Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed construction of the Kappa 765/400kV substation
and associated infrastructure between Ceres and Laingsburg in the Western Cape (12/12/20/1085)
DRAFT Issues and Response Report
Version 2
This report (version 2) captures the issues raised by stakeholders during the announcement phase and comments raised on the Draft Scoping Report (DSR)
towards the proposed construction of the Kappa substation and associated infrastructure between Ceres and Laingsburg in the Western Cape. As part of the
announcement, a Background Information Document (BID), with a comments and registration sheet was distributed, an advertisement was placed in various
newspapers (February 2008) and site notices were put up in the area of the proposed development. Several stakeholders responded to the invitation to raise
their concerns and the table below represents those comments. This report also covers issues raised and comments made during focus group meetings that
were held with potentially directly affected stakeholders from 12 – 14 May 2008. Comments and issues raised at public meetings held in Cape Town and
Ceres on 3 and 4 June 2008, to discuss the findings of the DSR, have also been included.
This report will be updated as the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process unfolds. A copy of this report is appended to the Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Reports that will be available for public review and be submitted to the decision-making authority, the Department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism (DEAT).
Written submissions of stakeholders are summarised in this report – the full versions of the submissions are appended to the Draft and Final Environmental
Impact Reports.
CONTENTS
Issues related to the following matters are listed:
SECTION
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
PAGE
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ........................................................ 1
LOCATION OF THE SUBSTATION AND RELATED POWER LINES ....... 3
LAND USE ................................................................................................... 6
ISSUES TO BE INVESTIGATED DURING THE EIA PHASE .................... 7
VISUAL IMPACT ......................................................................................... 9
PROPERTY VALUES................................................................................ 10
COMPENSATION AND NEGOTIATIONS WITH ESKOM........................ 10
FUTURE POWER LINES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ............................... 10
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ......................................................................... 13
OTHER ...................................................................................................... 14
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTATOR(S)
SOURCE(S)
RESPONSE(S)
ISSUES
A. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
1.
It is proven that the influx of workers correlates with
an increase in house and stock theft. We are
concerned that this might happen during the
construction and operating phases.
Mr Louis Andrag, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No
234/1, Vaalkloofrivier 261,
Buitendagskraal 235/1,
Sadawa 239
Emailed
submission on 15
March 2008 in
response to the
BID
2.
What measures will be taken to protect the land
and minimise disruption during and after
construction of the proposed substation.
Mr Louis Andrag, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No
234/1, Vaalkloofrivier 261,
Buitendagskraal 235/1,
Sadawa 239
Comments during
focus group
meetings from 12
– 14 May 2008
3.
Will there be anyone staying on site (permanent or
temporary) to oversee management of the power
station?
Comments during
focus group
meetings from 12
– 14 May 2008
4.
What will the infrastructure of the substation look
like (how high will structure be, what kind of
material will be used, how will the substation be
fenced off?)
When is construction of the substation likely to
commence?
Mr Louis Andrag, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No
234/1, Vaalkloofrivier 261,
Buitendagskraal 235/1,
Sadawa 239
Most potentially directly
affected land owners.
Most potentially directly
affected land owners.
Most potentially
directly affected
land owners.
Public meeting,
Cape Town, 3
June 2008 to
present the DSR
5.
6.
How big will the proposed substation be?
Mr Joe Katzeff, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No 234
7.
How many buildings will be on site?
Mr David Rees, Interested
Party
1
Most potentially
directly affected
land owners.
Public meeting,
Cape Town, 3
As part of the Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR), an Environmental
Management Plan (EMP) is also submitted
to the DEAT. In the EMP, it will be
emphasised that workers from the local area
should be used for construction (See
Appendix M of EIR).
As part of the FEIR, an EMP is also
submitted to the DEAT. The EMP will guide
construction as to minimise and mitigate
possible impacts on the environment. An
independent Environmental Control Officer
(ECO) will be on site during construction to
facilitate and monitor the process. (See
Appendix M, Section 3.4.3 of EIR)
No, it will be an unmanned substation that
will be visited regularly.
The substation will mainly be constructed
with the use of steel, concrete and wires.
Substation structures will vary from a height
of 2m to ~30m (See Section 3).
Currently, construction is envisaged to
commence towards the middle of 2010 (See
Section 3.4 of EIR).
