Appendix A12 NOTES OF SCOPING REPORT FOCUS GROUP … · Appendix A12 NOTES OF SCOPING REPORT FOCUS...

Transnet Limited Phase 2 Expansion: Port of Saldanha

Environmental Scoping Report

Prepared by the PDNA & SRK Joint Venture

Appendix A12 NOTES OF SCOPING REPORT FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE

PROPOSED PHASE 2 EXPANSION OF THE TRANSNET IRON ORE HANDLING FACILITY, SALDANHA

Page 1 of 3 Focus Group Meeting: 15 February 2007

NOTES ON THE FOCUS GROUP MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY 15 FEBRUARY 2007, AT 09H00, BLUE

BAY LODGE, SALDANHA BAY

ATTENDANCE:

The following individuals are recorded as being present:

Mark Duckitt (MD) – Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve

Jimmy Walsh (JW) – Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve

Andre Wicht (AW) – Blue Bay Lodge / Dust Group

Johan Wicht (JW) – Blouwaterbaai Property Owners’ Association

Mike Rothenburg (MR) – Blouwaterbaai Property Owners’ Association

Anton Wolfhaardt (AWolf) – CapeNature

Pierre Nel (PN) – SANParks

Anne Duncan (AD) – Resident

Danélle Fourie (DF) – PDNA/SRK Joint Venture

Colleen McCreadie (CM) – PDNA/SRK Joint Venture

Andrew Woghiren (AWog) – PDNA/SRK Joint Venture

DISCUSSION:

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

Danélle Fourie welcomes everyone present and introduces the focus group meeting, which is part of the public

participation process following the release for public review of the Draft Scoping Report (DSR) compiled as part of the

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Proposed Phase 2 Expansion of the Transnet Iron Ore Facility,

Saldanha.


Chairperson, Danelle Fourie, welcomes everyone present and introduces the focus group meeting, which is part of the

public participation process following the release for public review of the Draft Scoping Report (DSR) for the Proposed

Phase 2 Expansion of the Iron Ore Facility, Saldanha.

It is recorded that the notes below reflect the issues raised during the discussion, but does not necessarily

follow the sequence of the discussion.

MR: Why is the EIA being undertaken in terms of the Environment Conservation Act EIA Regulations and not the

newer National Environmental Management Act Regulations?

DF: The EIA must comply with the Regulations that were in force when the application was submitted

MR: Suggests that the application was submitted to exploit a loophole and to avoid having to comply with the NEMA

Regulations. The Phase 1B expansion was undertaken under the ECA regulations and was inadequate and flawed;

the Phase 2 EIA should comply with the NEMA regulations to avoid appeals.

AWog: It is valid to suggest that the EIA be conducted so as to avoid appeals. The appeal against the Phase 1B

Record of Decision has given Transnet due cause to follow the most onerous environmental authorisation procedure.

JW: Supports MR’s comments regarding the timing of the Transnet application. Notes that historically, Transnet has

not acted in good faith

MD: Transnet should comply with whichever regulations are more onerous. We request that Transnet commit in




writing to complying with the NEMA EIA Regulations, regardless of the fact that the ECA Regulations are legally

applicable.

MD: The cumulative impacts of development of the Port should be assessed in a Strategic Environmental Assessment

(SEA).

AWog: The Strategic Environmental Assessment process does not have as comprehensive a regulatory framework

as does the EIA process

AWolf: Broad-based environmental management principles, which are broad-based, should be applied to the EIA.

The NEMA EIA Regulations make provision for Environmental Management Frameworks, which could also be applied

here.

AWolf: Are biodiversity issues being assessed by specialists, especially in terms of the marine and terrestrial

interface? Are the specialists experts in local issues? Local specialists should be consulted, given the uniqueness of

the local ecology. CapeNature is drafting a biodiversity management plan for the Saldanha Bay area and the

specialist studies should refer to this plan.

MD: Agrees that local expertise should be used in the specialist studies.

JW: Notes concern about the limited extent of the area delineated by the red line as “immediate study area” in the

diagram in the DSR. The study area must include the Langebaan Lagoon, as it is integral to the development of

Saldanha Bay.

JW: Can the specialist studies be undertaken effectively in the three-month time period allocated?

MR: SRK must ensure that meetings as part of the public participation process of the EIA, are well-attended.

MD: An inclusive public participation process means less likelihood of appeals being lodged against the Record of

Decision at the end of the environmental authorisation process.

