station
4 May 2007
The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Mr Marthinus van
Schalkwyk, has considered the appeals lodged against the Department's decision
to grant an environmental authorisation for the proposed construction of
Eskom's 4 800 MW Coal Fired Station and associated infrastructure project near
Lephalale in the Limpopo province.
After evaluating all the appeals and relevant information submitted to him,
the Minister has come to a decision, a copy of which is attached hereto.
Appeal decision
Construction of the proposed Eskom Holdings Limited Generation Division 4
800 MW coal fired power station and associated infrastructure near the
Lephalale area, Limpopo province (Matimba B)
1. Introduction
The Director-General of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
(DEAT), in terms of section 22 of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989, read
with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations published in Government
Notice No R1183 of 5 September 1997, issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the
4 800MW Coal Fired Power Station (the Matimba B power station) and associated
infrastructure near the Lephalale area, Limpopo Province on 21 September 2006.
The decision was appealed against and the Appellants in this matter have
requested that the Director-General's decision be revisited on appeal.
2. Background
2.1 The development that is the subject of this appeal entails the
construction of a 4 800 MW Coal Fired Station and associated infrastructure to
be constructed near Lephalale in the Limpopo province.
2.2 The listed activities that relate to this matter are, inter alia:
- The construction of a 4 800MW coal fired power station near Lephalale, on
approximately 700ha of the farm Naauwontkomen 509LQ.
- The installation of ancillary infrastructure including the ashing facility on
500-1 000ha of the farm Eenzaamheid 687 LQ.
- The construction of a conveyor belt for coal supply on the eastern
alignment.
- The re-routing of the Steenbokpan Road to the northern alternative.
- The construction of the overland ash conveyor belt.
3. Appeals
3.1 Appeals in terms of section 35(3) of the Environment Conservation Act
(ECA), 1989 were received from Dr M Berry, representing Mmabolela Estate; Mr R
Worthington, a member of Earthlife Africa and the co-ordinator of the
Johannesburg Branch of this organisation and Ivan Pauw Attorneys acting on
behalf the MW de Jager Kinder Trust, the owner of the Farms Nooigedaccht,
Vlakvallei and Mr MW de Jager, in his personal capacity and in his capacity as
owner of Landelani Game Lodge and MW de Jager Safari's collectively referred to
as the De Jager family.
3.2 A fourth submission was received from Dr G De Beer of the LDEDET from
the Directorate: Biodiversity Planning and Development. This appeal was
received late, but the consultant/s have nevertheless provided a response to
this late "appeal" in the documentation before me.
3.3 Certain grounds of appeal emerged from the above appeals that could
broadly be categorised, in my view, as follows:
(a) dissatisfaction around matters related to water and water supply
(b) concerns regarding air quality and the impact of the development in
relation thereto
(c) the impact that the development will have on the Constitutional rights of
some Appellants
(d) the sustainability of the project
(e) the general effects of the development on the environment.
4. Decision
4.1 In reaching my decision, I have considered the information contained in
the following documents:
(a) the record of decision, reference number 12/12/20/695, dated 21
September 2006 and the documents associated therewith
(b) the respective appeals
(c) the proponent's responses to the appeals
(d) the Appellants' reply to the proponent's comments
(e) comments received from the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Chief
Directorate of Integrated Water Resource Planning and DEAT's Chief Directorate:
Air Quality Management.
4.2 In terms of section 35(4) of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act
No 73 of 1989), after considering all the information before me, I have decided
to dismiss the appeals lodged against the decision to allow for the building of
a 4 800MW Coal Fired Power Station (the Matimba B power station) and associated
infrastructure near the Lephalale area, Limpopo province. I am not convinced
that adequate facts were placed before me that warrant the setting aside of the
original Record of Decision of the Director-General. The reasons, for my
decision are, inter alia, as follows:
4.2.1 The environmental impact assessment (EIA) complies with the
requirements of the EIA regulations in force at the time when the decision was
made. The information submitted by the independent environmental consultants is
sufficient and adequate to inform my decision. From the information available,
it is evident that the environmental impacts of the proposed development were
assessed in detail and that appropriate mitigation was proposed where
possible.
4.2.2 I have considered the environmental impacts of the proposed development
and I am satisfied that the issues raised with regard to, inter alia, damage to
ecosystems, water, air quality, pollution and related matters have been
adequately catered for during the evaluation process. Negative environmental
impacts associated with the project can be sufficiently mitigated in my
opinion, provided the conditions contained in the record of decision are
implemented and adhered to. I am also satisfied that various alternatives were
considered during the process and that the decision made in this instance was
correct.
4.2.3 In addition, I am of the view that the need and justification for the
proposed development is evident in that there has been tremendous growth in
electricity demand.
4.2.4 The reasons set out above are not exhaustive and should not be construed
as such and I reserve the right to provide comprehensive reasons for the
decision should this become necessary.
5. General
I have noted there was an activity that relates to the disposal of waste, as
defined in section 20 of the ECA that was applied for by the proponent, but was
not included in the original ROD. In this regard, I direct the department to
consider this activity and to issue a supplementary ROD dealing specifically
with this aspect.
Marthinus van Schalkwyk, MP
Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Issued by: Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
4 May 2007
