Plant Status Quo There are a number of different radiological processes that produce industrial effluent with a low Alpha and Beta activity at Necsa Pelindaba. separately to the LA treatment plant at P2400.
This effluent is currently discharged
Here, the LA effluent is treated by the
addition of lime, with ferric chloride added to flocculate the suspended solids. The solids are settled in a set of six sedimentation tanks and the clarified effluent is discharged to the Crocodile River after each batch has met DWAF and NNR discharge requirements. Sludge from the sedimentation tanks is dried on sludge drying beds, collected, sealed in drums and stored at Pelindaba for intended transfer to the Vaalputs disposal site. Design Considerations
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
16
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
The flow to the LA treatment Plant was used to design suitable pipelines to convey LA effluent above ground. The flow to the LA treatment plant has also been based on the 95th percentile flow from recorded treated flows. A 1-2 % loss due to treatment was taken into account to estimate the treated effluent flows and the additional peak design factor of 1.25 was applied to the calculated flow for design purposes. After the LA treatment and based on the resulting alpha and beta activity, the treated effluent could be reclassified as industrial effluent and further treated to remove chemical contamination. This project does not include any proposed changes to the existing LA or MA treatment plants located at P2400, except for the upgrading of the existing piping system as described in the relevant section. 2.2.5 Process Water Utilisation River water is abstracted under DWAF permit from the Crocodile River and treated to Process Water Standards at P2200. The process water is pumped to two local reservoirs at Pelindaba West and distributed for specific purposes from there. The water is used mainly for irrigation (garden services) and as cooling water at various cooling towers. At present, the treatment process at P2200 is not continuous and is only operated during week days. The design flows include a 1.25 peak flow factor. The treated effluent volumes from other treatment plants on site are not sufficient to replace the process water and the existing process water treatment plant will therefore remain in operation to augment the process water supply. 2.3
Project Phasing
It is proposed that the construction activities will be phased over a period of 5-6 years and will be based on an annually approved budget. The pipe racks that will support the pipelines have to be constructed prior to the installation of the pipelines. The proposed upgrading/construction of treatment plants must be completed concurrently with the installation of the final pipelines in order to ensure that the effluent produced has a route, conveyance system and a destination. 2.3.1 Construction Priorities The priorities of construction for the proposed project are as follows:
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
17
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
•
The early warning system, which is designed to prevent the release of out-of-specification effluent to the environment is subject to a separate Basic Assessment Report dated November 20085;
•
The sewage treatment plant;
•
The western screening plant and the pipeline connecting it and the new sewage treatment plant;
•
The LA system pipe racks and pipeline;
•
The industrial effluent treatment plant;
•
The industrial effluent pipe racks and pipelines;
•
The facilities collection systems (tanks, pumps, etc.);
•
The eastern sewage screening plant and pipeline;
•
The chemical effluent treatment plant and associated pipelines; and
•
The process water treatment plant and associated pipelines.
2.3.2 Construction Activities Briefly, the construction activities will entail the following: •
Civil
The construction of concrete channels, tank foundations, treatment plants,
control
building6,
separate
spillage
and
stormwater
containment systems, access roads7, etc. •
Mechanical
The construction of pipe racks, pipelines, pumps, etc.
•
Electrical
Installation of pump and instrument power, plant equipment, lighting, etc.
•
Instrumentation
The instrumentation will be installed as required and will include a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system through which the water and effluent collection and treatment processes will be monitored and controlled.
5 6 7
The Environmental Approval for this activity was issued by the DEAT on 10 February 2009. This will be a separate control room and building at P2400. Other than the existing roads, no new roads will be required. A basic gravel road will be created along the pipeline route in the
disturbed natural area between Pel-East and Pel-West.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
18
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
2.4
Services
2.4.1 Waste Disposal The construction waste, such as spoil and waste rock generated during construction will be disposed of on Necsa’s own site. Building rubble will be disposed of at a waste disposal site registered for the disposal of building rubble. Should any of the waste generated during construction be hazardous, it will be disposed of according to Necsa’s standard procedures and at a registered hazardous waste disposal facility. During the operational phase, solid industrial effluent treatment waste will be dewatered and dried, with the dried material disposed of at a suitable registered waste disposal facility. Chemical effluent treatment waste will be dewatered and the dried salts disposed of at a hazardous waste site. Screened sewage material will be washed, dewatered and dried prior to disposal at a licensed municipal waste site. 2.4.2 Electricity The electricity for the proposed activities will be supplied by the internal electricity supply network at Necsa. The current network has sufficient capacity for the proposed project.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
19
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
3.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
This section of the report describes the enviro-legal aspects of the proposed development according to the relevant legislation. The key enviro-legal aspects that are applicable to the proposed project are highlighted and discussed in this section. 3.1
National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998)
The EIA will be carried out in compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations published by DEAT, as set out in Government Notices (GN) R. 385, R. 386 and R. 387, promulgated in terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998 - NEMA). GN R. 385 serves to regulate the procedures and criteria as contemplated in Chapter 5 of NEMA for the submission, processing, consideration and decision-making with regard to applications for environmental authorisation of activities and for matters pertaining thereto. Refer to Figure 6 for a broad outline of the NEMA EIA process as stipulated in GN R. 385. GN R. 386 and R. 387 provide the listed activities for which environmental authorisation is required from the designated competent authority. In terms of these listings, the listed activities in Table 5 apply to the proposed development.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
20
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Figure 6: NEMA EIA Process.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Table 5: NEMA Listed Activities Listed Activity Number
Listed Activity Description Government Notice R. 386
Activity 1 (k)
The construction of facilities or infrastructure, including associated structures or infrastructure, for the bulk transportation of sewage and water, including storm water, in pipelines with an internal diameter of 0,36 metres or more; or a peak throughput of 120 litres per second or more.
Activity 1 (m)
The construction of facilities or infrastructure, including associated structures or infrastructure, for any purpose in the one in ten year flood line of a river or stream, or within 32 metres from the bank of a river or stream where the flood line is unknown, excluding purposes associated with existing residential use, but including canals, channels, bridges, dams and weirs.
Activity 1 (p)
The construction of facilities or infrastructure, including associated structures or infrastructure, for the temporary storage of hazardous waste.
Activity 17
Phased activities where any one phase of the activity may be below a threshold specified in this Schedule but where a combination of the phases, including expansions or extensions, will exceed a specified threshold.
Activity 23 (c), (e), (f), and
The decommissioning of existing facilities or infrastructure, other than facilities
(g).
or infrastructure that commenced under an environmental authorisation issued in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006 made under section 24(5) of the Act and published in Government Notice No. R. 385 of 2006, for – (c)
industrial activities where the facility or the land on which it is located is contaminated or has the potential to be contaminated by any material which may place a restriction on the potential to re-use the site for a different purpose;
(e)
the treatment of effluent, wastewater and sewage with an annual throughput capacity of 15 000 cubic metres or more;
(f)
the recycling, handling, temporary storage or treatment of general waste with a daily throughput capacity of 20 cubic metres or more;
(g)
the recycling, handling, temporary storage or treatment of hazardous waste.
Activity 24 (c)
The re-commissioning or use of any facility or infrastructure, excluding any facility or infrastructure that commenced under an environmental authorisation issued in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006 made under section 24(5) of the Act and published in Government Notice No. R. 385 of 2006, after a period of two years from closure or temporary closure, for facilities for any process or activity, which require permission, authorisation, or further authorisation, in terms of legislation governing the release of emissions, pollution, effluent or waste prior to the facility being recommissioned.
Activity 25
The expansion of or changes to existing facilities for any process or activity, which requires an amendment of an existing permit or license or a new permit or license in terms of legislation governing the release of emissions, pollution,
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
22
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD Listed Activity Number
Listed Activity Description effluent. Government Notice R. 387
Activity 1 (b)
The construction of facilities or infrastructure, including associated structures or infrastructure, for nuclear reaction including the production, enrichment, processing, reprocessing, storage or disposal of nuclear fuels, radioactive products and waste.
Activity 1 (c)
The construction of facilities or infrastructure, including associated structures or infrastructure, for the above ground storage of a dangerous good, including petrol, diesel, liquid petroleum gas or paraffin, in containers with a combined capacity of 1 000 cubic metres or more at any one location or site including the storage of one or more dangerous goods, in a tank farm.
Activity 1 (e)
The construction of facilities or infrastructure, including associated structures or infrastructure, for any process or activity which requires a permit or license in terms of legislation governing the generation or release of emissions, pollution, effluent or waste and which is not identified in Government Notice No. R. 386 of 2006.
Activity 1 (g)
The construction of facilities or infrastructure, including associated structures or infrastructure, for the use, recycling, handling, treatment, storage or final disposal of hazardous waste.
Activity 1 (j)
The construction of facilities or infrastructure, including associated structures or infrastructure, for the bulk transportation of dangerous goods using pipelines, funiculars or conveyors with a throughput capacity of 50 tons or 50 cubic metres or more per day.
Activity 1 (p)
The construction of facilities or infrastructure, including associated structures or infrastructure, for the treatment of effluent, wastewater or sewage with an annual throughput capacity of 15 000 cubic metres or more.
Activity 1 (q)
The construction of facilities or infrastructure, including associated structures or infrastructure, for the incineration, burning, evaporation, thermal treatment, roasting or heat sterilisation of waste or effluent, including the cremation of human or animal tissue.
Activity 1 (r)
The construction of facilities or infrastructure, including associated structures or infrastructure, for the microbial deactivation, chemical sterilisation or nonthermal treatment of waste or effluent.
3.2
National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998)
The National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998 - NWA) provides the law relating to the water resources of South Africa. The purpose of the NWA is to manage and control the means by which all water resources are protected, used, developed, conserved and controlled. Sections 21 and 22 of the NWA identify certain water uses which require approval from the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) in the form of a relevant water use permit.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
23
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Water uses provided for in the Act, which are also applicable to the proposed activities, are listed in Table 6. Table 6: NWA Section 21 Activities Requiring a Water Use Permit. NWA Section 21 Activity a
Proposed Necsa Activity
Taking water from a water resource;
Water will be taken from the Crocodile River and treated for use as process water.
b
Storing water;
Effluent water will be stored before and after treatment and before re-use as process water.
e
Engaging in a controlled activity identified as such
Treated effluent from the proposed combined
in Section 37(1) or declared under Section 38(1);
Sewage and Industrial Treatment Plant (at P2400)
Section 37(1)(a) lists the “irrigation of any land with waste
or
water
containing waste
generated
through any industrial activity or by a waterwork”
may be used as process water. It is understood that the current uses of process water include irrigation of gardens.
as a controlled activity; f
g
Discharging waste or water containing waste into a
Treated effluent water will be treated to within
water resource through a pipe, canal, sewer, sea
discharge limits as prescribed and discharged into
outfall or other conduit;
the Crocodile River.
Disposing of waste in a manner which may
The discharge of treated effluent water may lead to
detrimentally impact on a water resource;
an increase of nutrients and changes to other environmental
variables
in
the
river
being
discharged to and contribute to the eutrophication of the water resource. h
Disposing in any manner of water which contains
Water that has been used in the cooling towers of
waste from, or which has been heated in, any
the industrial processes at Necsa will be treated
industrial or power generation process;
and thereafter discharged to the river.
Section 41 of the NWA lists the requirements for a water use license and includes the need to conduct an assessment of the likely effect of the proposed license on the resource quality. According to Necsa, most of these uses had previously been granted by DWAF and the application for the Water Use Licence is in process. The DWAF was included in the public participation process (through the inclusion on the Interested and Affected Party database and focus group meetings) and is in the process of investigating the current and required water use licenses.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
24
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
3.3
Nuclear Energy Act (Act 46 of 1999) and the National Nuclear Regulator Act (Act 47 of 1999)
The Nuclear Energy Act (Act 46 of 1999) regulates the proposed activities to be constructed at Necsa's Pelindaba site.
Of specific importance in respect of the establishment and
operation of the proposed activities are the provisions of the Nuclear Energy Act dealing with authorisations required for certain activities relating to nuclear-related equipment and material. Similarly, the National Nuclear Regulator Act also pertains to this project. Necsa already operates under various nuclear license requirements and has, for this infrastructure project, commenced with the required changes to the relevant nuclear approval. Only a minor part of the project will affect LA and MA pipelines and no radiological treatment facilities will be affected. 3.4
Hazardous Substances Act (Act 15 of 1973)
The Hazardous Substances Act (Act 15 of 1973) (HSA) applies to the generation and treatment of hazardous chemical effluent at Necsa. According to the Applicant, since this project involves the upgrade of existing facilities, all requirements as specified by the HSA have already been met and need no further authorisation. 3.5
National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999)
The National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) (NHRA) provides for the protection of heritage resources of South Africa, which are of cultural significance or other special value by introducing an integrated and interactive system for the management of national heritage resources. Section 38 of the NHRA states that any person who intends to undertake a development must at the earliest stages of the development, notify the responsible Heritage Resources Authority and furnish them with details regarding the location, nature, and extent of the proposed development. The Responsible Heritage Resource Authority, the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA), could, within 14 days of receipt of such notification, request a heritage impact assessment (HIA) if there is any reason to believe that the heritage resources in the area may be affected. For the purposes of this EIA the SAHRA North West was included as a key I&AP in the database and as such was notified of the applicant’s intent. In addition a specialist heritage consultant was appointed to carry out a Phase 1 HIA on the activity. This report is included in Appendix G and has been submitted to SAHRA for comment.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
25
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
4.
ALTERNATIVES
This section provides a description of the alternatives that were identified for this project. The detailed comparison of the alternatives is provided in Section 7.3 subsequent to the assessment of all of the identified impacts. Feasible alternatives for the aspects of the development were identified in order to ensure that the proposed activity has the least negative impact on the biophysical and socioeconomic receiving environment.
The alternatives were identified based on information
provided by the client, the public participation process (issues raised during the public and focus group meetings) and the status of the receiving environment. The alternatives that are considered feasible are shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14 and discussed below. 4.1
Process Alternatives
Zitholele Consulting (project engineers) and Necsa conducted a number of workshops during which several alternative effluent collection and treatment options were identified. A total of 8 options were identified and these are described below8. Table 7: Process Alternative Options Option
8
Description
Option 1
Sewage treatment at Pel East to remain. Industrial effluent and process water treatment to remain as is. New chemical effluent treatment plant at Pel East and new sewage treatment plant at Pel West at the original plant site.
Option 2
New industrial effluent treatment plant and chemical effluent treatment plant at Pel-East, with new sewage treatment plant at Pel-West.
Option 3
All sewage treated at existing Pel-East sewage treatment plant and new chemical effluent treatment plant at Pel-East. Industrial effluent and process water treatment to remain as is.
Option 4
New east industrial effluent treatment plant for Pel-East, all sewage treated at the east sewage treatment plant and a new chemical effluent treatment plant at Pel-East.
Option 5
New chemical effluent treatment plant and a new sewage treatment plant at Pel-West. Industrial effluent and process water treatment to remain as is.
Option 6
Sewage treatment at Pel East to remain. Industrial effluent and process water treatment to remain as is. New chemical effluent treatment plant at Pel-West.
Option 7
New common treatment plants to be built, with a new sewage treatment plant at the original plant site at Pelindaba-West for Pelindaba-East and West.
Option 8
New common treatment plants to be built, with a New combined industrial effluent and sewage treatment plant at P2400 at Pelindaba-West.
The existing collection/storage and treatment of Low Activity (LA) effluent and Medium Activity (MA) effluent currently taking
place at the P2400 facility will be retained for all of the alternative options described.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
26
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Zitholele and Necsa evaluated each of these options according to defined evaluation criteria in order to determine which of these would be considered for conceptual design. Table 8 provides a summary of the criteria applied in the options analysis. Table 8: Option Evaluation Criteria Main Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Criteria
Category
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) Storage at facilities Transfer/conveyance Treatment plants Re-use of treated effluent Waste/brine disposal Early warning systems for water discharges Decommissioning of facilities Operational Expenditure (OPEX) Electricity, chemicals, manpower, consumables, maintenance, monitoring and management. Flexibility Waste Disposal Use of existing infrastructure Reliability/Risk Redundancy/Back-up Phased implementation Emergency conditions Risk of spillages Air emissions/Odour potential Achievement of discharge standards Aesthetics Game movement Number of discharge points to environment Ease of licensing/permits with DEAT; DWAF; NNR Public perception Alignment with other regulatory processes
Health and Safety Criteria
• •
Risk of spillages Operation and Maintenance
Sustainability Criteria
• •
Potential re-use (local or facility specific) Waste handling and disposal
Management Criteria
• •
Operational ease People management
Financial Criteria
•
• • •
Technical Criteria
Environmental Criteria
Regulatory Criteria
The evaluation of the options according to these criteria yielded three options as the most feasible in terms of all of the main evaluation criteria categories, i.e. Option 1, Option 7 and Option 8. Option 8 was also identified as the preferred option due to the fact that this option received the best rating in terms of the criteria described above, including facilitating operational control at one central facility. Certain fatal flaws were also identified for the other options including: the transfer of chemical effluent over long distances in pipelines (Options 5 & 6); the transfer of untreated, unscreened sewage from Pel-West to Pel-East (Options 3 & 6); and the additional regulated discharge points to public streams (Options 2 & 4).