MR: Why are Kumba Iron Ore Exporters absent from public participation meetings? They should be present at the

meetings, and should be required to include an environmental statement in their marketing and sales documents.

MD: Kumba and the Port uses their Environmental Management Systems as a marketing strategy rather than an

effective means of managing the environmental impacts of their operations.

JW: An annual independent audit of the Port’s EMS should be undertaken so that the public can ascertain whether

the Port’s operations are in fact compliant.

MD: Notes concern about the Port’s processes, and notes that the Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve will not

approve any Port reports unless an independent audit of their EMS is done.

JW: The issue of where the Port will source water from for use in dust suppression must be resolved.

AWolf: Supports JW regarding the Port’s access to water: the cumulative impacts of development of the West Coast

on water resources, must be assessed.




MD: Notes concern that, by referring many issues to be addressed in a later stage of the EIA process, these issues

can easily be ignored for the sake of political expediency.

ADJOURNMENT

Meeting is called to a close at 10h10




MINUTES OF THE FOCUS GROUP MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 14 FEBRUARY 2007, AT 15H00,

LANGEBAAN COMMUNITY HALL, LANGEBAAN

ATTENDANCE:


Coenie van den Berg (CVDB) – Chairman, Langebaan Ratepayers & Residents Association

Adv. PB Koekemoer

AV Coetzer

Frans Palm

Al Cannone (AC)

Clement Matthews

Miranda Matthews

Anton Vonk

Dr E Stromsoe (ES)

Danélle Fourie – PDNA/SRK Joint Venture

Colleen McCreadie – PDNA/SRK Joint Venture

DISCUSSION:


Danélle Fourie, welcomes everyone present and introduces the focus group meeting, which is part of the public



Saldanha



CvdB: Notes that the EIA is being undertaken in terms of the Environment Conservation Act (ECA) EIA Regulations

and not the regulations under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA). The more onerous of the two

Acts should apply to the EIA process for the proposed iron ore facility expansion.

DF: The EIA application was submitted to DEAT before the NEMA Regulations came into force and must therefore

legally be considered under the ECA regulations. Transnet and the authorities have agreed that the EIA will be

conducted in the spirit of the NEMA regulations to ensure that all issues that may apply under the NEMA regulations

but not the ECA regulations are addressed.

CvdB: Does the EIA assess other locations for the iron ore facility?

DF: No, as the application is for an upgrade of existing facilities it does not assess alternative locations.

CvdB: It seems that the facility expansion has already been decided on at a high political level; Saldanha Port should

be developed to enable the export of gas and oil resources which have been recovered along the west coast of Africa,

and not only for additional iron ore export.

CvdB: The Port should have a contingency plan in place that is continuously updated and would protect the

Langebaan Lagoon in case anything goes wrong in the Port (e.g. oil spills, etc.). The contingency plan should be




driven by National Government.

Attendee: There was a boom to protect the lagoon from oil spills in the port, but the boom’s anchor structure has

been washed away and this has not been fixed by NPA. Thus, the lagoon is currently vulnerable to increased shipping

activity.

AC: It is unclear who is responsible for the coastline, particularly the area between the low water and high water

marks. Whenever there is a problem in this area, nobody takes responsibility for it. The EIA and contingency plans

should address this issue.

CvdB: It is good that the Port is improving their communication to the local community; the Langebaan Ratepayers

Association has been invited to attend a tour of the facility.

Attendee: Which of the three alternative layouts is preferred by Transnet and to what extent must Transnet comply

with the alternative which the EIA assesses to be best?

DF: Transnet as part of their studies may have a come up with a preferred alternative from an engineering

perspective, however, the EIA will assess the three alternatives on environmental and socio-economic grounds also.

The authorities, in considering the EIA, will authorise one of the alternatives only and Transnet is legally bound to

comply with their decision.

Attendee: According to the DSR, the specialist studies will be concluded within three months. This is too short a

timeframe to gather meaningful data on which to base a specialist study, especially marine data.

AC: It appears that the expansion is going to occur (is a fait accompli) no matter what the findings of the specialists

and the recommendations of the EIA.

DF: The findings of the EIA will inform not only the decision by the authorities, but also the conditions of that decision,

which Transnet will be legally bound to comply with.

CvdB: The impact of the proposed dredging activities on the bay must be assessed thoroughly. What would these

impacts mean for the current efforts to restore the beach at Langebaan?