The terrain would be roughly 150 ha. The
actual substation is only about 100 metres
by 150 metres, but for safety purposes
relating to the high voltage additional open
space is required (See Section 3 of EIR).
There will be two or three buildings on site
(See Section 3 of EIR).
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTATOR(S)
SOURCE(S)
RESPONSE(S)
ISSUES
8.
Is vandalism a problem for Eskom at substations?
Mr Joe Katzeff, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No 234
June 2008 to
present the DSR
Public meeting,
Cape Town, 3
June 2008 to
present the DSR
9.
How long does it take to construct a substation?
Mr David Rees, Interested
Party
Public meeting,
Cape Town, 3
It is a problem, but Eskom is trying to
counter this by fencing substations very well.
Construction normally takes one to one and
a half years to be completed (See Section
3.4 of EIR).
June 2008 to
present the DSR
10.
What does a substation do?
Question from an
Interested Party in the
audience.
Public meeting,
Cape Town, 3
June 2008 to
present the DSR
11.
Why does Eskom ask for permission to store
hazardous waste at the substation?
Mr Clayton Hendricks,
Department of
Environmental Affairs and
Development Planning,
Western Cape
Public meeting,
Cape Town, 3
June 2008 to
present the DSR
12.
Provide clarity to my Department regarding the
temporary storage of hazardous waste on the
proposed site.
Mr Clayton Hendricks,
Department of
Environmental Affairs and
Development Planning,
Written
submission on 17
June 2008 in
response to the
2
Eskom is mainly transmitting AC electricity,
which has the disadvantage of changing in
voltage if it is sent over long distances. A
substation is needed every 400 to 450 km to
bring the voltage to 400 kV again. DC
electricity, on the other hand is very stable,
but more expensive.
The NEMA Regulations GN. R No 385, 386
and 387 stipulate that, any activity listed
under them requires Environmental
Authorisation, and therefore, such
permission is obtainable from the competent
authority (In this case, the DEAT), through
the EIA process, i.e. to store diesel and oil
for vehicles during the construction period.
Oil is also stored on site for the transformers.
The necessary precautions will be taken to
prevent oil spills (Section 2.1 and Section 5
of EIR).
To store diesel and oil for vehicles during the
construction period. The transformers on the
substation will contain PCB free lubricants
(oil). Maintenance of the substation will
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTATOR(S)
SOURCE(S)
RESPONSE(S)
ISSUES
Western Cape
DSR
13.
Provide details to my Department regarding the
type of hazardous waste and the final disposal of
this hazardous waste.
Mr Clayton Hendricks,
Department of
Environmental Affairs and
Development Planning,
Western Cape
Written
submission on 17
June 2008 in
response to the
DSR
14.
What measures will be taken to protect the land
and minimise disruption during and after
construction of the proposed substation.
Mr Louis Andrag, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No
234/1, Vaalkloofrivier 261,
Buitendagskraal 235/1,
Sadawa 239
Comments during
focus group
meetings from 12
– 14 May 2008
15.
We request comments from the Licensed
Hazardous Waste Landfill operator on sufficient
capacity for the final disposal of the hazardous
waste. The EMP must include the safe
transportation of this hazardous waste.
Mr Clayton Hendricks,
Department of
Environmental Affairs and
Development Planning,
Western Cape
Written
submission on 17
June 2008 in
response to the
DSR
minimise oil spills. The transformers will be
positioned inside the bund walls to prevent
soil and surface water contamination in case
of a spillage (Section 3.4, Section 3.4.2 of
EIR).
The substation itself would not produce any
hazardous waste. However certain
hazardous material will be used on site and
examples are florescent tubes (lights), diesel
and oil. A full inventory list will be compiled
for this and necessary documents will be
acquired from the local municipality to safely
dispose any hazardous waste. (Documents
such as safe disposal certificates) (See
Appendix R, Section 3.4.2 of EIR).
As part of the EIR, an EMP is also submitted
to the DEAT. The EMP will guide
construction so as to minimise and mitigate
possible impacts on the environment. An
independent ECO will be on site during
construction to facilitate and monitor the
process (See Appendix M, Section 3.4.3 of
EIR).
Disposal of all waste classes will be
addressed in the EMP stage of the project
(pre-construction). This plan will put
measures in place to ensure safe handling
and disposal of waste material (See
Appendix M of EIR).
B. LOCATION OF THE SUBSTATION AND RELATED POWER LINES
16.