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
27
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
In the light of the above, Options 1, 7 and 8 were considered as process alternatives during the EIA Phase. These three process alternatives are described below: 4.1.1 Option 1 This option proposes that all industrial effluents from Pelindaba-West and East are collected and transferred for treatment to the existing Industrial Effluent Treatment Plant at facility P2400 at Pelindaba West.
A new West Sewage Treatment Plant is proposed to be
constructed to treat the sewage generated at Pelindaba West and Beva. The existing East Sewage Treatment Plant will remain in operation, treating sewage from Pelindaba East. A new East Chemical Effluent Treatment plant will be constructed at the HF facility to treat all chemical effluent. The LA an MA Treatment Plants will remain as is. The combined treated sewage and industrial effluent will be further treated for reuse in a new Process Water Treatment Plant at P2400. Refer to Figure 7 for a process flow diagram for Option 1 and Figure 8 for a schematic representation of this option.
Figure 7: Process Flow Diagram for Option 1
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
28
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Figure 8: Schematic Representation of Option 1 4.1.2 Option 7 This option proposes that sewage from Pelindaba East will be screened at the existing East Sewage Treatment Plant and pumped to a new West Sewage Treatment Plant at Pelindaba West where the total volume of effluent will be treated. Treated sewage will be pumped to the Industrial Effluent Treatment Plant. The Industrial Effluent generated at Pelindaba East and Pelindaba West will be transferred and treated at P2400. A new East Chemical Effluent Treatment Plant will be constructed at the HF facility to treat all Chemical Effluent. The LA and MA Treatment Plants will remain as is. The combined treated sewage and industrial effluent will be further treated for reuse in a new Process Water Treatment Plant at P2400. Refer to Figure 9 for a process flow diagram for Option 7 and Figure 10 for a schematic representation of this option.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
29
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Figure 9: Process Flow Diagram for Option 7
Figure 10: Schematic Representation of Option 7 EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
30
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
4.1.3 Option 8 Sewage from Pelindaba East will be screened at the existing East Sewage Treatment Plant and pumped to a new Combined Sewage and Industrial Effluent Treatment Plant at P2400. Sewage from Pelindaba West will be screened at the existing West Sewage Treatment Plant and also pumped to the Combined Treatment Plant at P2400.
All Industrial Effluent
generated at Pelindaba East and Pelindaba West will be pumped to the Combined Treatment Plant at P2400 and undergo a polishing treatment for process water reuse. A new East Chemical Effluent Treatment Plant will be constructed to treat all Chemical Effluent at the HF facility. The LA and MA Treatment Plants will remain as is. Refer to Figure 11 for a process flow diagram for Option 8 and Figure 12 for a schematic representation of this option.
Figure 11: Process Flow Diagram for Option 8
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
31
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Figure 12: Schematic Representation of Option 8 4.2
Effluent Treatment Facility Location Alternatives
4.2.1 New Combined Industrial Effluent/Sewage Treatment Plant Different locations were evaluated in terms of safety, discharge points, water re-use, conveyance of sewage to and from plants, management and operations personnel and centralisation of control. Two alternative sites within close proximity to each other were proposed (refer to Figure 13): •
An old parking area west of P2400; and
•
An area on the southern side of P2400.
4.2.2 Chemical Effluent Treatment Plant The site for the new Chemical Effluent Plant requires close proximity to the HF plant (located at Pel-East) since the main source of chemical effluent is HF and knowledgeable operators and managers are located on Pel-East.
This would mean that these operators and
managers would be able to retain control and responsibility for the effluent generated at the chemical effluent facilities. EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
32
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
During the course of the EIA phase it was advised that only one location was available for the construction of the new Chemical Effluent Treatment Facility (Figure 14). 4.2.3 Process Water Treatment Plant The existing Process Water Treatment Plant is located at P2200 and treats water abstracted from the river for use as process water. The option of constructing a new Process Water Treatment Plant at P2400 was considered during the EIA phase. During the EIA phase it transpired that there are no alternative options for the location of this proposed plant. It should be noted that this plant is a common element for all three of the process options mentioned above and has therefore been included in the assessment of these alternatives. 4.3
Transfer Route Alternative
Different pipeline transfer route alternatives were also proposed, as illustrated in Figure 13 and Figure 14.
The proposed pipeline routes were determined using the criteria as
described in Section 2.2.2. The transfer routes have changed from those shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Reasons for the changes in the transfer routes are the following: •
The transfer routes illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3 were conceptual and have been updated based on detailed site investigations;
•
The alignment of the transfer routes as illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3 next to existing roads was not suitable for the construction of pipelines due to the insufficient space next to the roads as a result of road cuttings through parts of the landscape;
•
The proposed routes in Figure 2 and Figure 3 were also located on terrain that was too steep to allow for construction of the pipelines;
•
Existing racks will also be utilised to accommodate the new pipelines constructed, where possible;
•
It is also anticipated that the new alignment (Figure 13 and Figure 14) will reduce the risk of damage to the pipelines by vehicles as the amount of road crossings have been reduced.
In addition to the transfer route alternatives, the alternative of raising the height of the pipe racks and pipelines at certain areas was considered in more detail. This alternative was assessed in the light of the movement of animals on the site in order to accommodate possible movement corridors that may exist.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
33
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
4.4
Effluent Disposal Alternative
At present, the proposal is to discharge the treated sewage and industrial effluent directly to the river as per the current water permit. The alternative of tertiary treatment of the effluent prior to final discharge to the river was considered. The tertiary treatment alternative would involve the construction of artificial wetlands in order to further reduce the effluent loading on the receiving water bodies.
However, in the light of Necsa’s longer term objective of
achieving zero discharge and the fact that effluent will receive tertiary treatment to process water standards for re-use, or to discharge, this alternative is not considered to be feasible. 4.5
Road Crossing Alternative
The pipe line routes will cross certain roads as indicated in Figure 13 and Figure 14. Two alternatives are proposed by which the pipelines can cross the road, i.e. in overhead pipe racks or in underground culverts. The Risk Assessment (Appendix H) concluded that from a risk base of possible pipe ruptures that the culvert option is the preferred option. These alternatives will be assessed accordingly. 4.6
No Go Alternative
The “No Go” or “No Action” alternative refers to the alternative of not embarking on the proposed project at all. This alternative would imply that the current status quo without the proposed Water and Effluent Collection and Treatment Infrastructure would continue (i.e. the existing collection, transfer and treatment would continue). It is important to note that the No Go alternative is the baseline against which all other alternatives and the development proposal are assessed. When considering the No Go alternative the impacts (both positive and negative) associated with any specific alternative or the development proposal would not occur and in effect the impacts of the No Go alternative are therefore inadvertently assessed by assessing the other alternatives. The No Go alternative would imply that the pipelines continue to be operated as currently, that due to age and normal deterioration, increased leaks and pipe failures could occur, thereby causing pollution of the environment. It also implies that aging treatment infrastructure is not upgraded, causing deterioration in treatment efficiency and subsequent pollution of the natural environment. 4.7
Alternatives considered
In summary, from the presentation of the alternative options mentioned above, a total of five alternatives were assessed in detail during the EIA Phase: EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
34
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
•
Three process alternatives: o
Option 1
o
Option 7
o
Option 8
•
Two pipeline transfer route alternatives
•
Two alternative locations for the Combined Industrial Effluent/Sewage Treatment Plant
•
Road crossing alternatives.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
35
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Figure 13: Project Alternatives (Pelindaba West). 36
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Figure 14: Project Alternatives (Pelindaba East).
37
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
5.
DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT
5.1
Location and Topography
Pelindaba is situated in the North-West Province in the Brits magisterial district within the Madibeng Regional Council area. The site is approximately 27 km west of Pretoria, 37 km north of Johannesburg and 128 km northeast of Potchefstroom. It is located on the farm Weldaba 567 JQ (refer to Figure 1), which is 2 362 hectares in area and approximately 4 km south-east of the Hartbeespoort Dam. Pelindaba is situated on the ridges of the Skurweberg with its western boundary being the Crocodile River. Weldaba 567 JQ ranges in height from approximately 1200 m above sea level in the north-western boundary to approximately 1350 m above sea level in the south-western boundary of the farm. The site is also located immediately south of the Magaliesberg Nature Reserve.
Pel-West
Pel-East
Figure 15: Map showing the topography of the Necsa Pelindaba Site. 5.2
Climate
Pelindaba is located in the summer rainfall area of South Africa, with thunderstorm activity and warm to hot conditions occurring during this period. The weather conditions during winter consist of cold nights and moderate days with light wind conditions, except during the movement of cold fronts over the area from the southwest, when temperatures fall and stronger winds occur. The strongest winds tend to occur during the months of August and September (Necsa, 2007). Mean annual rainfall for Pelindaba is 704 mm (from 1984-2008). The rainfall season is from October to April. The 1991/92 season recorded the lowest rainfall with 375 mm, while the highest was recorded during the 2007/08 season with 1 216 mm (Necsa, 2007).
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
38
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Evaporation is caused by heat and the occurrence of wind, with wind having a greater influence on evaporation. The biggest difference between rainfall and evaporation normally occurs during September and the smallest difference during April. The average monthly evaporation ranges from 239 mm during October to 118 mm during June. This also indicates that the annual evaporation is higher than the rainfall throughout the year (Necsa, 2007). Temperature ranges from a mean daily minimum of 2.5°C in July up to a mean daily maximum of 28°C in January. The average daily minimum humidity is 25% in September and the maximum 78% in April (Necsa, 2007). The prevailing wind direction ranges from the northwest through north to the east with a southerly component that can be associated with cold fronts moving from the southwest through the interior of the country during the winter. During winter most wind speeds range between 6 and 12 km/h with 17% calm conditions. In summer the winds are a stronger, ranging between 12 and 19 km/h with only 7% calm conditions (Necsa, 2007). No severe weather phenomena like hurricanes, tornadoes, freezing rain, snow, ice or sandstorms normally occur in the area. Thunder, lightning and hail storms occur during the summer. On average, there are 42 days per year with thunder and lightning activity and 4 days per year with hail. The maximum rainfall recorded in 24 hours was 139.8 mm. The frequency of the number of days per annum with more than 10 mm of rain in 24 hours is 18 (Necsa, 2007). 5.3
Hydrology
The site is located in the A21H quaternary catchment. The site is drained to the south and west by a small non-perennial tributary of the Crocodile River. As the headwaters of the Crocodile River are located in the highly industrialised urban area of Gauteng, return flows are predominantly treated sewage and industrial effluents. As a result, the river is subject to high levels of pollution as well as increases in flow, largely due to return flows from the Vaal River (Walmsley et al., 1999). The Hartbeespoort Dam is located further downstream of the confluence with the nonperennial tributary of the Crocodile River.
According to the North-West State of the
Environment Report (Howard et al., 2002), the Hartbeespoort Dam catchment is classified as moderate9 in terms of ecological importance and sensitivity.
The trophic status of the
Hartbeespoort Dam is eutrophic to hyper-eutrophic (Howard et al., 2002).
The
9
Quaternary catchments that are considered to be unique on a provincial or local scale due to biodiversity (habitat diversity, species diversity, unique species, rare and endangered species). These rivers (in terms of biota and habitat) are usually not very sensitive to flow modifications and often have a substantial capacity for use (Kleynhans, 1999).
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
39
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Hartbeespoort Dam also contains toxic Cyanobacteria (Anabaena and Microcystis) which often lead to fish kills. The invasive water hyacinth is also present on the Hartbeespoort Dam (Howard et al., 2002). To the north the Moganwe Spruit and its tributaries drain the site. The Moganwe is a nearperennial drainage line with its source on the western outskirts of Pretoria. The Moganwe flows west, where it joins the Crocodile River. The site has several small drainage lines that drain from the site as shown in the hydrological map (Figure 18). Early Warning Systems (EWS – for the detection and control of off-specification water leaving the site) were installed in some of these drainage lines and the number of EWS is planned to be increased in the near future (part of separate environmental approval project) (Figure 16).
Pel-West
Pel-East
Figure 16: Map showing the drainage vectors of the Necsa Pelindaba site. In the North West Province, ground and surface water are integrated and interdependent as dolomitic eyes or springs are the sources of several major rivers. Groundwater is of vital importance in the North-West Province. Groundwater is in many instances the only source of water for many rural people. Various industries in the predominantly eastern section of the Province exert pressure on the groundwater resources in several ways (Howard et al., 2002). The Pelindaba Site lies on a groundwater divide. Two directions of groundwater flow, from the Pelindaba site, were identified - towards the north, to the Moganwe Spruit, at a gradient of 1:20 and towards the west, to the Crocodile River, at a gradient of 1:50. The receiving water bodies are the Moganwe Spruit and the Crocodile River. Regional groundwater flow is to the northwest down towards the Crocodile River. Superimposed on this regional flow is a local flow to the north, west and east related to the topography. This local flow however takes place primarily in the unsaturated zone and is considered important as it relates directly to
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
40
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
local surface recharge and movement of potential contaminants through the unsaturated zone (Tswelopele Environmental, 2005). The aquifer beneath the Pelindaba site is a secondary aquifer. Most of the groundwater occurs within faults, fracture zones associated with diabase intrusions and along geological contacts. This is evident from the borehole yields measured across the site (Necsa, 2007). The aquifer has previously been classified as a Minor Aquifer System10 according to the definitions of Parsons (WRC Report, 1995) qualifying for Medium Level Protection based on the Groundwater Quality Management Index (Levin et al., 1997).
N
NECSA SITE
Crocodile River
Figure 17: Borehole water level data in meters above mean sea level with ground water flow direction (m.a.m.s.l) 78 Monitoring boreholes exist on the Pelindaba site. The water levels shown in Figure 17, range between 1.6 m to 65.5 m below the surface. The locations of many of these boreholes were determined to intercept the main aquifers and possible contamination from facilities in the Pelindaba site. The positions of monitoring boreholes are mostly based on the preferential flow zones of the Pelindaba site. Necsa (2007) reports that borehole yields of less than 0,1 litre/s are typical of boreholes drilled into solid rock, with seepages occurring along contacts, bedding planes, joints and cleavages.
10
Most of these structural features close with depth and are therefore only
Fractured or potentially fractured rocks that do not have a high primary permeability, or other formations of variable
permeability. Aquifer extent may be limited and water quality variable. Although these aquifers seldom produce large quantities of water, they are both important for local supplies and in supplying base flow for rivers.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
41
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
important at shallow depths. Constant head permeability tests showed that permeability between 0-25 m below the surface was in the order of 10-5 m/s, while at depths of between 25–40 m it was approximately 10-6 m/s and below 40 m depth it was approximately 10-7 m/s. Yields greater than 0,5 litre/s are common for boreholes drilled into fault and shear zones, and fractured contacts with diabase intrusions (Necsa, 2007).
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
42
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Figure 18: Map Showing the Surface Hydrology at Necsa Pelindaba 43
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
5.4
Flora
EIMS conducted a baseline floral assessment (Appendix E) during the EIA Phase. The findings of this assessment are presented in the paragraphs below. The proposed site is situated within the Bankenveld (Acocks, 1988) while Low & Rebelo (1998) classified the area into the Rocky Highveld Grassland biome. The site falls within the Gauteng Shale Mountain Bushveld according to the recent reclassification by Mucina & Rutherford (2006). The Gauteng Shale Mountain Bushveld occurs in sections of the Gauteng and North-West Provinces and occurs mainly on the ridges of the Gatsrand south of Carletonville-Westonaria-Lenasia as well as a narrow band along the ridge that runs from a point between Tarlton and Magaliesberg in the west, through Sterkfontein, Pelindaba and Atteridgeville to Klapperkop and southeastern Pretoria in the east. The altitude varies from 1300-1750m. The floral and topographical features consist of low, broken ridges varying in steepness and with high surface rock cover. Vegetation is a short (3-6m tall), semi-open thicket dominated by a variety of woody species including Acacia caffra, Rhus leptodictya, R. magalismontana, Cussonia spicata, Ehretia rigida, Maytenus heterophylla, Euclea crispa, Zanthozylum rophylla, Dombeya rotundifolia, Protea caffra, Celtis africana, Ziziphus mucronata, Vangueria infausta, Canthium gilfilanii, Englerophytum magalismontanum, Combretum molle, Ancylobotrys capensis, Olea europaea subsp. africana and Grewia occidentalis.