DF: The marine hydrodynamics studies being conducted will provide an answer to this question. There has been a

request from the local authority for the specialist(s) to present any findings of the study to those involved in the beach

erosion project as soon as possible.

Attendee: The increase in shipping traffic due to the facility expansion will be addressed in a specialist study, but the

increase in road and rail traffic should also be assessed.

ES: The EIA must also assess the potential impact of ballast water being discharged at the Port.

ADJOURNMENT





NOTES OF THE FOCUS GROUP MEETING HELD ON MONDAY 12 FEBRUARY 2007, AT 12H00,

SALDANHA BAY MUNICIPAL BOARDROOM, SALDANHA

ATTENDANCE:

PRESENT & APOLOGIES


Bernard Sheldon (BS) – Saldanha Bay Local Municipality Councillor

Jan Uys (JU) – Saldanha Bay Local Municipality Councillor

Jan Cillier (JC) - Saldanha Bay Local Municipality Councillor

Michael Thys (MT) – Strategic Manager of the Mayor’s Office

Elize Steyn (ES) – Saldanha Bay Local Municipality Councillor



Conrad Steenkamp (CS) – Transnet

DISCUSSION:


Danélle Fourie welcomes everyone present and introduces the focus group meeting, which is part of the public

participation process following the release for public review of the Draft Scoping Report (DSR) for the Proposed Phase

2 Expansion of the Iron Ore Facility, Saldanha

It is recorded that the notes below reflect the issues raised during the discussion

but does not necessarily follow the sequence of the discussion. JU: Notes that, based on a tour of the iron ore handling facility, it appears that Transnet is attempting to address the

problem of dust, with dust suppression using water, the intention to cover conveyer belts, etc.

JU: During the tour of the facility, Transnet indicated that they would not implement alternative layout 2 (reclamation of

the dam).

DF: The statement may have been based on what they currently feel is the least likely option from a purely

engineering design perspective. However, the EIA will determine the best layout from an environmental and socio-

economic perspective. The final decision on which layout option to implement can only be made after completion of

the EIA.

ES: What is Transnet’s timeframe for completion of the proposed Phase 2 expansion, as well as for the rectification of

problems arising from current operations, such as dust?

LS: How can the public ascertain that old dust has been cleaned away, when new dust is constantly being generated

and Transnet are not making the public aware of measures to remove the old dust?

LS: Will the quay be lengthened to facilitate the expansion?

DF: The quay will not be lengthened to accommodate the proposed new berths. These will be located on the land-

side of the existing berths, hence the need for dredging to enable ships to reach these new berths.




MT: Will damage, e.g. the beach erosion at Langebaan, caused by dredging for the existing Port and facility be

worsened with the new dredging?

DF: The specialist studies will ascertain what impacts the proposed dredging will have on the bay.

BS: Will a study of the impacts of dust caused by the facility expansion be undertaken?

DF: An Air Quality and Health Risk study will assess air quality conditions and the impact of the proposed expansion.

LS: It appears that Transnet have already undertaken much development in the Port. What will happen if the EIA

recommends that the project not proceed?

JC: Is environmental authorisation also being sought for the expansion of iron ore mining operations in the Northern

Cape?

DF: This EIA only addresses the expansion of the iron ore export facility at the Port of Saldanha. Any expansion of

the mining operations will be subject to the requirements of the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act.

LS: Dust and erosion of the Langebaan beach are the biggest problems with the expansion of the facility. What is

the objection to filling in the oyster dam, since it was originally intended for use by Transnet?

DF: There are people who feel that the oyster dam has recreational and ecological value.

ES: Notes that it is good that people’s issues and concerns, as noted in the draft Scoping Report, are being followed

up.

LS: It is a concern that the Port infrastructure has insufficient capacity to meet import-export demands.

JC: Agrees with LS; also notes concern that the Port of Cape Town is proposing a Container Terminal expansion

which may also lead to decreased demand for Port of Saldanha: thus, for economic reasons, the entire Port must be

developed.