Gypsum mining is taking place on Kolkiesrivier, for
which there is an existing mining license. He is
concerned about the proposed project and that it
would interfere with future mining operations, as
well as underground gypsum reserves. A map was
Mr Joe Katzeff, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No 234
3
Written
submission in
March 2008 in
response to the
BID and during a
The comment is noted and will be addressed
in the EIA. The impact on land-use have
been investigated in the Environmental
Impact Phase of the EIA (See Section 4.2.1,
Section 7.3.3, Section 7.5.4, Section 7.6.3
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTATOR(S)
SOURCE(S)
RESPONSE(S)
ISSUES
attached to the submission with the mine’s exact
location and a copy of the mining licence.
17.
Should the development go ahead for which
reasons we suggest that the substation should be
erected on Platfontein as this farms belong to the
Department of Public Works and is the furthest
away from public eye.
Mr Louis Andrag, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No
234/1, Vaalkloofrivier 261,
Buitendagskraal 235/1,
Sadawa 239
18.
What is the relation between the proposed Kappa
substation and the proposed 765 kV line from
Gamma (Victoria West) and Omega (Koeberg)
substations?
19.
Should Platfontein farm be a likely alternative,
Eskom has to follow due procedure in acquiring the
use of government land.
Mr George Gibson, owner
of farmer Jurgensfontein
and Mr Gerhard van
Vuuren, Rauch van Vuuren
attorneys in Ceres
Mr Ossie Lamb, Manager
Property, Department of
Public Works, Cape Town
20.
South African National Roads Agency Limited
(SANRAL) has a statutory building line of 60 m
measured from the road reserve fence, adjacent to
the national road as well as 500 m radius building
restriction measured from the centre point of an
intersection on a national road. Applications need
to be submitted to SANRAL for a way leave in
terms of Act 7 of 1998 for the anticipated crossing
of the national road. SANRAL will impose
conditions in terms of Act 7 of 1998 upon approval
of a way leave.
Why can’t all the transmission lines run in the same
corridor?
21.
Ms Colene Runkel,
Statutory Control and Land
Admin Officer, SANRAL
Western Region
Mr Joe Katzeff, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No 234
focus group
meeting, 12 May
2008
Emailed
submission on 15
March 2008 in
response to the
BID
Comments during
focus group
meetings from 12
– 14 May 2008
Comments during
focus group
meetings from 12
– 14 May 2008
Emailed
submission on 15
March 2008 in
response to the
BID
Public meeting,
Cape Town, 3
June 2008 to
4
and Section 7.7.3 of EIR).
The objective of the EIA is to evaluate the
most suitable site for the proposed
substation, with the least environmental
impacts. However, social and visual impacts
are also considered in the evaluation of
alternative sites (See Section 7.16 and
Section 10.2.11 of EIR).
The proposed substation will be on the route
of the 765 kV transmission line. The 765 kV
Kappa substation is required to provide
voltage control within the specified voltage
limits.
Noted.
Noted. None of the three alternatives
investigated in this EIA are adjacent or in
close vicinity to a national road.
This is too much of a risk. The whole
Western Cape will be exposed to a massive
power failure if the lines are tripped by the
heat of a veld fire.
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTATOR(S)
SOURCE(S)
RESPONSE(S)
ISSUES
present the DSR
22.
Why were these three sites specifically chosen?
Mr David Rees, Interested
Party
Public meeting,
Cape Town, 3
June 2008 to
present the DSR
23.
How will the preferred site be chosen and which is
the current preferred site?
Mr David Rees, Interested
Party
Public meeting,
Cape Town, 3
June 2008 to
present the DSR
24.
Can the public nominate an alternative site?
Mr Louis Andrag, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No
234/1, Vaalkloofrivier 261,
Buitendagskraal 235/1,
Sadawa 239
Public meeting,
Cape Town, 3
June 2008 to
present the DSR
5
All three sites are near the existing lines and
according the seismic maps these three
sites are the most suitable for a substation.
The location of the substation in relation to
the existing lines also has financial
implications; because it costs R3 million per
kilometre to build a 400 kV transmission line
(See Section 4, Section 11.1 and Figure
15 of EIR).
It will be decided by investigating various
criteria however, the final decision is made
by the DEAT. The process is always
transparent and farmers/affected parties are
always kept informed. All three are being
investigated in the same manner carrying an
equal weight. Zitholele Consulting will
recommend the most suitable site from
guidance provided by the results of the EIA.
