EIA for Proposed Eskom Bantamsklip Transmission Lines and Associated Infrastructure

MINUTES OF MEETING

CLIENT : Eskom Holdings Limited – Transmission Division PROJECT : EIA for Bantamsklip Transmission Lines and Associated Infrastructure PROJECT No : J28087 PURPOSE : Public Meeting PLACE : , Dutch Reformed Church DATE & TIME : 21 March 2009, 10h00 MINUTE TAKER : Pieter Mocke

Name Representing Email Address Distribution

PRESENT GW Henrici Pearly Beach Conservancy – [email protected] Email Treasurer Dr William Stafford Protea Permaculture [email protected] Email Tertius Lutzeyer Grootbos Nature Reserve [email protected] Email David West [email protected] Email DJJ de Villiers Goedvertrouw Trust [email protected] Email SS Fourie Landowner [email protected] Email

Beatrice Bollmann Pearly Beach Conservancy PO Box 45, , 7220 Post Eric Foster Landowner [email protected] Email Kim Breach Tierfontein Voluntary [email protected] Email Conservancy – owner JJ le Roux Baardskeerdersbos – landowner PO Box 1464, Gansbaai, 7220 Post M Pretorius Land owner PO Box 926, Gansbaai, 7220 Post Susanne Fuchs Klein Paradijs Country House – [email protected] Email Co-owner Mariaan Burger Fynbos Ecotourism Forum – [email protected] Email committee member Mary Payne Farm 933 (b) Stanford [email protected] Email Mike Ravenscroft Kleinkloof Private Nature [email protected] Email Reserve – owner Koekoe Ravenscroft Kleinkloof Private Nature [email protected] Email Reserve – owner DA Foord Landowner PO Box 1277, Gansbaai, 7220 Post JP Burger Mount Dyer Fynbos 4x4 – [email protected] Email Tourism Dave Whitelaw Private Individual [email protected] Email Mike Gafney [email protected] Email Jann Gafney [email protected] Email Amanda Jephson Strandveld Group – steering [email protected] Email committee Gerhard van Deventer Sandberg Farm [email protected] Email Hennie Vermeulen Baardskeerdersbos Home [email protected] Email Owners Association – chairman Secretary Baardskeerdersbos Home [email protected] Email Owners Association Stanley Carpenter Whalesong Lodge [email protected] Email Member Pearly Beach Patrols PO Box 861, Gansbaai, 7220 Post

1 Pearly Beach Public Meeting - 21 March 2009 EIA for Proposed Eskom Bantamsklip Transmission Lines and Associated Infrastructure

M Reinhardt Pearly Beach Conservancy PO Box 607, Gansbaai, 7220 Post Glenda Kitlley Gansbaai Tourism Bureau [email protected] Email HP Smit [email protected] Email Sue Whitelaw Private [email protected] Email Jean Lewis Landowner 35 Crest Road, Pearly Beach, 7220 Post Elrina Versfeld Pearly Beach Conservancy – [email protected] Email Chairperson Stan Fester Soufriere Farm [email protected] Email Andree Bonthuys BANG (Bantamsklip Anti [email protected] Email Nuclear Group) - spokesperson Leon Conradie Le Mans Trust PO Box 1679, Gansbaai, 7220 Post Maureen Celbie 13 Tower Road, Pearly Beach, 7220 Post Charlie Bruwer Angling Club - manager [email protected] Email Alex Kriel PO Box 309, Gansbaai, 7220 Post BF Smit Private [email protected] Email DP Coetzee Pearly Beach Ratepayers [email protected] Email Association Sammy Malaka Eskom [email protected] Email Ruby Ramatsui Eskom [email protected] Email Lerato Mokgwatlheng Eskom [email protected] Email Pieter Steenkamp Eskom P.steenkamp.eskom.co.za Email Kevin Chetty Eskom [email protected] Email Thamsanqa Ngcobo Eskom [email protected] Email Ashlea Strong Arcus GIBB astrong.gibb.co.za Natalie Ritsch Arcus GIBB [email protected] Nomi Muthialu NMA [email protected] Julian Drew NMA [email protected] Lungelo Mgcina NMA [email protected] Pieter Mocke NMA [email protected]

ADDITIONAL DISTRIBUTION None

Attendees at the meeting were required to take their own notes and act on these rather than await the arrival of the minutes. The minutes serve as a record of events at the meeting.