The under story is dominated by a variety of grasses including Digitaria
eriantha, Eragrostis curvula, Themeda triandra and Trachypogon spicatus. The conservation status of the Gauteng Shale Mountain Bushveld is regarded as being vulnerable with less than 2% of the sub-biome conserved (against a target of 24%). Statutorily
conserved
areas
include
Skanskop,
Hartbeeshoek
Nature
Reserves,
Magaliesberg Nature Area, Groenkloof National Park as well as John Nash Nature Reserve, Cheetah Park and Hartbeeshoek Radio Astronomy Observatory. About 21% is transformed mainly by urban and built-up areas, mines and quarries, cultivation and plantations. Alien invasive species are common with wattles particularly problematic in places (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). With respect to the Pelindaba site itself, from east to west, the proposed upgrade traverses various areas including degraded land, built up land and natural (undisturbed) areas. The degraded areas are prominent along the eastern and western areas of the proposed upgrade and contain numerous alien and invasive species (such as Alternanthera pungens, Amaranthus
hybridus,
Cardiospermum
Araujia
grandiflorum,
sericifera,
Chamaesyce
Asclepias hirta,
physocarpa,
Cirsium
vulgare,
Bibens
pilosa,
Campuloclinium
macrocephalum, Convolvulus arvensis, Datura ferox and Datura stramonium to name but a EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
44
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
few). The built up areas (short sections between the existing infrastructure/buildings) consist primarily of cultivated gardens and large trees (including Acacia xanthophloea, Olea europaea, Rhus lancea and Ziziphus mucronata). The natural area consists of numerous indigenous species including Acacia burkei, Acacia karroo, Acacia tortillis, Olea europaea, Rhus lancea, Rhus leptodictya, Dombeya rotundifolia, Ziziphus mucronata, Celtis africana, Themeda triandra and Melinis repens. 5.4.1 Description of Vegetation During the site assessment, seventy-five (75) floral species were identified along the proposed pipeline routes and of these seventy-five species, fourteen (14) tree species, twenty-five (25) grass species, thirty-four (34) shrub/forbs species and two (2) succulent species were identified. Twenty-seven (27) of the identified species are classified as exotics of which twelve (12) are listed species under the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (Act 43 of 1983) (CARA). The species identified during the site assessment are listed in Table 9. The White stinkwood (Celtis africana), Sweet thorn (Acacia karroo) and Karee (Rhus lancea) were the predominant indigenous tree species occurring within the study area. Both the White stinkwood and the Sweet thorn trees are common indigenous trees of the area and can therefore be regarded as not being sensitive. Eleven (11) trees occurring within the study area are recorded to have some type of medicinal value. However, due to the wide distribution of these species within the surrounding areas, the few specimens within and surrounding the study area that may be impacted upon due to the proposed development are not considered sensitive. Two of the ten tree species noted on site are exotic species.
These species are the
Hackberry (Celtis sinensis) which originated from Australia and is commonly confused with the White Stinkwood (Celtis africana) which is indigenous to South Africa; and the Mulberry (Morus alba) which is a listed Category 3 species under CARA. Twenty-five (25) grass species were identified on site, of which Fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), Common thatching grass (Hyparrhenia hirta) and Narrow-leaved Turpentine Grass (Cymbopogon plurinodis) dominated the site.
The majority of the grass species
identified can be classified as increaser 2 grasses which are typical of areas in which the veld is being mismanaged. Thirty-four (34) shrub or forb species were identified along the proposed route, and formed a predominant part of the herbaceous layer. Twenty-three (23) of the shrub/forb species are classified as weed species, of which nine (9) of the weedy species are classified as declared weeds under CARA (Categories 1 and 3, refer to Table 9). EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
45
Figure 19: Vegetation Sensitivity Map
Medium Sensitivity
Vegetation
Disturbed Natural
Low Sensitivity
Built-up Areas
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
During the study a total of twenty-seven (27) exotic species were identified of which twelve (12) are listed under the CARA. Two (2) of the listed species, namely the Mulberry tree (Morus alba) and Morning Glory (Ipomoea purpurea) are listed under Category 3 of CARA and can therefore remain on site, but should, according to the Act, be contained and not be allowed to spread.
Due to the difficulties involved in controlling Morning Glory it was
recommended that this species be removed from site. The remainder of the species, namely the Large Thorn Apple (Datura ferox), Common Thorn Apple (Datura starmonium), the Red Sunflower (Tithonia rotundifolia), Bugweed (Solanum mauritianum), Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Fountain Grass (Pennisetum setaceum), Moth-catcher (Araujia sericifera), Lantana (Lantana camara) and Queen of the Night (Cereus peruvianus) are all listed as Category 1 species and should therefore be removed from site immediately. It was recommended that a weed eradication program be implemented that makes provision for follow-up eradication of weeds and furthermore this program should encompass the entire Pelindaba site as part of Duty of Care and Remediation of Environmental Damage (Chapter 7, Section 28 of The National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998). It is understood that such a program was implemented in the past. It should continue in order to eliminate these species from the property. 5.4.2 Red Data Species Due to the sensitive nature of Red data species (over harvested/ poached for various uses), no species-specific discussion has been provided in this report. The complete species list and Red data species list for the quarter degree in which the site is located was obtained from the SANBI. According to the SANBI list, 853 species occur within the quarter degree (2527DD) of which 2 are considered as being vulnerable, 2 as threatened/near threatened or endangered, 5 as declining and 33 as being of least concern. None of the Red Data, threatened or sensitive species were recorded on site during the site assessment (likely as a result of the degraded nature of the site).
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
47
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Table 9: List of Observed Plant Species Scientific Name
Common Name
Indigenous/Exotic
Status
Medicinal Value
Trees Acacia burkei
Black Monkey Thorn
Indigenous
No Status
Medicinal Value
Acacia karroo
Sweet thorn
Indigenous
No Status
Medicinal Value
Acacia tortillis
Umbrella thorn
Indigenous
No Status
Medicinal Value
Acacia xanthophloea
Fever Tree
Indigenous
No Status
Medicinal Value
Berchemia zeyheri
Red Ivory
Indigenous
No Status
Medicinal Value
Celtis africana
White stinkwood
Indigenous
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Celtis sinensis
Hackberry
Exotic
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Dombeya rotundifolia
Common Wild Pear
Indigenous
No Status
Medicinal Value
Ehretia rigida
Puzzle Bush
Indigenous
No Status
Medicinal Value
Morus alba
Mulberry
Category 3 Exotic
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Wild Olive
Indigenous
No Status
Medicinal Value
Rhus lancea
Karree
Indigenous
No Status
Medicinal Value
Rhus leptodictya
Mountain Karree
Indigenous
No Status
Medicinal Value
Ziziphus mucronata
Buffalo-thorn
Indigenous
No Status
Medicinal Value
Olea europaea africana
subsp.
Grasses Snowflake Grass
Indigenous
Subclimax, Increaser 2
No Medicinal Value
Tassel Three-awn
Indigenous
Pioneer, Increaser 2
No Medicinal Value
Spreading Three-awn
Indigenous
Pioneer, Increaser 2
No Medicinal Value
Chloris gayana
Rhodes Gras
Indigenous
Subclimax, Decreaser
No Medicinal Value
Broad-leaved Grass
Turpentine
Cymbopogon excavatus
Indigenous
Climax, Increaser 1
No Medicinal Value
Narrow-leaved Grass
Turpentine
Cymbopogon plurinodis
Indigenous
Climax, Increaser 1/3
No Medicinal Value
Cynodon dactylon
Couch Grass
Indigenous
Pioneer, Increaser 2
No Medicinal Value
Dichanthium annulatum
Vlei Finger Grass
Indigenous
Subclimax/Climax, Decreaser
No Medicinal Value
Ehrharta erecta
Shade Ehrharta
Indigenous
Pioneer, Increaser 2
No Medicinal Value
Enneapogon cenchroides
Nine-awned Grass
Indigenous
Pioneer/Subclimax, Increaser 2
No Medicinal Value
Andropogon eucomus Aristida congesta congesta
subsp
Aristida congesta barbicollis
subsp.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
48
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Scientific Name
Common Name
Indigenous/Exotic
Status
Medicinal Value
Eragrostis curvula
Weeping Love Grass
Indigenous
Subclimax/Climax, Increaser 2
No Medicinal Value
Eragrostis lehmanniana
Lehmann's Love Grass
Indigenous
Pioneer/Subclimax, Increaser 2
No Medicinal Value
Heteropogon contortus
Spear Grass
Indigenous
Sublcimax, Increaser 2
No Medicinal Value
Hyparrhenia filipendula
Fine Thatching Grass
Indigenous
Climax, Increaser 1
No Medicinal Value
Hyparrhenia hirta
Common Thatching Grass
Indigenous
Subclimax/Climax, Increaser 1
No Medicinal Value
Melinis nerviglumis
Bristle-leaved Red Top
Indigenous
Climax, Increaser 1
No Medicinal Value
Melinis repens
Natal Red Top
Indigenous
Pioneer/Subclimax, Increaser 2
No Medicinal Value
Pennisetum setaceum
Fountain Grass
Category 1, Exotic
Declared Weed
No Medicinal Value
Schizachyrium sanguineum
Red Autumn Grass
Indigenous
Climax, Increaser 1
No Medicinal Value
Setaria torta
Creeping Bristle Grass
Indigenous
Subclimax, Decreaser
No Medicinal Value
Sporobolus festivus
Red Dropseed
Indigenous
Pioneer/Subclimax, Increaser 2
No Medicinal Value
Themeda triandra
Red Grass
Indigenous
Climax, Decreaser
No Medicinal Value
Tragus berteronianus
Carrot-seed Grass
Indigenous
Pioneer, Increaser 2
No Medicinal Value
Trachypogon spicatus
Giant Spear Grass
Indigenous
Climax, Increaser 1
No Medicinal Value
Urochloa mosambicensis
Bushveld Signal Grass
Indigenous
Pioneer/Subclimax, Increaser 2
No Medicinal Value
sphacelata
var.
Shrubs/Forbs Alternanthera pungens
Paperthorn
Exotic
Problem Plant
No Medicinal Value
Amaranthus hybridus
Pigweed
Exotic
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Araujia sericifera
Moth catcher
Category 1, Exotic
Declared Weed
No Medicinal Value
Asclepias physocarpa
Milkweed
Exotic
Problem Plant
Medicinal Value
Bibens pilosa
Blackjack
Exotic
Problem Plant
No Medicinal Value
Campuloclinium macrocephalum
Pom-pom Weed
Category 1, Exotic
Declared Weed
No Medicinal Value
Cardiospermum grandiflorum
Ballon Vine
Exotic
Problem Plant
No Medicinal Value
Chamaesyce hirta
Red Milkweed
Exotic
Problem Plant
No Medicinal Value
Cryptolepis oblongifolia
Bokhoring
Indigenous
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Clematis brachiata
Travellers Joy
Indigenous
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Cirsium vulgare
Scottish thistle
Exotic
Category
No Medicinal Value
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
49
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Scientific Name
Common Name
Indigenous/Exotic
Status
Medicinal Value
Convolvulus arvensis
Field bindweed
Category 1 Exotic
Declared Weed
No Medicinal Value
Datura ferox
Large Thorn Apple
Category 1, Exotic
Declared Weed
Medicinal Value
Datura stramonium
Thorn Apple
Category 1, Exotic
Declared Weed
Medicinal Value
Dicerocaryum eriocarpum
Devil's Thorn
Indigenous
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Elephantorrhiza elephantina
Elephants Root
Indigenous
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Gomphrena celosioides
Bachelor's button
Exotic
Problem Plant
No Medicinal Value
Indigenous
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Declared Weed
No Medicinal Value
Helichrysum rugulosum Ipomoea purpurea
Morning glory
Category 3 Exotic
Lantana camara
Lantana
Category 1, Exotic
Lannea edulis
Wild Grape
Indigenous
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Nidorella anomala
Nidorella
Indigenous
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Parinari capensis
Dwarf mobola
Indigenous
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Richardia brasiliensis
Tropical richardia
Exotic
Problem Plant
No Medicinal Value
Indigenous
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Senecio venosus
No Medicinal Value
Solanum giganteum
Goat bitter apple
Indigenous
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Solanum mauritianum
Bugweed
Category 1 Exotic
Declared Weed
No Medicinal Value
Stoebe vulgaris
Bankrupt Bush
Exotic
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Tithonia rotundifolia
Red Sunflower
Category 1 Exotic
Declared Weed
No Medicinal Value
Exotic
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Verbena brasiliensis Verbena bonariensis
Wild Verbena
Exotic
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Verbena renuisecta
Fine-leaved verbena
Exotic
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Indigenous
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Exotic
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Indigenous
No Status
Leaf sap used medicinally treatment of burns, sores wounds.
Category 1, Exotic
No Status
No Medicinal Value
Wahlenbergia caledonica Wildejakobregop
Zinnia peruviana
Aloes/Cacti
Aloe greatheadii davyana Cereus peruvianus
var.
Queen of the Night
Species details references: Van Wyk & van Wyk, 1997; Van Oudshoorn, 1999; Henderson, 2001 and Van Wyk et al., 1997
5.5
Fauna
The large amount of natural vegetation on the property creates a suitable habitat for a variety of animals. During site visits to Pelindaba, wildlife such as zebras and other game were EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
50
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
observed. According to Necsa staff, caracals and baboons have also been seen on the site. Since the site is located on a ridge, it is anticipated that the area will be rich in biodiversity. More than 300 bird species were recorded in the Magaliesberg area, and they comprise birds from the bushveld and the highveld as well as those that are particularly associated with mountain areas. In addition, there are large numbers of waterfowl and waders which were drawn to the area by the irrigation projects and the many smaller farm dams (Carruthers, 1990). The rare Cape Vulture is a resident in the area and nests in the quartzite cliffs of the Magaliesberg. About 80 species of reptiles and amphibians can be found in the Magaliesberg area, of which only 10 pose any threat to man and only six of those are seriously dangerous. The great majority of species are important consumers of creatures, which might otherwise become pests. Furthermore, all species found in the Magaliesberg assiduously avoid confrontation with humans and will only strike when they feel threatened and unable to escape (Carruthers, 1990). Frogs and reptiles depend upon environmental heat sources to maintain body temperature. Because of this, they generally occur in greater numbers in warmer parts of the mountain, which is an important factor in determining which habitats will be suitable for particular species. For an example, rocky outcrops, open grassland, woodland, rivers and dams are consistent in attracting their own particular reptile fauna (Carruthers, 1990). A baseline faunal assessment was conducted by Ecocheck (Appendix F) and the results of this assessment are summarised in the paragraphs below. 68 Red data animals are known to occur in the North West Province – of these, 16 are listed as Data Deficient (DD), 28 as Near Threatened (NT), 20 as Vulnerable (VU), 1 as Endangered (EN), 2 as Critically Endangered (CR) and 1 as Extinct (EX). For the area investigated, 49 of the species are estimated to have a low probability of occurring in the study area and 19 a moderate probability. Biological Name
English Name
RD
Prob
INVERTEBRATES Metisella meninx
Marsh Sylph
VU
low
Lepidochrysops hypopolia
Morant's Blue
EX
low
Lepidochrysops praeterita
Highveld Blue
VU
low
NT
low
VU
low
NT
low
FROGS Pyxicephalus adspersus
Giant Bullfrog REPTILES
Cordylus giganteus
Giant Girdled Lizard BIRDS
Pelecanus onocrotalus
EIMS Project no: 0725
Great White Pelican
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
51
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Biological Name
English Name
RD
Prob
Pelecanus rufescens
Pink-backed Pelican
VU
low
Gorsachius leuconotus
White-backed Night-Heron
VU
low
Botaurus stellaris
Eurasian Bittern
CR
low
Ciconia nigra
Black Stork
NT
low
Leptoptilos crumeniferus
Marabou Stork
NT
low
Mycteria ibis
Yellow-billed Stork
NT
low
Phoenicopterus ruber
Greater Flamingo
NT
low
Phoenicopterus minor
Lesser Flamingo
NT
low
Sagittarius serpentarius
Secretarybird
NT
moderate
Gyps coprotheres
Cape Vulture
VU
moderate
Gyps africanus
White-backed Vulture
VU
low
Torgos tracheliotus
Lappet-faced Vulture
VU
low
Hieraaetus ayresii
Ayres's Hawk-Eagle
NT
low
Polemaetus bellicosus
Martial Eagle
VU
low
Circus ranivorus
African Marsh-Harrier
VU
low
Circus macrourus
Pallid Harrier
NT
low
Circus maurus
Black Harrier
VU
low
Falco peregrinus
Peregrine Falcon
NT
low
Falco biarmicus
Lanner Falcon
NT
low
Falco naumanni
Lesser Kestrel
VU
low
Anthropoides paradisea
Blue Crane
VU
low
Crex crex
Corn Crake
VU
low
Podica senegalensis
African Finfoot
VU
low
Eupodotis barrowii
Barrow's Korhaan
VU
low
Rostratula benghalensis
Greater Painted-snipe
NT
low
Charadrius pallidus
Chestnut-banded Plover
NT
low
Glareola nordmanni
Black-winged Pratincole
NT
low
Sterna caspia
Caspian Tern
NT
low
Pterocles gutturalis
Yellow-throated Sandgrouse
NT
low
Tyto capensis
African Grass-Owl
VU
low
Alcedo semitorquata
Half-collared Kingfisher
NT
low
Mirafra cheniana
Melodious Lark
NT
low
MAMMALS Atelerix frontalis
South African Hedgehog
NT
moderate
Cloeotis percivali
Short-eared Trident Bat
CR
moderate
Crocidura cyanea
Reddish-grey Musk Shrew
DD
moderate
Crocidura fuscomurina
Tiny Musk Shrew
DD
moderate
Crocidura hirta
Lesser Red Musk Shrew
DD
moderate
Crocidura maquassiensis
Maquassie Musk Shrew
VU
low
Crocidura mariquensis
Swamp Musk Shrew
DD
low
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
52
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Biological Name
English Name
RD
Prob
Crocidura silacea
Lesser Grey-brown Musk Shrew
DD
low
Elephantulus brachyrhynchus
Short-snouted Elephant-shrew
DD
moderate
Elephantulus intufi
Bushveld Elephant-shrew
DD
low
Graphiurus platyops
Rock Dormouse
DD
moderate
Hipposideros caffer
Sundevall's Leaf-nosed Bat
DD
low
Hyaena brunnea
Brown Hyaena
NT
low
Lemniscomys rosalia
Single-striped Mouse
DD
moderate
Leptailurus serval
Serval
NT
low
Lutra maculicollis
Spotted-necked Otter
NT
low
Manis temminckii
Pangolin
VU
low
Mellivora capensis
Honey Badger
NT
low
Miniopterus schreibersii
Schreiber's Long-fingered Bat
NT
moderate
Myosorex varius
Forest Shrew
DD
low
Mystromys albicaudatus
White-tailed Rat
EN
low
Pipistrellus rusticus
Rusty Bat
NT
moderate
Poecilogale albinucha
African Weasel
DD
moderate
Rhinolophus blasii
Peak-saddle Horseshoe Bat
VU
moderate
Rhinolophus clivosus
Geoffroy's Horseshoe Bat
NT
moderate
Rhinolophus darlingi
Darling's Horseshoe Bat
NT
moderate
Suncus infinitesimus
Least Dwarf Shrew
DD
moderate
Suncus lixus
Greater Dwarf Shrew
DD
moderate
Suncus varilla
Lesser Dwarf Shrew
DD
low
Tatera leucogaster
Bushveld Gerbil
DD
moderate
Due to the transformed nature of most of the area investigated and the isolated nature of the untransformed areas, none of the red data fauna known from the North West Province are considered to be highly likely to inhabit the study area. Only 19 of the 68 red data species listed have an estimated moderate probability of occurring in the study area. The untransformed areas found in the study area (refer to Figure 19) are only approximately 1150 meters in length – all of the relevant untransformed habitat is characterised by ridge habitat (open rock areas with relatively steep slopes). Although some hill slope seepages were observed, these were degraded and insignificant in terms of faunal habitat. As a result, all of the red data wetland animals are considered to have a low likelihood of occurring on the site. The red data species with estimated moderate probabilities of occurrence either have wide habitat tolerances or are ridge/rocky habitat associated. Some of these species are not expected to be residents; they are well known from the region of the study area and are expected to rest (Cape Vulture) or feed (Secretary Bird) on the site from time to time.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
53
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Low faunal sensitivity Moderate faunal sensitivity
Figure 20: Faunal Sensitivity Map showing the study area 5.6
Geology
5.6.1 Regional Geology The North West province has one of the most uniform terrains of all the South African provinces, with altitudes ranging from 920-1782 metres above mean sea level. The central and western parts are characterised by gently undulating plains, while the eastern section is more mountainous and includes the scenic Magaliesberg. The north-eastern and north-central areas of the Province are largely dominated by ancient igneous rock formations. The Gatsrand between Potchefstroom and Carletonville is considered to be one of the most ancient landscapes preserved anywhere in the world. The geology of the Province is significant because of its mineral resources, which are rich in exploitable platinum, gold, uranium, iron, chrome, manganese and diamonds. 5.6.2 Local Geology At Pelindaba, the Rooihoogte Formation forms the base of the Pretoria Group.