The site that will have the least impact on its
habitat will be chosen. It can also happen
that none of the three sites could be suitable
for a substation and then the whole process
has to be repeated with new alternative
sites, however from the findings of the EIR
Platfontein is the preferred site. (See
Section 4, Section 11, Section 2.1, and
Figure 15 of EIR).
One of the reasons for having public
meetings is to access local knowledge. It
can happen that the site nominated by a
member of the public is used, because the
locals know their area much better. This will
always be done by following standard
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTATOR(S)
SOURCE(S)
RESPONSE(S)
ISSUES
procedures, because an EIA with all its
specialist studies must also be done on a
site suggested by a member of the public
(See Section 5, Section 6, Appendix F, G,
H ,I, J, K, and L of EIR).
Noted.
25.
The community wants Platfontein to be the
preferred site, because it already belongs to the
state. Karoopoort also belong to the state and that
can also be used as an alternative.
Mr Frans Conradie, owner
of Jurgensfontein Portion
No 263 and 264
Public meeting,
Ceres, 4 June
2008 to present
the DSR
26.
It is concerning that three farms were identified as
alternative areas for the proposed construction of
the Kappa substation without providing the grounds
for their selection. Why were these farms selected?
Ms Liza du Toit, Rauch van
Vuuren Attorneys on behalf
of George Gibson of
Jurgensfontein, Ceres
Written
submission
received on 3 July
2008 in response
to the DSR
The proposed Kappa substation will link
existing lines. The existing 400kV lines run
inside the selected farms. It will be easier to
loop them in and out of the substation from a
technical point of view. Alternatives were
also screened with consideration of existing
access roads, river paths amongst other
things from an environmental point of view.
(See Section 4, Section 11, Section 2.1,
and Figure 15 of DEIR).
The comment is noted and has been
addressed in the EIA. The impact on landuse has been investigated in the
Environmental Impact Phase of the EIA (See
Section 6, Section 7, Section 9, Section
10 and Section 11 of EIR).
The comment is noted and have been
addressed in the EIA. The impact on landuse will be investigated in the Environmental
Impact Phase of the EIA (See Section 6,
Section 7, Section 9, Section 10 and
Section 11 of EIR).
C. LAND USE
27.
Jurgensfontein is a game farm and the proposed
development would have a major impact on such
an operation.
Mr Marthinus Broodryk,
owner of Jurgensfontein
363
Written
submission on 11
March 2008 in
response to the
BID
28.
Concerned about the impact on tourism (game
watching, hiking, hunting) in this area. Tourism is
increasing due to the unspoilt nature and is only
two hours drive from Cape Town.
Mr Louis Andrag, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No
234/1, Vaalkloofrivier 261,
Buitendagskraal 235/1,
Sadawa 239
Emailed
submission on 15
March 2008 in
response to the
BID
6
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTATOR(S)
SOURCE(S)
RESPONSE(S)
ISSUES
D. ISSUES TO BE INVESTIGATED DURING THE EIA PHASE
Noted (Section 6, Section 7 and Section
11 of EIR).
Mr Louis Andrag, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No
234/1, Vaalkloofrivier 261,
Buitendagskraal 235/1,
Sadawa 239
Written
submission on 11
March 2008 in
response to the
BID
Emailed
submission on 15
March 2008 in
response to the
BID
Mr Louis Andrag, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No
234/1, Vaalkloofrivier 261,
Buitendagskraal 235/1,
Sadawa 239
Emailed
submission on 15
March 2008 in
response to the
BID
Mr Louis Andrag, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No
234/1, Vaalkloofrivier 261,
Buitendagskraal 235/1,
Sadawa 239
Emailed
submission on 15
March 2008 in
response to the
BID
An ecological assessment on the fauna and
flora has been The ecological assessment
described above will include an avi-fauna
study. No Red Data avifaunal species were
found to inhabit the area and little evidence
was found of any other fauna of
conservation importance (Section 7.9 and
Appendix Q of EIR).
Noted. A Heritage Impact Assessment has
been done on all three of the alternative
sites. The Heritage Impact Assessment
Report indicated that archaeological traces
found on the three alternative sites were
generally widespread, but lacked good
context and none could provide any further
29.
Agrees with the list of potential environmental
issues as mentioned in the BID that need to be
investigated during the EIA.
Mr Marthinus Broodryk,
owner of Jurgensfontein
263
30.
