REPORT Central Térmica de Temane Project - Risk Assessment Moz Power Invest, S.A. and Sasol New Energy Holdings (Pty) Ltd Submitted to: Ministry of Land, Environment and Rural Development (MITADER) Submitted by: Golder Associados Moçambique Limitada 6th Floor, Millenium Park Building, Vlademir Lenine Avenue No 174 Maputo, Moçambique +258 21 301 292 Report No. 18103533-321094-18 April 2019 April 2019 18103533-321094-18 DOCUMENT CHANGE HISTORY PAGE/LINE CHANGE DATE REV Document Initial Release 11th September 2018 0 Document Updated to comments 10th October 208 1 received from the client i April 2019 18103533-321094-18 Distribution List 12 x copies - National Directorate of Environment (DINAB) 4 x copies - Provincial Directorate for Land, Environment and Rural Development (DPTADER)-I'bane 1 x copy - World Bank Group 1 x copy - SNE, EDM and TEC 1 x copy - Golder project folder i April 2019 18103533-321094-18 Executive Summary RISCOM has completed a quantitative risk assessment for the Central Térmica de Temane (CTT) project located in the Inhambane Province, Mozambique to quantify the extent of the impacts on and risks to the surrounding communities posed by the hazardous chemicals to be handled on site. The methodology used is based on the legal requirements of the Netherlands, and the Bevi reference manual for risk assessments developed by the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). It can be concluded from the study that: Some of the proposed incidents associated with natural gas, were found to have risks beyond the site boundary of greater than (1x10-6 fatalities per person per year) which is an internationally applied measure used to assess risks associated with hazardous chemicals and assess any limitations on land usage to protect vulnerable groups and communities; The Identified risks fall into the ALARP range (1 x 10-6 fatalities per person per year to 1 x 10-4 fatalities per person per year) which would be acceptable, with the potential for reduction during detailed engineering. Some mitigation measures have been proposed for consideration by the project; These will impact not significantly on the public due to the low population density in the vicinity of the facility and the extent and nature of the impacts, particularly if the land is allocated for industrial use; National standards for societal risk in Mozambique have not been identified; The methodology used in this assessment is based on the legal requirements of the Netherlands, as outlined in CPR 18E (Purple Book; 1999) and the Bevi reference manual for risk assessments (RIVM (2009)), developed by the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). The evaluation of the acceptability of the risks is accessed in accordance with the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) ALARP criteria that clearly cover land use, based on the determined risks. The BEVI reference manual is widely used as a guideline for QRAs in many jurisdictions including South Africa. The surrounding areas are largely bush/natural vegetation, and there is little evidence on satellite imagery to suggest that the land is inhabited. This has been confirmed by referencing the list of sensitive receptors for the project. It is understood that a 500m partial protection zone (PPZ) would be applied to the site, which would further negate the impacts of hazardous materials on the public. The societal risks for both alternatives would not exceed the threshold value and were not presented; A quantitative assessment of the environmental impacts of the various scenarios identified that the impacts would be of low significance (<15) based on the scoring system applied. This can be attributed to the short durations associated with hazardous chemical losses of containment (minutes) compared with those of environmental impacts (years); and RISCOM has not found sufficient differentiation between the proposed technology solutions (Closed Circuit Gas Turbine and Open Circuit Gas Engine) based on community safety/quantitative risk assessment to decide either way and have not expressed a specific preference for either technology. The available information allows a medium confidence level in the assessment. This is based on the information provided being at a detailed conceptual level, which has the potential for changes during implementation and construction. Typically, a high level of confidence would only be assigned based on a review of designs that are finalised for construction. RISCOM did not identify any fatal flaws that would prevent the project proceeding to the detailed engineering phase of the project. ii September 2018 18103533-321094-18 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE KEY PROJECT COMPONENTS ........................................................................ 4 2.1 Ancillary Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Water and electricity consumption .................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Temporary Beach Landing Site and Transportation Route Alternative ............................................ 7 2.4 Terms of Reference (TOR) ............................................................................................................. 10 3.0 POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK ..................................................................... 10 3.1 National Laws .................................................................................................................................. 10 3.2 International Guidelines and Standards .......................................................................................... 11 3.2.1 The World Bank (WB) ................................................................................................................. 11 3.2.1.1 Standard 4: Community Health, Safety and Security ................................................................. 11 3.2.2 Quantitative Risk Assessment .................................................................................................... 13 4.0 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................... 13 4.1 General Background ....................................................................................................................... 13 4.2 Meteorology..................................................................................................................................... 14 4.2.1 Surface Winds ............................................................................................................................. 15 4.2.2 Precipitation and Relative Humidity ............................................................................................ 17 4.2.3 Temperature ................................................................................................................................ 17 4.2.4 Atmospheric Stability................................................................................................................... 18 4.2.5 Meteorological Input Values for Consequence Analysis............................................................. 21 5.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................... 22 5.1 Site Layout ...................................................................................................................................... 22 5.2 Process Schematics ........................................................................................................................ 22 5.2.1 Natural Gas Pipeline and Fuel Gas System ............................................................................... 23 5.2.2 Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Alternative 1 .................................................................. 25 5.2.3 Open Cycle Gas Engines (OCGE) Alternative 2 ........................................................................ 25 5.2.4 Balance of Plant .......................................................................................................................... 26 6.0 BASELINE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 27 6.1 Scope of study................................................................................................................................. 27 i September 2018 18103533-321094-18 6.2 Study methodology ......................................................................................................................... 27 6.2.1 Desktop review of available information ..................................................................................... 29 6.2.2 Modelling ..................................................................................................................................... 29 7.0 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ..................................................................................................................... 29 7.1 Substance Hazards ......................................................................................................................... 29 7.1.1 Chemical Properties ...................................................................................................................