DESCRIPTION ACTION 1. OPENING AND WELCOME

1.1 Ms Muthialu (NMA) welcomed everybody and asked members of the project team to introduce themselves.

Ms Muthialu then presented the agenda which was adopted as a suitable guide for the proceedings of the meeting.

Ms Muthialu went through the ground rules and these were accepted as a suitable guide for conducting the meeting.

2. PRESENTATION ON THE DRAFT SCOPING REPORT

Ms Strong (Arcus GIBB) gave a presentation summarising the EIA process for the Proposed Eskom Bantamsklip Transmission Lines and Associated Infrastructure and the findings of the Draft Scoping Report (DSR). The presentation covered:  The role players in the EIA and their respective responsibilities  A description of the project, study area and the need for the project

2 Pearly Beach Public Meeting - 21 March 2009 EIA for Proposed Eskom Bantamsklip Transmission Lines and Associated Infrastructure

 The EIA process and envisaged timelines  The potential impacts and specialist studies  The public participation process  Alternative tower types  The alternative route corridors and how they had evolved through the study  A summary of the impacts, issues and sensitivity mapping for land capability; flora; fauna; avifauna; social; heritage; and visual specialist screening studies  The combined sensitivity maps for each route and the alternatives that were recommended for detailed assessment in the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA  The conclusions and recommendations  The way forward

3. OPEN QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

3.1 Ms Versfeld (Pearly Beach Conservancy) asked the following questions: i) At the start of the plant EIA there were five sites, now there are only three left. What happened to the other two? ii) Are there present transmission line servitudes between Koeberg, Kappa and Bacchus? If there are, why establish new ones? iii) Will the extension of the Bacchus substation be outside the existing yard because this area is highly sensitive? iv) Why is no mention made of underground lines? v) Where will the workers stay during the construction phase of the project? vi) What is a hamlet? i) Mr Malaka (Eskom) said due to the International Atomic Energy Association Regulations, two of the five sites were excluded from the rest of the plant EIA. The details of these regulations are contained in the scoping report for the plant EIA. ii) Mr Ramatsui (Eskom) said the existing servitudes are for the existing lines and new lines will require a new servitude, even if they follow the existing servitude. This means that an EIA will still be required. iii) Ms Strong agreed that the area around the Bacchus substation is very sensitive and at the moment they are anticipating that the extension of the substation will not extend outside the existing yard. iv) Mr Ramatsui said that underground lines were looked at in the project development but underground lines cost 8 to 10 times more than overhead lines and all overhead line possibilities will be exhausted before underground lines will be considered. v) Ms Strong said the social impact of construction workers has been identified as an impact and will be examined in the EIA phase. She added that teams will consist of about 15 – 20 highly skilled people at a time and they would indeed require some form of lodging during the few days they are staying in a specific place. vi) Ms Strong said a hamlet is a small village or community without the legislative grading of a Arcus town. She added that the DSR did not include a proper definition of a hamlet and she will GIBB recommend that one be put in the Final Scoping Report.

3.2 Mr Lutzeyer (Grootbos Nature Reserve) asked the following questions: i) What is the impact on tourism going to be? Is there a cost involved? ii) Who pays Arcus GIBB and NMA? Are they really independent? iii) What is the timeframe during which the specialist studies will take place? Will it only be in one season? How independent are the specialists? i) Ms Strong replied that the impact of tourism will be examined in two studies, the social impact study and the environmental resource economics study. The latter will focus on the economic impact on an area rather than looking at each property individually.

3 Pearly Beach Public Meeting - 21 March 2009 EIA for Proposed Eskom Bantamsklip Transmission Lines and Associated Infrastructure

ii) Ms Strong added that Eskom appointed Arcus GIBB as EIA practitioners as they are required to do. Arcus GIBB in turn appoints the specialists, including NMA, and each of them needs to sign a declaration of independence from Eskom.