There are a number of red data species in the area
such as the:
 Black Stork (Ciconia nigra);
 Martial Eagle (Polemaetus bellicosus);
 African Wild Cat (Felis silvestris);
 Aardwolf (Protelus cristatus);
 Small-spotted cat;
 Spectacled dormouse;
 Namaqua plated lizard;
 White stork;
 Black stork;
 Martial Eagle; and
 Riverine Rabbit
The possibility of migrating birds colliding with
power lines should also be investigated.
Braunsia stayneri and Tanquana archeri are found
in the area as well as what is believed to be tree
fossils.
31.
32.
7
Noted. An ecological assessment on the
fauna and flora has been undertaken on the
three of the alternative sites. The study
indicated that the faunal species diversity
was very low for all taxa. No Red Data
avifaunal species were found to inhabit the
area and little evidence was found of any
other fauna of conservation importance, the
possibility of other Red Data faunal species
occurring in the area is, however, high for a
number of species (Section 7.9 and
Appendix Q of EIR).
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTATOR(S)
SOURCE(S)
RESPONSE(S)
ISSUES
33.
Will the seismic activities in the area be
investigated? A number of farmers mentioned the
1960’s earth quake in the Ceres area.
Most potentially directly
affected land owners.
Most potentially
directly affected
land owners.
34.
We request you to obtain comments from the
DWAF regarding the drainage streams in the area
and the river at Kolkies Rivier.
Mr Clayton Hendricks,
Department of
Environmental Affairs and
Development Planning,
Western Cape
Written
submission on 17
June 2008 in
response to the
DSR
8
information than what was available from the
preliminary examination. None of the sites
discovered during the Archaeological Survey
are worthy of further investigation. The
“leiwater” furrow on Jurgens Fontein is
probably the most important archeological
resource found and it is suggested that it be
avoided completely should the Jurgens
Fontein site be chosen for construction
(Section 7.13 and Appendix Q of EIR).
Yes, seismic activity in the area is a serious
issue for Eskom. A Seismic Hazard Study
was undertaken by GEO-Haz Consulting.
For that reason, the Jurgensfontein and
Kolkiesriver sites are both subject to other
geohazards that might make construction of
a substation and maintenance problematic.
The Platfontein site does not suffer from
these problems and is underlain by the
hardest rock type (Dwyka tillite) among the
three sites (See Section 7.5 and Appendix
Q of EIR).
Consequent to the assessment, no
boreholes were visible on any of the three
alternative sites. The only source of surface
water in close proximity to any of the three
sites is the Kolkies River, transecting the
farm Kolkies River. Drainage features were
observed on the Jurgensfontein site, running
in a north-easterly direction. The Department
of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) was
contacted in terms of the progress with the
EIA in November 2008. A copy of the IRR
(Version 1) was also submitted. A copy of
the DEIR will be sent to the DWAF (See
Section 7.10 of EIR).
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTATOR(S)
SOURCE(S)
RESPONSE(S)
ISSUES
35.
We request you to obtain comments from the
Department of Agriculture regarding the use of
agricultural land for the proposed development.
Mr Clayton Hendricks,
Department of
Environmental Affairs and
Development Planning,
Western Cape
Written
submission on 17
June 2008 in
response to the
DSR
The Department of Agriculture was
contacted in terms of the progress with the
EIA in November 2008 A copy of the IRR
(Version 1) was also submitted for their
comment. A copy of the DEIR will be sent to
the DWAF (Appendix J of EIR).
A Visual Impact Assessment study has been
done on all three of the alternative sites The
proposed substation construction will have a
negative visual impact on all three sites and
its surroundings, as the visual nature of the
proposed activity contrasts greatly with that
of the existing site and its immediate
surroundings. The degree of visual exposure
to the impact will be limited, due to the
remote location of the proposed activity,
provided that the prescribed mitigatory
measures are implemented (See Section
7.16 and Appendix Q of EIR).
Noted. The exact placement of the
substation will be influenced by the
environmental parameters investigated in
the EIA and the feasibility of the exact
location of the substation, and last but not
least, the best environmental option
(alternative) to be authorised by the DEAT
Vegetation screening of the substation is
possible and will be addressed in the EMP
(See Appendix M, Section 2.1 and Section
5.1 of EIR).
Vegetation screening of the substation is
possible and will be addressed in the EIA
and the EMP (See Appendix M of EIR).