ADJOURNMENT





NOTES ON THE FOCUS GROUP MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY 8 FEBRUARY 2007, AT 10H00, PGWC

BUILDING, CAPE TOWN

ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES


Wally Silbernagl (WS) – Provincial Government of the Western Cape (PGWC) Department of Transport and Public

Works: Roads Infrastructure

Marthiens Victor (MV) – Saldanha Bay Local Municipality: Town Civil Engineer

Daan Visser (DV) – Saldanha Bay Local Municipality: Spatial Planning

Johan Du Plessis (JDP) – Saldanha Bay Local Municipality: Director of Technical Services

Ian Britten (IB) – Stewart Scott International (Consultant to PGWC)



Apologies:

Dru Martheze - Provincial Government of the Western Cape Department of Transport and Public Works: Roads

Infrastructure

DISCUSSION:


Danélle Fourie, welcomes everyone present and introduces the focus group meeting, which is part of the public



Saldanha



MV: Notes concern over shoreline erosion which has already occurred at Langebaan as a result of previous

developments in the Port of Saldanha, as well as possible additional erosion due to the proposed Iron Ore facility

expansion. The CSIR’s study on shoreline stability must include the Langebaan Lagoon.

JDP: Notes concern that the CSIR report looks at sediment quality but not sediment quantity and suggests that the

study must include the Langebaan Lagoon.

MV: Noted concern about the independence of the specialists appointed to do the studies

DF: Independent third-party reviewers have been appointed to review the key specialist studies, including the marine

hydrodynamic studies.

JDP: Concerned about the implications of the proposed expansion for the current Langebaan beach rehabilitation

project and requests that the parties involved in the beach rehabilitation project be given feedback on the Marine

Hydrodynamics specialist studies as soon as possible.




WS: The MR 559 road is being widened to a 2-lane dual road and this will occur within the next five years. MV: Plans

for the proposed road upgrade in that section including the road-over-rail bridge have been finalised. Any changes

needed as a result of the Phase 2 upgrade project will be for Transnet to implement.

DF: Transnet’s engineers must liaise with PGWC’s Roads Infrastructure Branch on this issue. The proposed iron ore

facility expansion will however only affect the MR559 road-over-rail bridge and not the road itself. The changes would

be to accommodate additional railway lines between the Salkor yard and the port.

MV: It would be easier to alter the design of the MR 559 bridge according to Transnet’s requirements at this stage

Closing the road after it has been upgraded in order to alter the bridge will be problematic.

JDP: The traffic impact assessment should assess the capacity of the bridges around the port. The study should

specifically investigate the adequacy of the Duferco bridge.

JDP: Notes concern that the project description in the DSR deals with the additional railway lines between the Salkor

yard and the port, but does not give attention to the need to accommodate other services and infrastructure in the

same corridor. In addition, the energy supply specialist study must consider the fact that electrical supply to that

section of the port to the west of the railway lines is the municipality’s responsibility, while supply to the eastern side is

Eskom’s responsibility. The municipality would like to see that electrical supply to the entire port becomes the

responsibility of one entity, but this can only be implemented by the National Energy Regulator. Transnet should

approach the Regulator in this regard. Both Eskom and the local municipality should be involved in the energy

supply specialist study.

JDP: The Air Quality and Health studies must assess the cumulative effects of the proposed facility expansion.

WS (speaking to issues raised at a previous focus group meeting): Will the EIA assess impacts of the facility

expansion on tourism?

DF: A Visual Impact Assessment and an Economic Impact Assessment are being undertaken, which will cover the

issue of tourism.

MV: Suggests an overarching Port planning strategy to ensure that the necessary services and infrastructure, which

are crucial for port development, are in place.

WS: Does this EIA assess possible future gas pipelines for the provision of electricity to the Port?

DV: Input into the IDP of the local municipality by the Port can be improved on.

ADJOURNMENT


Saldanha Bay Forum Meeting Minutes

Page 1 of 6 Meeting: 14 February 2007

MINUTES OF THE SALDANHA BAY FORUM MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, 14 FEBRUARY 2007 AT 14H00, LANGEBAAN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, LANGEBAAN

ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTION DATE

1

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION Chairperson, P Fabricius, welcomed all present

2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

PRESENT & APOLOGIES Attendance register circulated to record attendance and apologies and

verify/change contact details. The following individuals are recorded as

being present:

Government Sector: F Albertus – DEA&T

D Visser – DEA&T

Civil Society: P Haarhoff – Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve Co

S February - Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve Co

A Teale – Langedag and Langebaan Beach Groups

M Rothenberg – Ratepayers Association and Sports Aviation

J Uys – Saldanha and Langebaan Yacht Clubs

M McGregor – Saldanha and Langebaan Yacht Clubs

C van Wyk – Saldanha Bay Water Quality Trust

K Harrison – West Coast Eco Ed and W/Coast Bird Club

Business Sector:

Marcelle van Biljon – Duferco Steel Processing

J Bornman – Namakwa Sands

C Timlin – Namakwa Sands

S Ross - PetroSA

L Metcalf – NPA

G Manuel – Mittal Steel

A Julyan – Spoornet Iron Ore Line

S Brown – Southern Sea Fishing

C Timlin – Namakwa Sands

M Silomntu – SAPO BTS

Apologies were received from: W Goosen – Trade Unions (COSATU & FEDUSA)

N Malan – DEA&T

K Loubser – Vredenburg Farmers Association

F Hickley – Sea Harvest

J Kotze – Saldanha Bay & Langebaan Tourism

Observers/visitor- presentations

D Fourie – PDNA/SRK Joint Venture



C McCreadie – PDNA/SRK Joint Venture

A Duncan – Friends of Saldanha Bay State Coastal Reserve

It is recorded that the minutes reflect discussions held but in some instances may not necessarily reflect the sequence of such discussions.

3

APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

• Chairperson tabled minutes of meeting held on 15 November

2006 for approval

• Minutes were approved

4 4.1 4.2

ADDITIONAL ITEMS Alleged Illegal Development on State Coastal Reserve (Saldanha Bay)

• Chairman tabled letter of complaint received from Anne Duncan

regarding alleged illegal landscaping and general use of portions

of coastal land along beach.

• D Visser confirmed land in question is owned by Saldanha Bay

Municipality (SBM) and registered as public open space.

• SBM Parks Department identified as lead authority to finalise plan

for rehabilitation and access

• Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

(DEA&DP) to be advised of proposed work as activity is listed in

terms of EIA regulations

• Resolved that SBM shall inform owners that extending gardens

and/or using land concerned not allowed

• Resolved that SBM must commit to budget for rehabilitiation work

• C van Wyk wanted to know what legal recourse SBM have if

transgressions persist

• D Visser responded that Bylaws in place and other legal avenues

available to prosecute

• F Albertus – indicated that DEA&DP’s Integrated Coastal

Management division must be involved in Forum

• Further resolved that A Duncan must liaise with D Visser

regarding progress made until the next meeting

Port of Saldanha Expansion EIA Feedback – PDNA/SRK JV

• D Fourie informed Forum that Draft Scoping Report (DSR) for

proposed Phase 2 expansion of Iron Ore Export capacity is

available for public comment

• Comment period from 22 January 2007 – 23 February 2007

• Copies of DSR available at public libraries in Langebaan,

Saldanha, Vredenburg and Blue Water Bay Lodge

• D Fourie stated that various issues identified in Scoping phase –

to be further investigated in about 15 specialist studies as part of

EIA phase

Issues raised:

• K Harrison - asked if the red line around the Port indicated the

study area



• D Fourie - the red line indicates the extent of the proposed site

development and not the study area – specialist studies will look

beyond this area

• K Harrsion - concerned about impact of development on bird life

• D Fourie - specialist bird study will be conducted – K Harrison

may liaise with the relevant specialist

• A Duncan – will noise and light pollution be addressed

• D Fourie – noise and light pollution will be covered in a specialist

study

• Chairman - expressed concern about beach erosion in Big Bay

and reiterated that studies should focus on Big and Small Bay

• D Fourie - mathematical modelling will be limited to certain areas

but inference studies will be done in those areas not covered

• M Rothenburg - the effect of proposed dredging may only be

visible in the future and public to be involved in EIA process now

• C van Wyk – will impact of increased shipping be investigated

• D Fourie - an incremental shipping study will be conducted

• S Brown - if impacts of increased anchoring of ships outside St

Helena Bay will be looked at

• L Metcalf - only three (3) ships are allowed to be on anchor in

Saldanha Bay – St Helena used as outer anchorage as temporary

measure

• A Duncan – heavy metals stirred up in Bay due to increased

activity

• D Fourie – sediment turbidity studies to be conducted

• A Teale – was alternative to deposit dredge material on beach in

Big Bay

• D Fourie – Various alternative for dredge material use vs disposal

to be investigated in specialist studies



5 5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES Feedback on Group Discussion about Functioning of SBF

• A Pieters gave overview of workshop discussions

• Task group concluded that SBF functioning well but attendance of

government sector representatives to be improved

• Issues adequately identified in SBF meetings but not properly

resolved mainly due to lack of government sector participation

• Group discussed possibilities of alternative membership, i.e.

primary and secondary membership

• Primary membership for those directly involved in resolving

issues (mainly government and business sectors) and secondary

membership for those indirectly involved

Meeting resolved that:

• Current SBF structure is acceptable

• Government sector to be more proactively involved

• Meeting times to be changed to accommodate those government

representatives travelling long distances to attend

• Meetings to be held at 10h00 as preliminary basis

Present and Future Representation

• Members requested to complete new registration forms to update

representation

• A Pieters stated that new registration required to ensure true

representation of organisations

• Letters to be sent to members to confirm representation

Pollution: Langebaan Lagoon

Sewerage Disposal in Lagoon (from boat houses)

• Matter to stand over to next meeting (SANParks representative

not present)

Spatial Planning: SBM

D Visser informed meeting about progress as follows:

• SBM appointed planning consultant to review SDF

• DEA&T also involved in review process

• Public consultation to commence in about one month

• Key amendment – zoning schemes consolidated into one zoning

scheme – to be advertised in March 2007

Issued raised:

Chairman – interaction between Port and municipality to address

development needs

D Visser – SBM and NPA have quarterly interface meetings and other

open channels of interaction have been established

F Albertus – Will SBM conduct a Strategic Environmental Assessment

D Visser – Currently engaging with DEA&T and DEA&DP to establish

P Nel



5.6

5.7

scope of SEA

A Teale – specific areas to be demarcated for various water sport

activities (kite surfing, wind surfing, jetski)

D Visser – matter to be addressed with planning consultants

Destruction of Vegetation and Sensitive Dune Areas Matter to stand over to next meeting

Access to Beach by Shore Anglers Matter to stand over to next meeting

6

REPORT ON WATER QUALITY: SBWQFT – CHRISTO VAN WYK

• Report indicated no adverse effects on Small Bay – Bacteriology

indicated acceptable levels

• Copy of report to be furnished as record

7

REPORT ON AIR QAULITY: NAMAKWA SANDS - J BORNMAN J Bornman presented latest report on Air Quality

Dust/fume extraction system

• upgrade initiated in June 2005 to reduce uncontrolled emissions

(fugitive emissions)

• Conceptual design for dust extraction system for furnaces

completed – design to be optimised

• Final detailed design to include evaluation and changes to

surrounding area designs

• Air Quality Management System to be utilised as baseline for

implementation (pre and post dust monitoring)

Residue Dam

• EIA conducted for new residue dam

• Archaeology study, botanical assessment and palaeontology

studies conducted

• DEA&DP requested additional information (letter dd 7 February

2007), i.e. feasible and reasonable alternatives, more detailed

vegetation study to determine regional significance of impacts

and presence of red data species

• Information to be submitted to Cape Nature and DEA&DP during

March 2007

• Alternatives considered take cognisance of alternative use of

material vs disposal

• Area of about 6Ha which will be ±5m deep considered Gas plant utilisation

• historical and current scenarios presented

Public Complaints

• No public complaints received during November 2006 – January

2007



8 REPORT ON AIR QUALITY AND EFFLUENT: SOUTHERN SEAS FISHING – S BROWN

• Nothing to report

• A Duncan complained about possible noise generated at SSF

• S Brown responded that a jet compressor was faulty and a

mechanical compressor was used which may have caused the

noise

• Jet compressor has been re-commissioned

• A Duncan to liaise directly with S Brown to establish further

details

9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4

GENERAL Langebaan Sewage Works

• Meeting expressed concern that untreated sewage may be

discharge into sea

• Meeting requested presentation on future plans for sewage works

in Langebaan

• Resolved that SBM will arrange that consultants give presentation

at next meeting

Saldanha Beach Cleaning

• M Rothenburg – seaweed piled on beach but left too long before

removed

• Debris from old mussel floats scattered on beach – L Metcalf to

follow up

Seaweed on Langebaan Beach

• A Teale requested that seaweed on Langebaan Beach be

removed

Mittal Steel Reporting

• C van Wyk requested that Mittal Steel also report to SBF on

environmental monitoring

• G Manuel requested formal letter of request for such which will be

tabled to management

• Letter to be drafted by Chairman

10

NEXT MEETING

• Next meeting: 16 May 2007

• Time: 10h00

• Venue: Langebaan Council Chambers

11

ADJOURNMENT Meeting is called to a close at 16h00

Appendix A12 NOTES OF SCOPING REPORT FOCUS GROUP … · Appendix A12 NOTES OF SCOPING REPORT FOCUS...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix A12 NOTES OF SCOPING REPORT FOCUS GROUP … · Appendix A12 NOTES OF SCOPING REPORT FOCUS...