Ms Muthialu added that this is a strongly debated issue for independent specialists such as NMA. From NMA’s point of view the company strongly asserts its independence and integrity in all the EIAs it is involved in and will not allow itself to choose sides in a project. All the public can do is have trust in the integrity of the companies and in the code of ethics and declaration of independence they signed. iii) Ms Strong said the specialist studies phase is a short term one and will take place in the winter, which is the best time for the specialists to do their studies. They will, however, also take into account long term studies that have been done to strengthen their findings. If anyone has such information they should forward it to the specialists via NMA.

3.3 Mr Whitelaw wanted to know: i) Why is the scoping of the transmission lines done with such haste when the plant site has not yet been determined. ii) What does Eskom think of the fact that they are violating the principles of the EIA process by being pre-emptive in running the transmission lines EIA before the plant EIA has been finalized? It makes the construction of the power plant seem inevitable. iii) Comment on the EIA process in terms of the other plant sites. Why were the first two sites (Brazil and Schulpfontein) removed from the study.

Mr Malaka answered that the EIA for all three sites is running together with the transmission line EIAs for each of the three sites. All three sites are being considered for nuclear power stations as Eskom plans to construct a fleet of nuclear power stations. The details of the exclusion of the Brazil and Schulpfontein sites are contained in the site investigation report which is available on Eskom’s website.

Ms Muthialu commented that the focus of the meeting should be the transmission lines and not the nuclear power plant. She added that the plant EIA practitioners are running similar public meetings and plant EIA questions should rather be discussed with them as they are more equipped to answer such questions.

3.4 Ms Jephson (Strandveld Group) asked: i) How could the ABI route be considered when it was “slipped” into the report at the last minute. ii) No one in the Strandveld area (from Pearly Beach to Stanford) was consulted during the focus group meetings. iii) She requested that a workshop should be held during which stakeholders and I&APs could come up with a new alternative. iv) Which route does the air force prefer since they are a key stakeholder in the area. v) Why were underground lines not considered when it would only make up about 0.3% of the total nuclear budget.

Mr Vermeulen (Baardskeerdersbos Home Owners Association) also commented that the ABI route should be removed from the study and asked what the point is of commenting on the ABI route if it’s going to change any way. i) Ms Strong explained that the EIA team was invited by ABI to have a workshop. ABI invited stakeholders to that workshop and Arcus GIBB / NMA were not involved in inviting stakeholders. Afterwards ABI elected a steering committee to come up with an alternative route. The route was submitted and the specialists, after deciding that it did have some merit, decided to include it in the scoping report and recommended it for further investigation.

Ms Jephson wanted to know if there was a list available of all the stakeholders ABI invited.

Ms Strong replied that the minutes from that workshop are contained in the appendices of the DSR and the minutes include an attendance register for that specific workshop.

4 Pearly Beach Public Meeting - 21 March 2009 EIA for Proposed Eskom Bantamsklip Transmission Lines and Associated Infrastructure

Ms Muthialu noted that it is the sentiment of the attendees to have the ABI route removed from Arcus the study. She said this request would be put to Eskom for their input on the matter. GIBB ii) Mr Drew (NMA) said the minutes of the previous meetings held in this area are available and can be shown to interested parties after the meeting. iii) Mr Drew added that in terms of the requested workshop NMA shared the same but added that they preferred to have all the stakeholders south of the N2 work together to come up with a single alternative instead of each community coming up with its own which could result in NIMBY type proposals. He added that a request for a workshop will be forwarded to Eskom to Arcus be considered. GIBB iv) Ms Strong said the air force is on the database and they are receiving information on the project. They also attended the ABI workshop where they did provide initial input. They have not delivered any further input but are expected to do so in the near future. They are fully aware of the project. v) Mr Ramatsui stated that underground lines are used in Europe because it is impossible to acquire servitudes. He added that this EIA was to determine the feasibility of overhead lines. If the environmental authorisation for this EIA deems overhead lines, or sections of the alignment, unfeasible, underground lines will be considered.

Ms Strong said the question of underground lines has come up in previous meetings and Arcus therefore a section of the final scoping report will be allocated to an over view of the pros and GIBB cons as well as the potential impacts of underground lines.