The
Rooihoogte Formation consists of a basal chert pebble meta-conglomerate (Bevets Conglomerate Member), followed by siltstones and slates containing some chert (Andersen et al., 2001). Andersen et al. (2001) also provide the following description of the Pelindaba geology: The overlying Timeball Hill Formation is sub-divided into three zones: 1) the Lower Timeball Hill Formation, 2) the Klapperkop Quartzite Member and 3) the Upper Timeball Hill Formation. The Lower Timeball Hill Formation is characterised by red- to pinkish weathering, poorly foliated slate, and brown weathering slate. The unit grades upwards into slates, that are inter-bedded with fine-grained, thin lenticular beds (often ferruginous), and subsequently into the Klapperkop Quartzite Member. EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
54
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
The Klapperkop Quartzite Member is a succession of alternating quartzite and slate beds. Nine layers were distinguished at other sites, however only five are present on Pelindaba. An “upper white quartzite” and a weakly radioactive, black magnetite quartzite form the most prominent layers, while the rest of the quartzite layers display a lenticular to irregular shape. Several buildings in the Pelindaba complex were constructed on the Klapperkop Quartzite Member. Post-Transvaal diabase- and porphyritic diabase dykes are developed along north/south and approximately east/west orientations. Numerous approximately north-south striking syenite dykes are also present on the site, although outcrops are scarce. The southern part of the farm Weldaba 567 JQ is underlain by dolomite (North-West Province Geographical Information System (GIS) layers). 5.6.3 Soil Profile According to the North West Geographic Information System (GIS) the soil of the proposed site is not suitable for agriculture, but may be suitable for forestry and/or grazing if the temperature of the region permits it. The Necsa Pelindaba site is rocky in general with limited soil at the site. The soil depth is predominantly less than 450 mm, while the soils can be described as eutrophic. The soil has a clay composition of between 15-35% (North West GIS). A geotechnical investigation was undertaken by Golder Associates Africa (Appendix D) for the proposed pipeline routes. The findings of this investigation are presented in the paragraphs below. It was found that a thin cover of transported hillwash soils, where present, occurs to depths of about 0.2 m, comprising of loose gravely sand. Residual shale occurs as outcrop from the surface, or beneath the thin transported hillwash soil cover. The upper portion of the residual shale has been reworked in places, comprising of generally loose to medium dense shale gravels to depths of up to 0.6 m. Beneath the reworked portion, the underlying residual shale occurs to depths of up to 0.8 m comprising of dense gravels. Shale of very soft rock and better was encountered from the surface in places to depths of up to 1.5 m, but generally up to 0.8 m below the surface. The upper loose transported soils are not considered to be a suitable founding horizon due to its highly compressible characteristics and that foundations should be taken down, where necessary, to the dense and better or stiff to very stiff residual shale or onto the very soft rock shale, depending on the loading requirements of the proposed structures.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
55
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
It was suggested that the maximum allowable bearing pressures of 250 kPa and 600k Pa are considered appropriate for foundations founded on dense to very stiff residual shale and very soft rock shale, respectively. It was also recommended that foundations be inspected by a geotechnical specialist prior to casting during the construction phase, to ensure that foundations are placed on or in the correct material. 5.7
Areas of Historical/Cultural Significance
During an assessment of the possible heritage features on the proposed site by UNISA (Appendix G), no Stone Age or Iron Age settlements, structures, features or artefacts were recorded. A possible stone walled redoubt or sangar, associated with the South African War (1899-1902) was recorded. The structure will not be affected by the trajectory of the pipeline. There are however, a number of sites of cultural importance surrounding the proposed site and these include the following: •
The Eugene Marais Monument (Located on Pelindaba West),
•
Preller House (Located on Pelindaba West),
•
The General H. Schoeman Monument (3.4 km north of the proposed site),
•
Voortrekker Graves (3.6 km west of the proposed site),
•
Archeological Graves (4.7 km north west of the proposed site), and
•
War Graves (5.4 km north of the proposed site).
5.8
Land Use
The Pelindaba site is currently zoned as industrial. The area surrounding the site is mostly rural and agricultural, consisting mainly of farms or small holdings that are used for residential purposes (Table 10). To the North West of the site there are a number of small towns and settlements located around the Hartbeespoort Dam.
These include11:
Atteridgeville (9-16 km; 120 500), Ifafi (7 km; 2 300), Ile du Luc (7 km; 70), Kosmos (10 km; 790), Meerhof (5.5 km; 799), Melodie (8 km; 560), Schoemansville (9.5 km; 2 840), Ville d’Afrique (4 km; 60). The area around the site is generally considered as a tourism node and it attracts primarily weekend visitors from the urban centres of Pretoria and Johannesburg.
11
Bracketed text indicates the distance from the Pelindaba site and the approximate population of the town/city. Information
obtained from NECSA.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
56
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Table 10: Number of Farming/Small Holding Units Per Land Use Type Land Use Type
Unit Description Residence Only
Livestock Farming
Growing Crops
Other
Small holding
151
2
16
15
Farm
18
2
2
0
5.9
Social Environment
The proposed site is located within Ward 29 of the Madibeng local municipality.
The
geographical area of Madibeng municipality is approximately 426.173 km2. The following social and economic information for the ward was obtained from the Municipal Demarcation Board webpage (MDB, 2001). It is likely that the social structure of the area may have changed since the 2001 data, however it is not anticipated that these changes will alter the trends significantly. 5.9.1 Population and Age Structure Table 11 indicates the population distribution for Ward 29 of Madibeng. In 2001, Ward 29 had a population of approximately 6 896, of which the Black African community forms the majority of the population followed by the Asian/Indian community. Table 11: Population distribution for Madibeng Ward 29 Population Group
2001
Black Africans
4 452
Coloured
83
Whites
23
Asian/ Indian
2 338
Total
6 896
The female gender contributes approximately 48% of the population of the ward. The age distribution for ward 29 of the Local Municipality shows that the majority of the population is 20 to 49 years of age. 5.9.2 Employment Profile In 2001, approximately 40% of the population had no income (Table 12 and Table 13). The majority of the population without income (60%) could be ascribed to the fact that approximately 1 700 people in Ward 29 are aged 0-19. Table 12 indicates the average household income distribution. From the table it can be observed that approximately 40% of the households earn less than R9 601 per month.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
57
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
900
800
700
Population
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80 and over
Age (Years)
Figure 21: Population Age Structure for Madibeng Ward 29 5.9.3 Tourism Pelindaba is situated close to the Cradle of Humankind, which is set around the Rustenburg, Magaliesberg and Hartbeespoort regions. The area also abounds with relics from the Stone Age and early middle and late Iron Age. There are a large number of arts, crafts and curio outlets, especially in the Hartbeespoort Dam and Rustenburg areas, which draw a variety of local and international tourists (North-West Parks and Tourism Board, 2008).
Table 12: Monthly Household Income Distribution for Madibeng Ward 29. Household Income
No of Households
Table 13: Monthly Personal Income Distribution for Madibeng Ward 29. Personal Income
No of Individuals
No income
161
No income
2791
R1 - R4 800
436
R1 - R400
887
R4 801 - R 9 600
699
R401 - R800
1212
R9 601 - R 19 200
781
R801 - R1 600
795
R19 201 - R 38 400
357
R1 601 - R3 200
409
R38 401 - R 76 800
223
R3 201 - R6 400
382
R76 801 - R153 600
194
R6 401 - R12 800
207
R153 601 - R307 200
150
R12 801 - R25 600
123
R307 201 - R614 400
57
R25 601 - R51 200
45
R614 401 - R1 228 800
13
R51 201 - R102 400
20
R1 228 801 - R2 457 600
16
R102 401-R204 800
21
R2 457 601 +
9
R204 801 +
3
Not Applicable
6
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
58
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
6.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The public participation process as required by the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) was carried out according to Regulations 56 to 59 of GN R385 under the above mentioned Act. The detail of the public participation process is described below. 6.1
Introduction
South Africa, being one of the countries with the most progressive constitutions, enshrined the public’s right to be involved in decisions that may affect them in the Constitution. Section 57(1) of the new Constitution states the following: ”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 concept of public participation (or stakeholder engagement) features strongly and especially the NEMA and the recent regulations passed under the auspices of this Act, make very strict provisions for public participation in environmental decision-making. One of the questions that may arise at this point is what the definition of public participation is. One of the most comprehensive definitions of public participation was given by Greyling – it has also been adopted by the International Association for Public Participation (IAPP). Greyling defines public participation 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. A final Issues and Responses Report (IRR) (Appendix A) lists all verbal and written issues raised by Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) and stakeholders during the Scoping process undertaken for the proposed project. These issues/queries/concerns/ comments were submitted to EIMS in the following manner: •
Issues raised after the placing of the notification advertisements in the newspapers and as a response to the posters and flyer notifications;
•
Issues raised during the public meeting held at Necsa, Pelindaba; and
•
Written queries were submitted to EIMS via e-mail, post, telephone calls and fax.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
59
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Comments received were processed by EIMS and responses were compiled by EIMS. As such, comments contained in the IRR include: •
Comments received by fax, email or post; and
•
Transcribed telephonic conversations.
6.2
Opportunities for Public Participation during the Scoping Phase
6.2.1 Placement of Site Notices In line with the current legislation, (A2) Site Notices were placed prominently at several locations around the existing Necsa, Pelindaba site. These include the following: •
The intersection of the R512 and R104 in English, Afrikaans and Sotho.
•
The intersection of the R104 and the Necsa Gate 1 access road (Acacia Drive) in English, Afrikaans and Sotho.
•
The intersection of the R104 and the Necsa Gate 2 access road (Safari Drive) in English, Afrikaans and Sotho.
•
The intersection of the R104 and the Necsa Gate 3 access road in English.
In addition A3 notices were also placed at the following locations: •
The Broederstroom Stall at the intersection of the R512 and the R104 in English, Afrikaans and Sotho.
•
The Necsa Gate 1 entrance and exit in English, Afrikaans and Sotho.
•
The Necsa Gate 2 entrance and exit in English, Afrikaans and Sotho.
•
The Necsa Gate 3 entrance and exit in English, Afrikaans and Sotho.
•
The Maluti Shopping Centre in Schoemansville in English, Afrikaans and Sotho.
•
The Roos se Oord Shop (off the R104) in English, Afrikaans and Sotho.
•
The Mountain Lake Shopping Centre (Spar) in Broederstroom in English, Afrikaans and Sotho.
A4 Notices were also placed at the following locations: •
The Necsa Gate 1 Reception Building in English, Afrikaans and Sotho.
•
The Necsa Gate 2 Corporate Communications Building in English, Afrikaans and Sotho.
•
The Necsa Gate 3 Reception Building in English, Afrikaans and Sotho.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
60
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
•
Giants Groceries in Atteridgeville in English, Afrikaans and Sotho.
6.2.2 Formal Opportunities for Public Participation Notification advertisements were placed in two local newspapers, the Brits Pos and the Kormorant, as well as the regional newspaper, The Citizen. The IRR records the formal opportunities provided for public participation during the Scoping process, which commenced with the advertising of the process during September 2008. In addition to the newspaper advertisements, many I&APs were pre-identified and received invitations to participate at the inception of the project. I&APs in this category include organs of state, municipalities, known environmental organisations and service providers, as well as members of the Pelindaba Safety Information Forum (PSIF) and the Necsa tenants at Pelindaba. A Public meeting was also held on 11 September 2008 at Building 1000, at Gate 2, Necsa, Pelindaba. During this meeting, an overview of the EIA process was provided, as well as a detailed description of what the project entailed. I&APs were given opportunities to ask questions and to provide comment. For more details on the issues raised during the public meeting, please refer to the minutes of this meeting, included in the IRR. A background information document was also placed on the EIMS website (www.eims.co.za) and made available at the public meeting. The informal settlements surrounding Pelindaba were also informed of the proposed project. These included Atteridgeville, Roos se Oord and the tenants of the Paragon Property Development. A focus group meeting was held with the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) representative, Mr Paul van Rooyen. Mr Van Rooyen was given a detailed description of the project and given the opportunity to raise comments and concerns regarding the project. For more details on the issues raised during this focus group meeting, please refer to the minutes of this meeting, included in the IRR. The DSR was also made available for review by the public at the following locations: •
The Schoemansville Branch of the Madibeng Municipality; and
•
The Gate 2 Reception building at Necsa, Pelindaba.
The DSR was also placed on the EIMS website (www.eims.co.za) and made available for download. The registered I&APs were advised of the availability of the Draft Scoping Report and requested to submit comments to EIMS. Comments on the DSR were incorporated into
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
61
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
this report. Notifications were sent to all I&APs regarding the acceptance of the DSR and the Plan of Study for EIA. The Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) was made available to the public for review at the following locations: •
The Gate 2 Reception building at Necsa, Pelindaba;
•
The Schoemansville Branch of the Madibeng Municipality; and
•
The Schoemansville Library.
Table 14: Opportunities provided for Public Participation PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PHASE ACTION Announcement Project
DESCRIPTION of
PUBLICATION/PLACE
DATE
Newspaper Advertisements.
Brits Pos, Kormorant, Citizen
22/08/2008
Public Notification
Distribution of fliers and placement of site notices.
Refer to section 6.2.1 above.
22/08/2008
Public information
Public Meeting
Building Pelindaba
11/08/2008
Public Information
Availability of a Background Information Document (BID).
Via e-mail, fax and post
Public Information
Focus Group Meeting
Building Pelindaba
Public Notification
Public Notification
Availability of the Draft Scoping Report DSR and Plan of Study (PoS) for EIA for Public review. Notification of Authority Decision regarding the DSR and Pos for EIA.