E. VISUAL IMPACT
36.
Power lines and a substation will negatively impact
on the aesthetics of the area because of the
unspoilt nature.
Mr Louis Andrag, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No
234/1, Vaalkloofrivier 261,
Buitendagskraal 235/1,
Sadawa 239
Emailed
submission on 15
March 2008 in
response to the
BID
37.
The position of the substation on the farm should
be a distance away from the main road and
positioned where it is least visible. Indigenous trees
should be planted around the substation and along
the power line to camouflage the steel structures.
Game can be reintroduced to the area to “soften”
the area. Boreholes should be drilled to supply
trees and game with water.
Mr Louis Andrag, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No
234/1, Vaalkloofrivier 261,
Buitendagskraal 235/1,
Sadawa 239
Emailed
submission on 15
March 2008 in
response to the
BID
38.
How can the visual impact of the proposed
substation be mitigated? Can trees for example be
planted?
Most potentially directly
affected land owners.
Most potentially
directly affected
land owners.
9
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTATOR(S)
SOURCE(S)
RESPONSE(S)
ISSUES
F. PROPERTY VALUES
39.
According to Mr. Johan Geldenhuys from
Geldenhuys Properties, potential buyers are not
interested in the farms where power lines cross the
property. The presence of power lines and a
substation will most definitely negatively affect the
value of the property.
Mr Louis Andrag, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No
234/1, Vaalkloofrivier 261,
Buitendagskraal 235/1,
Sadawa 239
Emailed
submission on 15
March 2008 in
response to the
BID
Noted.
Negotiations will only be able to take place
after the EIA is completed, a preferred site
has been recommended and environmental
authorisation has been issued by DEAT. All
negotiations are to be done by Eskom.
Negotiations only start after Environmental
Authorisation has been granted by the
DEAT. However, with linear projects
negotiators start visiting affected parties
before this stage to save time. Servitude
agreements will, however, only be signed
once approval for the project has been
granted. Sometimes there are delays with
these agreements, because farmers do not
supply all information as required by law
(See Section 5.5 of EIR).
G. COMPENSATION AND NEGOTIATIONS WITH ESKOM
40.
At what stage will Eskom negotiate with potentially
directly affected stakeholders about compensation?
Most potentially directly
affected land owners.
Comments during
focus group
meetings from 12
– 14 May 2008
41.
When will negotiations between Eskom and the
farmers commence?
Mr David Rees, Interested
Party
Mr Marthinus Broodryk,
owner of Jurgensfontein
363
Public meeting,
Cape Town, 3
June 2008 to
present the Draft
Scoping Report
Public meeting,
Ceres, 4 June
2008 to present
the DSR
H. FUTURE POWER LINES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
42.
How many more power lines will be connected to
the proposed Kappa substation in future? Farmers
expressed concern over possible additional
servitudes for power lines on their farms in future.
Most potentially directly
affected land owners.
10
Most potentially
directly affected
land owners.
Due to the Western Cape’s need for power
more transmission lines will be needed in the
next 10 to 20 years. Some will be built in
existing servitudes, but new servitudes will
be necessary to expand the national power
grid. A potential of up to 13 lines will be
required. This depends on load growth and
generation integration (See Section 1.2 of
EIR)
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTATOR(S)
SOURCE(S)
RESPONSE(S)
ISSUES
43.
Will more transmission lines be added to the
existing four?
Mr David Rees, Interested
Party
Public meeting,
Cape Town, 3
June 2008 to
present the DSR
44.
About 15 years ago Eskom visited Ceres to discuss
buying servitudes to replace the 400 kV lines with
765 kV lines. Is this still going to happen and what
other lines are planned for the future?
Mr Frans Conradie, owner
of Jurgensfontein Portion
No 263 and 264
Public meeting,
Ceres, 4 June
2008 to present
the DSR
45.
Will this EIA also investigate the possibility of four
765 kV lines running south to Bantamsklip?
Ms Lisa du Toit, Rauch van
Vuuren attorneys in Ceres
Public meeting,
Ceres, 4 June
2008 to present
the DSR
46.