Ms Jephson stated that the EIA has nothing to do with acquiring servitudes and Eskom’s convenience. It’s to ensure the best decision in terms of the environment and community affected by the project.

3.5 Mr Gafney made the following comments: i) ABI is a direct result of NIMBY type thinking which adds to the rationale for removing it. ii) In the conclusions of the DSR a highly sensitive area is highlighted in terms of avifauna and the ABI route runs straight through this area. iii) We can come up with good alternatives but not before 30 April. We need more time.

Ms Muthialu tried to provide more perspective on the ABI route by stating that ABI is a widely representative group with representation from the municipalities, SANParks, CapeNature, SANBI, tourism and farmers associations in the area south of the N2 that comprises the study area and therefore was considered a key stakeholder group in the public participation process. ABI ran with the process of producing an alternative on their own through a steering committee set up following the workshop with the EIA team.

Ms Strong said a request for extra time should be submitted in writing to DEAT for their consideration. She noted that Arcus GIBB already recommended an extension of time to compensate for time lost due to courier and technical (website) issues.

3.6 Ms Bonthuys (Bantamsklip Anti Nuclear Group – BANG) wanted to know: i) At what point would expropriation of the transmission line servitudes take place. Her concern was that expropriation might take place before or even during construction of the power plant when funding might dry up, leaving expropriated properties for transmission lines but no power plant to connect to those lines. ii) Where exactly does the funding for the nuclear project come from since Eskom joined hands with the government in terms of funding the project. i) Mr Steenkamp (Eskom) said acquisition of the servitudes will commence only once environmental authorisation has been given. At that point in time there ought to be more clarity as far as the funding for the nuclear project is concerned. If the financial issue is still unclear Eskom management will decide when the aqcuisition of servitudes should commence.

5 Pearly Beach Public Meeting - 21 March 2009 EIA for Proposed Eskom Bantamsklip Transmission Lines and Associated Infrastructure

Mr Ramatsui added that an execution release contract is signed before construction commences and by this time most of the funding for the project will have been secured. ii) Mr Ramatsui said that since Eskom joined with the government to aqcuire funding for the project various proposals have been put on the table as to how this funding will be aqcuired. No decision has yet been made in terms of which proposal will be followed.

3.7 Dr William Stafford (Protea Permaculture) asked: i) Why are the transmission and plant EIAs not run as one process. ii) He commented that this was an environmental impact assessment and not an economic assessment and therefore the underground lines should be looked at in this EIA in order to assess all alternatives. iii) What are the risks of overhead lines in terms of issues such as health (EMF), fire, etc. and how will people be compensated for such damage caused by the lines. i) Ms Strong replied that the two projects differ as the transmission lines are linear and the plant is site specific. She added that DEAT approved the EIAs to be run separately. ii) Ms Strong said the issue of underground lines has been noted during the public participation and it will be looked at.

Dr Stafford commented that the EIA should start again in order to include the underground alternative.

Mr Ramatsui added that the preferred technology, according to Eskom policy, is overhead lines and that is why they are only looking at the overhead option right now. If the overhead option is not feasible the underground option will be considered. This is Eskom’s policy. iii) Ms Strong said the health issues will be covered in the social impact assessment where potential impacts will be investigated.

Mr Steenkamp explained the compensation process. He said an independent valuer is appointed and he does two valuations. Firstly, a strip valuation where he calculates benchmark values for various types of land use such as orchards, crops, fynbos, etc. inside the strip where the lines will run, and secondly, a property valuation where he calculates the value of the entire property with and without power lines on it. From these he can calculate the real financial loss that will occur if the lines run through the specific property and that forms the basis of the compensation negotiations.

Mr Steenkamp added that Eskom is liable when fires and other damage are caused by the power lines.

3.8 Ms Breach (Tierfontein Voluntary Conservancy) said that she assumed that if she was on the database for the plant EIA she would automatically be on the database for the transmission lines EIA but when she phoned ACER they said the database of the plant EIA had not been requested. She said that many people might not be aware of the fact that they needed to re- register on the database for the transmission lines EIA as well. She also added that many members of this community weren’t reached because they have no email, phones, post boxes or even transport. She stated that it was NMA’s responsibility to reach these people and yet they have not been reached.