Public Notification
Availability of the Draft EIR for Public review.
Public Notification
Notification of Record of Decision (RoD).
6.3
1000,
1000,
Necsa,
11/08/2008 onwards Necsa,
Notification of availability was sent to all registered I&APs via e-mail, fax and post Notification was sent to all registered I&APs via e-mail, fax and post Notification has been sent to all registered I&APs via e-mail, fax and post Notification will be sent to all registered I&APs via e-mail, fax and post
29/10/2008
01/12/2008
18/03/2009
19/06/2009
To be announced
Issues Raised
6.3.1 Generic Issues Raised by I&APs Issues received in writing during the Scoping and EIA Phases were compiled in the IRR (EIA Phase – Appendix A). The issues raised pertained mainly to the proposed design specifications of the treatment facilities and the pipelines. Issues were also raised regarding the EIA process and the possibility of review of EIA documentation. For a full list of issues raised and responses given to date, please refer to the IRR in Appendix A.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
62
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
6.3.2 I&AP Database All I&AP contact details were recorded, as was their relationship to the project. Their comments and/or concerns were also recorded. An I&AP database was created to capture all relevant information (See Appendix A). 7.
IMPACT IDENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT
During the Scoping phase, likely impacts were identified through various site visits, consultation of published information and brainstorming amongst the consultants and specialists. During the EIA phase, these and other impacts were identified as a result of the specialist studies. Section 7.1 below describes the methodology that has been used to rate the impacts identified. 7.1
Methodology
Impacts identified during the EIA Phase were assessed according to the criteria outlined in the following paragraphs.
Each impact has been ranked according to extent, duration,
magnitude and probability. From these criteria, that are based on DEAT’s (1998) Guideline Document to the EIA Regulations, a significance rating was obtained, of which the method and formula is described below in Section 7.1.6. Where possible, mitigatory measures were recommended for impacts identified. 7.1.1 Status of the Impact The impacts were assessed as either having a: •
Negative effect (i.e. at a `cost' to the environment),
•
Positive effect (i.e. a `benefit' to the environment), or
•
Neutral effect on the environment.
7.1.2 Extent of the Impact The extent of each impact was rated as being one of the following: •
(1)
Site (i.e. within the boundaries of the site),
•
(2)
Local (i.e. the area within 5km of the site),
•
(3)
Municipal (i.e. the Madibeng Local Municipality),
•
(4)
Regional (i.e. Gauteng and North-West Province),
•
(5)
National (i.e. South Africa), or
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
63
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
•
(6)
International (i.e. Southern Africa).
7.1.3 Duration of the Impact The duration of each impact was rated as being one of the following: •
(1)
Immediate (>1 year)
•
(2)
Short term (1-5 years),
•
(3)
Medium term (6-15 years),
•
(4)
Long term (the impact will cease when the operation stops),
•
(5)
Permanent (no mitigation measure of natural process will reduce the impact after construction).
7.1.4 Magnitude of the Impact The intensity or severity of each impact was rated as being one of the following: •
(0)
None (where the aspect will have no impact on the environment),
•
(2)
Minor (where the impact affects the environment in such a way that natural, cultural and social functions and processes are not affected),
•
(4)
Low (where the impact affects the environment in such a way that natural, cultural and social functions and processes are slightly affected),
•
(6)
Moderate (where the affected environment is altered but natural, cultural and social functions and processes continue albeit in a modified way),
•
(8)
High (where natural, cultural or social functions or processes are altered to the extent that they will temporarily cease), or
•
(10) Very high / don’t know (where natural, cultural or social functions or processes are altered to the extent that they will permanently cease).
7.1.5 Probability of Occurrence The likelihood of the impact actually occurring was indicated as either: •
(0)
None (the impact will not occur),
•
(1)
Improbable (the possibility of the impact materialising is very low as a result of design, historic experience, or implementation of adequate corrective actions),
•
(2)
Low probability (there is a possibility that the impact will occur),
•
(3)
Medium probability (the impact may occur),
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
64
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
•
(4)
High probability (it is most likely that the impact will occur), or
•
(5)
Definite / don’t know (the impact will occur regardless of the implementation of any prevention or corrective actions, or it is not known what the probability will be based on too little published information).
7.1.6 Significance of the Impact Based on the information contained in the points above, the potential impacts were assigned a significance weighting (S). This weighting is formulated by adding the sum of the numbers assigned to extent (E), duration (D) and magnitude (M) and multiplying this sum by the probability (P) of the impact. S=(E+D+M)P The significance weightings are given below: •
(60)
High (i.e. where the impact must have an influence on the decision process to develop in the area).
In accordance with the EIA regulations, cumulative impacts, reversibility, and potential for irreplaceable loss of resources (PILR) have also been identified and assessed. It is important to note that in identifying and describing the impacts, as well as determining the significance ratings for these impacts, a team of specialist sub-consultants were consulted and appointed to undertake individual specialist studies. These studies informed the findings of this EIAR and are appended as follows: •
Appendix A:
Issues and Responses Report.
•
Appendix B:
Zitholele Consulting Options Evaluation Workshop Report
•
Appendix C:
Specialist Hydrological Report
•
Appendix D:
Specialist Geotechnical Report
•
Appendix E:
Specialist Floral Report
•
Appendix F:
Specialist Faunal Report
•
Appendix G:
Specialist Heritage Report
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
65
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
•
Appendix H:
Specialist Environmental Risk Assessment Report
•
Appendix I:
Environmental Management Plan
7.2
Impact Identification, Description and Assessment
Impacts that are likely to occur as a result of the proposed project are described and assessed in this section. Table 15 provides a summary of the impacts identified for each phase of the proposed project. Table 15: Summary of Impacts Identified and Assessed During the EIA Phase Impact
Phase Bio-Physical
Socio-Economic
Loss of Flora
Job Creation Job Creation
Loss of Biodiversity Loss of Species with Medicinal Value Removal/ Spread of Alien and Invasive species Dust Creation
Impacts on the Existing Effluent System Impacts on Existing Services and Production Visual Impact
Planning and Design
Construction
Noise
Fire Hazards
Pressure on Social Structures
Land Erosion
Traffic
Construction Waste Generation
Loss of Potential Heritage Resources
Sludge Handling During Turnover Surface and Groundwater Pollution Construction Spillages Geotechnical Stability
Operational
Impact on Aquatic Fauna and Flora
Increased Water Use Efficiency
Ground and Surface Water Pollution Impact on the Movement of Terrestrial Fauna Downstream Water Quality Impact on flora as a result of a leak in the system Spread of Alien and Invasive Species
Waste Disposal Odour Nuisance Energy Usage
Dust Creation
Decommissioning
Loss of flora Removal/ Spread of Alien and Invasive Species Faunal Disruption Land Erosion Decommissioning Waste Generation and Sludge Handling Surface and Ground Water Pollution
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
66
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
7.2.1 Planning and Design Phase Impacts 7.2.1.1 Job Creation During the Planning and Design phase, employment opportunities will arise for the design and assessment of the proposed project as input would be required from a variety of professionals, such as engineers, environmental consultants and the regional and national authorities responsible for reviewing the applications made in terms of the relevant legislation.
Job Creation
Impact
Mitigation Measures
Alternative
All Alternatives
No
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Positive
3
2
2
5
35
Medium
None No mitigation measures have been identified.
Cumulative Impact
None
Reversibility
No (irreversible)
PILR
Impact
Mitigation
No
7.2.2 Construction Phase Impacts 7.2.2.1 Loss of Flora The disturbances created during the construction phase will likely lead to a loss of floral species within the working servitude. However, due to the site being surrounded by large areas of natural vegetation, as well as the fact that no sensitive species were recorded on site, it is anticipated that the loss of flora within the working servitude will not result in a disruption to the ecological functioning of the site and surroundings. Due to the loss of species diversity within the working servitude, it is recommended that the disturbed areas be rehabilitated with indigenous species as far as possible and that a weed eradication program is implemented to curb the spread of weedy species following construction. In the case of the preferred combined industrial/sewage treatment facility site (Treatment Facility Site 1), it is anticipated that the loss of flora will be lower in magnitude due to the fact that the site is totally transformed (tarred parking lot) and will therefore be of lower significance.
Loss of Flora
Impact
Alternative All Process Alternatives Treatment Facility
EIMS Project no: 0725
Impact
Mitigation
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
No
Negative
2
3
6
3
33
Medium
Yes
Negative
1
2
4
2
14
Low
No
Negative
2
3
4
3
27
Low
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
67
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Impact
Alternative Site 1 Alt Treatment Facility Site All Pipeline Alternatives
Mitigation Measures Cumulative Impact Reversibility PILR
Impact
Mitigation
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Yes
Negative
1
2
2
2
10
Low
No
Negative
2
3
6
3
33
Medium
Yes
Negative
1
2
4
2
14
Low
No
Negative
2
3
6
3
33
Medium
Low Yes Negative 1 2 4 2 14 • The development footprint should be limited to the existing disturbed sites where possible or the minimum working servitude required to perform this upgrade. • Intrusion into surrounding natural vegetation areas should be limited. • Retain large indigenous trees where possible. None Yes (reversible) No
7.2.2.2 Loss of Biodiversity The proposed site is situated within the Gauteng Shale Mountain Bushveld, which is rich in biodiversity. As noted in the site description (Section 5.4), the Gauteng Shale Mountain Bushveld has a very low percentage of conserved land and therefore every effort should be made to minimize the disturbance to the surrounding vegetation. It is however noted that the scale of this development is not likely to have a significant impact on this sub-biome or even within the property boundary. It is anticipated that the loss of biodiversity for the proposed site and its surroundings will be of a LOW negative significance due to the already degraded nature of the majority of the site as well as the number of exotic species present. Similar to the loss of flora above, it is anticipated that the loss of biodiversity will be lower in magnitude due to the fact that the site is totally transformed (tarred parking lot) in the case of the preferred combined industrial/sewage treatment facility site (Treatment Facility Site 1) and will therefore be of lower significance.
Loss of Biodiversity
Impact
Mitigation Measures
Alternative All Process Alternatives Treatment Facility Site 1 Alt Treatment Facility Site All Pipeline Alternatives • • • •
Impact
Mitigation
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
No
Negative
2
3
4
3
27
Low
Yes
Negative
1
2
2
2
10
Low
No
Negative
2
3
2
3
21
Low
Yes
Negative
1
2
0
2
6
Low
No
Negative
2
3
4
3
27
Low
Yes
Negative
1
2
2
2
10
Low
No
Negative
2
3
4
3
27
Low
Low Yes Negative 1 2 2 2 10 Retain large indigenous trees where possible. Introduce a weed eradication programme to remove exotic species and to prevent the spread thereof. Promote the use of indigenous species during landscaping in and around the buildings. Minimise the construction footprint as far as possible.
Cumulative Impact
None
Reversibility
Yes
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
68
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
PILR
No
7.2.2.3 Loss of Species with Medicinal Value A number of medicinal species were recorded on site and none of these medicinal species are considered sensitive or protected.
These species occur commonly within the
surrounding area and therefore the loss of these species within the development footprint is not considered a threat to the continuation of these species. It is recommended that the development footprint be limited as far as practicable which would result in the least possible impact on the medicinal species. With the implementation of the mitigation measures below, the potential loss of medicinal species can be regarded as being of a LOW negative significance. The preferred site for the combined industrial/sewage treatment facility will once again have a lower magnitude and therefore have a lower significance, although still LOW negative.
Loss of Species with Medicinal Value
Impact
Mitigation Measures
Alternative
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
No
Negative
1
2
4
2
14
Low
Yes
Negative
1
2
2
1
5
Low
No
Negative
1
2
2
2
10
Low
Yes
Negative
1
2
0
1
3
Low
No
Negative
1
2
4
2
14
Low
Yes
Negative
1
2
2
1
5
Low
No
Negative
1
2
4
2
14
Low
Yes Negative 1 2 Retain indigenous medicinal species where possible. Minimise the working servitude as far as possible.
2
1
5
Low
All Process Alternatives Treatment Facility Site 1 Alt Treatment Facility Site All Pipeline Alternatives • •
Impact
Mitigation
Cumulative Impact
None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.2.4 Removal/Spread of Alien Invasive Species The removal of all aliens will probably occur during the clearing of the construction areas. This will have a LOW positive impact at the scale of the site due to the relatively high density of exotic species present. Without a weed eradication program, it is anticipated that these species will re-colonize disturbed areas following the construction work (and possibly spreading into the surroundings) and result in a MEDIUM negative impact.
Removal/ Spread of Alien and Invasive species
Impact
Alternative All Process Alternatives Treatment Facility Site 1
EIMS Project no: 0725
Impact
Mitigation
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
No
Negative
2
3
6
4
44
Yes
Positive
1
2
2
3
15
Low
Medium
No
Negative
1
3
4
4
32
Medium
Yes
Positive
1
2
2
3
15
Low
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
69
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Alt Treatment Facility Site All Pipeline Alternatives
Negative
2
3
6
4
44
Medium
Yes
Positive
1
2
2
3
15
Low
No
Negative
2
3
6
4
44
Medium
Low Yes Positive 1 2 2 3 15 A weed eradication program should be implemented during and after construction of the proposed development.
•
Mitigation Measures
No
Cumulative Impact
None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.2.5 Dust Creation Construction activities on the site will lead to land clearing and disturbance of the soil resulting in dust creation. It is anticipated that the impact of dust will be of LOW negative significance.
The implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will further
reduce the anticipated significance of this impact during construction.
Dust Creati on
Impact
Alternative
Impact
Mitigation
All Alternatives
No
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
2
1
4
4
28
Low
3
21
Low
Yes Negative 2 1 4 Use water tankers and irrigation equipment to control dust.
Mitigation Measures
•
Cumulative Impact
None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.2.6 Fire Hazards The storage of fuel and other flammable solvents on site during construction increase the risk of fire on the site. It is anticipated that uncontrolled fires on site could cause damage to infrastructure and the biophysical environment and impact on the working environment. The existing fire and emergency services on site are well equipped to respond to hazards of this nature and it is therefore anticipated that the significance of this impact will be LOW negative. Should the recommended mitigation measures be implemented, the significance of the impact will remain LOW negative.
Fire Hazards
Impact
Alternative
All Alternatives
• Mitigation Measures
• • •
Impact
Mitigation
No
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
2
1
4
3
21
Low
Low Yes Negative 2 1 4 2 14 Contracting personnel must be well versed in the relevant existing fire and safety management procedures and activities on site at present. Implement suitable material storage practices. Implement fire hazard sensitive on- and offloading procedures; Designate a site safety official and ensure that personal and adequately trained regarding fire
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
70
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD hazards and procedures. Cumulative Impact
None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.2.7 Faunal Disruption Fauna on the construction sites will be impacted on due to the removal of vegetation, which will lead to a disturbance of the habitat of these animals. Construction activities will however be limited to already developed areas at Pelindaba and the significance of the impact on fauna is expected to be LOW negative. No mitigation measures are recommended for the preferred Treatment Facility Alternative as this area is already transformed (parking area).
Faunal Disruption
Impact
Alternative
Cumulative Impact
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
No
Negative
1
3
4
3
24
Low
Yes
Negative
1
2
4
3
21
Low
Treatment Facility Site 1
No
Negative
1
3
2
3
18
Low
Alt Treatment Facility Site
No
Negative
1
3
4
3
24
Low
Yes
Negative
1
2
4
3
21
Low
No
Negative
1
3
4
3
24
Low
All Process Alternatives
All Pipeline Alternatives
Mitigation Measures
Impact
Mitigation
Low Yes Negative 1 2 4 3 21 Pipeline Route alternatives: • The pipeline(s) in the relatively undisturbed vegetated lower hill area should be above ground as far as possible to provide minimal impact on animal life residing in these areas.
Treatment Facility Alternatives: • Vegetation clearing should be limited as far as possible, in order to minimise the footprint of the proposed facility. None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.2.8 Soil Erosion The clearing of vegetation, as well as the exposing of soil during construction of treatment facilities and the unearthing of the pipelines, may lead to erosion of these surfaces due to rain and wind. It is anticipated that this impact will be of MEDIUM negative significance. Should the recommended mitigation measures be implemented all the alternatives will have a LOW negative significance rating. The impact on the preferred Treatment Facility Site will be of lower magnitude due to the fact that the alternative site will remain vegetated, leading to less runoff being generated from the site and resulting in an overall reduction in land erosion from the site as a whole.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
71
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Impact
Alternative
Soil Erosion
All Process Alternatives Treatment Facility Site 1 Alt Treatment Facility Site All Pipeline Alternatives
Impact
Mitigation
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
No
Negative
1
3
6
3
30
Medium
Yes
Negative
1
2
6
3
27
Low
No
Negative
1
3
4
3
24
Low
Yes
Negative
1
2
4
3
21
Low Medium
No
Negative
1
3
6
3
30
Yes
Negative
1
2
6
3
27
Low
30
Medium
No
Negative
1
3
6
3
Low Yes Negative 1 2 6 3 27 Re-vegetation of disturbed surfaces or implementing other covering measures (paving etc) should be conducted as soon as reasonably possible.