Will the position of the proposed Kappa substation
Mr Frans Conradie, owner
Public meeting,
11
This EIA only includes the four lines that will
loop in and loop out of the proposed
substation to link up with the existing lines –
a distance of around 15 km per line. In future
(2017 to 2019) additional four lines could be
needed to link the substation to Hantamsklip
should Hantamsklip be chosen as the
preferred site. Due to the Western Cape’s
increase in the electricity demand the current
440 kV lines will also be upgraded to 765 kV
lines between 2012 and 2014, irrespective if
Hantamsklip is chosen or not (See Section
3 of EIR)
Eskom looked at routes for the 765 kV lines
15 years ago, but the project was put on
hold. There is now a need for transmission
lines with a bigger capacity (765 kV lines can
carry three times more electricity than a 400
kV line). This proposed substation will
eventually have three lines (two 765 kV and
one 400 kV line) going to Cape Town and
four going to the north (two 765 kV lines and
two 400 kV lines). An additional four lines
could also be needed to link the substation
to Hantamsklip should Hantamsklip be
chosen as the preferred nuclear site in the
Western Cape (See Section 3 of EIR).
A separate EIA will be done to investigate
those lines and consultants (Arcus Gibb)
have recently been appointed to conduct the
EIA. Zitholele Consulting will hand over all
the names of the I&APs on this project to the
consultants working on the new project (See
Appendix F of EIR).
The EIA for Kappa substation will be finished
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTATOR(S)
SOURCE(S)
RESPONSE(S)
ISSUES
be determined by the position of the possible four
765 kV lines going south?
of Jurgensfontein Portion
No 263 and 264
47.
The possible four 765 kV lines running south will be
a big problem for me, because it will go directly
through my game farm.
Mr Marthinus Broodryk,
owner of Jurgensfontein
363
48.
The 765 kV lines are a bigger problem for the
Ceres community than the proposed substation.
Ms Lisa du Toit, Rauch van
Vuuren attorneys in Ceres
49.
At the public meeting on 4 June 2008 it was said
that the Kappa substation will bring integration of
existing and future electricity supply infrastructure.
Eskom currently investigates the establishment of
several nuclear power stations in the Western Cape
which will be linked via four 756kV lines to the
proposed Kappa substation. It was also said that
the 756kV lines will have to be at least 500m to
1km apart from each other and that a separate EIA
is undertaken for the proposed lines. It is thus
obvious that that the location of the substation will
determine the location of the four 765kV lines. It is
thus imperative that the impact on the environment
of the proposed 765kV lines and that of the
substation be incorporated in the impact
assessment for the Kappa substation.
An appeal was lodged on the EIA conducted for the
proposed 765 kV transmission line between
Gamma and Omega substations. The location of
these lines is believed to have an influence on the
proposed location of the Kappa substation. The
decision about the location of the Kappa substation
should wait until the finalisation of the appeal of the
Ms Liza du Toit, Rauch van
Vuuren Attorneys on behalf
of George Gibson of
Jurgensfontein, Ceres
50.
Ceres, 4 June
2008 to present
the Draft Scoping
Report
Public meeting,
Ceres, 4 June
2008 to present
the DSR
Public meeting,
Ceres, 4 June
2008 to present
the DSR
Written
submission
received on 3 July
2008 in response
to the DSR
long before that project. Copies of this EIA
will be passed on to the new consultants.
Noted.
Noted.
For the effective management of the
different projects they had to be separated. It
was discovered late in the process that the
Gamma-Omega line will be best energised
with a substation in between.
The EIA for the proposed nuclear
transmission lines is underway. To combine
all these projects into one may result in
specific issues not being given the
necessary attention.
Ms Liza du Toit, Rauch van
Vuuren Attorneys on behalf
of George Gibson of
Jurgensfontein, Ceres
12
Written
submission
received on 3 July
2008 in response
to the DSR
The substation will not only service the 765
kV line but also the existing 400 kV lines.
The appeals on the Gamma-Omega line
should not delay the construction of the
Kappa substation
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTATOR(S)
SOURCE(S)
RESPONSE(S)
ISSUES
mentioned EIA.
I. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
51.
Has the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
(DWAF) been included as an Interested & Affected
Party due to the presence of rivers at the three
alternative sites?
Mr Clayton Hendricks,
Department of
Environmental Affairs and
Development Planning,
Western Cape
Public meeting,
Cape Town, 3
June 2008 to
present the DSR
52.
My Department is concerned in the manner that
information has been communicated through the
public participation process.