Mr Drew said that NMA did receive the database of the plant EIA from Arcus GIBB and had added everyone in the , Cape Winelands and area onto the transmission lines database. He agreed that parts of the community were not reached and as the study area becomes smaller a more detailed search of I&APs will be done and more consultation will take place to inform directly impacted parties about the project.

6 Pearly Beach Public Meeting - 21 March 2009 EIA for Proposed Eskom Bantamsklip Transmission Lines and Associated Infrastructure

3.9 Mr Carpenter wanted to know about compensation in terms of tourism loss when the lines do not actually run over a property but still desecrate the view from a property which will result in tourism loss.

Mr Steenkamp said that this kind of compensation is not taken into account. The only people that are compensated are the property owners of the properties the lines cross. He added that the only way to be compensated for such a loss would be through a court case. Court cases are how precedents are made to encourage and guide new legislation.

An attendee added that current legislation is such that one cannot lay claim to the view from a property.

Ms Strong added that this issue is exactly what the Environmental Resource Economist will be looking at in his detailed study.

3.10 Ms Jephson commented that no one that was on the database of the plant EIA was contacted about this EIA. That included most of the people in the Strandveld area up to Stanford. They all received second hand information on the project.

Ms Strong said the plant EIA database was requested from ACER Africa, the PPP Consultants for the Nuclear-1 plant EIA, by Eskom via Arcus GIBB (the independent EIA Consultanst for the plant EIA). After receiving it they distributed it to the various transmission lines EIA practitioners including Arcus GIBB and NMA.

Ms Breach commented that at the time the maps with the various alternatives were produced she phoned ACER and according to them the plant EIA database had not been requested by then.

Ms Muthialu said that NMA definitely received the database and incorporated it into the NMA transmission lines database. She said, however, that the claims that people in the Strandveld area had not been notified would have to be investigated.

3.11 Mr Ravenscroft (Kleinkloof Private Nature Reserve) wanted clarity on the decision maker (DEAT). His concern is that DEAT is not the only protector of environmental affairs and tourism, many private conservancies also carry that responsibility and yet they are not part of the decision-making team and they cannot contribute to the conditions under which authorisation is given. He also wanted to know if other sectors of government play a part in the authorisation process or if DEAT is the only department involved.

Ms Strong explained that the national Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) is the final decision-maker. They do not, however, make their decision in isolation. They receive comment and recommendations from various provincial departments such as the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP), and from national departments such as the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME), the Department of Science and Technology as well as local and district municipalities. If DEAT finds these recommendations to be sound they will authorize the project. If not, they will decline the project and Eskom will be allowed to appeal. The environmental authorisation is a legal document that binds Eskom to the conditions accompanying the authorisation.

3.12 Ms Bollmann (Pearly Beach Conservancy) wanted to know who supplied Arcus GIBB with the visuals (photos) for their posters because they gave a very positive (subjective) view of the towers as well as the areas around the towers. She commented that the towers are huge structures and the areas around them take years to recover to the state as presented by the photos. She also commented that the helicopters used during construction and maintenance make a lot of noise and that this noise impact should also be looked at in the studies.

Ms Strong replied that Eskom provided the photos and added that they only serve as basic background information of what the project is like. She added that there were no photos of construction taking place in fynbos areas since it has been a long time since any construction

7 Pearly Beach Public Meeting - 21 March 2009 EIA for Proposed Eskom Bantamsklip Transmission Lines and Associated Infrastructure

of this sort has taken place in fynbos areas.

Ms Muthialu added that the concern is noted and that Arcus GIBB would look at getting a more objective visual presentation for the next phase of the project. Arcus GIBB 3.13 Ms Versfeld wanted to know who enforces the conditions presented in the environmental authorisation that DEAT issues. She also wondered if the impact of the rising sea temperature on sharks and whales was being looked at by the specialists of the plant EIA.