Mitigation Measures
•
Cumulative Impact
None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.2.9 Construction Waste Generation Construction waste will be generated as a result of construction material packaging, rubble and old infrastructure. Waste will be disposed of at a registered wasted disposal facility. For all of the alternatives in the table below, it is anticipated that the significance of the impacts will be LOW negative. For this impact, it is anticipated that the preferred Treatment Facility Site will have a MEDIUM negative significance, due to the fact that a larger amount of building rubble will be generated during the destruction of the parking area. Should the mitigation measures be implemented, it is anticipated that construction waste generation for this alternative will have a LOW negative significance.
Construction Waste Generation
Impact
Alternative All Process Alternatives Treatment Facility Site 1 Alt Treatment Facility Site All Pipeline Alternatives
Impact
Mitigation
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
No
Negative
1
2
6
3
27
Low
Yes
Negative
1
2
6
2
18
Low
No
Negative
1
2
8
3
33
Medium
Yes
Negative
1
2
8
2
22
Low
No
Negative
1
2
6
3
27
Low
Yes
Negative
1
2
6
2
18
Low
No
Negative
1
2
6
3
27
Low
Low Yes Negative 1 2 6 2 18 Contracting personnel must be well versed in the relevant existing waste management procedures and activities on site at present. • Waste management procedures must be developed and implemented and must include: sorting of waste types and correct disposal to either recycling facilities, local registered waste disposal sites, and in extreme cases to registered hazardous waste disposal sites. None •
Mitigation Measures Cumulative Impact Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
72
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
7.2.2.10 Surface and Groundwater Pollution – Construction Spillages Construction activities will require the use of certain hazardous and harmful materials, including but not limited to fuels, solvents and cement. If allowed to enter the surrounding water resources (both surface and groundwater), these substance would result in deterioration of the water quality, which could have detrimental impacts on the aquatic fauna and flora in the water resources. This impact is specifically of concern, as many of the surrounding small holdings utilise groundwater for domestic purposes. The implementation of mitigation measures will render this an impact of LOW negative significance. This impact may have some cumulative impacts due to the already poor water quality of water resources in the region, such as the Crocodile River and the Hartbeespoort Dam (refer to Section 5.3).
Surface and Groundwater Pollution Construction Spillages
Impact
Mitigation Measures Cumulative Impact Reversibility PILR
Alternative
Impact
Mitigation
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
3
2
6
3
Medium All Alternatives
No
33
Low Yes Negative 3 2 6 2 22 • Potential hazardous materials used during the construction phase (including cements and solvents) must be housed under cover (where practical) and utilising bunded areas where necessary. • All reasonable efforts must be taken to prevent potential spills of these substances, The potential spillages may lead to contamination of soil and of the surface and ground water resources on site and contribute to the existing poor water quality of surface and ground water resources in the area (Crocodile River and Hartbeespoort Dam). Yes (depending on the nature and extent of a specific spillage) No
7.2.2.11 Surface and Groundwater Pollution – Interconnection Spillages During the construction phase certain spillages may occur when existing infrastructure are removed and new systems are connected up with older infrastructure for the first time. Similar to Section 7.2.2.10 above, this may impact on surface and ground water resources in the area and lead to a deterioration of the water quality of these resources. However, it is anticipated that these spillages will have low volumes and will occur while under supervision of the contracting personnel during interconnection. Therefore, it is anticipated that this impact will be of LOW negative significance.
Surface and Groundwater Pollution Interconnection Spillages
Impact
Mitigation Measures
Alternative
Impact
Mitigation
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
No
Negative
3
2
6
2
22
Low
Yes
Negative
3
2
4
2
18
Low
All Alternatives
• • •
Adequate supervision should be present during the interconnection activities. Spill kits must be made available and the correct procedures followed during the cleanup of spills. All reasonable efforts must be taken to prevent potential spills of these substances,
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
73
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Cumulative Impact
None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.2.12 Geotechnical Stability During the construction phase, it is anticipated that some areas of unsuitable geotechnical stability may be encountered, as per the geotechnical report in Appendix D. These unstable geotechnical features may lead to future damage to the present and proposed infrastructure and as a result, lead to leakages of effluent to the ground and/or surface water on site. However, with the implementation of the suggested mitigation measures, it is anticipated that the construction of the infrastructure will be conducted so as to ensure that the impact on ground and surface water will be of LOW negative significance.
Geotechnical Stability
Impact
Alternative
Impact
Mitigation
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
No
Negative
1
3
6
4
40
Medium
Yes
Negative
1
3
4
2
16
Low
All Alternatives
Foundations should be taken down, where necessary, to the dense and better or stiff to very stiff residual shale or onto the very soft rock shale, depending on the loading requirements of the proposed structures. • It is suggested that the maximum allowable bearing pressures of 250 kPa and 600k Pa are used for foundations founded on dense to very stiff residual shale and very soft rock shale, respectively. • It is also recommended that foundations be inspected by a geotechnical specialist prior to casting during the construction phase, to ensure that foundations are placed on or in the correct material. None •
Mitigation Measures
Cumulative Impact Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.2.13 Job Creation During the construction phase, employment opportunities will arise as a result of the actual construction that will take place at Pelindaba. The construction activities will also result in a demand for equipment, building material and labour. The use of local labour would have a positive impact on the local economy and promote skills transfer. The significance of this impact is anticipated to be MEDIUM positive, should the recommended mitigation measures be implemented.
Job Creation
Impact
Alternative
Impact
Mitigation
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
No
Positive
4
3
2
4
36
Yes
Positive
3
3
4
4
40
Medium All Alternatives
EIMS Project no: 0725
Medium
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
74
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Mitigation Measures Cumulative Impact Reversibility PILR
Where possible, local labour should be used for construction activities. Training programmes could be instated to facilitate skill transfer to local contractors and labourers.
• •
It is anticipated that job creation could lead to an improvement in the livelihoods of the local people resulting from the temporary income and the transfer of skills to the local people enabling them to provide for themselves as opportunities arise in future. No No
7.2.2.14 Noise Construction activities will take place over a period of 5-6 years and during this time it is anticipated that the noise resulting from construction vehicles, machinery and earthworks may impact on the permanent staff working at Pelindaba. Construction activities during the night hours may also lead to disruption of the peace in the surrounding areas, and should therefore be confined to normal working hours. Noise will have LOW negative significance.
Noise
Impact
Alternative
All Alternatives
Impact
Mitigation
No
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
2
3
4
3
27
Yes Negative 1 3 2 3 18 Construction activities should be limited to normal working hours (08:00-17:00). All personnel working on site should be informed of the proposed construction schedule.
Mitigation Measures
• •
Cumulative Impact
None
Reversibility
No
PILR
No
Low Low
7.2.2.15 Impacts on Existing Effluent System The proposed project has the overall objective of further improving the current workings of the effluent treatment infrastructure on site. During construction of the new facilities and upgrade of the existing infrastructure, the existing infrastructure may be damaged, which could result in environmental releases. This may impact on the working of the existing effluent systems and lead to a disruption of operations at Pelindaba. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures should reduce the significance of the impact to LOW negative.
Impacts on the Existing Effluent System
Impact
Alternative
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
1
3
6
3
30
Medium
Medium
Negative
1
3
2
3
18
Low
Low
All Alternatives
• Mitigation Measures
Impact
Mitigation
• •
Detailed plans and layouts should be made available to all contractors to familiarise themselves with the existing services on site. Contingency plans should be put in place to ensure that tenants and operations on site are disrupted as little as possible. Where existing faulty infrastructure is encountered, this should be investigated and repaired as soon as reasonably possible.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
75
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Cumulative Impact
None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.2.16 Impacts on Existing Services and Production In abnormal circumstances, construction activities may damage the existing services (communications, potable water, electricity) on the Pelindaba site and so influence the efficient operation of the Pelindaba operations.
Implementation of the recommended
mitigation measures should reduce the significance of the impact to LOW negative.
Impacts on Existing Services and Production
Impact
Mitigation Measures
Cumulative Impact
Alternative
Impact
Mitigation
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
1
3
6
3
Medium All Alternatives
No
30
Low Yes Negative 1 3 2 3 18 • Detailed plans and layouts should be made available to all contractors to familiarise themselves with the existing services on site. • Contingency plans should be put in place to ensure that tenants and operations on site are disrupted as little as possible. • Where existing faulty infrastructure is encountered, this should be investigated and repaired as soon as reasonably possible. None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.2.17 Visual Impact The construction activities will take place over a period of 5-6 years. Natural features, such as vegetation and game are well established on the site and create a pleasant environment for staff and visitors. It is anticipated that lengthy construction activities will detract from this and possibly result in a less visually stimulating environment. This impact is mainly restricted to the site (unlikely to affect the general public) and with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures this impact is anticipated to be of LOW negative significance.
Visual Impact
Impact
Alternative
All Alternatives
Impact
Mitigation
No
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
1
3
4
4
32
Medium
Low Yes Negative 1 3 2 4 24 Where construction takes place, the site should be kept in a tidy condition, free from unnecessary litter and rubble. • Waste should be removed from the site on a regular basis. • Rehabilitation of the disturbed natural areas should commence as soon as possible after construction activities in a particular area has been completed. None •
Mitigation Measures Cumulative Impact
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
76
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.2.18 Pressure on Social Structures (Migrant Labour) Construction activities will require a well established work force. The workmanship required may not necessarily be available from the local communities and result in workers being sourced from other communities. In addition there may be a likelihood of migrant workers (including unskilled labourers) moving into the area in search of employment. These workers could have an impact on the social structures present in the local communities due to the lengthy period of construction. The threat of HIV/Aids and other STDs may also have an impact on the local community resulting from an influx of migrant labourers to the areas surrounding the Pelindaba site.
With the implementation of the suggested mitigation
measures the significance of the impact can be reduced from MEDIUM negative to LOW negative.
Pressure on Social Structures
Impact
Mitigation Measures Cumulative Impact
Alternative
Impact
Mitigation
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
4
3
6
3
Medium All Alternatives
No
39
Low Yes Negative 3 3 4 2 20 • Employ the same construction workers on the various phases of the project to ensure that they have longer term employment within the area and so reduce the need for temporary labour to be sourced from elsewhere. • Create HIV/AIDS and other STI transmission awareness. None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.2.19 Traffic Although ready access to the construction sites exists through existing well developed internal road infrastructure, access to the greater property occurs through 3 main security controlled gates. The R104, which is the only access road for these gates, is a single lane road that is already in a poor condition. Heavy construction vehicles delivering materials and equipment to the site will lead to further deterioration in the condition of the R104. The R104 is also a popular route for tourists to the surrounding area, with a variety of tourist activities. The presence of a large number of heavy construction vehicles on the road could discourage the tourists from visiting their destinations and thereby impact on the sense of place and economic well-being of the local communities.
The implementation of the suggested
mitigation measures may reduce the significance of this impact from MEDIUM negative to LOW negative.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
77
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Traffic
Impact
Mitigation Measures
Cumulative Impact Reversibility PILR
Alternative
All Alternatives
Impact
Mitigation
No
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
3
2
4
5
45
Medium
Low Yes Negative 2 2 2 4 24 • A detailed Traffic Management Plan should be compiled to ensure that traffic on the roads in the area is disrupted as little as possible. • The traffic management plan should include measures for the optimisation of the amount of travel on the local roads, thereby reducing the impact on the local road infrastructure. • The delivery of construction material and equipment should be limited to hours outside peak traffic times (including weekends) prevailing on the surrounding roads. • Where obvious damage to the road infrastructure has occurred as a result of the project, repairs should be undertaken in accordance with the local municipality specifications and requirements. The presence of a large amount of heavy construction vehicles on the road could discourage the tourists on from visiting their destination and thereby impact on the sense of place and economic well-being of the local communities. Yes No
7.2.2.20 Loss of Potential Heritage Resources During an assessment of the possible heritage features on the proposed site by UNISA (Appendix G), no Stone Age or Iron Age settlements, structures, features or artefacts were recorded. A possible stone walled redoubt or sangar, associated with the South African War (1899-1902) was recorded. The structure will not be affected by the trajectory/routes of the pipeline. Construction activities could damage potential heritage resources located on the site, but which are currently unknown (e.g. buried artefacts). With the implementation of the suggested mitigation measures, it is anticipated that the significance of the impact could be changed from LOW negative to MEDIUM positive as an additional heritage feature would be protected.
Loss of Potential Heritage Resources
Impact
Mitigation Measures Cumulative Impact
Alternative
Impact
Mitigation
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
1
4
4
2
Low All Alternatives
No
18
Medium Yes Positive 1 5 4 5 50 • The new heritage feature identified in the HIA should be protected and fenced off. • Should archaeological artefacts or skeletal material be revealed in the area during construction activities, such activities should be halted, and a university or museum notified in order for an investigation and evaluation of the find(s) to take place. None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.3 Operational Phase Impacts 7.2.3.1 Impact on Aquatic Fauna and Flora Overall, it is anticipated that this infrastructure upgrade will lead to more efficient treatment of effluent. The effluent being discharged to the river will be of better quality and so improve EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
78
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
the habitat for aquatic organisms. It is anticipated that this impact will be of LOW positive significance.
Impact on Aquatic Fauna and Flora
Impact
Mitigation Measures Cumulative Impact Reversibility PILR
Alternative
Impact
Mitigation
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Positive
3
3
2
2
Low All Alternatives
No
16
Low Yes Positive 3 3 2 3 24 • Regular inspections and maintenance of the infrastructure and processes to ensure the structures remain intact and the effluent discharged remains within the specified limits. • The concept of continual improvement should at all times be strived for. None Yes No
7.2.3.2 Ground and Surface Water Pollution Unanticipated events may lead to damage to the pipelines conveying effluent to the treatment facilities, resulting in releases to the ground and surface water. Chemical holding facilities may rupture and increase possible spillages to the natural environment.
The
likelihood of this occurring in the operational phase will be significantly less than is currently the case, due to the upgrading of the effluent management system and the visibility of and increased access for maintenance of the pipelines. Out of specification effluent discharges, while still a possibility, will also be greatly reduced. Overall, this impact is anticipated to be positive in nature in comparison to existing circumstances and of LOW significance.
Ground and Surface Water Pollution
Impact
Alternative
All Alternatives
•
• • • • • Mitigation Measures
•
•
•
Impact
Mitigation
No
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Positive
2
2
2
2
12
Low
Low Yes Positive 2 2 4 2 16 Monitoring of the different Options and Pipeline Routes. This can be achieved through the monitoring of boreholes situated around the different Options as well the boreholes closest to the pipeline routes. Pipeline routes should be inspected on a regular basis to ensure that they are leak free. Regular maintenance inspections of pipelines will counter possible breaks. Operational equipment should be tested and calibrated on a regular basis. Detailed operating procedures must be implemented in an effort to negate most probable discharges from treatment plants. Correct operation, sufficient bunding and detailed emergency response procedures should negate all impacts from possible holding facility ruptures. Relevant monitoring equipment must be serviced and calibrated regularly and in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Road crossing Alternative – overhead pipe racks: o Adequate signage must be provided to warn road users of the presence of the overhead pipe racks and the applicable height clearances. o The pipe racks must be of sufficient height in order to provide adequate space for any vehicles that may pass underneath it. Road crossing Alternative – culverts: o The culverts must have adequate capacity in order to contain any spillage before the leak detection and shut off system is activated.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
79
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Cumulative Impact
None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.3.3 Downstream Water Quality It is anticipated that water quality downstream from Pelindaba will improve due to the more efficient treatment of the effluent before it is discharged to river. The improved water quality will improve the situation of other downstream users of the water resource. Although this impact is of a positive nature, the significance is anticipated to be LOW due to the fact that the improvement in water quality will be relatively small when comparing the current water quality of the receiving water resources.
Downstream Water Quality
Impact
Mitigation Measures Cumulative Impact Reversibility PILR
Alternative
Impact
Mitigation
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Positive
2
2
2
2
Low All Alternatives
No
12
None The increased water quality will result in a more suitable habitat for aquatic fauna and flora. The increased water quality is likely to contribute to a reduction in the nutrient loading of the downstream water resources (such as the Hartbeespoort Dam) resulting in a possible reduction in the frequency and magnitude of Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB) that frequent these resources. Less HABs and better water quality will lead to a more aesthetically pleasing environment for the receiving water resources. Yes No
7.2.3.4 Increased Water Use Efficiency The increased use of water treated on site for process water will reduce the demand for water from the natural resources and possibly lead to an increase in the quality and quantity of water available to downstream users. This impact is anticipated to be of LOW positive significance.
Increased Water Use Efficiency
Impact
Mitigation Measures
Alternative
All Alternatives • •
Impact
Mitigation
No
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Positive
2
2
2
2
Yes Positive 2 2 4 2 Investigate measures to further improve the water use efficiency on site. Strive towards a zero release philosophy.
Cumulative Impact
None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
12 16
Low Low
80
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
7.2.3.5 Impact on the Movement of Terrestrial Fauna The pipelines may have an impact on the free movement of larger animals (e.g. Zebra) present on the site. However, it is recommended that the pipelines are constructed at a height sufficient to allow for the adequate movement of these larger animals on the site and it is therefore anticipated that this impact will be improbable, resulting in a LOW negative significance.