Mr Clayton Hendricks,
Department of
Environmental Affairs and
Development Planning,
Western Cape
Written
submission on 17
June 2008 in
response to the
DSR
13
Consequent to the assessment, no
boreholes were visible on any of the three
alternative sites. The only source of surface
water in close proximity to any of the three
sites is the Kolkies River, transecting the
farm Kolkies River. Drainage features were
observed on the Jurgens Fontein site,
running in a north-easterly direction. The
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
(DWAF) was contacted in terms of the
progress with the EIA in November 2008. A
copy of the IRR (Version 1) was also
submitted. A copy of the DEIR will be sent to
the DWAF (See Section 7.10 and
Appendix J of EIR)
The opportunity to participate in the EIA was
announced in February 2008 through the
distribution of a letter of invitation to become
involved, addressed to individuals and
organisations by name, accompanied by a
BID and a registration sheet, including
placement of notice boards and
advertisements in newspapers. Issues
raised were captured in an IRR (Version 1)
and are appended to the DSR. The DSR,
including the IRR, were distributed for
comment. A public meeting was held to
present finding of the report. IRR (Version)
was compiled. All the stakeholders in the
data base were informed at every stage of
the EIA in order to participate fully in the EIA
(Appendix F, G, H, I, J, K and L of EIR).
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTATOR(S)
SOURCE(S)
RESPONSE(S)
Emailed
submission on 15
March 2008 in
response to the
BID and during
focus group
meetings from 12
– 14 May 2008
Comments during
focus group
meetings from 12
– 14 May 2008
The proposed substation will not currently
supply the immediate area with electricity,
however the comment is noted.
Transmission network will feed into the
Distribution network and customers might
receive electricity either from Distribution or
Local municipality (See Section 2.1 and
Section 3 of EIR).
The proposed substation will not currently
supply the immediate area with electricity;
however through the placement of the
substation future electricity supply to the
area may be possible (See Section 2.1 and
Section 3 of EIR).
Noted. (See Section 2.1, Section 3 and
Section 11.1 of EIR).
ISSUES
J. OTHER
53.
The supply of electricity to neighbouring farms
should be investigated to lift the standard of living
of farm workers and owners.
Mr Louis Andrag, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No
234/1, Vaalkloofrivier 261,
Buitendagskraal 235/1,
Sadawa 239 and Mr
George Gibson, owner of
Jurgensfontein farm
54.
Will farms in the direct area of the proposed
substation be directly benefited in terms of power
supplies to farms?
Most potentially directly
affected land owners.
55.
The proposed substation might not only have
negative impacts, but could pose some
opportunities for the area.
Mr Thinus Broodryk, owner
of a portion of farm
Jurgensfontein
Comments during
focus group
meetings from 12
– 14 May 2008
56.
Will the substation supply electricity to the
surrounding areas?
Mr Joe Katzeff, owner of
Kolkiesrivier Portion No 234
Public meeting,
Cape Town, 3
June 2008 to
present the DSR
57.
What does an Eskom servitude entail?
Mr David Rees, Interested
Party
14
Public meeting,
Cape Town, 3
June 2008 to
present the DSR
The proposed substation will, at this stage,
not supply the surrounding areas with
electricity as power first need to feed to a
Distribution centre the to the municipality
where the voltage must be brought down to
220 volt, normal household voltage supply
(See Section 2.1 and Section 3 of EIR).
Eskom pays the landowner for the
transmission lines going through a property.
Afterwards the person can still use the land
for grazing/planting but with predetermined
conditions. However, if the servitude is so
big that it makes a property uneconomical,
Eskom will buy the whole property at a
market related price. If a landowner does not
agree with the price, he/she can appoint an
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTATOR(S)
SOURCE(S)
RESPONSE(S)
ISSUES
58
What has happened to the appeal lodged against
the planned 765 KV line through the Witzenberg,
Tulbagh and Ceres?
Ms Lisa du Toit, Rauch van
Vuuren attorneys in Ceres
59
Does the 765 kV line have the same servitude
width than a 400 kV line?
Mr Dekker Esterhuyse,
Landowner, Doornkraal
Boerdery
15
Public meeting,
Ceres, 4 June
2008 to present
the DSR
Public meeting,
Ceres, 4 June
2008 to present
the DSR
independent evaluator (Section 5.5 of EIR)
The appeal is with the Minister of the DEAT
and his decision will be made towards
September/October 2009.
The 765 kV needs an 80 metre servitude
and the 400 kV 55 metres (See Section 2.1
and Section 3 of EIR).