Ms Strong said the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is finalized after authorisation and the conditions contained in the environmental authorisation are taken up in the EMP. The EMP becomes a legal document that binds Eskom to the conditions. During construction Environmental Control Officers (ECOs) are constantly on the construction sites to ensure the EMP is adhered to. She added that audits are also done during the construction and operational phases of the project to regulate proceedings. The public can also complain to the Eskom grid manager of the area, DEADP or DEAT.

Mr Malaka said a marine biologist has been appointed to look at the impact of rising sea Arcus temperatures at Thyspunt. He said this issue will be forwarded to the EIA practitioners at the GIBB Bantamsklip site.

3.14 Mr Lutzeyer was concerned about the effectiveness of the EIA process and feared the nuclear power plant will definitely be constructed. Even though the site might change to the least sensitive area the EIA process is unable to stop the construction of the plant. He also questioned the independence of Arcus GIBB and NMA by asking what percentage of Arcus GIBB and NMA’s turnover came from Eskom. Finally he wanted to know if Arcus GIBB as the EIA practitioner had ever compiled a negative EIR in order to stop a development of one of their clients.

Ms Muthialu commented that it is important to focus on issues rather than on people or entities at a public meeting. She added that Mr Lutzeyer should contact the directors of NMA and Arcus GIBB if he wanted to question their independence.

Mr Drew answered that NMA receives less than 20% of their income from Eskom. He added that he has not yet been involved in an EIA that has been declined but that he has seen EIAs where major conditions that were unwanted by the proponent were built into the ROD due to the public participation process and issues that were raised by I&APs.

Ms Strong said she did not know the turnover percentages of Arcus GIBB and added that she Arcus would have to speak to her directors and put them in the minutes. She has not yet been at GIBB Arcus GIBB long enough to have worked on an EIA that has received an authorisation and therefore she doesn’t know of decisions that have been declined. But she noted that DEAT is the final decision-maker and their decision can be appealed, but in the end their word is final. Comment added after the meeting: Arcus GIBB receives less than 1% of its annual turnover from Eskom Generation.

Mr Ramatsui added that it was in Eskom’s best interests to appoint independent EIA practitioners in order to get qualified proposals on how to proceed with a project. He stated that Eskom has no influence on the EIA process and they have to comply precisely with what is presented to them by the EIA process.

3.15 Dr Stafford asked for clarification on the decision making process. He wanted to know if DEAT receives two final EIRs, one for the transmission lines and one for the nuclear power station, and then makes two decisions which are completely separate from one another.

Ms Strong replied that there will be an EIR for each application and DEAT has specific case officers that work only with parastatal projects and they have to decide how the decision- making process will take place.

3.16 Ms Jephson asked if one could refuse expropriation of a property in any way.

8 Pearly Beach Public Meeting - 21 March 2009 EIA for Proposed Eskom Bantamsklip Transmission Lines and Associated Infrastructure

Mr Steenkamp replied that it is anyone’s constitutional right to refuse a servitude. If Eskom and the landowner cannot come to an agreement it is decided in the expropriation court. If the court decides on expropriation a third party calculates the amount of compensation, which is not negotiable, and it takes place. The court’s decision cannot be appealed in the case of expropriation.

3.17 Mr Whitelaw wondered if it was feasible to finish the EIA in four months and wanted to know if the site for the nuclear power plant had been determined yet.

Ms Strong said that the timeframe is feasible. It takes about two months to finish the studies and about another month and a half to compile the various reports. The timeframe will, however, be extended for this project because the public review and comment period is 60 days instead of the 30 days required by legislation.

Mr Malaka said Eskom had a meeting with DEAT on 13 February where DEAT approved a scope change for the plant EIA which allows Eskom to hand in one application for three nuclear power plants. This means that all three remaining sites are being considered for nuclear power plants.

4. WAY FORWARD AND CLOSURE

Ms Muthialu said that the project is currently in the 60-day comment period for the DSR. After all comment has been recorded the Final Scoping Report will be published after which the EIA phase will commence. During the EIA phase a draft EIR will be published and another 60-day comment period will be undertaken during which more public meetings will be held. I&APs will also receive correspondence as the process unfolds and new information is made available.

Attendees were thanked for their participation and assured that they would be kept informed about the project’s progress. The meeting was then closed.

9 Pearly Beach Public Meeting - 21 March 2009