Impact on the Movement of Terrestrial Fauna
Impact
Alternative
Impact
Mitigation
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
1
3
2
1
Low All Pipeline Alternatives
No
6
Ensure that pipelines do not form a continuous barrier to large mammal movements.
Mitigation Measures
•
Cumulative Impact
None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.3.6 Disposal of Treatment Waste An increased efficiency in treatment of the effluent may result in an increased amount of treatment waste that needs to be disposed of at registered (hazardous) waste disposal facilities. This impact will have a LOW negative significance.
Waste Disposal
Impact
Mitigation Measures
Cumulative Impact
Alternative
Impact
Mitigation
All Process Alternatives
No
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
2
4
2
2
16
Low
Low Yes Negative 2 4 2 3 24 • Revised waste management procedures and activities must be developed and implemented to accommodate the increased volume of sludge to handle. This must include correct disposal of sludge (depending on the hazard class) to either local registered waste disposal sites, or in the case of sewage sludge, preferred fertiliser use (on condition that the necessary licensing is obtained). • Mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that effluent generators comply with the internal WAC and thereby reduce the risk of overloading the capacity of the treatment works. • Effluent that does not comply with the internal WAC should be disposed of at a registered hazardous waste disposal facility by the effluent generator. • The use of treated process water for irrigation purposes must comply with the relevant DWAF conditions including the specifications applicable to a general authorisation or alternatively the conditions of a wateruse licence. None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.3.7 Nuisance Due to Odours The new sewage treatment facilities could lead to odours resulting from sewage treatment. Since the changes to the treatment infrastructure will result in the sewage merely being EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
81
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
treated at a different location and the amount of sewage treated not necessarily being increased, it is anticipated that this impact will be neutral in nature and of LOW significance.
Odour Nuisance
Impact
Alternative
No
All Process Alternatives
Mitigation Measures
None
Cumulative Impact
None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
Impact
Mitigation
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Neutral
1
3
2
2
12
Low
7.2.3.8 Energy Usage The upgraded treatment facilities and infrastructure will require an increase in electrical energy for the treatment of effluent, at a time when this is a limited resource. The operation of the new treatment facilities is likely to require a significant amount of electricity due to the fact that the treatment processes are energy intensive and the effluent requires pumping over a long distance from Pel-East to Pel-West. With the implementation of the suggested mitigation measures the significance may be reduced to LOW negative from MEDIUM negative.
Energy Usage
Impact
Alternative
All Alternatives
Impact
Mitigation
No
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
3
3
4
4
40
Medium
Cumulative Impact
Low Yes Negative 2 3 2 4 28 • The use of alternative energy sources to augment the operation of the upgraded infrastructure should be investigated and implemented where possible. • The design of the infrastructure should allow for energy efficient processes and materials to be implemented. • Consideration must be given to the option of utilising energy efficient pumping systems. An increase in the amount of energy required from the national grid could contribute to the threat of power cuts as was evident during the recent past.
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
Mitigation Measures
7.2.3.9 Impact on Flora as a Result of a Leak in the System During the operational phase, there may be instances of leaks in the water and effluent system. Depending on the nature of the effluent and the extent of the leak, leaks in the system may have a negative impact on the floral species adjacent to the system. It is understood that a leak detection system will be installed to provide an early warning of possible leakages.
EIMS Project no: 0725
This will greatly reduce the potential impact on the adjacent floral
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
82
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
communities.
It is anticipated that with the implementation of the mitigation measures
prescribed below, a leak event will have a LOW negative status.
Impact on flora as a result of a leak in the system
Impact
Alternative
Cumulative Impact
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
2
4
6
4
Medium All Alternatives
No
48
Low Yes Negative 1 1 2 3 12 Ensure that any leak detection systems are fully operational and regularly serviced and maintained. In the event of leakages being noted, the contaminated area must be cleaned up as soon as possible and the affected area rehabilitated if necessary (in accordance with accepted practice relevant to the specific substance).
• •
Mitigation Measures
Impact
Mitigation
Road crossing Alternative – overhead pipe racks: o Adequate signage must be provided to warn road users of the presence of the overhead pipe racks. o The pipe racks must be of sufficient height in order to provide adequate space for any vehicles that may pass underneath it. • Road crossing Alternative – culverts: o The culverts must have adequate capacity in order to contain any spillage before the leak detection system is activated. None •
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.3.10 Spread of Alien and Invasive Species During the operational phase of the water and effluent system, it is anticipated that there will be minimal disturbances to the natural environment, which will pose a lowered risk for the establishment or spread of alien and invasive species. Based on the current state of the Pelindaba site (numerous alien and invasive species in most locations), there is a potential for the water and effluent servitude to provide a suitable habitat for weedy species. The control of these species within the servitude alone will not have a major impact on the existence of these species across the entire site and therefore it is recommended that the weed eradication program should be reinstated across the entire site to limit the spread of these species. Should this mitigation measure be implemented, it is anticipated that the impact on alien and invasive species can be swung from a MEDIUM negative significance (without mitigation) to a MEDIUM positive impact (with mitigation).
Spread of Alien and Invasive Species
Impact
Alternative
All Alternatives
Impact
Mitigation
No
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
2
4
6
3
36
Medium
Medium Yes Positive 2 4 6 3 36 Reinstate the existing weed eradication program across the entire Pelindaba property (and not just limited to the water and effluent system servitude).
Mitigation Measures
•
Cumulative Impact
None
Reversibility
Yes
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
83
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
PILR
No
7.2.4 Decommissioning Phase Impacts 7.2.4.1 Dust Creation Decommissioning of the effluent treatment infrastructure may lead to an increased amount of airborne particles in the local atmosphere as the infrastructure is dismantled and transported to the disposal site. The significance of this impact will be LOW negative.
Dust Creation
Impact
Alternative
All Alternatives •
Cumulative Impact
None
PILR
No
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
2
1
4
4
Low
28
Yes Negative 2 1 4 3 Use water tankers and irrigation equipment to control dust where necessary.
Mitigation Measures
Reversibility
Impact
Mitigation
Low
21
Yes No
7.2.4.2 Loss of flora The disturbances created during the decommissioning phase will likely lead to a loss of floral species within the working servitude. However, due to the site being surrounded by large areas of natural vegetation, as well as the fact that no sensitive species were recorded on site, it is anticipated that the loss of flora within the working servitude will not result in a disruption to the ecological functioning of the site and surroundings. Due to the loss of species diversity within the working servitude, it is recommended that the disturbed areas be rehabilitated with indigenous species as far as possible and that a weed eradication program is implemented to curb the spread of weedy species following decommissioning.
It is
anticipated that the impact on loss of flora (natural vegetation) will be of LOW negative significance.
Loss of flora
Impact
Mitigation Measures Cumulative Impact Reversibility
Alternative
All Alternatives
Impact
Mitigation
No
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
2
3
6
3
33
Medium
Low Yes Negative 1 2 4 2 14 • The footprint should be limited to the existing disturbed sites where possible or the minimum working servitude required to perform the decommissioning. • Intrusion into surrounding natural vegetation areas should be limited. • Retain large indigenous trees where possible. None Yes
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
84
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
PILR
No
7.2.4.3 Removal/Spread of Alien and Invasive Species Without a weed eradication program, it is anticipated that these species will re-colonize disturbed areas following the decommissioning (and possibly spread into the surroundings) and result in a MEDIUM negative impact. The removal of all remaining aliens will probably occur during the clearing of the built-up areas during decommissioning. This will have a LOW positive impact at the scale of the site due to the relatively high density of exotic species present.
Removal/ Spread of Alien and Invasive Species
Impact
Alternative
Impact
Mitigation
No
All Alternatives
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
2
3
6
4
44
Medium
Low Yes Positive 1 2 2 3 15 A weed eradication program should be implemented during and after decommissioning of the proposed development.
Mitigation Measures
•
Cumulative Impact
None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.4.4 Fauna Disruption With required decommissioning activities certain fauna will be disturbed in their natural habitat, especially in the area of the relatively undisturbed vegetation, adjacent to the pipeline routes and on the rehabilitated areas (disturbed during construction). The significance of this impact will be LOW negative.
Faunal Disruption
Impact
Alternative
All Alternatives
Impact
Mitigation
No
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
1
3
4
3
Yes Negative 1 2 4 3 All disturbed land should be revegetated and infrastructure material removed.
Mitigation Measures
•
Cumulative Impact
None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
24 21
Low Low
7.2.4.5 Soil Erosion The clearing of vegetation, as well as the exposing of soil during decommissioning of treatment facilities and pipelines, may lead to erosion of these surfaces due to rain and wind.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
85
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
It is anticipated that the significance of this impact can be reduced from MEDIUM negative to LOW negative with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
Soil Erosion
Impact
Mitigation Measures Cumulative Impact
Alternative
All Alternatives
Impact
Mitigation
No
Significance
Nature
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
Probability
Negative
1
3
6
3
30
Medium
Low Yes Negative 1 2 6 3 27 • Re-vegetation of disturbed surfaces should be conducted as soon as reasonably possible. • Areas that have not been allocated alternative uses following the decommissioning should be rehabilitated and re-vegetated. None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.4.6 Decommissioning Waste Generation and Sludge Handling Various forms of waste will be generated from old infrastructure and the remaining sludge from holding facilities will need to be removed from the site and disposed of adequately. It is anticipated that this impact will be of LOW negative significance. Impact
Alternative
Impact
Mitigation
Decommissioning Waste Generation and Sludge Handling
Nature
Extent
Duration
Significance Magnitude
Probability Low
All Alternatives
No
Negative
1
3
4
3
24 Low
Yes Negative 1 2 4 3 21 Personnel must be well versed in the relevant existing waste management procedures and activities on site. • This will include sorting of waste types and correct disposal to either recycling facilities, local registered waste disposal sites, and in extreme cases to registered hazardous waste disposal sites. • Recovered sludge from sewage treatment plant will be useful as fertiliser with the extent of land rehabilitation required (on condition that relevant permitting and licensing requirements are met). None •
Mitigation Measures
Cumulative Impact Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.2.4.7 Surface and Groundwater Pollution During the decommissioning phase certain spillages may occur when existing infrastructure is removed from the site and the existing piping systems are dismantled. It is anticipated that the significance rating can be reduced with the implementation of mitigation measures to LOW negative. Impact
Alternative
Impact
Mitigation Nature
EIMS Project no: 0725
Extent
Duration
Significance Magnitude
Probability
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
86
Surface and Ground Water Pollution
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Mitigation Measures
Cumulative Impact
All Alternatives
Negative
3
2
6
4
44
Medium
Low Yes Negative 3 2 4 3 27 • Care must be exercised when infrastructure is removed and/or piping systems are dismantled, ensuring that systems are correctly drained as far as possible beforehand. • Monitoring of the different decommissioning sites and pipeline routes by the monitoring of boreholes situated around the decommissioning site and the boreholes closest to the pipeline routes. The pipeline routes should also be inspected on a regular basis to ensure that they are leak free. None
Reversibility
Yes
PILR
No
7.3
No
Comparative assessment of Alternatives based on overall significance ratings
Table 16 provides a summary of the significance ratings of all the identified impacts after the successful implementation of mitigation measures, based on the findings in Section 7.2. Table 16 illustrates the following: •
In terms of the three process alternatives presented in this EIAR, no clear alternative could be identified in terms of the significance ratings, as the overall alternative ratings for all of the alternatives were exactly the same. Therefore, it can be stated that, from an environmental perspective alone, any of these alternatives could be followed. However, as mentioned in Section 4.1, Option 8 was identified as the preferred technical option due to the fact that this option received the best rating in terms of the criteria described in Section 4.1, as well as the facilitation of operational control at one central facility.
•
In terms of the proposed pipeline route alternatives, no clear preferred alternative has emerged as a result of the significance ratings, due to the fact that the overall significance ratings were also exactly the same. Therefore, as was the case for the process alternatives presented, it can be stated that any of the pipeline alternatives could be followed.
•
In terms of the proposed road crossing alternatives it is anticipated that these alternatives will only result in impacts during the operational phase of the project.
It is further
anticipated that should the proposed mitigation measures as mentioned in sections 7.2.3.2 and 7.2.3.9 be implemented, that there will be little difference in the significance rating of these alternatives and that either of the two alternatives can be used. The alternative of overhead pipe racks would however, according to the applicant, be more cost effective. •
The summation of the significance ratings for each of the combined sewage/industrial effluent treatment facility sites showed that the preferred site (located on the existing parking area) will be the best alternative from an environmental perspective.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
This 87
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
resulted largely from the smaller anticipated significance of impacts during the construction phase, when the preparation of this site would have a smaller impact on the receiving environment.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
88
36 -21 -14 15 -21 -27
36 -21 -14 15 -21 -27 -21 -27
Impact on Aquatic Fauna and Flora Ground and Surface Water Pollution Impact on the Movement of Terrestrial Fauna Downstream Water Quality Increased Water Use Efficiency Waste Disposal Odour Nuisance Energy Usage Impact on flora as a result of a leak in the system Spread of Alien and Invasive Species Dust Creation Loss of flora Removal/ Spread of Alien and Invasive Species Faunal Disruption Soil Erosion
Decommissioning Waste Generation and Sludge Handling
Surface and Ground Water Pollution
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
50 24 16 0 12 16 -24 12 -28 -12
50 24 16 0 12 16 -24 12 -28 -12
Loss of Potential Heritage Resources
-20
-27
-21
-24
-20
-24
-24
Visual Impact
-18 -18
Traffic
-24
Impacts on Existing Services and Production
-18
40
-16
-18
-22
-18
Pressure on Social Structures
-18 -18
Impacts on the Existing Effluent System
40 -18
-16
Geotechnical Stability
Noise
-18
Surface and Groundwater Pollution Interconnection Spillages
Job Creation
-22
Surface and Groundwater Pollution - Construction Spillages
-27
-27 -18
Soil Erosion
Construction Waste Generation
-14
-14
Fire Hazards
15 -21
15 -21
-5
-5
Dust Creation
-10
-10
Loss of Biodiversity Loss of Species with Medicinal Value
35 -14
89
-211
Option 7
35 -14
-211
Option 1
Job Creation Loss of Flora
Impact
Removal/ Spread of Alien and Invasive species
Total Significance Rating
Decommissioning
Operational
Construction
Planning and Design
Phase
Table 16: Impact Significance Summary Table (after mitigation)
-27
-21
36 -21 -14 15 -21 -27
50 24 16 0 12 16 -24 12 -28 -12
-24
-20
-24
-18
-18
-18
40
-16
-18
-22
-18
-27
-14
-21
15
-5
-10
35 -14
-211
Option 8
-27
-21
36 -21 -14 15 -21 -27
50 24 16 -6 12 16 0 0 -28 -12
-24
-20
-24
-18
-18
-18
40
-16
-18
-22
-18
-27
-14
-21
15
-5
-10
35 -14
-205
Pipeline Route Alternative 1
-27
-21
36 -21 -14 15 -21 -27
50 24 16 -6 12 16 0 0 -28 -12
-24
-20
-24
-18
-18
-18
40
-16
-18
-22
-18
-27
-14
-21
15
-5
-10
35 -14
Pipeline Route Alternative 2
Significance Rating
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
-205
-27
-21
36 -21 -14 15 -21 -27
50 24 16 0 12 16 -24 12 -28 -12
-24
-20
-24
-18
-18
-18
40
-16
-18
-22
-22
-21
-14
-21
15
-3
-6
35 -10
-199
Combined Treatment Facility Alternative 1
-27
-21
36 -21 -14 15 -21 -27
50 24 16 0 12 16 -24 12 -28 -12
-24
-20
-24
-18
-18
-18
40
-16
-18
-22
-18
-27
-14
-21
15
-5
-10
35 -14
-211
Combined Treatment Facility Alternative 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
8.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
Regulation 32 (2)(o) of GN R. 385 requires that an EIAR must contain an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) that complies with Regulation 34 of GN R. 385. The purpose of an EMP is to: •
provide information on the proposed management/mitigation measures that will be taken to address the environmental impacts that have been identified in the EIAR in respect of all the phases of the project (i.e. the planning and design, construction, operation and decommissioning);
•
provide a detailed description of the aspects of the activity that are covered by the EMP;
•
provide an identification of the persons who will be responsible for the implementation of the mitigation/management measures;
•
provide the time periods within which the measures contemplated in the EMP must be implemented; and
•
provide the mechanisms for monitoring compliance with the EMP and reporting thereon.
An EMP for all the activities relating to this project has been compiled and is included in Appendix I. 9.
