STATEMENT BY THE OFFICE OF MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK, MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS & TOURISM, ON 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 4800 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 4800 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. R. 1183 of 5 September 1997, issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the 4800MW 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 4800 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 4800MW coal fired power station near Lephalale, on approximately 700ha of the farm Naauwontkomen 509LQ.
- The installation of ancillary infrastructure including the ashing facility on 500-1000ha 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, 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 organization 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; and
(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 4800MW 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 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 |