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
It is assumed that all information provided by the applicant and the technical team, which informed the environmental consultants, is reliable, accurate and up to date. It is also assumed that the applicant will comply with all legislation pertaining to the activities of this proposed project and that all permits and licences that may be required will be identified and applied for prior to commencement of construction activities. 10.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed Water and Effluent Collection and Treatment Infrastructure Upgrade requires environmental authorisation from DEAT. During the conceptual design the need for additional treatment facilities became apparent as a result of a number of factors including: 1) poor condition of current underground effluent piping, 2) the liability with regard to the clean-up and rehabilitation of potential environmental releases, 3) the treatment of effluent previously evaporated, and 4) the need for more effective treatment of effluent in the light of future legislative standards.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
90
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Several alternatives were identified during the planning and design phase of this project and these have been investigated and comparatively assessed in greater detail during the EIA phase. Despite the fact that the proposed Water and Effluent Collection and Treatment Infrastructure Upgrade is a pro-active initiative to limit possible future environmental impacts, the planning and design, construction, operational and decommissioning phases are likely to pose risks to the local and surrounding environment due to the scale of the activities and the nature of the effluent being conveyed and treated. During the EIA phase, several specialist studies were undertaken in order to determine the impact of the proposed infrastructure upgrade on the environment. The following specialist studies have been conducted: •
Environmental Risk Analysis
•
Heritage Impact Assessment
•
Geotechnical Investigation
•
Hydrological Assessment
•
Ecological Assessment.
EIMS and the specialist studies identified the impacts as listed in Table 15. Each of the impacts identified was assessed and given a significance rating as stated in Section 7. Regarding the significance of the impacts identified, the following can be concluded: •
During the Planning and Design Phase only one impact was identified – Job creation – and it is anticipated that this will have a MEDIUM positive significance.
•
The majority of the impacts anticipated to occur during the Construction Phase will have either a MEDIUM or LOW negative significance rating that can be reduced to a LOW negative rating with the successful implementation of the suggested mitigation measures.
•
The Removal/ Spread of Alien and Invasive species and Loss of Potential Heritage Resources anticipated to occur during the Construction Phase, will have negative effects on the environment with no mitigation measures and will have positive effects on the environment with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
•
Several positive impacts (with mitigation measures) are anticipated to occur during the Operational Phase and these include: Impact on Aquatic Fauna and Flora, Downstream Water Quality, Increased Water Use Efficiency, Spread of Alien and Invasive Species and Ground and Surface Water Pollution.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
91
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
•
The negative impacts anticipated to occur during the Operational Phase will all be of LOW significance with the implementation of the suggested mitigation measures.
•
During the Decommissioning Phase it is anticipated that all of the impacts that will occur will have a LOW negative impact on the environment after the implementation of mitigation measures.
From the comparative assessment of the alternatives, derived from the summation of the significance ratings, it was concluded that any of the proposed process alternatives would be suitable from an environmental perspective. Similarly, it was also concluded that any one of the two pipeline routes could be followed. When comparing the different locations for the proposed combined sewage/industrial effluent plant it was concluded that, according to the results of the overall significance rating, the preferred site would be best suited from an environmental perspective. The Environmental Risk Assessment (Appendix H) carried out also concluded the following with regard to these alternatives: “For Option 8 two sites were identified for construction of the new combined industrial effluent/sewage treatment plant, namely either the old parking area west of P2400 or an area identified on the southern side of P2400. However, after assessing the two areas during the site visit of 24 February it is recommended that the parking area will be the better site as the site on the southern side is on an elevated area above the substation situated southwest of P2400, with its associated risks of any spillages or plant ruptures gravitating directly down towards the substation.” Therefore, it is recommended that this infrastructure upgrade be approved due to the fact that the impacts identified will have LOW negative (i.e. where this impact would not have a direct influence on the decision to develop in the area) or LOW to MEDIUM positive impacts on the environment. The most suitable alternative would be a combination of the Option 8 process alternative with the preferred location (Site 1) for the combined sewage/industrial effluent treatment facility and any of the proposed pipeline route alternatives. Table 17 presents a list of the recommended mitigation measures per impact identified. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into the appended EMP where relevant.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
92
EIMS Project no: 0725
Construction
Phase
Pollution
Surface and Groundwater Interconnection Spillages
–
–
Mitigation Measures
93
Treatment Facility Alternatives: • Vegetation clearing should be limited as far as possible, in order to minimise the footprint of the proposed facility. • Re-vegetation of disturbed surfaces or implementing other covering measures (paving etc) should be conducted as soon as reasonably possible. • Contracting personnel must be well versed in the relevant existing waste management procedures and activities on site at present. • Waste management procedures must be developed and implemented and must include: sorting of waste types and correct disposal to either recycling facilities, local registered waste disposal sites, and in extreme cases to registered hazardous waste disposal sites. • Potential hazardous materials used during the construction phase (including cements and solvents) must be housed under cover (where practical) and utilising bunded areas where necessary. • All reasonable efforts must be taken to prevent potential spills of these substances, • Adequate supervision should be present during the interconnection activities. • Spill kits must be made available and the correct procedures followed during the cleanup of spills. • All reasonable efforts must be taken to prevent potential spills of these substances, • Foundations should be taken down, where necessary, to the dense and better or stiff to very stiff residual shale or onto the very soft rock shale, depending on the loading requirements of the proposed structures. • It is suggested that the maximum allowable bearing pressures of 250 kPa and 600k Pa are used for foundations founded on dense to very stiff residual shale and very soft rock shale, respectively. • It is also recommended that foundations be inspected by a geotechnical specialist prior to casting during the construction phase, to ensure that foundations are placed on or in the correct material. • Where possible, local labour should be used for construction activities. • Training programmes could be instated to facilitate skill transfer to local contractors and labourers. • Construction activities should be limited to normal working hours (08:00-17:00). • All personnel working on site should be informed of the proposed construction schedule. • Detailed plans and layouts should be made available to all contractors to familiarise themselves with the existing services on site. • Contingency plans should be put in place to ensure that tenants and operations on site are disrupted as little as possible. • Where existing faulty infrastructure is encountered, this should be investigated and repaired as soon as reasonably possible. • Detailed plans and layouts should be made available to all contractors to familiarise themselves with the existing services on site. • Contingency plans should be put in place to ensure that tenants and operations on site are disrupted as little as possible. • Where existing faulty infrastructure is encountered, this should be investigated and repaired as soon as reasonably possible. • Where construction takes place, the site should be kept in a tidy condition, free from unnecessary litter and rubble. • Waste should be removed from the site on a regular basis. • Rehabilitation of the disturbed natural areas should commence as soon as possible after construction activities in a particular area have been completed. • Employ the same construction workers on the various phases of the project to ensure that they have longer term employment within the area and so reduce the need for temporary labour to be sourced from elsewhere. • Create HIV/AIDS and other STD transmission awareness. • A detailed Traffic Management Plan should be compiled to ensure that traffic on the roads in the area is disrupted as little as possible. • The traffic management plan should include measures for the optimisation of the amount of travel on the local roads, thereby reducing the impact on the local road infrastructure. • The delivery of construction material and equipment should be limited to hours outside peak traffic times (including weekends) prevailing on the surrounding roads. • Where obvious damage to the road infrastructure has occurred as a result of the project, repairs should be undertaken in accordance with the local municipality specifications and requirements. • The new heritage feature identified in the HIA should be protected and fenced off.
• The development footprint should be limited to the existing disturbed sites where possible or the minimum working servitude required to perform this upgrade. • Intrusion into surrounding natural vegetation areas should be limited. • Retain large indigenous trees where possible. • Retain large indigenous trees where possible. • Introduce a weed eradication programme to remove exotic species and to prevent the spread thereof. • Promote the use of indigenous species during landscaping in and around the buildings. • Minimise the construction footprint as far as possible. • Retain indigenous medicinal species where possible. • Minimise the working servitude as far as possible. • A weed eradication program should be implemented during and after construction of the proposed development. • Use water tankers and irrigation equipment to control dust. • Contracting personnel must be well versed in the relevant existing fire and safety management procedures and activities on site at present. • Implement suitable material storage practices. • Implement fire hazard sensitive on- and offloading procedures; • Designate a site safety official and ensure that personnel are adequately trained regarding fire hazards and procedures. Pipeline Route alternatives: • The pipeline(s) in the relatively undisturbed vegetated lower hill area should be above ground as far as possible to have minimal impact on animal life residing in these areas.
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Loss of Potential Heritage Resources
Traffic
Pressure on Social Structures (Migrant Labour)
Visual Impact
Impacts on Existing Services and Production
Impacts on Existing Effluent System
Noise
Job Creation
Geotechnical Stability
Pollution
Surface and Groundwater Construction Spillages
Construction Waste Generation
Soil Erosion
Faunal Disruption
Fire Hazards
Removal/Spread of Alien Invasive Species Dust Creation
Loss of Species with Medicinal Value
Loss of Biodiversity
Loss of Flora
Impacts
Table 17: Summary of the Recommended Mitigation Measures
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
EIMS Project no: 0725
Decommissioning
Operation
Phase
• •
•
• • • • • • • • • • • •
•
•
• • • • •
• •
•
• • • • •
•
•
• • • • • •
• •
•
•
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Surface and Groundwater Pollution
Decommissioning Waste Generation and Sludge Handling
Soil Erosion
Removal/Spread of Alien and Invasive Species Fauna Disruption
Loss of Flora
Spread of Alien and Invasive Species Dust Creation
Impact on Flora as a Result of a Leak in the System
Energy Usage
Disposal of Treatment Waste
Impact on the Movement of Terrestrial Fauna
Increased Water Use Efficiency
Ground and Surface Water Pollution
Impact on Aquatic Fauna and Flora
Impacts
94
Reinstate the existing weed eradication program across the entire Pelindaba property (and not just limited to the water and effluent system servitude). Use water tankers and irrigation equipment to control dust where necessary. The footprint should be limited to the existing disturbed sites where possible or the minimum working servitude required to perform the decommissioning. Intrusion into surrounding natural vegetation areas should be limited. Retain large indigenous trees where possible. A weed eradication program should be implemented during and after construction of the proposed development. All disturbed land should be revegetated and infrastructure material removed. Re-vegetation of disturbed surfaces should be conducted as soon as reasonably possible. Areas that have not been allocated alternative uses following the decommissioning should be rehabilitated and re-vegetated. Personnel must be well versed in the relevant existing waste management procedures and activities on site. This will include sorting of waste types and correct disposal to either recycling facilities, local registered waste disposal sites, and in extreme cases to registered hazardous waste disposal sites. Recovered sludge from sewage treatment plant will be useful as fertiliser with the extent of land rehabilitation required (on condition that relevant permitting and licensing requirements are met). Care must be exercised when infrastructure is removed and/or piping systems are dismantled, ensuring that systems are correctly drained as far as possible beforehand. Monitoring of the different decommissioning sites and pipeline routes by the monitoring of boreholes situated around the decommissioning site and the boreholes closest to the pipeline routes. The pipeline routes should also be inspected on a regular basis to ensure that they are leak free.
Road crossing Alternative – overhead pipe racks: o Adequate signage must be provided to warn road users of the presence of the overhead pipe racks. o The pipe racks must be of sufficient height in order to provide adequate space for any vehicles that may pass underneath it. Road crossing Alternative – culverts: The culverts must have adequate capacity in order to contain any spillage before the leak detection system is activated.
Investigate measures to further improve the water use efficiency on site. Strive towards a zero release philosophy. Ensure that pipelines do not form a continuous barrier to large mammal movements. Revised waste management procedures and activities must be developed and implemented to accommodate the increased volume of sludge to handle. This must include correct disposal of sludge (depending on the hazard class) to either local registered waste disposal sites, or in the case of sewage sludge, preferred fertiliser use (on condition that the necessary licensing is obtained). Mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that effluent generators comply with the internal WAC and thereby reduce the risk of overloading the capacity of the treatment works. Effluent that does not comply with the internal WAC should be disposed of at a registered hazardous waste disposal facility by the effluent generator. The use of treated process water for irrigation purposes must comply with the relevant DWAF conditions including the specifications applicable to a general authorisation or alternatively the conditions of a water-use licence. The use of alternative energy sources to augment the operation of the upgraded infrastructure should be investigated and implemented where possible. The design of the infrastructure should allow for energy efficient processes and materials to be implemented. Consideration must be given to the option of utilising energy efficient pumping systems. Ensure that any leak detection systems are fully operational and regularly serviced and maintained. In the event of leakages noted, the contaminated area must be cleaned up as soon as possible and the affected area rehabilitated if necessary (in accordance with accepted practice relevant to the specific substance).
Road crossing Alternative – overhead pipe racks: o Adequate signage must be provided to warn road users of the presence of the overhead pipe racks. o The pipe racks must be of sufficient height in order to provide adequate space for any vehicles that may pass underneath it. Road crossing Alternative – culverts: The culverts must have adequate capacity in order to contain any spillage before the leak detection system is activated.
Should archaeological artefacts or skeletal material be revealed in the area during construction activities, such activities should be halted, and a university or museum notified in order for an investigation and evaluation of the find(s) to take place. Regular inspections and maintenance of the infrastructure and processes to ensure the structures remain intact and the effluent discharged remains within the specified limits. The concept of continual improvement should at all times be strived for. Monitoring of the different Options and Pipeline Routes. This can be achieved through the monitoring of boreholes situated around the different Options as well the boreholes closest to the pipeline routes. Pipeline routes should be inspected on a regular basis to ensure that they are leak free. Regular maintenance inspections of pipelines will counter possible breaks. Operational equipment should be tested and calibrated on a regular basis. Detailed operating procedures must be implemented in an effort to negate most probable discharges from treatment plants. Correct operation, sufficient bunding and detailed emergency response procedures should negate all impacts from possible holding facility ruptures. Relevant monitoring equipment must be serviced and calibrated regularly and in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.
Mitigation Measures
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
11.
REFERENCE LIST
Acocks, J.P.H. 1988 Veld types of South Africa. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa 57: 1-146. (An update of the first edition, published in 1953). Andersen. N.J., Ingram, B. and Andreoli, M.G. 2001. The Geology of the Pelindaba. Report No. GEA-1520. Carruthers, V. 1990. The Magaliesberg. Southern Book Publishers, Johannesburg. Greyling, T. (1999) Towards Managing Environmental Disputes: Appropriate Public Participation. Prepared for Conference on Environmental Dispute Resolution 10-11 June 1998, Fourways, Gauteng, Manyaka Greyling Meiring (Pty) Ltd, South Africa. Henderson, L.: 2001, ‘Alien Weeds And Invasive plants.’ ARC LNR. Paarl Print. Cape Town. ISBN 1-86849-192-7. Howard, M., Mangold, S. and Mpambane, S. 2002. Part 4 Key environmental issues in the North West Province, North-West State of the Environment Report. Kleynhans, C.J. 1999. Procedure for desktop estimate of the water quantity component of the ecological reserve, for use in the national water balance. DWAF, Pretoria. North-West Parks and Tourism Board. 2008. THE BOJANALA REGION OF THE NORTH WEST PROVINCE. [Web: http://www.tourismnorthwest.co.za/bojanala/ Accessed: 16 November 2008]. Levin, M., Raath, K., Groenewald, L., and Erasmus, D. (1997). Addendum to report of the area surrounding the evaporation ponds on the Pelindaba site. Africon, Civil Geotechnical and Environmental Division, Report No. 53205/G3/97 GEA-1217. Low, A.B. and Rebelo, A.G. (eds) 1998 Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Dept. Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria. Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds). 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. ISBN 9781-919976-21-1. Municipal Demarcation Board (MDB). 2001. Population Information Madibeng Ward 29. [Web: http://www.demarcation.org.za Accessed: 7 July 2008]. Necsa. 2007. Site Description: Pelindaba Site. Necsa Pelindaba, SHEQ Department. Parsons, R. 1995. A South African Aquifer System Management. Classification. Water Research Commission Report No. KV 77/95.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
95
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD
SA
Venues.
2008.
North
West
Province
Climate.
[Web:
http://www.sa-
venues.com/weather/northwest.htm Accessed: 15 September 2008]. Walmsley, J.J., R.D. Walmsley & M.J. Silberbauer. 1999. Chapter 3: Inland Water Resources. In: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), National State of the Environment Report. Tswelopele Environmental. 2005. Final Scoping Report. The extension of the Thabana Pipe Store Facility (PSF) at the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation, Pelindaba. Tswelopele Environmental (Pty) Ltd. Van Oudtshoorn, F.
1999.
Guide to Grasses of Southern Africa. First edition, Briza
Publications, Pretoria. Van Wyk, B-E, Van Oudtshoorn, B. & Gericke, N.: 1997, ‘Medicinal Plants of South Africa.’ First edition, Briza Publications, Pretoria. Van Wyk, E. & Van Oudtshoorn, F.: 1999, ‘Guide to Grasses of Southern Africa.’ First edition, Briza Publications, Pretoria. Van Wyk, B. & Van Wyk, P.: 1997, ‘Field Guide to Trees of Southern Africa.’ First edition, Struik Publishers, Cape Town. Zitholele Consulting. 2007. Necsa Pelindaba Water and Effluent Infrastructure: Workshop 2 – Development and Screening of Alternative Wastewater/Effluent, Collection and Treatment Options. Report No. 8302/8603/1/W/Z. Zitholele Consulting. 2007. Pelindaba Necsa Effluent Management Basis of the Design for Effluent Collection, Conveyance and Treatment Report. Report No. 8244/8745/5/Z.
EIMS Project no: 0725
Water & Effluent Infrastructure Upgrade Project
96
